FINALLY, a Clemson fan admits it about the ACC

[CCUIrmo]

Was talking to a guy the other day who is a Clemson fan and is a nice guy. He was looking at the score from the BC and Miami game and told me "Man, the ACC is really terrible anymore. Its basically like trying to win the worlds tallest midget contest." He even admits if Clemson lost any conference game, they would not deserve the playoff becasue of how bad ACC is.
Clemson is light years ahead of the rest of the ACC and at this point is doing a disservice to themselves being in that conference. I dont see them beating Louisville by any less than 40 points this coming week and fully expect them to hang close to 70 on them. BC might be only team to stay within 3 touchdowns of them.
It was just refreshing to hear a Clemson fan freely admit what we all know about that conference. All Cupcake Conference is right description. This is in no way a dig at Clemson because I have to admit they are one of the best teams out there. This is a statement on how bad the ACC really has gotten.

 

[Boom4life]

Is Alabama any different when you get down to the brass tax of it. Clemson would beat everyone in the SEC east except maybe Georgia and that would be to close to call. There is no one in the sec that they would not beat. Could they lose to them well if course.

Like it or not in college football it’s Alabama and Clemson and then everyone else.

 

[EssoClub2]

Was talking to a guy the other day who is a Clemson fan and is a nice guy. He was looking at the score from the BC and Miami game and told me "Man, the ACC is really terrible anymore. Its basically like trying to win the worlds tallest midget contest." He even admits if Clemson lost any conference game, they would not deserve the playoff becasue of how bad ACC is.
Clemson is light years ahead of the rest of the ACC and at this point is doing a disservice to themselves being in that conference. I dont see them beating Louisville by any less than 40 points this coming week and fully expect them to hang close to 70 on them. BC might be only team to stay within 3 touchdowns of them.
It was just refreshing to hear a Clemson fan freely admit what we all know about that conference. All Cupcake Conference is right description. This is in no way a dig at Clemson because I have to admit they are one of the best teams out there. This is a statement on how bad the ACC really has gotten.

Just so you do not think that all of us Tater fans are willing to give in that easily, I have borrowed some "facts" from another blinded by the orange glasses wearing zealot. Can you point to a flaw int his logic? I am easily persuaded by facts. (the source data is available upon request)

Since we are due to see the CFP Committee (CFPC) rankings revealed Tuesday night, I thought I would take a little deeper look into the records of the top nine teams in both the AP and Coaches poll. I did this last year and it is always interesting to compare who is beating "winners" vs who is attained a winning record feeding on "losers". In a nutshell, I think this provides a more accurate assessment of quality wins because it is not influenced by biased early season polling or anything else. It simply considers the records involved and clearly shows if a team is beating cupcakes or beating teams that know how to win.

For the list below W=team with winning record, E=team with even record, L=team with losing record.
A team with the record: 3W-2E-3L would be read as having beaten 3 teams with a winning record, 2 teams with even records, and 3 teams with losing records. Here are the facts/stats:

Alabama: 2W-3E-3L
Clemson: 4W-3E-1L
Notre Dame: 3W-2E-3L
LSU: 6W-1L
Michigan: 5W-2L
Georgia: 3W-2E-2L
Oklahoma: 2W-1E-4L
Ohio State: 1W-1E-5L
UCF: 2E-5L

To deep dive even further, I added up the combined the total "wins" and "losses" on the top 9 teams schedules to form an numeric average for the quality opponent faced this year. If the combined average is below .500 then the a team has beaten an overall "losing" opponent schedule.
Here are the facts:

Alabama: .446
Clemson: .613
Notre Dame: .508
LSU: .632
Michigan: .544
Georgia: .536
Oklahoma: .455
Ohio State: .404
UCF: .364


From these stats here are the conclusions I would make:

1. For all the negative press Clemson has received from some biased folks about "not playing anybody" we have actually played and beaten more teams with a winning record than anyone else except LSU. That facts bear out that Clemson has played a tougher schedule than a lot of folks are giving us credit.

2. As many have suspected, Alabama's schedule has been anemic compared to the other top 5 ranked teams. I have no doubt that Alabama is good but truthfully they have not faced a series of quality opponents as seen in their average opponent quality number of .446 (opponents combined record of 29W,36L). Only Clemson and LSU break the 60% winning quality opponent number.

3. Oklahoma and Ohio State have very weak cases to be among the top teams in the country. Oklahoma has only beaten 2 teams with a winning record and Ohio State has only beaten 1 team with a winning record.

