Central Florida actually made championship rings for their season

Donate To GopherHole
MennoSota said:
Women didn't qualify to vote until 1920.
Good for UCF. Give a big two fisted middle finger to the NCAA.
Click to expand...

By that logic, I guess Charles Hughes can claim he was president from 1916-1920 instead of Woodrow Wilson.
 

tato2001 said:
By that logic, I guess Charles Hughes can claim he was president from 1916-1920 instead of Woodrow Wilson.
Click to expand...
Do you believe women were inferior and not worthy of being a President because they were not given the right to vote or participate?
I bet you don't.
So, UCF should not be looked down upon because they were not given the same access as a P-5 school, despite the fact they beat a major P-5 school and went undefeated.
Give them respect and don't look down on UCF for claiming something they should have legitimately had the right to participate in.
 

MennoSota said:
Do you believe women were inferior and not worthy of being a President because they were not given the right to vote or participate?
I bet you don't.
So, UCF should not be looked down upon because they were not given the same access as a P-5 school, despite the fact they beat a major P-5 school and went undefeated.
Give them respect and don't look down on UCF for claiming something they should have legitimately had the right to participate in.
Click to expand...

+1000 You nailed it.

I will add UCF's claimed championship is more valid than Alabama's 1941 claimed championship. Alabama finished 3rd in their own conference that year. Every major poll back then picked Minnesota as the 1941 champion.

My point is lots of schools have more outrageous claims then an undefeated group of 5 team that beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl.
 

MennoSota said:
Do you believe women were inferior and not worthy of being a President because they were not given the right to vote or participate?
I bet you don't.
So, UCF should not be looked down upon because they were not given the same access as a P-5 school, despite the fact they beat a major P-5 school and went undefeated.
Give them respect and don't look down on UCF for claiming something they should have legitimately had the right to participate in.
Click to expand...

When I first saw that UCF had claimed themselves as national champions, I thought nothing could be more silly and embarrassing and then I read MennSota's and Fargo's argument for it.
 

MennoSota said:
Do you believe women were inferior and not worthy of being a President because they were not given the right to vote or participate?
I bet you don't.
So, UCF should not be looked down upon because they were not given the same access as a P-5 school, despite the fact they beat a major P-5 school and went undefeated.
Give them respect and don't look down on UCF for claiming something they should have legitimately had the right to participate in.
Click to expand...

And UCF likely wouldn't have had a shot to play in the playoffs or win a natty had they played a full SEC or B1G schedule. It's similar to NDSU fans always claiming that because they beat a B1G team every once in awhile, that they would somehow still be competitive playing in the B1G all season.

If you want to make these claims, move up and play with the big boys and prove it. UCF is more than capable of that. Until then, their natty claim is ridiculous.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
And UCF likely wouldn't have had a shot to play in the playoffs or win a natty had they played a full SEC or B1G schedule. It's similar to NDSU fans always claiming that because they beat a B1G team every once in awhile, that they would somehow still be competitive playing in the B1G all season.

If you want to make these claims, move up and play with the big boys and prove it. UCF is more than capable of that. Until then, their natty claim is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yup. They'd be a mid-range team most likely in the B1G or SEC. Not to say they suck, their achievements are great, but play a full schedule and they wouldn't stand a chance at playoffs.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Yup. They'd be a mid-range team most likely in the B1G or SEC. Not to say they suck, their achievements are great, but play a full schedule and they wouldn't stand a chance at playoffs.
Click to expand...
They would have won the B1G West in 2017.
 

In a world where the 2014 Ohio State squad:

Lost by two TDs at home to a 7-6 VA tech team
Needed 2 overtimes to defeat a 7-6 Penn State
Wouldn’t have sniffed opportunity for the championship if the BCS were still around (and everyone would say the right teams made it to the championship...)
With their third string QB...
Improbably won the CFP title

We hear the same tired arguments that the right teams made it in...heard the same during the BCS. Sometimes teams that shouldn’t win, do win.
 




Penn State won the NIT. If they had happened to play Creighton in the tournament, could they claim a national championship? The analogy is especially apt because the victory over a common foe would have come in a game that meant nothing and thus resulted in questionable levels of motivation.

There's a system in place to determine the national champion now. It's not like it was 70 or even 20 years ago.

I would be embarrassed by this if I were a UCF alum/fan. It's basically admitting that last year was as it good as it will ever get for them and they're only option is to claim illegitimate national titles. I look forward to them returning to obscure mediocrity.
 

justthefacts said:
There's a system in place to determine the national champion now. It's not like it was 70 or even 20 years ago.

I would be embarrassed by this if I were a UCF alum/fan. It's basically admitting that last year was as it good as it will ever get for them and they're only option is to claim illegitimate national titles. I look forward to them returning to obscure mediocrity.
Click to expand...

Is it more or less embarrassing than the Gophers claiming a championship over 100 years after the fact?
 

Ski U Master said:
Is it more or less embarrassing than the Gophers claiming a championship over 100 years after the fact?
Click to expand...

It's more. At least then there were no real structures in place 100 years ago. There is a clear process for determining the champion now and UCF just doesn't like it.
 



justthefacts said:
Penn State won the NIT. If they had happened to play Creighton in the tournament, could they claim a national championship? The analogy is especially apt because the victory over a common foe would have come in a game that meant nothing and thus resulted in questionable levels of motivation.

There's a system in place to determine the national champion now. It's not like it was 70 or even 20 years ago.

I would be embarrassed by this if I were a UCF alum/fan. It's basically admitting that last year was as it good as it will ever get for them and they're only option is to claim illegitimate national titles. I look forward to them returning to obscure mediocrity.
Click to expand...

In your hypothetical, does Penn State go undefeated for the whole season, including postseason?
 

MennoSota said:
Do you believe women were inferior and not worthy of being a President because they were not given the right to vote or participate?
I bet you don't.
So, UCF should not be looked down upon because they were not given the same access as a P-5 school, despite the fact they beat a major P-5 school and went undefeated.
Give them respect and don't look down on UCF for claiming something they should have legitimately had the right to participate in.
Click to expand...

Wow, you have an uncanny ability to open you mouth and put your arse in it. What a ridiculous analogy.
They do not have a legitimate right to participate in the championship series. The BCS is an invitation only event with their own selection criteria. Right or wrong, the selection committee did not feel that a one shot wonder from a weak conference deserved it over the P5 schools that they selected. Done, end of story, you can not claim to have won a tournament that you where never in.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/04/al...ngs-football-troll-ucf-central-florida-photos



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

justthefacts said:
Penn State won the NIT. If they had happened to play Creighton in the tournament, could they claim a national championship? The analogy is especially apt because the victory over a common foe would have come in a game that meant nothing and thus resulted in questionable levels of motivation.

There's a system in place to determine the national champion now. It's not like it was 70 or even 20 years ago.

I would be embarrassed by this if I were a UCF alum/fan. It's basically admitting that last year was as it good as it will ever get for them and they're only option is to claim illegitimate national titles. I look forward to them returning to obscure mediocrity.
Click to expand...

Please explain how it can get better than not losing a game. I'll hang up and listen.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
In your hypothetical, does Penn State go undefeated for the whole season, including postseason?
Click to expand...

We haven't had an undefeated national champion in hoops since 1976. Teams with more losses than other teams win the title every single year.
 


justthefacts said:
They could make the actual playoffs.
Click to expand...

And I think this is the point they are actually trying to make.... an 8 team playoff would have included them for sure. Not that this subject hasn't been beaten to death over and over again....
 

alchemy2u said:
Wow, you have an uncanny ability to open you mouth and put your arse in it. What a ridiculous analogy.
They do not have a legitimate right to participate in the championship series. The BCS is an invitation only event with their own selection criteria. Right or wrong, the selection committee did not feel that a one shot wonder from a weak conference deserved it over the P5 schools that they selected. Done, end of story, you can not claim to have won a tournament that you where never in.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/04/al...ngs-football-troll-ucf-central-florida-photos



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Invitation only...like women before 1920...got it.
 

OddStack said:
Please explain how it can get better than not losing a game. I'll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...

There have been multiple undefeated teams in the BCS/College Playoff era who didn't get a chance to play for the national championship. Among others, notably included in that list are 2004 Auburn (who won the SEC and beat four Top 10 teams, as opposed to the one UCF played) and 2010 TCU. The difference is that those teams had the dignity to not claim an unearned national championship, let alone actually have rings made. It's pathetic.
 

I love it only for the fact it makes people go nuts defending what has historically been an unsatisfactory, partisan, and genuinely absurd system for naming champions. Pot meet kettle.
 

justthefacts said:
It's more. At least then there were no real structures in place 100 years ago. There is a clear process for determining the champion now and UCF just doesn't like it.
Click to expand...
The structures that were in place 100 years ago awarded the title to someone else. The Gophers added the title 100 years later based on a poll that was INVENTED about 60 years after the season was played. I think it's on par with UCF, but UCF has made it slightly more embarrassing by promoting it so heavily
 

dpodoll68 said:
There have been multiple undefeated teams in the BCS/College Playoff era who didn't get a chance to play for the national championship. Among others, notably included in that list are 2004 Auburn (who won the SEC and beat four Top 10 teams, as opposed to the one UCF played) and 2010 TCU. The difference is that those teams had the dignity to not claim an unearned national championship, let alone actually have rings made. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

Auburn also wasn't allowed to play in post season because of violations. There was some thought that they might get named champs in one of the polls, but they didn't.

