USF May Have Made Playoffs if Roles Were Reversed

[LAZL]

Had USF posted an undefeated season, they would've had a much better shot at making the playoffs than UCF. The reason is simple. National exposure.
Even though the UCF football program is nearly 20 years older than the Bull's, USF has played 24 more games against the Power 5, with a great deal more success.

Lets break down both schools:

USF all time vs Power 5 is 34-52. A win pct. of 0.395.
Biggest name wins are vs. Auburn, Clemson, Florida St., Miami and Notre Dame.

UCF all time vs Power 5 is 9-53. A win pct. of 0.145.
Biggest name wins are vs. Alabama, Auburn, Baylor, Georgia and Penn St.

Now, throw in Charlie Strong vs. Scott Frost. Again, the national exposure edge would have been heavily in favor of Coach Strong.
I'm not saying the Bulls would've gotten in, but the committee would have definitely given them a hell of a lot more consideration than they gave UCF.

 

[MartinManWildcatFan]

It is a shame they don't take 8 teams. All Conference champs should be in first round. The thought that Alabama was hurt when they lost the west is pretty lame. How about Auburn was hurt when they lost in the SEC Championship game. Alabama should have been in but how about Ohio State, UCF, and the Boise State and TCU a few years ago.

 

[Silver King]

Laz, man that's a great take. And MMWF, how many games do you think student athletes can take? I watched Miami, because of the hurricane, play 12 straight this year, lost their best three offensive weapons and flat ran out of gas. People talk about 8, and if they go to 8, they'll be right away wanting 16.

 

[MartinManWildcatFan]

Silver how do they do it in the old 1AA. Go back to 11 games then Conf ch games then 8,4,2. 15 games. This year Georgia played 15, Bama played 14 thanks to Auburn.

 

[Dan in Daytona]

Had USF posted an undefeated season, they would've had a much better shot at making the playoffs than UCF. The reason is simple. National exposure.
Even though the UCF football program is nearly 20 years older than the Bull's, USF has played 24 more games against the Power 5, with a great deal more success.

Lets break down both schools:

USF all time vs Power 5 is 34-52. A win pct. of 0.395.
Biggest name wins are vs. Auburn, Clemson, Florida St., Miami and Notre Dame.

UCF all time vs Power 5 is 9-53. A win pct. of 0.145.
Biggest name wins are vs. Alabama, Auburn, Baylor, Georgia and Penn St.

Now, throw in Charlie Strong vs. Scott Frost. Again, the national exposure edge would have been heavily in favor of Coach Strong.
I'm not saying the Bulls would've gotten in, but the committee would have definitely given them a hell of a lot more consideration than they gave UCF.

Damn Laz, a certain UCF believer is still savoring his team's National Championship and you go and throw unflattering, but true statistics out there to dampen his euphoria. Heard you hollered out to a group of school children over the holidays that Santa wasn't real. Come on man, lighten up.

 

[Choctaw_fan]

Both UCF and USF need to play at least one other in-state D1 teams every year to build their national exposure. Very few of their games were on ABC, CBS, or any of the ESPN stations.

I agree that all Power 5 champions should get in the playoff and one more week of games won't kill anybody. The problem is the conference champion is not always the best team in the conference. But, you'd have 3 at large bids to help them, just like Alabama this year.

 

[Silver King]

MMWF, Power 5 is primarily what makes up the games that are televised every week. The networks want as many games as they can squeeze out of the NCAA.

They did a 16-game playoff in NAIA way back when I played - in fact they did two divisions (finally went back to a single division). But 10 games decided who was going, not 11 or 12.

 

[LAZL]

Damn Laz, a certain UCF believer is still savoring his team's National Championship and you go and throw unflattering, but true statistics out there to dampen his euphoria. Heard you hollered out to a group of school children over the holidays that Santa wasn't real. Come on man, lighten up.

Yes I did Dan. I thought it would be more effective than just debunking the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Damn Laz, a certain UCF believer is still savoring his team's National Championship and you go and throw unflattering, but true statistics out there to dampen his euphoria. Heard you hollered out to a group of school children over the holidays that Santa wasn't real. Come on man, lighten up.

Well if he was being honest he would have said most of those "power five" wins came when they were in the big east and there were six "power conference." But he is also wrong with his idea that USF had a better shot, another fact he left out, usf's schedule was much weaker than UCF's this year not having to play Memphis or Navy. Their one "power conference" team they played was Illinois, a team that actually lost to Rutgers. Let me know if you need more facts there LAZ.

 

[LAZL]

Guinevere,

Here are a few facts

1) I am a statistician and I have the data.

2) I can make 1 + 1 equal anything I want.

3) You are biased and I am not.

 

[DarterBlue2]

Guinevere,

Here are a few facts

1) I am a statistician and I have the data.

2) I can make 1 + 1 equal anything I want.

3) You are biased and I am not.

LOL!

 

[Sir Galahad]

Guinevere,

Here are a few facts

1) I am a statistician and I have the data.

2) I can make 1 + 1 equal anything I want.

3) You are biased and I am not.

Yes we have all heard 1000 times you're a statistician but that hardly makes you right. Do tell us how many of USF's "big 6" wins came while USF was in the Big East. Do tell us how many of those happened at home because as a "statistician" you should know that chances are better to win at home and being in a conference they come to you. Do tell us how a team that had a much lower strength of schedule would have an easier time playing for the national championship? I'll wait...

 

[LAZL]

We can be annoying, can’t we? Yes, I indeed have answers to your questions but the one thing that is abundantly clear is your outright hatred of USF. I correctly stated that Da Bulls had much more football exposure and success against nationally known opponents than did the Knights and that the committee MAY have given USF more consideration. Is there anything “false” with the numbers I presented to substantiate my claim?
In your mind, they are somehow misleading and misrepresented.

So to your point. The Big East.

Yes, USF played in the Big East. Yes they did. They were in a conference that provided more national exposure. Again proving my main point in this post.
To your next point.
You want me to remove the games USF played vs their Big East opponents who now reside in Power 5 Conferences. You've already verified my greater exposure portion of the theme so it must be the success rate that has you bent out of shape.
Anyway, let’s do it:
USF
vs Pittsburgh (3-7),
Rutgers (2-7),
West Va. (3-4),
Syracuse (8-2)
Louisville (5-6)

If we remove these opponents from my original data, USF would still have a win pct of 0.277 which is almost twice as good as UCF’s 0.145 against the Power 5.
So even by manipulating my data, the results are still the same. USF has had more success against the Power 5 than UCF.
It should also be noted that UCF has a 2-8 record (0.200) vs the five teams I removed from USF’s data. Much worse than USF’s 0.447 against the same 5 schools.

In summary, we can wish in one hand and poop in the other, but while the AAC is arguably the best of the non-power 5 conferences, there is no Power 6. Despite what certain teams wear on their helmets.

 

[Sir Galahad]

We can be annoying, can’t we? Yes, I indeed have answers to your questions but the one thing that is abundantly clear is your outright hatred of USF. I correctly stated that Da Bulls had much more football exposure and success against nationally known opponents than did the Knights and that the committee MAY have given USF more consideration. Is there anything “false” with the numbers I presented to substantiate my claim?
In your mind, they are somehow misleading and misrepresented.

So to your point. The Big East.

Yes, USF played in the Big East. Yes they did. They were in a conference that provided more national exposure. Again proving my main point in this post.
To your next point.
You want me to remove the games USF played vs their Big East opponents who now reside in Power 5 Conferences. You've already verified my greater exposure portion of the theme so it must be the success rate that has you bent out of shape.
Anyway, let’s do it:
USF
vs Pittsburgh (3-7),
Rutgers (2-7),
West Va. (3-4),
Syracuse (8-2)
Louisville (5-6)

If we remove these opponents from my original data, USF would still have a win pct of 0.277 which is almost twice as good as UCF’s 0.145 against the Power 5.
So even by manipulating my data, the results are still the same. USF has had more success against the Power 5 than UCF.
It should also be noted that UCF has a 2-8 record (0.200) vs the five teams I removed from USF’s data. Much worse than USF’s 0.447 against the same 5 schools.

In summary, we can wish in one hand and poop in the other, but while the AAC is arguably the best of the non-power 5 conferences, there is no Power 6. Despite what certain teams wear on their helmets.

so the committee would take into account USF has won a few more games against P5 schools but won't take into account that USF has never a division or conference title. On top of that, you have yet to address USF's SOS for this past year, you know, the thing that was used against UCF and every other G5 school every year.

 

[LAZL]

Will someone please shoot this capa tosta? What part of “if Roles Were Reversed” do you not understand?
Yes, in 2017 UCF’s schedule strength by consensus was in the 60th range by consensus while USF’s schedule was in the 90th range.

 

[Silver King]

Don't try and use reason Lazl, doesn't work...