|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11668
Joined: 10/15/02
|
"Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 11:02 AM
|
|
I keep hearing a lot of folks talking out of both sides of their mouths here, and this is what I'm unclear - and what I think a lot of others, including, sometimes, the committee - are unclear about.
Do the "best team" get in?
Or is it the "most deserving" team, based on who you beat? Can a less good team earn their way in over a better one just by playing out of their minds and putting together a once-in-a-blue-moon-type season? Minnesota would be the ultimate example this year, if they were somehow to defy all the maffs stats and win the B1G.
I'm not sure. Keep in mind, two years ago, Alabama failed to win the SEC, got in as a 4 - because they were one of the four "best" teams, even though their record indicated no such thing - but they actually ended up beating us in the playoff opener and then making that miracle comeback on UGA when Tua came off the bench.
So which is it?
If you're evaluating off "best", there's a clear #1...and it's Clemson, and by a good margin. We have the most-complete offense and the most dominant defense, period. Clemson can beat you decisively with the run or the pass - you pretty much pick your poison, there - and our defense is multiple, smothering, and has dominant athletes at every level.
Ohio State is close...their run game is absolutely dominant, and their D is likewise smothering, though it has yet to be established - and questions persist - about their ability to beat you downfield when they can't run the ball. They had notched all of a field goal with three seconds left against Wisconsin before halftime of their last game; the Badger defense just finally broke because the Wisconsin O was doing absolutely nothing to help them, and OSU duly rolled. But I noticed...and so did a lot of other folks. (Though seemingly not the Talking Heads!)
I'm not sure what metric anybody's using to put Alabama in over us. They've played a softer schedule than Clemson and there are serious questions about their run game and defense, so they are neither "deserving" nor "actually better" by any measurable metric.
So what are we talking about here? "Deserve" or "best"?
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [10427]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4667
Joined: 11/23/03
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 11:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 11:15 AM
|
|
I think it's both.
I think they are looking for the best of the deserving teams.
For example, if UGA loses to Florida then even though they have tons of talent, they are no longer in the deserving category.
Also their job is not to pick the teams in the correct order, but to make sure that the correct 4 are in.
For this reason I don't think they stress a whole lot over 1 vs 2.
Their main concern is separating who is in from who is out.
Then they let the teams figure it out in the 2 games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10616]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9249
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 4:43 PM
|
|
I would mostly agree except the most important part is that they get the best two teams. If they do that we will be sure that the best team will win the CFL playoff. Of course, by getting the best four then you will surely get the best two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [468]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 246
Joined: 11/8/09
|
Head Coaching Experience is Being Overlooked as a Factor
Oct 29, 2019, 11:34 AM
|
|
I agree with you comments that Clemson and ohstate are very close and are likely the best 2 teams in college football this season. However, there is another point about ohstate that no one is really talking about - the inexperience of their head coach. It is my opinion that a first time head coach will lose at least one game a season for the first 4-5 seasons due simply to some mistake they make. It doesn't matter how good the team is or how good the other coaches are, time and again, I have seen first time head coaches make bad decisions due to lack of experience.
The point of this post is that the ohstate coach has a total of 11 games as head coach. Before this season is over, maybe in the playoffs or another close game against a quality opponent, he will make decisions that cost them a game.
I am not as smart as most people who post on TigerNet, but I believe that head coaching experience will be the difference as the stakes get higher in November, December, and January.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11668
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Head Coaching Experience is Being Overlooked as a Factor
Oct 29, 2019, 12:54 PM
|
|
Oh, I agree.
Ryan Day seems tactically sharp...though I have the idea in my head that he's more a Chip Kelly than a Dabo or an Urban.
At Oregon, Kelly inherited a team - and, that tired, overused, but very real word again - a culture that he inherited from Mike Bellotti...and, of course, Phil Knight. Bellotti had built a highly veteran core of coaches that had largely been with Mike Bellotti during his 14-year stint as head coach; plus Bellotti then took over as Oregon's athletic director...so the "culture" was assuredly intact. All Kelly had to do was steer the ship.
Kelly was a very good x's and o's guy. He was not a good people-manager or program-builder, as was proven by his track record in the NFL - when he clashed repeatedly with management over personnel decisions, and with his personnel over being-a-human-being-type decisions...not the least of which was the fact that Kelly didn't seem terribly comfortable with African-American players. (Flip back to his Oregon days, and a glimpse back into the Wayback Machine would seem to indicate he had one of the whitest - and most Somoan - rosters anybody has seen in awhile in college football, so there might be something to that notion, but nevermind.)
Whatever, Kelly did very well - with a solid, pre-built program, an existing culture, and the shiniest new facilities and the coolest uniforms in football, thanks to Phil Knight and Nike. (And also the most garish and Godawful uniforms in football, thanks to Phil Knight and Nike. But give it a week and they would literally have a new one!)
Day is without question a very sharp tactical mind. (Maybe better than Urban.) But the further he gets from Urban Meyer - who could For Realz build a program and a culture, whatever you thought of him, as he proved at Bowling Green, Utah, Florida, and Ohio State - the question will become how effective Day is in his own right, as well. Because it takes man-management as well as x's and o's...and, as you mentioned, there's that icewater-in-the-veins thing that new coaches just don't usually have from Day 1.
We don't know any of that about Day, so I totally agree...is that #1 ranking maybe more than kinda premature? I suspect so. And I have noticed Day seems...brittle, in much the same way as Chip Kelly so often came across.
We'll see what happens when the pressure hits. The Bucknuts haven't really been tested for more than a half thus far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1502]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 424
Joined: 9/8/18
|
Re: Head Coaching Experience is Being Overlooked as a Factor
Oct 30, 2019, 5:52 AM
|
|
While I mostly agree with both of you gents, there is a precedent, fairly recently (when considering 150 years of history) of a “first year head coach” winning the whole thing, and frankly could have won two in a row (questionable call in the end zone). His name is Larry Coker. Miami won the whole thing in 2001, and almost won it all in 2002. Now, do I think Coker was a great coach? No, I do not necessarily think that. My point is simply this: if the talent is good enough, it can overcome a “head” coach’s “inexperience.”
Day is in a very similar position that Coker was. Like Coker, Day has inherited a gigantic and powerful monster from Urban Myer, just as Coker had from Butch Davis. The talent is so great that they might just be able to beat anyone, regardless of the head coach. Granted, there were not two as powerful behemoths in 2001 (in my opinion) like Alabama and Clemson to oppose Miami, but many would probably argue it wouldn’t have even mattered that particular year. Anyhow, I just wanted to point out there is a precedent for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1824]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 978
Joined: 3/11/15
|
I think quozzel is the best poster on TNet***
Oct 29, 2019, 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16186]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8524
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I think quozzel is the best poster on TNet***
Oct 29, 2019, 12:07 PM
|
|
Well, maybe but is he deserving? I mean he sort of picks his spots don't you think? I mean he rarely comments and he often sounds like the best, but is he deserving?
I say let him get in here with the rest of you, err I mean THE morons and offer a hundred views a day on good BBQ, politics, religion, media guys, Boom and Dumb, the liberal media, President Trump and what's really killing America, then we'll see if he is deserving of being called the best. I mean, he passes the eye test and I know you're trying to set the narrative, but I want to know if he's deserving.
Go Tigers!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7173]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6879
Joined: 1/25/17
|
Member Speak Of Conference Championships
Oct 29, 2019, 12:46 PM
|
|
This question the outstanding Quozzel posted is why they should follow and practice what they preach. Once the power 5 was/is established you go - if all 5 have "UNDEFEATED CHAMPS" then the lowest ranked among them is out.
Once a conference champ has losses - it gets murky!
BTW, the only reason Bama got in 2017 was b/c Wisconsin lost to Ohio St in the Big 10 championship game. Wisconsin was undefeated prior!
The committee has it easy if one conference has a loss. Four have undefeated champions.
All this figuring out can be simplified "if they hold what they have said they hold most important" when they vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42930
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Ohio St with 2 losses was more deserving than Alabama
Oct 29, 2019, 6:52 PM
|
|
Alabama did not deserve an extra week off and assumed conf championship win
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9889]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7076
Joined: 3/6/05
|
I cannot imagine a scenario where we will ever have 5
Oct 30, 2019, 6:38 AM
[ in reply to Member Speak Of Conference Championships ] |
|
Power 5 undefeated teams. The chances of that are almost non-existent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11668
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I think quozzel is the best poster on TNet***
Oct 29, 2019, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: I think quozzel is the best poster on TNet*** ] |
|
"Deserve" is such an ugly word.
I will absolutely take the TigerNet Pulitzer if offered. And take a deep bow. And then make mealy-mouthed platitudes about how humbled and undeserving I actually am to even be considered for such a prestigious honor, and among such sterling and August company, no less....
I would say I am spectacular at the fine art of Humblebragging, but that would be outright tres gauche and would sort of be, well, outright bragging, so I will say no such thing.
