»
Topic: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings
Replies: 42   Last Post: Nov 4, 2016 9:39 AM by: erskine®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 42  

FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[3]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:17 PM
 

 
Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

Read Update »



Re: Texas A&M???

[9]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:25 PM
 

Kinda hard to believe they snuck in front of Washington. Just shows you how much SEC bias there is.


Re: Texas A&M???

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:27 PM
 

Lol. You beat me to it


Re: Texas A&M???

[4]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:31 PM
 

lol I just watched it on ESPN and I couldn't believe they were at 4


they were able to get within 20 points of Bama

[3]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:02 PM
 

and they beat ucla and usuk and Tenn and Ark

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: Texas A&M???

[1]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:58 PM
 

+1 for seeing the truth.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

After looking it over I can see it honestly, UW only has 2

[3]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:04 PM
 

wins of teams that are over .500 i believe, the bulk of their schedule remains if they win out they will definitely bump a&m

2019 student level member

Re: Texas A&M???

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:02 PM
 

I don't think TA&M snuck in front of Washington at all. Washington has a horrible SOS and has only a win against Utah to their credit. Sure, they have some fine looking statistics but look how they got them, playing weaklings. If we had played their schedule up to now, we would be number one in points scored and points allowed. Washington will get exposed as they finish out their schedule.

2019 white level member

Re: Texas A&M???

[1]
Posted: Nov 2, 2016 8:00 AM
 

You can think that all you want but for all we know we could be 6-2 with their schedule. No way of knowing.


Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[6]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:26 PM
 

#2 baby go Tigers!!! Well deserved. Louisville got screwed though, SEC bias seems to be a factor in the CFB Committee already...


Louisville screwed themselves. Their SOS is bad and they still

[6]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:42 PM
 

struggled twice against the 2 worst teams in our conference. As of right now Louisville only has a home win against the 22nd ranked team in the country. That's not impressive at all.

2019 student level member

Re: Louisville screwed themselves. Their SOS is bad and they still

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:57 PM
 

Good points but both teams have only one win against a team that is currently ranked, and I think Louisville's 6 pt loss to Clemson and 43 pt win against FSU are stronger than A&M's 17 pt loss against Bama and 13 pt win against Auburn.


IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:09 PM
 

As you pointed out, both teams have a top-25 win (FSU and @Aub) and a loss to a top-2 team. The Aggies didn't beat Auburn as bad as Louisville beat FSU, but they were playing on the road.

Both team lost to a team currently ranked in the top-2, and while A&M lost by more, they lost to a Banana team that has beat nearly all of their opponents by double digits. Louisville lost to us by a similar margin that we beat Auburn, Troy, NC State, and FSU. In other words, both of the losses were similar to the outcomes of each opponents' other victories.

Beyond the comparisons of each team's best win and single loss, take a look at their other six ippo

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville

[3]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:27 PM
 

Oh no, don't laugh your a$% off, you might need that later!

Good points though. Out of curiosity more than to argue with you, I added up the point differential for both Louisville and A&M. And you're right, A&M seems to be a bit stronger in terms of consistency.

A&M pt Diff 2.35 to 1
UL pt diff 2.28 to 1.

This left me a bit disappointed, b/c I thought I was about to make a good point haha

I don't really know how to compare the strength of their opponents honestly. A&M has played a lot of traditionally strong teams (Tenn, UCLA, Ark) who have all proven to be pretty worthless this year (heck Tenn just lost to the ##### and took A&M to double OT...).

Louisville hasn't really beaten anyone great besides FSU I agree, but the way they manhandled NC State (a good team) right after they almost beat us, is at least something.

Hopefully you can at least agree that UL should be in front of Ohio State, a team that just lost to an unranked opponent and barely beat NW.


Re: IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville


Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:30 PM
 

Oh wait, IMO means in my opinion ;)


Re: IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville

[1]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:47 PM
 

I don't think there is all that much of a gap between the three best 1-loss teams (Louisville, A&M, and Ohio State). By year's end, I think that Ohio State will be able to separate themselves from Louisville if they are a

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville

[1]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:51 PM
 

I think your message here cut off at the end. But yeah, I guess it's true, with Ohio St. it's easy, if they beat Michigan they are ahead of Louisville, if they lose, they are behind.


At the end of the year, OhSt will be Big10 champ or have 2

[1]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:04 PM
 

losses(or more). Louisville's only hope, and it is slim, is for Mich to beat OhSt, TAM to lose again, and for Washington to lose the PAC12 CG. They won't get in over a one loss TAM, a Mich team with their only loss to OHSt, and probably not a one loss Washington, if Wash wins the PAC 12 CG.

2019 white level member

Re: IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:15 PM
 

OSU will separate themselves if they are able to beat Michigan at the end of the year.

OSU's road loss to Penn State is definitely worse than Louisville's loss to us. However, I would give OSU a clear advantage comparing the other seven games.

The Buckeye's road win over Wisconsin is comparable to the Cardinals' home win over FSU. Louisville did beat FSU by a much larger margin, but Wisconsin (#8) is ranked significantly higher than FSU (#22) plus the game was played in Madison.

They also beat (#14) Oklahoma which is much better than any of Louisville's other victories. Their other OOC games were against Bowling Green (1-7) and Tulsa (6-2). In conference, Northwestern and Indiana are each 4-4, while Rutgers is 2-6.

After comparing the resume' of Ohio State and Louisville, I would absolutely put the Buckeyes over Louisville.

If I were ranking the top 10 teams, this is how I would put them:

1) Bama
2) Clemson
3) Michigan
4) Ohio State
5) Washington
6) Texas A&M
7) Louisville
8) Auburn
9) Wisconsin
10) LSU


Note: I gave LSU the bump because of the drastic improvement on offense ever since Orgeron took over.


P.S. - Sorry about the list, Crump.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:18 PM
 

It is a slap on the face that Michigan was supposedly neck and neck with is. They have play no one except a 14-7 win over Wisconsin at home. Colorado was in control until their star quarterback was knocked out of the game


Re: IMO, A&M definitely deserves to be ahead of Louisville

[1]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 8:40 PM
 

Take a look at their other six opponents. Louisville hasn't played any other opponents with a record of over.500. NC State and Syracuse are their best opponents, and each of them is currently 4-4. Marshall and UVA are each 2-6, and Charlotte and Duke are both 3-5. Louisville has only beaten one team with a record over.500 this year.

The Aggies have beat two other teams with winning records in Tennessee (5-3) and Arkansas (5-3). They have another win over USCjr (4-4). The other three opponents are below .500.

The Cardinals out of conference schedule hasn't been that impressive either with games against Charlotte and a Marshall team that took a massive step back compared to the past couple years. Conversely, while it certainly isn't overly impressive, the Aggies do have a slightly better OOC schedule that includes New Mexico State, Prairie View, and UCLA. Like the Thundering Herd, the Bruins are much worse than last year, but UCLA is still much better than Louisville's OOC opponents.

It is important to note that by the time the season is over, Louisville's OOC schedule will be much better after they play Houston and Kentucky.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Louisville screwed themselves. Their SOS is bad and they still

[1]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:11 PM
 

Good points, but they are not SECheat, and therein lies the problem.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Their SOS isn't bad

[1]
Posted: Nov 2, 2016 9:31 AM
 

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other

They are #13 in SOS, ahead of Michigan and Washington who are sitting above them.

The difference is in their wins. The best Louisville has beaten is FSU sitting at #22 (as a 3 loss team)....every other blow out they did was vs teams that are not in the top 25, and the committee does not give incentive to margin of victory....they look at who you played. OH State has beaten #8 Wisconsin and #14 Oklahoma and their only loss was to Penn State, who is now ranked #12.


Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:06 PM
 

Lots of people say the early rankings mean nothing, but they ar ewrong. The real voters see the early polls, and no doubt they are influenced, at least initially, by what they are inundated with in the College football press which is dominated by ESecheatPN who, conveniently, owns ESecheatPN. Don't think there is a bias? please don't admit it. People will think you aren't thinking.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:32 PM
 

I honestly don't think that the committee has shown any bias at all in the 2+ years that they have been active.

You say that the early rankings absolutely matter because of how the members are inundated with them. I have to disagree with you.

The committee is made up of 12 members that have either a past or present association with a wide variety of conferences. If the individuals do have any inherent bias, it would be much more likely to be in favor of whichever conference they have ties to instead of automatically being an SEC bias.

