Why should OSU Georgia or Oklahoma be the fourth in?

On Saturday, the defending national champion staged a stirring comeback victory in its conference title game behind its backup quarterback, capping an undefeated regular season, and stayed put in the College Football Playoff rankings.

In fact, both defending national champions did.

LooseGoose wrote:UCF Didn’t Lose a Game—but the Knights Lost to College Football’s Playoff Cartel

On Saturday, the defending national champion staged a stirring comeback victory in its conference title game behind its backup quarterback, capping an undefeated regular season, and stayed put in the College Football Playoff rankings.

In fact, both defending national champions did.

Rocinante wrote:Neither. But my wife went to Boise State for undergrad. I like the name Vandals!

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:UCF Didn’t Lose a Game—but the Knights Lost to College Football’s Playoff Cartel

on the upside for the UCF powerhouse.. they path to another self-designated National Championship just got a lot easier.

The Colley Matrix, formerly a BCS computer, has UCF barely ahead of Alabama in its final ranking.

So what, right? Some computer you forgot existed went rogue. Here’s the thing:

Plenty of programs claim national titles based on being No. 1 in a single selector.
Alabama’s ludicrous 1941 claim is literally based on one man’s opinion. Ohio State calls itself 1970’s champion despite the only selector to have the Buckeyes No. 1, the National Football Foundation, also having Texas No. 1. Texas A&M claims 1927 based on nothing but a computer that came around decades later. Kentucky claims 1950 based solely on the same formula. USC’s 1939 claim is at least based on a mathematical formula that was around at the time, though it was still only one selector. And so on and so on.

If it’s good for the Power 5, it’s good for the Group of 5.

Claim it with historical authority, UCF.

Here’s how 2017 went down, as visualized by Wikipedia’s nicely done table listing every season, with bold signifying consensus:


Alabama is your consensus national champion, according to NCAA terminology (and the results of the Playoff), but UCF has just as much official reason to claim a national title as, say, 1941’s Alabama team had.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:UCF Didn’t Lose a Game—but the Knights Lost to College Football’s Playoff Cartel

on the upside for the UCF powerhouse.. they path to another self-designated National Championship just got a lot easier.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Let me make my case for UGA. Jake Fromm's mom is a little milfy.

[tw]1069008772503265280[/tw]

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:on the upside for the UCF powerhouse.. they path to another self-designated National Championship just got a lot easier.

Actually not "self designated".

One reason UCF’s national title claim is actually valid (and it’s not the reason you think) 11 Officially, Alabama’s your consensus champ, but UCF has as much of a claim as several Power 5 teams who claim titles.

The Colley Matrix, formerly a BCS computer, has UCF barely ahead of Alabama in its final ranking.

So what, right? Some computer you forgot existed went rogue. Here’s the thing:

Plenty of programs claim national titles based on being No. 1 in a single selector.
Alabama’s ludicrous 1941 claim is literally based on one man’s opinion. Ohio State calls itself 1970’s champion despite the only selector to have the Buckeyes No. 1, the National Football Foundation, also having Texas No. 1. Texas A&M claims 1927 based on nothing but a computer that came around decades later. Kentucky claims 1950 based solely on the same formula. USC’s 1939 claim is at least based on a mathematical formula that was around at the time, though it was still only one selector. And so on and so on.

If it’s good for the Power 5, it’s good for the Group of 5.

Claim it with historical authority, UCF.

Here’s how 2017 went down, as visualized by Wikipedia’s nicely done table listing every season, with bold signifying consensus:


Alabama is your consensus national champion, according to NCAA terminology (and the results of the Playoff), but UCF has just as much official reason to claim a national title as, say, 1941’s Alabama team had.

steveschneider wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:on the upside for the UCF powerhouse.. they path to another self-designated National Championship just got a lot easier.

Back to back championships would be pretty impressive.

steveschneider wrote:I'm glad the B10 didn't make it this year. After the 10k fine to MSU for the Michigan incident I say fuck the conference.

aualum06 wrote:

CORNER BLITZ wrote:with 4 teams you should not be in the playoff if you don't win your conference

False

Nordic wrote:

aualum06 wrote:


False

Double false. Miami is right.

