Kolek planning to go pro
My complaint is that it isn't a NCAA national title, it is a P5 title. Wades is right that saying "all games matter" is incorrect. Personally, I would prefer if the NCAA did away with FCS and FBS and instead simply put the P5 in its own division, they cannot schedule people outside the P5, and they can choose whatever title system they want.
Nope. I’m seeing the point. The point is entirely flawed. Scheduling Alabama or Auburn or Wisconsin is entirely different than scheduling UCF. Comparing the two is silly. First of all even if they scheduled games for the next year and had a pretty dang good idea that UCF would be a quality opponent when they actually played them there’s only downside for their opponent if it’s Bama or OU or O$U. If they win then they beat the AAC champions, which does nothing. If they lose then their season is over. Vs. scheduling a Bama vs. OU game. The loser can still bounce back, win their conference and go to the CFP after the winner wins their conference. And again, you schedule these games 4 years out. The chances of Clemson or Bama being a quality opponent 4 years from now is much, much, much higher than UCF being a quality opponent 4 years from now. The comparison is dumb and to suggest UCF can get a prime time non-con game easily if they want to is even dumber.
Your point would have more validity if P5 blueblood programs didn't schedule AAC opponents every year. But they do.This year, Michigan played SMU; Texas played Tulsa; Ohio State played Tulane. In 2017, Oklahoma played Tulane; Michigan played Cincy; Notre Dame played Temple. In 2016, Penn State played Temple; Florida State played South Florida; Oklahoma played Houston; Ohio State played Tulsa.In 2015, Florida played ECU; Penn State played Temple; Oklahoma played Tulsa.In 2014, Oklhoma played Tulsa; Texas A&M played SMU; Ohio State played Cincy; and (gasp!) UCF played Penn State.Why can these AAC teams get matchups with top-tier programs, but it's "entirely flawed" to think UCF can?
Make the playoffs a top 8 team system. First four games, 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, the 1 thru 4 teams get to play games at home. Following week, the games go to a neutral site bowl as it is now.Eliminate the same old, same old discussion that has going on since four team playoff system implementated. Just a matter of time before changes to be made.
UCF at AlabamaMichigan at ClemsonOhio St at Notre DameGeorgia at OklahomaThis is what a first week would look like if eight teams.# 9 Washington and #10 Florida have no argument since both have three losses.
I think it should go to eight, but it won't eliminate the discussion any more than the hoops tourney going from 32 to 64 to 68 has eliminated the discussion.Instead of the 5th and 6th teams griping, it'll be the 9th and 10th. Some teams/fans are always going to complain about left out. And that's a good thing! The debate and drama and dumb arguments is a big part of why we love sports in the first place.
Strongly disagree.With 8 teams, you are all but certain to include at least one or two that have multiple losses. In college football, that's plenty. If the 9th team is whining with 2 losses that they didn't get in, no one will shed any tears. They just aren't credible to make the argument to get in.
Some two-loss teams will get in. But any two-loss team that doesn't get in won't have a credible argument.That logic evades me. Under an 8-team system last year, a three-loss Auburn would have gotten in ahead of undefeated UCF, and two-loss Penn State, Miami and USC. But you're saying there wouldn't have been debate, right?
Yep. UCF should drop to FCS if it wants to win a national title.
I’m laughing at the fact the NCAA tried to sell that every game mattered when in reality there are like 10 games a year that determine who has a chance to win a national title.
No, money in the FCS level. Heck, Southern and Grambling bypass the FCS level playoff, to just play in the Bayou Classic.
There is no money in the FBS for them either. Many of the universities in the AAC or losing close to $30M a year on athletics because of football, with the prayer that the P5 will include them in a spit-off from the rest of the FBS to form their own 6-league division in college athletics and then split proceeds more evenly amongst them.
There won't be any money there either. The fan interest in college football is all at the very top.
I agree. It's a fools errand by these universities. In my opinion they should either go to the FCS or drop football entirely. From an alumni and donation standpoint, the FCS makes more sense.
But here's why they don't:UCF athletics director Danny White keeps racking up big wins.The Knights set a fundraising record, earning $13.4 million in cash-gift revenues during the 2017-18 fiscal year that just wrapped up in June.The total surpassed last year’s record-setting fundraising mark by $2.5 million.To put the surge in perspective, UCF raised $5.2 million during the 2011-12 academic yearhttps://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/sports-editor-blog/os-sp-ucf-athletics-fundraising-record-20180720-story.htmlIn other words, "There's gold up in them thar hills!" And it's not just TV revenue, either.
The increases in fundraising a largely affected by the fact that UCF is a newer school, with a young alumni base that is just coming into the age ranges where significant donations would be expected. Maybe UCF could use some of that additional revenue to stop charging their 60,000 students $350 a year in an athletics fee. 50% of UCF's revenue is coming from student fees and/or allotments from the general university budget. If it wasn't for those two elements they'd be losing $30M a year on football just like the other AAC members.