(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:11 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Bama is undefeated in bowls becuase when they do lose it doesn’t count on the grounds that they just weren’t trying

FWIW, Saban doesn't lose a lot of bowls. With Alabama he's 15-6, and the great bulk of those games were NY6 bowls. But let's look at some of the losses:

They certainly tried in last year's national title game vs Georgia, and got beat.

They certainly tried in the 2018 national title game, and Clemson routed them.

They tried in the 2014 playoffs and were beaten by Ohio State.

But against Utah in 2008? With nothing on the line (by their standards) and the big disappointment of losing the SEC title game to Florida?

In the 2014 Sugar Bowl vs Oklahoma, again coming off the crushing loss to Auburn in the "kick six" game with nothing to play for?

Those shouldn't count, IMO.

But I would say half the time that Saban's Alabama team lost a bowl game, the team was fully-stocked and did its best.

This year's Sugar Bowl with K-State? Nothing to play for and probably a ton of guys will opt out, so not one to count, IMO.

I see you have the excuses pre-loaded

If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Saban is crying foul that his team did not get into the playoffs.

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:11 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Bama is undefeated in bowls becuase when they do lose it doesn’t count on the grounds that they just weren’t trying

FWIW, Saban doesn't lose a lot of bowls. With Alabama he's 15-6, and the great bulk of those games were NY6 bowls. But let's look at some of the losses:

They certainly tried in last year's national title game vs Georgia, and got beat.

They certainly tried in the 2018 national title game, and Clemson routed them.

They tried in the 2014 playoffs and were beaten by Ohio State.

But against Utah in 2008? With nothing on the line (by their standards) and the big disappointment of losing the SEC title game to Florida?

In the 2014 Sugar Bowl vs Oklahoma, again coming off the crushing loss to Auburn in the "kick six" game with nothing to play for?

Those shouldn't count, IMO.

But I would say half the time that Saban's Alabama team lost a bowl game, the team was fully-stocked and did its best.

This year's Sugar Bowl with K-State? Nothing to play for and probably a ton of guys will opt out, so not one to count, IMO.

I see you have the excuses pre-loaded

If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Yes, and that's too bad, because it means that we get depleted rosters for the other NY6 games, when those used to be battle royales.

(12-06-2022 12:49 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Alabama is going to see 15 starting players opt out of playing the Sugar Bowl to get ready for the NFL draft.

... and they still will have better talent than K State at every position.

And they'll also still lose by 2 TD's, while Saban cries and says it's b/c his best players opted out for the draft.

(12-06-2022 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:11 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Bama is undefeated in bowls becuase when they do lose it doesn’t count on the grounds that they just weren’t trying

FWIW, Saban doesn't lose a lot of bowls. With Alabama he's 15-6, and the great bulk of those games were NY6 bowls. But let's look at some of the losses:

They certainly tried in last year's national title game vs Georgia, and got beat.

They certainly tried in the 2018 national title game, and Clemson routed them.

They tried in the 2014 playoffs and were beaten by Ohio State.

But against Utah in 2008? With nothing on the line (by their standards) and the big disappointment of losing the SEC title game to Florida?

In the 2014 Sugar Bowl vs Oklahoma, again coming off the crushing loss to Auburn in the "kick six" game with nothing to play for?

Those shouldn't count, IMO.

But I would say half the time that Saban's Alabama team lost a bowl game, the team was fully-stocked and did its best.

This year's Sugar Bowl with K-State? Nothing to play for and probably a ton of guys will opt out, so not one to count, IMO.

It never counts if they lose, cause...bama

(12-06-2022 01:11 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:21 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I swear I haven't checked the Vegas lines yet... but here's my gander before I verify.

UM -6.5 vs TCU
UGa -9.0 vs OSU

If it were UGa vs UM right now, I'd say UGa -4.0, so I'd give UGa an over -10 spread had they drawn TCU in the SFs.

PS: So UM is -7.5 and UGa is -6.5, but I still think UGa vs TCU would have been -8 or -9 given that UM is a heavier favorite than I thought over TCU.

