AP Preseason Poll is out

[citroknight]

Massey and Sagarin are the only two computer rankings with any respect and they are honestly weird until after 9-10 games. Computer rankings are horrible because they are number driven and don't account for when a team pulls its starters in a blowout or injuries, etc. You need humans to do a poll. That guy has a mathematical equation and it just does not factor in things that a human being can do. Colley is not a joke in my opinion but everyone else. I'm telling you that listing us at #11 last year is a joke. We were nowhere near the #11 team in the nation. Memphis was not #8. Nobody recognizes them as a top 8 team. If Colley had not listed you guys one time at champs you would probably not have heard of the ranking or even care. Had we gone undefeated in 2019 and Colley listed us #1 or #2 you know you would laugh at it. I would have as well.

As for what you sent, I read it and you are pushing the 2017 file when I sent you the 2019 and 2020 files, which are updated. NCAA officially recognizes the stuff in the 2020 file now.

It would be like App State claiming the 2020 title if we go undefeated and beat the #8 or #9 team in the NY6 while the CFP champion beats #4 and #2. It sounds good for marketing but nobody outside of App, just like with UCF in 2017, would take it seriously.

If you want anyone to agree with what you just said post it on the UCF board because it is the only place in the world you will find anyone who agrees. lol

I hope you are not mad at me because I am just telling you the truth. I appreciate you posting here and would love the day where we get to play UCF. You guys are a great program I respect. Just don't go claiming a fake title because, seriously as a message board friend, I'm telling you that UCF is laughed at by everyone when they claim this.

Not mad at you at all, you guys are a great bunch to discuss with here. You and a few others stick out in particular because I can clearly remember that I like a lot of your posts and vice versa haha.

But that being said, you're still wrong lol. Again, separate opinion from fact. Sagarin and Massey are more respected than Colley, opinion. One I agree with, but an opinion. The Colley Matrix is an NCAA recognized major selector, fact. The #1 teams for major selectors have a valid claim to the FBS championship for that year, fact.

I'm not here to argue the respectability of the CM. It's an obscure major selector for sure that isn't really paid attention to and I'd be lying to you if I said I'd heard of it before 2017. Again, black and white. The criteria laid out by the governing body says it counts. This goofy set up is the result of the FBS teams preferring bowls over a true playoff and then half heatedly backtracking to have a system that kinda sorta let's them decide it on the field but with a tiny playoff/invitational chosen by members with P5 ties and still small enough to allow profitable bowl games to co exist with it.

Again, you did NOT send the files for 2019 and 2020. You sent the condensed consensus lists. They're not meant to be exhaustive. Just shortcuts to the popular ones. Here is the actual PDF file for 2020. Now updated to include the 2018 and 2019 season champs but guess who's still there for 2017? UCF! (And all the other non consensus single major selector champs like 2008 Utah and everyone's favorite, 1941 Alabama)

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... ll-records

Click on 2020 and you'll see. They haven't changed their criteria and if they did, they likely wouldn't do it retroactively (because that would burn a lot of P5 programs) but from the year of the change and onward.

To be fair, Alabama and other schools claim joke titles that nobody really respects.

Go to this link: https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

This is straight from the NCAA website where they list who the national champ is and if you look they list Alabama in 2017. The CFP is the official national champion just like the BCS use to pick it. The last time we had 2 official national champions was 2003 with USC and LSU.

There use to be other selectors but now it is just the CFP so I am 100% right. Ask anyone at the NCAA who they consider to be the champs.

I hate to sound like a broken record but this is why you're 100% wrong. You keep going back to what you think people respect more and all that, which again I don't disagree with your opinions on which polls are more well regarded. But that has 0 weight on what the actual governing body recognizes. None. No, the NCAA wouldn't agree with what you're saying. They'd tell you exactly what I have. Alabama is the 2017 CFP and consensus national champs and UCF is also a recognized national champ by being named #1 in a major selector.

