2024-25 College Football Season

[tazzmaniac]

I?ve trashed penn st in this thread but I?ll give them credit, they played a lot better than I thought they would.  I don?t think Oregon is as great as some make them out to be but I didn?t think Penn st would be able to keep up in this game.  If you told me Oregon hung 31 points in the first half I would a thought it was a blowout.

Should be interesting to see what the committee does with SMU.

Hats off to Georgia.  I know they?ve been very Jeckle and Hyde this season but you got to give them credit.  Toughest schedule in college football, they take everyone?s best punch and they find ways to keep winning

I agree with you about Penn State and Oregon.  Georgia finds a way to keep winning except when they play Bama.   If Georgia and Texas play for a 3rd time, Sark needs to be ready to use Manning more. 

Neither Clemson or SMU impressed me last night. If the committee follows the same logic that they used last week, Bama should be in over SMU.  Bama's strength of schedule is in the teams while SMU's is in the 70s.  To top it off Clemson lost to Georgia and South Carolina which both lost to Bama.  The committee's direction is still to pick the best 7 at large teams.  I'd put Ole Miss and South Carolina over SMU too.  If the committee goes with SMU, it will be to avoid public controversy. 

Edit - AP poll has it as close as it can be with Bama 11th (838 pts) and SMU 12th (837 pts).

Looks like Bama is out, SMU saved their playoff with the comeback against Clemson.

It was probably the right thing to do but people are kidding themselves if they say these are the best teams in college football.

Anybody who says that these are the best 12 teams is delusional.  Texas, Notre Dame and Penn State should be double digit favorites in the 1st round matchups.  Assuming Beck is healthy, Georgia should stroll to the finals.  As #1 seed, Oregon will most likely have to face Ohio State and Texas just to reach the finals to meet Georgia.  I'll predict it will be Georgia and Texas in the finals. 

To fix the playoffs, the conference champ autobids and 1st round byes need to be eliminated.  Need to go with the top 12 teams with the 4 best getting the byes.  Strength of schedule needs to be a primary factor in determining the top 12 teams.  Also might want to look at reseeding after each round. 

As for Bama, hopefully Milroe opts out of the bowl game.  Need to use it and the 15 practices before it as the start of the competition for next year's starting QB. 

[greg683x]

Maybe 12 is too many, haha.  Go to 8, and don't guarantee all of the conference champions a spot.

There?s never too many!  Eliminate first round byes and go to 16!!  I?ll never turn down more college fb games

[Phantom255x]

I think the Committee got it right this year. SMU should not be punished for losing an extra Championship Game they had to play while a few others were sitting around in the weekend. As for the Alabama argument, they lost two games to 6-6 teams including a really bad showing against Oklahoma where they scored only 3 points.

There may be some tweaks next year in terms of how teams schedule opponents and maybe with potential reseedings in the bracket so that the first round bye teams benefit further, but otherwise I love the format. It made the season way more exciting and it's nice to see more representation in these games that'll now count.

[tazzmaniac]

I think the Committee got it right this year. SMU should not be punished for losing an extra Championship Game they had to play while a few others were sitting around in the weekend. As for the Alabama argument, they lost two games to 6-6 teams including a really bad showing against Oklahoma where they scored only 3 points.

There may be some tweaks next year in terms of how teams schedule opponents and maybe with potential reseedings in the bracket so that the first round bye teams benefit further, but otherwise I love the format. It made the season way more exciting and it's nice to see more representation in these games that'll now count.

Bama actually scored a touchdown against Oklahoma at the start of the 4th quarter but were screwed over by an incompetent line judge who doesn't know what a receiver being covered up means. 

More representation means don't penalize teams who play crappy schedules.  Expect to see teams jettison tougher out of conference games. 

[Phantom255x]

I think the Committee got it right this year. SMU should not be punished for losing an extra Championship Game they had to play while a few others were sitting around in the weekend. As for the Alabama argument, they lost two games to 6-6 teams including a really bad showing against Oklahoma where they scored only 3 points.

There may be some tweaks next year in terms of how teams schedule opponents and maybe with potential reseedings in the bracket so that the first round bye teams benefit further, but otherwise I love the format. It made the season way more exciting and it's nice to see more representation in these games that'll now count.

Bama actually scored a touchdown against Oklahoma at the start of the 4th quarter but were screwed over by an incompetent line judge who doesn't know what a receiver being covered up means. 

More representation means don't penalize teams who play crappy schedules.  Expect to see teams jettison tougher out of conference games.

Agreed. Also idk if there's a "perfect fix" but I have a feeling something is gonna be said about the Championship Games too, because it seems like every season now there's a team that plays in the extra game and loses that gets penalized while a team that's sitting that weekend benefits. Happened to USC in 2022, Georgia 2023, and it might have happened this year too if SMU was left out

[greg683x]

I think the Committee got it right this year. SMU should not be punished for losing an extra Championship Game they had to play while a few others were sitting around in the weekend. As for the Alabama argument, they lost two games to 6-6 teams including a really bad showing against Oklahoma where they scored only 3 points.

There may be some tweaks next year in terms of how teams schedule opponents and maybe with potential reseedings in the bracket so that the first round bye teams benefit further, but otherwise I love the format. It made the season way more exciting and it's nice to see more representation in these games that'll now count.

Bama actually scored a touchdown against Oklahoma at the start of the 4th quarter but were screwed over by an incompetent line judge who doesn't know what a receiver being covered up means. 

More representation means don't penalize teams who play crappy schedules.  Expect to see teams jettison tougher out of conference games.

Agreed. Also idk if there's a "perfect fix" but I have a feeling something is gonna be said about the Championship Games too, because it seems like every season now there's a team that plays in the extra game and loses that gets penalized while a team that's sitting that weekend benefits. Happened to USC in 2022, Georgia 2023, and it might have happened this year too if SMU was left out

SMU absolutely would have been left out if they didn?t come back and make that game competitive.  So the water is still kind of muddy about whether the committee will make teams pay for playing in a conference title game.

It would just be nice for everybody if the CFP laid out a guideline and stuck to it.  They said before title weekend that teams who are not playing in a conference title game are ?locked into place? and won?t penalize a team who wasn?t even playing.  Then they do a complete 180.  If you?re going to release a public statement, then stick to it.  I think they got it right, but jeez, I feel like it doesn?t need to be this convoluted.

[mobilija]

Suppose Army didn?t get blown out by Notre Dame, still lost but it was competitive. Would you have put them in? How competitive would they need to be in order to get in, lose by 1 TD, 2TDs?

[greg683x]

Suppose Army didn?t get blown out by Notre Dame, still lost but it was competitive. Would you have put them in? How competitive would they need to be in order to get in, lose by 1 TD, 2TDs?

Army?s strength of schedule ranks 119 out of 134.

In my opinion with a schedule strength that low, you?d need to go undefeated or lose that game to Notre Dame by a field goal like SMU did to Clemson.

For context, of the teams that did make the playoffs, the lowest strength of schedule was Boise St. at 78 and Indiana at 67.  Alabama had the 9th toughest schedule in all of college football

[Donoghus]

Don't really have a problem with how the committee ultimately fell on the playoff.  There were pluses & minuses to either SMU or Bama.  To me, it would've been tough punishing SMU for playing and losing in a conference title game while Bama sat at home.  Need to put some value in the conference championship game and Bama laying an egg against a subpar Oklahoma team didn't exactly help their cause.  If you're looking at quality wins, you should be able to look at crap losses as part of the resume too.   Sure, SMU's strength of schedule wasn't gangbusters but they went undefeated in a power 4 conference and only lost by a FG in a conference title game.  Now if they got lit up in the ACCCG, I think the conversation would've been a little more interesting. 

At the end of the day, Bama nor anyone else was egregiously screwed.  College football does need to fix this bye system, though.

[mobilija]

Suppose Army didn?t get blown out by Notre Dame, still lost but it was competitive. Would you have put them in? How competitive would they need to be in order to get in, lose by 1 TD, 2TDs?

Army?s strength of schedule ranks 119 out of 134.

In my opinion with a schedule strength that low, you?d need to go undefeated or lose that game to Notre Dame by a field goal like SMU did to Clemson.

For context, of the teams that did make the playoffs, the lowest strength of schedule was Boise St. at 78 and Indiana at 67.  Alabama had the 9th toughest schedule in all of college football

Ironically, if Army had beaten ND their strength of schedule would be even worse. Presumably ND would be out of the playoffs with a lower ranking making Army?s win less impressive. It?s almost a no win situation if ur a team outside of the BigTen/SEC/ACC.

Personally, I hate that over half the playoffs is dominated by 2 conferences. If there is a 1 loss team out there that goes undefeated in their conference, I don?t think a 3 loss team should get in over them, especially if that 3 loss team?s conference is already over represented. I see where playing an extra conference championship game complicates this tho.

I know I?m climbing an Everest sized hill on a horse that?s been beaten to death but, strength of schedule is a self fulfilling loop. The teams that are given favorable ranking on paper will always get the benefit of the doubt and continue to have a strong strength of schedule bc either the teams they lose to will have their ranking rise or the teams they beat will have their own strength of schedule rise effectively always giving the teams w an initial favorable ranking and initial strength of schedule a leg up. College football will always be an elitist sport of have and have nots if u only let small successful programs join the playoffs if they are near perfect.

That being said, I understand your rationale and it?s fair under this weighted, biased system. Personally I?d rather see some more overachieving underdogs represented instead of underachieving front runners, esp in a 12 team playoff.

[greg683x]

Suppose Army didn?t get blown out by Notre Dame, still lost but it was competitive. Would you have put them in? How competitive would they need to be in order to get in, lose by 1 TD, 2TDs?

Army?s strength of schedule ranks 119 out of 134.

In my opinion with a schedule strength that low, you?d need to go undefeated or lose that game to Notre Dame by a field goal like SMU did to Clemson.

For context, of the teams that did make the playoffs, the lowest strength of schedule was Boise St. at 78 and Indiana at 67.  Alabama had the 9th toughest schedule in all of college football

Ironically, if Army had beaten ND their strength of schedule would be even worse. Presumably ND would be out of the playoffs with a lower ranking making Army?s win less impressive. It?s almost a no win situation if ur a team outside of the BigTen/SEC/ACC.

Personally, I hate that over half the playoffs is dominated by 2 conferences. If there is a 1 loss team out there that goes undefeated in their conference, I don?t think a 3 loss team should get in over them, especially if that 3 loss team?s conference is already over represented. I see where playing an extra conference championship game complicates this tho.

I know I?m climbing an Everest sized hill on a horse that?s been beaten to death but, strength of schedule is a self fulfilling loop. The teams that are given favorable ranking on paper will always get the benefit of the doubt and continue to have a strong strength of schedule bc either the teams they lose to will have their ranking rise or the teams they beat will have their own strength of schedule rise effectively always giving the teams w an initial favorable ranking and initial strength of schedule a leg up. College football will always be an elitist sport of have and have nots if u only let small successful programs join the playoffs if they are near perfect.

That being said, I understand your rationale and it?s fair under this weighted, biased system. Personally I?d rather see some more overachieving underdogs represented instead of underachieving front runners, esp in a 12 team playoff.

Well I was kind of joking when I said it earlier, but really, just get rid of the 1st round bye and do a 16 team tournament.  You get the underdog teams in at that point and there?s spots left over for good non title teams to get in so that the big conferences aren?t left feeling like they get screwed bc they have to cannibalize each other throughout the season.

Yes people will still complain regardless but with 16 you get to have your cake and eat it to, equal representation without having to sacrifice the feeling that this is a tournament with the best teams in college football

?.or just have a seperate tournament between the big 10 and sec.  . Just kidding but not really

[Vermont Green]

Don't really have a problem with how the committee ultimately fell on the playoff.  There were pluses & minuses to either SMU or Bama.  To me, it would've been tough punishing SMU for playing and losing in a conference title game while Bama sat at home.  Need to put some value in the conference championship game and Bama laying an egg against a subpar Oklahoma team didn't exactly help their cause.  If you're looking at quality wins, you should be able to look at crap losses as part of the resume too.   Sure, SMU's strength of schedule wasn't gangbusters but they went undefeated in a power 4 conference and only lost by a FG in a conference title game.  Now if they got lit up in the ACCCG, I think the conversation would've been a little more interesting. 

At the end of the day, Bama nor anyone else was egregiously screwed.  College football does need to fix this bye system, though.

I am not a big NCAAF guy, but the way I see it is that Alabama has no one to blame but themselves.  They lost some games they should have won.  Had SMU lost to Louisville or Pitt or something, they would have been bumped out immediately.

