|
Replies: 27
| visibility 11
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
My opinion...both Clemson and Bama got the opponent
Dec 7, 2015, 9:25 AM
|
|
Most suited to their advantage. Bama would much rather face a team that tries to pound you, as opposed to one that flies all over the field. Clemson would rather play a team like Oklahoma who plays the same, more wide-open style. Same style, but the team who is better at it wins.
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [81097]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 26806
Joined: 1998
|
the committee did not want bama to lose in the semifinals
Dec 7, 2015, 9:28 AM
|
|
so they gave them the spartans
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
It's pretty clear....
Dec 7, 2015, 9:30 AM
|
|
that they were trying to avoid sending Oklahoma to Dallas and they wanted to at least try to set-up an Oklahoma v. Bama National Championship game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [100]
TigerPulse: 93%
11
|
Do your rankings put them there?***
Dec 7, 2015, 9:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
No, they have them at #4, pretty much exclusively because
Dec 7, 2015, 9:57 AM
|
|
They have a significantly lower scoring margin than the others. When wins and losses only are used, my ratings would actually have them at #1. When scoring margin only used (ignoring wins and losses) Oklahoma is #1, and Mich St. is #10. Clemson is #3 both ways, and #2 overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
37
|
Re: I think Mich. St. over Oklahoma is justified...
Dec 7, 2015, 10:29 AM
[ in reply to I think Mich. St. over Oklahoma is justified... ] |
|
Totally agree.
Michigan St. should be #2.
Alabamas best wins don't come close to Iowa, Ohio St., Oregon, and Michigan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [305]
TigerPulse: 100%
15
|
No. Their win over Iowa was unremarkable
Dec 7, 2015, 10:39 AM
[ in reply to I think Mich. St. over Oklahoma is justified... ] |
|
Iowa/MSU game was about as close as they come. Iowa was number 4. MSU should replace them at 4 or perhaps Oklahoma should have never been #3. This smells too much like trying to arrange who plays who. First the argument was Alabama should be #1. Then when that really didn't have much logic the past 2 games it switched to drop Oklahoma. I don't think Alabama could score enough on Oklahoma. We will be fine either way. We basically just played a version of Oklahoma last weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
The Committe Chair said the Committee looked at match-ups
Dec 7, 2015, 9:29 AM
|
|
which is total BS. The Committee's job is to rank the teams one through four based on where they deserve to be ranked and the match-ups take care of themselves.
If Bama is a nine point favorite over Michigan State, shouldn't Michigan State be the fourth seed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [16036]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
I agree with you, but.. what if they had placed Bama #1
Dec 7, 2015, 9:34 AM
|
|
Clemson #2 and OK #3..
How would you have felt if Clemson had been sent to Dallas to play OK? It didn't work out that way, but I would have been furious if they had not considered that in the seeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64629]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 41668
Joined: 2004
|
if we'd lost a game and were at #2, then I'd say we deserve
Dec 7, 2015, 10:13 AM
|
|
to have to play OU in Dallas. We should have won all our games if we wanted the preferential treatment that a #1 seeding is supposed to get. Bama loses to Old Miss, at home, and pays absolutely no penalty for it whatsoever.
Look, i think we beat OU and Bama, but since everyone knows 2-4 are really OU, Bama, MSU, in that order (OU being "punished" by the committee for not having an extra Champ game), the seedings give us the hardest path to the championship instead of the easiest. I'd expect OU to destroy Alabama, again, but hopefully they would be beat up some. Now that is going to be us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
Of the three 1-loss teams, Bama's loss was the best.
Dec 7, 2015, 10:15 AM
|
|
Mich St. and Oklahoma both lost to teams with losing records. Ole Miss finished 9-3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64629]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 41668
Joined: 2004
|
Oklahoma would embarrass Alabama, again. Old Miss went 9-3 but
Dec 7, 2015, 10:18 AM
|
|
got to play in the weak SEC, so there's a little grade inflation there. Memphis proved that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
OK, maybe so.
Dec 7, 2015, 10:23 AM
|
|
Just saying, if you're going to focus in on the losses, it's pretty hard to say that their loss to Ole Miss is worse than losing to 5-7 Texas and Nebraska.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64629]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 41668
Joined: 2004
|
all I'm really saying is that we should be playing MSU in
Dec 7, 2015, 10:27 AM
|
|
the Orange Bowl and Bama should be playing OU in the Cotton Bowl. The committee deliberately chose to move OU down to avoid Bama facing OU in their backyard. Plain and simple. And took the easier game away from the #1 seed in order to do it. That's BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
I don't think MSU is an easier game for Clemson.
Dec 7, 2015, 10:31 AM
|
|
Just my opinion. I think Michigan St. has a great argument to be ahead of Oklahoma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [39166]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 51709
Joined: 2004
|
It's like 2011 all over again. SEC teams hanging their hat
Dec 7, 2015, 10:29 AM
[ in reply to Of the three 1-loss teams, Bama's loss was the best. ] |
|
on 'quality losses.'
Who did Alabama BEAT? Florida, who has no offense? LSU, who has no QB? Where is the quality that makes people think they're the best team in the country?
They're #### lucky they got Michigan State, because they're the third best team in this playoff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
I don't think anyone's hanging on a quality loss.
Dec 7, 2015, 10:31 AM
|
|
We just happened to be talking about the loss (drummer brought it up). I don't think, nationally, they are boosted by losing to Ole Miss.
Bama's resume is built on depth, not flash at the top. They arguably didn't beat any elite teams. But they beat 10 teams who are going to a bowl game. No one else can say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5797]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
You're mistaken.
Dec 7, 2015, 10:47 AM
[ in reply to I agree with you, but.. what if they had placed Bama #1 ] |
|
If Alabama had the #1 seed and Clemson the #2, the bowls we each are going to would be exactly the same.
Selection is based off closest location to the highest seed in each game.
Bama is closer to Arlington, Texas. Clemson is closer to Miami, Florida. So either way, nothing of significance changes (well besides the potential change in opponent).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [65]
TigerPulse: 93%
7
|
Re: You're mistaken.
Dec 7, 2015, 11:15 AM
|
|
Who cares! If we take care of business it shouldn't matter who we play.....We aint skeered....GO TIGERS!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [108015]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13406]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 12966
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5958]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
You got it 50% correct
Dec 7, 2015, 9:41 AM
|
|
I disagree that Oklahoma is the matchup Clemson wanted. I think OU is actually a bad matchup for Clemson. I would have preferred MSU, or Alabama. Oklahoma is a more complete team than MSU or Bama in my opinion.
Alabama definitely got favorable matchup with MSU. If they had to Play Oklahoma they don't get out of the 1st round.
In my opinion both Clemson and Oklahoma would beat Alabama anytime, any place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2384]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
IMHO Bama will not get out of the first round against MICHST***
Dec 7, 2015, 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29894]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
Honestly, these rankings make sense
Dec 7, 2015, 10:00 AM
|
|
I mean outside of us being #1, the other 3 could probably be placed in any order you wanted and make sense. We're clearly #1 due to being the only undefeated team there, but I can see the other 3 teams in pretty much every configuration. I think the biggest "matchup" issue they had was tryign to keep OK out of Dallas due to the advantage. You'd have to have them at #2 to make their advantage make sense, and if you aren't going to do that then you have to have them at 4.
I've said all along, my issue with the system is with teams getting their chance. The system worked this year and the 4 most deserving teams now get a chance to prove it.
This should be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
Yep, super fun.***
Dec 7, 2015, 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10613]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 27
| visibility 11
|
|
|
50
