Official 2024 College Football Thread

[Kodos]

This has been a snoozer.

[HerRealName]

I find it oddly satisfying when kicks hit the Allstate hands on FGs.

[miami_fan]

It's early in this one, but I keeping missing the games that prove that Carson Beck should be the 1st QB taken in the 2025 NFL draft. He has obvious talent but I don't see 1/1 performances

[HerRealName]

That hit on Beck was painful to watch. Hopefully he's ok.

[bhlloy]

I think Sark has a point. I’m not sure I can remember a half of football with such a discrepancy in what is a penalty on one team vs the other. Not that most of those Texas holding calls haven’t been valid, but then you’ve got to call it the same the other way too.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It's early in this one, but I keeping missing the games that prove that Carson Beck should be the 1st QB taken in the 2025 NFL draft. He has obvious talent but I don't see 1/1 performances

Hes already dropped out of the first round on just about all projections. He may be iucky to go in the 2nd round. He should return to school and try to rebuild his draft stock.

[Lathum]

This game screams that the SEC can only validate so many three loss teams getting in.

[Solecismic]

Having seen what Texas did at Michigan, and looking at so many inter-conference results, I don't agree. There's just more parity in the SEC. And a lot of great athletes on defense.

You could put six SEC teams in and they'd hold their own. But that's not how it's supposed to work.

[Ghost Econ]

How do you not play for a fake punt when their punter just got injured?

[Ghost Econ]

Also, if Carson Beck is done for the season, should Georgia drop below Army for an AQ spot? They showed last season that losing your starting QB is enough to miss the playoffs.

[HerRealName]

#3 celebrating instead of blocking the only defender in the area cost like 30 yards at least.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Also, if Carson Beck is done for the season, should Georgia drop below Army for an AQ spot? They showed last season that losing your starting QB is enough to miss the playoffs.

Not if they beat Texas without him. Probably a valid thought if they have 3 losses and are being compared to other 3 loss teams that have their QB though.

My son is at Lucas Oil tonight to root on Oregon. He became a fan because of their uniforms and they are his favorite team.

[HerRealName]

I wonder if Georgia has any OT experience.

[HerRealName]

Crap, I was high last weekend and forgot about Smart spamming TOs in OT. This might be painful.

[Ghost Econ]

That was a clear helmet to helmet, but that they're not making him come out for losing his helmet/concussion test is crazy.

[Edward64]

Fun game

[JonInMiddleGA]

Texas has no one to blame but themselves.

Should have been over by halftime but they couldn't manage to get out of their own way, time after time after time.

Look like a one & done in the playoff to me, today kind of settles any question of whether Ewers is a QB1 at upper level of college football. He ain't.

[GrantDawg]

Was totally absorbed watching the game and keeping up the Wheel of Time nerdy stuff going on, but Go Fucking Dawgs! They desperately needed the bi for the first week.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[dubb93]

What would have to happen the rest of the way for Penn State to be eliminated tonight? If they lose this 70-31 or something similar would that do it? There is a real chance they give up 70.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

....but Go Fucking Dawgs! They desperately needed the bi for the first week.

Fucking Dawgs? Needing the Bi? And here I was thinking Georgians as a rule hated what they called "alternative sexuality"

(I know, autocorrect, but it struck my funny bone)

[RainMaker]

SMU QB is a baller.

[Young Drachma]

Hell of a job by SMU, but what a cool moment for that freshman kicker.

[SirFozzie]

I don't see how you can keep SMU out at this point, but somehow, someway, they will.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I don't see how you can keep SMU out at this point, but somehow, someway, they will.

Clemson stole a spot. They either took Alabama’s, Indiana’s, or SMU’s. Up to you who is the least worthy of that bunch I guess.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Clemson stole a spot. They either took Alabama’s, Indiana’s, or SMU’s. Up to you who is the least worthy of that bunch I guess.

Could we maybe just drop all three and go with 9 teams?

[Solecismic]

Taking a guess here. They're locked into a lot of rematch potential because teams can't reshuffle that didn't play today. Penn State lost to Ohio State, so their two-loss ceiling is behind Ohio State. Clemson rising further than 16 wouldn't change anything as long as they stay behind Arizona State, and Arizona State gets the fourth bye anyway.

So the big question is how far SMU drops, given close losses to BYU and Clemson, but no big wins (they did not play Miami or Syracuse). Their floor is probably Miami. It seems clear it's between SMU and Alabama for the 11-spot. I think it goes to Alabama.

1) Oregon (1)

8) Penn State (6) / 9) Tennessee (7)

4) Arizona State (13)

5) Notre Dame (3) / 12 Clemson (16)

2) Georgia (2)

7) Ohio State (5) / 10) Indiana (9)

3) Boise State (8)

6) Texas (4) / 11) Alabama (10)

[Young Drachma]

12 teams is still better than 4, I know some people like a smaller field, but given how many useless bowl games there are this at least makes the season matter a lot more even if we're just debating two flawed teams. College basketball does this a lot better, but it's far more interesting than 4-team politicking.

[Danny]

Since SMU was higher than Alabama prior to this last sevond loss, they should clearly be in over Alabama.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Danny

Since SMU was higher than Alabama prior to this last sevond loss, they should clearly be in over Alabama.

I get the backlash about Florida State last year and I don’t think the loss to GA in the bowl game where 3/4 of the team decided to sit out tells us anything about how they would have done. It’s something we will never know for sure. With that said I’d be perfectly fine if they treated SMU/Clemson like an elimination game.

[Edward64]

I can go either way but prefer to see SMU stay in. We need our Cinderella teams.

Alabama has been a player for so long, will hope/be glad to see them as non-factors for the forseeable future.

[Swaggs]

SMU only beat two teams with winning conference records (Louisville & Duke, who were both 5-3) and only beat them by one score each. Their best criteria is that they have two quality losses. They and Miami were both lucky/unlucky with how their conference schedules played out, by missing the majority of the better teams.

[Brian Swartz]

Alabama's history in the playoff/Cinderella stuff should be an absolute non-factor. It's an insult to the competitors to consider that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Fucking Dawgs? Needing the Bi? And here I was thinking Georgians as a rule hated what they called "alternative sexuality"

(I know, autocorrect, but it struck my funny bone)

Nah, this time it was just good old fashioned drunk posting.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

SMU only beat two teams with winning conference records (Louisville & Duke, who were both 5-3) and only beat them by one score each. Their best criteria is that they have two quality losses. They and Miami were both lucky/unlucky with how their conference schedules played out, by missing the majority of the better teams.

I think it should be them 1) because the rankings prior to the Championship game should matter. 2) A Championship game shouldn't eliminate a team that came in as highly ranked as this one (I would get it if they were on the cusp of not making it). 3) I can't overcome the fact that Bama lost three times, and only one you can say was a quality loss. Vandy ends the season unranked, and Oklahoma was a bad team that just killed them.


What makes it hard is that SMU had a cupcake schedule. They have two quality losses, but the problem is they have no signature wins. This comes down to a war between the fact that a Championship game loss shouldn't be as heavily weighted, but a cupcake schedule should also not be rewarded.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think it should be them 1) because the rankings prior to the Championship game should matter. 2) A Championship game shouldn't eliminate a team that came in as highly ranked as this one (I would get it if they were on the cusp of not making it). 3) I can't overcome the fact that Bama lost three times, and only one you can say was a quality loss. Vandy ends the season unranked, and Oklahoma was a bad team that just killed them.


What makes it hard is that SMU had a cupcake schedule. They have two quality losses, but the problem is they have no signature wins. This comes down to a war between the fact that a Championship game loss shouldn't be as heavily weighted, but a cupcake schedule should also not be rewarded.

SMU was 8th of 12. Let’s not pretend they were soundly in. Teams generally drop 4 or more slots with a loss when they are outside of the elite top 1-4 bracket. Are you looking at their ranking being boosted by the fact that they have to have the top 4 seeds be conference champions? Just because the seed next to them said 3 last week doesn’t change the fact that they were ranked 8th. You are also looking at 2 teams ranked outside the top 12 making it so your argument is that this loss shouldn’t drop them 3 spots? They were a bubble team yesterday and they remain one today, albeit, one that posted another loss.

[bronconick]

Surprised Texas never gave Manning a series or two when Ewers couldn't move the ball for most of the game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Surprised Texas never gave Manning a series or two when Ewers couldn't move the ball for most of the game.

He had a strange game, considering how negatively I think almost everybody viewed his performance. He did move them for quite a bit of the night. There were only two 3-and-outs all night. I'm now convinced, which I think I said up the thread, that's he's "not the guy" ... but he threw for 358, one of the INTs was at worst shared responsibility with the WR, was under consistent pressure, and had no help from the running game to speak of.

