2024 College Football Thread: Ohio State advances to play unbeaten hypothetical SEC team (2 Viewers)

[Jayrod]

What is being overlooked is if the sec and big 10 don't get more teams in they will just use that as a reason to abandon the NCAA and setup their own tourney.

Delusional

This would be how the golden goose gets slaughtered.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What is being overlooked is if the sec and big 10 don't get more teams in they will just use that as a reason to abandon the NCAA and setup their own tourney.

I hear some of that every once in a while but it's about like the talk from Texans saying they'll secede from the US. Simple talk that's 99.9% talk without thinking it through.

What I hear way more of is dissatisfaction with a rudderless behemoth of the NCAA in general. Some people feel an actively managed league with real a Commissioner and real power and focus seems like it would create a better product.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

The UTSA kicker is wearing shorts. Welcome to bowl season, folks

 

[SFBayDuck]

So who in here is going to the Rose Bowl? Ticket prices have been coming down and my kid and his buddy really want to go. Since I’ll be in the area there is a good chance that the 3 of us go if ticket prices continue to come down.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Oregon uniform reveal...

x.com

x.com

I believe this is incorrect. Oregon will be wearing green jerseys, chrome helmet with green wings, white pants, white shoes is what I have heard.

You missed the joke, gb. Look again.

Oh. Insert paper bag over head emoji

No worries, GB.

On the big picture though, it's a fascinating phenomena. We're (and that includes me of course) often seem predisposed to a default response of "you're wrong" with online discussion. It's super interesting.

 

[Schmeabs]

So who in here is going to the Rose Bowl? Ticket prices have been coming down and my kid and his buddy really want to go. Since I’ll be in the area there is a good chance that the 3 of us go if ticket prices continue to come down.

I will be there with 9 other Duck fans

 

[CGRdrJoe]

So who in here is going to the Rose Bowl? Ticket prices have been coming down and my kid and his buddy really want to go. Since I’ll be in the area there is a good chance that the 3 of us go if ticket prices continue to come down.

I will be there with 9 other Duck fans

do you know the duck sections? we would want to sit on that side

 

[Schmeabs]

So who in here is going to the Rose Bowl? Ticket prices have been coming down and my kid and his buddy really want to go. Since I’ll be in the area there is a good chance that the 3 of us go if ticket prices continue to come down.

I will be there with 9 other Duck fans

do you know the duck sections? we would want to sit on that side

I am in section 18L which we bought through the Oregon ticket office. Oregon is on the West? side of the stadium I believe. Sections 14-22 I think.

 

[SFBayDuck]

So who in here is going to the Rose Bowl? Ticket prices have been coming down and my kid and his buddy really want to go. Since I’ll be in the area there is a good chance that the 3 of us go if ticket prices continue to come down.

I will be there with 9 other Duck fans

do you know the duck sections? we would want to sit on that side

I am in section 18L which we bought through the Oregon ticket office. Oregon is on the West? side of the stadium I believe. Sections 14-22 I think.

Yeah thats right. I’m in 17L, and bought tix for others in 15L.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

Notice he didn't come in about Tennessee though. S-E-C. S-E-C. S-E-C.

What is there to say more about Tennessee than what was already said? We were a 7 point underdog and got beat convincingly by a team that's now favored against Oregon.

I've already said that.

Why did he feel the need to comment on Indiana and SMU repeatedly? Just figured he would give Tennessee the same amount of forum time.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

I get Joe may disagree, but bad faith nonsense like that deserves a good ribbing, especially when they suddenly disappear after realizing they stepped in it. I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious.

Of course some people love victory lapping on the internet. That's life for some.

But accusing someone of discussing in bad faith is very different. And as you said, it seemed clear he wasn't being serious about 9 teams. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean a discussion is in bad faith.

Well, I asked at least four people which 12 teams they think are best and should have been in the playoff. He's the only one that bothered to answer and that was his answer. Everyone complaining about SMU and Indiana refuse to answer because I assume they want to list 7-8 SEC teams.

