#5 Oregon vs #12 James Madison (Sat Dec. 20, 4:30PM TNT/HBO Max)

[chapelhillduck]

Dan was pissed in the press conference….

He’ll have everyone ready for all effort against tech


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[droop10]

I was at the game, so just getting a chance to catch up on the overreactions in here, which delivered as usual. I still got to feel like I was in the game thread, as the drunk a couple rows in front of my kept screaming, “This is TCU all over again!” late in the 4th quarter with the Ducks still up 4 scores. The second half tells you nothing about how the Tech game will go, except that the Ducks will likely lose if forced to play their entire second team defense. Yes, the starters have up another score late in the game, but it’s hard to get juiced up again after having been pulled for the majority of the half.

JMU is a well coached team that executes on a high level, so when you have a bunch of inexperienced guys on the field at the same time, you’re liable to struggle. It’s more important to give those guys game reps than win a beauty pageant by beating a team by 50. It doesn’t take away that when focused, the team was up 48-13. If anything, it gave the coaches plenty of teaching tape, and should add extra motivation for the defense next game to show up.

[duckpoint]

Morning after thoughts having been at the game is that I'm so tired of people ragging on the G5 schools and whether they deserve a chance or not.

Yeah, it comes down to if you are in FBS, you deserve an equal shot and the expanded playoff allows for that. The insistence that voters/committees/rankings decide who is best is BS! Especially since the default seems to be fill all the slots with SEC teams as a starting point and anyone else needs to make an argument to justify bumping any of them.
Each conference should send their representative and the runner up can go to a NIT like lower tier playoff. They won't do it, because they want to select who is best...

[squintsdd]

Morning after thoughts having been at the game is that I'm so tired of people ragging on the G5 schools and whether they deserve a chance or not.

Yeah, it comes down to if you are in FBS, you deserve an equal shot and the expanded playoff allows for that. The insistence that voters/committees/rankings decide who is best is BS! Especially since the default seems to be fill all the slots with SEC teams as a starting point and anyone else needs to make an argument to justify bumping any of them.
Each conference should send their representative and the runner up can go to a NIT like lower tier playoff. They won't do it, because they want to select who is best...

By that logic, Oregon would be in the NIT. That would make no sense, since Oregon is one of the teams that people predict to make a strong push for the national championship.

The truth is that there are some lower tier team's that can compete, but none of them can realistically win the championship without a significant boost in funding. While don't agree with the mainstream media that the SEC is the standard, I do agree that a team like Texas would make the playoff bracket far more competitive than Tulane and JMU.

[StevensTechU]

Morning after thoughts having been at the game is that I'm so tired of people ragging on the G5 schools and whether they deserve a chance or not.

Yeah, it comes down to if you are in FBS, you deserve an equal shot and the expanded playoff allows for that. The insistence that voters/committees/rankings decide who is best is BS! Especially since the default seems to be fill all the slots with SEC teams as a starting point and anyone else needs to make an argument to justify bumping any of them.
Each conference should send their representative and the runner up can go to a NIT like lower tier playoff. They won't do it, because they want to select who is best...

By that logic, Oregon would be in the NIT. That would make no sense, since Oregon is one of the teams that people predict to make a strong push for the national championship.

The truth is that there are some lower tier team's that can compete, but none of them can realistically win the championship without a significant boost in funding. While don't agree with the mainstream media that the SEC is the standard, I do agree that a team like Texas would make the playoff bracket far more competitive than Tulane and JMU.

What you're describing is an invitational, though. Championships are where the teams who had the best records in the regular season then play for trophy.

This stuff isn't even about big conference versus smaller guys. It's about brands. It drives me a little nuts that everyone acknowledged that Oklahoma had zero shot at winning it all but you can't leave them out because their regular season resume was too good. Many of the same people will then not extend the same logic to a G5 team or 2024 SMU or 2024 Indiana.

Those complaining right now just want an invitational with the same couple brands every year.

[squintsdd]

Morning after thoughts having been at the game is that I'm so tired of people ragging on the G5 schools and whether they deserve a chance or not.

Yeah, it comes down to if you are in FBS, you deserve an equal shot and the expanded playoff allows for that. The insistence that voters/committees/rankings decide who is best is BS! Especially since the default seems to be fill all the slots with SEC teams as a starting point and anyone else needs to make an argument to justify bumping any of them.
Each conference should send their representative and the runner up can go to a NIT like lower tier playoff. They won't do it, because they want to select who is best...

By that logic, Oregon would be in the NIT. That would make no sense, since Oregon is one of the teams that people predict to make a strong push for the national championship.

The truth is that there are some lower tier team's that can compete, but none of them can realistically win the championship without a significant boost in funding. While don't agree with the mainstream media that the SEC is the standard, I do agree that a team like Texas would make the playoff bracket far more competitive than Tulane and JMU.

What you're describing is an invitational, though. Championships are where the teams who had the best records in the regular season then play for trophy.

This stuff isn't even about big conference versus smaller guys. It's about brands. It drives me a little nuts that everyone acknowledged that Oklahoma had zero shot at winning it all but you can't leave them out because their regular season resume was too good. Many of the same people will then not extend the same logic to a G5 team or 2024 SMU or 2024 Indiana.

Those complaining right now just want an invitational with the same couple brands every year.

What i want is a more distinct separation between divisions. The playoffs should be between P4 conferences entirely. The group of 5 conferences can have their own playoff tournament. If they want to be included, maybe the winner of that can be in the big boy playoffs, or if any of them manage to earn their way into the top 12, like Boise State last year, they can be included.

I agree that there wasn't a chance in hell that Oklahoma was gonna win it, but there isn't a chance in hell that Pittsburgh will with the superbowl, and they're likely going to the nfl playoffs.

[Duck07]

What i want is a more distinct separation between divisions. The playoffs should be between P4 conferences entirely. The group of 5 conferences can have their own playoff tournament. If they want to be included, maybe the winner of that can be in the big boy playoffs, or if any of them manage to earn their way into the top 12, like Boise State last year, they can be included.

I agree that there wasn't a chance in hell that Oklahoma was gonna win it, but there isn't a chance in hell that Pittsburgh will with the superbowl, and they're likely going to the nfl playoffs.

The courts have already said you can't separate the divisions.

So much of these complaints are just not going to find a real solution by using the NFL as a comparison because you don't have the AFC West working against the collective interests of the NFC North.

That's a league that is totally bought into shared TV revenue and the conferences won't do it - that's why the Pac 12 is dead and now we get to travel to freaking Rutgers.

I just don't find valid a single argument that Notre Dame, (loser of both Miami and TAMU) "deserved" to be in over a JMU or Tulane. They are also now a "protected" class by getting their own special rules.

When the Playoffs do expand, I only hope that it does include more of the "Group" schools because when they do upset a "Power" school, it will be a decades long type win that creates a real memory for the annals of CFB history. That's how you maintain that relationship for the "haves" while not diminishing the "have-nots."

[squintsdd]

What i want is a more distinct separation between divisions. The playoffs should be between P4 conferences entirely. The group of 5 conferences can have their own playoff tournament. If they want to be included, maybe the winner of that can be in the big boy playoffs, or if any of them manage to earn their way into the top 12, like Boise State last year, they can be included.

I agree that there wasn't a chance in hell that Oklahoma was gonna win it, but there isn't a chance in hell that Pittsburgh will with the superbowl, and they're likely going to the nfl playoffs.

The courts have already said you can't separate the divisions.

So much of these complaints are just not going to find a real solution by using the NFL as a comparison because you don't have the AFC West working against the collective interests of the NFC North.

That's a league that is totally bought into shared TV revenue and the conferences won't do it - that's why the Pac 12 is dead and now we get to travel to freaking Rutgers.

I just don't find valid a single argument that Notre Dame, (loser of both Miami and TAMU) "deserved" to be in over a JMU or Tulane. They are also now a "protected" class by getting their own special rules.

When the Playoffs do expand, I only hope that it does include more of the "Group" schools because when they do upset a "Power" school, it will be a decades long type win that creates a real memory for the annals of CFB history. That's how you maintain that relationship for the "haves" while not diminishing the "have-nots."

No, I understand my complaints aren't feasible, but very rarely can it argued that a G5 school belongs in these playoffs. Even if the argument is that they went 12-1 and won their conference, they likely don't belong. Despite the final score, last night was a perfect example. Had Oregon not let, and put in reserves, that score was likely only going to get worse. As for Notre Dame, if they want in then they need to join a conference. I get from a money perspective why they don't, but a spot shouldn't just be handed to them.

[Duck07]

No, I understand my complaints aren't feasible, but very rarely can it argued that a G5 school belongs in these playoffs. Even if the argument is that they went 12-1 and won their conference, they likely don't belong. Despite the final score, last night was a perfect example. Had Oregon not let, and put in reserves, that score was likely only going to get worse. As for Notre Dame, if they want in then they need to join a conference. I get from a money perspective why they don't, but a spot shouldn't just be handed to them.

If JMU (or others) don't belong because they don't stand a chance or might get blown out it also means that we weren't deserving of a playoff spot last year when we laid an egg or that when we beat the undefeated defending national champion Seminoles that they weren't worthy because we embarrassed them in the Rose Bowl.

To me that is valuing the result over the process and that's just not a way to enjoy life or a way to view a college football post-season.

[droop10]

What i want is a more distinct separation between divisions. The playoffs should be between P4 conferences entirely. The group of 5 conferences can have their own playoff tournament. If they want to be included, maybe the winner of that can be in the big boy playoffs, or if any of them manage to earn their way into the top 12, like Boise State last year, they can be included.

I agree that there wasn't a chance in hell that Oklahoma was gonna win it, but there isn't a chance in hell that Pittsburgh will with the superbowl, and they're likely going to the nfl playoffs.

The courts have already said you can't separate the divisions.

So much of these complaints are just not going to find a real solution by using the NFL as a comparison because you don't have the AFC West working against the collective interests of the NFC North.

That's a league that is totally bought into shared TV revenue and the conferences won't do it - that's why the Pac 12 is dead and now we get to travel to freaking Rutgers.

I just don't find valid a single argument that Notre Dame, (loser of both Miami and TAMU) "deserved" to be in over a JMU or Tulane. They are also now a "protected" class by getting their own special rules.

When the Playoffs do expand, I only hope that it does include more of the "Group" schools because when they do upset a "Power" school, it will be a decades long type win that creates a real memory for the annals of CFB history. That's how you maintain that relationship for the "haves" while not diminishing the "have-nots."

No, I understand my complaints aren't feasible, but very rarely can it argued that a G5 school belongs in these playoffs. Even if the argument is that they went 12-1 and won their conference, they likely don't belong. Despite the final score, last night was a perfect example. Had Oregon not let, and put in reserves, that score was likely only going to get worse. As for Notre Dame, if they want in then they need to join a conference. I get from a money perspective why they don't, but a spot shouldn't just be handed to them.

The G5 schools are generally going to be the 11/12 seed. How many years has the 11 or 12 ranked team been a true contender? Unfortunately, being the 11 or 12 means you’ll be playing the best at large teams, so there’s a pretty good chance they’ll get blown out consistently, but there’s also a decent chance that would happen to most teams in that spot. I don’t really feel bad for teams that lost multiple games and miss out on the playoffs. Had the Ducks lost a second game, I wouldn’t have been out there vouching for them to make it. We went years with a system where 1 loss at all basically eliminated you from contention, especially in the Pac-12, so why are we bellyaching over 2/3 loss teams now?

[Duck07]

Embedded Tweet

[Duck07]

Charlie Pickard breaking the huddle down at the end gives me the notion that he's a team leader that we don't hear about, but everyone in the locker room respects. Probably also why he and Poncho were in the battle to start last year.

We're not in the Playoffs without Malik Benson this year and it was really cool to see that clip from the leadership retreat because as a new guy he was there and for Malik, he can also see his own growth he's made this year in his season out west. I hope the Senior Bowl gives him an invite if they haven't already.

I almost got the impression that Mehringer is building the gameplan and that Stein is calling the plays and he's not wrong when he says its the best TE group in the country. They're going to have a big task with helping to set and win the battle on the Edges in this game but it shouldn't be lost on us that Drew has recruited and coached that room up and that should at least give us some more insight into his promotion.

Emmanuel Pregnon has the best stare on the team. I ain't talking sht to him, lol. That demeanor and focus is what's going to drive the team to win.

[greenyellow]

Doing a full mock game in actual game uniforms with the Oregon Harley, tunnel run, and Shout is a next level genius move by Lanning to knock the rust off before the game. Makes sense why they started so fast.

[Greenblood]

For those who think the Ducks' bad D was mostly just a function of backups in garbage time, it might be interesting to read Crepea's take in his O-Live "10 takeaways" article posted last night, #3.

After finally having watched a recording of (most of) the game on Monday, I think at least a partial explanation for "what happened" in the second half especially was simply that it was "too easy" at first. With the offense operating so efficiently and the D getting "enough" stops early on, the Ducks perhaps (unconsciously) lost their sense of urgency. I can't imagine that happening again in the playoffs and am very glad that Lanning clearly seemed so upset about it.

[whosyourwally]

Morning after thoughts having been at the game is that I'm so tired of people ragging on the G5 schools and whether they deserve a chance or not.

That was a great experience from the JMU fans who showed up and were passionate all night long and were great representatives of their school.

Nothing about a 12 team Playoff (or greater) is about crowning a National Champion based on the season's schedule so making arguments about "worth" of teams with multiple losses just seems stupid and an argument without merit.

Nothing about Alabama/OU made me think those 2 teams are NC-worthy, same for Miami-TAMU so why is there a concern that Tulane and JMU made it in when we've already established the Playoffs aren't about crowning the most deserving team?

What you do instead by leaving them out is to gate-keep College Football Fandom and interest so that only the approved list of schools are allowed to play and that doesn't create more fans of the sport but fewer.

We literally saw a HC of a team in the Playoffs leave his school for another job in the same conference - so it doesn't even "mean more" to the dipstick directional conference.

All of this stuff is about money for money's sake and its gross.

This is perfectly said. No notes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk