|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3616
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 45674
Joined: 2012
|
TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
1
Dec 8, 2024, 5:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2137]
TigerPulse: 97%
32
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
3
Dec 8, 2024, 8:04 AM
|
|
Please don't be Texas. That would be hard on my little heart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [460]
TigerPulse: 94%
18
|
Re: TNET: BAD LOSSES should count re: projections
2
Dec 8, 2024, 8:53 AM
|
|
BAD LOSSES should count as much, perhaps more than good wins.
# bad losses
Oregon 0, in automatic
Texas 0, in
Penn State 0, in
ND 1 to Northern Illinois, in
Georgia 1 lost by 18 to Ole Miss, in, automatic
Ohio State 1 to Michigan, in
Tennessee 1 to Arkansas, in
SMU 0 (6 points combined) absolutely should be in
Indiana 0, in
Boise State 0, in
Alabama 2 to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma absolutely should be out
Miami really 0 GT and Syracuse are pretty good, but they will be out
South Carolina 1 lost by 24 to Ole Miss, out
Arizona State 1 to Cincinnati, in, automatic
Iowa State out 1 to Kansas, out
Clemson 1 to Georgia, in, automatic
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [7001]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: TNET: BAD LOSSES should count re: projections
3
Dec 8, 2024, 9:44 AM
|
|
Getting obliterated at home by Lville was without a doubt our worst loss of the season, so 2 bad losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62804]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 12291
Joined: 2019
|
Re: TNET: BAD LOSSES should count re: projections
Dec 8, 2024, 10:00 AM
|
|
Did we watch the same game? Clemson was in it until the mysterious onside kick review with 5 minutes or so left. We got beat but not obliterated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1365]
TigerPulse: 84%
28
|
Re: TNET: BAD LOSSES should count re: projections
1
Dec 8, 2024, 11:52 AM
|
|
I explained below in more detail, but Louisville was up 26-7 and had almost double the yards of Clemson when they subbed out their starters with 8 minutes to go. Clemson is in the playoffs and I'm happy, but we were absolutely obliterated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [460]
TigerPulse: 94%
18
|
Re: TNET: BAD LOSSES should count re: projections
Dec 8, 2024, 11:04 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: BAD LOSSES should count re: projections ] |
|
You need to read the stats sheet again. Clemson won every stat except the score. Louisville finished 8-4. They're a good team. BS Blown call on onsides kick cost the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1365]
TigerPulse: 84%
28
|
Re: TNET: BAD LOSSES should count re: projections
Dec 8, 2024, 11:51 AM
|
|
Dude, come on, that's embarrassing. You should know stats don't mean anything. They beat us by 2 touchdowns, and were up four scores with 6 minutes left in the fourth quarter.
At the end of the third quarter, they had outgained Clemson 345 to 150 yards. Their per-play average was 2 yards per play higher than Clemson's. Louisville put in their backups with 10 minutes left to go in the game, and 203 of our yards came in the last 8 minutes against those backups. We were utterly dominated by their first string.
Since you obviously didn't watch the game, let me educate you. At the end of the third quarter, Louisville was up 26-7. They had been averaging over 8 yards a carry on the ground. At that point, they had outgained Clemson 345-173 yards. After we had our field goal blocked with 12 minutes left in the fourth, they put in their second stringers. We had that long TD drive against their second stringers. They put their starters back in on offense to put the game away after they recovered the onside kick. Their starting running back scored in a single play to go up 33-14 with 5 minutes to go in the game. We scored one more touchdown that didn't matter with 2 minutes left.
This was not a game where "Clemson every stat except the score." And trying to say one bad call cost a game where we were trying to score 4 times in 8 minutes, and still lost by two touchdowns, is just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4040]
TigerPulse: 99%
35
|
Gods Plan - Cade returns to hometown to redeem the lost souls of central Texas***
1
Dec 8, 2024, 9:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [316]
TigerPulse: 100%
15
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
2
Dec 8, 2024, 9:41 AM
|
|
Would love to see Klubnik back in Austin and the re-match (2020 TX 6A-Div 1 Title Game) with Ewers....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62804]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 12291
Joined: 2019
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
Dec 8, 2024, 10:02 AM
|
|
I’m hoping for Texas as well.
Go Tigers!!! We’re in!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [166]
TigerPulse: 99%
12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
2
Dec 8, 2024, 10:01 AM
|
|
This is what the CFP should be:
Oregon
Georgia
Boise State
Arizona Stete
Texas
Penn State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Tennessee
SMU
Indiana
Clemson
Alabama
This is what the SEC/B10 Invitational will be:
Oregon
Georgia
Boise State
Arizona Stete
Texas
Penn State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Tennessee
Indiana
Alabama
Clemson
SMU
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62804]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 12291
Joined: 2019
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
Dec 8, 2024, 10:04 AM
|
|
I agree with your 1st list except I’d end it Indiana, SMU, Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [166]
TigerPulse: 99%
12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
Dec 9, 2024, 10:39 PM
|
|
You nailed it. I had it the other way because no losing team should have dropped below a team not playing. That held true with the exception of the ACC. Typical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [166]
TigerPulse: 99%
12
|
Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections
Dec 8, 2024, 10:11 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson's College Football Playoff matchup projections ] |
|
This is what the CFP should be:
Oregon
Georgia
Boise State
Arizona Stete
Texas
Penn State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Tennessee
SMU
Indiana
Clemson
Alabama
This is what the SEC/B10 Invitational will be:
Oregon
Georgia
Boise State
Arizona Stete
Texas
Penn State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Tennessee
Indiana
Alabama
Clemson
SMU
Sorry that was seeding, not rankings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3616
|
|
|
50