 

[SFBayDuck]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

Notice he didn't come in about Tennessee though. S-E-C. S-E-C. S-E-C.

What is there to say more about Tennessee than what was already said? We were a 7 point underdog and got beat convincingly by a team that's now favored against Oregon.

I've already said that.

Why did he feel the need to comment on Indiana and SMU repeatedly? Just figured he would give Tennessee the same amount of forum time.

Maybe he’s Kirk Herbstreit?

 

[Joe Bryant]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

I get Joe may disagree, but bad faith nonsense like that deserves a good ribbing, especially when they suddenly disappear after realizing they stepped in it. I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious.

Of course some people love victory lapping on the internet. That's life for some.

But accusing someone of discussing in bad faith is very different. And as you said, it seemed clear he wasn't being serious about 9 teams. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean a discussion is in bad faith.

Well, I asked at least four people which 12 teams they think are best and should have been in the playoff. He's the only one that bothered to answer and that was his answer. Everyone complaining about SMU and Indiana refuse to answer because I assume they want to list 7-8 SEC teams.

That's a pretty big leap.

I think the other poster read it more correctly. "I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious."

I live in the middle of SEC country and I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at anyone seriously suggesting 9 SEC teams get into the playoffs.

 

[belljr]

Sec is overrated

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

I get Joe may disagree, but bad faith nonsense like that deserves a good ribbing, especially when they suddenly disappear after realizing they stepped in it. I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious.

Of course some people love victory lapping on the internet. That's life for some.

But accusing someone of discussing in bad faith is very different. And as you said, it seemed clear he wasn't being serious about 9 teams. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean a discussion is in bad faith.

Well, I asked at least four people which 12 teams they think are best and should have been in the playoff. He's the only one that bothered to answer and that was his answer. Everyone complaining about SMU and Indiana refuse to answer because I assume they want to list 7-8 SEC teams.

That's a pretty big leap.

I think the other poster read it more correctly. "I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious."

I live in the middle of SEC country and I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at anyone seriously suggesting 9 SEC teams get into the playoffs.

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

 

[Joe Bryant]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

I get Joe may disagree, but bad faith nonsense like that deserves a good ribbing, especially when they suddenly disappear after realizing they stepped in it. I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious.

Of course some people love victory lapping on the internet. That's life for some.

But accusing someone of discussing in bad faith is very different. And as you said, it seemed clear he wasn't being serious about 9 teams. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean a discussion is in bad faith.

Well, I asked at least four people which 12 teams they think are best and should have been in the playoff. He's the only one that bothered to answer and that was his answer. Everyone complaining about SMU and Indiana refuse to answer because I assume they want to list 7-8 SEC teams.

That's a pretty big leap.

I think the other poster read it more correctly. "I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious."

I live in the middle of SEC country and I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at anyone seriously suggesting 9 SEC teams get into the playoffs.

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

If I were the Committee, I probably would have swapped Alabama for SMU. But I understand why they did what they did. That's hardly a hot take.

Is that what you were looking for?

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

 

[Joe Bryant]

So we've been given the green light to post once an hour about how terrible the SEC is because that's basically what was happening but in the opposite direction

I'm not sure what you mean about a green light. But folks are always encouraged to discuss what they truly think.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

I get Joe may disagree, but bad faith nonsense like that deserves a good ribbing, especially when they suddenly disappear after realizing they stepped in it. I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious.

Of course some people love victory lapping on the internet. That's life for some.

But accusing someone of discussing in bad faith is very different. And as you said, it seemed clear he wasn't being serious about 9 teams. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean a discussion is in bad faith.

Well, I asked at least four people which 12 teams they think are best and should have been in the playoff. He's the only one that bothered to answer and that was his answer. Everyone complaining about SMU and Indiana refuse to answer because I assume they want to list 7-8 SEC teams.

That's a pretty big leap.

I think the other poster read it more correctly. "I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious."

I live in the middle of SEC country and I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at anyone seriously suggesting 9 SEC teams get into the playoffs.

