Texas vs Michigan is the first bowl game this year where the SEC team and the team they are playing against have the same rank in their conference (both Michigan and Texas are ranked 5th in their respective conferences).

In every other game the SEC team was ranked lower in the SEC than their bowl opponent was ranked in their conference.

That trend holds through the upcoming playoff games. UGA/OM is SEC vs SEC. Bama is ranked 2nd in the SEC while Indiana is 1st in the Big 10.

We're starting to see some patterns in how different teams approach NIL. I'm wondering if we're starting to see a "best way to do it" or if it's still unknown (or if it might be different for different teams).

1 - Recruiting splash method - This is seen by giving big recruits big NIL deals. An example of this was Tennessee giving Nico Iamaleva that huge deal out of high school, but other schools have done similar.

2 - Transfer splash method - Big deals for a transfer who's the "missing piece" for a team. An example of this is Miami paying huge amounts for Carson Beck.

3 - Transfer volume method. - No headline deals, but huge turnover in the off season for incremental improvements at any position. Sacrifices a consistent roster from year to year in favor of any talent improvement. I think Kiffin at Ole Miss was an example of this.

4 - "Recruit/retain/replace" method. Recruit without huge deals. Increase NIL deals (including to "huge" status) to reward guys who perform in order to retain them. Offer good but not huge deals for transfers to replace guys transferring out or graduating without a solid replacement ready. I think this is what Kirby Smart at UGA is doing.

I think #4 is the "right way"... but that may only be right for a school like UGA who has enough draw on their own not to overpay players often. Maybe the others work better for programs at different places.

Ohio State
Indiana
Oregon
UGA

I'll be honest... that list is surprising to me. Before last season I would have guessed more than 4 teams and only would have picked OSU and UGA from the list of those that did it (though Oregon isn't too surprising)

The reality is there is a difference between choosing the most deserving teams after automatic bids are made and choosing the teams who would have the best shot of winning 3-4 games in a row in a 12-team playoff against other top ranked teams.

The sad truth is that if you don't have a minimum level of talent, when you have to play 3-4 top 20 caliber teams in a row you'll struggle. A great coaching staff can come up with a scheme to win one or two games against high talent teams... but those sort of teams need some bad teams on the schedule they can have "off weeks" against and still win. You can't coach a perfect game 3-4 weeks straight.

Last year, the final 4 teams were ranked 3rd, 4th, 9th and 11th in the talent composite. Teams with lower talent were all weeded out by the final 4. Those weren't the 4 most talented teams in the playoff... but they all were top 15 in terms of elite talent in the nation.

Right now we're looking at 10 teams being "in" with the question on who gets the last 2 spots. The choices are Bama (10-3), ND (10-2), Miami (10-2) and if you wanted to stretch it more BYU (11-2), Vandy (10-2) and Texas (9-3).

The teams most likely from that group to actually WIN the playoff would be Bama (#2 in total team talent this year) and Texas (#4). Others with a good chance of doing damage would be Notre Dame (#9) and Miami (#15). Teams with no chance of winning the playoff would be Vandy (#55) and BYU (#70).

The playoff committee is kind of trying to take both "deserving a spot" and "capable of winning" into account at the same time. BYU deserves a spot as much as Bama. They've only lost two games to the same team that is ranked in the top 4. But they can't win the playoff while Bama can. Similarly (but in the opposite direction), Texas is more capable of winning the playoff if they made it than Miami... but they have a worse record than Miami and Miami has ENOUGH talent to have a shot... so Miami is getting more consideration.

The teams without top 15 talent are extremely unlikely to win the actual playoff. They may deserve to be there, but to get through the gauntlet of the playoff you need a minimum level of talent.

I see games against Indiana (#72 in overall talent), Ole Miss (#21) and Texas Tech (#29) as much less worrisome than matchups with Bama (#2), OSU (#3), Texas (#4) or Oregon (#5) would be.

The first list of teams are opponents a high talent team like UGA can beat even if they outcoach UGA. The second list are close enough in talent that UGA will lose if the other coach comes up with a better plan than Smart does.

That isn't to say UGA would always beat the first group of teams. But over 3-4 straight weeks against great competition, that first group is much more likely to drop one and thus not win a title.

Texas (61 blue chips) over Clemson (52 blue chips)
OSU (69 blue chips) over Tennessee (41 blue chips)
PSU (53 blue chips) over SMU (25 blue chips)
ND (58 blue chips) over Indiana (10 blue chips)

Texas (61 blue chips) over ASU (18 blue chips)
OSU (69 blue chips) over Oregon (56 blue chips)
PSU (53 blue chips) over Boise (2 blue chips)

To be decided

UGA (69 blue chips) vs ND (58 blue chips)

If the higher talented team keeps winning, UGA wins the above game and this is what happens the rest of the way.

UGA (69 blue chips) over PSU (53 blue chips)
OSU (69 blue chips) over Texas (61 blue chips)

Then... who knows? UGA with 69 vs OSU with 69. Not only do they both have 69 blue chips, both have 14 5-stars and 55 4-stars.

In discussions about the UGA/ND game, I've heard a lot of people call Riley Leonard a "dual-threat" QB.

But is he?

In my mind a dual threat QB is a QB who can both run and pass very well. If their ability in one area is only mediocre, they're not a dual threat guy in my eyes.

For example, Matt Stafford could run a bit, but he couldn't run well enough to be called a dual threat. John Elway on the other hand could move in college and even though he was primarily a passer I would say he was a dual threat because unlike Stafford, you did have to respect the run.

On the flip side Eric Crouch could run incredibly well... but he wasn't a great passer. He wasn't a dual threat, he was simply a running QB. But guys like Mike Vick and Cam Newton had both the throwing and passing ability to be considered dual threat, even if their running was perhaps a bit more electric.

I don't think Riley Leonard is a dual threat. He's a solid runner for a QB, having 750 yards on the ground this year. But he's a bad passer, with less than 2300 yards through the air. The only threat he has is his legs. He's not particularly efficient when he throws either. His highest career passer rating was 141 at Duke 2 years ago. He was at 138 this season.

He's low in terms of production passing the ball and on the low end of efficiency when the throws it.

Am I looking at this wrong?

so, my question for everyone: If every team went independent, who would be the teams you'd play every year?

For UGA I think it would be:

Florida
Auburn
Georgia Tech
SC
Clemson

I'm a little on the fence with SC and Clemson. I'm not sure if we'd play both every year, or play at least one of them every year and both sometimes. They'd be very regular opponents though.

We all know this to be true. Winning on the road, even against weak teams, isn't easy. Bama lost to Vandy and Texas struggled against them on the road. Vandy lost on the road to Georgia State.

When you give a team who's ranked as a better team a home field advantage, the chance of having a close game is going to be small unless the ranking is flat out bad. And these end of the season rankings are as good as they get for college football.

We are NEVER going to have many good first round games in the college football playoff as long as the higher ranking team plays at home. It's designed that way. It rewards the better team by giving them home field and makes it less likely they lose.

While I'm not going to claim the result of any of these games would change if the lower seed played at home, they'd all be closer more interesting games. BUT THAT ISN"T WHAT WE WANT. We want the better team to have the advantage.

This isn't the NFL. The advantage teams get at home is MUCH more significant. We're never going to have a good first round in the playoff as long as the games are home games for the better team.

Look a Alabama. They have a very talented team. But they went 2-3 on the road this year with losses to Vandy, Tennessee and OU. Two of those teams were 6-6. 6-6 OU beat them by 21 on the road.

Road games are hard in college. Road games when the opponent is better than you are VERY hard. And the first round games will always have teams playing on the road against better teams.

Don't expect much.

He's afraid to throw the deep ball and doesn't like to run. He hands the ball off and throws short passes.

He's not a good fit for Heupel's offense. Joe Milton was a better QB for the UT offense. Probably not in general, I actually think Nico would fit well in UGA's offense. But he's a bad fit for Tennessee.

Remember that the BCS only let 2 teams from a conference make a BCS game when it was created.

That means this year the championship would be Oregon vs UGA, and the other BCS teams would be Texas, OSU, Clemson, ASU, Boise and ND.

No Tennessee
No Bama
No PSU
No Ole Miss
No SC

I think some of you are forgetting what the BCS was actually like. We got some absolute garbage games due to that 2-team per conference rule.