It can't get anymore hand fed than this. I provided the actual PDF from the NCAA that names major selectors and their function along with the champions as named by each major selector for every year in FBS record.

You again are extrapolating from something that's not there. You're sending the same short list which again, shows the consensus champs and those recognized by the more mainstream polls but are not exhaustive lists that include every single champ. Nowhere on that page or in the sources provided does it say these are the only recognized NCAA champions. Nowhere has the NCAA decided to change course to stop counting all major selector designated champs.

As fans we can definitely argue influence of the CFP, AP, and coaches poll and say more fans care about those than the CM. Totally valid. Not just your position on the argument, but simply being able to have the argument itself is 100% valid. But whether it counts for the NCAA is a simple yes or no question and it's yes as shown by the NCAAs own records. Has nothing to do with who respects it or any of that. Plenty laugh at the 1941 Alabama claim, a team that finished with a 9-2 record and 20th in the AP poll, but by finishing #1 in the Houlgate System, it counts. We can debate how stupid it is but there's no debating that it counts. We can also debate the rules allowing it (and UCF's claim) to count are stupid, but they still count.

I sent you the 2020 version of the SAME file you sent me from 2017. Stop going by 2017 because it is outdated. Alabama is the consensus 2017 champion. Plain and simple. Unless you win the playoff you are not the champion. This would be like the Ivy League Champion claiming a share of the FCS title despite not being in the playoffs because Massey or some other computer rating has them rated the highest.

No you didn't. I did send the 2017 one by mistake the FIRST time and first time only. Then I sent you the updated one. You never sent the update file you claim at all you just kept sending the same drop down short lists. Once again, here's the updated PDF.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... ll-records

It even says 2020. Click on it and you'll see. At this point you're just making things up. It's clearly on there. Click on it. 2020 FBS Records.

Here, I'll even copy and paste it for you:

2017
Alabama: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today
+UCF: Colley

2018
Clemson: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

2019
LSU: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

Nothing changed from 2017 to 2019, so why would all of a sudden an update to their records take away UCF? They didn't.

Also your Ivy league comparison is way off. It's like you're literally not listening to my points or understand how FBS vs FCS works. The CFP is NOT the official NCAA FBS tournament, that's why the Colley Matrix counts. The FCS has an actual NCAA tournament so there is 100% no question on who the champ is at the end of the season. A conference like the Ivy league simply choosing to sit out of the only NCAA recognized championship tournament for the FCS level is completely different.

[NavyApp]

Not mad at you at all, you guys are a great bunch to discuss with here. You and a few others stick out in particular because I can clearly remember that I like a lot of your posts and vice versa haha.

But that being said, you're still wrong lol. Again, separate opinion from fact. Sagarin and Massey are more respected than Colley, opinion. One I agree with, but an opinion. The Colley Matrix is an NCAA recognized major selector, fact. The #1 teams for major selectors have a valid claim to the FBS championship for that year, fact.

I'm not here to argue the respectability of the CM. It's an obscure major selector for sure that isn't really paid attention to and I'd be lying to you if I said I'd heard of it before 2017. Again, black and white. The criteria laid out by the governing body says it counts. This goofy set up is the result of the FBS teams preferring bowls over a true playoff and then half heatedly backtracking to have a system that kinda sorta let's them decide it on the field but with a tiny playoff/invitational chosen by members with P5 ties and still small enough to allow profitable bowl games to co exist with it.

Again, you did NOT send the files for 2019 and 2020. You sent the condensed consensus lists. They're not meant to be exhaustive. Just shortcuts to the popular ones. Here is the actual PDF file for 2020. Now updated to include the 2018 and 2019 season champs but guess who's still there for 2017? UCF! (And all the other non consensus single major selector champs like 2008 Utah and everyone's favorite, 1941 Alabama)

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... ll-records

Click on 2020 and you'll see. They haven't changed their criteria and if they did, they likely wouldn't do it retroactively (because that would burn a lot of P5 programs) but from the year of the change and onward.

