2016-2017 NCAA Football Season Thread [ARCHIVED] Football • Page 137

USC is consistently chock full of NFL talent. Maybe they aren't on Bamas level so that was probably a tad dramatic but they are consistently right up there at the top of the recruting charts nearly every year.

Their talent surpasses pretty much every team in the west.

 

Particularly in the PAC-12

 

Every year they have a massively overrated class that ultimately either falls or busts.

 

Does it count as a night game if it's an afternoon game on west coast time? Haha. Kind of like the "tree falling in the woods" question.

After the Michigan game and the Penn State over OSU game it made me remember the latest upsets (or close calls) that Wisconsin has had over OSU the last decade or so. And then it spread to other big upsets and I feel like most happen in night games.

 

Can someone address that post about what is considered a good win/good loss? I'm curious to hear this threads thoughts because I am completely lost with that whole ideology

 

Maybe but you put Nick Saban at USC and the result is what you have at Bama, imo.

I stick by my belief that coaching is that teams problem.

We don't agree on that and that is perfectly fine.

 

You put Saban anywhere though and you have Bama.

Coaching is the problem, I fully agree. But I also don't think they have the level of talent Bama does. Coaching was the problem at LSU and despite that they are the best school in the country for NFL talent.

 

i'll take a shot, with no dog (no pun intended) in this fight:

i think it's mostly a "current moment" and memory issue that most have. currently Stanford isn't ranked, so people forget that they were #7 so that win doesn't look as good anymore. Or, people remember Stanford was #7 and now are unranked, which may look even worse to some because obviously that means they lost since they're no longer ranked. and Stanford lost 2 of their next 3 which didn't / doesn't help (granted those losses were to ranked teams)

For OSU, it was a 3-point defeat that (I believe) was essentially decided because of a blocked FG returned for a touchdown with a few minutes left. and it was on the road in an always tough environment. Some may say it was also after a very tough win on the road against Wisconsin the week before. also, PSU only lost to Michigan (granted by A LOT) and a close one to Pitt, but no one though PSU would be any good to begin with so this still looks good.

i think right now it looks like a "good loss" for UW because USC has been hot lately, but could also be seen as a "bad loss" since it was at home, by double digits (for almost 3 whole quarters) and the Pac is "down" this year.

 

USC, in terms of talent has one of the better starting rosters year in and year out. Their problem has been depth due to the NCAA sanctions where they lost scholarships. Then there was the normal transfer and injury attrition that every school faces, and your overall roster is thinned out pretty quick. Talent is on thing in college football, but depth for rotating is what puts teams over the top. Case in point with their DT (who's name I won't even attempt to spell. It's Hawaiian) from Utah that they got this year via the 5th year transfer clause. W/O him they would be very thin up front from the point of attack. There are some issues at USC over the years, but the actual talent they bring in is not one of them. Jackson and Smith-Schuster are big time talents. Porter Gustin, Iman Marshall, Ykili Ross, and Marvell Tell are all big time talents off the top of my head.

 

I know yesterday wasn't a good loss for Clemson but they shouldn't be behind Louisville imo...both one loss teams and Clemson won head to head. Guess no one saw the first three quarters of that Louisville/Wake game just like I thought.

 

Not how that works. Louisville has game in and game out looked like the better team all year. The season is 12 games, not one. Louisville should never have been behind Clemson in the first place.

 

They've both had their share of unimpressive games. Remember when Louisville almost lost to Virginia? The only reason they're so high in the first place is because of how badly they best Florida State.

 

PAC-12 refs continue to be themselves....

This stood AFTER review?

 

I remember Clemson struggling in every single game and that Virginia game being the first. Wake was bad too. But they won 44 to 12. People can say that's just looking at the score and they played a bad game but Clemson has the same opportunity to do those things and has not once.

 

but i think the committee said the reason A&M was still ahead of Auburn was because they won their head to head matchup, meaning that that should likely carry over to other weeks and scenarios, where in this case Clemson would remain ahead of Louisville because of beating them. not saying i agree, but i think this is what they'll do (unless they change their minds on that reasoning which wouldn't surprise me).

 

To me, head to head should override that difference between the two (within reason of course...if Clemson had 2-3 losses I wouldn't be saying this)

 

Analysis should override everything. But they aren't big on that. It's why AP voters do things like put Wisconsin third or FSU sixth haha. If Louisville barely lost that game without Lamar Jackson, then Louisville is the better team. Head to head is irrelevant in close games like that.

 

Gameday headed to Western Michigan. cool for the MAC

 

But Louisville lost the game WITH Lamar Jackson. Since when are hypotheticals relevant and actual results of games irrelevant? Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't head to head have to matter at some point? Otherwise, why even play games at all? If it's all about subjective views of who has a better team, why not just send voters to grade practices and compare notes to make the polls? All else being equal, the team that makes the plays to win with the game on the line should get the BOTD. Also, Clemson's opponents are 59-39 and Louisville's opponents are 48-52, and they have the same record. Is that irrelevant too?

 

I think the summary of this discussion is nobody has any fucking clue how the committee comes up with the shit they do.

Seems about on par with something like...NFL officiating.

 

Clemson has struggled in every game. Louisville has not. Don't know how else to put it haha. They beat Louisville, sure. Did they do it handedly? No. Did they do it to where you could confidently say they would win a seven game series in less than six games? Absolutely not. There was no clear better team there. But throughout the year, Louisville has looked better. Their combined records implies Troy is a great team, btw.

 

Sorry....7 game series? Come on. This is football. Am I really supposed to answer that? In college football, every second of every game matters. Moral victories don't count. Hypotheticals are irrelevant. It's simple: Clemson won, Louisville lost, just like Pitt won and Clemson lost this weekend. No one is asking LSU and Auburn or Bama and Ole Miss to play a 7 game series. Lol

As far as comparing the rest of the schedule goes, here is how I look at it:

Louisville struggled against Duke, UVA, and Wake. Anybody who watched those three games can tell you that they were all closer than the score indicates (especially the Wake game), and they lost to Clemson. That's 40% of their games where they've struggled. Clemson has struggled in 60% of their games (the ones Clemson handled were SC State, GT, BC and Syracuse. I never thought the Troy game was seriously in doubt as Troy had to score with under a minute left to make it within one score, but you like using that one against us, so I'll give it to you). Louisville looks favorable there but you have to consider quality of opponents. Combined opponents record doesn't tell the whole story, sure, but it has to be considered. Clemson has also beaten 4 currently ranked teams (3 if you don't count Troy's AP ranking, which is fair.) to Louisville's 1. You can also look at other strength of schedule algorithms which will probably all tell you that Clemson has had a tougher schedule. To me, that evens it out to start to look at head-to-head.

 

You wouldn't say Pittsburgh is a better team than Clemson. You wouldn't say Penn is better than Ohio State. You wouldn't say Iowa is better than Michigan. So you understand exactly what I'm saying.

 

Right, but none of those teams have the same record in the same division of the same conference.