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

If I were the Committee, I probably would have swapped Alabama for SMU. But I understand why they did what they did. That's hardly a hot take.

Is that what you were looking for?

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

If people (here or elsewhere) think all these teams didn't belong, just wondering who they thought belonged instead.

In no particular order I think Notre Dame, Oregon, Ohio St, Penn State, Indiana, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, SMU, Arizona St, and Miami. I get why people say Alabama but I can't get that late November game against Oklahoma out of my mind. For the playoffs, since Clemson and Boise have to go I think you have to pull Miami out and I would pull SC but it's close with SMU.

 

[rockaction]

Anybody ever read Spencer Hall’s series on the SEC teams? They’re fascinating and longform journalism at its finest. He’s now a Formula One guy on ESPN, but he was a lifelong football and SEC fan growing up and made his name at SBNation with those articles. Probably the best sports journalism/essays of the century, IMO.

You’d all do yourselves a big favor by tracking them down and reading them. Here’s a times profile of his website.

Into the wild west of EDSBS, college football media’s outlaw protagonist

Spencer Hall, in the mold of Arthur Morgan, set out as a maverick in the world of college football, becoming a trailblazer.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Joe Bryant]

Anybody ever read Spencer Hall’s series on the SEC teams? They’re fascinating and longform journalism at its finest. He’s now a Formula One guy on ESPN, but he was a lifelong football and SEC fan growing up and made his name at SBNation with those articles. Probably the best sports journalism/essays of the century, IMO.

You’d all do yourselves a big favor by tracking them down and reading them. Here’s a times profile of his website.

Into the wild west of EDSBS, college football media’s outlaw protagonist

Spencer Hall, in the mold of Arthur Morgan, set out as a maverick in the world of college football, becoming a trailblazer.

www.nytimes.com

Thanks. I remember Bum Chillups but didn't know the connection. I'll check it out. Thanks.

 

[FairWarning]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

I get Joe may disagree, but bad faith nonsense like that deserves a good ribbing, especially when they suddenly disappear after realizing they stepped in it. I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious.

Of course some people love victory lapping on the internet. That's life for some.

But accusing someone of discussing in bad faith is very different. And as you said, it seemed clear he wasn't being serious about 9 teams. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean a discussion is in bad faith.

Well, I asked at least four people which 12 teams they think are best and should have been in the playoff. He's the only one that bothered to answer and that was his answer. Everyone complaining about SMU and Indiana refuse to answer because I assume they want to list 7-8 SEC teams.

That's a pretty big leap.

I think the other poster read it more correctly. "I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious."

I live in the middle of SEC country and I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at anyone seriously suggesting 9 SEC teams get into the playoffs.

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

If I were the Committee, I probably would have swapped Alabama for SMU. But I understand why they did what they did. That's hardly a hot take.

Is that what you were looking for?

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

If people (here or elsewhere) think all these teams didn't belong, just wondering who they thought belonged instead.

In no particular order I think Notre Dame, Oregon, Ohio St, Penn State, Indiana, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, SMU, Arizona St, and Miami. I get why people say Alabama but I can't get that late November game against Oklahoma out of my mind. For the playoffs, since Clemson and Boise have to go I think you have to pull Miami out and I would pull SC but it's close with SMU.

What hurt Bama besides losing to OU was playing Mercer in November. I thought South Carolina had a better case over Bama.

Three changes I would really like to see that levels the playing field more.

1- SEC playing 9 conference games and 3 non-conference games like everyone else.
2- the super conferences need to go to divisions, it helps even out the schedule strength. It would help the teams like Bama and there will be fewer Indiana-types sneaking in. For being a SEC team, Texas really benefitted from the easiest schedule in the conference. Too often, the playoff teams from these conferences are decided by who they didn’t play.
3 - reseed after the first round of the playoffs.

