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

Shocker Grand Master

Shocker

Posted
Posted

The way they are doing this seeding is fine IMO.  What we can’t have is teams from the same league getting byes.  I think the goal should be the top 12 teams and having 3 losses matters but shouldn’t exclude someone.  Alabama is a better team than SMU or Indiana and they would have been a serious threat.  Miami didn’t beat anyone.  

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

CRA

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

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

See there you go again, just getting whacky.   I mean, outside of some anomaly season….we know that just isn’t true.  

non-SEC teams have 4 of the 10 nattys in the CFP era. 

we know the 6th best team in the SEC hasn’t been better than the top of other conferences during this era.  Almost 50% of the time the top of the SEC didn’t finish on top. 

SEC is the best conference.  But that’s why the SEC gets hate because they often get stupid with it….and you aren’t even a SEC guy. At least not today. 

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

CRA

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

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.

Disagree really.  The #4 and #3 team routinely got their doors blown off in the 4 team bracket.

In reality Penn St would have been in under the 4 team system….and yet they are playing a team that is only squeaked into the top 10 in one poll. 

Blowouts are going to happen.  

Hell one the biggest blowouts in CFP history was what everyone was appointing as the greatest team in college football history and were going to be appointed such when they won the title game….but they got smashed in it and everyone pretends that talk never happened.   Sports.  Bad and good days happen.  Therefore bad games happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

All this recency bias is insane. Y'all, we all watched TCU get massacred 65-7 in the title game less than two years ago.

and those games were neutral sites too.  The deck/format is intentionally slanted to reward and favor the higher seeds right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, CRA said:

and those games were neutral sites too.  The deck/format is intentionally slanted to reward and favor the higher seeds right now. 

Yeah, I think they should be played in neutral sites. Just commandeer already existing bowl games like they did with the four team format. I mean, all the legacy "big bowls" have basically been rendered irrelevant with the current format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, I think they should be played in neutral sites. Just commandeer already existing bowl games like they did with the four team format.

Yeah, I never really understood how they cherry picked these opening games to give them homefield advantage given that’s not what college football does anywhere else in title, bowl, playoff games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Panther Mentor

Bama Panther

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, UnluckyforSome said:

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."

Your issue must be with the 12-team format then. As I mentioned, there have been many prior seasons with 3-loss teams in the top 12. If we are going to have a 12-team (or God forbid, 16-team) format going forward, three losses is not a disqualifier. 

The real question we all should be asking is this: should there really be 12 teams in the playoffs? We know that there are at least 2, but I’d venture to guess about 6, teams that truly have no chance at winning this thing and should not be in a conversation about a “National Champion.”

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Panther Mentor

Bama Panther

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

All this recency bias is insane. Y'all, we all watched TCU get massacred 65-7 in the title game less than two years ago.

Which is why they NEVER should have expanded to 12 teams. Now that we are here, it doesn’t mean we have to accept teams getting in due to weak schedules only to get railroaded in the first round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bama Panther said:

Which is why they NEVER should have expanded to 12 teams. Now that we are here, it doesn’t mean we have to accept teams getting in due to weak schedules only to get railroaded in the first round. 

I have an odd feeling you'd be singing a completely different tune had they let Bama in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Panther Mentor

Bama Panther

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

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

Since these blowouts occurred in the 7/10 and 6/11 games, it suggests to me two things: (1) should the playoffs have been expanded to 12; and (2) if so, should SMU and Indiana, both teams who only got in due to the draw of extremely favorable schedules, have been amongst the 12?

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

    • tukafan21
      Well, the Niners just doomed themselves to mediocrity

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Um, no, just no. Bills, Chiefs, Chargers, Ravens, Bengals, Texans, Eagles, Commanders are 8 teams that it's not even a debate, they aren't trading their QB for Purdy. Patriots, Broncos, Titans, Giants, Bears, Vikings, Falcons are 7 more teams with QBs drafted in the last 2 years that also would rather stick with them than trade for Purdy as they all have more upside than he does. Lions, Packers, Cowboys, Bucs are 4 more that would likely keep their QB's as well, age aside for Goff, Dak, and Baker. Panthers and Colts are two teams in the same situation, QB's who have both struggled and shown flashes to where the teams probably stick with them because they drafted them, but in a re-draft of all QB's, they probably take Purdy over the guy they currently have. Jags, Cardinals, Dolphins, are 3 more with QB's who probably have a higher upside than Purdy but come with their own question marks, so debatable if they'd take Purdy over who they already have. That leaves Jets, Raiders, Steelers, Browns, Saints, Seahawks, and Rams. Rams would take him over Stafford for the future of course, but not for 2025, and I'd think the Seahawks would take him over Darnold, but honestly not sure if they would take him over Milroe at this moment as they really like his potential and have him for 4 years really cheap. That leaves 5 teams that I see who would absolutely take him over their current situation right now, and a handful of others who MIGHT take him over their current guy, a far cry from your 20.  
    • ForJimmy
      The Bryce Trade is Finally Complete. Who Won the Trade? Panthers vs Bears

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Agreed. Also as soon as they received the top pick in the next draft it was over. Bears won that trade. Gave up a top overall pick got one the next year plus pick 9, a couple 2nds, and DJ Moore a proven young WR. Had their 2024 pick from us be in the late teens or later it would be more debatable IMO. 
    • Loyalty4Life
      Well, the Niners just doomed themselves to mediocrity

      By Loyalty4Life · Posted

      Option A:  Pay your starting QB starting QB money. Option B:  Look for a starting QB for 4-10 years (or longer) while wasting the talent at every other position.    How many of the top 20 QB's do you think are worth what they are being paid?   When you factor in the last year of his present deal his contract is really an average of 45 million per year which in today's QB market is a very, very good deal. I wish we'd had found a Brock Purdy to pay 50+ million a year right after we parted ways with Cam.  Ya'll go ahead and live in fairy tale land where good to great (much less elite) QB's are available to pay. Just the fact that they had the chance to pay Brock after the disaster of trading up for Lance is a testament that when you find a quarter back you can win with, complete in the playoffs and superbowls with, you pay him.  
×
×
  • Create New...