Replies: 16
| visibility 2,303
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
College Football Playoff. CU vs SCar rematch in 2015
May 19, 2014, 10:24 AM
|
|
http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2014/05/interesting-look-at-playoff-scenarios.html
Some of the other years could be debated on exactly what the committee would do (although this is pretty accurate). But if the 2016 rotation playoff rotation had been in play there would be a guaranteed rematch in the OB because of bowl contracts.
Interesting to think about and see some the implications of the tieins. especially that 2016 scenario when the 2 bowls that host the playoffs have no tieins and 3 of the 4 that are left do have them. it means once every three years we have the scenario of having only 1 true at large team.
|
|
|
|
Varsity [224]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 184
Joined: 6/21/13
|
Re: College Football Playoff. CU vs SCar rematch in 2015
May 19, 2014, 10:30 AM
|
|
It never occurred to me that Clemson and S Car could possibly meet in the Orange Bowl until you wrote this article - but IMO it's 100% correct. The O.B. is contractually required to take the highest-ranked SEC, B1G or Notre Dame team, and if Clemson is the ACC rep, well...
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [224]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 184
Joined: 6/21/13
|
Re: College Football Playoff. CU vs SCar rematch in 2015
May 19, 2014, 10:48 AM
|
|
Let me correct myself: the Orange Bowl takes the highest-ranked SEC team AFTER the Sugar Bowl is filled. Since neither the Orange or Sugar would be semi-final sites in 2016, that's why this scenario comes into play.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4960]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6986
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: College Football Playoff. CU vs SCar rematch in 2015
May 19, 2014, 4:15 PM
|
|
Are we sure they are required to take the highest ranked team? I know they are required to take a team from the selection committees list but they are also required to take 3 B1G, 3 SEC , and 2 ND teams every 12 years. That would mean some years the highest ranked team wouldn't work. I would guess that would give them some wiggle room when they make their selection.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58135]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39901
Joined: 11/12/04
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38452]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33207
Joined: 7/28/11
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 11:10 AM
|
|
Major hitch in that scenario is that the Coots aren't good enough to make the major bowls , completely missed every BCS bowl in history ....so why assume they ever make the CFBP ?
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [127]
TigerPulse: 16%
Posts: 427
Joined: 11/3/13
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 11:55 AM
|
|
The only problem with that statement is we beat the crap out of Clemson both seasons they went to a BCS bowl....so us not being good enough ? Well that puts you there by default....playing cupcakes....and losing to us by double digits every year for the last 5 says we belonged there more than you. We just have way too many good schools and the SEC can only sent 2 to the BCS. The fact that the ACC has only 2 good schools means a default slot for you while we had to wade through a flock of top 10 schools that call the SEC home. Nice try though...but you lose that many..by those scores....wow...and you are going to say we are not good but you are....so funny...
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2182]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 2478
Joined: 10/10/13
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 11:58 AM
|
|
Go away Monroe...you've proven your word means nothing...take your low character elsewhete
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38452]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33207
Joined: 7/28/11
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 12:06 PM
|
|
Monroe , You mad bro ?
Troll your way on over to the FGF and tell em' coot ....that Clemson site is full of people who don't like us.
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [127]
TigerPulse: 16%
Posts: 427
Joined: 11/3/13
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 12:15 PM
|
|
Not mad....you guys just say things that make your program look bad. You lose by double digits to us 5 years in row...but we are not good...so you are obviously worse. Can't be any other way !
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [127]
TigerPulse: 16%
Posts: 427
Joined: 11/3/13
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [224]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 184
Joined: 6/21/13
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 12:13 PM
[ in reply to Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?*** ] |
|
Previously the Gamecocks were locked out because there was a limit of 2 teams per conference for BCS bowls - and S Car was never going to be in the SEC's top 2. Now that limit is gone, so they have a shot (although if Clemson starts beating them again that will go away).
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4789]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7499
Joined: 10/24/00
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 4:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?*** ] |
|
the 2016 scenario is set in stone. If that version of the rotation would have happened last year those are the only possible match ups according to the new rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [224]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 184
Joined: 6/21/13
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 19, 2014, 12:14 PM
[ in reply to Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?*** ] |
|
Yes, Bama and Auburn would also be a rematch (so was Bama vs. LSU), but we are primarily interested in ACC teams here. I don't care if Ohio State and Michigan play twice in a row, either (which almost happened in the BCS era).
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [224]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 184
Joined: 6/21/13
|
Re: Why are you not considering Bama vs. Auburn a rematch?***
May 20, 2014, 10:25 AM
|
|
You never know. Some in SC might prefer Bama/Auburn 2 over Clemson/SC 2. There are lost souls everywhere!
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 2,303
|
|
|