Replying to
@ELA and
@Cincydawg :
I agree that you schedule programs not teams and UCF took a big hit there because UNC and Pitt are both at the low end of their usual result in this scenario.
That is somewhat compensated for by the fact that, as ELA pointed out, their other OOC FBS opponent (FAU) is about as good as could be hoped for.
That said, scheduling an FCS opponent is bad enough when you are an SEC team, it is even worse when you are an AAC team because an AAC team doesn't have a tough conference schedule to make up for it. In this scenario it appears that UCF's toughest opponents are:
Realistically, for any CFP contender beyond that it simply doesn't matter. Any of them along with tOSU, MSU, and a number of other quality teams would EASILY beat the rest of UCF opponents. Every other contender will have easily played at least six teams tougher than UCF's third toughest opponent. The schedules simply are not comparable.
Finally, we've had this debate before but I will reiterate my belief that teams should be judged based on who they played not based on who they tried to play:
- My team has TCU this year. If TCU ends up going 0-12 this year, Ohio State should not get "extra credit" because they thought TCU would be better than that.
- Similarly, my team has OrSU this year. If OrSU goes 13-0 this year, Ohio State should not be "docked" CFP points because they were only trying to play a middling-to-bad PAC team not the PAC Champion.
This isn't 5 year old T-ball, we shouldn't be grading based on effort.