2024-25 College Football Thread

[atlantacowboy]

LOL, you saying people need to be objective is kind of funny given your lovefest of the SEC and some other comments you have made in this thread.

And Kiffin is a fine coach. But you act like he's some sort of elite guy, top of the barrel. He's not, hence why the comment no one is more hyped than Kiffin despite having done so little. He's won a Peach Bowl in his career. That's about it.

And again, he lost to a bad UK and UF team this year so I wouldn't exactly call his performance in 2024 great or anything.

Saying the SEC is the best conference with the most talent isn’t a love fest. It’s a fact. So says the high school recruiting rankings where 7 of the top 10 classes are SEC schools and the NFL where the conference puts the most players in the NFL on an annual basis. And the conference has won 4 out of the last 5 national titles.

I know. Facts hurt.

 

[Sydla]

So, in your view , It’s more advantageous to play a soft schedule and not beat anyone. Well, heck, why not put Memphis and Army in there ?

I refer you back to your lashing about people being objective. Because this isn't objective.

Here's my thoughts. Play a decent schedule, just don't lose to inferior teams when your margin for error is small. Ole Miss had already lost a game to a bottom feeding UK team and then with them screaming they deserve to be in the playoffs they go out and lose to a really mediocre UF team at the end of the year. You'd have a better argument if they had lost to LSU, UGA and Tennessee by a combined 5 points. But they didn't. Two of their three losses were to teams that weren't all that good. I don't think beating Georgia somehow washes away the reality they had two "bad" losses and then a third to what turned out to be a fairly bleh LSU team.

This is why I brought up ND. Most of these teams get a mulligan. ND got one in a brutal loss to NIU to start the year. But after the mulligan, they just blew the doors off people and kind of washed away that terrible loss. Ole Miss would have had a similar mulligan after losing to a bad UK team. But then they lost to LSU. But, ranking wise, it appeared they got a 2nd mulligan and were still in playoff contention. They then lose to a mediocre, at best, UF team. How many mulligans do they deserve at that point?

And beating up on Duke doesn't somehow wash away that reality and somehow prove their claim that they should have been in the playoffs.

 

[Sydla]

Saying the SEC is the best conference with the most talent isn’t a love fest. It’s a fact. So says the high school recruiting rankings where 7 of the top 10 classes are SEC schools and the NFL where the conference puts the most players in the NFL on an annual basis. And the conference has won 4 out of the last 5 national titles.

I know. Facts hurt.

LOL. Spoken like a true devotee.

For what it's worth, I still tend to believe the SEC is the "best" conference but that playing field is getting more level now that NIL and the transfer portal has exploded in college football. And, on paper, the most talented team isn't an SEC team, it's a BIG team - OSU.

 

[atlantacowboy]

LOL. Spoken like a true devotee.

For what it's worth, I still tend to believe the SEC is the "best" conference but that playing field is getting more level now that NIL and the transfer portal has exploded in college football. And, on paper, the most talented team isn't an SEC team, it's a BIG team - OSU.

It’s good to be a devotee since I can brag without exaggerating. But I recognize the top of the conference had a bad year. UGA and Bama were not what they normally are. I’ve never seen a Kirby Smart team get physically dominated like they got dominated in New Orleans. The portal hit Bama hard before Deboer even arrived on campus. But there are simply more good teams than any other conference. Heck, even Vandy was good this year.

 

[atlantacowboy]

I refer you back to your lashing about people being objective. Because this isn't objective.

Here's my thoughts. Play a decent schedule, just don't lose to inferior teams when your margin for error is small. Ole Miss had already lost a game to a bottom feeding UK team and then with them screaming they deserve to be in the playoffs they go out and lose to a really mediocre UF team at the end of the year. You'd have a better argument if they had lost to LSU, UGA and Tennessee by a combined 5 points. But they didn't. Two of their three losses were to teams that weren't all that good. I don't think beating Georgia somehow washes away the reality they had two "bad" losses and then a third to what turned out to be a fairly bleh LSU team.

This is why I brought up ND. Most of these teams get a mulligan. ND got one in a brutal loss to NIU to start the year. But after the mulligan, they just blew the doors off people and kind of washed away that terrible loss. Ole Miss would have had a similar mulligan after losing to a bad UK team. But then they lost to LSU. But, ranking wise, it appeared they got a 2nd mulligan and were still in playoff contention. They then lose to a mediocre, at best, UF team. How many mulligans do they deserve at that point?

And beating up on Duke doesn't somehow wash away that reality and somehow prove their claim that they should have been in the playoffs.

