Official 2024 College Football Thread

[JPhillips]

I just can't see how Indiana is out given the competition.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just can't see how Indiana is out given the competition.

The lack of competition they've faced would be the how.

Absolutely zero reason to believe that's a top 12 team in the country ... and that's a low bar.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just can't see how Indiana is out given the competition.

Until today, they hadn't played a team that's any better than 6-5 right now.

With conference expansion, you can get away with schedules that defy all reason.

Look at the Big 12, where today's BYU/Arizona State game was the first and only time any of the current 6-2 conference teams play each other this season.

The difference between 1-loss teams and 3-loss teams is often just who they played. We're just not used to a playoff structure where that matters. Now it matters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This AU-A&M game is turning into an argument for just ending football due to the absence of officials capable of doing anything except fuck up.

Good Lord, this is Georgia high school caliber bad.

[SirFozzie]

Whoever designed those LED light tower shows after a score needs to be punished somehow.. gives me a migraine when the stadium does that after a team scores..

[GrantDawg]

Let the Lord of Chaos reign.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just can't see how Indiana is out given the competition.

Don't think they deserve it but I really doubt they're taking a bunch of 3 loss SEC teams either. Hell, Notre Dame is going to finish playing zero ranked teams themselves.

[Solecismic]

SEC (I think)... it's easy if Texas wins next week. Texas gets the rematch with Georgia.

If A&M wins next week... common games include only Florida and Mississippi State, whether Tennessee is involved in the tie-breaker or not.

Games between the four teams that could be 6-2 would include Texas A&M over Texas, Georgia over Tennessee and Georgia over Texas. That solves nothing.

I'm having trouble seeing a path for anything other than Texas A&M/Georgia in that case, based on strength of schedule. Different ways that works, but the Georgia HtH sweep if Texas A&M advances first helps.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Best I can tell, somehow, it's down to 3 teams. UGA is locked in apparently, awaits winner of Texas vs A&M.

[Solecismic]

Looking at conference tie-breakers for the purpose of determining the championship games, which may or may not help or hurt teams trying to reach the CFP.

Big Ten:

- Oregon (8-0) is in.
- Ohio State (7-1) is in if it beats Michigan next week or if Penn State loses to Maryland and Indiana loses to Purdue.
- Penn State (7-1) is in if it beats Maryland and Ohio State loses to Michigan.
- Indiana (7-1) is in if it beats Purdue and Ohio State loses to Michigan and Penn State loses to Maryland

The gist of these tie-breakers is Ohio State has the highest strength of schedule and swept Penn State and Indiana and Oregon holds the tie-breaker over everyone based on the common game with Ohio State.

SEC:

- Georgia (6-2) is in.
- Texas (6-1) is in if it beats Texas A&M next week.
- Texas A&M (5-2) is in if it beats Texas next week.

The Georgia/Texas/Texas A&M/Tennessee tie-breakers generally follow the form of Texas A&M having the toughest conference strength of schedule and Georgia having wins over Tennessee and Texas. If Georgia and Texas A&M tie on strength of schedule (that's the worst Texas A&M can do), Tennessee and then Texas are eliminated based on strength of schedule.

ACC:

- SMU (7-0) is in.
- Miami (6-1) is in if it beats Syracuse.
- Clemson (7-1) is in if Miami loses to Syracuse.

The only tie of interest is if all three teams are 7-1, in which case Clemson is eliminated based on its loss to Louisville, which the other two teams defeated.

Big 12:

- Arizona State is 6-2 and plays Arizona.
- Brigham Young is 6-2 and plays Houston.
- Colorado is 6-2 and plays Oklahoma State.
- Iowa State is 6-2 and plays Kansas State.
- Of the 10 potential head-to-head matches here, only Arizona State's win over BYU actually took place. But there is a lot of relevant common-game mixing, with plenty of ties that would be broken based on the standings of teams currently 5-3.
- Five teams are 5-3 in the conference, and they generally have stronger strengths of schedule than the 6-2 teams, TCU being the notable exception. Of those 5-3 teams, Kansas State will probably have the highest strength of schedule, followed by Baylor.
- If all four 6-2 teams win, Arizona State will be first in the standings because of common games. Arizona State is first if it wins and BYU wins. Colorado seems to be in the worst shape.
- Of the 6-2 teams, Iowa State has the highest strength of schedule, Arizona State is likely ahead of BYU, but almost certainly not behind, BYU is likely ahead of Colorado, but almost certainly not behind.
- However, common games likely resolves ties at 7-2, with the exception of BYU/Iowa State and BYU/Arizona State.

AAC: Army plays Tulane

Mountain West: Boise State (7-0) is the host. Colorado State and UNLV (5-1) did not play each other, and if tied for second (both win or both lose next week), Boise State's opponent is determined by the CFP rankings or a composite computer ranking system if neither is in the CFP rankings.

Sun Belt East: Georgia Southern (5-2) holds the head-to-head tie-breaker over Marshall (6-1).

Sun Belt West: Louisiana (6-1) holds the head-to-head tie-breaker over Arkansas State (5-2), but South Alabama (5-2) holds tie-breakers over both Louisiana (head-to-head) and Arkansas State in a three-way tie (common games).

MAC (updated to reflect Tuesday "Maction"):

- Bowling Green (6-1) is in if it beats Miami or if Ohio loses to Ball State and Central Michigan beats Northern Illinois or Western Michigan beats Eastern Michigan.
- Miami (6-1) is in if it beats Bowling Green.
- Ohio (6-1) is in if it beats Ball State.
- Buffalo (5-2) is in if Bowling Green beats Miami and either Ball State beats Ohio or Northern Illinois beats Central Michigan and Eastern Michigan beats Western Michigan.

Conference USA:

- Jacksonville State (7-0) hosts the championship.
- Liberty (5-2) is 2nd if it beats Sam Houston.
- Western Kentucky (5-2) is 2nd if it beats Jacksonville State and Sam Houston beats Liberty.
- Sam Houston (5-2) is 2nd if it beats Liberty and Jacksonville State beats Western Kentucky.

CFP:

We've been assuming four Big Ten and SEC teams, the Big XII and ACC champs, Notre Dame and either Boise State or the AAC champion. The Big 12 was sitting at 14-16-21-22 in the CFP rankings and 14 and 16 lost yesterday. Seems like the Big 12 is limited to one spot.

The ACC was 8-13-17, so it seems possible the championship game loser will be in the top 12. Could an 11-2 Miami get in? That's the only realistic possibility.

The SEC was 3-7-9-10-11-15-18, with 11 bumped from the bracket to keep room for the auto-bids. There are five 3-loss SEC teams and two of them could post impressive wins next week - however, Texas A&M's (15) path requires winning the SEC championship game and South Carolina (18) only gains a lot if Clemson wins the ACC (with help from Syracuse). Alabama (7) and Ole Miss (9) lost this week, and there are all kinds of circular "you can't take X over Y" head-to-head conflicts, which especially limits South Carolina.

The biggest question is how far Indiana falls from position 5, as the Big Ten is getting at least three in. Indiana at a likely 11-1 seems like it would be in good shape, but the best reason is that they trounced a lot of mediocre-to-bad teams for ten weeks, got a close home win over mediocre Michigan and were not remotely competitive at OSU. The CFP committee might have a very harsh take on their last two results and they have nothing to gain from trouncing Purdue or from Michigan being or not being terrible at Ohio State next week.

I see it as 10 locked in bids, with two of Miami (if ACC runner-up to SMU), Indiana, Alabama and Mississippi vying for those two at-large bids, one definitely going to the SEC with a second potentially stolen by Texas A&M.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Let the Lord of Chaos reign.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I love this is happening to the SEC.

The SEC dominance from mid-00's to 22 was fun, and still believe they'll always have 1-2 teams in the mix but it's good there's more competition within the SEC and also without.

Very happy that AL is sliding, hate that Texas is ascending, would be okay with UGA being the marquee SEC team for a while longer. Love to see Boise or SMU (or the Hogs someday) make a serious run.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not sure they aren't missing the talent to some extent.

The RB room turned out to be mostly talk, the receiver room hasn't been much all year, the line play has been questionable on both sides of the ball (perhaps the most all hat,no cattle position groups) and as my observant kid pointed out to me recently how Starks often looks he's trying to cover two people at a time because he doesn't have much help. And that's without saying a word about Beck's woes.

That goes hand in hand with what I was talking about. I imagine if it were down to measurable, this team has every bit of the athletic talent of the last 4 years. The difference is in the "need to win." That is what makes a good athlete a great one. This team, outside of Starks who you mentioned, just doesn't have enough guys who just refuse to lose. Too many players that are work out warriors and not actual football players.

