NCAA Football 2021-22 Season

This is why targeting is a misnomer, which I think adds to the confusion and bellyaching about this brand of penalty. That guy was just doing anything he could to get to the QB and/or mess up the pass, and his helmet happened to hit the QB's. If that has to be a serious infraction because of concussions, I can get with that. However, the label makes it sound like the penalty is for egregious and intentionally violent hits, which this was not, imho.

I think this is a classic letter of the law versus spirit of the law. By the ways the rules are written, that is targeting and the defensive player should be ejected. In reality, dude was just trying to make a play and wasn't trying to hurt anyone.

Saw that video last night. It was absolutely textbook targeting. The launching off your feet and leading with the head is an incredibly dangerous play for tackler and target. I can't believe this is even a discussion. Most people last night were laughing at the tweet for even suggesting it wasn't targeting.

IMAGE(https://benramsaypenwithdigital.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/e.honda-sf2-super-zutsuki.gif)

Yeah, that was absolutely text book targeting. Once a player launches they have given up all control on what is going to happen to their body as well as who ever they collide with. Targeting is not just about eliminating concussions but also about trying to prevent spinal injuries.

So close, Gators. Needed that 2

Stele wrote:

So close, Gators. Needed that 2

So many favorites today failing to cover.

Question for the aficionados here.

Why does college football have rankings ahead of any games being played? Why not a quiet period where no (subjective) rankings take place until, say, October 1 where judges have some actual games to watch?

I mean, I understand there's $$$ in having rankings early and being able to hype stuff early season. But that can't be the official rules-based reason, right? Like, there's got to be something in a bylaw or something somewhere that lays out the fig leaf explanation, right?

What other game starts with, "Each player in this tournament starts with a 0-0 record, but 25 players will get Victory Points awarded to them by the judges prior to the first die roll..."?

Top_Shelf wrote:

Why does college football have rankings ahead of any games being played? Why not a quiet period where no (subjective) rankings take place until, say, October 1 where judges have some actual games to watch?

So the SEC can get as many teams into the playoffs as it can.

The real answer, although I support Carl's, is that those rankings aren't official in any way. Those are generated by 3rd parties. For 100 years or so, there were no official rankings, etc. Since the BCS Championship started and then we moved to the four-team playoff, we have had official rankings.

The current official rankings don't start for several more weeks.

I mean, I understand there's $$$ in having rankings early

Nope this it - money for betting and stuff. No other reason.

FRESNO > fUCLA

JAKE HAENER FOR HEISMAN

ANYONE THAT DIDN'T STAY UP TO WATCH THAT GAME WAS WRONG

I was awake playing Rocket League. Oops.

I think the Pac-12's best non-conference opponent is the SEC.. we're 2-1. And that one loss Texas A&M's 3 point victory over a Colorado team that just lost 30-0 against Minnesota, well sure... I believe that is a quality loss?

I don't think the Pac-12 is better than .500 against any other FBS conference.. certainly not the MWC.

As for Cal.. I think there's a > 50% chance that yesterday could be our only win. Our defense looks as bad as it did during Sonny Dykes tenure... unfortunately we don't have the #1 overall pick as our QB this time around to beat teams 50-49. FCS Sacramento State basically found every hole in our porous secondary. Running a 3-4 I'd figure the middle of the field should be a little more crowded but there is always a gaping hole somewhere. If an FCS offense can find it.. damn well better believe an FBS team will exploit it.

On offense, the good news is the last 2 games we scored points. The bad news is the aforementioned QB. You shouldn't have a problem with an FCS defense, and for the most part we didn't averaging 7.5 yards per rush and 8.5 per pass, but I counted at least 3 plays with open receivers streaking down the field that the QB just missed, and one horrible INT on an underthrown ball. Put Goff in this offense and yeah, maybe we score 50 points a game, but definitely not with Garbers back there.

FRESNO STATE now #22 in the AP, #25 in the Coaches Poll.

Coaches rank UCLA at #24 ahead of the team they just lost at home to. Coaches are dumb.

CBS calling the Jake Haener effort that all those East coasters slept through an ”all time gutsy performance”

*Legion* wrote:

FRESNO STATE now #22 in the AP, #25 in the Coaches Poll.

Coaches rank UCLA at #24 ahead of the team they just lost at home to. Coaches are dumb.

CBS calling the Jake Haener effort that all those East coasters slept through an ”all time gutsy performance”

Probably because half of the East Coast staff that's actually filling out the coaches poll thought UCLA beat Sacramento State and submitted their forms just after 5pm pacific. Of course if LSU goes .500 in their SEC schedule they'll be ranked ahead of both UCLA and Fresno State because.. SEC.

Taking my medicine in the header... again.

*Legion* wrote:

FRESNO STATE now #22 in the AP, #25 in the Coaches Poll.

Coaches rank UCLA at #24 ahead of the team they just lost at home to. Coaches are dumb.

CBS calling the Jake Haener effort that all those East coasters slept through an ”all time gutsy performance”

This is why the rankings are sh*t. OU is still in playoff position at #4 despite struggling against two not-good teams at home. They also scheduled no tough non-conference games and play in the Big 12, a conference that they and the horns are dying to get out of. This is blue blood privilege at its worst.

...and if anyone wants to say the Ags should be lower too, fine, I know we haven't proven anything yet - but with our schedule, we will be tested plenty by the end of the season. Not true for OU. I hope the playoff committee keeps that in mind, but last year (granted, COVID weirdness abounded) they let in the biggest names.

Lol in one post you have simultaneously railed against the rankings yet use them to prop up your case that your schedule is tough.

If we're willing to just assume Alabama is head and shoulders above the rest, then what? Even if we believe A&M is the 2nd best team in the country, you don't get to play against yourself. Arkansas' lone big non-conf win is against a Texas team that you think is terrible... 2 other teams on your schedule LSU and Auburn have lost their big non-conf games.

You may hate the rankings, but they are what give validity to the SEC moebius strip of great win or quality loss, and the reason there is an argument that 4 teams from the SEC deserve to be in the playoffs every year. Whoever loses between you and bama or who loses the SEC championship game whines on and on. stanfurd beats USC and that basically knocks USC out of the picture... in WEEK 2. stanfurd and/or USC can win out at this point and they'll still not be in the top 4. But is Florida out? We all know in the pac-12 someone is going to beat Oregon... could be lowly Cal.. could be Oregon State...or Chip Kelley revenge game, but because the Pac-12 doesn't have the benefit of the pre-season ranking sh*t (your word) right now only Oregon has a path the playoffs. Only the SEC gets the benefit of Great team lost to Greater team.

Do a quick google search for Pac-12 Circle of Suck (or circle of parity), and every year the circle gets closed where you can transitive property the entire conference. If that happened in the SEC, every team (including Vandy) would probably make an argument to be in the post season. Even if you take a microcosm of that.. lets say A&M > Alabama > Ole Miss > A&M... everyone basically says they beat the #1 and lost to #1 so therefore they should all be #1.

I'm beginning to think Carlbear95 doesn't like the SEC.

But he never talks about it so I'm just guessing

Carlbear95 wrote:

Do a quick google search for Pac-12 Circle of Suck (or circle of parity), and every year the circle gets closed where you can transitive property the entire conference. If that happened in the SEC, every team (including Vandy) would probably make an argument to be in the post season. Even if you take a microcosm of that.. lets say A&M > Alabama > Ole Miss > A&M... everyone basically says they beat the #1 and lost to #1 so therefore they should all be #1.

I know I've heard this before...

MannishBoy wrote:

I'm beginning to think Carlbear95 doesn't like the SEC.

But he never talks about it so I'm just guessing :)

How could I look at my coastal-liberal-elitist self in the mirror if I didn't crap on the South all the time?

And for the record I love the SEC... we've won 3 straight against them! I don't think we've won 3 straight against any other conference... definitely not the Pac-12!

Carlbear95 wrote:

If that happened in the SEC, every team (including Vandy) would probably make an argument to be in the post season.

Clearly, Vandy's 13 straight Quality Losses are what's keeping the Pac-12 out of the CFP.

Badferret wrote:
Carlbear95 wrote:

If that happened in the SEC, every team (including Vandy) would probably make an argument to be in the post season.

Clearly, Vandy's 13 straight Quality Losses are what's keeping the Pac-12 out of the CFP.

Nah it was Oklahoma winning the Big 12.. just like it should have

I can believe Carl posted an unhinged TLDR, conspiracy theory manifesto that opened with the idea that Alabama isn't really all that good, but I can't believe another person "Liked" it.

At this point it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. For so long we have lived in a world where every media outlets have proclaimed Alabama and the SEC (and select other schools, one of which my wife is an alum of) world beaters that all the best high school football players have only known that, so they go to those schools. They sell the recruiting classes and the media rankings to their wealthy donors because everyone wants to support a winner, they use that money to build better facilities and hire 'better' coaches. After all, there is nothing wealthy alums like more than throwing their unneeded money at a really good football team. They then use those things to get better high schoolers.

Lather, rinse, repeat, and you have about a half dozen schools that consistently win and consistently vie for the four team playoff.

Another reason those six schools don't want an 8-team playoff, competition may disrupt their monopoly.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:

Another reason those six schools don't want an 8-team playoff, competition may disrupt their monopoly.

I don't think the networks don't want it either. Alabama in particular and the SEC in general (and Notre Dame and maybe a few other schools) are national brands. A national championship game featuring Iowa and Cincinnati and their locals-only fan bases is everyone's nightmare.

Now you sound like a NBA conspiracy junkie. No way the league would let Indiana and Portland be in the finals, right? So back in 2000 they made sure the Lakers came back from down 16 in the 4th quarter of game 7 and beat the Trailblazers.

I know it's a crazy news time and there a ton of off season CFB news but a couple of points are in order.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey was the driving force for the proposed 12 team playoff expansion and is still on board now.

It is actually the Alliance conferences that are now tut-tutting the playoff expansion in retaliation/fear of the OU/Texas move.

The real villain, is and will always be: IMAGE(https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20121016/634.mm.cm.111612_copy.jpg?fit=around%7C634:1024&output-quality=90&crop=634:1024;center,top)

The difference is the BCS is a made-for-TV spectacle.

If this was about picking the best team, there would be a multiple-round CFB playoff just like there is with every other NCAA sport at every level.

This is only about hustling up a buck. Don't overthink it!