Trump to attend Georgia-Alabama football championship game, Kendrick Lamar performs at half-time

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

auburn beat Georgia, and then Georgia beat auburn in the SEC Championship.

LSU beat auburn. Alabama beat LSU.
Clemson beat auburn. Alabama beat Clemson.
Georgia beat auburn in the SEC Championship. Alabama beat Georgia for the National Championship.

I would not have argued if UCF had made the playoffs. But they didn't.

Your circular reasoning dead-ends at UCF because no one beat them.
Since they were not included in the playoff in spite of their record, the playoff is moot.

It is not circular reasoning. The people who rank the teams, whether for the playoffs or not, did not consider UCF to be one of the 4 best teams in the nation. The main reason, as I understand it, was strength of schedule.

They obviously messed up.
In 1973, Penn St finished unbeaten, had the Heisman winner but their opponent in the Sugar Bowl (LSU, 9-3) lost to another unbeaten (Alabama)who eventually lost to another unbeaten (Notre Dame) and, consequently, PSU's weak schedule left them ranked 5th. (OU also finished unbeaten that year)
In 1984, BYU had a weak schedule and beat a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl but finished #1 because no one else finished unbeaten.
In 1975, Arizona St finished unbeaten and beat Nebraska in their bowl game but due to their weak schedule (they were not yet in the Pac 8) and the fact that OU crushed Nebraska in their season finale, ASU finished #2 and OU finished #1 instead in spite of having one loss (to Kansas, 23-3, November 8).
What is significant this time around is that CFU was snubbed unfairly. They are the only unbeaten team and beat the team who beat the two runner-up finalists.
In the name of sportsmanship and fairness, this is pretty clear cut. The pollsters and the committee have egg on their faces and won't admit it.

First of all, you keep talking about UCF beating the team that beat AL and GA. That happened in the bowl game. There was no way to know the outcome of the bowl game when the playoff schedule was being made.

Second of all, the fact that auburn beat Alabama, and then was beaten by UCF does not mean UCF was a better team than Alabama. Alabama beat 2 teams that beat auburn.

Also, strength of schedule is a big factor in selecting the place in the polls.

So you think opinion is more significant than an actual game. Lets not even play the games. Just turn the entire season into a beauty pageant.

Let UCF play about 3 top 25 teams and see how they turn out in the win-loss column.

 

[WinterBorn]

auburn beat Georgia, and then Georgia beat auburn in the SEC Championship.

LSU beat auburn. Alabama beat LSU.
Clemson beat auburn. Alabama beat Clemson.
Georgia beat auburn in the SEC Championship. Alabama beat Georgia for the National Championship.

I would not have argued if UCF had made the playoffs. But they didn't.

Your circular reasoning dead-ends at UCF because no one beat them.
Since they were not included in the playoff in spite of their record, the playoff is moot.

It is not circular reasoning. The people who rank the teams, whether for the playoffs or not, did not consider UCF to be one of the 4 best teams in the nation. The main reason, as I understand it, was strength of schedule.

They obviously messed up.
In 1973, Penn St finished unbeaten, had the Heisman winner but their opponent in the Sugar Bowl (LSU, 9-3) lost to another unbeaten (Alabama)who eventually lost to another unbeaten (Notre Dame) and, consequently, PSU's weak schedule left them ranked 5th. (OU also finished unbeaten that year)
In 1984, BYU had a weak schedule and beat a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl but finished #1 because no one else finished unbeaten.
In 1975, Arizona St finished unbeaten and beat Nebraska in their bowl game but due to their weak schedule (they were not yet in the Pac 8) and the fact that OU crushed Nebraska in their season finale, ASU finished #2 and OU finished #1 instead in spite of having one loss (to Kansas, 23-3, November 8).
What is significant this time around is that CFU was snubbed unfairly. They are the only unbeaten team and beat the team who beat the two runner-up finalists.
In the name of sportsmanship and fairness, this is pretty clear cut. The pollsters and the committee have egg on their faces and won't admit it.

First of all, you keep talking about UCF beating the team that beat AL and GA. That happened in the bowl game. There was no way to know the outcome of the bowl game when the playoff schedule was being made.

Second of all, the fact that auburn beat Alabama, and then was beaten by UCF does not mean UCF was a better team than Alabama. Alabama beat 2 teams that beat auburn.

Also, strength of schedule is a big factor in selecting the place in the polls.

So you think opinion is more significant than an actual game. Lets not even play the games. Just turn the entire season into a beauty pageant.

No, lets not. But it was not just the playoff selection committee that did not think UCF was one of the four best teams in the country. The AP and Coaches polls didn't either.

There are several things used to determine who gets in the playoffs.