Official College Football Thread - Championship Week

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

VT and Clemson aren't even CLOSE in the BCS standings

They aren't close on the field either.
That was proven.
Once in Blacksburg at the beginning of the season when the offense just hadn't gelled yet.
Then again on a neutral field when VT was clearly the hot team.

Look I'm not being a Clemson fan boi, they are ranked about where they should be...VT on the other hand is a 20-25 team...nothing more. For them to be in a BCS bowl is laughable...but at least the extra money will help pay Chad Morris' salary next year.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

For them to be in a BCS bowl is laughable...but at least the extra money will help pay Chad Morris' salary next year.

I doubt that, they lost half a million just for the right to play in the Orange Bowl last year. And that would have been worse but the ACC pitched in over a million bucks of their own.

[Ksyrup]

[Pumpy Tudors]

i cannot comprehend a ksyrup post that doesnt have someone else's tweet in it

[Ksyrup]

Messageboards are so 2001.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I doubt that, they lost half a million just for the right to play in the Orange Bowl last year. And that would have been worse but the ACC pitched in over a million bucks of their own.

The bowls pay the ACC for atending and that money is divided equally among all teams. IF a team doesnt meet their ticket requirements they ahve to pay for them, often the value will exceed the payout.

Not a problem for Clemson, of our 27,500 Orange Bowl tickets we have sold 46,000 and the period doesnt end until midnight tomorrow. So Clemson will not pay anything back to the Orange Bowl, and ill gte our orange bowl payout, our dividend off VTs BCS bowl and some lesser bowl monis as well.

VT in a BCS bowl is a maor win for Clemson.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

They aren't close on the field either.
That was proven.
Once in Blacksburg at the beginning of the season when the offense just hadn't gelled yet.
Then again on a neutral field when VT was clearly the hot team.

Look I'm not being a Clemson fan boi, they are ranked about where they should be...VT on the other hand is a 20-25 team...nothing more. For them to be in a BCS bowl is laughable...but at least the extra money will help pay Chad Morris' salary next year.

I've learned two unwritten rules in the thread....head to head means everything if the teams have the same number of losses, and if you beat a team twice you "proved" you're better and should be ranked higher regardless of other factors.

I think head to head is overrated and these rules are silly, but I do think they're accepted by the majority of fans.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

and if you beat a team twice [ by 20+ points] you "proved" you're better

I think head to head is overrated and these rules are silly,

So you think losing twice to a team does not prove you are inferior to that team?
We are not talking close last second field goal OT games we are talking to blowouts. Yet you would submit the loser is the better team? I guess I dont understand why they even play then. You should just look at the preseason books and annoint yoru top 25.

*shrug*

[Swaggs]

In the case of Clemson vs Virginia Tech, it is mostly voters being lazy. Clemson is essentially being penalized for playing a solid OOC schedule (beat Auburn, Troy, Wofford, and lost to South Carolina) while VPI played no one (ECU, Arkansas State, Marshall, and Appy State). If Clemson plays a CUSA or Sun Belt team instead of South Carolina, they are probably in the top 8 or 10.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

In the case of Clemson vs Virginia Tech, it is mostly voters being lazy. Clemson is essentially being penalized for playing a solid OOC schedule (beat Auburn, Troy, Wofford, and lost to South Carolina) while VPI played no one (ECU, Arkansas State, Marshall, and Appy State). If Clemson plays a CUSA or Sun Belt team instead of South Carolina, they are probably in the top 8 or 10.

I'm pretty sure Clemson is being penalized for losing to NC State & GT, only to a lesser extent for the SC loss. This isn't about their wins, it's about their losses.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This isn't about their wins, it's about their losses.

Here we go again.

The only thing I'll agree with you on with respect to losses is the number of them. Clemson had 2 more losses than VT when they played, so even though Clemson beat them for the 2nd time, they still had 1 more loss. I can semi-justify ranking VT ahead of Clemson for that reason alone. At that point you look at the schedule and determine if Clemson beat a better slate of teams. Just like with Alabama's loss to LSU, I'm not giving Clemson credit for playing and losing to South Carolina. It's still a loss. But it does increase their SOS.

Head-to-head should be the primary factor when ranking comparable resumes. When one team has lost more games than the the team they beat H2H, it's a little more complicated than that.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by molson

I've learned two unwritten rules in the thread....head to head means everything if the teams have the same number of losses, and if you beat a team twice you "proved" you're better and should be ranked higher regardless of other factors.