This shouldn't be a popularity contest, which it essentially is by using the subjective "4 best teams" criteria. That's horeshit. It should be the 4 teams that earned their way in. Part of that should be winning your conference, whether that is an 9-4 NW squad or 13-0 Bama squad. I have no tears for UGA. They didn't earn it.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Double false. Miami is right.

This shouldn't be a popularity contest, which it essentially is by using the subjective "4 best teams" criteria. That's horeshit. It should be the 4 teams that earned their way in. Part of that should be winning your conference, whether that is an 9-4 NW squad or 13-0 Bama squad. I have no tears for UGA. They didn't earn it.

Agreed. And the best part is that it keeps Notre Dame out forever or forces them to join a conference if they want a seat at the table.

DWags wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Agreed. And the best part is that it keeps Notre Dame out forever or forces them to join a conference if they want a seat at the table.

And here is why it won't happen. We won't get conference champions to be in the final four because ND will not get in a conference. The "Golden" goose. They will dictate who or what they want to. And why should 't they? Look at this year. They played one less game, were able to spread out their tough teams, and here they are.

The whole thing is set up perfectly for them, and I'd chuckle at anyone who says they'll be forced to get into a conference eventually.

By-Tor wrote:I don’t get the argument for Georgia besides Mrs. Fromm. They just had their chance against Bama and blew it. No do overs.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

DWags wrote:


And here is why it won't happen. We won't get conference champions to be in the final four because ND will not get in a conference. The "Golden" goose. They will dictate who or what they want to. And why should 't they? Look at this year. They played one less game, were able to spread out their tough teams, and here they are.

The whole thing is set up perfectly for them, and I'd chuckle at anyone who says they'll be forced to get into a conference eventually.

You don't think that four conferences wield enough power to force a change if they want?

The key is IF they want. The SEC might not want to, because at present they have the most to risk, or the highest potential of getting two teams in. But I'll argue that if the four conferences want it, ND is fucked. Also, if the ACC is smart, they want it to force ND into joining.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

DWags wrote:


And here is why it won't happen. We won't get conference champions to be in the final four because ND will not get in a conference. The "Golden" goose. They will dictate who or what they want to. And why should 't they? Look at this year. They played one less game, were able to spread out their tough teams, and here they are.

The whole thing is set up perfectly for them, and I'd chuckle at anyone who says they'll be forced to get into a conference eventually.

You don't think that four conferences wield enough power to force a change if they want?

The key is IF they want. The SEC might not want to, because at present they have the most to risk, or the highest potential of getting two teams in. But I'll argue that if the four conferences want it, ND is fucked. Also, if the ACC is smart, they want it to force ND into joining.

tGreenWay wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

You don't think that four conferences wield enough power to force a change if they want?

The key is IF they want. The SEC might not want to, because at present they have the most to risk, or the highest potential of getting two teams in. But I'll argue that if the four conferences want it, ND is fucked. Also, if the ACC is smart, they want it to force ND into joining.

Forget it. DWags is already chuckling at you.

DWags wrote:Here’s the thing. Too many good colleges are addicted to playing them. They won’t stop. If every college said, “screw you, no contract till you join a conference”’that’s what would force them. No games. But it won’t happen. Schools looooovvvveeee playing them. Can’t stop themselves. Here’s the other half of that equation. Do we want them in the big ten? Nebraska OSU uofM PSU Wisconsin Northwestern and now Purdue climbing. That’s a pretty tough neighborhood

DWags wrote:Here’s the thing.  Too many good colleges are addicted to playing them. They won’t stop. If every college said, “screw you, no contract till you join a conference”’that’s what would force them. No games. But it won’t happen.  Schools looooovvvveeee playing them. Can’t stop themselves.  Here’s the other half of that equation.  Do we want them in the big ten?  Nebraska OSU uofM PSU Wisconsin Northwestern and now Purdue climbing. That’s a pretty tough neighborhood