[Lathum]

Eat a dick DeBoer!!!!!!!

[HerRealName]

On that bad call that went against Alabama last night, I think the ref was confused from the play before. I noticed on the 3rd down that the slot receiver was covered up but that was a running play and it didn't matter. On the 4th down play, the outside WR was off the ball and they called illegal touching when the slot receiver caught the pass. That was a big screw up there.

[Solecismic]

As we look over the playoff possibilities, the flaws in the new system seem glaring.

The format seems good - 12 teams, 4 byes. But what's happened is that the long-standing issues with scheduling have gotten a lot worse with conference expansion.

You look at Clemson, for instance. They've played one team in the ACC with a winning record in the ACC. And they lost it. They were blown out by Georgia. They had a statement non-conference win yesterday... against The Citadel.

And yet they're still in the discussion because they would be 10-2 if they come up with their first meaningful win of the entire year next week. And they would reach the ACC championship game if Syracuse upsets Miami. None of the top teams in the ACC have played each other.

The SEC has had more balanced schedules, but they keep beating each other. The portal and the lure of the SEC and the depth of high school talent in their footprint means that every game is dangerous. Oklahoma did not look like an average 5-5 (1-5) team yesterday when it held Alabama, averaging 33 points in SEC games going into the game, to only 3 points.

Conference championship games seem like a liability in this system. We're still obsessed with measuring teams only by number of losses (Army was ranked for weeks) and we refuse to understand what the NFL has always understood - good teams are never perfect.

Now that we're starting to accept that major college football players are professional athletes and deserve to get paid for that, there has to be a better solution for setting up schedules and determining playoff participants. And, as I read a Big 12 athletic director writing that only some of the schools in that league will even be able to fully fund the $20 million athlete pool, it's going to be an uncomfortable transition. Hopefully one that includes realignment into more traditional conferences for every sport other than football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Oklahoma did not look like an average 5-5 (1-5) team yesterday when it held Alabama, averaging 33 points in SEC games going into the game, to only 3 points.

The same Alabama that lost to Vandy, who will likely be a .500 team at regular season end? And the same OU that looked repeatedly this season like they'd never seen a football much less played with one?

Bama has a QB issue, has heart issues, and has (if I'm generous) a coach/roster mismatch issue.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As we look over the playoff possibilities, the flaws in the new system seem glaring.

The format seems good - 12 teams, 4 byes. But what's happened is that the long-standing issues with scheduling have gotten a lot worse with conference expansion.

You look at Clemson, for instance. They've played one team in the ACC with a winning record in the ACC. And they lost it. They were blown out by Georgia. They had a statement non-conference win yesterday... against The Citadel.

And yet they're still in the discussion because they would be 10-2 if they come up with their first meaningful win of the entire year next week. And they would reach the ACC championship game if Syracuse upsets Miami. None of the top teams in the ACC have played each other.

The SEC has had more balanced schedules, but they keep beating each other. The portal and the lure of the SEC and the depth of high school talent in their footprint means that every game is dangerous. Oklahoma did not look like an average 5-5 (1-5) team yesterday when it held Alabama, averaging 33 points in SEC games going into the game, to only 3 points.

Conference championship games seem like a liability in this system. We're still obsessed with measuring teams only by number of losses (Army was ranked for weeks) and we refuse to understand what the NFL has always understood - good teams are never perfect.

Now that we're starting to accept that major college football players are professional athletes and deserve to get paid for that, there has to be a better solution for setting up schedules and determining playoff participants. And, as I read a Big 12 athletic director writing that only some of the schools in that league will even be able to fully fund the $20 million athlete pool, it's going to be an uncomfortable transition. Hopefully one that includes realignment into more traditional conferences for every sport other than football.

As long as the conferences operate independently and in their own best interest instead of the good of the sport we're going to continue down this road. I still don't see college football surviving long term while it tries to do everything in its power to shrink its fanbase.

In the short term, the teams selected for the playoff this year will set the tone for scheduling moving forward. If they don't heavily weigh schedule strength then there's little reason for anyone to play a challenging game in the non-conference portion of the schedule. Additionally, if they do heavily weigh schedule that narrows the pool of teams with any realistic shot at making the playoff down considerably. That's far and away the best way to ensure the best teams get in but you've already massively devalued the bowl games and you're telling more than half the schools that those bowl games are the best they'll probably ever do.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The same Alabama that lost to Vandy, who will likely be a .500 team at regular season end? And the same OU that looked repeatedly this season like they'd never seen a football much less played with one?

Bama has a QB issue, has heart issues, and has (if I'm generous) a coach/roster mismatch issue.

They're still kids - everyone has issues. Almost no one has a real quarterback. The two teams that had the worst losses yesterday each have beaten Georgia. No one else has. Of course, you can pick apart Georgia, too.

The SEC has the best players from top to bottom. That changes so many equations. The easiest league games aren't that easy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

They're still kids - everyone has issues. Almost no one has a real quarterback. The two teams that had the worst losses yesterday each have beaten Georgia. No one else has. Of course, you can pick apart Georgia, too.

The SEC has the best players from top to bottom. That changes so many equations. The easiest league games aren't that easy.

As someone who normally beats this particular drum, this year doesn't feel like one I've seen before.

There's no depth anywhere, even in the SEC. There's nothing that resembles a very good team this year, even "good" feels like it pretty quickly requires more generosity than I'm inclined to.

Picking apart Georgia is low hanging fruit, even for me. They gave up 221 rushing yards to UMass yesterday, most of it while the game was shockingly competitive. I'm not sure what else really needs to be said about them.

[Solecismic]

Ultimately, what made me unhappy with college football was the sense of entitlement. Because when you feel entitled to results, and the whole system channels up to a bunch of schools where entitlement is the law, then any mistake feels personal.

You look at the Michigan boards this year and there's such anger. The same assistant coach who did a great job recognizing what to do in a difficult situation at Penn State last year, is, all of a sudden, the worst coach ever and he needs to be fired, now. When the reality is that Michigan had that rare real quarterback last year, lost nine other starters on offense alone, had more players drafted than ever before, and plays a much tougher schedule this year.

So they're 6-5, had a couple of really painful losses where the offense couldn't do anything in key fourth-quarter situations, and are going into Columbus next week as bigger underdogs than any NFL team could ever be in any game, anywhere.

The world is ending. And yet, just ten months ago, they had this magic 15-0 season that was supposedly all anyone ever wanted. Felt good to me. Felt like a nice stopping point - a chance to break the cycle. And I think I did - I haven't felt frustrated by Michigan's struggles this season.

It's not fun, that entitlement. Paying the players, which is the right thing to do, takes us farther down that road. Michigan fans are upset because they get outbid on occasion, so some alum makes it impossible to be outbid on Underwood, and that starts another cycle of entitlement, because what if he isn't a real quarterback, even though he seems like he has to be? What if he throws an interception next year? Fire everybody!

The SEC is adjusting. Even Vanderbilt can fill holes in the portal now. But it's still a system where there's an FCS team on the schedule, you only play eight of 15 potential league opponents, and it's still a system where all anyone cares about is when you looked at your absolute worst. Other conferences are not quite as changed, but the scheduling issue is quite serious.

Hopefully, five years from now, people figure out how to make all this work with a league of some sort. But I think it's going to require a complete separation of football from other sports at the college level.

Right now, the reason I'm focused on this is from a analytics perspective - an opportunity that I may or may not pursue (it's not anything like TCY - I'm done with that idea). Though it is tempting to create a game called "Entitlement" in which you run a top program and have access to the best of the best and you try and keep winning, or soon enough the fans come for you in the middle of the night and shoot you while you're sleeping.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's no depth anywhere, even in the SEC. There's nothing that resembles a very good team this year, even "good" feels like it pretty quickly requires more generosity than I'm inclined to. competitive.

NFL-style roster parity in a setup with many more than 32 teams spreads things a little thin, probably.

[sovereignstar v2]

Kind of wish Colorado would've made the field just for the spectacle. I would have liked to have seen Travis Hunter in primetime

[Ghost Econ]

Because I'm bored and tired of seeing people complain about Bama. If you used the final CFP rankings for every year and the current conference setup, you would have a 3 loss team in the playoffs in:

2014 - 3 teams
2015 - 0 (Ole Miss is 12, misses due to G5 spot)
2016 - 4 (including 4th seed Colorado)
2017 - 1
2018 - 3
2019 - 1
2020 - 2 (COVID year, and Indiana makes the playoffs)
2021 - 1
2022 - 3
2023 - 1 (3 loss AZ would technically be the 4 seed, I don't think 4 loss Oregon State gets an auto G5 spot, so they technically miss out)

So that works out to 1.9 per year.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Because I'm bored and tired of seeing people complain about Bama. If you used the final CFP rankings for every year and the current conference setup, you would have a 3 loss team in the playoffs in:

2014 - 3 teams
2015 - 0 (Ole Miss is 12, misses due to G5 spot)
2016 - 4 (including 4th seed Colorado)
2017 - 1
2018 - 3
2019 - 1
2020 - 2 (COVID year, and Indiana makes the playoffs)
2021 - 1
2022 - 3
2023 - 1 (3 loss AZ would technically be the 4 seed, I don't think 4 loss Oregon State gets an auto G5 spot, so they technically miss out)

So that works out to 1.9 per year.

That's interesting and more than I would have guessed. Did you get an impression on how many were conference champs vs at-large?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Because I'm bored and tired of seeing people complain about Bama. If you used the final CFP rankings for every year and the current conference setup, you would have a 3 loss team in the playoffs in:

2014 - 3 teams
2015 - 0 (Ole Miss is 12, misses due to G5 spot)
2016 - 4 (including 4th seed Colorado)
2017 - 1
2018 - 3
2019 - 1
2020 - 2 (COVID year, and Indiana makes the playoffs)
2021 - 1
2022 - 3
2023 - 1 (3 loss AZ would technically be the 4 seed, I don't think 4 loss Oregon State gets an auto G5 spot, so they technically miss out)

So that works out to 1.9 per year.

I haven't thought to complain about Bama, but it doesn't feel like conference champions should count - I'm assuming the complaint is about selecting them as an at-large team?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ultimately, what made me unhappy with college football was the sense of entitlement. Because when you feel entitled to results, and the whole system channels up to a bunch of schools where entitlement is the law, then any mistake feels personal.

You look at the Michigan boards this year and there's such anger. The same assistant coach who did a great job recognizing what to do in a difficult situation at Penn State last year, is, all of a sudden, the worst coach ever and he needs to be fired, now. When the reality is that Michigan had that rare real quarterback last year, lost nine other starters on offense alone, had more players drafted than ever before, and plays a much tougher schedule this year.

So they're 6-5, had a couple of really painful losses where the offense couldn't do anything in key fourth-quarter situations, and are going into Columbus next week as bigger underdogs than any NFL team could ever be in any game, anywhere.

The world is ending. And yet, just ten months ago, they had this magic 15-0 season that was supposedly all anyone ever wanted. Felt good to me. Felt like a nice stopping point - a chance to break the cycle. And I think I did - I haven't felt frustrated by Michigan's struggles this season.

It's not fun, that entitlement. Paying the players, which is the right thing to do, takes us farther down that road. Michigan fans are upset because they get outbid on occasion, so some alum makes it impossible to be outbid on Underwood, and that starts another cycle of entitlement, because what if he isn't a real quarterback, even though he seems like he has to be? What if he throws an interception next year? Fire everybody!

The SEC is adjusting. Even Vanderbilt can fill holes in the portal now. But it's still a system where there's an FCS team on the schedule, you only play eight of 15 potential league opponents, and it's still a system where all anyone cares about is when you looked at your absolute worst. Other conferences are not quite as changed, but the scheduling issue is quite serious.

Hopefully, five years from now, people figure out how to make all this work with a league of some sort. But I think it's going to require a complete separation of football from other sports at the college level.

Right now, the reason I'm focused on this is from a analytics perspective - an opportunity that I may or may not pursue (it's not anything like TCY - I'm done with that idea). Though it is tempting to create a game called "Entitlement" in which you run a top program and have access to the best of the best and you try and keep winning, or soon enough the fans come for you in the middle of the night and shoot you while you're sleeping.

Doesn't that always happen? 1998, the GOAT doesn't win a national title, he doesn't even beat Ohio State, and in 1999 he has to split time. It's probably worse in college football because there's so many teams and a national title is hard to win, and also because so many teams have "success" built in systematically, but I think entitlement is always there, and paying players doesn't "take us further" it just gives us another item to talk about.

[Ghost Econ]

Looking at the week before conference championship games:

2014 - 0 (#12 Ole Miss with 3 losses, out of playoffs due to g5)
2015 - 0 (highest is #13, Ole Miss)
2016 - 1 (also #12 FSU out due to g5)
2017 - 0 (#12 Stanford out due to g5)
2018 - 4 (should have been 4 last post, forgot who is in what conference)
2019 - 1
2020 - 0 (COVID, 4 2 loss teams)
2021 - 0 (highest is #17 Utah)
2022 - 2
2023 - 0 (highest is #13 LSU)

8 in 10 years, plus 3 who would be in except for G5 AQ. The highest ranked a 3 loss team has been was 9th in 2018. This season seems to be shaping up like 2018, except then there were 4 undefeated teams.

[Passacaglia]

Seems like it's almost a rule of thumb that the highest 3-loss team should be 12 or 13

[JonInMiddleGA]

Solid work GhostEcon.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Doesn't that always happen? 1998, the GOAT doesn't win a national title, he doesn't even beat Ohio State, and in 1999 he has to split time. It's probably worse in college football because there's so many teams and a national title is hard to win, and also because so many teams have "success" built in systematically, but I think entitlement is always there, and paying players doesn't "take us further" it just gives us another item to talk about.

Brady is such an outlier though in what he was in college and what he turned into. I'm not sure there are too many takeaways from that as he was about as far from a future GOAT as you can get, just a guy who had a decent college upperclassman career and was considered borderline to even get drafted.

FWIW, I totally agree with Jim's take here. I agree that allowing compensating players for the amount of money they make for others is the right thing to do, equally it's just killing any remaining interest I have in the format.

Yes, with a program like SC the expectation was always there (although not when I first started watching the sport, they had been terrible for years). And a coach certainly could get fired for not meeting fans expectations. You used to be able to rebuild though, and there was some understanding that there was an ebb and flow to recruiting and team building, and you'd have a great team built around upperclassmen and then it might take a year or two to get back there unless you'd done an exceptional job. And when you recruited a player, you would recruit them for four years with the understanding on all sides that if they contributed two that was normal and a good return.

This was all changing before NIL of course, but NIL has truly blown it out of the water. Now you are recruiting a player for 3 months. If he's unhappy with anything before he gets to campus, while on campus or if he just didn't get the ball enough in a game he's gone and the coach is left holding the pieces. That and the 24 hour social media cycle, it's a totally different ballgame. And realistically only about 5-6 programs with the truly charismatic and successful coaches and backed by billionaire boosters will have any chance of sustained success in this environment. I can't imagine looking at taking a mid level power conference team now and building a program, I just wouldn't have any idea what that would even look like.

[Ghost Econ]

Maybe it's just me, but with the 5 SEC teams sitting on 3 losses, I wouldn't be shocked if at least 3 lost this week.

A&M and USC are underdogs. I think Mizzou-Arkansas is a toss up. Bama should handle this Auburn team, but after last week who knows. Ole Miss will likely murder Mississippi State, but stranger things have happened.

I'd say if they win this week, the B12 winner, 4 Big 10 0/1 loss teams, 2 one loss ACC, ND, Boise, and Texas are guaranteed spots. That leaves 2 open spaces. If Clemson wins, they're in. If UGA wins, they're in if the CCG results don't matter like the Committee says.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Oklahoma did not look like an average 5-5 (1-5) team yesterday when it held Alabama, averaging 33 points in SEC games going into the game, to only 3 points.

I've been following college football for over 40 years, and I've never seen an entire position group get wiped out by injuries like what happened to OU this year. For most of the season (including Saturday), they have been without their top five wide receivers and three offensive linemen. Things are so bad, they had to move a DB to wide receiver just to have enough healthy bodies.

OU had the lead at halftime in their previous two losses against Ole Miss and Missouri, but the defense got worn out in the second half, and the OU offense couldn't do anything.

The biggest change they made in the Alabama game was that they went to a heavy rushing, QB centric rushing attack and passed sparingly. For the first time this season, the OU defense didn't get worn out in the 2nd half, and in fact they didn't even take the field the final 6:47 of the game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

North Carolina fires football coach Mack Brown - ESPN

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

North Carolina fires football coach Mack Brown - ESPN

According to UNC insiders he tried to resign twice during the season and the athletic director talked him into finishing the season. Then once we got toward the end of the season Brown announced he was coming back next year which forced their hand here.

