Meeps

100% agreed; to a point. Arkansas State was the better team that day. You're not going to find any UCF fans that pretends that loss didn't count simply because UCF wasn't motivated. Champions find ways to win. UCF didn't find a way to win that one, so Arkansas State earned it. And the team sure as hell didn't forget it. That was the last game they lost since the Obama Administration.

This can't be. Why would LSU be motivated to play in a meaningless bowl versus a non-p5 opponent. UCF should easily win this.

Should be a great game. UCF players thought they had a decent shot at a playoff after winning 25 games in a row. LSU won't be motivated to play a team from the AAC. It'll be the battle of the two non-motivated teams. Right Brad?

Care to elaborate?

I can't wait to see this. If it does exist, lets see if it was said prior to the game being played rather than a post-game excuse.

That's not what Brad said. He said outside of playing for National titles - the NY6 bowl games are meaningless. Further, those teams mindsets cannot possibly be the same despite being two P5 teams. Some teams are closer to reaching the playoffs and missed it by one loss - whereas some have lost multiple games and had no chance.

So you're saying a team that was on the cusp of playing for a National title just naturally imploded because they faced an opponent from the AAC? They beat Georgia AND Alabama - the talent and coaching to do that had to be significant. Why didn't they just play their 3rd string players from the start. Isn't that what teams who want to preserve the health of their players do? Why did one of their defensive players DDT our running back? Is a DDT a standard defensive block? Why did they have post-game comments about being motivated? Were they afraid of upsetting UCF's fans/players? ALL the experts had UCF getting pummeled with some even saying they didn't deserve to be on the same field as Auburn. Why didn't the experts just come out and say, "Well, this is UCF's superbowl, and Auburn has no reason to win... should be an easy game for UCF?" I've read some pretty ridiculous statements here, but this is ranks pretty high.

So your opinion is because they lost -- they weren't motivated and essentially every team that loses during the NY6 bowl season is not motivated. Please tell me you think that.

Because by virtue of why Clemson is at #2 and UCF being more similar to them than Oklahoma; would automatically garner higher rank than Oklahoma. If the CFP was going for the "best team" versus the most deserving team, they would have put Georgia at #4. But they would rather have less blowback by putting in 3 P5 conferences than 2.

Great assessment of a team's intentions. Did you play for Auburn? Do you know the players personally? How do you have this inside knowledge? Or is this another opinion being passed off as fact?

You mean the same Clemson team who is undefeated and essentially beat no one of note. Versus UCF who is also undefeated and beat no one of note? You mean the same Clemson team whose SOS is ranked within the same ballpark as UCF. The same Clemson who beat Pitt by 32 versus 31 with UCF? Versus comparing Oklahoma who has a loss? Doesn't exactly sound delusional when there are far more similarities than differences.

Fair enough. Honest mistake. https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/29/17795292/college-football-2018-strength-of-schedule-week-14-rankings "Have the Tigers played a rigorous schedule? Goodness, no. If the average top-five team — by which, I mean literally the average of Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Michigan, and Oklahoma, the top five teams per S&P+ — played Clemson’s 13 opponents a countless number of times, it would have won about 90 percent of those games. That’s a strength of schedule that ranks 76th, not amazing but certainly harder than that of any of the other unbeatens. (UCF ranked 83). SOS rankings for college football’s unbeaten teams: 17. Alabama (0.834) 61. Notre Dame (0.888)76. Clemson (0.901)83. UCF (0.907) Clemson’s schedule was closer in competition level to UCF’s than Alabama’s, and by quite a bit. And it was worse than Notre Dame’s. You guys want to talk smack all you want about UCF not even being remotely deserving of a top 4 spot for having a soft schedule. Yet for some reason, due to that 7 point differential between Clemson and UCF, one team is firmly planted at #2 and the other isn't even in the same sentence.

Meaningless bowl results? So the NY6 bowls are all meaningless... you might want to tell the rest of the nation that since aside from playing for a national title, that's the next best thing. If you've played at that level where you are playing in a NY6 bowl, you're a competitor that can't stand losing. The Bowl results prove that computer rankings only show probability, not causality. The e(SPN)xperts are biased and more wrong than they are right and that on any given day, an opponent with less talent can win. That was my point.

This was answered right here: Sorry, I don't buy Clemson's body of work is much better. There strength of record is 98.9 (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/fpi/_/id/228/clemson-tigers). Guess what UCF's is? 93.8. http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/fpi/_/id/2116 But ya'know - P5 and Memphis and stuff (chortle).

Try looking at Clemson's schedule. I know this is going to be difficult. But tell me how that schedule garners the #2 spot in the nation? Can't wait.