The thing is, until the NCAA declares a national champion, all it takes is one person saying they think they won it and why can't they claim it? There is no process for determining a champ in NCAA bylaws, so their claim is as legitimate as anything else.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I love it only for the fact it makes people go nuts defending what has historically been an unsatisfactory, partisan, and genuinely absurd system for naming champions. Pot meet kettle.
Click to expand...
Great post!
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
Auburn also wasn't allowed to play in post season because of violations.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They were allowed to play in the postseason and did so - as SEC champion, they played in the Sugar Bowl and beat ACC champion Virginia Tech. They were deemed the third-best of three undefeated major conference schools (behind USC and Oklahoma) and were left out of the national championship game.

Lakeville Goldy said:
The thing is, until the NCAA declares a national champion, all it takes is one person saying they think they won it and why can't they claim it? There is no process for determining a champ in NCAA bylaws, so their claim is as legitimate as anything else.
Click to expand...

They are free to claim whatever they want, and we are free to point out how embarrassing it is for them. It is most certainly not as legitimate as anything else - there is a system in place in which all schools have agreed to take part. By your logic, the Star Tribune could claim the Gophers as national champs and that would be just as legitimate as the CFP. Absurd.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Incorrect. They were allowed to play in the postseason and did so - as SEC champion, they played in the Sugar Bowl and beat ACC champion Virginia Tech. They were deemed the third-best of three undefeated major conference schools (behind USC and Oklahoma) and were left out of the national championship game.



They are free to claim whatever they want, and we are free to point out how embarrassing it is for them. It is most certainly not as legitimate as anything else - there is a system in place in which all schools have agreed to take part. By your logic, the Star Tribune could claim the Gophers as national champs and that would be just as legitimate as the CFP. Absurd.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they wouldn't claim it even if they did win the National Title. They'd find some deficiency in an effort to slight the home team and attempt to diminish the accomplishment. Happened in 1987 when the Twins won the world series......
 

Ski U Master said:
The structures that were in place 100 years ago awarded the title to someone else. The Gophers added the title 100 years later based on a poll that was INVENTED about 60 years after the season was played. I think it's on par with UCF, but UCF has made it slightly more embarrassing by promoting it so heavily
Click to expand...

There were no structures in place 100 years ago. Every major national championship selector listed in NCAA records and awarded for 1904 was INVENTED long after the games were actually played. Michigan was selected national champion by the National Championship Foundation, a retroactive entity that authorities consider to be very poor in their selections. Penn was selected national champion by the National Championship Foundation (retroactive), Houlgate System (retroactive - 1929), Helms Athletic Foundation (retroactive - 1936), and Parke Davis (retroactive - 1933). Minnesota was named national champion by the Billingsley Report, retroactive in the late 1960s. Does it really matter whether a retroactive selection is based on a selection 25 years later or 60 years later? Either way, it's not based on actually watching the games and assessing who was the best team. Michigan was 10-0 and outscored opponents 567-22. Penn was 12-0 and outscored opponents 222-4. Minnesota was 13-0 and outscored opponents 725-12. Minnesota had the most wins, the most points scored, the largest average margin of victory, etc., etc. Minnesota's claim is no less legitimate than anyone else's. The only common opponent among any of the three schools was wisconsin, who both Minnesota and Michigan beat in Madison by identical scores of 28-0 two weeks apart. I'm certain that you don't consider Penn's or Michigan's title claims "embarrassing". Minnesota's claim and UCF's claim aren't even on the same planet.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Minnesota was named national champion by the Billingsley Report, retroactive in the late 1960s. Does it really matter whether a retroactive selection is based on a selection 25 years later or 60 years later? .
Click to expand...
Why wait to claim it for 40+ years if it is so legit? It's horrible and anyone that is proud of that title should be ashamed of themselves.
 

Ski U Master said:
Why wait to claim it for 40+ years if it is so legit? It's horrible and anyone that is proud of that title should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Why does the timing matter? You're reaching desperately for something to once again sh1t on the U about. I honestly don't know why you post here. It's no wonder that you question why anyone would be proud of something the U accomplished in football - your entire schtick is making fun of anything at all to be positive about regarding Gopher football. We have plenty of people in the world to do that without our own "fans" spending almost 5,000 posts doing so.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom