2016-2017 NCAA Football Season Thread [ARCHIVED] Football • Page 189

Smart

 

I'd love to hear the justification for Clemson being second.

 

Oh I am....but what can ya do? Just go and try and keep it competitive for a while and keep building this thing and get ready for next year

 

Clemson lost to Pitt

 

PSU wasn't talked about all year until the OSU game. Then they jumped irrationally high and rode out an easy schedule to a technicality allowing them to nab the conference title.

 

Didn't get blown out by another team. Clemson shouldn't be 2, but they should be in the top 4

 

I mean, I get the argument for Ohio State. I just think Penn State has just as good of a case.

 

If anything this year should be an indictment on scheduling so far in advance. No one can predict who's gonna be quality opponents 5 years in advance and there needs to be a better system in place. Oklahoma scheduled Houston when they were not a huge contender and got more than they bargained for and hurt because of it. The Washington/Rutgers situation has already been discussed so I don't think it needs to be rehashed. Even Alabama scheduled USC when they were down and got the benefit of USC turning it around. There's got to be a better way to schedule teams more short term to allow for a better creation of a non conference schedule.

And Roll Tide to #1 and I'm excited to watch Bama take on a team that I think is being underrated based on all the talk of schedules.

 

Clemson won arguably the best conference in the country this year. They also went 9-1 against teams with .500 or better ("quality wins" as described by the committee). Washington only faced six of those kinds of teams altogether. They went 3-0 against the top 15; washington was 1-1. 4-1 vs top 25 versus 3-1. Sure, the pitt loss is worse than the USC one and the championship win doesn't look as good (though id argue Va Tech looked more impressive than colorado all year), but taking the resume and achievements as a whole throughout the whole year, clemson was definitely, on paper at least, better than washington.

OSU should have been #2 imo but that wouldn't have changed much

 

The ACC will never be better than the SEC.

 

You can't argue that the ACC is the best. You can't argue that the ACC is the second best. You could argue they are the third best though.

 

ACC as the toughest conference has to be a joke right?

 

The ACC looks so good on paper because they have a lot of ok teams that traded lossss. That stat about them having the most teams above .500 or whatever is kinda flawed because of that.

 

He already has magic planned

 

S&P basically makes this argument entirely on its own, but sure, keep trucking along saying its the conference that has the worst division in football

 

That's cool. They're still wrong lol.

 

okay good point

 

Trading losses within conference to even out the records doesn't make a conference that good

 

Big Ten has four top ten teams.

 

The SEC has dominated football for over a decade now. There is no argument that they aren't the best conference.

 

What's the different between S&P and Sagarin? Cause Sagarin would suggest the PAC-12 was the best conference....

These advanced metrics for this kinda thing are just silly

 

Yup

 

This is flawed because a division with 3 of the top 6 ranked teams in the country is #4