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
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

But what happens when you're in the Mountain West, MAC, AAC, etc. and you think your team is good? You have to play teams in your conference. So it will always be weak. And you can try and schedule as many big dogs as you can ... but will they agree to play you? And just because Missou and Texas AM for example are in the SEC doesn't make them better just because they play big schools each week.

It's an unfixable system until they go to a 16 or 24 team field lol.

They could fix it by leaving 1 or 2 weeks open at the end of a conference schedule and creating something of a play in for the conference title games to kind of force the teams that didn't have to play the good teams to have to. 

 

With these super conferences now it's a necessity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

But what are you left arguing for? A Bama team that lost to Vanderbilt and a bad .500 OU team? Ole Miss who lost to a 4-8 UK team? 

SC only lost to ranked teams and hasn't lost since October. 

also everyone and their mother knows LSU didn't count. 

The committee literally passed them over for a team they beat at their home the week before (Clemson) AND the team that team beat easily. (SMU) Makes zero sense. 

Edited by SCMunnerlyn1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

SC only lost to ranked teams and hasn't lost since October. 

also everyone and their mother knows LSU didn't count. 

The committee literally passed them over for a team they beat at their home the week before (Clemson) AND the team that team beat easily. (SMU) Makes zero sense. 

SC literally wasn’t passed over for Clemson.  Clemson was the ACC champ. Clemson got nothing to do with the Gamecocks sad song 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

SC only lost to ranked teams and hasn't lost since October. 

also everyone and their mother knows LSU didn't count. 

The committee literally passed them over for a team they beat at their home the week before (Clemson) AND the team that team beat easily. (SMU) Makes zero sense. 

Oh lord, you're trying to argue for SCar? The team that lost to Bama and Ole Miss? LOL

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Oh lord, you're trying to argue for SCar? The team that lost to Bama and Ole Miss? LOL

In October back to back with a freshman QB yes. 

and I'm saying with my whole chest they would walk in and roll over half the teams in the playoffs. Since realistically speaking Clemson is 0-3 vs the SEC and they still put them in. 

 

I say that to say Bama and Ole Miss are ALSO better picks than Indiana and SMU but the committee is worried about optics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CRA said:

SC literally wasn’t passed over for Clemson.  Clemson was the ACC champ. Clemson got nothing to do with the Gamecocks sad song 

No they quite literally were passed over for 2 slap dicks from the ACC. Warde Manuel said himself " data points" 

That fat fug.is still mad Clowney killed his running back in the bowl game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

No they quite literally were passed over for 2 slap dicks from the ACC. Warde Manuel said himself " data points" 

That fat fug.is still mad Clowney killed his running back in the bowl game. 

They where also passed up for a slap dick from the SEC...tenn had the worse lose of the 4 games

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

In October back to back with a freshman QB yes. 

and I'm saying with my whole chest they would walk in and roll over half the teams in the playoffs. Since realistically speaking Clemson is 0-3 vs the SEC and they still put them in. 

 

I say that to say Bama and Ole Miss are ALSO better picks than Indiana and SMU but the committee is worried about optics. 

LOLOLOLOL

  • Pie 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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...