ADVERTISEMENT

That loss to Syracuse should keep the Taters out of the final 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
So if Georgia loses to us and at Auburn, then beats Kentucky (and Kentucky loses at least one more), we are East Champs. Not likely, but college football is strange at times.

Correct. And Kentucky doesn't have a bad team this year either, so who knows? I was only responding to the earlier post, not actually predicting that we'd finish 12-0 and play Alabama in the SECCG. It's possible of course, but Auburn will be tough to beat in Jordan Hare, and of course we've had our problems against Florida ever since the early 90's. Then of course there's your team, South Carolina. You guys have a good defense and will have a chance.
 
They ain't played a legitimate top 10 team yet!!IMO
i thought Dabo said Syracuse should be top ten??
giphy.gif
 
They should go back to 11 game regular season. Then the power 5 conference champs get an automatic bid. If one of the other 5 conference champs is ranked in the top 15, they get an automatic bid also. Then fill the remaining 2 or 3 slots with the highest ranked non-conference champs, as chosen by the committee. The committee seeds the 8 teams.

In theory this sounds good, but it would be possible to have a conference champ with 2, rare case 3 loss team. A conference champ could have 2 OOC loses and 1 conference loss and get in. Meanwhile let's say USF at 11-1 and UCF at 11-1, one of them is left out. This is just an example, but just trying to point out how controversial any format can get


There is always going to be some controversy/discussion on who is worthy and who isn't. You have 64 teams in the MBB tournament and you still have some upset and not getting a bid
 
In theory this sounds good, but it would be possible to have a conference champ with 2, rare case 3 loss team. A conference champ could have 2 OOC loses and 1 conference loss and get in. Meanwhile let's say USF at 11-1 and UCF at 11-1, one of them is left out. This is just an example, but just trying to point out how controversial any format can get


There is always going to be some controversy/discussion on who is worthy and who isn't. You have 64 teams in the MBB tournament and you still have some upset and not getting a bid
No guarantees for anyone. Take the top 8.
 
Are you saying in the last two years were the best playing the best. Both years the game was extremely close and competitive. I’m sure people want different teams in instead of the same ones. Who got left out last year, possible Penn St over Ohio St
And this reply brings us for circle. So again I'll ask you...how do you know who the best team is?
Answer: You don't.

Unless you have a group of teams that have played identical schedules you don't know. There's no possible way to know. The only way to know is head-to-head.

I don't believe it has happened yet but by only picking 4, you can possibly leave the best team out. Going to 8 doesn't guarantee anything, but it increasing the odds of getting it right.
A group of people sitting around determining which 4 get in is not the best scenario.
rer
 
Clemson folks better be the biggest Auburn fans in the world for the next few weeks. Auburn is the only team on the UGA or Bama schedule that could beat either on the right day. If Bama and UGA roll into Atlanta undefeated, and UGA plays them a competitive game, I think both still go. UGA and Clemson at that point will both have one loss. And no, I don't see anybody left on Clemson's schedule beating them. FSU is struggling terribly, I still don't believe NCSU is more than average, have GT at home and they will overpower them. Would love to think that USC has a chance, but just don't see USC being able to compete up front. And at the end of the day a competitive UGA loss to Bama is much better than a loss to a 23 pt dog. And don't see committee taking more than two teams from the south.
 
So how would that be any different that what we have now? The top 8 would still be based on rankings by a committee or poll. Best way to do it is 5 conference champs get auto bids with 3 at larges.
Yes, the top 8 would be chosen by committee but there a much less chance a team gets left out that deserved to be in.
The 1st problem with automatic conf champs is the Big 12.
Then let's say Standford wins the PAC with 4 losses, FSU wins the ACC at 13-0 with CU & NCST having 1 loss each (both CU and NCST losing to FSU) and Uga wins the SEC at 13-0 with Bama & UF both with 1 loss each (both loosing to Uga).

You really believe Standford deserves to be in over CU, NCST, Bama & UF?

Of course there's no perfect scenario. I just believe 8 gives you a better chance to ensure the top 4 are in, would provide an opportunity for a non-P5 conf champ that's undefeated if they have a good enough resume, and would be more entertaining on the national level. Some will say "why not go to 16, 32, etc., but that will never happen and truly isn't feasible.
I believe 8 is the right number and stands the best chance to "get it right'.
 
Clemson folks better be the biggest Auburn fans in the world for the next few weeks. Auburn is the only team on the UGA or Bama schedule that could beat either on the right day. If Bama and UGA roll into Atlanta undefeated, and UGA plays them a competitive game, I think both still go. UGA and Clemson at that point will both have one loss. And no, I don't see anybody left on Clemson's schedule beating them. FSU is struggling terribly, I still don't believe NCSU is more than average, have GT at home and they will overpower them. Would love to think that USC has a chance, but just don't see USC being able to compete up front. And at the end of the day a competitive UGA loss to Bama is much better than a loss to a 23 pt dog. And don't see committee taking more than two teams from the south.
You're probably right about your last sentence (and probably the whole post - Auburn usually accommodates Clemson btw), I think the best teams with the best records (and SOS being counted) should be who makes the playoffs regardless of what region they come from! That's part of what's wrong with the system if they're really interested in who's the best team in the country & who should be National Champion!
 
Clemson's schedule going forward is not a strong as the schedules of Ohio State, Notre Dame and Okie, which is both good and bad, I suppose. They have a better chance of winning out, but they are at disadvantage if several other teams run the table.
 
IMO there were a couple of other teams who had as much right as Clemson. I'm one who thinks they need MORE teams - a REAL: playoff system!
Seems like you should be having this conversation with an OSU or Washington fan, no? One of those teams didn’t even with their conference, and the other won what was probably the weakest conference in the country last year. Clemson had a single loss and won what was arguably the toughest conference in the country last year. What team that was left out had a legitimate gripe about Clemson getting in over them?
 
because if they win out, they are in
Not true, others must lose, an undefeated bama, Washington, Penn State and tcu will not be out to tater tech unless one of them loses. Therefore they do not control their own destiny...

So, you are saying that the four will include a team that did not win their own conference? If others in the ACC don’t lose, that will mean that CU will not be in the ACC playoff game.
 
Seems like you should be having this conversation with an OSU or Washington fan, no? One of those teams didn’t even with their conference, and the other won what was probably the weakest conference in the country last year. Clemson had a single loss and won what was arguably the toughest conference in the country last year. What team that was left out had a legitimate gripe about Clemson getting in over them?
I definitely think OSU had NO place in the playoffs last year but to say the ACC was the toughest conference in the country is a REAL stretch!
 
I definitely think OSU had NO place in the playoffs last year but to say the ACC was the toughest conference in the country is a REAL stretch!
Was it? What Conference was tougher? Check RPI, ESPN Power Index, etc—let me know what you find. I guess you could argue that those don’t matter, and just say “ACC, lol, no way THAT was the best conference”. But that’d be kind of like saying the SECe is really tough because you have to play teams like UT and UF. Historic reputation dictates how difficult a conference or division is this year, right?
 
Was it? What Conference was tougher? Check RPI, ESPN Power Index, etc—let me know what you find. I guess you could argue that those don’t matter, and just say “ACC, lol, no way THAT was the best conference”. But that’d be kind of like saying the SECe is really tough because you have to play teams like UT and UF. Historic reputation dictates how difficult a conference or division is this year, right?
Hope you enjoyed it, the ONE year the ACC had a solid division. I'm guessing you'll brag about for years to come.
 
Hope you enjoyed it, the ONE year the ACC had a solid division. I'm guessing you'll brag about for years to come.
Sure, I guess to the extent that people enjoy bragging about conferences. That’s always seemed pretty dumb to me. It’s not like Clemson wouldn’t have still gotten in if the ACC was 3rd in the RPI instead of 1st last year. The specific question at hand was from our very own cocky lady, who stated that several other teams who didn’t make it into the 2016 playoff had just as much right to be there as Clemson. It’s not true. She doubted that the ACC was the toughest in the nation last year. At least you seem to be at peace with that concept.
 
Sure, I guess to the extent that people enjoy bragging about conferences. That’s always seemed pretty dumb to me. It’s not like Clemson wouldn’t have still gotten in if the ACC was 3rd in the RPI instead of 1st last year. The specific question at hand was from our very own cocky lady, who stated that several other teams who didn’t make it into the 2016 playoff had just as much right to be there as Clemson. It’s not true. She doubted that the ACC was the toughest in the nation last year. At least you seem to be at peace with that concept.

NC State is 4-0 in the ACC and lost to USC. Tech is 3-1 in the ACC and lost to UT. That's this year. The ACC is 5th in RPI. From first to worst, I guess.

I'll actually be rooting for NC State against Notre Dame this weekend. A Pack win in South Bend would do a lot to help the perception of the conference.
 
NC State is 4-0 in the ACC and lost to USC. Tech is 3-1 in the ACC and lost to UT. That's this year. The ACC is 5th in RPI. From first to worst, I guess.

I'll actually be rooting for NC State against Notre Dame this weekend. A Pack win in South Bend would do a lot to help the perception of the conference.
Well, this really puts a wrinkle in my plans to boast about my conference. I'll have to find something else to do now, I suppose.
 
Well, this really puts a wrinkle in my plans to boast about my conference. I'll have to find something else to do now, I suppose.

If that means less posting on our board, then we're all grateful.
 
Remind us who brought the conference homerism ITT?
I guess you're not capable of reviewing the last few posts, so, basically:

1. cocky lady: "there were other teams that deserved to be in the playoff as much as Clemson last year."
2 Ken M.: "Oh? Who? What other one-loss teams got left out? Clemson was a one-loss team in arguably the strongest conference in 2016." (so I guess you're right, it was me)
3. cocky lady: *disappeared, weird*
4. BSF: "Yeah, well, enjoy that one year of the ACC being the best, because now MY conference is the best again!"
5. Ken M.: "OK. I agree. Go conference."
6. DarkCock: "Go away, this is MY free board, herp derp."

It's just football discussion. You don't need to take it so seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FJRTiger
I guess you're not capable of reviewing the last few posts, so, basically:

1. cocky lady: "there were other teams that deserved to be in the playoff as much as Clemson last year."
2 Ken M.: "Oh? Who? What other one-loss teams got left out? Clemson was a one-loss team in arguably the strongest conference in 2016." (so I guess you're right, it was me)
3. cocky lady: *disappeared, weird*
4. BSF: "Yeah, well, enjoy that one year of the ACC being the best, because now MY conference is the best again!"
5. Ken M.: "OK. I agree. Go conference."
6. DarkCock: "Go away, this is MY free board, herp derp."

It's just football discussion. You don't need to take it so seriously.

Oh no - I haven't "disappeared" at all - nothing "weird" here except you posting on our site (which I don't care to waste my time debating - I still hold to my opinion (your #1 here btw as many others did as well) and I thought for a minute you were a serious poster & not a troller who can't seem to simply enjoy your present success but stays obsessed with us for some reason and loves to hear what WE think about things. I could not care less about what you think or my rival "friends" think - it's our Gamecocks I care about and I have strong opinions about how this playoff system works - needs to be more teams IMO to be considered a REAL playoff! Now I will "disappear" from your comments or threads because I have more worthy opinions & comments to read!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken M.
Oh no - I haven't "disappeared" at all - nothing "weird" here except you posting on our site (which I don't care to waste my time debating - I still hold to my opinion (your #1 here btw as many others did as well) and I thought for a minute you were a serious poster & not a troller who can't seem to simply enjoy your present success but stays obsessed with us for some reason and loves to hear what WE think about things. I could not care less about what you think or my rival "friends" think - it's our Gamecocks I care about and I have strong opinions about how this playoff system works - needs to be more teams IMO to be considered a REAL playoff! Now I will "disappear" from your comments or threads because I have more worthy opinions & comments to read!
So I assume this means you're not going to tell me who had as much right to be in the 2016 playoff as Clemson?
 
I guess you're not capable of reviewing the last few posts, so, basically:

1. cocky lady: "there were other teams that deserved to be in the playoff as much as Clemson last year."
2 Ken M.: "Oh? Who? What other one-loss teams got left out? Clemson was a one-loss team in arguably the strongest conference in 2016." (so I guess you're right, it was me)
3. cocky lady: *disappeared, weird*
4. BSF: "Yeah, well, enjoy that one year of the ACC being the best, because now MY conference is the best again!"
5. Ken M.: "OK. I agree. Go conference."
6. DarkCock: "Go away, this is MY free board, herp derp."

It's just football discussion. You don't need to take it so seriously.
No, here's #1.
"Clemson had a single loss and won what was arguably the toughest conference in the country last year. "
Guess who said it? It's on this page so you can look up and see it.
Lmao, you say "arguably" the toughest conf but wig out when someone argues it, and then tell me I shouldn't take it so seriously...hahaha.

That Cuse loss has really got you taters riled up. And with Kelly being injured I guess it's driving y'all to other teams boards to remind everyone how great you and your conf were last year.

ACC...ACC...ACC :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: cockofdawn
No, here's #1.
"Clemson had a single loss and won what was arguably the toughest conference in the country last year. "
Guess who said it? It's on this page so you can look up and see it.
Lmao, you say "arguably" the toughest conf but wig out when someone argues it, and then tell me I shouldn't take it so seriously...hahaha.

That Cuse loss has really got you taters riled up. And with Kelly being injured I guess it's driving y'all to other teams boards to remind everyone how great you and your conf were last year.

ACC...ACC...ACC :rolleyes:
I wigged out? Geez. I need to work on that.
 
The reason you have strong opinions about it is because Clemson won it. Otherwise you wouldn't feel that way.
I have strong feelings that the taters are starting to slip a little from the top rung and they know it. That offense is nothing like under Watson’s reign, and they needed every ounce of that to win 4 of their games last year.
 
I have strong feelings that the taters are starting to slip a little from the top rung and they know it. That offense is nothing like under Watson’s reign, and they needed every ounce of that to win 4 of their games last year.
If you mean that Clemson probably doesn't have the horses to win the national championship again this year, yes...I think most reasonable Clemson fans would agree with that. If you're hoping they slip back into mediocrity, well....I dunno about that. You'd expect to see recruiting taking a nosedive for that to happen, and that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT