Well we only have 1 stinker so far.
Vandy loses a close game by 3 and played well. They just ran into a hot QB who was throwing darts on dimes all night.
Auburn put together the best game they've had in a few seasons.
Florida's offense woke up and their D was solid.
South Carolina did miss Samuels but they stunk it up anyway you measure it versus a fairly 1 dimensional Virginia.
I said a couple a years ago that I didn't think Muschamp would pan out. I still don't. He's a solid DC but doesn't have the management skills to succeed as the head guy. I think Carolina would be wise to be looking around. This loss sucked all of the momentum out of recruiting and with Tennessee and Florida on the mend and Clemson staying strong it just doesn't look good for USC with a dominant Georgia in their division as well. Heck even Kentucky could bump them down yet another notch. Right now the only claim they can make is that they would finish ahead of Vandy most years and that's not a given anymore.
I agree JR that SCAR might have missed their window. I get there were players sitting out for the Gamecocks, but too not score a point against the ‘Hoos is unacceptable.
Well other than a plethora of mental errors in the 3rd Quarter Alabama looked strong enough. Oklahoma proved they belonged in the playoffs, unlike another darling.
Vandiver they absolutely have missed their window and it doesn't look very pretty for them moving forward. If I were So Carolina I would be coach shopping now.
I really think the title game will be an epic battle.
Clemson has looked a lot better since Trevor Lawrence took over.
Was also glad to see Florida take it to Michigan today. Ten wins for Dan Mullen in year one, I think his performance has been underrated. The biggest problem Mullen had at Mississippi State is you just can't consistently get elite talent in there. He will not have that problem in Gainesville if he pushes the right buttons.
(12-30-2018 01:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I really think the title game will be an epic battle.
Clemson has looked a lot better since Trevor Lawrence took over.
Was also glad to see Florida take it to Michigan today. Ten wins for Dan Mullen in year one, I think his performance has been underrated. The biggest problem Mullen had at Mississippi State is you just can't consistently get elite talent in there. He will not have that problem in Gainesville if he pushes the right buttons.
And he gets to play in the East.
South Carolina had given the offensive coordinator a very large salary increase earlier this month.
https://amp.thestate.com/sports/college/...48580.html
Then no points scored on Virginia. Perhaps rewarding mediocrity, even prematurely, is a big part of the problem.
(12-30-2018 01:42 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 01:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I really think the title game will be an epic battle.
Clemson has looked a lot better since Trevor Lawrence took over.
Was also glad to see Florida take it to Michigan today. Ten wins for Dan Mullen in year one, I think his performance has been underrated. The biggest problem Mullen had at Mississippi State is you just can't consistently get elite talent in there. He will not have that problem in Gainesville if he pushes the right buttons.
And he gets to play in the East.
Seems like the East has taken a couple of steps forward though.
Georgia should be a consistent contender. I don't know what will happen at Kentucky long term, but they're not a pushover anymore. Missouri is competitive. Tennessee looked competent at times this year and I have a feeling Pruitt will whip them into shape eventually.
I do agree with you on South Carolina though and Vandy is Vandy until they start pumping some money into the program.
(12-30-2018 06:16 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]South Carolina had given the offensive coordinator a very large salary increase earlier this month.
https://amp.thestate.com/sports/college/...48580.html
Then no points scored on Virginia. Perhaps rewarding mediocrity, even prematurely, is a big part of the problem.
I think South Carolina needs the prototypical offensive guru.
I thought Will Muschamp might have changed his ways after getting a 2nd chance, but I guess it was only a matter of time.
Alabama & Clemson proved to be #1 and #2. That was basically predictable before the season started. I was impressed how Oklahoma did not give up, and fought hard in the second half to make a good game of it. I am confident they deserved to be in the playoff. Excellent QB there.
Selection committees in the future need to scrutinize thoroughly Notre Dame's schedule in the future. Undefeated or not, battling through the pressures of a conference schedule and having a face-off in a conference championship game, is a major factor for assessment. Notre Dame provides neither to review. While that alone should not necessarily be a reason for exclusion, it is a variable in measuring success when doing comparisons.
(12-30-2018 08:14 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 06:16 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]South Carolina had given the offensive coordinator a very large salary increase earlier this month.
https://amp.thestate.com/sports/college/...48580.html
Then no points scored on Virginia. Perhaps rewarding mediocrity, even prematurely, is a big part of the problem.
I think South Carolina needs the prototypical offensive guru.
I thought Will Muschamp might have changed his ways after getting a 2nd chance, but I guess it was only a matter of time.
