FB: 2024 Bowl Games

It's safe to say the best team won the national title and the title game featured the two most deserving contenders.

The final CFP ranking was as follows:
1. Oregon - Lost to OSU
2. Georgia - Lost to ND
3. Texas - Lost to OSU
4. Penn State - Lost to ND
5. ND - Lost to OSU
6. OSU
7. Tennessee - Lost to OSU
8. Indiana - Lost to ND

Penn State took care of Nos. 9 & 10 while Texas beat the two lowest-ranked teams in the playoff (Nos. 12 & 16).
 
I thought that was as good as Riley could play. He was excellent. ND just couldn't stay within 5 yards of any OSU receiver. OSU took their foot off the gas with a big lead, and ND (mostly Riley) made them sweat. But ND just couldn't get off the field. It wasn't schemes. It was talent. OSU was too tough for ND to line up against and stop.
Yes, and OSU was much more consistent in pass protection than ND.
 
It goes beyond a bad idea. It's coaching malpractice! Are they not supposed to try to win the game??!? I turned it off after that. If the teams aren't going to make an effort, i'm not going to watch.
I know I'm probably in the minority on this, but I disagree. ND was 4th and goal from the 9 after a loss and two incompletions. A TD conversion was a low percentage option, and failure meant they'd still need two TDs and two 2-point conversions to tie. Making a short FG was high percentage and would mean two regular TDs puts ND ahead. It was still the third quarter, and ND was likely to still have several possessions. As the game progressed the importance of that FG became more apparent.
 
It's safe to say the best team won the national title and the title game featured the two most deserving contenders.

The final CFP ranking was as follows:
1. Oregon - Lost to OSU
2. Georgia - Lost to ND
3. Texas - Lost to OSU
4. Penn State - Lost to ND
5. ND - Lost to OSU
6. OSU
7. Tennessee - Lost to OSU
8. Indiana - Lost to ND

Penn State took care of Nos. 9 & 10 while Texas beat the two lowest-ranked teams in the playoff (Nos. 12 & 16).
Interesting that folks seem to agree that we had the best two teams in the final and the strongest team one - but we likely wouldn't have had either team in a 2/4 team championship.

The bigger bracket seems to have done good work.
 
I know I'm probably in the minority on this, but I disagree. ND was 4th and goal from the 9 after a loss and two incompletions. A TD conversion was a low percentage option, and failure meant they'd still need two TDs and two 2-point conversions to tie. Making a short FG was high percentage and would mean two regular TDs puts ND ahead. It was still the third quarter, and ND was likely to still have several possessions. As the game progressed the importance of that FG became more apparent.
Incorrect sir. That missed field goal was last definitely not in the 3rd quarter. Came with about 9 minutes left in the game. You have a chance to make it a one score game with 9 mins left you gotta take it. Otherwise you still need to score two more times with not much time on the clock.

Field goal helps ya out a little. Touchdown gives you a chance to get back in the game.
 
I know I'm probably in the minority on this, but I disagree. ND was 4th and goal from the 9 after a loss and two incompletions. A TD conversion was a low percentage option, and failure meant they'd still need two TDs and two 2-point conversions to tie. Making a short FG was high percentage and would mean two regular TDs puts ND ahead. It was still the third quarter, and ND was likely to still have several possessions. As the game progressed the importance of that FG became more apparent.
I would agree if it had been the third quarter, but it wasn't.
 
I would agree if it had been the third quarter, but it wasn't.
Yes, I stand corrected. But I still think that after a TFL and two incompletions ND was not going to score a TD, and Freeman didn't think so either. The odds of converting that TD, making the two point conversion, and then converting another with a two-point conversion were very poor. Admittedly, the odds of making a FG and getting two more possessions to convert TDs might not have been any better. The math is probably an imponderable.
 
Yes, I stand corrected. But I still think that after a TFL and two incompletions ND was not going to score a TD, and Freeman didn't think so either. The odds of converting that TD, making the two point conversion, and then converting another with a two-point conversion were very poor. Admittedly, the odds of making a FG and getting two more possessions to convert TDs might not have been any better. The math is probably an imponderable.
If you run that model thousands of times I think the odds of winning that game are better if you go for the touchdown. 4th and goal, you’re already there.
 
Interesting that folks seem to agree that we had the best two teams in the final and the strongest team one - but we likely wouldn't have had either team in a 2/4 team championship.

The bigger bracket seems to have done good work.
Most seem to think ND would have been in a 4-team playoff. Ohio State certainly would have not. So your point stands.

Oregon/Georgia/ND/Texas would have been playoff selection if this was last year in that order. Penn State as dark horse selection over Texas.
 
Maybe, but I'm not convinced assuming the modeling understands that ND is a run first team and are at the 9. Not all 4th and goals are equal.
The model probably hates its more that a run first team wouldn’t go for it there considering there were only 9 minutes left in the game. Did Marcus freeman really think they would get 2 quick stops and be able to score 2 more times?
 
The model probably hates its more that a run first team wouldn’t go for it there considering there were only 9 minutes left in the game. Did Marcus freeman really think they would get 2 quick stops and be able to score 2 more times?
Yes, I stand corrected. But I still think that after a TFL and two incompletions ND was not going to score a TD, and Freeman didn't think so either. The odds of converting that TD, making the two point conversion, and then converting another with a two-point conversion were very poor. Admittedly, the odds of making a FG and getting two more possessions to convert TDs might not have been any better. The math is probably an imponderable.
Yea, Mike, this was the explanation that Freeman gave after the game, for why he elected to try to kick the field goal. He said he just thought it was going to be very difficult to make two touchdowns AND two two-point conversions, at that point, plus it was a very long 9 yards to get the TD. Of course, if I had been the ND coach, I would have definitely tried to make the TD at that point in the game. The odds of ND winning at that point were probably very long, no matter what you did.
This whole discussion brings back memories of the Duke-ND game last year, when ND had 4th and 16 (or was it longer?) and made the first down on a QB run. I still have nightmares about that play and the way the game ended. Duke SHOULD have won that game.
 
The model probably hates its more that a run first team wouldn’t go for it there considering there were only 9 minutes left in the game. Did Marcus freeman really think they would get 2 quick stops and be able to score 2 more times?
I think the calculus wasn't that any scenario was LIKELY, but he felt that perhaps was more likely than getting 2 TD scores (with one being a 4th and 9 conversion) and two 2-point conversions. That is, easy FG + 2 scores with extra points each time for a win > Converting a 4th and 9 for a TD, then another TD with both TDs being successful 2 point-conversion + then winning in OT. Reasonable minds can differ, but I don't think that math is crazy with 9 minutes left. Both are long odds.
 
It's safe to say the best team won the national title and the title game featured the two most deserving contenders.

The final CFP ranking was as follows:
1. Oregon - Lost to OSU
2. Georgia - Lost to ND
3. Texas - Lost to OSU
4. Penn State - Lost to ND
5. ND - Lost to OSU
6. OSU
7. Tennessee - Lost to OSU
8. Indiana - Lost to ND

Penn State took care of Nos. 9 & 10 while Texas beat the two lowest-ranked teams in the playoff (Nos. 12 & 16).
Yeah, I think this system works, with one caveat -- it seems that teams that played their conference finals and then had a week off were at a disadvantage. We'll see if that's a one-year thing or if it continues.

But I'd say tweak the conference alignment, not the playoffs. I think 12 is the right number. Big enough to get in any team that merits it, either by winning a conference or winning 10-11 games. Small enough that the regular season still matters.
 
Most seem to think ND would have been in a 4-team playoff. Ohio State certainly would have not. So your point stands.

Oregon/Georgia/ND/Texas would have been playoff selection if this was last year in that order. Penn State as dark horse selection over Texas.
The final CFP rankings were Oregon/Georgia/Texas/Penn State. ND was #5, OSU #6.
 
Most seem to think ND would have been in a 4-team playoff. Ohio State certainly would have not. So your point stands.

Oregon/Georgia/ND/Texas would have been playoff selection if this was last year in that order. Penn State as dark horse selection over Texas.
Yep, despite being ranked 5th in the actual rankings, I suspect that the committee would have found a way to include ND in a 4 team playoff.

Fortunately, the committee didn't have to make a mostly arbitrary decision about which of ND, Penn State, and Texas to leave out (while definitely leaving out Ohio State).

The college football regular season doesn't have enough quality games, especially non-conference games, to make a clear determination of the 4 best teams. Most of the top teams only play 4-6 games all year where they aren't heavy favorites. At most, one of these is a non-conference game. As Ohio State showed, the distinction between losing 1 and 2 regular season games (or losing the same number with a different schedule) isn't enough to clearly determine which team is better.

The 12 team playoff still forces the committee to make a mostly arbitrary distinction between the #8 or #9 team and the first few teams left out. This year, at least, it seems pretty unlikely that any of the "first four out" (Alabama, Miami, Ole Miss, S Carolina) would have stood much of a chance to win it all.
 
Yeah, I think this system works, with one caveat -- it seems that teams that played their conference finals and then had a week off were at a disadvantage. We'll see if that's a one-year thing or if it continues.

But I'd say tweak the conference alignment, not the playoffs. I think 12 is the right number. Big enough to get in any team that merits it, either by winning a conference or winning 10-11 games. Small enough that the regular season still matters.
Lessee, all home teams won in the first weekend. Second, all teams with byes lost in the second weekend (nos. 1-4). What changes would I make as a consequence? "None. The coaches and teams can see which way the field tilted this year, and need to prepare themselves better next year."
 
I understand that but most expect the committee would choose a different 4 under the old model. And I think they're right. They certainly wouldn't have Georgia-Texas be the first matchup for a THIRD time.
No one in SEC country wanted to see it, I cannot imagine that anyone outside of SEC country even wanted to see them play twice.
 
The final CFP rankings were Oregon/Georgia/Texas/Penn State. ND was #5, OSU #6.
The committee would've had a much tougher task ranking those teams if it were only a four-team playoff though.

Going into championship weekend, it was Oregon, Texas, Penn State, ND and then Georgia. I feel like in the past the committee wasn't so forgiving of conference championship game losses when the field was only four teams, so they may not have left both Penn State and Texas ahead of Notre Dame if that were still the format.

With 12 teams, they all but ignored those losses (incl. SMU's).
 
Back
Top