So where is my Tiggey Award, again? I will place it on the mantle...and of course, never, ever, stare with a self-satisfied smug little smile at it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3612]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 3789
Joined: 1/21/16
|
Re: Quozzel's award
Oct 29, 2019, 1:43 PM
|
|
Hhhhccch.
It ain't bin August fer two months.
Now Sterlin', he was a coot. Purty famous one. That's why I allous liked his brother more.
So, you gotcher award, and you deserve it, but you go siddown now. Next time, don'tchoos be saying such ingracious things bout the rest obus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [184]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/8/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [352]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 200
Joined: 3/18/14
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 1:07 PM
|
|
Last year when Notre Dame was undefeated they were more deserving than UGay or Ohio State but most likely not as quality of a team. Deserving trumped quality. The year before Alabama did not deserve to be in after not even making the SEC championship game or winning their division. In this case quality trumped deserving. A 1 loss Big 12 and PAC 10 team is not going to get in this year unless 2 of the 3 out of LSU, Bama, or Georgia drop 2 games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42930
Joined: 11/30/98
|
ND would have beaten uga and alabama last year
Oct 29, 2019, 6:54 PM
|
|
they were the second best team in the nation
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9889]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7076
Joined: 3/6/05
|
Excellent point. Everybody downplays ND because
Oct 30, 2019, 6:39 AM
|
|
they got rocked by Clemson. But so did Bama. Had Clemson beat Bama 30-3 in the semi, would that mean Bama did not deserve to be in CFP?
Clemson was, by a large margin, the best team in CFP last year. ND, Bama, Oklahoma, etc. were all a step behind.....but ND was not any more a step behind than Bama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3612]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 3789
Joined: 1/21/16
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 4:28 PM
|
|
You've framed the question in terms of a dilemma, but the CFP Selection Committee has never allowed the question to be framed that way.
Granted, every SC is free to establish the criteria in their own priority, but to this point they have always worked from the Known to the Unknown. Or, the Proven to the Possible.
And the results have been consistent, even if we say the different SCs have selected differently.
Proven: an unbeaten champion of a Power 5 conference.
Almost as proven: unbeaten Notre Dame. (They are the only major independent considered equal to a P5 program. BYU and Army are also independent but not on the P5 level, though BYU thinks it is close. Their schedule needs to include more P5 opponents, however. If you haven't beaten 8 or more P5s, you're not on level with P5.)
Barely Proven: one loss P5 champions or Notre Dame.
Possibles (but unproven): the best teams left not Excluded below
Very Excluded: teams not bowl eligible
Barely Excluded: teams that might have been Possibles but lost their CCG.
To this point, the SCs have always filled out the bracket from the Possibles rather than the Barely Excluded. They have always treated a loss in December as definitively disqualifying. That excluded the 11-2 Auburn team that won the Iron Bowl but lost the SECCG and put a well-rested 11-1 Bama team in instead.
You might think of this as Leveraged Progression. It tends to quash discussion and objections, which makes it less controversial--and less fun. It's not without controversy, but the arguments tend to be on account of the results, not the process. And there will always be arguments re. the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12942]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
great answer***
Oct 29, 2019, 6:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7173]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6879
Joined: 1/25/17
|
Had SEC BRAINWASHED co-worker
Oct 29, 2019, 7:04 PM
|
|
Had a co-worker who has basically been "sec-conditioned" into thinking that conference is so great tell me. "Clemson shouldn't even be considered to get in". He said, "they had a h.s. schedule". One of the many ways I made him look foolish was to pull out Alabama's current s.o.s. Then showed him CU's. Showed him where CU is ranked defensively and offensively versus where Bama is.
He couldn't understand b/c the folks on tv have told him it's not possible so many times. Each time he tunes in and he hears it; the notion that Clemson is not DESERVING gets more and more reinforced.
This is where there should be set in stone guidelines to go by. Beauty as they say, "is in the eye of the beholder"! I see Clemson and see a team that is starting to hit it's peak and figure things out. I see Ohio State, LSU and Alabama and see teams who started out on fire; but have not improved. Why? They have been that much better than the teams they played. Bama played just about the same teams last year and rolled them too didn't they?
Perception kind of has to be taken out of it. If Clemson isn't the beauty contest winner b/c of quality in some eyes. It should be in due to being "deserving" b/c no one has beaten them in over 23 games and counting. As a random non-specific example of course. You take the best combination of both and go from there; just don't allow region loyalty come into play. The schedule talk has been debunked in emphatic fashion by Clemson. No way should Clemson have been able to destroy Alabama by what should have been 35 points having played the weak ACC. No way right?
The idea that perceived strength of schedule matters has been proven wrong emphatically. Same with Ohio State. OSU had blown multiple teams out that season - and that was in the Big 10. Supposedly a far superior conference than the ACC.
No conference homer talk. Just on the Deserving or Quality topic - to me you can't consider conference affiliation to determine it.
Big 10 and SEC get multiple teams ranked early. They play and beat/lose to one of the many ranked teams. They end up "not dropping or rising too far"! Now everyone who were not gifted early in the season basically can't get past all the traffic ahead of them. So, it's set up for those two conferences from the out set to be successful. They just need to go play their weak FCS schedule and OOC schedule and play other over-hyped and over-ranked teams and be there at the end!
Easy breezy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7555]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 8001
Joined: 6/8/05
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 7:32 PM
|
|
the false narrative here spun by the talking heads is the SEC is still the gold standard and will be given the “free pass” above all other conferences and teams......where the facts indicate the exact opposite of this......the ACC has won 3 out of the last 6 National Championships with Ohio State also winning one......Clemson has won 2 out of the last 3 with the win over Bama last season leaving no doubt who the dominant team is now......and it ain’t Bama......I truly believe Clemson is a more complete team this season while Bama has shown against weaker competition it is not as strong (especially on Defense) as it was last season.....but Bama is still ranked # 1 again this time around........the SEC buys their respect (and false rankings) from ESPN while everyone else has to earn it on the field.....Go Tigers!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93609]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I think both are extremely subjective.
Oct 29, 2019, 7:44 PM
|
|
The playoff's salvation is that there is a mix of subjective views which balance each other fairly well. So far I have had only that one Bama appearance you mentioned as a contention to committee's selections.
That proved out to be wrong when Bama beat us and UGA. Talking metrics this time of the year gives almost no indication as to which team can beat another, imo. As the season closes SOS becomes a more reliable metric subject only to the win/loss record.
I do not believe the Playoff committee can explain their methods to satisfy your query because I do not believe they understand their process to the measure or extent needed to answer you. I honestly believe that some choices are obvious and they play it by ear on those which aren't.
Could someone have given us a game better than ND last year? No doubt. Someone beside Bama might have done better against Clemson too. We'll never know.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7173]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6879
Joined: 1/25/17
|
Re: I think both are extremely subjective.
Oct 29, 2019, 9:28 PM
|
|
The playoff's salvation is that there is a mix of subjective views which balance each other fairly well. So far I have had only that one Bama appearance you mentioned as a contention to committee's selections.
That proved out to be wrong when Bama beat us and UGA. Talking metrics this time of the year gives almost no indication as to which team can beat another, imo. As the season closes SOS becomes a more reliable metric subject only to the win/loss record.
I do not believe the Playoff committee can explain their methods to satisfy your query because I do not believe they understand their process to the measure or extent needed to answer you. I honestly believe that some choices are obvious and they play it by ear on those which aren't.
Could someone have given us a game better than ND last year? No doubt. Someone beside Bama might have done better against Clemson too. We'll never know.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
Doesn't the fact people criticize Notre Dame for being in the playoff last year give prudence to the OP question? Notre Dame has an historical pedigree and is among the winningiest programs in the sport. They only lose by 27 to the Tigers and played better in my opinion than Bama did. Alabama loses by 28 points; but for merci for his alma matter it would have been 35 points; yet "no talk of Bama not being deserving"!
That's because of "recent history" right? Nick Saban. 2017 championship. Tua throwing for a ton of yards and them blowing everybody out.
Surely, everybody remembers they blew everybody out last year as well! They made clowns of the entire SEC except Georgia who they also ultimately defeated.
If Deserving means - a team that has found a way to keep kids 18 -23 y.o. focused enough to win 28 straight games - Clemson would be deserving!
If it's based on beating up on the most over-hyped and over-rated conference in the land - Bama or LSU deserve what they get.
Quality - Only if you think the sum of wins one team played is greater than the sum of wins of another team can one call it "QUALITY"! The SEC has: 6 teams with losing records. Not all those loses were in the conference either. The ACC has 3 teams with a losing record.
By the time it's all said and done: Clemson opponents very well could have a better cumulative record than those teams ranked ahead of them. Yet, perception is winning out right now and recent history as well. Those wins aren't all that quality in other words! Not hardly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18407]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10717
Joined: 10/20/13
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 29, 2019, 10:36 PM
|
|
Thanks q for answering the bell!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38422]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33199
Joined: 7/28/11
|
Re: "Deserving" versus "Actual Quality"?
Oct 30, 2019, 6:17 AM
|
|
I think best . There are many many people who can actually see a team and evaluate them accurately based on what they do on a football field .
I just hope that committee has a few of those people .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
