Championship games

Thwg777

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
813
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)

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.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,110
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.
Right.

Some may be astounded that you have made such an audacious claim but I suspect those people are still laboring under the illusion that there’s a massive difference in quality from team to team. There may still be some dominant teams out there. Maybe that’s Oregon State. Maybe Notre Dame is now playing as a dominant team. But it’s certainly not Georgia or Texas or Alabama for sure. Most teams this year seem to be in a broad middle range of ability, just below elite, pardon the expression, without a lot of separation between them.
 

wvGT11

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,344
Updated bracket
In theory we could see a Georgia Texas rematch again or Clemson smu
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20241208-130150.png
    Screenshot_20241208-130150.png
    696.7 KB · Views: 31

Thwg777

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
813
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.

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.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,292
Bro you were in agreement was another poster that UGA would dominate that game. Go somewhere else or just change your name to Root4UGA
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!
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,292
Texas has no good wins this year. They are the most overrated team in the CFP by far. They played 2 hard games and lost both. One at home and one when the opponents 2nd string QB played the whole 2nd half.

It was fun watching Saban fighting back tears when SMU was in and Alabama was out. A truly joyful moment. Herbstreet looked like his wife just left him for a 20 year old kid. More joy!

Kudos the tge Committee for keeping SMU in and Alabama out.
 

Yaller Jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
989
Wasn't there a time when the GA vs GT refs were always from the opposite conference as the home team?

Any chance SMU gets in as a sort of make up call after the FSU/ACC screwing last year?
 

TechPhi97

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
832
Location
Davidson, NC
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.


"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.
Let’s just move arguments about targeting to a new thread if you guys want to beat it to death.
 

yellajacket20

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
122
The way Clemson has been playing recently, they should trounce Texas. I think UT would be a much different team with Manning at the helm, but I don't think they will make the change.
 

eetech

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
208
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.
Isn’t an OT loss closer by definition? So again, Texas has more right to stay in than SMU.

Anyways, it looks like the committee did the right thing and dropped Bama, not Texas nor SMU.
 

eetech

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
208
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.
Playoff seeding rules are terrible.

Oregon would have been better off losing than winning.
 

Eli

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,702
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 actually predicted as much in the same thread you were gushing over their win against Texas and Tennessee and called them “dominate performances”
 

senoiajacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,141
No, that shouldn’t happen, for the following reasons:
  1. it was wrong to do it to FSU
  2. 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
  3. not clear that it is a season ending injury (He was out there handing the ball off in OT)
Not to mention, as conference champion, by written “rule” of the CFP, they are automatically in.
 
Top