You are probably correct on the need for a prototypical offensive guru. SC gained around 600 offensive yards on Clemson, and the zealous reactions to that may have been out of context given looking at the entire season.
It was an in-state rivalry game, and much of that yardage came late when Clemson held a comfortable lead. Bentley did get hot, as he has done before, but consistency is an issue.
The loss to Virginia certainly is not a recruitment boost.
I believe Alabama tapped the brakes a little after the first half. It is sometimes difficult to keep on pounding when you are up 28-0. I do not think the game was as close as the score. I did not pay much attention to how Alabama was rotating players, but I bet a lot of players got in the game. As far as the Heisman Trophy winner goes, he is awesome but will have a tough time at 5' 10" or less in the NFL. I think baseball is a smart move for him. If that doesn't work out, he can always come back to football. I hate the two sport guys trying to play simultaneous leagues. Both teams get cheated.
(12-30-2018 02:32 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]I believe Alabama tapped the brakes a little after the first half. It is sometimes difficult to keep on pounding when you are up 28-0. I do not think the game was as close as the score. I did not pay much attention to how Alabama was rotating players, but I bet a lot of players got in the game. As far as the Heisman Trophy winner goes, he is awesome but will have a tough time at 5' 10" or less in the NFL. I think baseball is a smart move for him. If that doesn't work out, he can always come back to football. I hate the two sport guys trying to play simultaneous leagues. Both teams get cheated.
Yeah, I think when Bama got up 28-0 then some of the players allowed their mindset to change. They thought it would be a cakewalk from there and sometimes that's the way it happens, but if the other team doesn't lay down and die then that lack of focus will bite you. It could have easily bitten us last night.
I think the lack of focus was also seen in some of the really dumb penalties we had.
But OU played their heart out and made a game of it.
I do agree about Murray. Baseball is the better path for him. He can earn more money and do it for a longer period of time. That and there will be far less wear and tear on his body when it's all over.
(12-30-2018 02:32 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]I believe Alabama tapped the brakes a little after the first half. It is sometimes difficult to keep on pounding when you are up 28-0. I do not think the game was as close as the score. I did not pay much attention to how Alabama was rotating players, but I bet a lot of players got in the game. As far as the Heisman Trophy winner goes, he is awesome but will have a tough time at 5' 10" or less in the NFL. I think baseball is a smart move for him. If that doesn't work out, he can always come back to football. I hate the two sport guys trying to play simultaneous leagues. Both teams get cheated.
The third quarter was as near of a mental meltdown as I've seen on a Saban team. They allowed the cheap shots and jawing of OU to succor them into retaliating and then the ACC officiating crew absolutely stunk. If not for replay I doubt they would have gotten the major rulings correct at all. Part of what contributed to the Tide's retaliation however was the total absence of an interference call on OU. All night long OU defensive backs hit Tide receivers early and frequently were holding them, or an arm, when the passes arrived. It's a damned wonder Alabama caught as many passes as they did.
You'll note that in the 4th quarter Alabama ran almost exclusively slants. Why? The D back couldn't catch up to the receiver to hold them or interfere.
But in the third quarter Saban wanted a ground and pound to run clock. 1 stinking penalty throws you off your schedule so when two drives were destroyed with ridiculous penalties and a play which would have put Bama in the red zone was called back saying that a covered tackle was off the line because the ACC crew couldn't or didn't count the players on the line outside of the tackle, even Saban went ballistic.
I do believe that with a Big 10 crew working that game the spread is much different.
The line in Vegas was 12. I don't think it was an accident by the officiating crew that the difference was never more than 18 and that 11 was the final margin. The very heavy money was on the Tide to cover.
(12-30-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]I am not surprised by the commentaries about the two semi-final matchups.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2813...-committee
That is a shame. Notre Dame played a solid schedule (beating 10 P5 school teams, plus Navy). Obviously ND-OK would have been a very different semi-final. Maybe we just need Clemson-Alabama in the semis each year.
And Ohio State losing to Purdue by 29 and Georgia losing to LSU by 20 really does mean something. I think Georgia was one of the top 4 teams in the country, but don't think they could have been included as a 2 loss team. If both the losses were to Alabama and were close, maybe. They would have been 4, so it would be Georgia-Alabama part III leading to Alabama-Clemson IV anyway.
Basically, I don't think the CFP committee could have/should have done anything differently. It's more about Alabama-Clemson dominance than any other school being weak.