 

[rockaction]

Anybody ever read Spencer Hall’s series on the SEC teams? They’re fascinating and longform journalism at its finest. He’s now a Formula One guy on ESPN, but he was a lifelong football and SEC fan growing up and made his name at SBNation with those articles. Probably the best sports journalism/essays of the century, IMO.

You’d all do yourselves a big favor by tracking them down and reading them. Here’s a times profile of his website.

Into the wild west of EDSBS, college football media’s outlaw protagonist

Spencer Hall, in the mold of Arthur Morgan, set out as a maverick in the world of college football, becoming a trailblazer.

www.nytimes.com

Thanks. I remember Bum Chillups but didn't know the connection. I'll check it out. Thanks.

You’re welcome. Thanks for the response. Here is his blogpost on Tennessee, entitled “Volunteer."

VOLUNTEER

ONE: TIGER TWO: GAMECOCK THREE: ELEPHANT FOUR: VOLUNTEER 9/19/1998 These ******* rednecks. They were carrying the goalposts on their shoulders down the street, drunk off a hundred thousand...

www.bannersociety.com

 

[FairWarning]

After seeing how the first round played out, why did Boise get a bye? They may be hurt by the bye, their big advantage would have been a southern team play in the Boise cold. They are rested, but now play a power team in a traditional bowl that travels well. I know they played Oregon very well, but they may have to play better than that to beat Penn St on a neutral field.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I was wondering where all the defensive apologist stuff from Klatt was coming from and now it makes more sense.

x.com

x.com

 

[mr. furley]

Sec is overrated

couldn't agree more. we need better financial oversight in this country.

 

[belljr]

Not sure how the SEC got more than one team in this thing

 

[belljr]

After seeing how the first round played out, why did Boise get a bye? They may be hurt by the bye, their big advantage would have been a southern team play in the Boise cold. They are rested, but now play a power team in a traditional bowl that travels well. I know they played Oregon very well, but they may have to play better than that to beat Penn St on a neutral field.

Because 5 conference champions make the playoffs. The 4 highest ranked champions get byes

 

[FairWarning]

After seeing how the first round played out, why did Boise get a bye? They may be hurt by the bye, their big advantage would have been a southern team play in the Boise cold. They are rested, but now play a power team in a traditional bowl that travels well. I know they played Oregon very well, but they may have to play better than that to beat Penn St on a neutral field.

Because 5 conference champions make the playoffs. The 4 highest ranked champions get byes

I wouldn’t give Boise the bye, they weren’t a power 4 conference champion.

 

[fasteddie_21]

He's talking about that need2know guy coming in with his "this team was overrated" discussion is you'd call it. I call them pointless fly by but to each his own.

I get Joe may disagree, but bad faith nonsense like that deserves a good ribbing, especially when they suddenly disappear after realizing they stepped in it. I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious.

Of course some people love victory lapping on the internet. That's life for some.

But accusing someone of discussing in bad faith is very different. And as you said, it seemed clear he wasn't being serious about 9 teams. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean a discussion is in bad faith.

Well, I asked at least four people which 12 teams they think are best and should have been in the playoff. He's the only one that bothered to answer and that was his answer. Everyone complaining about SMU and Indiana refuse to answer because I assume they want to list 7-8 SEC teams.

That's a pretty big leap.

I think the other poster read it more correctly. "I found @culdeus ' call for 9 SEC teams in the 12 team playoff worthy of a good chuckle, but I think he was only half serious."

I live in the middle of SEC country and I don't know anyone who wouldn't laugh at anyone seriously suggesting 9 SEC teams get into the playoffs.

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

If I were the Committee, I probably would have swapped Alabama for SMU. But I understand why they did what they did. That's hardly a hot take.

Is that what you were looking for?

Who do you think the 12 best teams are?

If people (here or elsewhere) think all these teams didn't belong, just wondering who they thought belonged instead.

In no particular order I think Notre Dame, Oregon, Ohio St, Penn State, Indiana, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, SMU, Arizona St, and Miami. I get why people say Alabama but I can't get that late November game against Oklahoma out of my mind. For the playoffs, since Clemson and Boise have to go I think you have to pull Miami out and I would pull SC but it's close with SMU.