Is this a joke? You write that like it's not true. Of COURSE it's true. I don't understand the underlying tone you put on it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Is this a joke? You write that like it's not true. Of COURSE it's true. I don't understand the underlying tone you put on it.

It's just an opinion. Something hasn't reached "of course" levels of truth when the majority of football coaches and football media members disagree with it. (And in the case of Clemson/VT, they OVERWHELMINGLY disagree - even Ksyrup disagrees). Even if the REAL football geniuses are the outside observers who post on message boards, there's still enough disagreement even there where I don't think you can call it "correct" without a hint of qualifying it as an opinion.

Upsets happen. Matchups matter. Teams have ups and downs, and play better in some games than others. This is apparently what coaches believe and I don't think it's crazy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

So you think losing twice to a team does not prove you are inferior to that team?
We are not talking close last second field goal OT games we are talking to blowouts. Yet you would submit the loser is the better team? I guess I dont understand why they even play then. You should just look at the preseason books and annoint yoru top 25.

*shrug*

No, you should look at the whole season and not just individual games. Clemson lost twice to mediocre ACC teams, I suppose that proves they're worse than mediocre? If NC St. or Georgia Tech upset Clemson again, I still wouldn't think Clemson was worse than either of those teams (though it'd be a bit closer). You'd still have to look at the season and you'd still have to factor in Clemson's big wins. If Clemson went undefeated, except for two upset losses to NC. St, I'd still rank Clemson WAY ahead of NC State, and I wouldn't believe NC State was a better team. Because the bulk of the evidence would still point the other way. Upsets happen, some teams matchup better with certain teams, and there's ups and downs to the season. Teams aren't as simple as concrete numerical values that we can then compare to other teams in games and say, "yup, X is better than Y". Because the next week, Y might beat Z, and the week after that, Z beats X.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

Upsets happen.

So when upsets happen, we just pretend they didn't since the stronger team should've won?

I honestly wonder why the games are even played sometimes. Asking who is the better team is the wrong question, and I think this thought process demonstrates that amply. The correct question is who has had the better season. It has to be or the season is meaningless.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

So when upsets happen, we just pretend they didn't since the stronger team should've won?

No, it's one game in the season. Consider the game, but consider the season too. Do you think NC St. is better than Clemson, or had a better season than Clemson? There's a ton of other evidence that that's not true. Nobody's pretending that didn't happen, it certainly hurts Clemson in the final polls, but it doesn't prove NC St. is better than Clemson, and it doesn't prove NC St. had a better season than Clemson. It's just one factor. There's also a ton of other evidence that Virginia Tech "had a better season", and was "better" than Clemson. With OK St. and Alabama, it's a hell of a lot closer, I can see both sides of it, but the one LSU/Alabama game does not prove that Oklahoma St was either "better" than Alabama, or "had a better season". It's OK to look at the rest of the season and find evidence there too beyond that one game (a game that Oklahoma St. wasn't even in). It's OK to consider Oklahoma St blowing it against Iowa St. It's not against the rules to look at that game too and see where that fits in. It's not against the rules to consider other evidence also. Everybody is going to weight the evidence differently, that's what we have tons of voters.

Edit: There's no fixed rules in any of this - if two teams have 1 loss, and one beat the other, it doesn't prove either which team is better, or which team had the better season. There were 10 or 11 other games to consider also, and usually we're talking about very different schedules, very different performances. I guess there's a point, somewhere, where one team's 10 or 11 games is EXACTLY the same as another team's 10 or 11 games, if we ever have that, and those teams play head to head, than it's a much better argument that the winner of that game had the better season, and was better. But that isn't the situation with Oklahoma St/Alabama, obviously. Who of course, didn't even play head to head. There can be debate about whether one team's season is so close to another's that head to head can be determinative, but "same number of losses" is a huge simplification and ignores a ton of other factors. All 1-loss seasons are not identical, ask Boise St.

[Matthean]

OU dropped down 8 spots after getting beat by TT and that made sense to me. If a team is obviously better under normal conditions they will make it up. I have a bigger issue with Wisconsin dropping 8 the same week when they lost on a Hail Mary while playing on the road to a quality team.

[molson]

And I should say too, if someone thinks head-to-head is the most important thing, or that "they already had a chance against LSU" is a factor that should be considered, that's fine too, no rules against that. I just disagree that it's the only valid way to rank teams. Personally, I could care less than Alabama "already had a chance", because I think they had a better season than Oklahoma St. did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Here we go again. The only thing I'll agree with you on with respect to losses is the number of them.

There's the rub, you don't have to agree. What I said here ("it's the losses") isn't even something I have to agree with for it to be true.

If you saw my end of season poll you'd know that I've got Clemson ahead of VT (#16 vs #17) ... but that doesn't change the seemingly obvious reason VT is ahead of Clemson in national polls that cranked up this part of the conversation.

[Butter]

molson, you said this:

"head to head means everything if the teams have the same number of losses"

I think all things being equal, that is true. But I am not sure why everyone is using Clemson and VT as the poster child for this, as VT only had 2 losses while Clemson had 3. Clemson is ranked lower than VT, which I don't have a major problem with since Clemson had some losses to BAD teams.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I don't know how I feel about head-to-head matchups and rankings and all that. I also don't know if the discussion is only valid with regards to college sports. With that said, I just know that the Oakland Raiders swept their entire division in 2010, yet they finished 3rd in the division. I don't think they were the best team in that division last year. Maybe it doesn't apply to pro football, or maybe nobody cares because people aren't asked to rank the teams.

In any case, I'm just saying that there's never going to be a "one size fits all" solution. Maybe VT should be ranked higher than Clemson, or maybe they shouldn't. Whatever helps you determine that comparison may not necessarily be used to compare two other teams. It's the generalizations that make the polls a joke to me.

[CU Tiger]

I think the answer is whats stated up a tad. Its not who is a better team, its who had a better season.

This is the Giants Pats argument. According to many here, the Pat were clearly the better team as they didnt have as many losses, I will grantr you they had the better year, but I dont think they were the better team.

Same here....VT clearly had a better season, Clemson is clearly the better team.

If that point is debateable, I dont guess I understand that.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think the answer is whats stated up a tad. Its not who is a better team, its who had a better season.

This is the Giants Pats argument. According to many here, the Pat were clearly the better team as they didnt have as many losses, I will grantr you they had the better year, but I dont think they were the better team.

Same here....VT clearly had a better season, Clemson is clearly the better team.

If that point is debateable, I dont guess I understand that.

I dont know if this is the only reason though. The Pats just piss pounded everyone in their way until the weather got bad(later in the season) and they got upset in the Super Bowl. They seemed like one of the best of all time until that 1 game.

Clemson/VTech is an interesting debate IMO. Clemson beat them twice in a convincing way so it would appear that Clemson is better than VTech. Problem with Clemson like many other years is they show an abnormal lack of consistency. Do you reward the higher upside/lower downside team(Clemson) or the more consistent team.(Vtech) I dont think there really is a right or wrong answer.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I dont know if this is the only reason though. The Pats just piss pounded everyone in their way until the weather got bad(later in the season) and they got upset in the Super Bowl. They seemed like one of the best of all time until that 1 game.

Clemson/VTech is an interesting debate IMO. Clemson beat them twice in a convincing way so it would appear that Clemson is better than VTech. Problem with Clemson like many other years is they show an abnormal lack of consistency. Do you reward the higher upside/lower downside team(Clemson) or the more consistent team.(Vtech) I dont think there really is a right or wrong answer.

Ok I know it looks like I am latched in to this argument solely because it involves Clemson, but really that's not the case. To me it is a very interesting debate and plays right to the core of the bowl/playoff issue.

If the question is which team is better at the game of football, then the best test is to let the two teams play each other. To my way of thiking to discount this point invalidates the entire sport. If AS A RULE, game results do not indicate which team is better, then why play the game? I concede "as a rule" because between close teams luck, weather, momentum can swing an individual game. So a second data point should help decide the issue.

Let's take your position ( as I understand it) one step further, let's say Bama clearly outplays LSU but due to turnovers, flukes, external factors or similar LSU wins. By your logic, Bama could still be national champs as they are the better team despite losing twice.

Loss counts are only relevant to me when equal schedules are played. Otherwise Houston should have been ranked #2 prior to last week. They clearly had less losses than Bama, okst, and anyone not named LSU.

Now the core question may be what do we rank, the best team or the best season?

If it's season it will always be subjective unless we round robin the entire country, if it's team then we have a chance to determine who is betteer by matching them up on the field. If you argue that VT should be ranked higher as they had a better season, it means we clearly disagree with the intention of the rankings. If you think VT is a better TEAM than Clemson, Orissa better at playing the game of football (this year) then I really don't know how to even respect that opinion.

[B & B]

Clemson > VT


Clemson can and will shit the bed during game(s) in the second half of the season, especially if unmotivated.

Jan 4th is a long ways away, but I would tend to think that Clemson would be stoked for the bowl game. Plus, Geno Smith for WVU has a choker tag on his resume.

Can you imagine if Geno played for Clemson?

MINDBLOWN

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by B & B

Clemson > VT


Clemson can and will shit the bed during game(s) in the second half of the season, especially if unmotivated.

Jan 4th is a long ways away, but I would tend to think that Clemson would be stoked for the bowl game. Plus, Geno Smith for WVU has a choker tag on his resume.

Can you imagine if Geno played for Clemson?

MINDBLOWN

I'm a huge WVU fan, but I've never heard of people calling Geno Smith a choker or considered him a choker. He has lead a number of comeback wins, actually. He hasn't played in a ton of huge games, but he's generally performed alright (and certainly not choked) against Pitt (2-0) and LSU (0-2, but lost last year largely because freak of nature Patrick Patterson on ST and this year put up over 400 yards against them), and had 9 wins per season each year as a starter. He's thrown for 49 TDs vs 14 INTs and completed just around 65% of his passes, under two different coaching staffs, over the past two years. Maybe you are thinking of someone else?

I tend to think the Orange Bowl should be a fun game to watch and will be a pretty high scoring affair. If we lose, it will almost certainly be due to Clemson's offense putting points on the board, not because Geno is a choker.

[PilotMan]

NDSU is back in the semi-finals for the second year in a row. We've had a great season, except for that stupid loss to Youngstown State at home. This week we take on a tough Georgia Southern team, with a title game on the line.

Montana and Sam Houston St. make the other semi-final game.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

molson, you said this:

"head to head means everything if the teams have the same number of losses"

I think all things being equal, that is true. But I am not sure why everyone is using Clemson and VT as the poster child for this, as VT only had 2 losses while Clemson had 3. Clemson is ranked lower than VT, which I don't have a major problem with since Clemson had some losses to BAD teams.

Ya, I just said that as one of the two "rules" that I thought people were holding strongly in this thread and elsewhere - too strongly, I thought, to where any other viewpoint was just wrong (even though most coaches and other voters obviously don't take that simplistic view of it). I just thought it was just an opinion. One loss teams are not all the same, and other factors can be at play.

Edit: And I think that "rule" has evolved to cover other circumstances - to where head-to-head can be determinative even if the rest of the seasons for the two teams are very different (Clemson/VT), and to where if you lose a head-to-head game, you don't deserve another shot at that team in a national championship game (Bama/LSU). Generally, I think head-to-head is given too much weight, but that's just strictly opinion and preference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If AS A RULE, game results do not indicate which team is better, then why play the game?

Because single games do not a season make. The better team does not always win ... and that's why you play the game (ask the Pats & the Giants).

edit to add: An individual game is part of a larger body of work, as well as part of a larger context (standings). That context provides the answer to "why play the game".

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I'm a huge WVU fan, but I've never heard of people calling Geno Smith a choker or considered him a choker. He has lead a number of comeback wins, actually. He hasn't played in a ton of huge games, but he's generally performed alright (and certainly not choked) against Pitt (2-0) and LSU (0-2, but lost last year largely because freak of nature Patrick Patterson on ST and this year put up over 400 yards against them), and had 9 wins per season each year as a starter. He's thrown for 49 TDs vs 14 INTs and completed just around 65% of his passes, under two different coaching staffs, over the past two years. Maybe you are thinking of someone else?

I tend to think the Orange Bowl should be a fun game to watch and will be a pretty high scoring affair. If we lose, it will almost certainly be due to Clemson's offense putting points on the board, not because Geno is a choker.

First I've heard of the choker tag as well. WVU fans can be pretty rough on our own and I've never heard it applied to Geno.

After 4th quarter come from behind wins this year against USF, Pitt, and Cincy to close the year and get to a BCS bowl. The comeback against Marshall last year in his first start. 14 INTs in over 900 career attempts. I don't see how you could label him a choker.