4. UCF does not belong in the top 10. Simply put - UCF's opponent record is pitiful (.364 [20W, 35L]) and they have yet to beat a team with a winning record. Until they can prove themselves against some power 5 quality opponents (someone with a winning record) UCF should not be in the top 10 as they are beating teams that most teams above .500 would beat.

5. Finally - beating "ranked" opponents during the first 5 weeks of the football season should not count for anything. Those rankings are not based on any real data of how good a team is and should not even be considered by week 8 of the season. Case in point - LSU beating an 8th ranked Miami team in week one. As the season has played out - does anyone truly believe that Miami was ever a top 20 team much less a top 10 team? Quite frankly, it would be best if no polls were released until week 5 of the season.

 

[johnnohj]

Was talking to a guy the other day who is a Clemson fan and is a nice guy. He was looking at the score from the BC and Miami game and told me "Man, the ACC is really terrible anymore. Its basically like trying to win the worlds tallest midget contest." He even admits if Clemson lost any conference game, they would not deserve the playoff becasue of how bad ACC is.
Clemson is light years ahead of the rest of the ACC and at this point is doing a disservice to themselves being in that conference. I dont see them beating Louisville by any less than 40 points this coming week and fully expect them to hang close to 70 on them. BC might be only team to stay within 3 touchdowns of them.
It was just refreshing to hear a Clemson fan freely admit what we all know about that conference. All Cupcake Conference is right description. This is in no way a dig at Clemson because I have to admit they are one of the best teams out there. This is a statement on how bad the ACC really has gotten.

Every Clemson fan I know is well aware of how terrible the ACC is now.

 

[cockofdawn]

Every Clemson fan I know is well aware of how terrible the ACC is now.

Everyone that i even KNOW, is well aware of how bad the ACC is... Taters would not beat Ga or LSU, probably wouldnt beat Miss St, Uky or Fla..

 

[johnnohj]

Everyone that i even KNOW, is well aware of how bad the ACC is... Taters would not beat Ga or LSU, probably wouldnt beat Miss St, Uky or Fla..

Blatant homerism.

 

[CCUIrmo]

Well, for those Clemson fans on here, I was complimentary of Clemson and how good they are but if you look at those numbers you posted, look at those teams you beat. NC State played no one and when they did, they stunk it up and had they played WVa they would have been seen for the team they really were much earlier. This same Clemson fan said were it not for Texas A&M and Ga Southern, Clemsons schedule would be really bad.
Take it for what it was, and really admit it, The ACC is really, really bad. Yes Clemson would win more than their fair share in SEC but would be challenged more if they played SEC teams week in and week out. We saw how Texas A&M gave Clemson all they could handle but then again T A&M almost lost to SC. Clemson would not be beating Florida, Kentucky, Miss St, Georgia, LSU, by 49 points like they have been doing to ACC teams. Even you as a Clemson fan have to take off the Orange glasses and say the ACC really is down this year. Fla St is a train wreck, Louisville is beyond decripstion, UNC is, well, words dont describe. When Virginia is leading the other division and no one even knows it, then the conference is not a blip on college football radar. I do understand loyalty to your team but get real with your numbers. The Clemson fan I talked to is right, ACC is worlds tallest midget contest. Winning it is nothing to brag about

 

[EssoClub2]

So you compare half the ACC to USC's schedule and somehow translate that in to the East not being all that good? Then you talk about remaining schedules while apparently not considering we've already had some big matchups in the East. Then you say if UK wins, the conference is down. Have you seen UK play? I will agree that you needed USC to do well to beef up your schedule. I think just about everyone knew that going in. We haven't helped much there. And I also agree Bama couldn't care less about who you play. Most Gamecock fans couldn't care less either. Just find it funny.

So you think the SEC East is strong this year? 2nd Best in the country? Convenient to assault the Texas A&M game on Clemson's schedule , 1st real game and away? Clemson has played any number of SEC teams in Dabo's tenure and done very well. He has scheduled Auburn home and away, Texas A&M home and away, starts UGA home and Away next, plays you guys home and away every year, has sopanked Baker mayfield and OK, crushed Urban and the buckeyes, has been in the playoffs three in a row, split with Alabama in championship games, and lost in the semis once. C'mon , its absolutely silly to imply that Clemson wouldnt stack up well with anyone in the country right now , and favored against all comers with the exception of Alabama.

 

[CCUIrmo]

So you think the SEC East is strong this year? 2nd Best in the country? Convenient to assault the Texas A&M game on Clemson's schedule , 1st real game and away? Clemson has played any number of SEC teams in Dabo's tenure and done very well. He has scheduled Auburn home and away, Texas A&M home and away, starts UGA home and Away next, plays you guys home and away every year, has sopanked Baker mayfield and OK, crushed Urban and the buckeyes, has been in the playoffs three in a row, split with Alabama in championship games, and lost in the semis once. C'mon , its absolutely silly to imply that Clemson wouldnt stack up well with anyone in the country right now , and favored against all comers with the exception of Alabama.

I do agree Clemson would be favored against all of them. I also agree Clemson has won their fair share of games against SEC teams. There is no disputing that. HOWEVER, I do believe that it is easier to get your team focused and ready when they are only challenged a couple of times a year. An SEC team gets their attention more than most any ACC team. If that was not the case, then Clemson would not have lost to Pitt and Syracuse the last couple of years. There is no reason Clemson should have lost those games but did because they were not focused and let a team that had no business being in the game with them, win. If Clemson played in the SEC they would have to be more focused week in and week out or they would have lost a couple more games that they should have won. Anyone can win "one" game at any time but to play that type of game 6-7 times a year rather than 1-2 and maybe 3, is much more difficult. There is no break in SEC but with Clemsons talent, their ACC games, many of them, are glorified scrimmages.

 

[bucketdad]

So you think the SEC East is strong this year? 2nd Best in the country? Convenient to assault the Texas A&M game on Clemson's schedule , 1st real game and away? Clemson has played any number of SEC teams in Dabo's tenure and done very well. He has scheduled Auburn home and away, Texas A&M home and away, starts UGA home and Away next, plays you guys home and away every year, has sopanked Baker mayfield and OK, crushed Urban and the buckeyes, has been in the playoffs three in a row, split with Alabama in championship games, and lost in the semis once. C'mon , its absolutely silly to imply that Clemson wouldnt stack up well with anyone in the country right now , and favored against all comers with the exception of Alabama.

I don't know where you got any of that from my post. Yeah the East is pretty good this year and looking to be headed in the right direction. Can't deny Dabo has done a good job of adapting a beefier ooc schedule ever since the playoffs were implemented. No doubt out of necessity. Still credit to him for doing so. Clemson may very well stack up with anyone in the country. I guess we'll see because as of right now, they beaten one team in the top 25 and that team just dropped nine spots to hang on at #25.

 

[king ward]

Take a snapshot at the end of the season, and I'm including the playoffs. It will all come out in the wash.

 

[legalsizecock]

I don't think you can knock Clemson's out of conference schedule; they play 2 SEC schools every year. However, they do that because their in-conference schedule is horrible, with numerous guaranteed wins no matter what the respective rosters are. Not really their fault, but it is what it is. If I had that schedule, I'd play anyone I could with a pulse.

Right now, they are like Florida State was the first, what 12 years they were in the ACC - no one came close to them. Even then, Bobby Bowden played Miami (pre-ACC) and UF to try to get some beef in the schedule.

 

[EssoClub2]

Your conclusion is not correct in this case. If you would like to see the detail by school of the data, I have it in spreadsheets by school. I know, I know, I have too much time on my hand.

 

[HI Cock]

Just so you do not think that all of us Tater fans are willing to give in that easily, I have borrowed some "facts" from another blinded by the orange glasses wearing zealot. Can you point to a flaw int his logic? I am easily persuaded by facts. (the source data is available upon request)

Since we are due to see the CFP Committee (CFPC) rankings revealed Tuesday night, I thought I would take a little deeper look into the records of the top nine teams in both the AP and Coaches poll. I did this last year and it is always interesting to compare who is beating "winners" vs who is attained a winning record feeding on "losers". In a nutshell, I think this provides a more accurate assessment of quality wins because it is not influenced by biased early season polling or anything else. It simply considers the records involved and clearly shows if a team is beating cupcakes or beating teams that know how to win.

