Why was Clemson a given?

[SkilletHead2]

Thats a reasonable point. but I am also comparing Miami to Nebraska. Both were ranked at one point. Nebraska didnt beat anyone good because the B10 west was so bad. ACC coastal was better than B10 west.

I'd call that one a draw. #8, #21, and #24 in B1G West isn't really "so bad," and #18 and #22 isn't really all that good. Both divisions 47-38 overall. I'm thinking you have to be a pretty big ACC fan to turn that into an argument for ACC Coastal over B1G West. And then if you go with the other divisions, there's no comparison.

 

[money3189]

I'd call that one a draw. #8, #21, and #24 in B1G West isn't really "so bad," and #18 and #22 isn't really all that good. Both divisions 47-38 overall. I'm thinking you have to be a pretty big ACC fan to turn that into an argument for ACC Coastal over B1G West. And then if you go with the other divisions, there's no comparison.

I like the Big 10 too. I guess I just see better QB play and better skill players in the ACC.

 

[SkilletHead2]

I like the Big 10 too. I guess I just see better QB play and better skill players in the ACC.

I think that's a good point. B1G seems to rely on being solid across the board, whereas you get more flash in the ACC. I do have to say that McSorley really impressed me as the PSU QB, but that is the only game of theirs I've seen all year. Peppers, as obnoxious as he is, is really an amazing athlete. But in terms of watching kids who are just damn fun to watch, hard to beat Jackson and Watson. Too bad Watson doesn't have a receiver named Crick.

 

[money3189]

bump

 

[WhiteBus]

I gotta say it feels like Clemson road to the playoff unquestioned and IMO it's because of last years success. I dont believe they had any more of a reason to not have their merit questioned then Washington, Penn St, or Michigan.

All they did was beat a 4 loss Auburn team by one score, a 3 loss FSU by one score, and eventually disappointing Louisville by one score.

I don't think the committee got it wrong, virtually all teams were worthy of discussion, but if I had it my way Alabama, Ohio St, Washington, and Penn St (or Michigan) would've been the pick.

I'm just surprised Clemson was a "lock" leading up to the announcement.

This post is looking awfully stupid today!

 

[bac2therac]

there is a reason why the playoffs do not need to be expanded from 4 to 8 and we saw it last night

 

[Plum Street]

bump

Someone else here also likes the search feature I see! Nice job

 

[RUsojo]

This post is looking awfully stupid today!

You must've missed the part that read "I don't think the committee got it wrong". My point stands, Clemsons resume was no stronger than the 4th, 5th, and 6th ranked team.

Turns out they won the playoff. Great effort.

 

[apgoosebumps]

This post is looking awfully stupid today!

I dont think it was stupid. The op was just wondering why people were questioning one loss ohio st and washington but not one loss clemson who should have lost to nc state, only beat troy by 6, and could have just as easily lost to Florida St, Virginia Tech, Louisvile, Auburn.

Its pretty crazy that the natuonal champion won 7 of their games by less than 7 points!

 

[topdecktiger]

You must've missed the part that read "I don't think the committee got it wrong". My point stands, Clemsons resume was no stronger than the 4th, 5th, and 6th ranked team.

Turns out they won the playoff. Great effort.

The problem is that your point wasn't comprehensive. Resume is only part of the consideration. Michigan and Ohio St were likely not conference champions. (Turned out to be the case.) Washington had a lower strength of schedule. Penn St had more losses. Of the other competitors, Clemson was the only one that checked all the boxes. The others were behind in one component or the other.

 

[RUsojo]

The problem is that your point wasn't comprehensive. Resume is only part of the consideration. Michigan and Ohio St were likely not conference champions. (Turned out to be the case.) Washington had a lower strength of schedule. Penn St had more losses. Of the other competitors, Clemson was the only one that checked all the boxes. The others were behind in one component or the other.

There was no "problem" with my "point". I was just stating an opinion - which many people agreed with - and did not vehemently disagree with the selection. And to your "point", regarding checking all the boxes, I specifically pointed out my disagreement relating to Clemson's strength of schedule.

I get it, you guys want to catch a tiger by the toe here, but then again I don't get it. I never said they got it wrong. Let it go lol.

 

[topdecktiger]

There was no "problem" with my "point". I was just stating an opinion - which many people agreed with - and did not vehemently disagree with the selection. And to your "point", regarding checking all the boxes, I specifically pointed out my disagreement relating to Clemson's strength of schedule.

I get it, you guys want to catch a tiger by the toe here, but then again I don't get it. I never said they got it wrong. Let it go lol.

Yes, there was a problem with your point. In your original post, you asked why Clemson was considered a lock (assuming they won out). Well, the answer to that is simple. The talking heads in the media were saying that based on the committee's past history of selection. You were basing it on your own personal opinion. Two different things.

If you are actually trying to figure out why Clemson was considered a lock, then personal opinion isn't relevant to the discussion. If you just want to debate opinions, that's a different topic.

 

[money3189]

There was no "problem" with my "point". I was just stating an opinion - which many people agreed with - and did not vehemently disagree with the selection. And to your "point", regarding checking all the boxes, I specifically pointed out my disagreement relating to Clemson's strength of schedule.

I get it, you guys want to catch a tiger by the toe here, but then again I don't get it. I never said they got it wrong. Let it go lol.

Sometimes you just have to do the eye test. Clemson belonged

 

[WhiteBus]

Yes, there was a problem with your point. In your original post, you asked why Clemson was considered a lock (assuming they won out). Well, the answer to that is simple. The talking heads in the media were saying that based on the committee's past history of selection. You were basing it on your own personal opinion. Two different things.

If you are actually trying to figure out why Clemson was considered a lock, then personal opinion isn't relevant to the discussion. If you just want to debate opinions, that's a different topic.

You must not follow college football at all. You can argue that OSU could have been ahead of them but they still play each other and the results are the same. The committee got it right. There was one team, and one team only that could beat Alabama. The committee nailed it this year. You can't argue with that at all. Bravo to them.

 

[topdecktiger]

You must not follow college football at all. You can argue that OSU could have been ahead of them but they still play each other and the results are the same. The committee got it right. There was one team, and one team only that could beat Alabama. The committee nailed it this year. You can't argue with that at all. Bravo to them.

Yeah, I do follow college football. The pundits in the media were calling Clemson a lock based on how the committee has selected teams up to this point. The OP was asking why everyone was saying Clemson was a lock, and that's why. Everyone in the media wasn't say that because they wanted Clemson included. They were saying that because it was logical to assume, based on how the committee has selected in the past.

 

[WhiteBus]

Yeah, I do follow college football. The pundits in the media were calling Clemson a lock based on how the committee has selected teams up to this point. The OP was asking why everyone was saying Clemson was a lock, and that's why. Everyone in the media wasn't say that because they wanted Clemson included. They were saying that because it was logical to assume, based on how the committee has selected in the past.

And where was "everyone" wrong??
Those that follow college football do not dispute that Clemson was a playoff team. No one!

 

[topdecktiger]

And where was "everyone" wrong??
Those that follow college football do not dispute that Clemson was a playoff team. No one!

I didn't say everyone was wrong. You are making that up yourself.

 

[WhiteBus]

I didn't say everyone was wrong. You are making that up yourself.

So what the neck is your arguement for Clemson not being in the top 4?

 

[topdecktiger]

So what the neck is your arguement for Clemson not being in the top 4?

I have not said that....at all. The OP said that, not me.

 

[czxqa]

Every time I see one of these old threads bumped and I see my little avatar that shows I posted on it, I cringe wondering what stupidity I put out there that I will have to live down now. LOL, so far I've been lucky.