To be fair, Alabama and other schools claim joke titles that nobody really respects.

Go to this link: https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

This is straight from the NCAA website where they list who the national champ is and if you look they list Alabama in 2017. The CFP is the official national champion just like the BCS use to pick it. The last time we had 2 official national champions was 2003 with USC and LSU.

There use to be other selectors but now it is just the CFP so I am 100% right. Ask anyone at the NCAA who they consider to be the champs.

I hate to sound like a broken record but this is why you're 100% wrong. You keep going back to what you think people respect more and all that, which again I don't disagree with your opinions on which polls are more well regarded. But that has 0 weight on what the actual governing body recognizes. None. No, the NCAA wouldn't agree with what you're saying. They'd tell you exactly what I have. Alabama is the 2017 CFP and consensus national champs and UCF is also a recognized national champ by being named #1 in a major selector.

It can't get anymore hand fed than this. I provided the actual PDF from the NCAA that names major selectors and their function along with the champions as named by each major selector for every year in FBS record.

You again are extrapolating from something that's not there. You're sending the same short list which again, shows the consensus champs and those recognized by the more mainstream polls but are not exhaustive lists that include every single champ. Nowhere on that page or in the sources provided does it say these are the only recognized NCAA champions. Nowhere has the NCAA decided to change course to stop counting all major selector designated champs.

As fans we can definitely argue influence of the CFP, AP, and coaches poll and say more fans care about those than the CM. Totally valid. Not just your position on the argument, but simply being able to have the argument itself is 100% valid. But whether it counts for the NCAA is a simple yes or no question and it's yes as shown by the NCAAs own records. Has nothing to do with who respects it or any of that. Plenty laugh at the 1941 Alabama claim, a team that finished with a 9-2 record and 20th in the AP poll, but by finishing #1 in the Houlgate System, it counts. We can debate how stupid it is but there's no debating that it counts. We can also debate the rules allowing it (and UCF's claim) to count are stupid, but they still count.

I sent you the 2020 version of the SAME file you sent me from 2017. Stop going by 2017 because it is outdated. Alabama is the consensus 2017 champion. Plain and simple. Unless you win the playoff you are not the champion. This would be like the Ivy League Champion claiming a share of the FCS title despite not being in the playoffs because Massey or some other computer rating has them rated the highest.

No you didn't. I did send the 2017 one by mistake the FIRST time and first time only. Then I sent you the updated one. You never sent the update file you claim at all you just kept sending the same drop down short lists. Once again, here's the updated PDF.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... ll-records

It even says 2020. Click on it and you'll see. At this point you're just making things up. It's clearly on there. Click on it. 2020 FBS Records.

Here, I'll even copy and paste it for you:

2017
Alabama: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today
+UCF: Colley

2018
Clemson: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

2019
LSU: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

Nothing changed from 2017 to 2019, so why would all of a sudden an update to their records take away UCF? They didn't.

Also your Ivy league comparison is way off. It's like you're literally not listening to my points or understand how FBS vs FCS works. The CFP is NOT the official NCAA FBS tournament, that's why the Colley Matrix counts. The FCS has an actual NCAA tournament so there is 100% no question on who the champ is at the end of the season. A conference like the Ivy league simply choosing to sit out of the only NCAA recognized championship tournament for the FCS level is completely different.

First, a tidbit of advice: arguing with AppStFan1 is an exercise in futility. Next your undefeated season was amazing and I was honestly hoping you guys would crash the playoff party. Here is my question though; by what metric(other than Volley) do you believe UCF deserved to be in the playoffs? UCF's Strength of Record was 10th and Strength of Schedule was 75th, Clemson was 6th and 10th, Oklahoma was 8th and 25th, Georgia was 2nd and 8th, and Alabama was 5th and 22nd so all 4 playoff participant's were more qualified than UCF outside of being undefeated. Again that was a hell of a season and has propelled the G5 forward, but I just can't find an argument that could have put them in the playoffs over the 4 that were chosen. I love your tenacity on the subject though, I know if we were in your shoes we would feel the exact same way. You can only play the teams they put in front of you and that team didn't lose.

[citroknight]

To be fair, Alabama and other schools claim joke titles that nobody really respects.

Go to this link: https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

This is straight from the NCAA website where they list who the national champ is and if you look they list Alabama in 2017. The CFP is the official national champion just like the BCS use to pick it. The last time we had 2 official national champions was 2003 with USC and LSU.

There use to be other selectors but now it is just the CFP so I am 100% right. Ask anyone at the NCAA who they consider to be the champs.

I hate to sound like a broken record but this is why you're 100% wrong. You keep going back to what you think people respect more and all that, which again I don't disagree with your opinions on which polls are more well regarded. But that has 0 weight on what the actual governing body recognizes. None. No, the NCAA wouldn't agree with what you're saying. They'd tell you exactly what I have. Alabama is the 2017 CFP and consensus national champs and UCF is also a recognized national champ by being named #1 in a major selector.

It can't get anymore hand fed than this. I provided the actual PDF from the NCAA that names major selectors and their function along with the champions as named by each major selector for every year in FBS record.

You again are extrapolating from something that's not there. You're sending the same short list which again, shows the consensus champs and those recognized by the more mainstream polls but are not exhaustive lists that include every single champ. Nowhere on that page or in the sources provided does it say these are the only recognized NCAA champions. Nowhere has the NCAA decided to change course to stop counting all major selector designated champs.

As fans we can definitely argue influence of the CFP, AP, and coaches poll and say more fans care about those than the CM. Totally valid. Not just your position on the argument, but simply being able to have the argument itself is 100% valid. But whether it counts for the NCAA is a simple yes or no question and it's yes as shown by the NCAAs own records. Has nothing to do with who respects it or any of that. Plenty laugh at the 1941 Alabama claim, a team that finished with a 9-2 record and 20th in the AP poll, but by finishing #1 in the Houlgate System, it counts. We can debate how stupid it is but there's no debating that it counts. We can also debate the rules allowing it (and UCF's claim) to count are stupid, but they still count.

I sent you the 2020 version of the SAME file you sent me from 2017. Stop going by 2017 because it is outdated. Alabama is the consensus 2017 champion. Plain and simple. Unless you win the playoff you are not the champion. This would be like the Ivy League Champion claiming a share of the FCS title despite not being in the playoffs because Massey or some other computer rating has them rated the highest.

No you didn't. I did send the 2017 one by mistake the FIRST time and first time only. Then I sent you the updated one. You never sent the update file you claim at all you just kept sending the same drop down short lists. Once again, here's the updated PDF.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... ll-records

It even says 2020. Click on it and you'll see. At this point you're just making things up. It's clearly on there. Click on it. 2020 FBS Records.

Here, I'll even copy and paste it for you:

2017
Alabama: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today
+UCF: Colley

2018
Clemson: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

2019
LSU: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

Nothing changed from 2017 to 2019, so why would all of a sudden an update to their records take away UCF? They didn't.

Also your Ivy league comparison is way off. It's like you're literally not listening to my points or understand how FBS vs FCS works. The CFP is NOT the official NCAA FBS tournament, that's why the Colley Matrix counts. The FCS has an actual NCAA tournament so there is 100% no question on who the champ is at the end of the season. A conference like the Ivy league simply choosing to sit out of the only NCAA recognized championship tournament for the FCS level is completely different.

