Was talking to a guy the other day who is a Clemson fan and is a nice guy. He was looking at the score from the BC and Miami game and told me "Man, the ACC is really terrible anymore. Its basically like trying to win the worlds tallest midget contest." He even admits if Clemson lost any conference game, they would not deserve the playoff becasue of how bad ACC is. Clemson is light years ahead of the rest of the ACC and at this point is doing a disservice to themselves being in that conference. I dont see them beating Louisville by any less than 40 points this coming week and fully expect them to hang close to 70 on them. BC might be only team to stay within 3 touchdowns of them. It was just refreshing to hear a Clemson fan freely admit what we all know about that conference. All Cupcake Conference is right description. This is in no way a dig at Clemson because I have to admit they are one of the best teams out there. This is a statement on how bad the ACC really has gotten.
Is Alabama any different when you get down to the brass tax of it. Clemson would beat everyone in the SEC east except maybe Georgia and that would be to close to call. There is no one in the sec that they would not beat. Could they lose to them well if course.
Like it or not in college football it’s Alabama and Clemson and then everyone else.
Just so you do not think that all of us Tater fans are willing to give in that easily, I have borrowed some "facts" from another blinded by the orange glasses wearing zealot. Can you point to a flaw int his logic? I am easily persuaded by facts. (the source data is available upon request)
Since we are due to see the CFP Committee (CFPC) rankings revealed Tuesday night, I thought I would take a little deeper look into the records of the top nine teams in both the AP and Coaches poll. I did this last year and it is always interesting to compare who is beating "winners" vs who is attained a winning record feeding on "losers". In a nutshell, I think this provides a more accurate assessment of quality wins because it is not influenced by biased early season polling or anything else. It simply considers the records involved and clearly shows if a team is beating cupcakes or beating teams that know how to win.
For the list below W=team with winning record, E=team with even record, L=team with losing record.
A team with the record: 3W-2E-3L would be read as having beaten 3 teams with a winning record, 2 teams with even records, and 3 teams with losing records. Here are the facts/stats:
Alabama: 2W-3E-3L
Clemson: 4W-3E-1L
Notre Dame: 3W-2E-3L
LSU: 6W-1L
Michigan: 5W-2L
Georgia: 3W-2E-2L
Oklahoma: 2W-1E-4L
Ohio State: 1W-1E-5L
UCF: 2E-5L
To deep dive even further, I added up the combined the total "wins" and "losses" on the top 9 teams schedules to form an numeric average for the quality opponent faced this year. If the combined average is below .500 then the a team has beaten an overall "losing" opponent schedule.
Here are the facts:
Alabama: .446
Clemson: .613
Notre Dame: .508
LSU: .632
Michigan: .544
Georgia: .536
Oklahoma: .455
Ohio State: .404
UCF: .364
From these stats here are the conclusions I would make:
1. For all the negative press Clemson has received from some biased folks about "not playing anybody" we have actually played and beaten more teams with a winning record than anyone else except LSU. That facts bear out that Clemson has played a tougher schedule than a lot of folks are giving us credit.
2. As many have suspected, Alabama's schedule has been anemic compared to the other top 5 ranked teams. I have no doubt that Alabama is good but truthfully they have not faced a series of quality opponents as seen in their average opponent quality number of .446 (opponents combined record of 29W,36L). Only Clemson and LSU break the 60% winning quality opponent number.
3. Oklahoma and Ohio State have very weak cases to be among the top teams in the country. Oklahoma has only beaten 2 teams with a winning record and Ohio State has only beaten 1 team with a winning record.
4. UCF does not belong in the top 10. Simply put - UCF's opponent record is pitiful (.364 [20W, 35L]) and they have yet to beat a team with a winning record. Until they can prove themselves against some power 5 quality opponents (someone with a winning record) UCF should not be in the top 10 as they are beating teams that most teams above .500 would beat.
5. Finally - beating "ranked" opponents during the first 5 weeks of the football season should not count for anything. Those rankings are not based on any real data of how good a team is and should not even be considered by week 8 of the season. Case in point - LSU beating an 8th ranked Miami team in week one. As the season has played out - does anyone truly believe that Miami was ever a top 20 team much less a top 10 team? Quite frankly, it would be best if no polls were released until week 5 of the season.
If only you could back your claims up with facts, but instead it is dumb opinions from ESPN and other outlets that have a love affair with all that is Sec. 6 ACC teams have a tougher remaining strength of schedule than does SC. 3 of which have Clemson as one of their remaining games as does SC. I am not saying that the ACC is a world beater of a Conference, but lets not pretend the SEC East is some Juggernaut either. I think this will be proven if KY wins or at least finishes 2nd in the East with a 1 dimensional offense. Hell there are 4 ACC teams ahead of Alabama. The bad part about Clemson remaining SOS being so low is due in part to them having to play SC. Yea and "doing themselves a disservice being in that conference" Guess being in the Playoff three years and winning it once has really been effected by our conference. This is and always will be a dumb argument. Guarantee Bama doesn't care about who Clemson Plays in conference!