I never said beating Pitt was our "Syracuse" to garner the spot within the CFP. I said, if you look at both teams from a real world competitive standpoint instead of some make believe world, where games on paper are played - UCF handled Pitt just like Clemson did. Clemson was ranked #3 prior to playing Syracuse or anyone that mattered. Why? You guys say Strength of schedule is the holy grail of measuring an eye test. Clemson was riding a top ranking from the beginning of the season without beating anyone of note. The hypocrisy is endless. Just because your opinion that Purdue would be a 10 win team doesn't make it a reality. Miami has far more talent on paper than UCF, yet do any of you think Miami is a better team? Probably not. Because there are far more factors in play than simply having the skill at specific positions. Kiffin has far more star talent than other teams in CUSA. All the experts predicted FAU as the best G5 team, look how that turned out. If you don't think a pre-season poll where top teams who have made it to the end roughly unscathed don't matter, then that's fine. But the AP poll usually isn't too far off from the CFP poll when the teams start separating themselves. Sorry, I don't buy Clemson's body of work is much better. There strength of record is 98.9 (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/fpi/_/id/228/clemson-tigers). Guess what UCF's is? 93.8. http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/fpi/_/id/2116 Go look at Sagarin? Cool. Tell me why Sagarin has Oklahoma at 6 but they are in the College Football Playoff.

So what is the point in playing in Division I football? By your very definition, usf literally has no chance to make the playoffs. The strength of record as the sole evidence a team is undeserving to be in the playoffs only holds up when a team has yet to prove they are the real deal. Not true, Strength of schedule is a metric that proves if you are the real deal. Not when the P5 schedule's are artificially inflated by ESPN. There are a myriad of "P5" programs that are absolute jokes (Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, NC State, Duke, Boston College, Texas Tech etc...) and there are teams that are ranked WAYYYY higher than they should be. All these P5 teams beating up on other "doormat P5" teams increase their Strength of schedule by virtue of conference affiliation and skew computer metrics; not necessarily because they are the "real deal". That was answered when they beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl. While the Auburn win doesn't necessarily count for the 2018 football schedule - that was the eye test right there. When most of your team is returning the following season including your star QB, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. If a MAC or CUSA team goes undefeated and soundly beats a top team in their bowl then they deserve the benefit of the doubt the following season. When a team loses said star QB and performs better than they did initially (Memphis #1 win) with the star QB, they again deserve the benefit of the doubt. not revisiting this again, you beat a team that didn't want to be there. and in any case, no game form last season has any impact on this season. When there are statements ON RECORD made by the coach and players that state that is not the case, your opinion becomes invalid. Last season 100% plays a role when most of the team that does that returns. If you don't believe that, go back and read all the pre-season rankings and why they justify that (P5 teams) and why UCF was ranked at all to start the season if a previous season plays no part. UCF decimated Pitt who went on to play in the ACC title game by approximately the same margin Clemson did. Notre Dame almost lost to that same Pitt team. Both Clemson and Pitt are playing in the CFP. Miami and Penn State also beat Pitt handedly but aren't in consideration for the CFP because of what happened agains the rest of their conference schedule. Also 2-9 UNC beat Pitt. Conclusion, undeserving and even bad teams beat Pitt, Not that impressive of a win. In comparison to Notre Dame, what UCF can't match is their wins over Michigan, Syracuse, and Northwestern. Who looked much better in their bid for the big 10 title, than Pitt did its showing up for the ACC title. Are Miami and Penn State are undefeated as well? No, they're not. The body of work is also what is measured. So far UCF is 25-0. Not so much for any of the other teams you mentioned. I used Pitt as the example because that's the only real world information that can be used to measure competitiveness. No one's debating on whether the Pitt win is a signature win. But it proves that when ND/Clemson face a similar opponent, UCF can hold their own yet don't receive the benefit of the doubt. When Ohio state gets embarassed by a sub .500 Purdue - everyone looks the other way. When tOSU has 51 points put up by a crappy Maryland team - it's "Oh, UCF allowed x rushing yards by Temple". The double standards are endless. Clemson's signature win was 7-5 Boston College. You can drink all the ESPN koolaid all you want, but both ND and Clemson's schedule are artificially inflated to look better than they really are and the misinformed sheep willingly believe that is not the case. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, however wrong it is. You must have looked over them beating 9-3 syracuse who is ranked, which again UCF can't match that. That adds to the fact they have only played two close games in their P5 schedule. The one point you made that was valid. You're right, UCF can't match that because they didn't have the opportunity to play them. But I suppose beating a perennial power such as Syracuse is surely enough reason to give Clemson a solid spot in the CFP. Btw, I applaud you taking the time and actually debating each fact instead of making blanket statements on ignorance and trying to pass them off as fact.

