meansonny

Is this directed at me? Because I am against playoff expansion for the same reasons I'm in this thread. It would kill the regular season. Playoff expansion even moreso than the playoff committee comments this week would water down the entry requirements and strength of schedule would become meaningless. Fewest losses would be the only requirement. Everyone would copy Notre Dame and look for the best 6 loss power 5 teams to fill their OOC.

That's laughable. You'd rather focus on the teams with a 10% chance of winning instead of the teams with a 40-60% chance of winning against you. Rank schedules from the toughest to weakest. Only people who want to list complaints focus the other way around (because all 130 teams are vulnerable this way).

That is exactly my Point. Don't lose twice. No point in scheduling tougher games because the committee doesn't give a shit. UGA played at Notre Dame and at Georgia Tech last season. We play Notre Dame at home and @ Georgia Tech next season. When we play you in about 10 years, we play you, Clemson, and Tech all in the same season We generally are the best at OOC scheduling from the SEC. But it is becoming apparent that this type of scheduling is counter-productive. It only hurts either team.

I am not arguing that UGA should be in the playoff. I believe the team should win to advance. However, I am strongly arguing against the logic and explanation of the college football playoff committee. 100% of their determination is based upon losses. The only logical conclusion for any Athletics director of any University is to schedule easier competition because that is not taken into account. College football is worse and will be worse if the college football playoff committee continues this course. If this reasoning does not change, the out-of-conference games that UGA has scheduled with Texas and Clemson will not happen. Nor should they because they don't benefit either team.

They are interesting. Lost and trying to find an identity. Lock is crap. But they are trying to get their running game going. And they are discovering that ball control can cover weaknesses in their defense. I don't agree about their early East success. Yes. The division sucked. But it was their defense (more importantly, their ability to wreck teams with a 4 man front) that controlled games. The offense was only good 1 year out of the last 6 I think (2013. The only year they have beaten us). We've handled the offense very well since then keeping them 1 dimensional.

I don't disagree. But I feel the same way about Michigan, Northwestern, and Syracuse. When they play someone good, they are a pile of garbage.

We did play 9 conference games. We did play a P5 OOC who expected to be competitive (better than the average team that Notre Dame played). If you don't think playing 5 ranked opponents is tougher than playing 2... fine. If you don't think 4 opponents with 10 losses is tougher than 4 opponents with 20 losses... fine. If you think a bad game on the road to a top 10 team is worse than a bad game at home versus a 6-6 Vandy/4-6 Ball St/7-6 Pitt... fine. Those are subjective opinions. I've stated my case. But. Do you think that the playoff committee's logic and reasoning encourages teams like UGA and Texas to play each other in the regular season? Or does it discourage it? The only point that they have made is "don't lose".

I don't know anything about Oklahoma State. So I will take your word. It looks like they will get a Crack against missouri. We were able to play nickel against missouri. They ran the ball very well on us. 4 rushing TDs. But their passing game was eliminated. And they don't play any defense. The game was never in doubt. We handled them easily. Played 68 players on the road.

The Florida defense is great against a 1 dimensional offense. They can sell out to stop the run. They can cream a team in 3rd and long. What they can't do is defend vertically. That takes the safety out of the box. And their entire defense crumbles. Except for goalline (when their safeties can support the run) UGA did anything we wanted against them. They probably are overrated in most years. For some reason, the entire country seems down this year. Not really anyone to put in their place before bowl season.

My point was just posted. But in summation... notre dame has the best win. Easily. But the schedule is a bunch of middling team. A 12 week slate with 2 tough opponents. And notre dames worst days were awful. They just were lucky to face a 6-6 vandy team at home, a 4-8 ball state at home, and 7-6 Pitt at home during those awful games. Put any team with a pulse in two of those dates and they don't look so pure. The playoff committee isn't emphasizing strength of schedule in their arguments.

The point is that UGA has played 1 team undefeated. Three teams with 3 losses. The 4 toughest opponents have 10 losses combined. Notre Dame's 4 toughest opponents have 20 losses if I am counting correctly. It is easier to go undefeated or 1 loss with an easier schedule. And I disagree that schedule strength should be viewed from the weakest games to toughest (every home only opponent is a cupcake regardless of power 5 or fcs. Only a crappy team would agree to a home only game). More emphatically... the playoff committee is encouraging the scheduling of 7-5 opponents. Nothing in their message says to play a tougher schedule. The entire message is to avoid losses at all costs. And that will hurt college football. It is the wrong message.

That is absolutely correct.

Missouri, Florida, and Kentucky are usually considered the 3 best. None as good as michigan. All 3 may be overrated. We may find out this bowl season.

USC has talent. They are 5-7, though. Stanford is good for 4th best win at 8-4. Pitt is a good find at 7-6. They were their division Champs in the ACC I think.

Your 4th best win is 8-4 Stanford. 5th best win at 6-6 Wake Forest? Any other wins over teams with winning records?

UGA's five toughest games Lost to Bama( 13-0 ) neutral field Beat Florida (9-3)neutral field Lost @ LSU badly (9-3) Beat @ Kentucky (9-3) Beat @ Missouri (8-4) All of the above are ranked for what it is worth. Next 2 best wins (to compare to Notre Dames top 5 wins) would be any mix of @ South Carolina, Auburn, and Georgia Tech. All of which are 7-5.

We can try to have a conversation or not. No name calling. No making shit up. Just posting points and counterpoints and calling it a night. Who were Notre Dame's next 2 best wins?

Notre Dame beat 10-2 Michigan. Beat 9-3 Syracuse. Beat 8-5 northwestern I will play along with you. Let's focus on this. Who was Notre Dame's next 2 best wins?

Notre Dame's schedule is very telling. It tells me to schedule as many 5, 6,7 and 9 loss teams as possible. Because that is a stout schedule in the big 12's eyes.

Since when do we rank schedules from worst to toughest. Come on. You are better than that. Everyone knows that a home only school is a cupcake. It doesn't matter if the cupcake is fcs, fbs, or power 5. No school worth their salt will schedule a home only game in your stadium unless they suck. Quit acting like there is a pecking order to crappy teams.

For what it is worth, I do not think UGA should be in the playoff. I do like the idea that the SECCG is more than just 1 game and means more when determining advancement to the post season (i.e. the best of the east versus the best of the west. In a conference with 14 teams but only 8 regular season games... Bama was playing the representative for UGA, Florida, and Kentucky. UGA was playing the representative for A&M, Miss State, and Bama.). Having the SECCG as an eliminator makes more sense when looking at the teams represented. That said: I hate the reasoning from the playoff committee for their decision. I firmly believe that the thought process is 100% wrong. 1) if you focus on losses determining advancement, then you ruin the future integrity of the regular season. UGA played 5 ranked opponents. Notre Dame played 2. University ADs are not stupid. If the directive from the playoff committee is to lose as few games as possible, then why is Texas and UGA scheduling to play against each other OOC? There is no benefit to the added risk. Why injure a player in a tough game that could come bite the team in the rear further on down he road? If you count the quality wins but ignore the losses, then you force teams to stack their schedule (college football will start to see more games like UGA vs Texas/Notre Dame/Clemson. College football scheduling will improve). A loss is a desperately needed missed opportunity for a quality win. So it still doesn't help the win total. 2) the playoff committee sees UGA at its worst on the road against a top 10 LSU get abused. That was an awful game for UGA. However, Oklahoma tied Army in regulation. Notre Dame beat Vandy by 5, Ball State by 8, and Pitt by 5. All at home. The awful from Notre Dame is worse than the awful from UGA. Remember... are we explicitly punishing strong scheduling by looking at UGA's lowest moment and rewarding weak scheduling by looking at Notre Dame or Oklahoma's lowest moments? Again. I want to win my way into a playoff. We did it in 2017. That is the right way to do it. But I hate the message that the playoff committee is clearly making. I hate the message that the mainstream media is repeating. The point of all of this is to reward winning. But don't reward crappy schedules in the process. Notre Dame's playoff argument winning 2 good games (you can look at Oklahoma in the same fashion as Notre Dame) versus UGA's 3-2 record in good games does not make me feel very good about the future of the sport and the future of OOC scheduling.

We've got a good O Line and O Line coach. We actually played our 4th string RG in the SECCG. And he did well against Quinnen Williams. Hopefully by the bowl game, we will be back to full strength and most of our depth.

Keep in mind that I am comparing our current ILBs to the Butkus Award winner last season.

I havent seen it as an issue because no one was effective at it (hurry up). If we try to take away the pass, teams have found success on the ground. I can't say what is an RPO in these situations. But these teams struggle to drive the length of the field. Especially with the emergence of our NT misses on If we try to take away the run, Kentucky had success throwing the ball. Keep in mind what the word "success" means. They did better than their average. But these games were never contested. We had backups in the third and fourth quarters for most of them.

If this how you play then you will get moss'ed up and down the sideline, quality corners or not. 6'5 and 6'4 receivers that have made their season winning 50/50 balls will have their way, or you guys will get called for PI all the way down the field Good luck with that. You can try to force throws at 2 future NFL cover corners. Or you can attack the soft spots (maybe move guys around). It is your gameplan. Go for it. We play straight up. If the route dictates the safeties over there, then they will provide support. But they aren't going to cheat to help. As I said... we are not bracketing one receiver to take him awau. Also, we will change the looks. We try to disguise coverages to slow the decision making process down for the QB.