Coach Saban Addressed UCF's "National Championship"

[dayhiker]

Of course you can, as long you don't try to compare apples and oranges.

In the NFL, the reality is most schedules are pretty dang comparable, because the teams are, generally speaking, pretty dang comparable. CFB is far different in that regard, and anyone with a brain knows that half (or more) of the SEC would have gone undefeated with UCF's schedule.

So yah, I can absolutely make the argument that they don't deserve to be there while making the argument that any playoff allowing a 9-7 team is a farce - two different situations...

In other news, did you see that Texas canceled their upcoming 2022/2023 series with UCF in order to schedule it with us?

 

[81usaf92]

Of course you can, as long you don't try to compare apples and oranges.

In the NFL, the reality is most schedules are pretty dang comparable, because the teams are, generally speaking, pretty dang comparable. CFB is far different in that regard, and anyone with a brain knows that half (or more) of the SEC would have gone undefeated with UCF's schedule.

So yah, I can absolutely make the argument that they don't deserve to be there while making the argument that any playoff allowing a 9-7 team is a farce - two different situations...

A 9-7 team that played the hardest schedule in the league while the #1 team played one of the weakest that year. NYG were even deserving by college standards. You can question whether or not they deserved to host a WC but they were clearly a deserving team.

 

[crimsonaudio]

A 9-7 team that played the hardest schedule in the league while the #1 team played one of the weakest that year. NYG were even deserving by college standards. You can question whether or not they deserved to host a WC but they were clearly a deserving team.

But schedule strength alone shouldn't decide it - they lost nearly half their games in a league that is FAR more equal across the board than CFB. Where's the cutoff? Go 0-16 against the hardest schedule and you still get a shot, LOL?

That's what its means to say the regular season matters (or not) - schedule strength combined with W/L is what it refers to.

 

[B1GTide]

Of course you can, as long you don't try to compare apples and oranges.

In the NFL, the reality is most schedules are pretty dang comparable, because the teams are, generally speaking, pretty dang comparable. CFB is far different in that regard, and anyone with a brain knows that half (or more) of the SEC would have gone undefeated with UCF's schedule.

So yah, I can absolutely make the argument that they don't deserve to be there while making the argument that any playoff allowing a 9-7 team is a farce - two different situations...

I think that the key thing that annoys college football fans about something like a 9-7 team making the playoffs is that it appears to make regular season games less important. But the reality is that this is not true. Because of the relative parity it is virtually impossible for a team to make it through an NFL team undefeated (it has only happened once).

Lose only 4 games even without winning your division and making the NFL playoffs is a virtual certainty. Why? Because parity will result in most teams losing more than 4 games, whether they win their division or not. The college football analogy would be - losing one game in a P5 conference while winning your conference and you are a virtual certainty to make it to the CFP - and lose only one game without winning your conference still gives you life.

There are exceptions to both, but this generally holds true. That is the difference - 4 to 1. So 7 losses in a divisional champion in the NFL roughly equates to 2 losses in a P5 conference champion. So, when will we see a 2 loss team in the CFP? We almost had it happen last year. It will happen eventually. And that 2 loss conference champion will have a very legit chance of beating anyone else in the bracket because at the top of the sport, anything can happen in a given game.

Losing 7 games in the NFL is rough, but it is similar to losing 2 games in a P5 conference. And that is far from terrible. Most college football teams would love to only lose 2 games in 2018, and every P5 team with 2 losses or less will consider themselves "in the hunt" until the very end.

 

[81usaf92]

But schedule strength alone shouldn't decide it .

No but it should be a serious factor

- they lost nearly half their games in a league that is FAR more equal across the board than CFB.

.

Yeah but they still had a better record than over half of the league with the hardest schedule in the league. You can argue whether or not they deserved a home game but not that they didn't deserve to be there. Does anyone really want to argue that LSU wasn't deserving in 2007 of being in the discussion.

Where's the cutoff?

6 NFC 6 AFC. that's fair

Go 0-16 against the hardest schedule and you still get a shot, LOL?

.

now you are just being silly. I can tell you one thing, The NFL is far less controversial in deciding a champion than College football. You can seriously make a case that tOSU deserved that #4 spot more than us.

That's what its means to say the regular season matters (or not) - schedule strength combined with W/L is what it refers to.

Actually the NFL regular season really DOES matter. Win your conference and play at home for atleast 1 game in the playoffs, win your conference in the regular season and the playoffs go through you, and just inch in the playoffs and you better have frequent flyer points.​

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]​

 

[Skeeterpop]

If Alabama is undefeated and fails to make the CFP for some reason. You go on to win your bowl game, finishing 14-0. Now, the 4th ranked team that made it into the playoffs wins the CFP, but they have one loss. The AP decides to award Alabama with their trophy.

Yes - you would hang a banner. So would every other program in America.

This theory is flawed. A 13-0 Alabama would never be left out of the top 4. End of story.

 

[B1GTide]

This theory is flawed. A 13-0 Alabama would never be left out of the top 4. End of story.

Maybe - There is a lot of Bama hate out there.

 

[CrimsonForce]

Maybe - There is a lot of Bama hate out there.

Not by the people who matter in this regard which is the playoff selection committee. Quite the opposite actually..

 

[GP for Bama]

We should just drop the 1941 "championship" now. All the others are legit.

 

[RedWave]

We should just drop the 1941 "championship" now. All the others are legit.

I wouldn't mind if we stopped counting any prior to 1961, actually.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

I Just saw on the B'ham news where Danny Kanell said Bama was not the best team in the nation because they did not win their conference. LOL. Then -- get this -- then Kanell said Auburn was the best team in the SEC. Huh? So ..... Auburn can be the best team in the SEC and not win the conference but Bama can't. Oh. That is real, real smart right there.

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

Maybe - There is a lot of Bama hate out there.

Yes, it didn’t stop a one loss Bama team from getting in though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

“Alabama probably has one or two championships that they claim that weren’t necessarily recognized by everybody,” Frost said.


While true, UCF’s “championship” isn’t recognized by anybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

We should just drop the 1941 "championship" now. All the others are legit.

Just add 66 then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Of course you can, as long you don't try to compare apples and oranges.

In the NFL, the reality is most schedules are pretty dang comparable, because the teams are, generally speaking, pretty dang comparable. CFB is far different in that regard, and anyone with a brain knows that half (or more) of the SEC would have gone undefeated with UCF's schedule.

So yah, I can absolutely make the argument that they don't deserve to be there while making the argument that any playoff allowing a 9-7 team is a farce - two different situations...

You're basically saying then your beef is with how many playoff teams there are. But you made the claim that the regular season didn't matter.

But it DID, in fact, matter because:
a) 12 teams made the playoffs, six in each league
b) the Giants had one of the 6 best records in their 16-team league

The fact the record was 9-7 is irrelevant.


Cincinnati was 9-7 that year and made the playoffs, too. Nobody even remembers that because they got blown out on day one.

Furthermore, Green Bay won the Super Bowl with a 10-6 record as a #6 seed the year before.

What makes the NFL's playoff problematic is they have four-team divisions that enables it to happen. But the fact so few 9-7 teams actually make it there is a vindication, not a condemnation.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

You're basically saying then your beef is with how many playoff teams there are. But you made the claim that the regular season didn't matter.

But it DID, in fact, matter because:
a) 12 teams made the playoffs, six in each league
b) the Giants had one of the 6 best records in their 16-team league

The fact the record was 9-7 is irrelevant.


Cincinnati was 9-7 that year and made the playoffs, too. Nobody even remembers that because they got blown out on day one.

Furthermore, Green Bay won the Super Bowl with a 10-6 record as a #6 seed the year before.

What makes the NFL's playoff problematic is they have four-team divisions that enables it to happen. But the fact so few 9-7 teams actually make it there is a vindication, not a condemnation.

It is possible in the NFL for a team to be 0-10-6 and still host a playoff game. It is unlikely but possible. I am hoping the college playoff never expands to include all conference winners. This could lead to terrible teams making the playoff.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

But schedule strength alone shouldn't decide it

It didn't. It was the fact they won enough games that did.

- they lost nearly half their games in a league that is FAR more equal across the board than CFB. Where's the cutoff? Go 0-16 against the hardest schedule and you still get a shot, LOL?

No, and even you know that's a ridiculous statement. If as you say they lost half of their games and really weren't good then the GOOD teams - and they played four of them and beat them all - should have beaten them rather easily as happened to the 9-7 Bengals the same year.

That's what its means to say the regular season matters (or not) - schedule strength combined with W/L is what it refers to.

Are you aware that in 2010, the Giants had a BETTER record and not only stayed home but watched a team with THREE FEWER WINS and a LOSING RECORD (Seattle) get a home first-round playoff game?

I actually agree with you that the way the NFL does the playoffs is fraught with problems but that's not due to scheduling but because of their insane division setup. Cut back to four eight-team divisions and let the winners of each one get the byes and it would be better.

And we wouldn't have 7-9 teams in the playoff. That's FAR more egregious than the 9-7 Giants going 13-7 and winning the Super Bowl.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It is possible in the NFL for a team to be 0-10-6 and still host a playoff game. It is unlikely but possible. I am hoping the college playoff never expands to include all conference winners. This could lead to terrible teams making the playoff.

I'm assuming that in your scenario that the six ties are all in the same division?

Since November 17, 2008 (9 1/2 years to the day) there have been FIVE NFL ties and you actually are asking me to believe we could have six in one season? I mean, this is stretching it. It's theoretically possible but so is the notion that I could hop in the sack with Kate Upton but let's have some semblance of reality here. (I have a better chance of that happening than we do of your scenario).

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I'm assuming that in your scenario that the six ties are all in the same division?

Since November 17, 2008 (9 1/2 years to the day) there have been FIVE NFL ties and you actually are asking me to believe we could have six in one season? I mean, this is stretching it. It's theoretically possible but so is the notion that I could hop in the sack with Kate Upton but let's have some semblance of reality here. (I have a better chance of that happening than we do of your scenario).

I am just messing with you Selma. I knew that would get a response from you.

In the NFL we have had a 7-9 team and a 7-8-1 team make the playoffs. I thought it was ridiculous then. There have also been quite a few 8-8 teams making the playoffs and most of those years there were teams with better records that stayed home and had to watch.

I think the 4 team playoff is perfect and never needs expansion ever, and the idea of all conference champs making it in is the dumbest idea in a long history of bad ideas.

 

[crimsonaudio]

No, and even you know that's a ridiculous statement. If as you say they lost half of their games and really weren't good then the GOOD teams - and they played four of them and beat them all - should have beaten them rather easily as happened to the 9-7 Bengals the same year.

Of course it's ridiculous.

You guys can defend this all day, but you're literally arguing that it's okay to let a team that barely won half it's games get into the playoffs is okay. That's fine, it's the NFL rules, but the point is it does mean the regular season results are minimized.

Heck, if the regular season is just as important than it is in CFB, then why do you see NFL teams resting starters after they've clinched a playoff spot / home field? Because those games no longer matter. You'd never see that in CFB as EVERY game has the potential to keep you out of the playoffs - as it should be.

So yah, I have a problem with the NFL playoff system - I literally said that about three pages back. It's as broken as March Madness, just in a (slightly) different way.

Every game still matters in CFB, and that's the way it should be.

Y'all can continue to make the same arguments over and over, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.