For the list below W=team with winning record, E=team with even record, L=team with losing record.
A team with the record: 3W-2E-3L would be read as having beaten 3 teams with a winning record, 2 teams with even records, and 3 teams with losing records. Here are the facts/stats:

Alabama: 2W-3E-3L
Clemson: 4W-3E-1L
Notre Dame: 3W-2E-3L
LSU: 6W-1L
Michigan: 5W-2L
Georgia: 3W-2E-2L
Oklahoma: 2W-1E-4L
Ohio State: 1W-1E-5L
UCF: 2E-5L

To deep dive even further, I added up the combined the total "wins" and "losses" on the top 9 teams schedules to form an numeric average for the quality opponent faced this year. If the combined average is below .500 then the a team has beaten an overall "losing" opponent schedule.
Here are the facts:

Alabama: .446
Clemson: .613
Notre Dame: .508
LSU: .632
Michigan: .544
Georgia: .536
Oklahoma: .455
Ohio State: .404
UCF: .364


From these stats here are the conclusions I would make:

1. For all the negative press Clemson has received from some biased folks about "not playing anybody" we have actually played and beaten more teams with a winning record than anyone else except LSU. That facts bear out that Clemson has played a tougher schedule than a lot of folks are giving us credit.

2. As many have suspected, Alabama's schedule has been anemic compared to the other top 5 ranked teams. I have no doubt that Alabama is good but truthfully they have not faced a series of quality opponents as seen in their average opponent quality number of .446 (opponents combined record of 29W,36L). Only Clemson and LSU break the 60% winning quality opponent number.

3. Oklahoma and Ohio State have very weak cases to be among the top teams in the country. Oklahoma has only beaten 2 teams with a winning record and Ohio State has only beaten 1 team with a winning record.

4. UCF does not belong in the top 10. Simply put - UCF's opponent record is pitiful (.364 [20W, 35L]) and they have yet to beat a team with a winning record. Until they can prove themselves against some power 5 quality opponents (someone with a winning record) UCF should not be in the top 10 as they are beating teams that most teams above .500 would beat.

5. Finally - beating "ranked" opponents during the first 5 weeks of the football season should not count for anything. Those rankings are not based on any real data of how good a team is and should not even be considered by week 8 of the season. Case in point - LSU beating an 8th ranked Miami team in week one. As the season has played out - does anyone truly believe that Miami was ever a top 20 team much less a top 10 team? Quite frankly, it would be best if no polls were released until week 5 of the season.

The simple fact that someone would go to such great detail to justify something like this says quite a lot. "Why, thy doth protest too much!"

 

[EssoClub2]

Even the win, even, loss records are highly flawed. Unless teams are playing head to head compitition, it doesn't mean squat. A team could play a much lesser team, but look good because the overall conference is so bad they have a winning record. Jmo. There are way too many teams in college to have an honest and fair way to determine a champion.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yduHJajjycEnHPpk8

 

[lostcock]

The ACC is pretty much the most God awful conference in football, and this year, they might be even worse. Proud of the Cavs. They’re winning, that’s all you can do. All this to say, we would not be 11-1 in there this year. We’d still be lucky to be bowl eligible because we are so wildly inconsistent. But anyway, assuming we got the same recruits, we’d have been fighting FSU only for the conference title from 2009-13. Fighting only 1 team, I can’t even imagine. Imagine if you will, 0 teams like the Taters this year? Would love to see UVa win out and pull the upset of the century, but I’d be happy if they break the 15 year streak to Tek first.

P.S. it’s hardly Clemson, Bama, and everyone else. Bama is one awkward slide by Tua away from being forced to start a guy that can’t complete a forward pass. Now, if you want to say they’ve played no one of any consequence this year so far, then fine. Everyone knew the FSU ending after week 2.

 

[EssoClub2]

It says that you really don't think your schedule is worth a crud, so you need to go to long lengths to defend it... extremely long for a rivals' message board (but hey, I get it, the Clemson board is pretty bad).

Its over there as well, as my post says , I borrowed it.

 

[legalsizecock]

The flaw with using won-loss records to justify strength of schedule is that it doesn't go to strength of schedule the level below, and so on. For example, using EC2's argument, if Wake Forest has a 7-5 record, it weighs heavier than a Miss State 6-6, who's losses theoretically are to Bama, LSU Auburn, Kansas St, Florida and Georgia. In that scenario, MSU is a much, much tougher opponent, by volumes than Wake, correct?

In other words, too much weight on win-loss of opponent, without looking at the opponents themselves, negates the applicability.

PS: For what it is worth, I think knocking UCF is unfair. They beat all they can; like Clemson in the ACC, they are victims of being in a weak conference. They'd have a winning record in ACC; only team they'd clearly lose to is Clemson; they'd win whatever that other division is called.

 

[lostcock]

Now, Clemson is a great team, and is building a great program, you can’t deny that. My problem is with the fans that think they could’ve dominated the East the past few years (and they probably would have) but that that translates to being 75-0 against UGA, UF, and UT since ‘92, figuring we’ve played all 3 for 25+ years in a row now. And that they’d beat up on the rest of the SEC as well. I remember they were lost in the wilderness until around 2011, while we were stomping them, and that they’d like be about 30-45 against the big 3 realistically in 25 years. I remember Hatfield, West, and Bowden. Pepperidge Farm remembers

 

[GCDC1959]

After reading all that (six minutes I will never get back) I still don’t know whether Clemson is a farce or not.

Guess we will find out on November 24th.

 

[Judson1]

Alabama and Clemson will both be in the CFP. But what Bama did to get there is so much more than what Clemson will have done. It isn’t even close.

No one denies what the tigers have become. They can compete for championships in any conference. But for those who are still trying to put out that they have as tough a path as anyone in the SEC you’re crazy. We get made fun of for only winning one conference title. When we were beating Clemsin we didn’t even go to ATLANTA and they were winning theirs.

 

[ClemDent]

Well, for those Clemson fans on here, I was complimentary of Clemson and how good they are but if you look at those numbers you posted, look at those teams you beat. NC State played no one and when they did, they stunk it up and had they played WVa they would have been seen for the team they really were much earlier. This same Clemson fan said were it not for Texas A&M and Ga Southern, Clemsons schedule would be really bad.
Take it for what it was, and really admit it, The ACC is really, really bad. Yes Clemson would win more than their fair share in SEC but would be challenged more if they played SEC teams week in and week out. We saw how Texas A&M gave Clemson all they could handle but then again T A&M almost lost to SC. Clemson would not be beating Florida, Kentucky, Miss St, Georgia, LSU, by 49 points like they have been doing to ACC teams. Even you as a Clemson fan have to take off the Orange glasses and say the ACC really is down this year. Fla St is a train wreck, Louisville is beyond decripstion, UNC is, well, words dont describe. When Virginia is leading the other division and no one even knows it, then the conference is not a blip on college football radar. I do understand loyalty to your team but get real with your numbers. The Clemson fan I talked to is right, ACC is worlds tallest midget contest. Winning it is nothing to brag about

This is where our past performances against the Alabamas, Oklahomas, Ohio States, Auburn’s, etc pays off. The ACC is missing another elite (even borderline elite this year for sure) team . But when you’ve played the teams we have in the past 5 years you get compared to those past Clemson teams. The committee won’t really be comparing us to our ACC brethren, they will compare us to our other teams of the past three years, like it or not. Strong D - check, strong QB play - check, strong WR core - check etc. The rest of the ACC doesn’t matter. Of course, if we lose one we r toast and should be. PS Hope y’all win the next 3, would help our SOS

 

[jbouton]

So you compare half the ACC to USC's schedule and somehow translate that in to the East not being all that good? Then you talk about remaining schedules while apparently not considering we've already had some big matchups in the East. Then you say if UK wins, the conference is down. Have you seen UK play? I will agree that you needed USC to do well to beef up your schedule. I think just about everyone knew that going in. We haven't helped much there. And I also agree Bama couldn't care less about who you play. Most Gamecock fans couldn't care less either. Just find it funny.

So you think the SEC East is strong this year? 2nd Best in the country? Convenient to assault the Texas A&M game on Clemson's schedule , 1st real game and away? Clemson has played any number of SEC teams in Dabo's tenure and done very well. He has scheduled Auburn home and away, Texas A&M home and away, starts UGA home and Away next, plays you guys home and away every year, has sopanked Baker mayfield and OK, crushed Urban and the buckeyes, has been in the playoffs three in a row, split with Alabama in championship games, and lost in the semis once. C'mon , its absolutely silly to imply that Clemson wouldnt stack up well with anyone in the country right now , and favored against all comers with the exception of Alabama.

Your boys would stack up well in the past couple years. However until they are in SEC we will never know how they would do year to year. We can speculate that's all. My speculation is they be tested more often and possibly have a loss already this year.

 

[Boom4life]

Everyone that i even KNOW, is well aware of how bad the ACC is... Taters would not beat Ga or LSU, probably wouldnt beat Miss St, Uky or Fla..

Give me a break LSU and Georgia would be to close to call but Clemson would beat fla, Kentucky, and miss st by two touchdowns. Your not being realistic, your blinded by your disdain for Clemson. Hey I get it.

 

[Boom4life]

Alabama and Clemson will both be in the CFP. But what Bama did to get there is so much more than what Clemson will have done. It isn’t even close.

No one denies what the tigers have become. They can compete for championships in any conference. But for those who are still trying to put out that they have as tough a path as anyone in the SEC you’re crazy. We get made fun of for only winning one conference title. When we were beating Clemsin we didn’t even go to ATLANTA and they were winning theirs.

Bamas strength of schedule is the worst in the top 4 right now. If I’m not mistaken it’s like 50 something. So tell me again how they have done more.

 

[cockofdawn]

Give me a break LSU and Georgia would be to close to call but Clemson would beat fla, Kentucky, and miss st by two touchdowns. Your not being realistic, your blinded by your disdain for Clemson. Hey I get it.

An Average SEC team A&M should have beaten them, THEY DIDNT, but to say A&M are better than Miss st, Ga & LSU... Come on man..
And yes, I do have much "Disdain" for taters, but I also have wached all the Above teams play...

 

[EssoClub2]

I do agree Clemson would be favored against all of them. I also agree Clemson has won their fair share of games against SEC teams. There is no disputing that. HOWEVER, I do believe that it is easier to get your team focused and ready when they are only challenged a couple of times a year. An SEC team gets their attention more than most any ACC team. If that was not the case, then Clemson would not have lost to Pitt and Syracuse the last couple of years. There is no reason Clemson should have lost those games but did because they were not focused and let a team that had no business being in the game with them, win. If Clemson played in the SEC they would have to be more focused week in and week out or they would have lost a couple more games that they should have won. Anyone can win "one" game at any time but to play that type of game 6-7 times a year rather than 1-2 and maybe 3, is much more difficult. There is no break in SEC but with Clemsons talent, their ACC games, many of them, are glorified scrimmages.

Would you mind naming the 6-7 teams on your schedule this year that are better than 6-7 of Clemson's?

I think there have been 2 or 3 teams in the West of the SEC each year that stand out. Those three vary a bit , But AL, AUB, LSU stand out to me this year. There sometimes is a flier that sneaks in that top 3 but LSU has had down periods, and so has Auburn. Three teams are usually very stout. The East of the SEC has been similar, but it has been more like 2 Stout teams each year with one chasing. This year it is UGA, FL , and then the rest in the east. It seems like it is consistently that way. Sometimes it has been FL & TN , with UGA chasing. There was SC golden period during the 5-peat where there were one of those top 2 with TN dropping and FL losing its identity. The rest of the SEC are "not all that" , year end and year out.

I think that the SEC top to bottom is the strongest conference, I do not think that is by the magnitude many preach. I also do not think "losing" repeatedly in a better conference tells you much about your program.

 

[lostcock]

UK is who we thought they were. And we made them look great, as is becoming the norm. Yes they’re improving a lot, and are much further ahead than we are apparently, but Clemson would rip off both arms, and beat them to death with the bloody ends. If they didn’t beat them like they did FSU, I’d be shocked. Now UGA would be decent either way, but they beat UT, Mizzou, and Vandy like a drum, and probably double up Florida. Now, I’ll be cheering as hard as ever on 11/24, but they are going to bend us over like a double barrel shotgun. There you have it, undefeated in the East for 2018.

 

[Superior7]

Just so you do not think that all of us Tater fans are willing to give in that easily, I have borrowed some "facts" from another blinded by the orange glasses wearing zealot. Can you point to a flaw int his logic? I am easily persuaded by facts. (the source data is available upon request)

Since we are due to see the CFP Committee (CFPC) rankings revealed Tuesday night, I thought I would take a little deeper look into the records of the top nine teams in both the AP and Coaches poll. I did this last year and it is always interesting to compare who is beating "winners" vs who is attained a winning record feeding on "losers". In a nutshell, I think this provides a more accurate assessment of quality wins because it is not influenced by biased early season polling or anything else. It simply considers the records involved and clearly shows if a team is beating cupcakes or beating teams that know how to win.

For the list below W=team with winning record, E=team with even record, L=team with losing record.
A team with the record: 3W-2E-3L would be read as having beaten 3 teams with a winning record, 2 teams with even records, and 3 teams with losing records. Here are the facts/stats:

Alabama: 2W-3E-3L
Clemson: 4W-3E-1L
Notre Dame: 3W-2E-3L
LSU: 6W-1L
Michigan: 5W-2L
Georgia: 3W-2E-2L
Oklahoma: 2W-1E-4L
Ohio State: 1W-1E-5L
UCF: 2E-5L

To deep dive even further, I added up the combined the total "wins" and "losses" on the top 9 teams schedules to form an numeric average for the quality opponent faced this year. If the combined average is below .500 then the a team has beaten an overall "losing" opponent schedule.
Here are the facts:

Alabama: .446
Clemson: .613
Notre Dame: .508
LSU: .632
Michigan: .544
Georgia: .536
Oklahoma: .455
Ohio State: .404
UCF: .364


From these stats here are the conclusions I would make:

1. For all the negative press Clemson has received from some biased folks about "not playing anybody" we have actually played and beaten more teams with a winning record than anyone else except LSU. That facts bear out that Clemson has played a tougher schedule than a lot of folks are giving us credit.

2. As many have suspected, Alabama's schedule has been anemic compared to the other top 5 ranked teams. I have no doubt that Alabama is good but truthfully they have not faced a series of quality opponents as seen in their average opponent quality number of .446 (opponents combined record of 29W,36L). Only Clemson and LSU break the 60% winning quality opponent number.

3. Oklahoma and Ohio State have very weak cases to be among the top teams in the country. Oklahoma has only beaten 2 teams with a winning record and Ohio State has only beaten 1 team with a winning record.

4. UCF does not belong in the top 10. Simply put - UCF's opponent record is pitiful (.364 [20W, 35L]) and they have yet to beat a team with a winning record. Until they can prove themselves against some power 5 quality opponents (someone with a winning record) UCF should not be in the top 10 as they are beating teams that most teams above .500 would beat.

5. Finally - beating "ranked" opponents during the first 5 weeks of the football season should not count for anything. Those rankings are not based on any real data of how good a team is and should not even be considered by week 8 of the season. Case in point - LSU beating an 8th ranked Miami team in week one. As the season has played out - does anyone truly believe that Miami was ever a top 20 team much less a top 10 team? Quite frankly, it would be best if no polls were released until week 5 of the season.

Please look at the wins of the teams Clemson has played. It will blow up the novel you just wrote declaring Clemson's strength of schedule significant. NC State and FSU have beaten teams in lower conferences than the ACC. NCState was a total fraud being ranked #16 before the Clemson game.

 

[EssoClub2]

Please look at the wins of the teams Clemson has played. It will blow up the novel you just wrote declaring Clemson's strength of schedule significant. NC State and FSU have beaten teams in lower conferences than the ACC. NCState was a total fraud being ranked #16 before the Clemson game.

Nah, the numbers are what the numbers are. You will have to draw your own conclusions about whether they mean anything or not. I do not think that there is a perfect way to look at anything. That being said , I do not think it is any better way to pound one's chest for losing to teams that lose to other teams in the SEC every week. Losing tells you exactly "nothing" about a team's ability to win in my opinion.

 

[cockofdawn]

Nah, the numbers are what the numbers are. You will have to draw your own conclusions about whether they mean anything or not. I do not think that there is a perfect way to look at anything. That being said , I do not think it is any better way to pound one's chest for losing to teams that lose to other teams in the SEC every week. Losing tells you exactly "nothing" about a team's ability to win in my opinion.

excellent point, However, winning and blowing out inferior teams has its advantages and Disadvantages.. We shall see when it is all said and done..
Just FYI, SEC has won 9 out of last 12 National Titles.. Just sayng..

 

[bodacock]

So you think the SEC East is strong this year? 2nd Best in the country? Convenient to assault the Texas A&M game on Clemson's schedule , 1st real game and away? Clemson has played any number of SEC teams in Dabo's tenure and done very well. He has scheduled Auburn home and away, Texas A&M home and away, starts UGA home and Away next, plays you guys home and away every year, has sopanked Baker mayfield and OK, crushed Urban and the buckeyes, has been in the playoffs three in a row, split with Alabama in championship games, and lost in the semis once. C'mon , its absolutely silly to imply that Clemson wouldnt stack up well with anyone in the country right now , and favored against all comers with the exception of Alabama.

Now question Clemson is a great team, but the reat of the ACC sucks, case closed.

 

[bodacock]

Now question Clemson is a great team, but the reat of the ACC sucks, case closed.

Never could type, but you get my point.

 

[EssoClub2]

excellent point, However, winning and blowing out inferior teams has its advantages and Disadvantages.. We shall see when it is all said and done..
Just FYI, SEC has won 9 out of last 12 National Titles.. Just sayng..

How many different SEC teams make up that club of 9? just curious?

 

[section907]

ACC sucks this year. Everyone knows it. You have taters pulling for teams they already beat just to help their schedule look better. Smh. Another reason #clemsoning is so deserving for their fan base.

House taters wear out any thread that mentions Acc or taters on the site . Assuming they spend at least equal time on their on teams boards, what losers they must be. They give a new meaning to Cock envy .

 

[cockofdawn]

How many different SEC teams make up that club of 9? just curious?

Florida, Bama, LSU, and Auburn.....

 

[cockofdawn]

How many different SEC teams make up that club of 9? just curious?

And to make a point that your question was trying to make, eastern Divison Florida has as many in that time frame as the Entire ACC..

 

[CUChamp16]

I don't really understand why this is talked about so much honestly. Until we go undefeated and don't get into the playoffs, its a non issue (at least to me). I've watched FSU beat our butts for the better part of my life, am i suppose to be sad that the aren't very good this year and we just scored 60 on them at Doak? Maybe our path is easier, maybe its not, but again I'm not sad about it, its fun going to these playoff games and national championships.

Add in the fact that we've actually been pretty successful in the playoff games I really dont think the argument holds any water. Now say we kept making it bc of a "weak" schedule and then we got the breaks beat off us in the semis 3 straight years, then yes i could get behind the argument that maybe we didn't deserve to be there, but that hasn't been the case.

 

[EssoClub2]

Just FYI, SEC has won 9 out of last 12 National Titles.. Just sayng..

I really am not sure this helps your argument, and it somewhat backs up mine. The top 2 -4 teams in the SEC do the heavy lifting for the conference in Football. The balance of the conference just cheers them on.

I went back 14 years. I did this only because it looked like that was when the BCS became the bestower of the champion trophy.

2017 Alabama CFP
2016 Clemson CFP
2015 Alabama CFP
2014 Ohio State CFP
2013 Florida State BCS
2012 Alabama BCS
2011 Alabama BCS
2010 Auburn BCS
2009 Alabama BCS
2008 Florida BCS
2007 Louisiana State BCS
2006 Florida BCS
2005 Texas BCS
2004 USC BCS

ALABAMA 5

FLORIDA 2

AUBURN 1
LSU 1

CLEMSON 1
FSU 1

OSU 1

TEXAS 1

USC 1

The people that currently have all the right in the world to be pounding their chest in this debate are fans of the Crimson Tide.

Only Florida has more than 1 win in that period, outside of Alabama. As I said, the SEC is a very top heavy conference iwth 2 , 3 or maybe 4 teams that can play with most anyone in a given year spread over 2 divisions. The strongest division during this period has been the West without question.

 

[EssoClub2]

And to make a point that your question was trying to make, eastern Divison Florida has as many in that time frame as the Entire ACC..

My point was that the "entire" SEC only includes 4 teams. It is somewhat silly to use the word "entire" , when you are talking about such a small sample set.

If we continue with your logic, the ACC is twice as good as the Big 10, the Big 12 , and the Pac 12, and the ACC Coastal is TWICE as good as the SEC East. Ya see how that works? I went back 14 years. I did this only because it looked like that was when the BCS became the bestower of the champion trophy.

2017 Alabama CFP
2016 Clemson CFP
2015 Alabama CFP
2014 Ohio State CFP
2013 Florida State BCS
2012 Alabama BCS
2011 Alabama BCS
2010 Auburn BCS
2009 Alabama BCS
2008 Florida BCS
2007 Louisiana State BCS
2006 Florida BCS
2005 Texas BCS
2004 USC BCS

ALABAMA 5

FLORIDA 2

AUBURN 1
LSU 1

CLEMSON 1
FSU 1

OSU 1

TEXAS 1

USC 1

The people that currently have all the right in the world to be pounding their chest in this debate are fans of the Crimson Tide.

Only Florida has more than 1 win in that period, outside of Alabama. As I said, the SEC is a very top heavy conference iwth 2 , 3 or maybe 4 teams that can play with most anyone in a given year spread over 2 divisions. The strongest division during this period has been the West without question.