|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
110%er [9889]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7076
Joined: 3/6/05
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [16654]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11665
Joined: 9/1/01
|
It thought it was a report............***
Dec 8, 2013, 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30523]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 62669
Joined: 10/4/99
|
Re: TPS Blog: Is Clemson BCS Worthy?***
Dec 8, 2013, 11:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1081]
TigerPulse: 47%
Posts: 2072
Joined: 1/29/11
|
NO, here is why
Dec 8, 2013, 11:48 AM
|
|
The BCS System, like the government, has a welfare mentality. Missouri and SC are more deserving based on record and ranking, not to mention head-to-head in scar/cu's case.
CU is in the BCS for the same reason No Ill was last year and UCF is in this year. The fact that a Bowling Green victory over No Ill helped the Tigers is a great example of "Top 14" meaning more than Top 6-10. Where is any common sense in that?
Beginning next year (oh, how I hate that phrase) there are no two team/conference limits. My hope is still for 12-16 team playoffs to determine a true champion.
Simply skipping over MO/SC because they are "rich" to benefit the "poorer" conferences doesn't prove the Tigers are deserving, only that they meet the welfare qualifications.
I enjoy your writing and I know we are both very biased but most third parties would agree that CU and UCF don't merit BCS bowl bids.
Sadly, this is all we have to talk about for the next month. The older I get, the faster these seasons fly by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9889]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7076
Joined: 3/6/05
|
Good post. But without the 2 team conference
Dec 8, 2013, 12:05 PM
|
|
Max, how would one determine if a conference is overrated?
What if VT went 11-2 this year. Would that have been cause VT was very good or the ACC was weak?
In the same breath, How do we know Mizzou is great? Just cause they are in SEC doesn't make them more worthy just because they are in SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1081]
TigerPulse: 47%
Posts: 2072
Joined: 1/29/11
|
Compare "body of work" between my coots and CU
Dec 8, 2013, 6:36 PM
|
|
even without the head-to-head results. Yes, the TN loss was bad. If UGA is a quality win at the time for CU then it can't be a "bad" loss for scar.
Comparing quality wins is not close imho. Based on a complete season, tonight's rankings will have MO, CU and UCF in the Top 16. After UGA I guess BC and then who are the Tiger's best victories? I haven't looked up sos rankings determined by the BCS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2522]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3332
Joined: 8/23/02
|
Great point. You can argue the 2 team limit hurts the
Dec 8, 2013, 7:04 PM
[ in reply to Good post. But without the 2 team conference ] |
|
SEC teams a lot, but how many of those high rankings are the result of SEC-bias?
If the media weren't SEC-biased, there would be more talk/realization that Mizzou and A&M have exposed the week-in, week-out strength of the SEC is bogus.
Those were middling BigXII teams two short years ago. And they haven't upped their recruiting that much in that short a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1328]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 897
Joined: 11/29/08
|
Would agree with Mizzou, no way on Scar
Dec 8, 2013, 12:07 PM
[ in reply to NO, here is why ] |
|
And it has nothing to do with the Clemson/Scar thing. Scar knew once it lost to Tennessee that particular loss was going to come back to haunt them. Clemson lost two games, both to quality opponents. Scar lost two games, one to a mediocre opponent (although like us against UGA, they were basically at full strength minus their best WR in your game) and one to a terrible team.
If you put those both Clemson and Scar in a "vaccuum" and look at it:
Team A: A home loss to the #5 team that ended the season ranked #1 and a road loss to the #10 team that ended the year ranked #8.
Team B: Road loss to the #11 team that ended the season unranked and road loss to an unranked team that ended the season unranked.
Now again, I know the elephant in the room is the fact that Team B beat Team A head to head. But Scar hurt itself badly by losing to UT.
As we have seen over the years, teams are penalized more by who they lose to than who they beat, and I think that is the case with Clemson and Scar this year.
I think Missouri and Clemson are a fair comparison, considering their only two losses (for both teams) came to top-10 teams and Missouri's second loss was in their conference championship game, to a team that will go on to play for the BCS title.
To sum it up, Mizzou and Clemson both had two losses, both to top ten teams that ended the season ranked in the top ten, and one of the losses for each team was to a team playing for the BCS title. Scar's two losses were to teams that ended the year unranked, one of which ended the year two games under .500. You can talk head to head, and it is a valid point, but the total body of work and the teams to which each respective team lost speaks for itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [127]
TigerPulse: 50%
Posts: 97
Joined: 12/8/98
|
Re: Would agree with Mizzou, no way on Scar
Dec 8, 2013, 12:21 PM
|
|
You make many great points JohnsIslandTiger .... Many.
But it just isn't fair that a team that beat three current top 15 BCS teams and will be named 7th or 8th in the BCS tonight doesn't get to the Sugar Bowl with a 10-2 record and a top ten ranking in all polls.
Thank Goodness the BCS system will be gone in two years. We just need a good ole fashioned playoff system.
Congrats Tigers, for heading to a BCS bowl against a tough opponent in Bama or Ohio State this year. I'll be pulling for you. And you can shoot up the rankings with a win against either team.
Peace out. Davy Boy. Gamecock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1328]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 897
Joined: 11/29/08
|
Never said it was fair unfortunately.....
Dec 8, 2013, 12:56 PM
|
|
As I said in my post, the BCS penalizes you more for the teams you lose to than it does rewards you for the teams you beat, at least IMO.
Clemson's and Missouri's losses weren't considered "bad" losses as they came to two very good teams.
Scar's losses were basically bad and worse when it comes to UGA and UT.
It's almost like trying to rank UNC in basketball right now. Should you rank them as the team that beat #3 Louisville and #1 Michigan State or the team that lost to UAB and Belmont?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [421]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 726
Joined: 9/7/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1081]
TigerPulse: 47%
Posts: 2072
Joined: 1/29/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49613]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30357
Joined: 12/10/98
|
Ahhh, that wasn't the question Joel...
Dec 8, 2013, 7:23 PM
|
|
The question was if Clemson is worthy.
Given the current field, and the limitations provided by rule, Clemson is worthy as a team that lost to one of the teams in the BCS title game and to a top 10 team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1081]
TigerPulse: 47%
Posts: 2072
Joined: 1/29/11
|
Not in response to OP, I was responding to JohnsIslandTiger
Dec 8, 2013, 7:49 PM
|
|
Who posted:
"To sum it up, Mizzou and Clemson both had two losses, both to top ten teams that ended the season ranked in the top ten, and one of the losses for each team was to a team playing for the BCS title. Scar's two losses were to teams that ended the year unranked, one of which ended the year two games under .500. You can talk head to head, and it is a valid point, but the total body of work and the teams to which each respective team lost speaks for itself."
So I was asking them if they'd rank CU higher than SC?
Would you Rev? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1328]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 897
Joined: 11/29/08
|
Never said I would, that's not the argument here
Dec 9, 2013, 10:22 AM
[ in reply to So you would rank CU AHEAD of sc?**** ] |
|
I don't pretend to understand all the bowl tie-ins and how the at-large bids work, but I do know that Clemson was one of the top 2 teams in our conference and that wasn't the case with Scar. So I'm guessing that plays into it some.
Also, as far as rankings go, would you objectively consider a team that has 2 losses to teams that finished the season unranked, and one of which had a losing record, to be among the top ten teams in the country?
Look at the 2-loss teams in the rankings down to Clemson at 12 and who they lost to......
Stanford and Scar: One loss each to a team that ended up 5-7 and one loss each to a team with 4 losses.
Oregon: A blowout loss to an unranked Arizona team and a loss to a Stanford team that IMO is highly overrated, as stated above
Oklahoma: Blowout loss to Baylor who was ranked #6 at the time and a loss to Texas who had 4 losses this year.
Then again, we come to Clemson and Missouri....2 loss teams, both losses to top-10 teams (although again, given Scar's two losses, that can be debated) and losses to teams that are in the BCS Championship game.
So to sum it up, the original question was "is Clemson BCS worthy". When you compare them to the other 2-loss teams, the answer to that question is yes they are. Like it or not, the bowls aren't based on rankings, if that were the case the NC game would take the top two teams, the next bowl would take the 3-4 teams, the next bowl the 5-6 teams and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2989]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 7583
Joined: 7/19/01
|
Ridiculous. They are as deserving as other 2 loss teams.
Dec 8, 2013, 1:06 PM
[ in reply to NO, here is why ] |
|
So biased. CU lost to the best team in the country, and to their in state rival in the last half of the 4th quarter.
And they didn't get upset by any unranked teams, or non Top 10 teams.
That very same welfare system as you put it just got an Auburn team that was flukey against UGA/Bama into the NC game and got Bama into the Sugar Bowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 229
Joined: 4/11/99
|
Wow!
Dec 8, 2013, 1:13 PM
|
|
I think this is the first complete thread I've ever read on Tnet with logical points, well debated on both sides without just name calling. Excellent thread!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1081]
TigerPulse: 47%
Posts: 2072
Joined: 1/29/11
|
Re: Wow! thanks Tater jk ;-) *****
Dec 8, 2013, 6:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1146]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 298
Joined: 11/11/06
|
Re: NO, here is why
Dec 8, 2013, 1:24 PM
[ in reply to NO, here is why ] |
|
Disagree, but enjoy your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follower [251]
TigerPulse: 35%
Posts: 585
Joined: 8/1/13
|
Bcs doesn't mean much anymore***
Dec 8, 2013, 12:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2989]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 7583
Joined: 7/19/01
|
As worthy as any of the other 2 loss teams***
Dec 8, 2013, 1:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2023
Joined: 8/22/99
|
Re: TPS Blog: Is Clemson BCS Worthy?
Dec 8, 2013, 1:10 PM
|
|
Only one collective opinion matters, the Orange Bowl selection committees opinion. The rest is just like we have been all year, if we beat so and so and sos so loses how high should we be ranked. If we make it I don't care whether anyone from North Dakota or Columbia sc think we are worthy or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2023
Joined: 8/22/99
|
Re: TPS Blog: Is Clemson BCS Worthy?
Dec 8, 2013, 1:10 PM
|
|
Only one collective opinion matters, the Orange Bowl selection committees opinion. The rest is just like we have been all year, if we beat so and so and sos so loses how high should we be ranked. If we make it I don't care whether anyone from North Dakota or Columbia sc think we are worthy or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2609]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6653
Joined: 9/1/11
|
If that consoles you. Iowa lol***
Dec 8, 2013, 1:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17962]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16798
Joined: 9/1/12
|
although well written, this was not in the correct TPS format. Did you read the memo?***
Dec 8, 2013, 1:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13057]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22375
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Couple of inaccuracies there. Oklahoma St beat Baylor
Dec 8, 2013, 6:43 PM
|
|
so they did indeed have a win over a BCS top 25 team. Top 10 in fact.
Also, Bama is not an at-large. They will automatically qualify by finishing in the top 4 of the BCS standings via either rule 5 or 6, presumably 5.
5. If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 4, and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 3 in the final BCS Standings, that team will become an automatic qualifier, provided that no at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the national championship game.
6. If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 5, and if no team qualifies under paragraph No. 5 and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 4 in the final BCS Standings, that team will become an automatic qualifier provided that no at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the national championship game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