First, a tidbit of advice: arguing with AppStFan1 is an exercise in futility. Next your undefeated season was amazing and I was honestly hoping you guys would crash the playoff party. Here is my question though; by what metric(other than Volley) do you believe UCF deserved to be in the playoffs? UCF's Strength of Record was 10th and Strength of Schedule was 75th, Clemson was 6th and 10th, Oklahoma was 8th and 25th, Georgia was 2nd and 8th, and Alabama was 5th and 22nd so all 4 playoff participant's were more qualified than UCF outside of being undefeated. Again that was a hell of a season and has propelled the G5 forward, but I just can't find an argument that could have put them in the playoffs over the 4 that were chosen. I love your tenacity on the subject though, I know if we were in your shoes we would feel the exact same way. You can only play the teams they put in front of you and that team didn't lose.

Great questions all around. There's a few ways of looking at it.

One is why just 4? This subdivision has 130 teams and we're only making room for 4? FCS has 24 spots for 127 teams, D2 has 28 for 169, and D3 has 32 for 250. Just to make a point that this isn't just lower division football doing this, MLB has 10 spots for 30 teams, the nba has 16 spots for 30 teams, D1 college basketball has 68 spots for 353 teams. Point being that no matter which sport, the CFP in FBS is way smaller than any other playoff in college or the pros.

You make great points with the schedule. There's multiple ways to measure strength of schedule, and in none of them would UCF have been top 4. But all these teams are in the same football subdivision and also like you said, you can only play the teams in front of you on your schedule, which the majority of a teams schedule is it's conference.

But were there a true and expanded playoff tournament, the teams with tougher schedules would be rewarded with a bye round like in FCS. As well as higher seeding that would give them home field advantage.

The CFP in some regards has gotten praise for going from 2 to 4 teams when compared with the BCS. Not a great final number but a stepping stone to more hopefully. But it when backwards in the selection method. The BCS was imperfect for a lot of the same reasons, including way too few spots and plenty of subjectivity. But it seemed more fair by weighing in 3 human polls (which while sometimes we think of each poll as monolith, we have to remember that each member of the usually 50+ member polls vote completely on their own and the output from the AP or Coaches polls are just the average of their voters) and 6 computer systems. Now the CFP is not a poll but rather a group deciding on one single ranking that represents them as a group. And this group happens to be skewed towards the P5 conferences.

This is really long and I do apologize, but one last bit lol. You're probably rightly thinking that even though all 130 teams are FBS, they're far from equal. And that's totally true. I think FBS needs to shrink. There's deadweight, mostly in the G5 conferences, that aren't meeting attendance numbers (not in reality but they'll fudge the numbers reported) and their athletic budgets are too small for them to truly stand a fighting chance. Several of these need to go. You'll increase parity this way. It hadn't helped the G5 that really do invest in their programs to be anchored down by these teams while similarly bad P5 get elevated by simply being associated with the true P5 elites. They get TV money and recruiting bumps because of it. You cut out the deadweight, create an actual NCAA tournament with a clear path for every team (win your conference or be good enough to earn an at large bid) and you'll end up with a better FBS product that is truly determined on the field.

[AppStFan1]

To be fair, Alabama and other schools claim joke titles that nobody really respects.

Go to this link: https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

This is straight from the NCAA website where they list who the national champ is and if you look they list Alabama in 2017. The CFP is the official national champion just like the BCS use to pick it. The last time we had 2 official national champions was 2003 with USC and LSU.

There use to be other selectors but now it is just the CFP so I am 100% right. Ask anyone at the NCAA who they consider to be the champs.

I hate to sound like a broken record but this is why you're 100% wrong. You keep going back to what you think people respect more and all that, which again I don't disagree with your opinions on which polls are more well regarded. But that has 0 weight on what the actual governing body recognizes. None. No, the NCAA wouldn't agree with what you're saying. They'd tell you exactly what I have. Alabama is the 2017 CFP and consensus national champs and UCF is also a recognized national champ by being named #1 in a major selector.

It can't get anymore hand fed than this. I provided the actual PDF from the NCAA that names major selectors and their function along with the champions as named by each major selector for every year in FBS record.

You again are extrapolating from something that's not there. You're sending the same short list which again, shows the consensus champs and those recognized by the more mainstream polls but are not exhaustive lists that include every single champ. Nowhere on that page or in the sources provided does it say these are the only recognized NCAA champions. Nowhere has the NCAA decided to change course to stop counting all major selector designated champs.

