yep

well sort of record wise



oh boy lol

don't take the bet ILP

my UGA bro said this year wasn't supposed to be the year. that next year was. he said given very good health, next year's D will be unwordly

UNC women's soccer has two three-peats (including winning 9 chips in a row). they lost one game during my four yrs in school

i forgot to add this spoiler in the last post

12 team playoff is going to be so sick

Everybody is just lamenting that the lower seeds are gonna get stomped, but people don't get that upsets can compound. A lot of the times you see a 12 seed in march madness make a deep run, it's because they got to play a 13 seed in round 2 or an 8 seed in round 3 or something.

Teams like Georgia and Alabama aren't gonna lose to Tulane and Kansas State, BUT, they might lose to a team like LSU or Ohio State who could then lose to a team like Tulane or Kansas State.

Plus, the seeding is gonna be so goofy. This year Utah would be a 4 seed. And don't forget the Jamies Winston #1 FSU team that was actually like the 13th best team in the country, or the undefeated #1 Notre Dame team that was like 9th.

Like this year, Utah would've played the TCU/Tulane winner and is a favorite to advance in that game. Then yeah, they're probably a huge dog to UGA, but Tennessee can pull that upset sometimes, and then Utah is super live against Tenn.

Then there's some chance they get Ohio State or Michigan or Clemson in the title instead of Bama, and that's a winnable game too.

They actually ended up 22nd in Sagarin Predictor, even with a 13-1 record. Undefeated defending champ is always getting in though I guess.

The problem with this theory is that football is nothing like basketball. The reason the power schools win in football is because of the offensive and defensives lines which are only dominate in the SEC and a few Big10 schools. There aren't enough athletic guys up front to balance college football. With a 4 team playoff you had a small chance a small school could win 2 games for a natty. Now you're going to see a few small schools get in and if they get out the first round they will have a team like Bama or Lsu waiting next. They will never be able to get through that gauntlet. Football is a sport where a grown man gets to put his hands on you up front....this isn't basketball or baseball where things have leveled out

I wish it was different I really do. Last 4 nattys are all from SEC and by 3 different teams. GA, GA, BAMA, LSU. This isn't by accident

I was thinking 12 was too many but if it prevents what happened last night then OK.

Ya I mean this is just a meaningless statement. Not even sure what you are arguing


Georgia and Bama are juggernauts that are gonna be favorites to win the title no matter what format you choose. But they're not invincible, and winning 3 games is harder than winning 2 games. (Although you're also less likely to miss the playoff)

Let's call the "blue bloods" Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, USC (who hasn't even made the playoffs yet), Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan and ND. Include Clemson and FSU too bc of the era.

In nine years, you've only had Oregon, Michigan State, Washington, Cincinnati and TCU even get a shot. Only five out of the 36 teams were non blue bloods, and they went 2-5.

In the 12 team playoff, you're gonna get like six of these guys in there every year. The odds of one of them breaking through are way, way higher


Like in 2014-15, TCU was the best team in the country according to most models and they didn't even get to play play. Stanford in '16 would easily have had a shot.

And there are a BUNCH of small schools from the BCS era that would definitely have been live, although you could argue that that was a different era before all the talent consolidation

My point is with a 12 team playoff it is very possible you will see 4 SEC teams get in (most years 3), 2 big10 teams with a possible 3rd. With that comes 9 out of 10 years the Natty coming out of those two conf. I'm leaving 1 small chance of it coming out of another conf. which i don't actually believe to be honest. That leaves college football as unbalanced as it currently is. It certainly doesn't help college football in my opinion. I don't have the answer to fix it but a 12 team playoff isn't the answer at the moment. Is it better than the meaningless bowl games? Of course it is. I just don't think it will be what people are hoping for

to make this 12 team playoff work, the CFP committee needs to institute a rule that SEC players must play with one arm tied behind their backs (except for QBs and the place holder on FG/XP tries). if two SEC teams meet, they can play normally

NSFW

Missed this one:

NCAA to crack down on 2nd transfers, maybe.



With exceptions: Under the new rule, players can still get immediate eligibility at their next school if they are transferring due to a physical injury or mental health concern.

Exigent circumstances: And the NCAA will also consider "exigent circumstances" like abuse or sexual assault, but will not consider academic or athletic reasons, like being unsatisfied with playing time on their team.

I look forward to “will not consider academic reasons” appearing in court filings. Have these people even heard about PR consultants?

Or every player just avoids that problem by citing mental health, surely not getting playing time causes varying levels of depression.

You are good buddy - we played at Clemson in 2013, at Notre Dame in 2017 and vs Clemson in 2021 in Charlotte- had Oklahoma in Norman in 2023 cancelled by the SEC. I realize losing 15 of 18 games to a school makes you bitter of course. Maybe our schedule wouldve been tougher had Auburn been better the last 20 years.

Thoughts on this?

• A couple interesting rules changes are being discussed that would be implemented in 2023 if passed:

1 The game clock will continue to run after a first down except inside of two minutes in a half.

2 The game clock will continue to run after an incomplete pass once the ball is spotted for play.

Early buzz is the first idea may have a shot to pass. The second? It may be a more difficult sell

I like (1). Should bring more hurry-up offense to the game. gogogo!

Neutral about (2).

2 is awful. A team could run out the clock by throwing incompletions.

2 is definitely awful, unless there is a cut off. Like 5 minutes of each half. But even then, I think it’s awful.

If you want to speed up the game, then make replay more efficient and have everything come from the booth in as fast of time as possible.

If you’re going to make changes to 1, go all the way and use the NFL rules.

Under my plan we have a continuous clock until the last two minutes of each where the clock stops after every play.

And stop adding more commercial breaks.

TV is what makes the games run forever.

No - the clock runs once ball is spotted which still is slower than after a run play where clock never stops. There simply is no reason to have a dead clock once ball is set ready for play.

college games average about 40 more plays than NFL games - its not TVs fault