Sorry, not going to spend all day giving you more and more facts. Believe what you want. I've already shown you statistical proof that the AAC can bring in millions of viewers at a fraction of the the other conferences' net cost. Even still, my original point was that ESPN pays pennies on the dollar for the viewership from the AAC. If they spent half the time promoting; instead of crapping on the AAC - that value would skyrocket based on the market sizes of the top teams in the AAC. AND That's why it matters (to answer Brad's original question). If you want to prove me wrong, by all means, show me why the B12 earns 5x the revenue for their market/viewership - the onus is on you at this point.

Yeah. That's the data i'm using because that's the only head to head comparison that one can possibly make that has real world application. The rest are paper statistics that have little practical meaning. On paper, Purdue shouldn't have beat tOSU, on paper - tOSU shouldn't have beat Alabama with a backup quarterback and the list goes on. Football was meant to be played on the field. Not in some algorithm that statistically prevents anyone but top brand names playing top brand names out of it. Show me where UCF was ranked higher than Auburn in these computer polls prior to them playing each other. Show me where Boise was ranked higher than the ones they defeated in their BCS bowls prior to them playing. You can't but that didn't stop reality from happening.

Ok let's suppose we have two lemonaid stands selling lemonade. One's cost per lemonade is $25 per cup (B12). The other's cost is charging $5 per cup (AAC). The B12 makes $365 million/year the AAC made $74.47 million. That's 5x the money the AAC hence the $25:$5 cost comparison. The Cincinatti vs UCF game drew 3 million viewers vs Kansas-Oklahoma 2.6 million viewers. Now let's do some math: 3 million (UCF vs Cinci) > 2.6 million (Kansas vs Oklahoma) and $5 cost is less than $25 cost. While I fully recognize this is simply one sample size, my point is the potential is there that what ESPN pays versus the viewership it brings in from the top teams in the AAC is not too far from the B12 and in some instances - better. Yet at 1/5th the cost. Proof: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/college-gridiron-365/os-sp-aac-revenue-20180531-story.html The conference reported $74.47 million in total revenue for the 2016-17 fiscal year, the most recent documents available and obtained by the Orlando Sentinel. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2018/06/01/big-12-reports-365m-revenue-increases-for-12th-year-in-row/35586353/ Big 12 reports total revenue of $365 million for academic year https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/ucf-knights/knights-notepad/os-sp-football-news-1119-story.html According to ESPN, its College GameDay show from Memory Mall on campus, drew a 1.4 overnight rating, which was up 8 percent from last year’s show at this time. In Orlando, the show earned a 3.9 overnight rating, tying the market’s best rating for the pre-game show since 2010. ABC’s broadcast of the No. 11 UCF versus No. 24 Cincinnati game from Spectrum Stadium was the highest rated primetime college football game of the week, delivering a 2.3 overnight television rating. According to tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com,the game delivered more than 3 million viewers. For example, the Kansas-Oklahoma game on Fox Sports at the same time drew just 2.6 million viewers. More proof: https://www.blackandgoldbanneret.com/2017/11/26/17970488/friday-s-war-on-i-4-between-ucf-and-usf-grabs-monster-tv-rating USF at UCF on ABC 11/24/17 4.6 Million Viewers (3.2) Rating

I've already provided the information to you but here you are. https://fbschedules.com/ucf-football-schedule/ - UCF beat Pitt by 31. https://fbschedules.com/pitt-football-schedule/ - Clemson beats Pitt by 32 in the ACC title game. / Notre Dame beat Pitt by 5. All three teams are undefeated. https://fbschedules.com/clemson-football-schedule/ - Look at Clemson's schedule and tell me this is a top 4 schedule.

The colon represents a ratio. I'll let you re-read the initial statement and see if you come to the same conclusion.

No offense taken. However, making the statement "The resume for UCF is not even close to being considered" without a single fact or rebuttal on all the data I provided in my initial post; makes this a lazy opinion based argument at best. You can't tell me ND and Clemson's schedule are so far superior to UCF's, and their wins are vastly superior, that it's a black and white comparison. Clemson and ND get the "benefit of the doubt" simply by being Clemson and ND. However, actual game data where a direct comparison of UCF/ND and Clemson's performance shows that they are in the same league and it's anyone's guess who would win.

Why does the AAC and UCF matter? Because unlike the overpriced SEC/B10, the AAC brings in a lot more Viewer:Adverstising revenue than what they pay for their other conferences. The best way to enhance that is by promoting it so that more advertisers are willing to spend even more money while ESPN pays the AAC scraps (~8m/year). The AAC dwarfs the B12 market of potential consumers, why not do what ESPN does best and maximize that potential?

Would love to know your thoughts on the rest of that post.