#8 UCF [10-0] @ Tampa

[MagicFan101]

Who says we're not trying? Ucf has been very public that they will play anyone in a 1 for 1. What ucf won't do is make unfair agreements and the blue chip programs don't want to. Not saying theyre wrong, they win and it's not a big deal, they lose and it is. Both sides have valid reasons for wanting what they consider fair. Unfortunately it makes deals unlikely.

For example Miami and UCF were going to agree to a 4 game series with 2 at each place. Then Citrus Sports got in Miamis ear and said they should have a neutral site game at Camping World Stadium. Miami then changed their position to wanting 2 at home, 1 at UCF, and 1 at CWS. So no deal.

Truth is P5 programs have little incentive to give teams like UCF a 1 for 1, while UCF has reasons to stick to it (largely financial and reasons related to perception).

But sure, keep to your talking points.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

nothing wrong with neutral games. Teams dont like giving up revenue on a game for home and home, they both get to split it from a neutral site.

A neutral site game doesn't impact teams from the P5 like it does the rest. For example, last year Michigan took home $51m from the Big Ten, most of it tv revenue. The AAC last year as a conference brought in $74m. So while Michigan pulls in $51m, UCF gets about $8m.

P5 teams can afford to play on a neutral site, it's barely a blip on their radar. And not only that, but they won't give up a home game to do so, only an away game. UCF needs revenue where it can get it, which is why they're so adamant about 7 home games a year now.

Taking payday games or 2 for 1’s isn’t sustainable to building a schedule that sells tickets and maintain at least 6 home games.

No one is talking about building a schedule. What aren’t are getting?

You have to prove to the higher football powers that UCF games bring in money. You can’t do that without playing the damn game! It doesn’t have to be an entire schedule. You just need a game or two each season for a few years to demonstrate a trend.

Even if the short term deal favors the likes of a Miami, Notre Dame or some SEC/BIG team you do it. The potential long term rewards should be the focus.

But no ... UCF foolishly pulls themselves out of such opportunities.

UCF is already the team a conference will want if it expands. They've already proven that.

Like I said, I get why both sides insist on what they believe is fair. UCF wants equal games at home because they need the revenue and don't want to play into the perception that they're less than. the bigger P5 programs want deals with more games at home because it's riskier for them to play teams in lower conferences because of the way losses play out on the national stage. It's just the nature of the situation.

So what will happen? UCF will continue to schedule 2 P5's a year, 1 G5, and 1 FCS. And then they'll hope that P5 school is good when it counts. Otherwise, keep winning and keep the schedule with 7 home games and when expansion inevitably hits be the clear cut team to choose (which they are right now).

Your view (shared by UCF administration) is shortsighted. You’re focusing on returns from a single game today over the P5 conference revenue sharing for decades to come.

Play the damn games. Get fans to show up. Demonstrate the value UCF can have for P5 conference. Even the lesser end of a deal with a Miami is better than most games on their schedule these days.

Just poor planning all around. The acceptance of this by so many fans is pathetic.

[UCFJayBird]

yes, it affects rankings but that is it (well, and perception). UCF beat a good Auburn team. UCF did not beat UGA or Alabama. Auburn beat them playing those teams, those matchups, at Auburn with the teams as they were. but they only beat an Auburn team, not the specific teams that Auburn beat.

More seriously, it is the NCAA policy that the Champion is determined by self-declaration. That is actually the rule.
Thus the NCAA has in its statistics a listing as UCF as co-Champion. That is now factual.


..

NCAA website does not list UCF as a co-champion. and i looked all over the NCAA website, i dont see this "rule" that you are mentioning. everything i see says that the national champion is independently declared, not self declared.

https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

Record book. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2018/FBS.pdf page 115

[UCFJayBird]

nothing wrong with neutral games. Teams dont like giving up revenue on a game for home and home, they both get to split it from a neutral site.

A neutral site game doesn't impact teams from the P5 like it does the rest. For example, last year Michigan took home $51m from the Big Ten, most of it tv revenue. The AAC last year as a conference brought in $74m. So while Michigan pulls in $51m, UCF gets about $8m.

P5 teams can afford to play on a neutral site, it's barely a blip on their radar. And not only that, but they won't give up a home game to do so, only an away game. UCF needs revenue where it can get it, which is why they're so adamant about 7 home games a year now.

No one is talking about building a schedule. What aren’t are getting?

You have to prove to the higher football powers that UCF games bring in money. You can’t do that without playing the damn game! It doesn’t have to be an entire schedule. You just need a game or two each season for a few years to demonstrate a trend.

Even if the short term deal favors the likes of a Miami, Notre Dame or some SEC/BIG team you do it. The potential long term rewards should be the focus.

But no ... UCF foolishly pulls themselves out of such opportunities.

UCF is already the team a conference will want if it expands. They've already proven that.

Like I said, I get why both sides insist on what they believe is fair. UCF wants equal games at home because they need the revenue and don't want to play into the perception that they're less than. the bigger P5 programs want deals with more games at home because it's riskier for them to play teams in lower conferences because of the way losses play out on the national stage. It's just the nature of the situation.

So what will happen? UCF will continue to schedule 2 P5's a year, 1 G5, and 1 FCS. And then they'll hope that P5 school is good when it counts. Otherwise, keep winning and keep the schedule with 7 home games and when expansion inevitably hits be the clear cut team to choose (which they are right now).

Your view (shared by UCF administration) is shortsighted. You’re focusing on returns from a single game today over the P5 conference revenue sharing for decades to come.

Play the damn games. Get fans to show up. Demonstrate the value UCF can have for P5 conference. Even the lesser end of a deal with a Miami is better than most games on their schedule these days.

Just poor planning all around. The acceptance of this by so many fans is pathetic.

It's only short sighted if UCF doesn't get into the next round of expansion, which I believe UCF has made themselves a clear front runner for.

[drsd]

NCAA website does not list UCF as a co-champion. and i looked all over the NCAA website, i dont see this "rule" that you are mentioning. everything i see says that the national champion is independently declared, not self declared.

https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

This is not a comment specifically to/at you, but I am always amazed that Alabama fans get worked up about this.
If you are sure the Tide is the one and only Champion, why do you care about what Knights fans think? Why care?


...

Next topic:

UCF was rumored to have offered Alabamaba a post-"Championship" game. The NCAA would have gone nuts over this non-sanctioned game, and at the same time, authorised the game given the profit margin for all sides. It would have been worth way to much money. But there is no way the Tide would have even begun to have considered playing that game. My view: "wining" a controversial title is better than any potential of losing outright.

And so it goes.

Alabama is very likely to make the top-4 again this year and thus has a great chance to win the "Championship" game. If the Knights go undefeated again and AGAIN lose the national championship view of the BCS to the Tide, without actually losing a game, there is a point where this will gain further scrutiny from the press and neutral NCAA fans. Really if one is an Alabama fan, said person really needs to root for the Knights losing a game this season to end this conversation for this season's outcome.


..

[MagicFan101]

A neutral site game doesn't impact teams from the P5 like it does the rest. For example, last year Michigan took home $51m from the Big Ten, most of it tv revenue. The AAC last year as a conference brought in $74m. So while Michigan pulls in $51m, UCF gets about $8m.

P5 teams can afford to play on a neutral site, it's barely a blip on their radar. And not only that, but they won't give up a home game to do so, only an away game. UCF needs revenue where it can get it, which is why they're so adamant about 7 home games a year now.



UCF is already the team a conference will want if it expands. They've already proven that.

Like I said, I get why both sides insist on what they believe is fair. UCF wants equal games at home because they need the revenue and don't want to play into the perception that they're less than. the bigger P5 programs want deals with more games at home because it's riskier for them to play teams in lower conferences because of the way losses play out on the national stage. It's just the nature of the situation.

So what will happen? UCF will continue to schedule 2 P5's a year, 1 G5, and 1 FCS. And then they'll hope that P5 school is good when it counts. Otherwise, keep winning and keep the schedule with 7 home games and when expansion inevitably hits be the clear cut team to choose (which they are right now).

Your view (shared by UCF administration) is shortsighted. You’re focusing on returns from a single game today over the P5 conference revenue sharing for decades to come.

Play the damn games. Get fans to show up. Demonstrate the value UCF can have for P5 conference. Even the lesser end of a deal with a Miami is better than most games on their schedule these days.

Just poor planning all around. The acceptance of this by so many fans is pathetic.

It's only short sighted if UCF doesn't get into the next round of expansion, which I believe UCF has made themselves a clear front runner for.