What hurt Bama besides losing to OU was playing Mercer in November. I thought South Carolina had a better case over Bama.

Three changes I would really like to see that levels the playing field more.

1- SEC playing 9 conference games and 3 non-conference games like everyone else.
2- the super conferences need to go to divisions, it helps even out the schedule strength. It would help the teams like Bama and there will be fewer Indiana-types sneaking in. For being a SEC team, Texas really benefitted from the easiest schedule in the conference. Too often, the playoff teams from these conferences are decided by who they didn’t play.
3 - reseed after the first round of the playoffs.

Totally agree with all 3 points.

And honestly, I'd love to have clear language on the Committee's criteria. Because, as a general rule, I think WHO you play should matter. There has to be incentives for teams to schedule better teams. That's a win for literally everyone. As it is right now, there simply isn't any incentive and that sucks (and is wrong for CFB). And there needs to be a consensus on what the most important things are:


- Wins vs Top X teams?
- Who you lose to?
- When those wins/losses happened...does November carry more weight than Sept/Oct?
- How you're playing later in the year vs earlier?
- Best vs Most deserving? And what do those things even mean?
- Conference Championship Games...are they 'free rolls' or do losses in them matter?

Because what it seems to me to be the biggest arguing point re: the bottom of the bracket is Best Wins vs Worst Losses. There needs to be clarity on that. It's never going to be perfect. At least we can ALL agree that the seeding/formatting of the playoffs just is wrong/stupid/broken/idiotic and needs to change, right?

Fwiw, I never thought SMU was one of the 12 best teams...but going by what the committee chair said about CCGs, then they HAD to put them in, regardless. And finally, I do wish we got all the BYE teams hosting a game. I get that that's a huge advantage (bye and hfa) and agree that the formatting of this year's playoffs is jacked...but the idea of hosting home games the first two rounds and only the semi & finals being in neutral locations just makes more sense from a school and fan travel perspective. We know it's gonna change (it has to, right?), but let's hope they get it right. And my God, reseed each round, dammit!

 

[Uruk-Hai]

And honestly, I'd love to have clear language on the Committee's criteria.

You're never going to get this because the sample sizes are too small. There are all of these circular arguments that can't be resolved. I know where you're coming from, but you'll argue the opposite side next year.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Non conference wins should matter. SEC wants to live off having 9-3 teams beating each other because they’re all ranked. The rankings are subjective in first place. Don’t lose to 6-6 teams multiple times.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Getting pantsed by ungood teams should be a HUGE stain on a team's resume.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

And honestly, I'd love to have clear language on the Committee's criteria.

You're never going to get this because the sample sizes are too small. There are all of these circular arguments that can't be resolved. I know where you're coming from, but you'll argue the opposite side next year.

The truth is the college football post-season rhetoric and arguments haven't changed in 30 years, just some minor changes to the context. When Penn St and Nebraska both finished undefeated in '94 we heard the exact same circular argument about good wins, bad losses, conference strength, strength of schedule, etc. The main difference is that back then everyone thought there was an easy fix to just add another game, then more games, then a bigger playoff with more and more teams. If we had 16 teams this year rather than 12 it would fully and finally resolvevall these issues because Alabama and others could prove it on the field, right? Everyone now realizes that approach won't change anything. Meanwhile, the bowl season has completely lost its tradition and the magic of new years day football died long ago, probably about the same time we lost Keith Jackson.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Not sure how the SEC got more than one team in this thing

Understood. What team from the SEC would you have included?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

There will always be a debate about the last teams in/first teams out. But it is a lot better to be having that conversation about #12 then #3. You have to give the "other" schools a shot in the playoff. Eventually we will have some great Cinderella stories from it.

I love the home games in the first round. I am on the fence for the second round -- the bye is already a nice advantage for those teams, but it would be cool for them to get a home playoff atmosphere. Also, most campuses are empty for that second week of the playoffs. Penn State's finals already ended, but staying a couple extra days is more doable, than leaving campus for 1-2 weeks and coming back for a game.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Non conference wins should matter.