My argument is simply about the CFP. If the playoff committee judges a team to be among the 12 best, they should be in the playoff. What’s not objective about that ?

 

[Sydla]

My argument is simply about the CFP. If the playoff committee judges a team to be among the 12 best, they should be in the playoff. What’s not objective about that ?

But at some point you have to apply some sort of factor to what happened on the field. I mean why even play games, just pick the 12 best teams have a giant round robin tournament.

There has to be some value to what happens on the field and the fact is, Ole Miss lost TWICE to not good teams. I get that you want to compare them and say SMU or Indiana, both who played weaker schedules. But again, we aren't comparing a 1 loss IU team to an Ole Miss team that lost three close games to Top 15 teams. Ole Miss lost two games to conference bottom feeders this year, something IU did not do. So I don't have much of a problem with the committee saying, "yeah, maybe Ole Miss has some better wins but they also have three losses, including two to bad to mediocre teams something IU didn't do..........."

You overvalue Ole Miss. They proved not once, but twice this year that they can lose to a suspect team. There's no question they could have faced say ND or PSU or OSU and got punched in the mouth and lost by double digits. Or maybe they could have won. But reality is there is justification there to conclude they weren't playoff worthy. You can't lose to UK, then lose to a borderline top 25 team in LSU and then with your playoff hopes on the line, lost to a really suspect UF team and then expect to be called one of the 12 best teams.

 

[gtb1943]

So, in your view , It’s more advantageous to play a soft schedule and not beat anyone. Well, heck, why not put Memphis and Army in there ?

considering the dead bodies sec team like to play like Mercer, Louisiana Monroe and WKU and others this is a pathetic joke

 

[atlantacowboy]

But at some point you have to apply some sort of factor to what happened on the field. I mean why even play games, just pick the 12 best teams have a giant round robin tournament.

There has to be some value to what happens on the field and the fact is, Ole Miss lost TWICE to not good teams. I get that you want to compare them and say SMU or Indiana, both who played weaker schedules. But again, we aren't comparing a 1 loss IU team to an Ole Miss team that lost three close games to Top 15 teams. Ole Miss lost two games to conference bottom feeders this year, something IU did not do. So I don't have much of a problem with the committee saying, "yeah, maybe Ole Miss has some better wins but they also have three losses, including two to bad to mediocre teams something IU didn't do..........."

You overvalue Ole Miss. They proved not once, but twice this year that they can lose to a suspect team. There's no question they could have faced say ND or PSU or OSU and got punched in the mouth and lost by double digits. Or maybe they could have won. But reality is there is justification there to conclude they weren't playoff worthy. You can't lose to UK, then lose to a borderline top 25 team in LSU and then with your playoff hopes on the line, lost to a really suspect UF team and then expect to be called one of the 12 best teams.

The CFP does factor in what happened on the field. Obviously.

You keep harping on the fact teams lost games but who did Indiana beat? Who did BSU beat? We just disagree. I think SOS should be heavily weighted. You don't. You don't mind these punchless teams with fancy records getting blown out in the playoff bc they earned the right. I'd rather see competitive games.

 

[Sydla]

The CFP does factor in what happened on the field. Obviously.

You keep harping on the fact teams lost games but who did Indiana beat? Who did BSU beat? We just disagree. I think SOS should be heavily weighted. You don't. You don't mind these punchless teams with fancy records getting blown out in the playoff bc they earned the right. I'd rather see competitive games.

I am harping on wins and losses. IU didn't have an elite win. But they also had zero bad losses. When they faced a team of the caliber of UK, they ran that team off the field. Conversely, Ole Miss did beat a really good UGA but they had not one, but TWO not so good losses, with the UF loss being at the end of the year when they were fighting for a playoff spot. The fact they lost to TWO mediocre to bad teams kind of washes away any goodwill from beating UGA, for example.

I have no problem weighing SOS. Ole Miss played a tougher schedule. And if they had one loss, or even two losses, I'd make the argument they should have been in over IU. But they had three losses and two of those losses were to teams that finished 10th and 15th in the SEC (and even LSU ended up being like 8th in the SEC). Again, if Ole Miss was 10-2 and their two losses were to a #5 ranked LSU team and a #8 ranked Florida team, I'd put a lot more weight in SOS and say, you can't penalize Ole Miss for losing to two great teams, and they should be in over IU. But that wasn't the case here. They lost to two bad to mediocre teams that were non-factors in their own conference with a third loss coming to a team that only finished middle of the pack in the SEC. At that point arguing SOS seems strange.

You say you want to see competitive games but there is an assumption there that an Ole Miss team that lost to UK and UF would make a trip up North to South Bend in the freezing cold, something they've never done in who knows how long and face a very physical ND team and be competitive. You have no way of knowing what Ole Miss would have done under those conditions. And the fact they lost to UK, UF and what was a fairly bland LSU is more than enough ammo to suggest they may have gotten beat up in South Bend too.

 

[atlantacowboy]

I am harping on wins and losses. IU didn't have an elite win. But they also had zero bad losses. When they faced a team of the caliber of UK, they ran that team off the field. Conversely, Ole Miss did beat a really good UGA but they had not one, but TWO not so good losses, with the UF loss being at the end of the year when they were fighting for a playoff spot. The fact they lost to TWO mediocre to bad teams kind of washes away any goodwill from beating UGA, for example.

I have no problem weighing SOS. Ole Miss played a tougher schedule. And if they had one loss, or even two losses, I'd make the argument they should have been in over IU. But they had three losses and two of those losses were to teams that finished 10th and 15th in the SEC (and even LSU ended up being like 8th in the SEC). Again, if Ole Miss was 10-2 and their two losses were to a #5 ranked LSU team and a #8 ranked Florida team, I'd put a lot more weight in SOS and say, you can't penalize Ole Miss for losing to two great teams, and they should be in over IU. But that wasn't the case here. They lost to two bad to mediocre teams that were non-factors in their own conference with a third loss coming to a team that only finished middle of the pack in the SEC. At that point arguing SOS seems strange.

You say you want to see competitive games but there is an assumption there that an Ole Miss team that lost to UK and UF would make a trip up North to South Bend in the freezing cold, something they've never done in who knows how long and face a very physical ND team and be competitive. You have no way of knowing what Ole Miss would have done under those conditions. And the fact they lost to UK, UF and what was a fairly bland LSU is more than enough ammo to suggest they may have gotten beat up in South Bend too.

I don't know how Ole Miss would fair in South Bend. True. But I do know Ole Miss has a lot of legitimate future NFL players while IU has ONE 3rd round prospect. So, Ole Miss is a more talented team. What you have to consider in the playoff is if both teams are at their best, which team is more than likely better? They did this all the time when it was just 4 teams. FSU went undefeated and missed out on the playoff b/c the committee judged other teams to be better. We don't do that anymore?

You keep bringing up UK. Did you watch a UK game this year? That was a good team that had the misfortune of playing the 4th hardest schedule in the nation. They lost to UGA by 1 point. They beat Ole Miss and played UT close. On other hand, IU ranked 67th in SOS and beat nobody. UK has more NFL talent than IU. I don't think IU could beat Kentucky.

This is why the committee needs to get rid of these auto bids and select the 12 best teams just like they used to select the 4 best teams, and seed them according to their own poll.

 

[Sydla]

I don't know how Ole Miss would fair in South Bend. True. But I do know Ole Miss has a lot of legitimate future NFL players while IU has ONE 3rd round prospect. So, Ole Miss is a more talented team. What you have to consider in the playoff is if both teams are at their best, which team is more than likely better? They did this all the time when it was just 4 teams. FSU went undefeated and missed out on the playoff b/c the committee judged other teams to be better. We don't do that anymore?

You keep bringing up UK. Did you watch a UK game this year? That was a good team that had the misfortune of playing the 4th hardest schedule in the nation. They lost to UGA by 1 point. They beat Ole Miss and played UT close. On other hand, IU ranked 67th in SOS and beat nobody. UK has more NFL talent than IU. I don't think IU could beat Kentucky.

This is why the committee needs to get rid of these auto bids and select the 12 best teams just like they used to select the 4 best teams, and seed them according to their own poll.

They deemed other teams “better” because FSU lost their QB right before the playoffs. If Travis were healthy, FSU would have made that final four.

UK was not good. Stop. You talk about being objective but if you are trying to argue UK wasn’t a bad loss and in fact was good team, LOL. They got blown out by a bad Auburn team, destroyed by a mediocre UF team and run off the field by Louisville.

Ole Miss did not deserve to be in the playoffs. You can’t lose three games to teams ranked 8 and below in that conference and argue they deserved to be there. Thats laughable.

I do agree with dumping the auto seed rule and just seeding based on final ranking.

 

[atlantacowboy]

They deemed other teams “better” because FSU lost their QB right before the playoffs. If Travis were healthy, FSU would have made that final four.

