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

The byes really are just absurd.  I think #12 Clemson would have been favored over some of these bye teams on neutral field…..and that’s not chest thumping that Clemson team as that good 

got to take the auto byes out of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CRA said:

The byes really are just absurd.  I think #12 Clemson would have been favored over some of these bye teams on neutral field…..and that’s not chest thumping that Clemson team as that good 

got to take the auto byes out of this

Every "I SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PLAYOFF" team lost so far. Clemson was not in the class of basically any of these teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

I've defended the new format. I still like the 12 team format. But there's no sugar coating it. It has produced terribly uncompetitive games so far.

Unfortunately, it isn't going to get better. What is being laid bare is that there has never really been much parity in college football because it has always existed as a sport without a salary cap. This will continue until the facade drops, they actually are professional teams(have been for almost 40 years now) and there is a salary cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Every "I SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PLAYOFF" team lost so far. Clemson was not in the class of basically any of these teams.

If you're on the bubble of the field I don't wanna hear it. You don't have a legit shot. What I **** about the 12 team field is that it definitely gets every team in the country that might potentially have a fighting chance in the field.

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

CRA

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I've defended the new format. I still like the 12 team format. But there's no sugar coating it. It has produced terribly uncompetitive games so far.

I think you should rank them 1-12.  Top 4 get byes.  A nod to the old format and making them unique from the rest .  Then the rest of the field 5-12 which was added plays each other and into a game vs the top 4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Every "I SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PLAYOFF" team lost so far. Clemson was not in the class of basically any of these teams.

Huh? Clemson to date has given a winner a better run at it than anyone else.  Also they happened to do things to that Texas D no one, not a single SEC team, has done all season.  Clemson basically is the one loser that wasn’t totally outclassed.  They definitely didn’t show up and give people fodder to point at them

Clemson was actually seeded properly.   They were seeded poorly despite a conference title.   Same should have been done for all the other weaker teams despite their titles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shocker Grand Master

Shocker

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CRA said:

I think you should rank them 1-12.  Top 4 get byes.  A nod to the old format and making them unique from the rest .  Then the rest of the field 5-12 which was added plays each other and into a game vs the top 4. 

This makes sense but they are rewarding the conference champions which I agree with personally.  Regardless of format you are going to see blowouts.  

I would keep it like this and if you are a bubble top 12 team and don't make it too bad.  It hasn't proven out any of those teams belonged 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SCMunnerlyn1 Mentor

SCMunnerlyn1

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Every "I SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PLAYOFF" team lost so far. Clemson was not in the class of basically any of these teams.

We've gotta quit thumping this narrative as factual given who did or didnt suit up. Thats the reality of non CFP bowl season. Portal,Coaches gone, players not playing or quitting mid game. 

It's just not realistic. If you cheer for a conference knock yourself out. But what a team did week 1-12 has maybe even less than zero to do with a bowl game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, CRA said:

Huh? Clemson to date has given a winner a better run at it than anyone else.  Also they happened to do things to that Texas D no one, not a single SEC team, has done all season.  Clemson basically is the one loser that wasn’t totally outclassed.  They definitely didn’t show up and give people fodder to point at them

Clemson was actually seeded properly.   They were seeded poorly despite a conference title.   Same should have been done for all the other weaker teams despite their titles. 

That's right, I forgot you guys actually made it and got beat pretty soundly by Texas.

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

    • nogoodbum
      Report: Panthers great Luke Kuechly being eyed for big TV job

      By nogoodbum · Posted

      Don't take this personal, but anyone who watches pregame or game broadcast on any of the four major networks & can't point out a dozen "experts" that Luke would do a better job than, is just not paying attention. IMO
    • lumbeecheraw75
      The "now it's been three years" Grade for the 2023 Draft

      By lumbeecheraw75 · Posted

      overall agree on the draft grade as a whole on on each pick, but every time I read (and I have read it more than once) that we "gave up two firsts" for Bryce, I am confused. We gave up the 2024 first, but we swapped 2023 firsts, so we didn't give up anything there. We did give up our former first rounder in DJ, but I don't think thats what you mean as one of the "firsts" we gave up.
    • Steves89
      The "now it's been three years" Grade for the 2023 Draft

      By Steves89 · Posted

      Didn't  see this posted (since 2023) but since folks have been posting that you can't judge a draft class for three years (a ridiculous take), I thought I'd post this to see what people thought about the 2023 draft. Unfortunately this may not be the most interesting class to do this with but I do quite like retrospective draft grades. Would appreciate other's takes on this (and other recent) draft classes.   1(1) - Bryce Young QB: I am a bigger Bryce Young apologist than most (maybe all). I like the kid. But there is no way around it: This was a terrible pick. If he had been picked in the 4th or even the 3rd round I would feel pretty good about it. But this was the first overall pick that we gave up two firsts, our best offensive player to get.  GRADE: C -    2(39) - Jonathan Mingo WR: not much to say here here. He was here for two years. His yards per catch are on par with Bryce's yards per pass. Rough stuff. To date he has still never scored a touchdown in the NFL GRADE: F   3(80) - DJ Johnson OLB: a pick I hated as soon as it happened and an example of why the premise of this thread is honestly dumb. This was a bad pick when it happened. Most people knew it.  Then came training camp and he did not look good. Then came the preseason which confirmed what we saw in TC. Then came the season which confirmed what we saw in preseason. To date, he has half a sack in his career. GRADE: F 4 (114) Chandlers Zavala G: Honestly the best pick of this draft which really speaks to how awful this draft is. Other than Bryce, the only pick still on the team. He is mostly average or below average depth which in round 4 is not terrible. But he had a pff score of 43.5 and though I think people have unrealistic expectations for draft picks, I still would want a little more from a fourth round pick GRADE: C+   5 (145) - Jammie Robinson S: I liked the pick when it happened but ended up being a disappointment. He logged 1 tackle with the falcons last year and not enough snaps to get a grade on PFF.  GRADE: F OVERALL DRAFT GRADE: F  
×
×
  • Create New...