Absolutley. Is anyone saying non-conference wins (and losses) don't matter?

 

[Wildcat]

After seeing how the first round played out, why did Boise get a bye? They may be hurt by the bye, their big advantage would have been a southern team play in the Boise cold. They are rested, but now play a power team in a traditional bowl that travels well. I know they played Oregon very well, but they may have to play better than that to beat Penn St on a neutral field.

I’m not sure if your explanation makes any sense. Why would it have mattered if they played an extra game at home? By not playing and getting a bye it is the same as a win. Plus it saves them the chance of injury and gives them rest.

 

[SFBayDuck]

There will always be a debate about the last teams in/first teams out. But it is a lot better to be having that conversation about #12 then #3. You have to give the "other" schools a shot in the playoff. Eventually we will have some great Cinderella stories from it.

I love the home games in the first round. I am on the fence for the second round -- the bye is already a nice advantage for those teams, but it would be cool for them to get a home playoff atmosphere. Also, most campuses are empty for that second week of the playoffs. Penn State's finals already ended, but staying a couple extra days is more doable, than leaving campus for 1-2 weeks and coming back for a game.

Move the whole season up a week from week zero, so really two weeks for most. First and second rounds on campus. Have the championship on 1/1 rotating between those 4 bowls.

 

[kupcho1]

I can't believe this argument is ongoing.
What hasn't been said 50 times already? Why say the same things over and over again?
Do you expect to be the first person in the history of the internet to sway someone's opinion?

I've got to believe it's at the point now where posters are just trying to get each other's goat.
Can we talk about the games please?

Penn State v Boise State: I think Penn State wins, but I'd take the 11 points*
Texas v Arizona State: Texas in a walk; 14 points is a lot, but no way ASU hangs with the Longhorns
Ohio State v Oregon: As much as it pains me to say it, I think Ohio State wins the rematch. It'll be close, but I'd give the 2.5
Notre Dame v Georgia: Losing Carson Beck might be the best thing to happen to the Dawgs, give the 2 points with confidence


* I'm monumentally bad at gambling, so you may want to fade every one of these picks

 

[Desert_Power]

There will always be a debate about the last teams in/first teams out. But it is a lot better to be having that conversation about #12 then #3. You have to give the "other" schools a shot in the playoff. Eventually we will have some great Cinderella stories from it.

Agreed with this. I think the Cinderella aspect would be more likely if the committee were more focused on who the best teams are than who has the best records though.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I can't believe this argument is ongoing.

Major voices in college football like Kirk Herbstreit and Joel Klatt had strong opposing statements after the 1st round a few days ago. I'm not surprised at all people would talk about it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Losing Carson Beck might be the best thing to happen to the Dawgs

For forward discussion, I'd love to hear more on this. Can you elaborate?

I think losing the experienced starting QB that led the team to an 11-2 record with 3,485 yards and 28 TDs against 12 interceptions is terrible news for Georgia.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Non conference wins should matter.

Absolutley. Is anyone saying non-conference wins (and losses) don't matter?

No. But people are harping way too much on conference wins which obviously benefits the SEC more than anyone else. They want 9-3 SEC teams to be ranked over 11-1 non-SEC teams because "The SEC schedule is so hard".

 

[Joe Bryant]

Non conference wins should matter.

Absolutley. Is anyone saying non-conference wins (and losses) don't matter?

No. But people are harping way too much on conference wins which obviously benefits the SEC more than anyone else. They want 9-3 SEC teams to be ranked over 11-1 non-SEC teams because "The SEC schedule is so hard".

Thanks. I think most people look at the entire overall schedule. As I think they should.

 

[FairWarning]

After seeing how the first round played out, why did Boise get a bye? They may be hurt by the bye, their big advantage would have been a southern team play in the Boise cold. They are rested, but now play a power team in a traditional bowl that travels well. I know they played Oregon very well, but they may have to play better than that to beat Penn St on a neutral field.

I’m not sure if your explanation makes any sense. Why would it have mattered if they played an extra game at home? By not playing and getting a bye it is the same as a win. Plus it saves them the chance of injury and gives them rest.

I don't think they are that good (I know they played Oregon great). I thought they should have been a 10-12 seed tbh. The bye is the same as a win outside of the fact that there has to be some questions in their mind about how good they really are.

 

[FairWarning]

Non conference wins should matter.

Absolutley. Is anyone saying non-conference wins (and losses) don't matter?

No. But people are harping way too much on conference wins which obviously benefits the SEC more than anyone else. They want 9-3 SEC teams to be ranked over 11-1 non-SEC teams because "The SEC schedule is so hard".

Thanks. I think most people look at the entire overall schedule. As I think they should.

They really don't. It rarely gets brought up that the SEC plays fewer conference games. Sliding the additional cupcake in at the end of the season while the other conferences are playing each other guarantees a sec team won't drop in the rankings.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Non conference wins should matter.

Absolutley. Is anyone saying non-conference wins (and losses) don't matter?

No. But people are harping way too much on conference wins which obviously benefits the SEC more than anyone else. They want 9-3 SEC teams to be ranked over 11-1 non-SEC teams because "The SEC schedule is so hard".

Thanks. I think most people look at the entire overall schedule. As I think they should.

They really don't. It rarely gets brought up that the SEC plays fewer conference games. Sliding the additional cupcake in at the end of the season while the other conferences are playing each other guarantees a sec team won't drop in the rankings.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I think most people look at the entire schedule. Weighing each team on their own.

Seems to work ok for Notre Dame.

 

[FairWarning]

Non conference wins should matter.

Absolutley. Is anyone saying non-conference wins (and losses) don't matter?

No. But people are harping way too much on conference wins which obviously benefits the SEC more than anyone else. They want 9-3 SEC teams to be ranked over 11-1 non-SEC teams because "The SEC schedule is so hard".

Thanks. I think most people look at the entire overall schedule. As I think they should.

They really don't. It rarely gets brought up that the SEC plays fewer conference games. Sliding the additional cupcake in at the end of the season while the other conferences are playing each other guarantees a sec team won't drop in the rankings.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I think most people look at the entire schedule. Weighing each team on their own.

Seems to work ok for Notre Dame.

Their schedule gets more looks because it's not a conference schedule, it's a national one. If they would have lost 2 games, I would have put a SEC team over them, thanks to the NIU debacle. Miami bailing on them really hurt their SoS.

As. ND fan, I still don't know how good they really are. I guess we'll find out vs Georgia.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Non conference wins should matter.

Absolutley. Is anyone saying non-conference wins (and losses) don't matter?

No. But people are harping way too much on conference wins which obviously benefits the SEC more than anyone else. They want 9-3 SEC teams to be ranked over 11-1 non-SEC teams because "The SEC schedule is so hard".

Thanks. I think most people look at the entire overall schedule. As I think they should.

That's because you're an SEC guy. You have a built-in advantage because their teams get preferential treatment in the rankings. Here are the SEC big non-conference wins:

Georgia vs Clemson
SC vs Clemson
Texas vs Michigan?
Georgia vs GT?
Tennessee vs NC State?
Vandy vs Va Tech?
Mizzou vs BC?

They beat non bowl-eligible teams in UCLA, Wisconsin, Houston, UCF, FSU, and Wake Forest. They lost games to USC, Arizona St, Oklahoma St (LOL), Miami, California, Louisville, and Notre Dame. They also lost to Georgia State and Toledo.

Their non-conference resume THIS YEAR is laughable. The SEC beating each other proves nothing to me. The Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC beat each other too.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The SEC also played 20 games against P4 and Pac 12 opponents. The Big Ten played 18, the Big 12 played 14, and the ACC played 27. The SEC avoiding that 9th conference game matters too. The ACC plays 9 conference games and more P4 non-conference than anyone.