chapelbull

If the one win was over UCF it might matter

and one of those wins was by 38 points ......

It's always been that way. We didn't have a playoff at all until just the past few years. Obviously most teams went into the season without a shot at the title hence the bowl system.

LOL, you're leaving out UGA, Bama, Auburn, USC, Miss St., LSU, etc. Even if they had all those "weaker" teams on their schedule they're not running the table against them, when they have to play them week to week. I'm definitely not the one smoking something.

The argument should be the CFP should be expanded to 8 teams and include a G5 team or teams like USF, UCF, etc should be added to one of the P5 conferences.

Every one of those teams finishes in the upper half of the AAC. Heck, most of them probably have a good shot at winning it. And the argument is UCF should be CoChamps or have a shot in the CFP because they went 13-0 so saying they wouldn't be 13-0 in the SEC is "logical". But I'll take it a step further and say they would have been lucky to finish .500 in the SEC this year. And I'm not an SEC shill in the least, but realistically we and UCF are not built to withstand the grind of a week in, week out SEC schedule.

Actually, saying UCF is in the same class as Bama or UGA is being in denial. Again, we can argue that there should be an expanded playoff format that gives a team like UCF a shot at winning a national title, but under the current format there is no way they deserve to be CoChamps. Just not realistic. There is literally no way they go 13-0 playing an SEC type schedule.

USF may be better than Texas Tech, but then again TTU was 3-6 in the Big 12 and 6-6 overall, 8th best in the Big 12. UCF isn't better than Auburn overall, but was in the Peach Bowl. USF and UCF are probably 3-5 loss teams in any P5 conference this season. It's one thing to get up for 1 game when you have the likes of Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, UConn, etc. on your conference schedule. It's another thing to have to line up agains Bama, Auburn, LSU, UF, UGA, etc. or Oklahoma, Ok State, Texas, TCU, etc. or FSU, UM, Clemson, UL, Va Tech etc. Now you put us in one of those conferences and income changes as well as recruiting and then that starts to change things. Bottom line is UCF and any other team outside the P5 really shouldn't be in the CFP in any given year under the current 4 team format. You change that to an 8 team format and I think that G5 conferences should earn a spot.

Attendance was up in 2016 and greater than UCF. Not sure about 2017 numbers. I don't know how anyone thinks this program is about the fold though. An OCS may increase student interest and attendance and you can build a more intimate stadium that that won't look half empty when there are only 35, 000 people in the seats.

The threads about USF crashing the CFP in 2019. Running the table is what it would take to have a shot hence the discussion. It's not a prediction thread .... lighten up Francis.

Calm down there skippy. It will be OK.

Owners pay too much money these days to stink out loud for several years while building up their franchise. Jaguars and Panthers were able to compete quickly as well in the NFL when they joined.

They are definitely not a typical expansion team.

The vast majority of years, a G5 team does not belong in the CFP. If the Bulls run the table in 2019, then they will at least have resemblance of an argument with W's over multiple P6 schools

If we run the table in 2019 and we have a chance at the Final Four.

Don't worry, baseball/softball are right around the corner

Run the table that year and we'll be in the Final Four ...

I'm thinking this is more of a talent issue than a continuity/chemistry issue

I wonder how we'd feel if a 2 loss Bulls team won the title in a relatively weak Big 12 Conference and were then passed over for the CFP final four so an undefeated Boise State could get in

Sounds pretty similar to the overall season ratio.

I'm not going through the entire game log, but if we want to play the stats game we scored two TDs below our average on the season. If we get close to that, then the last play is meaningless .... I think the point really is that there were far more factors than the last play that led to that loss, a loss that we should not have had

OK, and he threw for 325. My point was that I felt that the ball was taken out of our best player's hands too often at times. Just an opinion, not the end all be all.

This was kind of my issue with play calling. They seemed to take the ball out of Q's hands too frequently at times when he was the best player on the field. And in the Houston game it seemed to finally rear up and bite us.

I see nothing wrong with 1 and 3

You said they didn't lose to any teams that they should have beaten. They should have beaten Houston. You didn't quantify your statement with "because of Gilbert"