True. As long as you get it is doesn’t matter how it happens.

But ... the BIG12 is really the only realistic option.

With TAMU gone to the SEC, Houston makes a lot of sense as they would seek to regain a footprint in the Houston bubble.

Boise also makes some sense from a logistics standpoint.

Expansions often come with 2 two teams. I suspect Houston is a lock. There is a strong argument to be made for UCF over Boise but UCF is doing themselves no favors in trying making that argument while their value is highest.

[tiderulz]

A neutral site game doesn't impact teams from the P5 like it does the rest. For example, last year Michigan took home $51m from the Big Ten, most of it tv revenue. The AAC last year as a conference brought in $74m. So while Michigan pulls in $51m, UCF gets about $8m.

P5 teams can afford to play on a neutral site, it's barely a blip on their radar. And not only that, but they won't give up a home game to do so, only an away game. UCF needs revenue where it can get it, which is why they're so adamant about 7 home games a year now.

you dont just get to jump into the deep end after 1 season. Boise St been doing this a lot longer than UCF and they dont get to call those shots either. Keep setting up neutral site games, beat the big boys when you get them and you look more attractive when the bigger conferences look to expand. dont forget, you just went 0-12 2 years ago. and for neutral site games, Louisville for example took home $2.75mil. When you say that UCF gets $8m, that seems like a decent haul for 1 neutral site game.

We have 3 conference championships in the last 5 years (and 5 conference titles in 10 years).

We have two NY6 Bowl Wins, an undefeated season, and a National Championship (whether you choose to recognize it or not, the NCAA does).

We're in a great recruiting area and one of the fastest growing metropolitans in the country.

Point me to the G5 teams with better resumes. I'll say Boise State is right there, and you could make the argument. But expansion involves 2 teams. So even if I give you Boise (which isn't a given IMO given their location), which other G5 programs are going to merit greater consideration? Sure, other schools might have some valid arguments on their end (maybe they've got better academics, endowments, etc) but I think overall you'd be hard pressed to find two teams to put above UCF right now.

to me, you are more attractive than BSU, as you play in Florida where most schools go to recruit. BSU is a nice story, but no one is going to Idaho to recruit.

[tiderulz]

More seriously, it is the NCAA policy that the Champion is determined by self-declaration. That is actually the rule.
Thus the NCAA has in its statistics a listing as UCF as co-Champion. That is now factual.


..

NCAA website does not list UCF as a co-champion. and i looked all over the NCAA website, i dont see this "rule" that you are mentioning. everything i see says that the national champion is independently declared, not self declared.

https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

Record book. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2018/FBS.pdf page 115

thats not a record book, that is the ending polls for the year. and they are not listed as a co-champion. all it shows is that 1 poll that chose UCF. NCAA does not recognize them as a co-champion.

Beginning in 2014, the College Football Playoff was used to determine national champions in FBS. All “major selectors” not otherwise listed also selected the CFP champion as its higest ranked team in those seasons. In years where a “major selector” had a team other than the CFP champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the CFP Champion.

all it shows is that 1 poll that chose UCF. NCAA does not recognize them as a co-champion. As for Colley, look at the previous year. Alabama lost to Clemson in the title game and Colley chose Alabama as the winner. Unless you are saying that Bama was a co-champion last year too? Colley also chose Notre Dame as the champion the year Bama destroyed them in the title game 42-14

[tiderulz]

NCAA website does not list UCF as a co-champion. and i looked all over the NCAA website, i dont see this "rule" that you are mentioning. everything i see says that the national champion is independently declared, not self declared.

https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

This is not a comment specifically to/at you, but I am always amazed that Alabama fans get worked up about this.
If you are sure the Tide is the one and only Champion, why do you care about what Knights fans think? Why care?


...

Next topic:

UCF was rumored to have offered Alabamaba a post-"Championship" game. The NCAA would have gone nuts over this non-sanctioned game, and at the same time, authorised the game given the profit margin for all sides. It would have been worth way to much money. But there is no way the Tide would have even begun to have considered playing that game. My view: "wining" a controversial title is better than any potential of losing outright.

And so it goes.

