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!

     

College Bowl Season


jayboogieman
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You care a whole lot when it's convenient to you talking trash about a certain school. 

 

FSU got fugged without lube.   My opinion there won’t change 

WTF you mean otherwise I have no idea

 

Edited by Shocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shocker said:

FSU got fugged without lube.   My opinion there won’t change 

WTF you mean otherwise I have no idea

 

Honestly, they did. Also honestly, I don't care. As soon as Travis went down so did their legit chances in a 4 team playoff so I don't really care that they got snubbed. They got screwed because the NCAA decided to wait to expand to a 12 team field.

Sure you know what I mean. You throw shade at one team and one team only. No clue why a FSU fan would be so concerned with UNC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Honestly, they did. Also honestly, I don't care. As soon as Travis went down so did their legit chances in a 4 team playoff so I don't really care that they got snubbed. They got screwed because the NCAA decided to wait to expand to a 12 team field.

Sure you know what I mean. You throw shade at one team and one team only. No clue why a FSU fan would be so concerned with UNC.

LOL…I am a Tarheel forever.  I am very confused why they would come up now.  This season was typical UNC.  I told you early in the season this team would not make any kind of playoff.  Looking at this if Carolina went undefeated they would NOT have made the playoff.  Period.  That is bullshet 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shocker said:

LOL…I am a Tarheel forever.  I am very confused why they would come up now.  This season was typical UNC.  I told you early in the season this team would not make any kind of playoff.  Looking at this if Carolina went undefeated they would NOT have made the playoff.  Period.  That is bullshet 

Sure they would have. If Carolina is undefeated Drake Maye is a Heisman finalist and they're in the playoffs. FSU missed the playoffs because their QB got hurt late in the season in a meaningless game against a schedule filler before they had time to prove that maybe they could be a playoff contender without him. That sucks, but it is what it is. If Carolina had gone undefeated and Drake Maye got hurt against Campbell and that was our last regular season game then we would've missed the playoffs too. It is what it is. It's the flaw of a 4 team field. A 12 team field largely addresses that. The NCAA never should've kicked that can down the road once they made the decision to expand. Yeah, there's still gonna be snubs. But let's be real, if you're a bubble team in a 12 team field in college football you don't stand a real chance anyway. The top handful of teams really is THAT much better than a everyone else. The 12 team field just ensures that no real contenders get left out.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Sure they would have. If Carolina is undefeated Drake Maye is a Heisman finalist and they're in the playoffs. FSU missed the playoffs because their QB got hurt late in the season in a meaningless game against a schedule filler before they had time to prove that maybe they could be a playoff contender without him. That sucks, but it is what it is. If Carolina had gone undefeated and Drake Maye got hurt against Campbell and that was our last regular season game then we would've missed the playoffs too. It is what it is. It's the flaw of a 4 team field. A 12 team field largely addresses that. The NCAA never should've kicked that can down the road once they made the decision to expand. Yeah, there's still gonna be snubs. But let's be real, if you're a bubble team in a 12 team field in college football you don't stand a real chance anyway. The top handful of teams really is THAT much better than a everyone else. The 12 team field just ensures that no real contenders get left out.

What about Georgia?  Are they better than Texas and Michigan and Washington?  Of course they are.  The playoff expansion had to happen.

Georgia lost 1 game by 3 pts in a championship game.  

Edited by Shocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Shocker said:

What about Georgia?  Are they better than Texas and Michigan and Washington?  Of course they are.  The playoff expansion had to happen.

Georgia lost 1 game by 3 pts in a championship game.  

You're not getting it. FSU missed the playoffs because their QB got hurt. Period. If Travis doesn't get hurt in a schedule filler game they're in the playoffs. That sucks but it is what it is. Guess what? If Penix got hurt Washington probably isn't in the playoffs either. It is what it is. 

The problem is the 4 team field. That problem gets fixed next year. The NCAA kicking that can down the road might kill the ACC. And honestly, ya know what? I don't even care. Expansion has grossly watered down the old rivalries already. The ACC is pretty much already dead IMO. With Stanford, Cal, and SMU coming aboard it just gets dumb. You can't even honestly call it the ATLANTIC Coast Conference anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus. I just checked the score. #7 OSU vs. #9 Mizzou is 7-3 deep into the 4th. The bowl golden goose is dead. The advertisers and naming sponsors have to be realizing horrible ROI at this point.

You need the playoffs and a handful of bowls for the good non-P5 teams. Hell, honestly you need about 40-50 teams competing for those 12 playoffs spots and the rest of current D1 being demoted to D1-AA. Sorry Dakotas. Y'all have competition again. App State is back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4Corners said:

These bowl games obviously generate TV money; revenue for the schools and help local economies but come on…these games are terrible and nobody on earth gives a crap about Memphis vs Arkansas, UNC vs WVU etc 

 

and like I’ve said, getting mad at these kids who elect to not play is such a boomer, selfish mentality. 

I disagree they help the economy. Stands for 85% of the games are 25% filled. That's barely bringing anything in to the hotels and restaurants. And ratings are abysmal. Thankfully for the networks and sponsors, advertisers are dumb enough to shell out money. But yes, the schools are getting the best out of everyone.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Someone about to get SLAPPED hard.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39206250/ncaa-investigating-unauthorized-access-denies-breach

An unnamed school has been accused of hacking into a company's database to steal game footage of other schools. Said company says there was no breach. But ... we know this isn't over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Someone about to get SLAPPED hard.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39206250/ncaa-investigating-unauthorized-access-denies-breach

An unnamed school has been accused of hacking into a company's database to steal game footage of other schools. Said company says there was no breach. But ... we know this isn't over.

Sounds like some Michigan poo but I can't imagine the NCAA would let that leak with them about to play as the #1 seed in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I disagree they help the economy. Stands for 85% of the games are 25% filled. That's barely bringing anything in to the hotels and restaurants. And ratings are abysmal. Thankfully for the networks and sponsors, advertisers are dumb enough to shell out money. But yes, the schools are getting the best out of everyone.

Just a holdover of legacy media platforms. Without network TV and boomer executives that still thinks that is the advertising avenue of note there's no way the current bowl system is viable.

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...