|
Replies: 64
| visibility 1660
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 46797
Joined: 2012
|
FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 1:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Valley Legend [12712]
TigerPulse: 96%
47
Posts: 12981
Joined: 2005
|
Who cares....JUST WIN BABY!***
Dec 2, 2015, 1:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Everybody should. Would think it might mean FL vs Tx
Dec 2, 2015, 1:58 PM
|
|
as too game site. Also we're #2 doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [39224]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 51764
Joined: 2004
|
If Alabama is #1, they would likely get Dallas anyway.
Dec 2, 2015, 5:00 PM
|
|
They're closer to Dallas, for one thing. For another, #3 is likely to be OU. OU in Dallas is a road game for anyone outside of Texas. Iowa/MSU in Dallas is a home game for Bama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5154]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Personally I'd much rather play in Dallas than Miami
Dec 2, 2015, 6:16 PM
[ in reply to Everybody should. Would think it might mean FL vs Tx ] |
|
Been there, done that in Miami. Want a new place to visit, play in a much nicer stadium, and be able to fly nonstop from the GSP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62866]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 62876
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Personally I'd much rather play in Dallas than Miami
Dec 2, 2015, 6:56 PM
|
|
Around Miami and all of Florida is where we recruit. I would rather we influence 100 around Florida than 1 in Texass where we hardly ever get 1 committed and actually sign on signing day!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [207]
TigerPulse: 73%
13
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 1:55 PM
|
|
Bama should be #5 behind Clemson, Oklahoma, MSU, and Iowa...with the opportunity to move into the final 4 this week with a victory and take either MSU or Iowa's spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [862]
TigerPulse: 100%
23
|
Don't care...Beat UNC
Dec 2, 2015, 1:55 PM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14614]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23685
Joined: 2004
|
UNC will be a much better win than FLA so at this point
Dec 2, 2015, 1:59 PM
|
|
we are either going to be the clear #1, or likely not in the playoff at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4913]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Take the name Alabama off and this makes no sense
Dec 2, 2015, 1:59 PM
|
|
A loss
No top 10 wins
Played Auburn as ugly as we played USuC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2928]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
+1 and totally agree!!! He talked about how we struggled vs
Dec 3, 2015, 7:59 AM
|
|
a mediocre Usuc yet Alabama did the same against a mediocre Auburn team and the games were vertually identical with the only difference that Bama scored a late meaningless TD a the end and we gave up a meaningless TD at the end. Without those two meaningless scores, those games are exact duplicates IMO. Too much ESPN influence on the committee!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2928]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11587]
TigerPulse: 86%
46
Posts: 14639
Joined: 2004
|
makes no sense.....
Dec 2, 2015, 2:00 PM
|
|
clemson has 2 wins over top 10 (#9, #8)
OU has 4 top 25 wins (#25, #17, #12, #11)
Michigan state has 3 wins over top 25 (#16, #15, #6)
bama has 2 top 25 wins (#21 & #25)
not even close
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Agree but Bama Bias rears it's ugly head.***
Dec 2, 2015, 2:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4857]
TigerPulse: 95%
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3245]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: makes no sense.....
Dec 2, 2015, 2:06 PM
[ in reply to makes no sense..... ] |
|
Might as well got back to BCS polls if the [blind] "eye test" has this much influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
BCS still has us #1***
Dec 2, 2015, 2:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2594]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Playoff committee #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 2:01 PM
|
|
If bama beats a mediocre Florida team and we beat a top 10 UNC . I don't see where the debate would be.
