Or here’s another explanation: Delany knew himself OSU didn’t belong in the CFP. Heck, most OSU fans haven’t been impressed with this year’s team and don’t think they earned it either.

(12-02-2018 07:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Speaking of posters getting things wrong, I seem to remember quite a few on this board back in 2012 and 2013 saying that the ACC would be left out of the CFP more often than not:

SEC - 6 teams in 5 years
ACC - 5 teams in 5 years
B12 - 3 teams in 5 years
B1G - 3 teams in 5 years
PAC - 2 teams in 5 years

The above doesn't include our 5/8ths member ND once in 5 years. Just ribbing you TerryD.

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.

So will the streak end at some point? Most definitely, but I think the gloating and mocking that was done by some of the posters in this very thread back in 2012 and 2013 has been proven wrong to the degree in which the ACC was destined to fail.

Cheers,
Neil

This has everything to do with Clemson and little to do with the ACC. People in 2012-13 probably had no idea Clemson would turn into the country’s #2 program.

(12-02-2018 07:22 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Speaking of posters getting things wrong, I seem to remember quite a few on this board back in 2012 and 2013 saying that the ACC would be left out of the CFP more often than not:

SEC - 6 teams in 5 years
ACC - 5 teams in 5 years
B12 - 3 teams in 5 years
B1G - 3 teams in 5 years
PAC - 2 teams in 5 years

The above doesn't include our 5/8ths member ND once in 5 years. Just ribbing you TerryD.

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.

So will the streak end at some point? Most definitely, but I think the gloating and mocking that was done by some of the posters in this very thread back in 2012 and 2013 has been proven wrong to the degree in which the ACC was destined to fail.

Cheers,
Neil

This has everything to do with Clemson and little to do with the ACC. People in 2012-13 probably had no idea Clemson would turn into the country’s #2 program.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt since you didn't join until July 2014. But think about what you responded above. Alabama has accounted for 5 of the SEC 6 spots, Oklahoma has accounted for all 3 B12 spots, and Ohio State has accounted for 2 of the B1G's 3 spots.

We all know the SEC has had other teams win championships such as Florida, LSU, and Auburn. The last time a Big Ten team outside of Ohio State has won an NC was Michigan back in the 90s prior to BCS champions. And while Texas did win a championship in 2005 and played for one in 2009, their previous two were in the 1960s. Hardly a ringing endorsement for consistency.

So it seems to me the same thing you said about the ACC would apply to Big Ten and B12 conferences as well. But none of that talk was happening back in 2012 and 2013. Why? Because the majority of fans that were talking crap back then were supporters of "little guy" programs who wanted to tear down the perceived weakling of the P5.

Lastly, if posters on this board are so keen and insightful as they claim, why wouldn't they have known that Clemson was on the verge of becoming a juggernaut? Back to back 11-2 seasons in 2012 and 2013 ending with a Peach Bowl win over #9 LSU and an Orange Bowl win over #7 Ohio State should have told them Clemson was on the way up with a bullet. Not to mention that it was during this same time period that these same posters were salivating at the thought of the B12 expanding with FSU and Clemson, so I think they had an idea of what was happening at Clemson.

Again, I think your response is more the result of not knowing what was actually posted during that time period rather than being disingenuous.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-02-2018 07:58 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:22 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Speaking of posters getting things wrong, I seem to remember quite a few on this board back in 2012 and 2013 saying that the ACC would be left out of the CFP more often than not:

SEC - 6 teams in 5 years
ACC - 5 teams in 5 years
B12 - 3 teams in 5 years
B1G - 3 teams in 5 years
PAC - 2 teams in 5 years

The above doesn't include our 5/8ths member ND once in 5 years. Just ribbing you TerryD.

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.

So will the streak end at some point? Most definitely, but I think the gloating and mocking that was done by some of the posters in this very thread back in 2012 and 2013 has been proven wrong to the degree in which the ACC was destined to fail.

Cheers,
Neil

This has everything to do with Clemson and little to do with the ACC. People in 2012-13 probably had no idea Clemson would turn into the country’s #2 program.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt since you didn't join until July 2014. But think about what you responded above. Alabama has accounted for 5 of the SEC 6 spots, Oklahoma has accounted for all 3 B12 spots, and Ohio State has accounted for 2 of the B1G's 3 spots.

We all know the SEC has had other teams win championships such as Florida, LSU, and Auburn. The last time a Big Ten team outside of Ohio State has won an NC was Michigan back in the 90s prior to BCS champions. And while Texas did win a championship in 2005 and played for one in 2009, their previous two were in the 1960s. Hardly a ringing endorsement for consistency.

So it seems to me the same thing you said about the ACC would apply to Big Ten and B12 conferences as well. But none of that talk was happening back in 2012 and 2013. Why? Because the majority of fans that were talking crap back then were supporters of "little guy" programs who wanted to tear down the perceived weakling of the P5.

Lastly, if posters on this board are so keen and insightful as they claim, why wouldn't they have known that Clemson was on the verge of becoming a juggernaut? Back to back 11-2 seasons in 2012 and 2013 ending with a Peach Bowl win over #9 LSU and an Orange Bowl win over #7 Ohio State should have told them Clemson was on the way up with a bullet. Not to mention that it was during this same time period that these same posters were salivating at the thought of the B12 expanding with FSU and Clemson, so I think they had an idea of what was happening at Clemson.

Again, I think your response is more the result of not knowing what was actually posted during that time period rather than being disingenuous.

Cheers,
Neil

2011 season Orange Bowl. West Virginia 70 Clemson 33. Clemson made West Virginia look like a juggernaut.

And of course your argument about Texas would apply doubly to FSU who kept going wide right. And claiming FSU wasn't consistent is nonsensical. They just didn't finish #1.

(12-02-2018 07:58 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:22 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Speaking of posters getting things wrong, I seem to remember quite a few on this board back in 2012 and 2013 saying that the ACC would be left out of the CFP more often than not:

SEC - 6 teams in 5 years
ACC - 5 teams in 5 years
B12 - 3 teams in 5 years
B1G - 3 teams in 5 years
PAC - 2 teams in 5 years

The above doesn't include our 5/8ths member ND once in 5 years. Just ribbing you TerryD.

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.

So will the streak end at some point? Most definitely, but I think the gloating and mocking that was done by some of the posters in this very thread back in 2012 and 2013 has been proven wrong to the degree in which the ACC was destined to fail.

Cheers,
Neil

This has everything to do with Clemson and little to do with the ACC. People in 2012-13 probably had no idea Clemson would turn into the country’s #2 program.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt since you didn't join until July 2014. But think about what you responded above. Alabama has accounted for 5 of the SEC 6 spots, Oklahoma has accounted for all 3 B12 spots, and Ohio State has accounted for 2 of the B1G's 3 spots.

We all know the SEC has had other teams win championships such as Florida, LSU, and Auburn. The last time a Big Ten team outside of Ohio State has won an NC was Michigan back in the 90s prior to BCS champions. And while Texas did win a championship in 2005 and played for one in 2009, their previous two were in the 1960s. Hardly a ringing endorsement for consistency.

So it seems to me the same thing you said about the ACC would apply to Big Ten and B12 conferences as well. But none of that talk was happening back in 2012 and 2013. Why? Because the majority of fans that were talking crap back then were supporters of "little guy" programs who wanted to tear down the perceived weakling of the P5.

Lastly, if posters on this board are so keen and insightful as they claim, why wouldn't they have known that Clemson was on the verge of becoming a juggernaut? Back to back 11-2 seasons in 2012 and 2013 ending with a Peach Bowl win over #9 LSU and an Orange Bowl win over #7 Ohio State should have told them Clemson was on the way up with a bullet. Not to mention that it was during this same time period that these same posters were salivating at the thought of the B12 expanding with FSU and Clemson, so I think they had an idea of what was happening at Clemson.

Again, I think your response is more the result of not knowing what was actually posted during that time period rather than being disingenuous.

Cheers,
Neil

The strengths of conferences is now easier to compare in the middle. Yes Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State have dominated their respective conferences. What hurt the ACC this year was the OOC winning % was unusually low, and in part that was do to the bereft leavings at Florida State. Deceptively the Big 10's middle got a little stronger, but their top was definitely down. The ACC's middle might have been argued to be stronger except for the lack of numbers in schools finishing 8-4 or 9-3. The ACC had a boat load of 7-5's to 6-6 schools. The SEC looked better because of a better distribution of winning records in the 9-3 to 8-4 range who will attend decent bowls and because Georgia will represent us at 10-2.

The PAC could have claimed a really competitive year had they won a higher % of OOC games. Instead they managed to just appear pedestrian. It will be interesting to see how the bowls play out for their field.

I'm not wholly sold on the Big 12. They were highly competitive during he season, but truly had very little defense.

In all I think the rise of the singular dominant program is more of a reflection of weakness across the board in all P conference than it is of any one conference's domination. The SEC is going to look strong this year again, but compared to conference years we've had in the past that too may be deceptive. I think we've gotten weaker at the top, but just not as weak as others.

Usually bowl season draws my attention for a few really key matches and for any game Auburn may be involved with. This year I'll be watching more. I want to see just how weak all of the teams are that aren't in the CFP.

Out of conference record vs. FBS schools this year:

SEC 35 6 85.37%
B 12 15 6 71.43%
B 10 25 14 64.10%
ACC 23 18 56.10%
PAC 15 12 55.56%
IND 27 25 51.92%
MWC 17 21 44.74%
AAC 15 20 42.86%
SB 11 18 37.93%
USA 11 32 25.58%
MAC 8 30 21.05%

SEC really did exceptionally well this year. And there were some tough opponents unlike some years.

(12-02-2018 08:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  Out of conference record vs. FBS schools this year:

SEC 35 6 85.37%
B 12 15 6 71.43%
B 10 25 14 64.10%
ACC 23 18 56.10%
PAC 15 12 55.56%
IND 27 25 51.92%
MWC 17 21 44.74%
AAC 15 20 42.86%
SB 11 18 37.93%
USA 11 32 25.58%
MAC 8 30 21.05%

SEC really did exceptionally well this year. And there were some tough opponents unlike some years.

And just think that nearly 1/2 of the wins by independents were directly attributable to Notre Dame. Otherwise, the independent winning % would have tanked.

I think the reason there was debate over Georgia was three things:
1) Recency bias-UGA did dominate the #1 team AND the refs for 3 quarters;
2) The belief in how good Alabama is; and
3) The paucity of teams, as JR has suggested, in the "upper middle class," making Alabama look better than they really were.

Georgia fans have been complaining all year about the weakness of the schedule and how that would hurt them in a close call for the playoffs.

While UGA may be the 2nd best team, I think the UGA-Alabama game really showed there isn't a lot of space between the top 5 teams. Alabama and Clemson are not as good as people say they are. Their opponents are weaker. And there isn't much space between #9 and around #20.

(12-02-2018 09:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the reason there was debate over Georgia was three things:
1) Recency bias-UGA did dominate the #1 team AND the refs for 3 quarters;
2) The belief in how good Alabama is; and
3) The paucity of teams, as JR has suggested, in the "upper middle class," making Alabama look better than they really were.

Georgia fans have been complaining all year about the weakness of the schedule and how that would hurt them in a close call for the playoffs.

While UGA may be the 2nd best team, I think the UGA-Alabama game really showed there isn't a lot of space between the top 5 teams. Alabama and Clemson are not as good as people say they are. Their opponents are weaker. And there isn't much space between #9 and around #20.

You seriously underestimate the fact that this was a rematch of sorts and a grudge match nearly a year in the making.

UA set a record this year for how dominating they’ve been in each game. The schedule wasn’t the most difficult over the last five years but it still included the regular SEC gauntlet.

I don’t think anybody seriously considers UGA the 2nd best team in the nation.

Crying over referees is just sour grapes.

I absolutely love fans of ACC schools who have done absolutely nothing to contribute to the playoff streak bragging about "the ACC's" streak. It's FSU & Clemson's streak. Actually do something before you brag. You sound like South Carolina or Purdue fans bragging about what big brother has done.

(12-02-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the reason there was debate over Georgia was three things:
1) Recency bias-UGA did dominate the #1 team AND the refs for 3 quarters;
2) The belief in how good Alabama is; and
3) The paucity of teams, as JR has suggested, in the "upper middle class," making Alabama look better than they really were.

Georgia fans have been complaining all year about the weakness of the schedule and how that would hurt them in a close call for the playoffs.

While UGA may be the 2nd best team, I think the UGA-Alabama game really showed there isn't a lot of space between the top 5 teams. Alabama and Clemson are not as good as people say they are. Their opponents are weaker. And there isn't much space between #9 and around #20.

You seriously underestimate the fact that this was a rematch of sorts and a grudge match nearly a year in the making.

UA set a record this year for how dominating they’ve been in each game. The schedule wasn’t the most difficult over the last five years but it still included the regular SEC gauntlet.

I don’t think anybody seriously considers UGA the 2nd best team in the nation.

Crying over referees is just sour grapes.

If Georgia wanted into the CFP then they need to win at Baton Rouge. They didn't. Alabama blanked them.

Not an excuse here but Tua being dinged slowed Alabama the last 1/5th of the season. I'm surprised Hurts didn't see action sooner on Saturday. But his decision making looked solid and his passing accuracy had significantly improved since last season.

And to Kaplony: The ACC's streak is 4/5ths Clemson. If the "alleged" rapist hadn't played QB for F.S.U. after the issue became public it would have been only Clemson.

(12-02-2018 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 01:37 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 12:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  For those that said that no chance Alabama/Oklahoma would be in Orange Bowl.... We told you so.

Yes, i think a USF fan first mentioned that more than a week ago. ESPN just said Alabama explicitly indicated they did not want to play Oklahoma in DFW.

You guys were right.

Outside influence with the committee, who would have thought as much.

That is not outside influence. The #1 seed has always had that preference.

Can you put up a link that states this?

(12-02-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:58 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:22 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Speaking of posters getting things wrong, I seem to remember quite a few on this board back in 2012 and 2013 saying that the ACC would be left out of the CFP more often than not:

SEC - 6 teams in 5 years
ACC - 5 teams in 5 years
B12 - 3 teams in 5 years
B1G - 3 teams in 5 years
PAC - 2 teams in 5 years

The above doesn't include our 5/8ths member ND once in 5 years. Just ribbing you TerryD.

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.

So will the streak end at some point? Most definitely, but I think the gloating and mocking that was done by some of the posters in this very thread back in 2012 and 2013 has been proven wrong to the degree in which the ACC was destined to fail.

Cheers,
Neil

This has everything to do with Clemson and little to do with the ACC. People in 2012-13 probably had no idea Clemson would turn into the country’s #2 program.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt since you didn't join until July 2014. But think about what you responded above. Alabama has accounted for 5 of the SEC 6 spots, Oklahoma has accounted for all 3 B12 spots, and Ohio State has accounted for 2 of the B1G's 3 spots.

We all know the SEC has had other teams win championships such as Florida, LSU, and Auburn. The last time a Big Ten team outside of Ohio State has won an NC was Michigan back in the 90s prior to BCS champions. And while Texas did win a championship in 2005 and played for one in 2009, their previous two were in the 1960s. Hardly a ringing endorsement for consistency.

So it seems to me the same thing you said about the ACC would apply to Big Ten and B12 conferences as well. But none of that talk was happening back in 2012 and 2013. Why? Because the majority of fans that were talking crap back then were supporters of "little guy" programs who wanted to tear down the perceived weakling of the P5.

Lastly, if posters on this board are so keen and insightful as they claim, why wouldn't they have known that Clemson was on the verge of becoming a juggernaut? Back to back 11-2 seasons in 2012 and 2013 ending with a Peach Bowl win over #9 LSU and an Orange Bowl win over #7 Ohio State should have told them Clemson was on the way up with a bullet. Not to mention that it was during this same time period that these same posters were salivating at the thought of the B12 expanding with FSU and Clemson, so I think they had an idea of what was happening at Clemson.

Again, I think your response is more the result of not knowing what was actually posted during that time period rather than being disingenuous.

Cheers,
Neil

The strengths of conferences is now easier to compare in the middle. Yes Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State have dominated their respective conferences. What hurt the ACC this year was the OOC winning % was unusually low, and in part that was do to the bereft leavings at Florida State. Deceptively the Big 10's middle got a little stronger, but their top was definitely down. The ACC's middle might have been argued to be stronger except for the lack of numbers in schools finishing 8-4 or 9-3. The ACC had a boat load of 7-5's to 6-6 schools. The SEC looked better because of a better distribution of winning records in the 9-3 to 8-4 range who will attend decent bowls and because Georgia will represent us at 10-2.

The PAC could have claimed a really competitive year had they won a higher % of OOC games. Instead they managed to just appear pedestrian. It will be interesting to see how the bowls play out for their field.

I'm not wholly sold on the Big 12. They were highly competitive during he season, but truly had very little defense.

In all I think the rise of the singular dominant program is more of a reflection of weakness across the board in all P conference than it is of any one conference's domination. The SEC is going to look strong this year again, but compared to conference years we've had in the past that too may be deceptive. I think we've gotten weaker at the top, but just not as weak as others.

Usually bowl season draws my attention for a few really key matches and for any game Auburn may be involved with. This year I'll be watching more. I want to see just how weak all of the teams are that aren't in the CFP.

Agreed with all of the above, particularly your views of the other conference. In regard to the ACC this year, as I stated without going into the detail that you did:

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.


So I know how bad the ACC was top to bottom this year (that comment was directed at some other posters rather than you). But I am not complaining too much about Clemson being the only top level program in the conference since they made the CFP and it allowed the Orange to grow up a little faster under Babers' guidance.

The bane of the ACC remains the Coastal division which just should not be as weak as it has been with the likes of Miami and VT in it. Since 2000 VT has had eleven 10+ win seasons and Miami (hampered somewhat by sanctions and potential sanctions) has had five 10+ win seasons. They need to start getting their acts together especially since VT doesn't play either of the two Atlantic divisions Kings and Miami is playing FSU now in a down cycle.

Speaking of down cycle's, Texas had a great run from 2001 through 2009 with nine consecutive 10+ win seasons, but posters on this board tend to forget that from 1978 through 2000 (23 seasons) with only four 10+ win seasons. Which is a much worse drought than Miami has ever had since they first gained prominence in the early 80s.

Anyway I am done with this thread. I knew the same anti-ACC posters would never own up to the crap they have said in the past but I had to call them out on it despite that fact.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-03-2018 12:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the reason there was debate over Georgia was three things:
1) Recency bias-UGA did dominate the #1 team AND the refs for 3 quarters;
2) The belief in how good Alabama is; and
3) The paucity of teams, as JR has suggested, in the "upper middle class," making Alabama look better than they really were.

Georgia fans have been complaining all year about the weakness of the schedule and how that would hurt them in a close call for the playoffs.

While UGA may be the 2nd best team, I think the UGA-Alabama game really showed there isn't a lot of space between the top 5 teams. Alabama and Clemson are not as good as people say they are. Their opponents are weaker. And there isn't much space between #9 and around #20.

You seriously underestimate the fact that this was a rematch of sorts and a grudge match nearly a year in the making.

UA set a record this year for how dominating they’ve been in each game. The schedule wasn’t the most difficult over the last five years but it still included the regular SEC gauntlet.

I don’t think anybody seriously considers UGA the 2nd best team in the nation.

Crying over referees is just sour grapes.

If Georgia wanted into the CFP then they need to win at Baton Rouge. They didn't. Alabama blanked them.

Yep, that's what knocked them out of the playoffs. Had they beaten LSU, they would have gotten in.

(12-02-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the reason there was debate over Georgia was three things:
1) Recency bias-UGA did dominate the #1 team AND the refs for 3 quarters;
2) The belief in how good Alabama is; and
3) The paucity of teams, as JR has suggested, in the "upper middle class," making Alabama look better than they really were.

Georgia fans have been complaining all year about the weakness of the schedule and how that would hurt them in a close call for the playoffs.

While UGA may be the 2nd best team, I think the UGA-Alabama game really showed there isn't a lot of space between the top 5 teams. Alabama and Clemson are not as good as people say they are. Their opponents are weaker. And there isn't much space between #9 and around #20.

You seriously underestimate the fact that this was a rematch of sorts and a grudge match nearly a year in the making.

UA set a record this year for how dominating they’ve been in each game. The schedule wasn’t the most difficult over the last five years but it still included the regular SEC gauntlet.

I don’t think anybody seriously considers UGA the 2nd best team in the nation.

Crying over referees is just sour grapes.

You must not have watched ESPN Sunday.

As for the refs, they made several horrible calls in the first 3 quarters like the phantom PI keeping the drive alive. Problem was, Georgia players and coach didn't execute in the 4th and Alabama did.

(12-03-2018 12:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the reason there was debate over Georgia was three things:
1) Recency bias-UGA did dominate the #1 team AND the refs for 3 quarters;
2) The belief in how good Alabama is; and
3) The paucity of teams, as JR has suggested, in the "upper middle class," making Alabama look better than they really were.

Georgia fans have been complaining all year about the weakness of the schedule and how that would hurt them in a close call for the playoffs.

While UGA may be the 2nd best team, I think the UGA-Alabama game really showed there isn't a lot of space between the top 5 teams. Alabama and Clemson are not as good as people say they are. Their opponents are weaker. And there isn't much space between #9 and around #20.

You seriously underestimate the fact that this was a rematch of sorts and a grudge match nearly a year in the making.

UA set a record this year for how dominating they’ve been in each game. The schedule wasn’t the most difficult over the last five years but it still included the regular SEC gauntlet.

I don’t think anybody seriously considers UGA the 2nd best team in the nation.

Crying over referees is just sour grapes.

If Georgia wanted into the CFP then they need to win at Baton Rouge. They didn't. Alabama blanked them.

Not an excuse here but Tua being dinged slowed Alabama the last 1/5th of the season. I'm surprised Hurts didn't see action sooner on Saturday. But his decision making looked solid and his passing accuracy had significantly improved since last season.

And to Kaplony: The ACC's streak is 4/5ths Clemson. If the "alleged" rapist hadn't played QB for F.S.U. after the issue became public it would have been only Clemson.

Georgia fans were crying, but as one ESPN guy put it, UGA lost against its two toughest opponents. You don't get at the top by only beating the bottom of the schedule. The reason it was as close as it was because I think they vastly overrated Florida.

(12-03-2018 07:46 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:58 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:22 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 07:09 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Speaking of posters getting things wrong, I seem to remember quite a few on this board back in 2012 and 2013 saying that the ACC would be left out of the CFP more often than not:

SEC - 6 teams in 5 years
ACC - 5 teams in 5 years
B12 - 3 teams in 5 years
B1G - 3 teams in 5 years
PAC - 2 teams in 5 years

The above doesn't include our 5/8ths member ND once in 5 years. Just ribbing you TerryD.

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.

So will the streak end at some point? Most definitely, but I think the gloating and mocking that was done by some of the posters in this very thread back in 2012 and 2013 has been proven wrong to the degree in which the ACC was destined to fail.

Cheers,
Neil

This has everything to do with Clemson and little to do with the ACC. People in 2012-13 probably had no idea Clemson would turn into the country’s #2 program.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt since you didn't join until July 2014. But think about what you responded above. Alabama has accounted for 5 of the SEC 6 spots, Oklahoma has accounted for all 3 B12 spots, and Ohio State has accounted for 2 of the B1G's 3 spots.

We all know the SEC has had other teams win championships such as Florida, LSU, and Auburn. The last time a Big Ten team outside of Ohio State has won an NC was Michigan back in the 90s prior to BCS champions. And while Texas did win a championship in 2005 and played for one in 2009, their previous two were in the 1960s. Hardly a ringing endorsement for consistency.

So it seems to me the same thing you said about the ACC would apply to Big Ten and B12 conferences as well. But none of that talk was happening back in 2012 and 2013. Why? Because the majority of fans that were talking crap back then were supporters of "little guy" programs who wanted to tear down the perceived weakling of the P5.

Lastly, if posters on this board are so keen and insightful as they claim, why wouldn't they have known that Clemson was on the verge of becoming a juggernaut? Back to back 11-2 seasons in 2012 and 2013 ending with a Peach Bowl win over #9 LSU and an Orange Bowl win over #7 Ohio State should have told them Clemson was on the way up with a bullet. Not to mention that it was during this same time period that these same posters were salivating at the thought of the B12 expanding with FSU and Clemson, so I think they had an idea of what was happening at Clemson.

Again, I think your response is more the result of not knowing what was actually posted during that time period rather than being disingenuous.

Cheers,
Neil

The strengths of conferences is now easier to compare in the middle. Yes Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State have dominated their respective conferences. What hurt the ACC this year was the OOC winning % was unusually low, and in part that was do to the bereft leavings at Florida State. Deceptively the Big 10's middle got a little stronger, but their top was definitely down. The ACC's middle might have been argued to be stronger except for the lack of numbers in schools finishing 8-4 or 9-3. The ACC had a boat load of 7-5's to 6-6 schools. The SEC looked better because of a better distribution of winning records in the 9-3 to 8-4 range who will attend decent bowls and because Georgia will represent us at 10-2.

The PAC could have claimed a really competitive year had they won a higher % of OOC games. Instead they managed to just appear pedestrian. It will be interesting to see how the bowls play out for their field.

I'm not wholly sold on the Big 12. They were highly competitive during he season, but truly had very little defense.

In all I think the rise of the singular dominant program is more of a reflection of weakness across the board in all P conference than it is of any one conference's domination. The SEC is going to look strong this year again, but compared to conference years we've had in the past that too may be deceptive. I think we've gotten weaker at the top, but just not as weak as others.

Usually bowl season draws my attention for a few really key matches and for any game Auburn may be involved with. This year I'll be watching more. I want to see just how weak all of the teams are that aren't in the CFP.

Agreed with all of the above, particularly your views of the other conference. In regard to the ACC this year, as I stated without going into the detail that you did:

Was very concerned early in the year that if Clemson stumbled once the ACC's streak would be over, but the Tigers didn't stumble, though this was without a doubt the worse season for the conference yet in the CFP's infancy years.


So I know how bad the ACC was top to bottom this year (that comment was directed at some other posters rather than you). But I am not complaining too much about Clemson being the only top level program in the conference since they made the CFP and it allowed the Orange to grow up a little faster under Babers' guidance.

The bane of the ACC remains the Coastal division which just should not be as weak as it has been with the likes of Miami and VT in it. Since 2000 VT has had eleven 10+ win seasons and Miami (hampered somewhat by sanctions and potential sanctions) has had five 10+ win seasons. They need to start getting their acts together especially since VT doesn't play either of the two Atlantic divisions Kings and Miami is playing FSU now in a down cycle.

Speaking of down cycle's, Texas had a great run from 2001 through 2009 with nine consecutive 10+ win seasons, but posters on this board tend to forget that from 1978 through 2000 (23 seasons) with only four 10+ win seasons. Which is a much worse drought than Miami has ever had since they first gained prominence in the early 80s.

Anyway I am done with this thread. I knew the same anti-ACC posters would never own up to the crap they have said in the past but I had to call them out on it despite that fact.

Cheers,
Neil

Miami has had one 10 win season since 2003. Except for 10 out of 12 from 1983-1994 during their run, they've only had five 10 win seasons in their history. Thinking you are contrasting Miami's consistency positively vs. UT is pretty silly. And UT did have a half dozen 9 win seasons in that era which was back when there was an 11 game schedule.