Michigan opened as a 9.5-point favorite and that has not moved much. If the Michigan team that beat Penn State by 24 and Ohio State by 22 shows up, they should easily cover that number. I think Michigan wins this game on the line of scrimmage. They have the #3 rushing defense in the nation and the #6 rushing offense in the nation. TCU has the #66 rushing defense in the nation and the #25 ranked rushing offense.

TCU has a Heisman Finalist at QB. They're battle tested. They might lose to Michigan, they might not, but they won't get destroyed like tOSU and PSU did.

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:11 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Bama is undefeated in bowls becuase when they do lose it doesn’t count on the grounds that they just weren’t trying

FWIW, Saban doesn't lose a lot of bowls. With Alabama he's 15-6, and the great bulk of those games were NY6 bowls. But let's look at some of the losses:

They certainly tried in last year's national title game vs Georgia, and got beat.

They certainly tried in the 2018 national title game, and Clemson routed them.

They tried in the 2014 playoffs and were beaten by Ohio State.

But against Utah in 2008? With nothing on the line (by their standards) and the big disappointment of losing the SEC title game to Florida?

In the 2014 Sugar Bowl vs Oklahoma, again coming off the crushing loss to Auburn in the "kick six" game with nothing to play for?

Those shouldn't count, IMO.

But I would say half the time that Saban's Alabama team lost a bowl game, the team was fully-stocked and did its best.

This year's Sugar Bowl with K-State? Nothing to play for and probably a ton of guys will opt out, so not one to count, IMO.

I see you have the excuses pre-loaded

If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

All the more reason for an expanded playoff.

(12-06-2022 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:11 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:49 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Alabama is going to see 15 starting players opt out of playing the Sugar Bowl to get ready for the NFL draft.

... and they still will have better talent than K State at every position.

They had all those players and had better talent at nearly every position than 12 of their opponents. They are 10-2.

Alabama is loaded with talent. They have 2 losses because the Defensive Coordinator is not up to standards. Alabama's defense this year was totally atypical for most defenses under Saban. The offense was fine. Auburn rushed for 343 yards or something like that on them, and in their two losses they couldn't stop tempo passing attacks. This Alabama defense stunk! And it was mostly due to scheme and not talent. IMO, this is the beginning and end of the story on the Tide this year. And no, they weren't CFP quality. In my opinion neither was Ohio State. TCU deserves a #3 seed. But this year a simple game between Georgia and Michigan would have been sufficient.

And one of those Bama losses (to Tennessee) can be attributed, in part, to an excessive number of penalties.

That was a consistent pattern all year long. They aren't a disciplined team.

Yeah, how many penalties did they have against Texas?

It's hard to blame coaches, they have like 50 of them. A bunch are former quality Head Coaches from P5 schools, too, it's not like they have 17 graduate assistants and one minimum wage dude doin the laundry and picking up trash. And Saban demands as much respect as anyone in history. In past years a lot of these 5* knucklehead would have been replaced by a younger 5* who was more willing to take instruction, but with NIL and unlimited transfers it's just extraordinarily difficult to stockpile that talent every single year like in years past. So now the 5* knucklehead gets to keep making stupid penalties and ignoring his coaches b/c the backup doesn't have the ability to compete, or the backup gets thrown in and fails b/c of his lack of talent/preparation/whatever. Ie, Saban is struggling to out-talent his opponents, at least he did this year.

Perhaps next year he gets the train rollin' again, perhaps not, but I'm pretty sure that we'll all be watching to find out.

(12-06-2022 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, Saban doesn't lose a lot of bowls. With Alabama he's 15-6, and the great bulk of those games were NY6 bowls. But let's look at some of the losses:

They certainly tried in last year's national title game vs Georgia, and got beat.

They certainly tried in the 2018 national title game, and Clemson routed them.

They tried in the 2014 playoffs and were beaten by Ohio State.

But against Utah in 2008? With nothing on the line (by their standards) and the big disappointment of losing the SEC title game to Florida?

In the 2014 Sugar Bowl vs Oklahoma, again coming off the crushing loss to Auburn in the "kick six" game with nothing to play for?

Those shouldn't count, IMO.

But I would say half the time that Saban's Alabama team lost a bowl game, the team was fully-stocked and did its best.

