MountainBuzzMan
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,754
- Location
- South Forsyth
Texas has zero top 25 wins and UGA has a QB that will miss the playoffs. The only solution is for neither one of them to make the playoffs and be replaced with Miami and Army
I suspect this stuff gets leaked… below is the updated bracket based on odds changes over the last hour…
No. 1 Oregon
No. 2 u(sic)ga
No. 3 Boise State
No. 4 Arizona State
==============
No. 12 SMU vs. No. 5 Texas
No. 11 Clempson vs. No. 6 Penn State
No. 10 Indiana vs. No. 7 Notre Dame
No. 9 Tennessee vs. No. 8 Ohio State
===============
SMU vs Clempson for 11/12 is still debatable too. I personally like SMU as 12. But there’s a 30% chance it’ll be SMU 11 and Clempson 12.
A 60% chance Penn St 6 / Notre Dame 7 and 40% chance the other way around.
Everything else is 90-95% certain.
Edit to add… so certain that Ohio State v Tennessee already has odds set. (Ohio State is favored by 7.75)
I thought SMU was the better team last night they just got off to a really bad start and ran out of time to come back and take the lead.Betting markets nailed it except 11/12 swapped.
I’m sure the $EC had a hand in that - giving Texas the more favorable matchup of Clempy as opposed to SMU.
Right.I said this earlier but I watched that game. Plus OSU - Michigan. I honestly believe that we have a team right now, that if healthy and given a slot amongst the 12 teams we would be on par with at least OSU, Uga, Texas, ND and Clempson. I haven't seen all the teams that will be in the playoffs so there may be one or two that stand heads and shoulders above the rest but I remain convinced that we are on equal footing with some?most? all? of them. I don't think it's gold colored glasses either. But I could be wrong.
Wonder if Texas preseason ranking, plus being in the self proclaimed “dominant” conference, influences how they are viewed. Miami would tear them to pieces but, oh well, college football has become a strange kind of fantasy league.I’m with you.
Wonder if Texas preseason ranking, plus being in the self proclaimed “dominant” conference, influences how they are viewed. Miami would tear them to pieces but, oh well, college football has become a strange kind of fantasy league.
We played great. Far exceeded my expectations. I was shocked King could throw the ball down field after not doing so for 6 weeks and 2 games. He was the difference. He is a stud!Bro you were in agreement was another poster that UGA would dominate that game. Go somewhere else or just change your name to Root4UGA
I think that's exactly what happened. SMU is in, and Alabama is out:Any chance SMU gets in as a sort of make up call after the FSU/ACC screwing last year?
Let’s just move arguments about targeting to a new thread if you guys want to beat it to death.Targeting - in it's many forms - can be called for a player leading with the crown of his helmet *REGARDLESS* of where the contact is initiated.
What is Targeting? - Southeastern Conference
www.secsports.com
"Targeting - NCAA Rule Book 2019
Rule 9 - Conduct of Players and Others Subject to the Rules
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
- Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet"
The GA safety led with the crown of his helmet. Notice that the rule doesn't say it has to be helmet to helmet contact - it simply says "make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet". A flag SHOULD have been thrown. When the booth reviewed the fumble, a flag should have been thrown for targeting. The fact that a flag was never thrown shows the gross bias that the officials had. I don't even think they ever considered looking at the play for targeting. There is no counter argument that hold water.
Isn’t an OT loss closer by definition? So again, Texas has more right to stay in than SMU.You missed the point. First, the SMU loss was regulation, not OT. The committee indicated a CFP team that loses a close CCG would not drop out.
Playoff seeding rules are terrible.Texas benefited from losing yesterday….
24 hours ago, they had longer odds to win the Natty than they do now due to the playoff seeding.
We played great. Far exceeded my expectations. I was shocked King could throw the ball down field after not doing so for 6 weeks and 2 games. He was the difference. He is a stud!
Did you expect King to be healthy enough to do what he did in that game? If so I hope you bet &10 grand on GT!
I used to really like Herbstreit, but he has become sEcSPN’s useful idiot pimping the P2, especially the SECheat.Stockton had 71 yards passing and Herbstreit was acting like the kid is the greatest QB ever
Not to mention, as conference champion, by written “rule” of the CFP, they are automatically in.No, that shouldn’t happen, for the following reasons:
- it was wrong to do it to FSU
- The backup QB for UGa led them effectively (whereas the backup for FSU didn’t) ergo they are less reliant one their QB other be competitive
- not clear that it is a season ending injury (He was out there handing the ball off in OT)