I think rewarding SMU and not Alabama is better towards creating balance in the conferences.  If you only have SEC teams in the playoffs, all the good players will keep going to the SEC.  By having more balance, more of the top recruits might decide that going to the ACC (or whatever) is a good path to get to the playoffs.

There is no right or wrong answer here but if it was me, I probably would have done pretty much the same in this case.

[greg683x]

Don't really have a problem with how the committee ultimately fell on the playoff.  There were pluses & minuses to either SMU or Bama.  To me, it would've been tough punishing SMU for playing and losing in a conference title game while Bama sat at home.  Need to put some value in the conference championship game and Bama laying an egg against a subpar Oklahoma team didn't exactly help their cause.  If you're looking at quality wins, you should be able to look at crap losses as part of the resume too.   Sure, SMU's strength of schedule wasn't gangbusters but they went undefeated in a power 4 conference and only lost by a FG in a conference title game.  Now if they got lit up in the ACCCG, I think the conversation would've been a little more interesting. 

At the end of the day, Bama nor anyone else was egregiously screwed.  College football does need to fix this bye system, though.

I am not a big NCAAF guy, but the way I see it is that Alabama has no one to blame but themselves.  They lost some games they should have won.  Had SMU lost to Louisville or Pitt or something, they would have been bumped out immediately.

I think rewarding SMU and not Alabama is better towards creating balance in the conferences.  If you only have SEC teams in the playoffs, all the good players will keep going to the SEC.  By having more balance, more of the top recruits might decide that going to the ACC (or whatever) is a good path to get to the playoffs.

There is no right or wrong answer here but if it was me, I probably would have done pretty much the same in this case.

Not saying Alabama should be in, but the result of this is going to be that teams are going to stop signing up to play tougher opponents. 

SMU only played one team that was ranked at the end of year, which is also the team that beat them, 17th ranked BYU.  Alabama beat 3 ranked teams, one in the top 5. 

I agree with you though that there?s no perfect way to do this.  I do think they got it right but only bc SMU came back and nearly won that game.  It was a blowout out at halftime.  I think when it comes down to it, it really just depends on if you want a playoff with equal representation or do you want to have a playoff with conference winners filled in with the best teams in college football

[Donoghus]

Don't really have a problem with how the committee ultimately fell on the playoff.  There were pluses & minuses to either SMU or Bama.  To me, it would've been tough punishing SMU for playing and losing in a conference title game while Bama sat at home.  Need to put some value in the conference championship game and Bama laying an egg against a subpar Oklahoma team didn't exactly help their cause.  If you're looking at quality wins, you should be able to look at crap losses as part of the resume too.   Sure, SMU's strength of schedule wasn't gangbusters but they went undefeated in a power 4 conference and only lost by a FG in a conference title game.  Now if they got lit up in the ACCCG, I think the conversation would've been a little more interesting. 

At the end of the day, Bama nor anyone else was egregiously screwed.  College football does need to fix this bye system, though.

I am not a big NCAAF guy, but the way I see it is that Alabama has no one to blame but themselves.  They lost some games they should have won.  Had SMU lost to Louisville or Pitt or something, they would have been bumped out immediately.

I think rewarding SMU and not Alabama is better towards creating balance in the conferences.  If you only have SEC teams in the playoffs, all the good players will keep going to the SEC.  By having more balance, more of the top recruits might decide that going to the ACC (or whatever) is a good path to get to the playoffs.

There is no right or wrong answer here but if it was me, I probably would have done pretty much the same in this case.

Not saying Alabama should be in, but the result of this is going to be that teams are going to stop signing up to play tougher opponents. 

SMU only played one team that was ranked at the end of year, which is also the team that beat them, 17th ranked BYU.  Alabama beat 3 ranked teams, one in the top 5. 

I agree with you though that there?s no perfect way to do this.  I do think they got it right but only bc SMU came back and nearly won that game.  It was a blowout out at halftime.  I think when it comes down to it, it really just depends on if you want a playoff with equal representation or do you want to have a playoff with conference winners filled in with the best teams in college football

Alabama lost to two 6 loss teams.  If you're going to recognize the top 25 wins, you should also recognize the bad losses.  Let's face it, Bama is as much responsible for not being in the playoff as is the system. 

[tazzmaniac]

North Carolina is finalizing deal with Belichick to be their next head coach.  Don't think that is going to go well at all.