It's quite possible that the members that do not have any past or present ties to the SEC could be acutely aware of the extra coverage that the SEC has gotten in recent years and be determined not to let that have any influence. I think that the committee takes their job very seriously, and if you are able to recognize that the SEC gets the most media coverage, why wouldn't they able to recognize the same thing?

BTW, I don't think think that this year's early polls were nearly as SEC heavy as they have been in recent years.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[1]
Posted: Nov 2, 2016 12:11 PM
 

Good points. In general, I think there is much less chance of any conference bias with the committee than with the AP or the coaches. The spokesperson made it clear last night that they deliberately do not consider conferences, only teams.


Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings


Posted: Nov 4, 2016 9:38 AM
 

I don't think the committee, necessarily, is biased toward the sec, but the rankings up until the committee rankings come out is, and the early committee rankings certainly are influenced by what they have seen and read up until they start their rankings.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[1]
Posted: Nov 4, 2016 9:35 AM
 

I want some of what you are smoking. There is no way they don't pay any attention to the rankings before their rankings kick in. In the long run, I think it, so far, has settled out and, by season's end, been pretty accurate, but I don't for a moment believe they don't ever look at the early rankings when considering how their first rankings come out. It is okay if you disagree, though. That is what makes the boards fun.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

there ya go!

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:26 PM
 

continue taking care of bidness, tigres!


Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[5]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:28 PM
 

Now bama needs to lose so we can play in Atlanta!!!

Go tigers!

2019 student level member


Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[1]
Posted: Nov 2, 2016 8:02 AM
 

Yep go LSU and go Auburn. If neither of those Tigers can get it done we will have to be the ones who do it which is fine with me but would be nice to play in ATL right down the road.


Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[1]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:30 PM
 

Now bama needs to lose so we can play in Atlanta!!!

Go tigers!

2019 student level member


That pic of 19 (peake) and 81 (seckinger) is iconic!!!!!!***

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:35 PM
 




I love all the twitter tears

[3]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:40 PM
 

So many butt hurt f-boys

2019 orange level member

Ole Ricky is not going to be happy

[4]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 7:52 PM
 

No PAC 12 team in the top 4. Although they do have four teams in the tp 25. SOS and wins are what enabled Clemson to be voted as # 2 ahead of Michigan.


OOOOO...

[3]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:34 PM
 

KLAHOMA!!!!

I am licking my chops at the chance to get to play Washington, Texas A&M, or Michigan.

Those boys that live left of the Mason-Dixon line have not played a team like Clemson - ask Mayfield about our physical prowess and scary-fast speed...

2019 white level member

~• Other than THAT Jackie, how was the parade? •~


So, how come the GaymeCocks are not in the top 4...

[3]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:45 PM
 

after their signature win over Tennessee???

2019 white level member

~• Other than THAT Jackie, how was the parade? •~


Re: So, how come the GaymeCocks are not in the top 4...

[4]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 9:54 PM
 

+1 dude +1.


Their QB will be in top 4 in Heisman race

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 10:46 PM
 

NOT!!!!!

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I don't agree with having 2 teams from the same conference

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2016 10:45 PM
 

in the playoffs. If you are not the best team in your conference, how can you be the best team n the country. I'd rather see 4 teams from 4 different conferences in the playoffs. If there are two worthy teams from the same conference, the conference should select their champion.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Same here. If it were set up that way, conferences would fix

[2]
Posted: Nov 2, 2016 12:33 AM
 

it so that their divisions re-balanced over short periods of time. However, it seems the conferences seem to be happy with hiding barely-above-average teams behind their stalwart each year and letting people speculate about what could have been. Think of the ACC a few years back when all the power was in the Coastal. Now its flipped to the Atlantic. SEC West seems to have carried that torch for Birmingham for a while.

For now, win your division then win your conference or better luck next year.

2019 student level member

Re: FB Update: Clemson ranked #2 in CFB Playoff Rankings

[1]
Posted: Nov 2, 2016 8:50 AM
 

Louisville talk is fading. But sports chattering classes love a flashy QB. The discussions I see say not to under emphasize ability to win. Clean game or not.

military_donation.jpg

gonna be #1 after LSU takes care of business this weekend***


Posted: Nov 4, 2016 9:39 AM
 



2019 student level member

Replies: 42  
[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
6171 people have read this post