And if I'm listing favorites for next year, its:
1-2) Alabama/Clemson
3) OK
4) ND
5) Ohio State (even with the coaching change)
6) Georgia
7) Michigan (if Harbaugh stays and doesn't go to say the Browns or another NFL team)
8) UCF (I know, but a third undefeated season in a row, combined with other factors, and the committee might possibly think about it)
After that, I'd say someone like Auburn/LSU/Florida might be contenders, but I really can't think of many more. The cartel is shrinking.
(12-30-2018 06:14 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]I am not surprised by the commentaries about the two semi-final matchups.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2813...-committee
That is a shame. Notre Dame played a solid schedule (beating 10 P5 school teams, plus Navy). Obviously ND-OK would have been a very different semi-final. Maybe we just need Clemson-Alabama in the semis each year.
And Ohio State losing to Purdue by 29 and Georgia losing to LSU by 20 really does mean something. I think Georgia was one of the top 4 teams in the country, but don't think they could have been included as a 2 loss team. If both the losses were to Alabama and were close, maybe. They would have been 4, so it would be Georgia-Alabama part III leading to Alabama-Clemson IV anyway.
Basically, I don't think the CFP committee could have/should have done anything differently. It's more about Alabama-Clemson dominance than any other school being weak.
And if I'm listing favorites for next year, its:
1-2) Alabama/Clemson
3) OK
4) ND
5) Ohio State (even with the coaching change)
6) Georgia
7) Michigan (if Harbaugh stays and doesn't go to say the Browns or another NFL team)
8) UCF (I know, but a third undefeated season in a row, combined with other factors, and the committee might possibly think about it)
After that, I'd say someone like Auburn/LSU/Florida might be contenders, but I really can't think of many more. The cartel is shrinking.
ND doesn't belong in that grouping. 2 games against the PAC and 5 against the ACC (Clemson excluded) isn't a power schedule, period. Outside of that they played Northwestern and Michigan, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, and Navy. That's 10 p games alright but hardly a challenging schedule for a top 5 claimant. In retrospect nobody they played other than Clemson will wind up in the top 10 and very few will wind up ranked.
(12-30-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 06:14 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]I am not surprised by the commentaries about the two semi-final matchups.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2813...-committee
That is a shame. Notre Dame played a solid schedule (beating 10 P5 school teams, plus Navy). Obviously ND-OK would have been a very different semi-final. Maybe we just need Clemson-Alabama in the semis each year.
And Ohio State losing to Purdue by 29 and Georgia losing to LSU by 20 really does mean something. I think Georgia was one of the top 4 teams in the country, but don't think they could have been included as a 2 loss team. If both the losses were to Alabama and were close, maybe. They would have been 4, so it would be Georgia-Alabama part III leading to Alabama-Clemson IV anyway.
Basically, I don't think the CFP committee could have/should have done anything differently. It's more about Alabama-Clemson dominance than any other school being weak.
And if I'm listing favorites for next year, its:
1-2) Alabama/Clemson
3) OK
4) ND
5) Ohio State (even with the coaching change)
6) Georgia
7) Michigan (if Harbaugh stays and doesn't go to say the Browns or another NFL team)
8) UCF (I know, but a third undefeated season in a row, combined with other factors, and the committee might possibly think about it)
After that, I'd say someone like Auburn/LSU/Florida might be contenders, but I really can't think of many more. The cartel is shrinking.
ND doesn't belong in that grouping. 2 games against the PAC and 5 against the ACC (Clemson excluded) isn't a power schedule, period. Outside of that they played Northwestern and Michigan, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, and Navy. That's 10 p games alright but hardly a challenging schedule for a top 5 claimant. In retrospect nobody they played other than Clemson will wind up in the top 10 and very few will wind up ranked.
No doubt Notre Dame's schedule was soft this year (and VT being down was part of that softness!). No wonder they went undefeated.
Next year the Irish play at Georgia, at Michigan, and at Stanford - in addition to home games against UVA, VT, USC and BC. I don't think they'll be in the playoffs next season.
(12-30-2018 08:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 06:14 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]I am not surprised by the commentaries about the two semi-final matchups.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2813...-committee
That is a shame. Notre Dame played a solid schedule (beating 10 P5 school teams, plus Navy). Obviously ND-OK would have been a very different semi-final. Maybe we just need Clemson-Alabama in the semis each year.
And Ohio State losing to Purdue by 29 and Georgia losing to LSU by 20 really does mean something. I think Georgia was one of the top 4 teams in the country, but don't think they could have been included as a 2 loss team. If both the losses were to Alabama and were close, maybe. They would have been 4, so it would be Georgia-Alabama part III leading to Alabama-Clemson IV anyway.
Basically, I don't think the CFP committee could have/should have done anything differently. It's more about Alabama-Clemson dominance than any other school being weak.
And if I'm listing favorites for next year, its:
1-2) Alabama/Clemson
3) OK
4) ND
5) Ohio State (even with the coaching change)
6) Georgia
7) Michigan (if Harbaugh stays and doesn't go to say the Browns or another NFL team)
8) UCF (I know, but a third undefeated season in a row, combined with other factors, and the committee might possibly think about it)
After that, I'd say someone like Auburn/LSU/Florida might be contenders, but I really can't think of many more. The cartel is shrinking.
ND doesn't belong in that grouping. 2 games against the PAC and 5 against the ACC (Clemson excluded) isn't a power schedule, period. Outside of that they played Northwestern and Michigan, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, and Navy. That's 10 p games alright but hardly a challenging schedule for a top 5 claimant. In retrospect nobody they played other than Clemson will wind up in the top 10 and very few will wind up ranked.
No doubt Notre Dame's schedule was soft this year (and VT being down was part of that softness!). No wonder they went undefeated.
Next year the Irish play at Georgia, at Michigan, and at Stanford - in addition to home games against UVA, VT, USC and BC. I don't think they'll be in the playoffs next season.
They need to join the ACC in full. That way if they have a good year they make the CCG. That would give them the credentials to get in. If the ACC stays at 8 conference games that still gives the 4 with which to schedule USC, Stanford, Navy, and either a Big 10 or SEC school.
I don't get their gripes with this except for it would make their path just as difficult as everyone else's.
(12-30-2018 08:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 06:14 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]I am not surprised by the commentaries about the two semi-final matchups.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2813...-committee
That is a shame. Notre Dame played a solid schedule (beating 10 P5 school teams, plus Navy). Obviously ND-OK would have been a very different semi-final. Maybe we just need Clemson-Alabama in the semis each year.
And Ohio State losing to Purdue by 29 and Georgia losing to LSU by 20 really does mean something. I think Georgia was one of the top 4 teams in the country, but don't think they could have been included as a 2 loss team. If both the losses were to Alabama and were close, maybe. They would have been 4, so it would be Georgia-Alabama part III leading to Alabama-Clemson IV anyway.
Basically, I don't think the CFP committee could have/should have done anything differently. It's more about Alabama-Clemson dominance than any other school being weak.
And if I'm listing favorites for next year, its:
1-2) Alabama/Clemson
3) OK
4) ND
5) Ohio State (even with the coaching change)
6) Georgia
7) Michigan (if Harbaugh stays and doesn't go to say the Browns or another NFL team)
8) UCF (I know, but a third undefeated season in a row, combined with other factors, and the committee might possibly think about it)
After that, I'd say someone like Auburn/LSU/Florida might be contenders, but I really can't think of many more. The cartel is shrinking.
ND doesn't belong in that grouping. 2 games against the PAC and 5 against the ACC (Clemson excluded) isn't a power schedule, period. Outside of that they played Northwestern and Michigan, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, and Navy. That's 10 p games alright but hardly a challenging schedule for a top 5 claimant. In retrospect nobody they played other than Clemson will wind up in the top 10 and very few will wind up ranked.
No doubt Notre Dame's schedule was soft this year (and VT being down was part of that softness!). No wonder they went undefeated.
Next year the Irish play at Georgia, at Michigan, and at Stanford - in addition to home games against UVA, VT, USC and BC. I don't think they'll be in the playoffs next season.
I didn't realize how hard NDs schedule would be next year, but that just makes the selection committees job even easier. You take my 1-3 (Alabama/Clemson/OK) and then Michigan vs. Ohio State and ND vs. Michigan and ND vs. Georgia gives you clarity on the fourth. ND wins both those two matchups, they are solid, Michigan wins, they are solid, and if everyone splits, thats when maybe UCF comes in or the nebulous "strength of schedule."
(12-30-2018 01:28 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I really think the title game will be an epic battle.
Clemson has looked a lot better since Trevor Lawrence took over.
Was also glad to see Florida take it to Michigan today. Ten wins for Dan Mullen in year one, I think his performance has been underrated. The biggest problem Mullen had at Mississippi State is you just can't consistently get elite talent in there. He will not have that problem in Gainesville if he pushes the right buttons.
Mullen’s issues at State we’re not the talent. It was him getting in his own way with his assistants and such. Looks like he’s done less of that with Grantham and it is definitely showing positive results both last year and this year. He’ll do just fine at Florida.