Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

CFB conference championship games


LinvilleGorge
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, MillionDollarCam said:

Transfer portal is a fuging mess.

It’s legit NFL Free Agency except you can literally enter it however many times you want during your college career if you don’t mind sitting out a year each time you transfer.

It really is. I'm all for the kids having more flexibility but the current system is a complete poo show.

They gotta meet in the middle. My plan would be to reinstitute the one year sit out rule except for a fairly generous list of waiver opportunities. Stuff I'd be for allowing waivers for would probably include a playing time waiver (percentage of snaps, maybe 50%), head coach leaving, coordinator leaving, position coach leaving, and a family emergency stipulation. And the school also has to commit to a four year scholarship as long as you remain academically eligible. No more of this year to year scholarship BS.

I have no idea the legal ability to institute any of the above but something along those lines would be fair IMO.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CRA said:

FSU likely isn’t one of the top 4 best teams.  But you had to put them in.  You simply can’t exclude an undefeated power 5 team for a bunch of 1 loss teams.   That is the committee imploring too much subjectivity….and in a year where the other power 5 conferences weren’t even that great vs prior years. 

I get both sides of the argument. If Travis doesn't go down, FSU is probably in, but I can see a world where the committee doesn't want another 2021 Cincinnati or 2016 Washington situation, where a team got in because by letter of the law, they met the requirements, but then gets blown out because they weren't really one of the best four teams in the country. 

Either way, the committee will either be vindicated or indicted depending on the results of the FSU Georgia game. Georgia wins handily, committee is vindicated. FSU loses closely or wins, committee will hear the noise. 

All of this is moot anyway because of the expansion next year. Even if there is a snub out of the top 12, it won't be nearly as dramatic as a snub out of the top 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2023 at 8:39 AM, travisura said:

I get both sides of the argument. If Travis doesn't go down, FSU is probably in, but I can see a world where the committee doesn't want another 2021 Cincinnati or 2016 Washington situation, where a team got in because by letter of the law, they met the requirements, but then gets blown out because they weren't really one of the best four teams in the country. 

Either way, the committee will either be vindicated or indicted depending on the results of the FSU Georgia game. Georgia wins handily, committee is vindicated. FSU loses closely or wins, committee will hear the noise. 

All of this is moot anyway because of the expansion next year. Even if there is a snub out of the top 12, it won't be nearly as dramatic as a snub out of the top 4.

Non playoff bowl games aren't really a great indicator since so many of the likely to be drafted draft eligible players sit them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2023 at 8:39 AM, travisura said:

I get both sides of the argument. If Travis doesn't go down, FSU is probably in, but I can see a world where the committee doesn't want another 2021 Cincinnati or 2016 Washington situation, where a team got in because by letter of the law, they met the requirements, but then gets blown out because they weren't really one of the best four teams in the country. 

Either way, the committee will either be vindicated or indicted depending on the results of the FSU Georgia game. Georgia wins handily, committee is vindicated. FSU loses closely or wins, committee will hear the noise. 

All of this is moot anyway because of the expansion next year. Even if there is a snub out of the top 12, it won't be nearly as dramatic as a snub out of the top 4.

I get it, there is nothing we can do about it, but I'll ask you like I have ask everyone else that has said something similar.  What exactly makes you think FSU is not one of the 4 best teams?  They had a better strength of record.  They had a better overall winning % obviously.  Head to head play (They both played LSU) FSU won by more points.  They have a better ranked D, they played in the best conference, no seriously, this year when playing non conference teams (ACC was the best conference believe it or not).  There is no statistical value of metric that says Alabama should have gotten in over FSU.  From everything I can find...it is an opinion.  I just don't get how people can say, or based on what are they saying Alabama was a better program this year than FSU to snub them.  Won the last 2 game with a back up QB by more points than Alabama as well.  I dunno, I don't get both sides of the argument.

Edited by HPPantherzfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

That'll be fun to watch. Very few linemen - even elite blue chippers - show up on campus ready to play at the P5 level as true freshmen. Deion will probably throw him out there on day one and he'll look like Byron Bell.

This kid alone is a improvement on what they had last year. Im sure they will retool that entire Oline in the transfer portal.

 

Wasn't expecting them to get the #1 Olineman in the country. That's a good start for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

This kid alone is a improvement on what they had last year. Im sure they will retool that entire Oline in the transfer portal.

 

Wasn't expecting them to get the #1 Olineman in the country. That's a good start for them.

They built their entire OL out of the portal this year. 

UNC landed the #1 ranked OT last year and he was a non-factor as a freshman despite UNC having a fairly run of the mill OL. That's the norm for lineman recruits. They almost always need at least one year of college level S&C not to mention simply another year of physical maturation from age. You aren't getting your quick fixes in the trenches from kids coming straight out of HS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...