GO TIGERS!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78882]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 78623
Joined: 2003
|
If we had a quality loss, it wouldn't even be close.***
Dec 2, 2015, 2:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1151]
TigerPulse: 99%
26
|
Beat they didn't even watch our game
Dec 2, 2015, 2:02 PM
|
|
I beat they just looked at the score. They probably thought it was closer than it actually was without realizing the last touchdown came with 1 second to go in the game and we just let them score so we could leave with a win. It is a rivalry game where anything can happen and we were 1 second away from a double digit win just like Alabama. Sure it wasn't our best game but the score doesn't really reflect how much we beat them. I beat the committee and the talking heads at ESPN who say we struggled against the coots didn't even watch the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5304]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Beat they didn't even watch our game
Dec 2, 2015, 2:09 PM
|
|
..plus add in that Auburn played practically 3 quarters of a game within 6 points or less of Auburn. It's not like they had a dominating game either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5304]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Beat they didn't even watch our game
Dec 2, 2015, 2:09 PM
|
|
*Alabama played
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1335]
TigerPulse: 100%
28
|
Re: Beat they didn't even watch our game
Dec 2, 2015, 2:15 PM
[ in reply to Beat they didn't even watch our game ] |
|
I heard the guy on the radio with jack arute a while ago and it was comedy gold .,
We struggled with a 3-8 team that beat UNC ., No mention or rivalry game or any thing ,.,
But Alabama on the other hand played the big rivalry game with auburn ,., at auburn ,., hostile crowd took care of business ., didn't mention running henry 46 times ,..,
I don't even think Danny Ford ran no back 46 times ,., I cant remember ..,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 65%
-1
|
Re: Beat they didn't even watch our game
Dec 2, 2015, 7:49 PM
[ in reply to Beat they didn't even watch our game ] |
|
They dumb as fu*k bama hadn't beat nobody ranked all year they suck so tired of hearing about em we clear 1 they should be 4th at best
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24771]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 33032
Joined: 1998
|
Great news! More fodder to enflame the fire eaters on
Dec 2, 2015, 2:08 PM
|
|
defense.
We play better with a chip on our shoulders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2958]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Jeff Long, Arkansas AD,SEC Homer
Dec 2, 2015, 2:09 PM
|
|
Said the same thing last week. Funny how, Bama with no wins vs currently Top 10 teams,he's just pushing their record against teams with winning records. Guess those Goalpost have to move when the SEC doesn't measure up.
If Clemson beats UNCheat , a Top 10 team and Bama just beats Florida ,a Top 20 team, no movement should be expected.
Wonder how many of these revotes came about because Committee Chairman, Arkansas AD Jeff Long called for them ? LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6924]
TigerPulse: 89%
41
Posts: 13773
Joined: 2008
|
Methinks #1 in CFP is much better than #2 seed
Dec 2, 2015, 2:14 PM
|
|
as far as the quality of the opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [3048]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
And again, Bama gets excused absences vs Miss and Tenn
Dec 2, 2015, 2:16 PM
|
|
Geez
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1139]
TigerPulse: 98%
26
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 2:17 PM
|
|
They don't want bama matched up with OU in first round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5513]
TigerPulse: 73%
38
|
F the committee!
Dec 2, 2015, 2:17 PM
|
|
Who has Bama beat?! What a bunch of DAs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62866]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 62876
Joined: 2007
|
Re: F the committee!
Dec 2, 2015, 7:30 PM
|
|
Amen
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18189]
TigerPulse: 95%
52
Posts: 26879
Joined: 2006
|
look i get that our win over usuc wasnt impressive..
Dec 2, 2015, 2:18 PM
|
|
but its not like bama blew a bad auburn team out either..that final td was scored in garbage time when most teams take a knee..but saban was trying to pad henrys stats and get him a td for the heisman voters to fawn over..that game was way closer than the score indicated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3313]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Did they watch the Bama game?
Dec 2, 2015, 2:18 PM
|
|
Bama struggled against Auburn. In fact the Clemson/Scar and Bama/AU games were identical. The difference was that in our game it was Scar who scored the late garbage TD while it was Bama who scored the late TD in their game. Glad to see the committee doesn't let Fact interfere with their Logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1740]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Don't care, want a 1, 2, 3, or 4 next to the word Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 2:23 PM
|
|
on 12/6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2219]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
I liked Cowherd's rant
Dec 2, 2015, 2:23 PM
|
|
Alabama is not as great as everyone is saying. They are feeding off of their unearned SEC reputation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7796]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Don't Care What Seed We Are Or What Bama Is
Dec 2, 2015, 2:25 PM
|
|
In the words of Coach Dennis Green. "" If you wanna go and crown their a** ...then go ahead and crown their a**!!!
It all has to be settled on the field anyway. I just need Clemson to be in that top 4. Then we play for blood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [81591]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 20851
Joined: 2008
|
So ... they look back to the first game of the year
Dec 2, 2015, 2:31 PM
|
|
to say Clemson is hurt by USUC beating UNCheat(in a game we didn't even play in) but last year they let Ohio State get an awful 1st game loss ignored (and it was actually them who got beat).They must apply SEC logic to the Big 10 as well. See what they say after we beat another Top Ten team this week and Bama still hasn't played one team that high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24233]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 24550
Joined: 2003
|
I may be biased, but to me it's clear who should be #1.
Dec 2, 2015, 2:32 PM
|
|
1. We have TWO wins that are better than any win on Alabama's schedule.
2. We are 12-0 instead of 11-1
3. Alabama lost to a team that is worse than two teams that we beat.
What is in Alabama's favor?
1. The "eye test?" Which is horrifically subjective.
2. They have won more convincingly over the last half of the season.
3. They have played less "bad" teams than we have?
None of Alabama's advantages are as good as Clemson's.
The Nick Saban effect is huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [201]
TigerPulse: 98%
13
|
I am biased, but...
Dec 2, 2015, 2:58 PM
|
|
By my count, we only scheduled two "bad" teams whereas Alabama scheduled three.
...but that only counts against you if they want it to.
My bet is that Alabama doesn't make it to the championship, whoever they play. Whoever is playing them is going to have 5-6 weeks of listening to how they are going to get blown out of the game and if there is anything that will motivate a good team to work more than that, I don't know what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [645]
TigerPulse: 95%
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27155]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 10255
Joined: 2015
|
Yes, but an ACCCG win should assure us of #1
Dec 2, 2015, 2:40 PM
|
|
After all, our win will be against a top 10 opponent vs #18 gators...
But if we do drop after a win, then our Tigers will play with that early season chip on their shoulder which is worth 'one or two scores' easily!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [88736]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 48368
Joined: 2007
|
What a joke. That "-1" means nothing...AT F*CKING HOME
Dec 2, 2015, 2:55 PM
|
|
Not to mention Clemson didn't struggle against South Carolina. If that's the case, then Alabama also struggled against Auburn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [0]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 3:01 PM
|
|
As a die hard Clemson Fan I would say, I do not care of number 1 or 2. Just keep us in the top 4. All we need to do standing at this point is to give our best game and have fun at UNC and win the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10404]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Heck Bama should've fell to #3 behind Oklahoma***
Dec 2, 2015, 3:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [248]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
I'd argue Clemson should still be ahead of Bama with a loss
Dec 2, 2015, 3:35 PM
|
|
to UNC. Both teams will have 1 loss. Clemson's will be to a higher ranked team, and Bama's was at home. Clemson will have 2 wins a good bit better than any of Bama's wins. Both will have 1 'coulda lost' to unranked team (Clemson vs Louisville, Bama vs Tenn). Bama has more wins over non-bad teams. That's their only advantage. That doesn't make up for the big disparity in top notch wins and the worse loss. Beat UNC and it doesn't matter, but this committee is getting annoying with their Bama lovefest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3382]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: I'd argue Clemson should still be ahead of Bama with a loss
Dec 2, 2015, 10:25 PM
|
|
The issue here is UNC's record. If they had 2 to 3 losses we would be in much better shape. It would be tough to justify putting us in over UNC with the head to head win and same record.
If the 2 to 3 loss scenario was there. Then there would be a major argument that we should be in regardless of losing in the ACCCG. We really needed State to win last week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11408]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 13361
Joined: 2014
|
Yeah, they were so much more impressive in their win over AU
Dec 2, 2015, 3:39 PM
|
|
then we were last week. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2884]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 5:03 PM
|
|
Here's what I see happening. We win and Bama wins. The winner of Mich State and Iowa will jump Oklahoma. That way Bama will play a B1G team that it actually has a chance to beat. Bama cant beat a good spread team and the committee knows that. So if they would have moved them to #1 this week it would force them to keep B1G winner at #4 and it would be way to obvious that they are doing this. The know that Bama is soft against a spread team and both teams in the B1G are more physical and that plays into Bama's hands. Go Tigers Beat the Holes and bring on Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [645]
TigerPulse: 95%
21
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 6:50 PM
|
|
Nailed it, but it wont be admitted to....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [7]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 3, 2015, 3:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson ] |
|
> Here's what I see happening. We win and Bama wins.
> The winner of Mich State and Iowa will jump Oklahoma.
> That way Bama will play a B1G team that it actually
> has a chance to beat. Bama cant beat a good spread
> team and the committee knows that. So if they would
> have moved them to #1 this week it would force them
> to keep B1G winner at #4 and it would be way to
> obvious that they are doing this. The know that Bama
> is soft against a spread team and both teams in the
> B1G are more physical and that plays into Bama's
> hands. Go Tigers Beat the Holes and bring on Oklahoma
> in the Orange Bowl.
This looks exactly like posts I was making last year as a Florida State fan. And last year they were spot on, except that Bama wasn't able to beat the B1G team.
This new committee thing is much more of a farce than the BCS ever was. Bama should be #5 at best and there should be no doubt for anyone with a brain that Clemson is #1 right now. Beat UNC and you EARNED the right to pick your bowl game. Whether or not you get that opportunity remains to be seen. It apparently helps your final ranking to lose to 1 middle tier SEC team, and you wont have that chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4448]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Late TD's in our game and Bama's game skewed the actual
Dec 2, 2015, 5:23 PM
|
|
way those games actually played out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102989]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98997
Joined: 2009
|
It was a 14 point change in garbage minutes.
Dec 2, 2015, 6:23 PM
|
|
Bama could have won any more by dropping that last TD on AU and Clemson couldn't have won any less by giving one up to USuCk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [321]
TigerPulse: 84%
15
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 5:29 PM
|
|
Considering they backed into the sec west title-I find this laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3429]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
So, their logic is that Clemson's win was worse than Bama's
Dec 2, 2015, 6:43 PM
|
|
Clemson beat the team that is last in their mighty SEC division. Bama beat the team that is last in THEIR mighty SEC division.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4605]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: So, their logic is that Clemson's win was worse than Bama's
Dec 2, 2015, 8:38 PM
|
|
As if it even matters. We won't see them until the championship game either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7629]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
So Clemson-South Car isn't a rivalry?***
Dec 2, 2015, 6:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [37]
TigerPulse: 95%
4
|
Re: So Clemson-South Car isn't a rivalry?***
Dec 2, 2015, 6:53 PM
|
|
and auburn fans pull for bama when they play others..rivalry my butt..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62866]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 62876
Joined: 2007
|
Re: So Clemson-South Car isn't a rivalry?***
Dec 2, 2015, 7:42 PM
|
|
SC and Clemson isn't a Rivalry when the know-it-alls have an agenda to be filled!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7629]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62866]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 62876
Joined: 2007
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 6:50 PM
|
|
That sounds like they are telling us that Bama will be #1 at the end regardless if we beat #10 UNC, and Bama beats #18 Fla. They just can't help them selves with so many sec homers pumping their heads full of the sec biases!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2277]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 8:00 PM
|
|
So they were getting ready to bump a 12-0 team that was #1 4 weeks in a row to move up a 11-1 Alabama team. That until the 4th quarter when they kept Henry in to get that last touchdown to make it a 12 point game. When they were up only 5. Yea makes sense Committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6662]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 2, 2015, 9:00 PM
|
|
Yeah, but they didnt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11141]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 13644
Joined: 2003
|
Re: FB Update: Playoff committee was close to voting Alabama #1 over Clemson
Dec 3, 2015, 12:23 AM
|
|
Yeah but that win over an awesome Auburn team was impressive right? NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4808]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
They're dinging us for a "weak" victory against SCar, but
Dec 3, 2015, 6:35 AM
|
|
Bama gets a pass for struggling against a terrible Auburn team? They didn't wrap that victory up until the late 4th quarter. For crying out loud they didn't even score a touchdown until the late 3rd quarter. Why is that so much better a victory than one over a nearly equally-horrible SCar team?
Playoff committee is just as SEC biased as the rest of the world, it would seem. I'm losing faith in that system and it's only in its second year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2594]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Alabama has beaten no one in the top 25?
Dec 3, 2015, 7:50 AM
|
|
We have beaten two in the top ten and if we win Saturday it will be three. Playoff committee is alabama supporters. You can't have an intelligent conversation in comparing the two school's schedules. Just can't.
GO TIGERS!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 64
| visibility 1660
|
|
|
50