Alabama is very likely to make the top-4 again this year and thus has a great chance to win the "Championship" game. If the Knights go undefeated again and AGAIN lose the national championship view of the BCS to the Tide, without actually losing a game, there is a point where this will gain further scrutiny from the press and neutral NCAA fans. Really if one is an Alabama fan, said person really needs to root for the Knights losing a game this season to end this conversation for this season's outcome.


..

lol, Im not worked up about it. I love a good debate with facts, especially on a boring Monday. And i like UCF, my wife graduated from there. As for Bama not playing UCF, they would definitely not be scared. But they already had the title, no reason to do anymore. Of course UCF would offer, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

and you have seen me type if before. I think the playoffs need to go to 8 teams, and include a mandatory G5 slot.

[MagicFan101]

The idea of UCF having won a title or Alabama winning a controversial title seems to be coming up again.

Much has been made about the effort Auburn displayed in that game but UCF fairy tale believers refuse to accept it. Look, that is Auburn’s problem. Heck, even beyond Auburn as we see big names skip bowl games entirely if it isn’t a playoff game. It’s a sad state for college football as a whole but it is the truth.

Playing poorly is one thing. Auburn didn’t care to play. That is something different entirely.

You can’t use that game as justification for an argument that the 2017 Knights could withstand a full season of motivated Bama, LSU, Georgia, Ole Miss and so on opponents.

UCF proved they were too good for the opponents they faced in the regular season and need a lift in competition.

UCF did NOT prove they can be as succeful with a full P5 schedule.

[drsd]

and you have seen me type if before. I think the playoffs need to go to 8 teams, and include a mandatory G5 slot.

Not that I am against this, but it essentially guarantees the #1 team to play a #8-G5 team every single year.


....

As an aside:
The playoffs last year would have been:

1-Clemson vs 8-UCF
2-Oklahoma vs 7-Auburn
3-Georgia vs 6-Wisconsin
4-Alabama vs 5-OSU

Man that would have been great!


Such a playoff solved all three controversies of the BCS games: i) Auburn beat Alabama and thus ii) to MANY, MANYYY fans the Tide was not better than OSU, and iii) UCF was undefeated.

Having all of OSU, Alabama, UCF and Auburn in the top-8 would have killed all of those complaints, all of which have merits.
(( and as a bonus it created a path for my Badgers to win a Championship, while everyone else was talking about the other 7 teams )).

..

[drsd]

UCF did NOT prove they can be as succeful with a full P5 schedule.

And Alabama did NOT prove they were better than OSU, who actually won their conference, Auburn, who just beat Alabama, or even Wisconsin who arguably had a less-worse loss in being beat by OSU than the Alabama loss.

Rhetoric: was Alabama even justified to have been in the playoffs in the first place? No OSU fan would think so.


..

[tiderulz]

and you have seen me type if before. I think the playoffs need to go to 8 teams, and include a mandatory G5 slot.

Not that I am against this, but it essentially guarantees the #1 team to play a #8-G5 team every single year.


....

As an aside:
The playoffs last year would have been:

1-Clemson vs 8-UCF
2-Oklahoma vs 7-Auburn
3-Georgia vs 6-Wisconsin
4-Alabama vs 5-OSU

Man that would have been great!


Such a playoff solved all three controversies of the BCS games: i) Auburn beat Alabama and thus ii) to MANY, MANYYY fans the Tide was not better than OSU, and iii) UCF was undefeated.

Having all of OSU, Alabama, UCF and Auburn in the top-8 would have killed all of those complaints, all of which have merits.
(( and as a bonus it created a path for my Badgers to win a Championship, while everyone else was talking about the other 7 teams )).

..

i dont think so, it just depends on the G5 team.

[UCF]

The idea of UCF having won a title or Alabama winning a controversial title seems to be coming up again.

Much has been made about the effort Auburn displayed in that game but UCF fairy tale believers refuse to accept it. Look, that is Auburn’s problem. Heck, even beyond Auburn as we see big names skip bowl games entirely if it isn’t a playoff game. It’s a sad state for college football as a whole but it is the truth.

Playing poorly is one thing. Auburn didn’t care to play. That is something different entirely.

You can’t use that game as justification for an argument that the 2017 Knights could withstand a full season of motivated Bama, LSU, Georgia, Ole Miss and so on opponents.

UCF proved they were too good for the opponents they faced in the regular season and need a lift in competition.

UCF did NOT prove they can be as succeful with a full P5 schedule.

We didn’t win the playoff but our name is certainly in the NCAA record book as a national champion.

We beat the teams in our schedule. P5 scheduling is over rated. There are garbage teams in all of the leagues and depending on the division it’s not nearly as bad as the internet pundits would make you believe.

[MagicFan101]

UCF did NOT prove they can be as succeful with a full P5 schedule.

And Alabama did NOT prove they were better than OSU, who actually won their conference, Auburn, who just beat Alabama, or even Wisconsin who arguably had a less-worse loss in being beat by OSU than the Alabama loss.

Rhetoric: was Alabama even justified to have been in the playoffs in the first place? No OSU fan would think so.


..

I doubt you will find a single person alive who believe there is always a clean line between 4 and 5 where no team beyond can beat those who get in.

The system is flawed. But we can’t have a 64+ team bracket like we do in basketball. A 6+1 or 8 team system is likely the best we will get.

But even then, the system is not capable of finding the BEST team. It can only measure most deserving. UCF did nothing to warrant any real consideration. That isn’t the fault of UCF players but nor is it the fault of those on the teams which were selected / considered.

[UCF]

Read on Twitter

[MagicFan101]

Read on Twitter

Keep on drinking the kool-aid from the back of the bus.

[UCF]

Pretty sure our game against Auburn proved that our guys weren’t out matched with our size. The SEC also includes teams like Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Missouri, etc. not everyone in the league has lineman like Alabama, Georgia.

[tiderulz]

The idea of UCF having won a title or Alabama winning a controversial title seems to be coming up again.

Much has been made about the effort Auburn displayed in that game but UCF fairy tale believers refuse to accept it. Look, that is Auburn’s problem. Heck, even beyond Auburn as we see big names skip bowl games entirely if it isn’t a playoff game. It’s a sad state for college football as a whole but it is the truth.

Playing poorly is one thing. Auburn didn’t care to play. That is something different entirely.

You can’t use that game as justification for an argument that the 2017 Knights could withstand a full season of motivated Bama, LSU, Georgia, Ole Miss and so on opponents.

UCF proved they were too good for the opponents they faced in the regular season and need a lift in competition.

UCF did NOT prove they can be as succeful with a full P5 schedule.

We didn’t win the playoff but our name is certainly in the NCAA record book as a national champion.

We beat the teams in our schedule. P5 scheduling is over rated. There are garbage teams in all of the leagues and depending on the division it’s not nearly as bad as the internet pundits would make you believe.

which record book? the NCAA itself does not recognize UCF as a national champion. they list them as the leader of one specific poll.

[UCFJayBird]

The idea of UCF having won a title or Alabama winning a controversial title seems to be coming up again.

Much has been made about the effort Auburn displayed in that game but UCF fairy tale believers refuse to accept it. Look, that is Auburn’s problem. Heck, even beyond Auburn as we see big names skip bowl games entirely if it isn’t a playoff game. It’s a sad state for college football as a whole but it is the truth.

Playing poorly is one thing. Auburn didn’t care to play. That is something different entirely.

You can’t use that game as justification for an argument that the 2017 Knights could withstand a full season of motivated Bama, LSU, Georgia, Ole Miss and so on opponents.

UCF proved they were too good for the opponents they faced in the regular season and need a lift in competition.

UCF did NOT prove they can be as succeful with a full P5 schedule.

That's such nonsensical post-losing BS. "Auburn didn't care" "Auburn didn't try".

Auburn players themselves talked about how they were ready and giving full effort. Watching the game the commentators noted in the first quarter a number of times that the media wondering if Auburn would show up ready to play was false and they were giving full effort.

Before games it's UCF can't compete, they'll get smoked.
After games, it's the other team didn't show up, they weren't interested.

SEC schools like to pound their chest about their SOSs, yet Alabama's last year before the CFP was pretty damn weak if you ask me.

[tiderulz]

Pretty sure our game against Auburn proved that our guys weren’t out matched with our size. The SEC also includes teams like Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Missouri, etc. not everyone in the league has lineman like Alabama, Georgia.

totally agree. the only thing i would say, i dont know how UCF would handle an entire season of playing against a Power-5 schedule. They may sail thru great, but they may not as they would be facing on average, bigger/faster players (not at every position, but just overall) in many games until they caught up recruiting wise.