Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

2024 College Football Thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Arizona St being in the playoffs feels so wrong.

 

Colorado decided to show up the last 2 weeks. Can't believe they blew it vs Kansas of all teams.

 

 

What I wish, is they would say screw the technical bowl requirements.....and have Colorado or Miami play a team built like South Carolina.  Let the nation see the two biggest holders of the ball vs a good SEC defensive front. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SCMunnerlyn1 said:

There is literally a scenario where Clemson could win the whole thing and South Carolina can pull a 2017 UCF and claim it for themselves as well. 

 

Insanity. 

I welcome such insanity.  I welcome the Gamecocks mental gymnastics as well. As Dabo said yesterday, they were the first 15-0 national champ, why not be the first 3 loss champ.  My favorite part is how self-aware Dabo is off the hate of him/Clemson....and how annoyed people will be if they even win the ACC.  

but regardless, I'm pulling for the lowest seeds until they are eliminated.  Well, outside of UNLV.  I want Boise St in and see Jeanty vs a good D. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Why do you keep mentioning Miami I don't care about them lol

NFL board.  Ward and Sanders are projected as some variation of 1 and 2.  A matchup like a SC would be super relevant to the draft and NFL.....because it pits them against a team that would potentially take advantage at their perceived flaws (and they have the same flaw).   So, I use the 2 QBs interchangeably.  Both would provide that opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CRA said:

NFL board.  Ward and Sanders are projected as some variation of 1 and 2.  A matchup like a SC would be super relevant to the draft and NFL.....because it pits them against a team that would potentially take advantage at their perceived flaws (and they have the same flaw).   So, I use the 2 QBs interchangeably.  Both would provide that opportunity. 

I mean people have been saying this draft was weak in terms of the QB position. This is nothing new. I also agree that Sanders holds the ball a lot. He's gonna struggle if he does that at the next level.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Colorado decided to show up the last 2 weeks. Can't believe they blew it vs Kansas of all teams.

It's pretty simple if you take off the blinders. They lost to Nebraska and Kansas because they're just not that good. They're a borderline top 20 type of team that's good enough to play with the top teams if they're on their A game but are flawed enough to lose to practically anyone any given week if they're not on their A game.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's pretty simple if you take off the blinders. They lost to Nebraska and Kansas because they're just not that good. They're a borderline top 20 type of team that's good enough to play with the top teams if they're on their A game but are flawed enough to lose to practically anyone any given week if they're not on their A game.

You can literally say this about Alabama who loss to Vanderbilt.

 

What about Notre Dame losing to Northern Illinois 

Any team can be beat unless you're Oregon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I think the winner of the ACC championship should get the one and only playoff spot.

 

You can't have more than 1 ACC team in the playoffs. The conference is not that great to be getting multiple teams.

SEC/BIG10 isn't good enough to take up 8-9 spots.    Almost every year Clemson made it in the past, most argued the ACC didn't deserve that spot either.   Which proved itself to be SEC fan fiction. This is just the continuation of that same thing but trickled down.  There are no dominate teams in football this year. 

Took UGA 3483 OTs to take down GT last week.  SMU should 100% be in, win or lose.  How would you jump Indiana over them that doesn't even play? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

You can literally say this about Alabama who loss to Vanderbilt.

 

What about Notre Dame losing to Northern Illinois 

Any team can be beat unless you're Oregon.

Oregon was losing in the 4th quarter to a one man show RB from the Mountain West.  That's why sports is fun.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's a little unfortunate his first two games were against teams with stiff run defenses and his 3rd game is vs the eagles with a hellacious Dline. I think we might see some longer gains vs worse dlines
    • We may be able to keep it close if Bryce has another good game. I just see them dominating with their ability to run it, and our inability to stop the run. 
    • I suppose I could take the same tact with you and say something like, "I know PF69 isn't a fan of our boy...," but the reality is Brent Burns isn't playing great, but, until last night, the entire team hasn't been good (2-3 last 5 heading into Thursday night). The first breakaway MacKinnon had was totally not Burns. He was along the board and Martinook was spun down trying play him. Burns was pushed to the outside when Martinook went down, but no way was he going to catch Mac. He pinched up on the right board when Slavin was carrying the puck into the zone and nobody was back. Couple things there; either there was no communication or Burns simply assumed, as most of us probably would, that Slavin would successfully rim the puck around behind the goal. It didn't happen. Slavin was clear down by the dots and the puck was stopped behind the net by the Avs and a long stretch pass followed with a breakaway goal. Burns was waiting on Slavin's rim, but it never got there.  To answer your question, Burns is a -2 for the season, and -5 over the last 6. So, go ahead and roast him for that, and then look at the +3 from the previous 7 games. Keep in mind, he is a +2 for his entire career, so what we're seeing is not anything new, it's fairly consistent over a 1441 game career thus far. And also look at his TOI, which is at the lowest in his career, while his CF% and oZS% are both career highs. He may not be doing everything right, but most of it he's getting done. Oh yeah, Slavin is a -3 over the last 6 games, too, so there's that. You may think +/- is an important stat, but if you take a 3-3 record over the last 6 games, and 2 of those games were ass-kickings (6-3 and 6-0), everyone on the damn roster is going to be a -something except Necas, maybe. 
×
×
  • Create New...