This year's Sugar Bowl with K-State? Nothing to play for and probably a ton of guys will opt out, so not one to count, IMO.

I see you have the excuses pre-loaded

If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

All the more reason for an expanded playoff.

A classic case of cause and effect. NIL and Draft selections kill the bowls which aren't deciding the national championship and College Football respond with Playoff Expansion, and likely Pay for Play. Replace scholarships with contracts and they have to play. The question is why wait on Pay for Play and contracts? Why not just move to that now? Answer: The Bowls are dying of natural causes. Let them. Increasing the Playoffs simply is the new form of bleeding the bowls as a cure. Once the minor bowls are gone, or are utilized for lower level FBS schools, and the playoffs expand to 16, which next time a contract is up after this one will likely happen, then you can gradually move all of it away from bowls.

The only bowls with enough power to push back will essentially be bought off with hosting playoff games. Once minor bowls are gone and we are down to 6 the leverage will be in favor of the CFP, not the bowls.

I have found in life that if you let inefficient or dated systems die naturally you have much less opposition to change. And the proactive don't have to shoulder the blame for replacing the dying system. I believe this is what is happening.

(12-06-2022 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, Saban doesn't lose a lot of bowls. With Alabama he's 15-6, and the great bulk of those games were NY6 bowls. But let's look at some of the losses:

They certainly tried in last year's national title game vs Georgia, and got beat.

They certainly tried in the 2018 national title game, and Clemson routed them.

They tried in the 2014 playoffs and were beaten by Ohio State.

But against Utah in 2008? With nothing on the line (by their standards) and the big disappointment of losing the SEC title game to Florida?

In the 2014 Sugar Bowl vs Oklahoma, again coming off the crushing loss to Auburn in the "kick six" game with nothing to play for?

Those shouldn't count, IMO.

But I would say half the time that Saban's Alabama team lost a bowl game, the team was fully-stocked and did its best.

This year's Sugar Bowl with K-State? Nothing to play for and probably a ton of guys will opt out, so not one to count, IMO.

I see you have the excuses pre-loaded

If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Yes, and that's too bad, because it means that we get depleted rosters for the other NY6 games, when those used to be battle royales.

There is just so much money at stake for kids entering the NFL draft, it's hard to justify getting the best ones to risk it all for an exhibition game. More CFP games is the answer, if the games matter then the players can improve their draft stock and help the team at the same time.

(12-06-2022 02:05 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:11 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  They had all those players and had better talent at nearly every position than 12 of their opponents. They are 10-2.

Alabama is loaded with talent. They have 2 losses because the Defensive Coordinator is not up to standards. Alabama's defense this year was totally atypical for most defenses under Saban. The offense was fine. Auburn rushed for 343 yards or something like that on them, and in their two losses they couldn't stop tempo passing attacks. This Alabama defense stunk! And it was mostly due to scheme and not talent. IMO, this is the beginning and end of the story on the Tide this year. And no, they weren't CFP quality. In my opinion neither was Ohio State. TCU deserves a #3 seed. But this year a simple game between Georgia and Michigan would have been sufficient.

And one of those Bama losses (to Tennessee) can be attributed, in part, to an excessive number of penalties.

That was a consistent pattern all year long. They aren't a disciplined team.

Yeah, how many penalties did they have against Texas?

It's hard to blame coaches, they have like 50 of them. A bunch are former quality Head Coaches from P5 schools, too, it's not like they have 17 graduate assistants and one minimum wage dude doin the laundry and picking up trash. And Saban demands as much respect as anyone in history. In past years a lot of these 5* knucklehead would have been replaced by a younger 5* who was more willing to take instruction, but with NIL and unlimited transfers it's just extraordinarily difficult to stockpile that talent every single year like in years past. So now the 5* knucklehead gets to keep making stupid penalties and ignoring his coaches b/c the backup doesn't have the ability to compete, or the backup gets thrown in and fails b/c of his lack of talent/preparation/whatever. Ie, Saban is struggling to out-talent his opponents, at least he did this year.

Perhaps next year he gets the train rollin' again, perhaps not, but I'm pretty sure that we'll all be watching to find out.