7 plays, 48 yards, INT
9,64, FG
14, 56, FG
8, 51, missed FG
7, 16, punt
-------------
4,3, punt
5,6, missed FG
5,75, TD
3, -7, INT
11,47, FG
-------------
7, 10, FG

[dubb93]

Indiana is one spot lower than SMU last week. If Indiana won the tiebreaker over Penn State and got to play Oregon does anyone think they still get in with a loss? Because I don’t think they do either. I’m OK with conference championship games being elimination games if they aren’t played between top 5 teams.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Taking a guess here. They're locked into a lot of rematch potential because teams can't reshuffle that didn't play today. Penn State lost to Ohio State, so their two-loss ceiling is behind Ohio State. Clemson rising further than 16 wouldn't change anything as long as they stay behind Arizona State, and Arizona State gets the fourth bye anyway.

So the big question is how far SMU drops, given close losses to BYU and Clemson, but no big wins (they did not play Miami or Syracuse). Their floor is probably Miami. It seems clear it's between SMU and Alabama for the 11-spot. I think it goes to Alabama.

1) Oregon (1)

8) Penn State (6) / 9) Tennessee (7)

4) Arizona State (13)

5) Notre Dame (3) / 12 Clemson (16)

2) Georgia (2)

7) Ohio State (5) / 10) Indiana (9)

3) Boise State (8)

6) Texas (4) / 11) Alabama (10)

Seems right to me, but I'm thinking CFP dudes have said for SMU to drop out "it depends how they lose" - given it was such a close loss, I think SMU gets in over Bama.

[Passacaglia]

I've been seeing so much talk about getting rid of conference championship games, or how teams should not play them. That would be a real shame - I'd hate to see tiebreakers the way things are now decide bye weeks. But I understand the problem - in a setup where losses are more important than wins, more games is certainly more likely to harm than help. I think it would make sense to lock the rankings before these games, and have the championships be played only for the automatic qualifier and chance of a bye. And given that, I'd be fine allowing teams to opt out, too.

[GrantDawg]

Rumor is SMU is in. It has been a rough year for Yankees fans.

[GrantDawg]

Pretty happy with Georgia facing the Indiana-Notre Dame winner.

[Lathum]

Hahahaha. Eat a dick DeBoer.

[Passacaglia]

Texas and Penn State both slot in above Notre Dame. They really did not want to penalize Championship game losers, which is probably for the best to prevent backlash against those games completely.

[dubb93]

I wonder if we start to see conferences make sweetheart schedules to stack teams in. With conference championship game losses not mattering and loses being more important than wins it would really make sense to schedule, for instance, SMU-Miami-Clemson to not play each other every year in order to maximize your chances of getting the most 1 and 2 loss teams possible.

[Lathum]

Oregon got pretty screwed as a number one seed having to face Ohio state likely on game two.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Texas and Penn State both slot in above Notre Dame. They really did not want to penalize Championship game losers, which is probably for the best to prevent backlash against those games completely.

And I think that is as it should be. I love the Championship games, but if they are going to penalize teams for an extra game, then they should do away with them. A Championship game should be a reward, not a punishment.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I've been seeing so much talk about getting rid of conference championship games, or how teams should not play them. That would be a real shame - I'd hate to see tiebreakers the way things are now decide bye weeks. But I understand the problem - in a setup where losses are more important than wins, more games is certainly more likely to harm than help. I think it would make sense to lock the rankings before these games, and have the championships be played only for the automatic qualifier and chance of a bye. And given that, I'd be fine allowing teams to opt out, too.

Seems like they almost did lock the rankings, with SMU dropping below Indiana being the only meaningful move

So if we had a 4 team playoff, we'd see Oregon vs. Penn State, and Georgia vs. Texas, and ND being left out. Fun.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And I think that is as it should be. I love the Championship games, but if they are going to penalize teams for an extra game, then they should do away with them. A Championship game should be a reward, not a punishment.

Agree, with the addition that they really can't do away with them the way scheduling is now. Conferences are too big to rely on an 8 or 9 game schedule to resolve the winners properly

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And I think that is as it should be. I love the Championship games, but if they are going to penalize teams for an extra game, then they should do away with them. A Championship game should be a reward, not a punishment.

It has always been a major data point. This change makes the championship games significantly less exciting. In the past you really had to make your game count to get in. This is the first year in memory where these games basically meant nothing. Next year will be the second.