Should UCF have been included in the College Football Playoff?
81%
Yes
WINNER
19%
No
81%
Yes
19%
No
Good team with great story, but no early Georgia Tech victory hurt their chances to get in Top 10 earlier.
Reply ReplyWeek in and week out in apower five conference.....good luck....ya gotta play defense!
Reply ReplyNot under the current system. However, expand the playoff to 6 teams and make the New years 6 qualifier, one of the 6 teams if they are undefeated. Unless they are undefeated, the schedules of those teams will never come close to being strong enough to justify inclusion with a loss.
Reply ReplyI believe UCF could have played with/beat any of the four playoff teams. But the strength of schedule just wasn't there to be fair to other teams in the playoff.
Reply ReplyThe 4 best teams were probably in. It just needs to be 8 to let the little guys have a chance.
Reply ReplyHow many teams would be undefeated with UCF's schedule? And If Scott Frost isn't involved, Husker fans wouldn't care.
Reply Reply
Proved it on the field.
ReplyAbsolutely. They had every right to be in the playoff. It's real simple for the schools that want to be in the playoff - DON'T LOSE. The fact that a smaller conference team simply cannot make the playoff is absurd.
ReplyWhy not?
Replythe system is slanted toward the big conferences but should always take into account an unbeaten team from anywhere. UCF was not given the respect that they deserve and now we have two SEC teams and a national championship that nobody cares about.
Reply12 and 0 no losses how could they not be playing what other teams have losses they just got screwed !
ReplyUndefeated and beat a top-ten team.
Replyboth Georgia and Ala lost.
ReplyI think any team in the FBS that goes undefeated and is the only undefeated team in the FBS should automatically seeded in the playoffs even if it's the 4th seed.
ReplyThey went undefeated and should at least been given a shot
ReplyThe evidence is pretty strong that UCF deserved to be in the playoff, having defeated Auburn, the team which beat both of the teams playing for the NC.
ReplyThere needs to be more than four.
ReplyInvitational Playoffs are not real Playoffs, Ohio State and UCF should have been in, everyone says their schedule was weak, then let that show in the playoffs
ReplyPlayoffs should be 8 Teams and not 4 Teams. All Power 5 Conf champs plus best records after that.
ReplyOU and Georgia scored over 100 combined in their game. Looked more like a track meet than a football game. I do not consider any team a #1 contender with defenses that give up that many points. Clemson couldn't score a TD, Only Bama looked like a #1 and I hate saying that. who's left? UCF
ReplyConsidering that one of the teams that is playing for the national championship didnt even win the conference. NCAA needs to look at the other levels of football for palyoffs
ReplyIt is all hindsight since they beat Auburn, but with hindsight being 20/20, yeah, they might be the best team in the country.
ReplyThe current system is flawed, eliminating the possibility of unlikely, outlier contenders whose merit is proven most at the crushing end of a season -- like UCF.
ReplyUCF beat every team they faced, they did not pick their division.... The two teams in playoffs both have losses... Alabama did not win their division or their conference... This is favortisim towards the SEC... excludes teams who earned their right to be there.
ReplyThe Current system is Bull, any team that is undefeated by this point in the season should have instant consideration. The system needs to be fixed.
ReplyThey Should Have Been Giving A Chance They Were Good
ReplyUCF should share a split national championship with the AL - GA winner!
ReplyBut wasn’t realistic. Let’s be honest. Even tho all Husker nation wanted a UCF win, very few thought there was a real chance. I knew they were good and had heart and great coaching but if a lot of us are honest we hoped UCF would be competitive.
ReplyThey went undefeated
ReplyYou have no idea how good they were, but they defeated everyone put in their way.
Reply