As fans we can definitely argue influence of the CFP, AP, and coaches poll and say more fans care about those than the CM. Totally valid. Not just your position on the argument, but simply being able to have the argument itself is 100% valid. But whether it counts for the NCAA is a simple yes or no question and it's yes as shown by the NCAAs own records. Has nothing to do with who respects it or any of that. Plenty laugh at the 1941 Alabama claim, a team that finished with a 9-2 record and 20th in the AP poll, but by finishing #1 in the Houlgate System, it counts. We can debate how stupid it is but there's no debating that it counts. We can also debate the rules allowing it (and UCF's claim) to count are stupid, but they still count.

I sent you the 2020 version of the SAME file you sent me from 2017. Stop going by 2017 because it is outdated. Alabama is the consensus 2017 champion. Plain and simple. Unless you win the playoff you are not the champion. This would be like the Ivy League Champion claiming a share of the FCS title despite not being in the playoffs because Massey or some other computer rating has them rated the highest.

No you didn't. I did send the 2017 one by mistake the FIRST time and first time only. Then I sent you the updated one. You never sent the update file you claim at all you just kept sending the same drop down short lists. Once again, here's the updated PDF.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... ll-records

It even says 2020. Click on it and you'll see. At this point you're just making things up. It's clearly on there. Click on it. 2020 FBS Records.

Here, I'll even copy and paste it for you:

2017
Alabama: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today
+UCF: Colley

2018
Clemson: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

2019
LSU: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

Nothing changed from 2017 to 2019, so why would all of a sudden an update to their records take away UCF? They didn't.

Also your Ivy league comparison is way off. It's like you're literally not listening to my points or understand how FBS vs FCS works. The CFP is NOT the official NCAA FBS tournament, that's why the Colley Matrix counts. The FCS has an actual NCAA tournament so there is 100% no question on who the champ is at the end of the season. A conference like the Ivy league simply choosing to sit out of the only NCAA recognized championship tournament for the FCS level is completely different.

First, a tidbit of advice: arguing with AppStFan1 is an exercise in futility. Next your undefeated season was amazing and I was honestly hoping you guys would crash the playoff party. Here is my question though; by what metric(other than Volley) do you believe UCF deserved to be in the playoffs? UCF's Strength of Record was 10th and Strength of Schedule was 75th, Clemson was 6th and 10th, Oklahoma was 8th and 25th, Georgia was 2nd and 8th, and Alabama was 5th and 22nd so all 4 playoff participant's were more qualified than UCF outside of being undefeated. Again that was a hell of a season and has propelled the G5 forward, but I just can't find an argument that could have put them in the playoffs over the 4 that were chosen. I love your tenacity on the subject though, I know if we were in your shoes we would feel the exact same way. You can only play the teams they put in front of you and that team didn't lose.

You do know I actually agree with you that I also hoped UCF would crash the party? Like you said, they did not have the resume to make the top 4 but I wish they did. The 4 best teams were in the playoff and the national champion, Alabama, was crowned by the CFP.

NDSU received votes in the AP Poll and based on Citro's argument then NDSU should have been ranked ahead of UCF and App State in 2019 because they could only beat who was put in front of them and they did beat a FBS opponent. That would look insane because they are competing against teams with much weaker talent week in an week out. That is the deal with us and App State now. We don't have the talent or the resume to even argue for a national title. Until we are in a P5 league that will not happen.

You guys are making arguments as fans because it benefits your teams. Be objective and look at it the way you would if you were head of the CFP and had to pick the 4 best teams. You put the 4 best teams in the CFP and the resumes, as well as talent on the field, are what you consider in picking them.

[AppStFan1]

I hate to sound like a broken record but this is why you're 100% wrong. You keep going back to what you think people respect more and all that, which again I don't disagree with your opinions on which polls are more well regarded. But that has 0 weight on what the actual governing body recognizes. None. No, the NCAA wouldn't agree with what you're saying. They'd tell you exactly what I have. Alabama is the 2017 CFP and consensus national champs and UCF is also a recognized national champ by being named #1 in a major selector.

It can't get anymore hand fed than this. I provided the actual PDF from the NCAA that names major selectors and their function along with the champions as named by each major selector for every year in FBS record.

You again are extrapolating from something that's not there. You're sending the same short list which again, shows the consensus champs and those recognized by the more mainstream polls but are not exhaustive lists that include every single champ. Nowhere on that page or in the sources provided does it say these are the only recognized NCAA champions. Nowhere has the NCAA decided to change course to stop counting all major selector designated champs.

As fans we can definitely argue influence of the CFP, AP, and coaches poll and say more fans care about those than the CM. Totally valid. Not just your position on the argument, but simply being able to have the argument itself is 100% valid. But whether it counts for the NCAA is a simple yes or no question and it's yes as shown by the NCAAs own records. Has nothing to do with who respects it or any of that. Plenty laugh at the 1941 Alabama claim, a team that finished with a 9-2 record and 20th in the AP poll, but by finishing #1 in the Houlgate System, it counts. We can debate how stupid it is but there's no debating that it counts. We can also debate the rules allowing it (and UCF's claim) to count are stupid, but they still count.

I sent you the 2020 version of the SAME file you sent me from 2017. Stop going by 2017 because it is outdated. Alabama is the consensus 2017 champion. Plain and simple. Unless you win the playoff you are not the champion. This would be like the Ivy League Champion claiming a share of the FCS title despite not being in the playoffs because Massey or some other computer rating has them rated the highest.

No you didn't. I did send the 2017 one by mistake the FIRST time and first time only. Then I sent you the updated one. You never sent the update file you claim at all you just kept sending the same drop down short lists. Once again, here's the updated PDF.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... ll-records

It even says 2020. Click on it and you'll see. At this point you're just making things up. It's clearly on there. Click on it. 2020 FBS Records.

Here, I'll even copy and paste it for you:

2017
Alabama: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today
+UCF: Colley

2018
Clemson: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

2019
LSU: College Football Playoff, AP, †FW-NFF, USA Today

Nothing changed from 2017 to 2019, so why would all of a sudden an update to their records take away UCF? They didn't.

Also your Ivy league comparison is way off. It's like you're literally not listening to my points or understand how FBS vs FCS works. The CFP is NOT the official NCAA FBS tournament, that's why the Colley Matrix counts. The FCS has an actual NCAA tournament so there is 100% no question on who the champ is at the end of the season. A conference like the Ivy league simply choosing to sit out of the only NCAA recognized championship tournament for the FCS level is completely different.

First, a tidbit of advice: arguing with AppStFan1 is an exercise in futility. Next your undefeated season was amazing and I was honestly hoping you guys would crash the playoff party. Here is my question though; by what metric(other than Volley) do you believe UCF deserved to be in the playoffs? UCF's Strength of Record was 10th and Strength of Schedule was 75th, Clemson was 6th and 10th, Oklahoma was 8th and 25th, Georgia was 2nd and 8th, and Alabama was 5th and 22nd so all 4 playoff participant's were more qualified than UCF outside of being undefeated. Again that was a hell of a season and has propelled the G5 forward, but I just can't find an argument that could have put them in the playoffs over the 4 that were chosen. I love your tenacity on the subject though, I know if we were in your shoes we would feel the exact same way. You can only play the teams they put in front of you and that team didn't lose.

Great questions all around. There's a few ways of looking at it.

One is why just 4? This subdivision has 130 teams and we're only making room for 4? FCS has 24 spots for 127 teams, D2 has 28 for 169, and D3 has 32 for 250. Just to make a point that this isn't just lower division football doing this, MLB has 10 spots for 30 teams, the nba has 16 spots for 30 teams, D1 college basketball has 68 spots for 353 teams. Point being that no matter which sport, the CFP in FBS is way smaller than any other playoff in college or the pros.

You make great points with the schedule. There's multiple ways to measure strength of schedule, and in none of them would UCF have been top 4. But all these teams are in the same football subdivision and also like you said, you can only play the teams in front of you on your schedule, which the majority of a teams schedule is it's conference.

But were there a true and expanded playoff tournament, the teams with tougher schedules would be rewarded with a bye round like in FCS. As well as higher seeding that would give them home field advantage.

The CFP in some regards has gotten praise for going from 2 to 4 teams when compared with the BCS. Not a great final number but a stepping stone to more hopefully. But it when backwards in the selection method. The BCS was imperfect for a lot of the same reasons, including way too few spots and plenty of subjectivity. But it seemed more fair by weighing in 3 human polls (which while sometimes we think of each poll as monolith, we have to remember that each member of the usually 50+ member polls vote completely on their own and the output from the AP or Coaches polls are just the average of their voters) and 6 computer systems. Now the CFP is not a poll but rather a group deciding on one single ranking that represents them as a group. And this group happens to be skewed towards the P5 conferences.

This is really long and I do apologize, but one last bit lol. You're probably rightly thinking that even though all 130 teams are FBS, they're far from equal. And that's totally true. I think FBS needs to shrink. There's deadweight, mostly in the G5 conferences, that aren't meeting attendance numbers (not in reality but they'll fudge the numbers reported) and their athletic budgets are too small for them to truly stand a fighting chance. Several of these need to go. You'll increase parity this way. It hadn't helped the G5 that really do invest in their programs to be anchored down by these teams while similarly bad P5 get elevated by simply being associated with the true P5 elites. They get TV money and recruiting bumps because of it. You cut out the deadweight, create an actual NCAA tournament with a clear path for every team (win your conference or be good enough to earn an at large bid) and you'll end up with a better FBS product that is truly determined on the field.

On that link you sent I clicked the Championship records and it actually has the FCS, D2, and D3 because those are the levels that the NCAA picks a champion for: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/stati ... nd-records

I only pointed out the list I did because the NCAA listed the official champions each year on the pages I showed you. It is why their are years with multiple teams but lately the CFP winner is the official champ. I don't even know if Colley was used in the BCS standings before but I know that nobody uses it now.

I agree with you guys the playoff could be better if it was 8 teams but until it is the champion comes from a 4-team field. I would like to see 8 but no more because I think more than 8 waters it down. Before you say look at the other levels they are watered down. NDSU is so good they are still winning it but I have seen teams win the national title in D2, for example, who did not even win their conference title. If you want an example then recently West Florida did it.

[AppStFan1]

This is really long and I do apologize, but one last bit lol. You're probably rightly thinking that even though all 130 teams are FBS, they're far from equal. And that's totally true. I think FBS needs to shrink. There's deadweight, mostly in the G5 conferences, that aren't meeting attendance numbers (not in reality but they'll fudge the numbers reported) and their athletic budgets are too small for them to truly stand a fighting chance. Several of these need to go. You'll increase parity this way. It hadn't helped the G5 that really do invest in their programs to be anchored down by these teams while similarly bad P5 get elevated by simply being associated with the true P5 elites. They get TV money and recruiting bumps because of it. You cut out the deadweight, create an actual NCAA tournament with a clear path for every team (win your conference or be good enough to earn an at large bid) and you'll end up with a better FBS product that is truly determined on the field.

I wanted to highlight this part and comment because you guys hit the nail here. All 130 are not equal by any means. There are at least 5 FCS programs better than the bottom 20-25 G5 programs every year. While there is not an official separation the G5 is pretty much the second tier of college football. A G5 could technically win the CFP but with how it is set up it just won't ever happen. They may as well officially break up the FBS into two divisions and make FCS the third tier of college football.