When your underperforming coach tries to quit. Don't get in his way.

[GrantDawg]

I will say as much as I have given the Bulldogs grief this year, I just saw a stat that is pretty crazy. Georgia has as many top 10 wins this year as the number 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 an 12 teams COMBINED.

[Solecismic]

College football fans need to adjust. Everybody's still using cubits to measure length, and the college sports landscape is continually evolving.

The first major landscape-altering change is the portal. Coaches can spend months now, looking at film, studying who out-performed scouting assessments made of growing 16-year-olds and determining who can actually handle competition at the next level a couple of years later.

If you have a hole on your roster and need a new starter, you can fill it. There's no longer the pretense of a college education involved. You can even get your new starter from the Ivy League. On the other end of the scale, you no longer have to worry about your admissions department turning down a kid who isn't ever going to get a degree at your school.

The academic aspect of college is now completely irrelevant. Sometimes you have to convince a parent that if junior wants a degree in nuclear engineering, it's something people can do in a lab in some dark corner on campus and we can arrange a tour - like visiting a Smithsonian Museum. But most of the time, you text over a brochure (it can just be a cover page and a link to OnlyFans - they'll never check) and all their questions will be about NIL.

The second major landscape-altering change is conference expansion. The real difference-makers today are the schedulers, and that is mostly random, as long as you realize that having a competitive, protected rivalry is a bad thing and having a competitive non-conference game is a really bad thing.

You can examine the in-conference strength of schedule for the teams with the fewest losses. Then subtract those teams' records. The result should be right around .500 for most teams. It would be exactly .500 for every team if every team played every other team.

If you look at the top 12 teams from the power 4 in the expected CFP standings, 11 of those 12 teams are below .500 in that metric, all the way down to Clemson at .392 (of the six other ACC teams above .500 in the conference, they played only Louisville this season - and lost). Clemson's non-conference games, so far, have been against Appalachian State, The Citadel and Georgia. OK, Georgia is good... but they lost to Georgia, 34-3. And yet Clemson could, if they get their first quality win of the season on Saturday against South Carolina, slip into the CFP without even having to play in the ACC championship game.

The fans only see that Clemson could be 10-2, and 3 losses is really, really bad. End of analysis.

The average adjusted in-conference record for those top 12 teams is .453, and it would be .444 if the only team over .500 is removed (Ohio State at .607, though the Buckeyes played only Akron, Western Michigan and Marshall out of conference). If you don't make the adjustment to subtract the team's own record from the strength of schedule assessment, you'll get .421 for the entire group (.409 without Ohio State). If you don't make that adjustment, strength of schedule is only a useful piece of information between teams with the same record.

There was some consideration of this when the CFP expanded. The power conferences all now use in-conference strength of schedule as the next tie-breaker after head-to-head and common games. But with the expansion, common games becomes more rare, and more random, ties almost always broken because one team happened to have a loss against a team the other teams it is tied with never played.

Go down the rabbit-hole of figuring out what happens in the Big 12 next week - there are 256 potential scenarios because all eight games next week matter and nine different teams can finish 6-3, which could be enough to reach the championship game. It's just rolling dice, really. But common games usually breaks two-team ties and three-team ties, and conference strength of schedule matters less because it diverges so much that playing the harder schedule is what eliminated the team in the first place.

TL-DR, the first major change is why there is more parity among the power five schools and the second major change is why it is harder to assess it.

The key to measurement in the modern college football world will be scheduling and accepting that analysis through number of losses alone is a bad way of doing things - we know this because it's not what we do with the NFL.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

When your underperforming coach tries to quit. Don't get in his way.

If you have to tell the people who are responsible for hiring/firing the head football coach this bit of advice, they should no longer be responsible for hiring/firing the head football coach

[miami_fan]

I don't usually watch the playoff ranking shows. Just looking at the 12 team projection graphic with no sound on the TV, Alabama has to fire their coach is Boise State, SMU and Indiana make the playoffs and the Tide don't, right?

[GrantDawg]

They won't give up on him that quickly. He will have a couple of years to turn it around. The only way he gets fired is if a better coach with strong Saban ties comes available, and no one really fits that description right now. Well, Kirby, but I don't think that would happen. Lanning could have had the job last year if he wanted to leave.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Don't get excited Clemson fans, with SEC teams at 13-14-15, they are setting up to have Clemson drop and be replaced by an SEC team.

[Passacaglia]

1. Oregon
2. Texas
3. Miami
4. Boise State

5. Ohio State
12. 5th Conference Winner

6. Penn State
11. Indiana

7. Notre Dame
10. SMU

8. Georgia
9. Tennessee


My bracket will probably look different from the one in the fancy pictures. I'm still putting the Miami/SMU winner in the #3 seed, and dropping the loser out. Miami seems more likely to have a shot at losing to SMU and still making the playoffs after so many losses in the Top 15 this past weekend, but I'm still putting it this way since I have been in the past. But if Miami loses to SMU and stays in, and Clemson beats South Carolina, we'd see 3 ACC teams, which feels insane (and makes me wonder if conferences will have a discussion to determine if it's better to have their best teams avoid playing each other for the better CFP chance, or to have more marquee matchups).

First few out: 8-3 Alabama, 8-3 Ole Miss, 8-3 South Carolina

Changes from last time: Alabama and Ole Miss are out, Tennessee and Clemson take their spots. BYU is out, replaced by ????

By conference: B1G 4, SEC 3, ACC 2, MW 1, Ind 1, B12/AAC 1

Last spot -- Arizona State is in the pole position here, but it's all close:
16. Arizona State
17. Tulane
18. Iowa State
19. BYU
Army isn't in the Top 25 anymore, so I don't think a Tulane win over Army will give them enough of a bump to surpass the bump that a Big 12 Championship winner would get. I'm guessing whoever wins the Big 12 will end up ahead of Tulane, but it's cool to see how close it is now.

Indiana. A drop to 10 puts me on the fence. There's some key games that I think will play a big part. Does a Miami loss to SMU drop them below Indiana? I think it should -- you can whine about Indiana not beating anyone ranked, but neither has Miami, and Miami lost to an unranked team. Also, does a Clemson win over South Carolina jump Clemson over them? Clemson has also not beaten a ranked team, and has also lost to a ranked team. But a win over ranked South Carolina would give them something neither Indiana nor Miami have done. Anyway, caveats that this is of course not going to hold, but a Notre Dame-Indiana playoff game would be fun.

Alabama. I'm not sure who's spot I see them taking. If Clemson loses to South Carolina, it feels like South Carolina should get their spot. I already have Miami and SMU taking one spot, so an SMU loss doesn't help them -- feels like they would have to hope Miami loses and drops below them. Maybe Georgia drops below them with a loss to Texas? I think they need to be Vandy or Purdue fans. I think Ole Miss is in the same position, but even worse since they are behind Alabama.

EDIT: After thinking about it more (and probably from writing that Alabama paragraph), I think that Miami has a good chance to stay in even with a loss to SMU. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to treat it like either there's just one spot for either team. So I replaced Miami/SMU with just Miami, and put SMU in on their own, which kicked Clemson out. I'm still excited if I'm a Clemson fan, because I think the game against South Carolina gives them a really good chance to jump someone, without asking for too much in how other games go.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Don't get excited Clemson fans, with SEC teams at 13-14-15, they are setting up to have Clemson drop and be replaced by an SEC team.

I think if they beat #15 South Carolina, it'd be hard to have any of those other SEC teams jump them, and if they lose, it only makes sense to have them drop below the SEC teams.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think if they beat #15 South Carolina, it'd be hard to have any of those other SEC teams jump them, and if they lose, it only makes sense to have them drop below the SEC teams.

Exactly. They control their own destiny.

[Passacaglia]

The call for the BYU ASU game continues to be corrected...

https://www.si.com/college/byu/footb...rt-of-end-zone

[JonInMiddleGA]

I would seriously think Gundy has to be gone after today.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, it's one thing to have a down year, but they're getting humiliated. The comments against fans probably didn't help with any remaining support he may have had.

[Young Drachma]

Enjoying the Jeanty v Hunter stat pad-a-thon that happened today, good on their coaches to take care of their guys. I think Hunter doing things nobody since the 1950s has ever ATTEMPTED makes him the Heisman winner, but Jeanty should win the Maxwell for a 2,000 yard season.

[JPhillips]

GT had about the best opening 20 minutes they could have and still only got three points.

[GrantDawg]

I swear sometimes I would rather have just a terrible season rather then whatever this is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

12 teams remains just as fucking ridiculous as it was the first time it was mentioned.