It was odd circumstances that allowed us to win that year but there were 3 teams tied with a 5-3 record. UF and UGA both had the same record. Fortunately we beat both of them that year. We really should have only had 2 losses in the conference but a complete meltdown in the Kentucky game allowed them to come back. It was as if when Marcus got hurt, we quit playing. It was unfortunate too because he was having a monster game against them.
Clems schedule sucks. They play in a joke of a football conference known as the ACC. The reason clem plays NOBODY is because of their conference schedule.
2014 bama 2 losses next best had 3 loses, 2015 Bama 1 loss next best 3 losses and played fla in sec champ game 4 loses , 2016 big time here next best team was a 9-4 fla, 2017 you can add GA in there but next best after them was a 4 loss Auburn team who lost to Clemson, 2018 next best teams had 3 losses. So just because ESPN was talking about them dosen't mean the SEC wasn't a 1 horse conference outside of the 2017 season.
It would seem those rankings are severely flawed when they get to include additional top tier opponments while other schools dont get the opportunity because of a limited draw.
You only see them as flawed because they don't agree with your narrative. I could argue that the "final rankings" are flawed based on bias. At least the SOS rankings are done without bias by a computer. I have no problem owning that the ACC is down, but that is because I am not an ACC fan, I am a Clemson fan. When FSU was playing for championships a few years back I was rooting like hell for them to lose.
That wasn't the argument you were making in which I responded too. You said what years was Alabama the only team worth talking about I gave you the years. And Just because a team loses to a ranked team does not make them elite it means they lost to a ranked team nothing more nothing less, being that the primary goal of competing and becoming elite is winning games, weather or not the team is ranked or unranked. Trophys are not handed out for toughest strength of schedule, they are handed out based on wins.
Now if you had said pre-season rankings are full of bias, pretty sure no one would disagree. But you saying the final rankings does rise my curiosity. I'll be happy to hear the arguments you say you can make.This ought to be good.
Just as an example, look at the 2014 schedule for Auburn. They were ranked pre season # 6. They finished the season with 5 losses one to an unranked ATM and one to Wiss in a bowl. That same year GT beat Miss State in the Orange Bowl and finished with 3 losses. Now are you telling me that if GA Tech had lost 5 games that year to the same teams and then lost their bowl game they would have been ranked. Put aside conferences and look at it blindly. Tell me there was no biased that Auburn finished ranked 22 after losing 4 of their last 5 games? Tell me if an ACC team or a Big 10 team would have been given the same ranking having lost 4 of their last 5 to the same teams Auburn did?
Maybe because we played them at home and the ACC Championship was at a neutral site
Here is another example from this year with GA, I think everyone can agree that GA schedule was not on par with LSUs. So had Clemson lost to U of SC lost to LSU scraped by vs ATM and Florida would Clemson still have been given the benefit of the doubt and ranked in the top 5? (I use those teams because of common opponents or teams comparable (UVA played Fla tough in the OB). Would Clemson still have been even in the top 10?
I'd say there would have been a pretty good chance gt would have finished ranked had they played a stronger ooc schedule. Evidently playing an acc schedule, Tulane, GSU, Wofford along with their annual meeting against UGA was good enough for them, but not good enough for the pollsters. That's on them. I'll credit Dabo tho, he understands that isn't good enough.
0-5 record as the spoiler since the football playoffs began. At some point, I can only hope that becomes unacceptable. Sadly i dont know when.
You mean 2015 when Ole Miss beat Alabama and finished 10th in the nation and completely destroyed Oklahoma State in the Sugar Bowl. Sure, there were only 5 SEC teams to finish in the top-25 but it must have been a down year right? 2016 must be the year you're referring to when yet again there were only 5 teams to finish in the top-25, including 3 in the top-15. We must have had the worst P5 conference in college football those seasons.
2014? Six SEC teams finished in the top-25, including 2 in the top-10 and 4 in the top-15. 2018? again, 8 teams finishing in the top-25 with 3 of them in the top-10 and another at ll. I really would like to know what it is that make you think those were bad years for the conference. In the ACC's best season they only finished with 4 teams in the top-25