Well its doing your homework on recruits. Will they improve and take instruction?
Alabama has become a really dirty team with cheap hits. They weren't that way 6 or 7 years ago. They got about 15 penalties vs. Texas. They took out the 1st string QB on a marginal dirty hit and then were twisting the knees of 2nd string Hudson Card in the pile and he was a little gimpy the last quarter and a half, but still almost beat them. They've been really dirty in the recent games vs. Georgia too, trying to hurt players.

(12-06-2022 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  I see you have the excuses pre-loaded

If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

All the more reason for an expanded playoff.

A classic case of cause and effect. NIL and Draft selections kill the bowls which aren't deciding the national championship and College Football respond with Playoff Expansion, and likely Pay for Play. Replace scholarships with contracts and they have to play. The question is why wait on Pay for Play and contracts? Why not just move to that now? Answer: The Bowls are dying of natural causes. Let them. Increasing the Playoffs simply is the new form of bleeding the bowls as a cure. Once the minor bowls are gone, or are utilized for lower level FBS schools, and the playoffs expand to 16, which next time a contract is up after this one will likely happen, then you can gradually move all of it away from bowls.

The only bowls with enough power to push back will essentially be bought off with hosting playoff games. Once minor bowls are gone and we are down to 6 the leverage will be in favor of the CFP, not the bowls.

I have found in life that if you let inefficient or dated systems die naturally you have much less opposition to change. And the proactive don't have to shoulder the blame for replacing the dying system. I believe this is what is happening.

ESPN owns almost all of the minor bowls, so they will decide how to deal with them.

(12-06-2022 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

All the more reason for an expanded playoff.

A classic case of cause and effect. NIL and Draft selections kill the bowls which aren't deciding the national championship and College Football respond with Playoff Expansion, and likely Pay for Play. Replace scholarships with contracts and they have to play. The question is why wait on Pay for Play and contracts? Why not just move to that now? Answer: The Bowls are dying of natural causes. Let them. Increasing the Playoffs simply is the new form of bleeding the bowls as a cure. Once the minor bowls are gone, or are utilized for lower level FBS schools, and the playoffs expand to 16, which next time a contract is up after this one will likely happen, then you can gradually move all of it away from bowls.

The only bowls with enough power to push back will essentially be bought off with hosting playoff games. Once minor bowls are gone and we are down to 6 the leverage will be in favor of the CFP, not the bowls.

I have found in life that if you let inefficient or dated systems die naturally you have much less opposition to change. And the proactive don't have to shoulder the blame for replacing the dying system. I believe this is what is happening.

ESPN owns almost all of the minor bowls, so they will decide how to deal with them.

Well yeah? ESPN also wants at least half of the playoff too, which will earn them much more than the minor bowls put together. It will come down to time slots and if an upper tier of 72 schools breaks away the minor bowls become a bone to toss to those left behind and ESPN can schedule them as needed to fill time slots in what is a dead three weeks leading up to New Years.

(12-06-2022 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .... Once the minor bowls are gone, or are utilized for lower level FBS schools, and the playoffs expand to 16, which next time a contract is up after this one will likely happen, then you can gradually move all of it away from bowls. ...

Seems like there may still be a number of players at Go5 schools with an incentive to try to put on a good performance to improve their chances for an upward move in the transfer portal.

For a school full of NFL draft quality talent, a non-CFP bowl is like a bonus series of early spring practices, capped off with a televised scrimmage against another team. If the Buckeyes had not made the CFP4, it seems likely that CJ Stroud would have sat out the Rose Bowl (or wherever), and the game preparation would have been built around the current number 2 QB.

(12-06-2022 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 12:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  I see you have the excuses pre-loaded

If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Yes, and that's too bad, because it means that we get depleted rosters for the other NY6 games, when those used to be battle royales.

There is just so much money at stake for kids entering the NFL draft, it's hard to justify getting the best ones to risk it all for an exhibition game. More CFP games is the answer, if the games matter then the players can improve their draft stock and help the team at the same time.

I agree about the exhibition game thing. If I was an NFL-talent (LOL), I would very likely skip any non-playoff game.

But I am not so sure about expanded playoffs. I think it is quite possible that top NFL prospects may decide to skip the 12-team playoffs. They could have agents and family members telling them that playing three or four playoff games is just too risky, and they might be right.

