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!

     

2024 College Football Thread

KingKucci

By KingKucci,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bama Panther said:

if you seeded 1-12, SMU and Indiana wouldn’t be playing teams like Clemson and ASU. They’d be playing teams like Oregon and Georgia. Those games would be even worse. 

1 doesn’t play 12.  You do play in games with low seed vs low seed.  And you give byes to the top 4 teams.  You don’t award byes to conference champs.  So Texas and Penn get byes.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I'm not even surprised. It's a joke we even have 2 ACC teams in the playoffs. I told y'all all season. 

Bold take that 12 teams wouldn’t be worthy of competing for a natty when we could never find 4 worthy of such.   I think every has always acknowledged that 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Bama Panther said:

I doubt ND and PSU will both be playing the NCCG. It could happen but it’s unlikely. 

Additionally, the past blowouts were against teams that were supposedly the #3 and #4 teams in the country. These were against teams ranked #8 and #10 who each struggled mightily in their regular season games against legit opponents. 

Not sure of your point. Playoff blowouts are blowouts. There's been plenty of them. This isn't a new phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CamWhoaaCam Grand Master

CamWhoaaCam

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Martin said:

If you have 3 losses, you should not be in the playoffs, no matter the conference imo.

Only in the SEC. There are just better teams in that conference and the competition is better than other conferences top to bottom.

 

The 6th best team in the SEC would still be better than the best team in most conferences.

 

They made a mistake not putting Alabama in the playoffs. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CamWhoaaCam Grand Master

CamWhoaaCam

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CRA said:

Bold take that 12 teams wouldn’t be worthy of competing for a natty when we could never find 4 worthy of such.   I think every has always acknowledged that 

The voters will learn from the 1st playoffs. This was a chance for the lesser conferences to prove they belong with the big boys. If Clemson doesn't stay competitive in the next game it's gonna make the voters look even more ridiculous.

 

I think they have to reward more teams in the best conference which is the SEC. Teams shouldn't be punished because they play in the best conference. We all know the SEC is king in college football. Reward more teams in that conference please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Grand Master

Martin

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Only in the SEC. There are just better teams in that conference and the competition is better than other conferences top to bottom.

 

The 6th best team in the SEC would still be better than the best team in most conferences.

 

They made a mistake not putting Alabama in the playoffs. 

Disagree, if you’ve lost 3 games you have not earned the right to play for the championship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Panther Mentor

Bama Panther

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, CRA said:

1 doesn’t play 12.  You do play in games with low seed vs low seed.  And you give byes to the top 4 teams.  You don’t award byes to conference champs.  So Texas and Penn get byes.  

Gotcha. Where you said “no byes” threw me off. You mean no automatic byes for conference champs? Top 4, whoever they are, get byes, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Panther Mentor

Bama Panther

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Martin said:

Disagree, if you’ve lost 3 games you have not earned the right to play for the championship. 

In most seasons, multiple top 12 teams have 3 losses. It’s a nature of the 12-team format. You can’t say losing 3 games means you haven’t earned the right to be in the playoffs if you are still one of the top 12-ish teams (given auto bids for conference champs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UnluckyforSome Grand Master

UnluckyforSome

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bama Panther said:

The issue is the notion that all conferences and conference champs are created equally, when that just isn’t the case. 11-2 in the ACC is not the same as 9-3 in the SEC or B1G. The highest ranked G5 champion is very rarely going to be on the same level as the 3rd or 4th place B1G/SEC team. 

I completely agree with that, on the other hand, specific to this year, a 3 loss SEC team still has 3 losses and I am not convinced they should be in a conversation about a "National Champion."

  • Flames 1
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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • ForJimmy
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • tukafan21
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
    • TD alt
      Monroe Freeling’s lovely GF

      By TD alt · Posted

      He was also apparently.
×
×
  • Create New...