UK was not good. Stop. You talk about being objective but if you are trying to argue UK wasn’t a bad loss and in fact was good team, LOL. They got blown out by a bad Auburn team, destroyed by a mediocre UF team and run off the field by Louisville.

Ole Miss did not deserve to be in the playoffs. You can’t lose three games to teams ranked 8 and below in that conference and argue they deserved to be there. Thats laughable.

I do agree with dumping the auto seed rule and just seeding based on final ranking.

So, after all that you agree Alabama deserved to be in playoff bc their final ranking was in the top 12…… which is how it should be Iol
Talent matters that’s what makes the SEC so tough….. and “yes” even UK has enough talent to rise up on occasion and surprise top tier teams.

 

[Sydla]

So, after all that you agree Alabama deserved to be in playoff bc their final ranking was in the top 12…… which is how it should be Iol
Talent matters that’s what makes the SEC so tough….. and “yes” even UK has enough talent to rise up on occasion and surprise top tier teams.

UK is not an acceptable loss for Ole Miss. It’s a bad loss. You lose a game like that, you put yourself in a tough spot for the playoffs.

LOL, remind us again of how you are objective and everyone else isn’t.

And I guess I wasn’t clear. SEEDING should be based on final rankings but I still think conference champs get an auto bid. So even at 11 Bama would not have gotten in.

 

[atlantacowboy]

No, they had a clear path to the playoffs and lost to a mediocre OU team that got beat by Navy. Again, they got their mulligans early so with the playoff on the line you can’t then get embarrassed by a mediocre OU team for your third loss and expect to just be handed a berth.

And UK is not an acceptable loss for Ole Miss. It’s a bad loss. You lose a game like that, you put yourself in a tough spot for the playoffs.

LOL, remind us again of how you are objective and everyone else isn’t.

I think UK could beat IU. They beat Ole Miss and they should have beaten UGA. Both of those teams are better than IU. But, That's an opinion.

The fact is that Alabama finished inside the top 12 of the CFP poll.

Remind me how it is not hypocritical to say you think the top 12 in the CFP should be in the playoffs but not Alabama this year? lol

 

[Sydla]

In other words the bracket should have been:

Oregon - bye
Georgia - bye
Texas - bye
PSU - bye

Then

ND (5) vs Clemson (12)
OSU (6) vs ASU (11)
Tenn (6) vs SMU (10)
IU (7) vs Boise (8)

I may also add a rule if the conference champ isn’t in the final Top 20, they don’t get the auto bid, it becomes an open slot.

 

[Sydla]

I think UK could beat IU. They beat Ole Miss and they should have beaten UGA. Both of those teams are better than IU. But, That's an opinion.

The fact is that Alabama finished inside the top 12 of the CFP poll.

Remind me how it is not hypocritical to say you think the top 12 in the CFP should be in the playoffs but not Alabama this year? lol

I didn’t say the top 12 should be in the CFP. I said seeding for the playoffs should be based on rankings and the conference champs should not get auto seeded. I am fine with the conference champs getting in, just not being handed top 4 seeds.

How are you not getting this?

And you can put whatever spin in it you want, UK was not a good team and that’s a bad loss for Ole Miss.

 

[atlantacowboy]

I didn’t say the top 12 should be in the CFP. I said seeding for the playoffs should be based on rankings and the conference champs should not get auto seeded. I am fine with the conference champs getting in, just not being handed top 4 seeds.

How are you not getting this?

And you can put whatever spin in it you want, UK was not a good team and that’s a bad loss for Ole Miss.

You initially advocated dumping the auto bids and then "clarified it" to seeding which is completely different. So, it's not that I'm not getting it. The problem is that you keep changing your opinion to counter mine. lol

I watch the SEC mostly. I've seen IU play several times as well. I'm not impressed. That's a .500 team in the SEC. And you don't have to point out that's my opinion. I know.

 

[Sydla]

You initially advocated dumping the auto bids and then "clarified it" to seeding which is completely different. So, it's not that I'm not getting it. The problem is that you keep changing your opinion to counter mine. lol

I watch the SEC mostly. I've seen IU play several times as well. I'm not impressed. That's a .500 team in the SEC. And you don't have to point out that's my opinion. I know.

I never said auto bids.

I said auto seeds. You misread the point so I clarified it further.

 

[gtb1943]

None of the SEC teams left out have shown they should have been in so that argument is DEAD.

 

[Sydla]

None of the SEC teams left out have shown they should have been in so that argument is DEAD.

In fairness, Ole Miss beat up Duke but Duke was without their best player, the QB, who left.