|
Replies: 50
| visibility 1
|
Addict [449]
TigerPulse: 44%
Posts: 1074
Joined: 7/25/12
|
HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 9:10 AM
|
|
a #4 ranking? What a joke!
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2198]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 4710
Joined: 12/30/04
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 9:14 AM
|
|
Bc they beat #5,#7 and #10. and 5 other teams that won bowls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3881]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7036
Joined: 9/1/09
|
they pulled a south carolina and couldn't get in the seccg
Jan 7, 2014, 9:18 AM
|
|
because they lost to TWO unranked teams and couldn't get to a BCS bowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [746]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 567
Joined: 11/13/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
^^^spot on^^^
Jan 7, 2014, 10:25 AM
|
|
you sir, are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3848
Joined: 8/13/09
|
Re: They're still not
Jan 7, 2014, 11:09 AM
[ in reply to They're still not ] |
|
I agree.
The two losses and coming so close to a third at Missouri, seem a bit suspect to me. They had some impressive wins though. I think Clemson's body of work this year was more impressive. They beat the teams most expected they should, and won a few some might not have thought they could. And lost to 2 top 5 (top 10 IMO) teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: They're still not
Jan 7, 2014, 12:16 PM
[ in reply to They're still not ] |
|
I think you could definitely make the argument that they were. The Tennessee loss was bad, but the other loss came against UGA when it was at full strength and the game was at Athens. On top of that, they beat us, Mizzou @ Mizzou and UCF, who both turned out to be very good teams. Then they finished up by beating a solid Wisconsin team.
I know people are going to talk about how overrated Mizzou and UCF are, but you can say any and every team is overrated if you want to. The fact is they made it through a tough schedule with two losses. Who are you going to put ahead of them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64517]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88956
Joined: 3/27/01
|
Losses to other $EC teams don't count against you***
Jan 7, 2014, 9:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [26353]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13702
Joined: 8/18/13
|
Rule number one in the ranking system rulebook***
Jan 7, 2014, 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10354]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 11/9/04
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 9:32 AM
|
|
because they beat 3 out of the 6 behind them in the top 10 (that won their bowl game)
2 of them LOST their bowl game
OU is the only "argument" to be ahead of them and they lost to an bad texas team and a baylor team that lost to UCF.
there's nobody else that can justifiably be ahead of them based on the outcome of the last few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [1051]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 3302
Joined: 6/10/12
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 9:33 AM
|
|
do you think we are better than they are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follower [251]
TigerPulse: 35%
Posts: 585
Joined: 8/1/13
|
Not saying we are better than them, but #4? Come on!***
Jan 7, 2014, 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10354]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 11/9/04
|
who could you justify putting ahead of them??***
Jan 7, 2014, 9:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1467
Joined: 3/25/13
|
Some 11-2 teams who didn't lose to 5-7 UT, for starters.***
Jan 7, 2014, 9:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: Some 11-2 teams who didn't lose to 5-7 UT, for starters.***
Jan 7, 2014, 12:18 PM
|
|
Who else beat 2 BCS Bowl winners and the Cotton Bowl (which is semi-BCS) winner? Just face the facts: they beat some very good teams. I'm not sure many others have as many impressive wins as they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [231]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 344
Joined: 3/11/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10354]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 11/9/04
|
Re: Missouri, without a doubt
Jan 7, 2014, 12:43 PM
|
|
conference tie breakers are determined by head to head.....why should this be any different
Mizzou had a 17-0 lead at home and let SCar beat them...........SCar was better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [231]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 344
Joined: 3/11/13
|
Re: Missouri, without a doubt
Jan 7, 2014, 1:25 PM
|
|
because we're not talking about conference tiebreakers, we're talking about who had the better season.
I already posted my thoughts here --
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=14896421#14896421
for arguments sake, let me change one result and say LSU had beaten Georgia. Now LSU, Alabama, Auburn all in the SEC with 2 losses. By your logic, Auburn has to be ahead of Alabama, Alabama has to be ahead of LSU, and LSU has to be ahead of Auburn. How does that work exactly? Before you hurt yourself, I'll let you know it's impossible.
Head-to-head isn't everything. Is Tennessee better than SC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [441]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 1346
Joined: 1/2/13
|
Of course. We went to a BCS game (and won) and they didn't.
Jan 7, 2014, 9:58 AM
[ in reply to Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get ] |
|
There is no way we would have gone to a BCS game if we weren't better than they are. If they were better than us they would have gone. Why do you think they weren't selected?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [11]
TigerPulse: 35%
Posts: 15
Joined: 10/5/09
|
Re: Of course. We went to a BCS game (and won) and they didn't.
Jan 7, 2014, 10:14 AM
|
|
Wrong, SC was better head to head as was proved on the field. The reason SC was not in a BCS bowl the past two years is due to the two team conference limit. Clemson went to a BCS bowl this year because you were the second highest BCS ranked team in the ACC, not because you were "better" than SC. SC wasn't selected because Alabama was the second highest BCS ranked team in the SEC, thus earning the at-large bid to the Sugar Bowl. If you're going to talk sh!t, make sure you know what you're talking about first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1467
Joined: 3/25/13
|
Hate to break up your butthurtedness, but even if the SEC
Jan 7, 2014, 10:17 AM
|
|
was allowed 3 teams in the BCS, you are aware you STILL wouldn't have gotten in right? Oh, and UGA and UT say hello.
Clemson got in because we did what we needed to do to get in, and we proved we belonged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [11]
TigerPulse: 35%
Posts: 15
Joined: 10/5/09
|
Re: Hate to break up your butthurtedness, but even if the SEC
Jan 7, 2014, 10:26 AM
|
|
I'm not butt hurt at all, I'm stoked over a #4 finish just as you should be over a #7 finish. You are correct, Missouri was ranked ahead of us too in the final BCS polls, but we were also ranked ahead of you. Say what you want about the UGA and TN losses, the fact of the matter is no other team in the country had the quantity of quality wins as SC did. Sure, those two losses sting bad and the TN loss is inexcusable, but at the same time we won more games against top opponents than any other team.
Clemson did beat a strong UGA team, at home, with a muffed FG being the difference. SC lost to that same UGA team in their house the next week with the turning point being a key fumble by Shaw on a drive in which we were moving the ball down the field. It goes both ways guys, if you want to blame TOs for the loss to SC this year, how about recognize that if not for a muffed FG, the UGA game MAY have been different. That's football, you take the bounces that go your way and make the best of it. Good teams do that.
Regardless, Clemson did no more to earn a BCS bid than what SC did. The BCS rules were what they were and that system is no longer in place. Be happy with your Orange Bowl win, I sure would be. I know I'll be happy with a final ranking of #4 and 11 wins for 3 seasons in a row.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3848
Joined: 8/13/09
|
Re: Hate to break up your butthurtedness, but even if the SEC
Jan 7, 2014, 11:13 AM
|
|
speaking of having it both ways…
you point out a muffed field goal for Clemson against UGA, but South Carolina's win against Missouri is a top quality win?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [39]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 31
Joined: 9/19/10
|
Re: Hate to break up your butthurtedness, but even if the SEC
Jan 7, 2014, 11:46 AM
|
|
Exactly. And, as for the CU/USC game. That simply was not a matter of USC beating Clemson - that was Clemson beating Clemson. Six turnovers? Come on. 1-2 making a difference in a close game is one thing....but that was a game we handed to USC on a silver platter. I don't really put that game in the catagory of USC being so almighty good. They've had our number for the past few years, and I sure hope that changes, but I think it's been a mental thing for more of those years than anything else. A common denominator was UGA and you see what happened there. USC did not lose by just one score. Look at it this way...Clemson played a strong UGA team and won. USC played and lost by 11 one week later. Yes, UGA then fell apart due to a string of injuries, but at the beginning of the season were a force to reckon with. We have 2 top ten wins (#5 and #). They have 2 top ten wins (#5 and #6). But then when you factor in the losses, ours are to #5, who ended up being #1, and USC....both top ten (at least) teams. Their losses are to 2 NON top ten teams. GA was #11 by the time USC played them, and then losing TN. Go figure. I'm happy for the Orange bowl win, and the number 7 or 8 ranking...but I like to see fairness. This makes no sense and it is just going to be more crap to hear for another year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3848
Joined: 8/13/09
|
Re: Hate to break up your butthurtedness, but even if the SEC
Jan 7, 2014, 7:07 PM
|
|
It just proves to me that the current college football system is suspect.
I was thinking that while I watched all the bowls this year and couldn't figure out why the teams were matched up the way they were. (all about the money)
#10 Oregon plays an unranked Texas team? That's a slap in the face to Oregon and all their hard work this year IMO.
It also proves to me that there is an SEC bias in college football. I get that South Carolina beat Clemson head to head, but the two records over the season should put Clemson ahead IMO. I base this on the losses of both teams this year. And for South Carolina fans that claim their schedule was more difficult, I would disagree considering Clemson played in the same division as the national champion. Even Alabama finished with 2 losses? South Carolina pulled a South Carolina, and the media let them get away with it as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32041]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10/1/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [227]
TigerPulse: 43%
Posts: 568
Joined: 9/1/03
|
Re: Of course. We went to a BCS game (and won) and they didn't.
Jan 7, 2014, 10:15 AM
[ in reply to Of course. We went to a BCS game (and won) and they didn't. ] |
|
Dude.. Do you really think that? Had the Conference tie in not been in effect a lot of teams could have been chosen above us. Scar was ranked higher in the BCS at the time. I have some Orange glasses, I just don't wear them 24/7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [665]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 665
Joined: 9/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
Posts: 522
Joined: 11/20/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10900
Joined: 9/17/07
|
They ended the season beating a top 10 and top 20 team.
Jan 7, 2014, 9:35 AM
|
|
Also, they're in the SEC....lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [1051]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 3302
Joined: 6/10/12
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 9:39 AM
|
|
ok, what rank do you think we and they should be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9174]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2/5/02
|
Absolutely
Jan 7, 2014, 10:02 AM
|
|
Even gamepenis9, HipHopOCrit'09, ToogieTmailTroll, and Orphan21 aren't believing it..throwing more water on their argument on the validity of rankings.
-Doc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [449]
TigerPulse: 44%
Posts: 1074
Joined: 7/25/12
|
They have 2 terrible loses, they should not be top 5, but top 10 I can see***
Jan 7, 2014, 10:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [115]
TigerPulse: 22%
Posts: 563
Joined: 1/11/12
|
Re: They have 2 terrible loses, they should not be top 5, but top 10 I can see***
Jan 7, 2014, 10:31 AM
|
|
So if you consider UGA a terrible loss, your only quality win would be an Ohio State team that was considered overrated all year and played to the wire without their 2 best defensive players. Where do you think you deserve to be ranked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [39]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 31
Joined: 9/19/10
|
Re: They have 2 terrible loses, they should not be top 5, but top 10 I can see***
Jan 7, 2014, 12:04 PM
|
|
UGA wasn't a terrible loss at the time, although it was a solid loss. But the TN was a terrible loss, for sure.
We lost to FSU - badly. And USC. So, I'm not really griping about our ranking. But the #4 ranking for USC is crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [115]
TigerPulse: 22%
Posts: 563
Joined: 1/11/12
|
Re: They have 2 terrible loses, they should not be top 5, but top 10 I can see***
Jan 7, 2014, 12:15 PM
|
|
And you probably wouldn't be worried about it if you hadn't lost by 5 TD's at home to FSU and 2 scores to us. If you agree with your ranking we have a 2 score win over a top 10 team, a win over a top 5 team, a win over a top 15 team, a loss to a team that was very good at the time, and a loss on the road in the SEC to a bad team on a last second field goal with our QB injured for the last 2 drives when we had a chance to run the clock out and a backup corner failing to make a play. Our back ups can beat Clemson but not Tennessee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [39]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 31
Joined: 9/19/10
|
Re: They have 2 terrible loses, they should not be top 5, but top 10 I can see***
Jan 7, 2014, 1:05 PM
|
|
Oh come on. No need to get nasty.
Yes, you have a win over a top ten team (us)
Yes, you have a win over a top five team (MIZZ)
And yes, you have a win over a top 15 team (UGA)
But the fact remains that you lost to the very same team, substantially, that we beat. And the fact remains that you lost to a completely unranked team. We can all make excuses as to why...but this was a loss to a losing team!
We have a win over a top five team (UGA)
We have another win over a top ten team (OSU)
And our two losses are to then #5, now #1 FSU, and
USC....but highly RANKED teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1467
Joined: 3/25/13
|
LOL. He went crickets with that one. And rightfully so.***
Jan 7, 2014, 5:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Their coach threatened to have all the writers fired?***
Jan 7, 2014, 11:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [39]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 31
Joined: 9/19/10
|
Re: Their coach threatened to have all the writers fired?***
Jan 7, 2014, 12:06 PM
|
|
LOL - yeah, that's probably what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2254
Joined: 6/30/10
|
They should be #2 since they were Bowl season national champs***
Jan 7, 2014, 12:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1788]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4131
Joined: 11/25/12
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 12:20 PM
|
|
Too bad you #### the bed in your conference every year to do anything meaningful, all you have is a state championship...lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [19]
TigerPulse: 12%
Posts: 96
Joined: 1/1/14
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 1:04 PM
|
|
Mike1189 said, "There is no way we would have gone to a BCS game if we weren't better than they are. If they were better than us they would have gone. Why do you think they weren't selected?
-
Mike, you need to do some research before posting stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follower [251]
TigerPulse: 35%
Posts: 585
Joined: 8/1/13
|
he was being sarcastic-its called trolling. Dont feed trolls***
Jan 7, 2014, 1:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1467
Joined: 3/25/13
|
Funny you would say that cockstripe, since..
Jan 7, 2014, 5:50 PM
|
|
..all you do is troll, with about a dozen different handles.
Again, the word is,
I S S U E S
Strange how you don't even care how bizarre you are. Seems you take pride in being a nutcase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [103]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 217
Joined: 8/13/11
|
I hate to say it, but overall strength of schedule...
Jan 7, 2014, 1:17 PM
|
|
I wanted to see how the top-10 teams all stacked up and it was interesting to see what sort of stats the various teams had. Carolina beat seven teams that went to bowls, six of those teams won their bowls and five of their wins are over teams that are ranked in the top-25 in the final poll (most out of the top-8 in the AP poll) and that includes three over top-10 teams (again, sadly it's the most). Now, I feel like this is skewed a bit because of the SEC-shaded glasses most of the media wears when looking at strength of schedule, but you can't deny it.
Although, I do agree, the loss to non-bowling school Tennessee should hurt them more as should a loss to now un-ranked Georgia (granted, Georgia was #11 at the time).
My top-10 would have been:
1. FSU
2. Sparty
3. Auburn
4. Missouri
5. Oklahoma (BCS win)
6. SC
7. Clemson
8. UCF
9. Oregon
10. Stanford
That Tennessee loss and Georgia's lack of ranking now should hurt them a little more I feel and Bama should NOT, under NO circumstances be ranked in the top-10 after losing their last two games of the season, both of which they were favored entering the game I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [127]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 97
Joined: 12/1/13
|
Re: I hate to say it, but overall strength of schedule...
Jan 7, 2014, 7:07 PM
|
|
Why do you have Clemson ahead of UCF in your poll?
Just pointing out how perception plays into this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [63]
TigerPulse: 24%
Posts: 354
Joined: 11/28/10
|
Head to head is extremely
Jan 7, 2014, 6:04 PM
|
|
Relevant when comparing two teams with same record who played each other so recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1431]
TigerPulse: 56%
Posts: 2153
Joined: 1/29/12
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 6:16 PM
|
|
For the 11-2 teams.
Team Strength of Schedule
South Carolina 15
Oregon 42
Oklahoma 44
Alabama 47
Clemson 53
Baylor 63
Fresno State 113
Of the top 15 teams, only Aubrun had a harder SOS @14.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [110]
TigerPulse: 14%
Posts: 374
Joined: 11/14/13
|
3 things
Jan 7, 2014, 7:02 PM
|
|
1 SC won head to head
2. sC strength of schedule tougher
3. Both our losses were on the road, yall lost one at home.
Enough of this SC didnt beat Clemson, Clemsone beat themselves nonsense. Do you not think SC forced the turnovers? I was there and sure didnt see any Clemson players just hand us the ball and say "here you go." Get a grip.
Do i believe we are thr 4th beat team? No probably not but it is all about timing of your losses. And anyone who doesnt think Mizzou was a quality win is braindead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [127]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 97
Joined: 12/1/13
|
Re: HOW THE HECK did a team that lost to 2 unranked teams get
Jan 7, 2014, 7:05 PM
|
|
We finished #4 based on the national perception that we improved throughout the year.
We finished #4 based on our strength of wins/schedule.
A lot of it was talent. A lot was luck.
If UCF gets rolled by Baylor...we don't move up.
If Clemson gets rolled by OSU...we don't move up.
If Mizz gets rolled by Ok St...we don't move up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 50
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