So it wouldn't surprise me if this happens and we get playoff opt-outs starting in 2024.

(12-06-2022 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Yes, and that's too bad, because it means that we get depleted rosters for the other NY6 games, when those used to be battle royales.

There is just so much money at stake for kids entering the NFL draft, it's hard to justify getting the best ones to risk it all for an exhibition game. More CFP games is the answer, if the games matter then the players can improve their draft stock and help the team at the same time.

I agree about the exhibition game thing. If I was an NFL-talent (LOL), I would very likely skip any non-playoff game.

But I am not so sure about expanded playoffs. I think it is quite possible that top NFL prospects may decide to skip the 12-team playoffs. They could have agents and family members telling them that playing three or four playoff games is just too risky, and they might be right.

So it wouldn't surprise me if this happens and we get playoff opt-outs starting in 2024.

Contracts instead of scholarships ends opt outs. It does open the potential for buy outs if a pro team is indeed that serious. But there would be a much much lower chance of that.

(12-06-2022 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Alabama does play the Sugar Bowl with a depleted team, like LSU played K-State in last year's bowl game, then IMO it just stands to reason that the game shouldn't "count" in any team-strength sense.

Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Yes, and that's too bad, because it means that we get depleted rosters for the other NY6 games, when those used to be battle royales.

There is just so much money at stake for kids entering the NFL draft, it's hard to justify getting the best ones to risk it all for an exhibition game. More CFP games is the answer, if the games matter then the players can improve their draft stock and help the team at the same time.

I agree about the exhibition game thing. If I was an NFL-talent (LOL), I would very likely skip any non-playoff game.

But I am not so sure about expanded playoffs. I think it is quite possible that top NFL prospects may decide to skip the 12-team playoffs. They could have agents and family members telling them that playing three or four playoff games is just too risky, and they might be right.

So it wouldn't surprise me if this happens and we get playoff opt-outs starting in 2024.

They'd be on the big stage. A top prospect wouldn't pass that up. They could get injured. It could also skyrocket their value.

It would be very, very rare.

(12-06-2022 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:20 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:11 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 08:21 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I swear I haven't checked the Vegas lines yet... but here's my gander before I verify.

UM -6.5 vs TCU
UGa -9.0 vs OSU

If it were UGa vs UM right now, I'd say UGa -4.0, so I'd give UGa an over -10 spread had they drawn TCU in the SFs.

PS: So UM is -7.5 and UGa is -6.5, but I still think UGa vs TCU would have been -8 or -9 given that UM is a heavier favorite than I thought over TCU.

Michigan opened as a 9.5-point favorite and that has not moved much. If the Michigan team that beat Penn State by 24 and Ohio State by 22 shows up, they should easily cover that number. I think Michigan wins this game on the line of scrimmage. They have the #3 rushing defense in the nation and the #6 rushing offense in the nation. TCU has the #66 rushing defense in the nation and the #25 ranked rushing offense.

Agree 100%. Second halves against this Wolverine squad end miserably for their opponents. It's almost like they play a bit of scoreboard rope-a-dope in the first half, even against clearly out-gunned teams.

What Michigan has are solid coordinators in the booth. The first half they run what the opponent expects and uses a familiar offense to probe for weaknesses. At halftime they alter their game plan to hit those weaknesses.

Herein resides the difference between your average football staff and a stellar one. Stellar staffs make adjustments in real time. Most coaching staffs talk about what happened in the first half and do not anticipate changes by the opponent. While this can happen to anyone, a great staff can huddle a defense or offense on the sideline and make changes in the middle of a quarter based upon booth and analyst information. Saban's staff can usually do this. This is why strong teams can look to be in trouble in the first half and then cruise. Depth plays a part to be sure, but coaching adjustments actually account for most of it.

What Michigan has to be ready for is Sonny Dykes. Dykes's staff makes tremendously insightful and well-coordinated adjustments in most second halves. It'll be tit for tat. This game will hinge on what most North vs South match ups comes down to, Size vs Speed. The question is how quickly the Michigan defensive front can get to the QB? That's truly different than stopping the run. Give TCU time to throw and the Michigan defensive backs will not be able to match the speed of TCU's receivers. If the pass rush can pressure TCU, then Michigan likely wins. I'm betting on speed.

Also, the size advantage is not what Michigan fans think. TCU has some beef, not Georgia level beef, but beef. If size was going to win for Michigan, they wouldn't have been drubbed by Georgia last year. The good news for Wolverine fans is that Georgia isn't as deep defensively this year and is a tad weaker at receiver.

BTW, Ohio State had more talent than Michigan both last year and this one. They lost twice because Day did not anticipate second half strategy changes and could not adjust in real time. That's an issue moving forward for Ohio State's staff, but one the right hires could correct.

Michigan won the Joe Moore award in 2021 for the top offensive line in college football. They are up for the award again. In their 24-point win over Penn State, Michigan ran for 418 yards. It is really difficult to make adjustments when you are losing in the trenches. Size and talent in the trenches is difficult to beat. Michigan lost in the trenches to Georgia last season, but that was a very talented Georgia team. Georgia had five first round picks in the 2022 NFL draft, all from the defensive side of the ball, three on the defensive line. TCU just gave up 205 yards on the ground to Kansas State.

(12-06-2022 07:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Yes, and that's too bad, because it means that we get depleted rosters for the other NY6 games, when those used to be battle royales.

There is just so much money at stake for kids entering the NFL draft, it's hard to justify getting the best ones to risk it all for an exhibition game. More CFP games is the answer, if the games matter then the players can improve their draft stock and help the team at the same time.

I agree about the exhibition game thing. If I was an NFL-talent (LOL), I would very likely skip any non-playoff game.

But I am not so sure about expanded playoffs. I think it is quite possible that top NFL prospects may decide to skip the 12-team playoffs. They could have agents and family members telling them that playing three or four playoff games is just too risky, and they might be right.

So it wouldn't surprise me if this happens and we get playoff opt-outs starting in 2024.

They'd be on the big stage. A top prospect wouldn't pass that up. They could get injured. It could also skyrocket their value.

It would be very, very rare.

It wouldn't happen. To take that back a step, for USC their CCG was clearly the exact same thing as a CFP QF would have been. How many of their players opted out to focus on the draft? How many players at bama last year opted out of the SEC title game? That game was basically a CFP QF for them, they had to win to move to the semis.

Players don't opt out of games that matter, they opt out of exhibition games with nothing at stake after the season has ended for them and they have no hopes of earning a title anymore.

(12-06-2022 07:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 02:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Since opt outs became a thing, all bowls not involved with the CFP have become truly exhibition games and serve only to get playing time for last year's subs who will be next year's starters.

Yes, and that's too bad, because it means that we get depleted rosters for the other NY6 games, when those used to be battle royales.

There is just so much money at stake for kids entering the NFL draft, it's hard to justify getting the best ones to risk it all for an exhibition game. More CFP games is the answer, if the games matter then the players can improve their draft stock and help the team at the same time.

I agree about the exhibition game thing. If I was an NFL-talent (LOL), I would very likely skip any non-playoff game.

But I am not so sure about expanded playoffs. I think it is quite possible that top NFL prospects may decide to skip the 12-team playoffs. They could have agents and family members telling them that playing three or four playoff games is just too risky, and they might be right.

So it wouldn't surprise me if this happens and we get playoff opt-outs starting in 2024.

They'd be on the big stage. A top prospect wouldn't pass that up. They could get injured. It could also skyrocket their value.

It would be very, very rare.

Thing is, most of the top NFL prospects, the ones who we want to play in playoff games because they are usually the guys who make their teams exceptional, already know their NFL value. For them, games beyond the season are all downside, IMO. Sure, you're going to have guys who are eager to play to showcase themselves and improve their draft stock, but by definition those are guys who probably aren't as good. The Trevor Lawrence's and Joe Burrow's and Bryce Young's already are solidified.

It's one reason why I am not enthused about the 12-team playoff. IMO, the current CFP stays on the "play" side of the risk/reward metric for a top player. But three or four games stretches it, maybe beyond breaking point. Yes, they are all hungry competitors, committed to their team and eager to win a national championship. But then there is the NFL situation.

We're going to find out, one way or the other.