|
|
Post by rupturedduck on Dec 4, 2017 18:53:11 GMT
was NOV.4 at Iowa city,the 31 pt.beatdown and 55 pts.scored on them doomed them,lke driving a wooden stake thru Dracula.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 19:27:29 GMT
No question.. Funny, the committee would have easily over-looked the BEATDOWN Oklahoma put on the Buckeyes. Losing to good teams early, even at home and badly, doesn't keep you out of the CFP. Losing by 31 points to a team with 5 conference losses will...
|
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Dec 4, 2017 21:00:55 GMT
The one thing that did not make sense was that Clemson stayed at number 1 during a vast majority of this process. tOSU was penalized because of the blowout loss to a 7 - 5 team. Syracuse was given a complete pass in there loss to Syracuse which was by far the worst loss of any playoff team when you look at the records. The only chatter that I heard was that there QB was injured so therefore they could overlook it. I personally would have put Oklahoma at number 1 without question. They were 4 - 0 vs the top 20 where Clemson was 2 - 0. Clemson accumulated a lot of wins against teams that were just above mediocre but as far as big wins and bad losses occur, Oklahoma's resume was far better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 22:26:55 GMT
The one thing that did not make sense was that Clemson stayed at number 1 during a vast majority of this process. tOSU was penalized because of the blowout loss to a 7 - 5 team. Syracuse was given a complete pass in there loss to Syracuse which was by far the worst loss of any playoff team when you look at the records. The only chatter that I heard was that there QB was injured so therefore they could overlook it. I personally would have put Oklahoma at number 1 without question. They were 4 - 0 vs the top 20 where Clemson was 2 - 0. Clemson accumulated a lot of wins against teams that were just above mediocre but as far as big wins and bad losses occur, Oklahoma's resume was far better. ?? Clemson wasn't #1 throughout the CFP rankings.. they were #4 in the first ranking.. that was after the Syracuse loss. They worked their way up, and didn't become #1 until after Bama lost to Auburn. And, I don't know what you're talking about re: the "bad loss" to Cuse... it was a 3 point game (27-24), on the road, without their QB. Ohio State was healthy, and lost by THIRTY ONE points.... in November. There is no comparing the two. OU's loss was pretty bad too... by 7, at home. No where near as bad as Ohio State's second loss, but.. worse that Clemson's loss. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 22:28:28 GMT
You must be looing at the wrong year.. Clemson's SOS and resume is FAR better than OU's
|
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 5, 2017 1:33:23 GMT
You must be looing at the wrong year.. Clemson's SOS and resume is FAR better than OU's I was thinking the same. Clemson beat a bunch of GOOD teams. |
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Dec 5, 2017 1:56:29 GMT
The one thing that did not make sense was that Clemson stayed at number 1 during a vast majority of this process. tOSU was penalized because of the blowout loss to a 7 - 5 team. Syracuse was given a complete pass in there loss to Syracuse which was by far the worst loss of any playoff team when you look at the records. The only chatter that I heard was that there QB was injured so therefore they could overlook it. I personally would have put Oklahoma at number 1 without question. They were 4 - 0 vs the top 20 where Clemson was 2 - 0. Clemson accumulated a lot of wins against teams that were just above mediocre but as far as big wins and bad losses occur, Oklahoma's resume was far better. Clemson had a win over Auburn Then they won a couple high profile road games @ Louisville and @ Virginia Tech...won in dominating fashion Then the loss to Syracuse on the road Then they out-lasted NC State on the road, beat FSU, and dominated rival South Carolina Finally, they absolutely destroyed Miami in the ACC Championship the keyword IMO is domination. Clemson has looked very good, Alabama-esque Oklahoma looks good as well, but Clemson looks like a complete team, and Dabo has created an Alabama clone. I think Clemson has the best defense in college football right now, I predict them to repeat |
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Dec 5, 2017 13:09:15 GMT
The one thing that did not make sense was that Clemson stayed at number 1 during a vast majority of this process. tOSU was penalized because of the blowout loss to a 7 - 5 team. Syracuse was given a complete pass in there loss to Syracuse which was by far the worst loss of any playoff team when you look at the records. The only chatter that I heard was that there QB was injured so therefore they could overlook it. I personally would have put Oklahoma at number 1 without question. They were 4 - 0 vs the top 20 where Clemson was 2 - 0. Clemson accumulated a lot of wins against teams that were just above mediocre but as far as big wins and bad losses occur, Oklahoma's resume was far better. ?? Clemson wasn't #1 throughout the CFP rankings.. they were #4 in the first ranking.. that was after the Syracuse loss. They worked their way up, and didn't become #1 until after Bama lost to Auburn. And, I don't know what you're talking about re: the "bad loss" to Cuse... it was a 3 point game (27-24), on the road, without their QB. Ohio State was healthy, and lost by THIRTY ONE points.... in November. There is no comparing the two. OU's loss was pretty bad too... by 7, at home. No where near as bad as Ohio State's second loss, but.. worse that Clemson's loss. I saw Clemson loss being far worse than Oklahoma. Syracuse was a 4 - 8 team and had only one win other than Clemson over a P5 team. By the committee standards the top 4 teams that Oklahoma played were clearly better than the top 4 Clemson played. Syracuse seemed to get a huge benefit from beating a bunch of 4 and 5 loss teams and Oklahoma was clearly hurt by beating 2 1 win teams in the big 12. It's not a big deal because both are in the playoff and clearly should be there. It just felt like the committee was given a pass to what a felt was a very bad loss by Clemson. |
|
|
|
Post by jameshowell on Dec 5, 2017 14:08:41 GMT
The reason Alabama got in was the committee has decided (along with the PSU-tOSU decision last year) that a two-loss team is not going to get in even if they are a conference champion.
So the criteria is: if you are an undefeated or one-loss P5 champion (there will rarely, if ever, be more than four) or an undefeated Notre Dame, you are in. If there are still slots available, the committee will look at any remaining one-loss P5 teams; two-loss conference champs won't be considered until all of the one-loss P5 teams are exhausted. Since tOSU was not going to the playoff, they felt free to rank them above Wisconsin. I do believe, that if Alabama had an additional loss, it very likely would have been Wisconsin getting in instead of tOSU (for the same reason that tOSU trumped PSU last year). The committee just wants to eliminate two-loss teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2017 14:50:46 GMT
I'm gonna have a bunch of "but Syracuse" t shirts made. They will be hot sellers.
Clemson’s resume:
* 9 wins over bowl eligible
* 4 road wins over ranked teams (3 by 14+)
- 1 neutral site win by 35
* H2H vs Auburn
* “but Syracuse” (QB1 out, lost kicker in practice before game (new K missed 2 chip shot FGs in game), short week)
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2017 14:54:41 GMT
teams have made the playoff without a top-16 win: 2015 Alabama and 2017 Alabama.
2015 Alabama won it all.
2014
Oregon, 3
Bama, 2
OhSt, 1
FSU, 1
2015
Clem, 3
Bama, 0
MichSt, 4
Okla, 2
2016
Clem, 3
Bama, 2
Wash, 1
OhSt, 3
2017
Clem, 2
Okla, 3
UGA, 2
Bama, 0
|
|
|
|
Post by doc on Dec 5, 2017 14:56:06 GMT
The reason Alabama got in was the committee has decided (along with the PSU-tOSU decision last year) that a two-loss team is not going to get in even if they are a conference champion. So the criteria is: if you are an undefeated or one-loss P5 champion (there will rarely, if ever, be more than four) or an undefeated Notre Dame, you are in. If there are still slots available, the committee will look at any remaining one-loss P5 teams; two-loss conference champs won't be considered until all of the one-loss P5 teams are exhausted. Since tOSU was not going to the playoff, they felt free to rank them above Wisconsin. I do believe, that if Alabama had an additional loss, it very likely would have been Wisconsin getting in instead of tOSU (for the same reason that tOSU trumped PSU last year). The committee just wants to eliminate two-loss teams. I think the 31 point loss was definitely the key, although Georgia lost by 33 but they got the opportunity to avenge the loss and to their credit, they more than accomplished that feat. As to your Wisconsin comment, anyone who watched the game Saturday could tell there was a huge difference in the talent level of the teams. As bad as Barrett played, Hornibrook was worse. Their star RB couldn't do anything against the OSU defense. Wisconsin scored 17 points off OSU turnovers - they never really sustained a long scoring drive all game. If Alabam had an additional loss and Wisconsin would have been picked over OSU it would have been the biggest farce since the playoff began and I'd truly question the intelligence of the people making the selections. That game Saturday night should have been a 30+ point Buckeye win, it was painfully obvious that Wisconsin didn't have the athletes to keep up with the Buckeyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 5, 2017 15:21:31 GMT
If Alabam had an additional loss and Wisconsin would have been picked over OSU it would have been the biggest farce since the playoff began Agree.. NO WAY that would ever happen. A last game, Head to head, between the last two teams being considered MUST go to the Head to Head winner... no matter how many losses the winner has. It's not JUST "2 losses, and you're out". ... although, I agree that seems to be their emphasis. |
|
