Clemson's ranking is a joke

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
This is a team that was vaulted into the #3 over position due to beating a very mediocre Georgia team. The SEC/ESPN agenda in action.

Now they are losing at halftime to NC State. A team that's comparable to Minnesota or Indiana. Ohio State was bumped out of #2 cause they didn't beat Buffalo or San Diego State 843 to 0. Even if Clemson manages to pull off a victory will the remain #3?

This really just proves the observation I made a few weeks ago. The SEC East sucks. If the polls were honest there wouldn't be a top 20 team in the entire SEC east.
 
WinterBorn said:
Preseason polls by sports writers aside, there shouldn't be any polls until after the 3rd or 4th week.
Click to expand...
I don't take any of them serious any more. I mean how can you take the polls seriously when the people voting for the couldn't possibly watch all the games? It's a Mafioso.
 
The Dude said:
Clemson is very good
And they are up 6
Ohio slow stays butthurt
Click to expand...
Naa....don't really care. The bullshit hopefully will end next year. We'll have a pseudo playoff that will eventually become a real playoff and that will be the end of people telling how good a team really is. Instead we'll force them to prove it on the field. lol
 
It's the third week of the season. I can't get excited over rankings. Ohio State hasn't played anyone. Stanford hasn't played anyone. Georgia is solid and NC State is decent at home. Clemson deserves it more than any of the other teams that haven't played anyone yet.
 
WinterBorn said:
And last year the media's darling was Notre Dame. Everyone raved about how great they were, how tough their schedule was ect ect ect.

And then in Miami, they were exposed as frauds when they got beaten down.
Click to expand...
The question now for me....just to see if the pollsters or honest or a Mafioso as I believe them to be. Clemson beat a very weak NC State team by only 12 points. Should they drop on the polls like OSU did who beat comparable teams by 20 points or more? Not that I really care what OSU's ranking is. Clemson's ranking is silly. It's based almost solely on them beating a very, very mediocre Georgia team.
 
cawacko said:
It's the third week of the season. I can't get excited over rankings. Ohio State hasn't played anyone. Stanford hasn't played anyone. Georgia is solid and NC State is decent at home. Clemson deserves it more than any of the other teams that haven't played anyone yet.
Click to expand...
Georgia isn't solid and NC State has a talent level comparable to Indiana. They'll probably win 2 conference games and 4 non-conf wins against patty cake competition. Georgia doesn't have a defense. The whole SEC east is weak. There are only 3 or maybe 4 (the books still out on Auburn) good teams in the whole SEC and they are all in the SEC west. The fact that NC State held Clemson to 26 points just shows how bad Georgia's defense really is. Florida State looks to me like the team that will win the ACC this year.
 
Last edited:
The Dude said:
Mott will hemorrhage when 3 of the top 4 are sec schools.
Click to expand...
Me? Hardly. Like I said, the rankings are a Mafioso. I'll go with whats proven on the field instead of what some moron in a suit at ESPN tells me I ought to believe.

We're not completely out of the woods yet. They may find a way to tie in polls into the new selection committee and the committee has the right to appoint a non-conference champion to the 4 team tournament. If that happens then it's still a Mafioso and has little credibility. In a four game tournament in a TRUELY national championship, there's no room for a team that's not a conference champion. In that format no team that loses it's conference is worthy of being a national champion.
 
WinterBorn said:
Nah, then he sticks with his conspiracy theory that the SEC is paying the people who vote in the polls.
Click to expand...
You got it backwards. I'm accusing ESPN of doing that...and it's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. ESPN has a multi-billion dollar investment in the SEC that they are protecting. That's why ESPN has created the mythology of SEC superiority.

I mean it really doesn't matter? We've never actually had a true national championship in division 1 college football. I don't see how anyone can take it or ESPN seriously (considering their reputation for consistantly being wrong.).

I mean you can't have a national championship by proxy or opinion. It has to be determined on the field, in a format that is representative of the nation and not any one region. That's why the SEC has favored a national championship tournament but opposes one that is fairly representative of the nation.
 
Hopefully we will see 4 conference champs make the playoffs starting next season. This would force ND to fully immerse itself into the ACC, which is good.
 
The Dude said:
Requiring a conf champ is the first smart thin I've heard from Mott.
Click to expand...
LOL No it's not and you know it. ;)

I mean think about it though? Conference championship games are really the first round of the tournament. What the NCAA should do is add two more FCS teams to the FBS division making a total of 128 teams. The should then consolidate those into 8 regional conferences of 16 teams each with each conference having two divisions of 8 teams. Each conference would have it's own championship game and this would be the first round of a 16 team playoff. The 8 conference champs would then play in a three round playoff of quarter finals, semi-finals and finals.

There are three sources of major opposition to this completely rational format. The Big 10, The Pac 12 and The SEC. The Big 10 and Pac 12 oppose it due to their monopoly on the Rose Bowl which is still the largest revenue generating college bowl game, including the BCS NGC. Those two conferences don't want to share. However that resistance has declined during the BCS ear as the other major BCS bowl games have pretty much reached parity with the Rose bowl even if the Rose bowl does generate slightly more revenue. The SEC's opposition is that they believe that more than one conference team (meaning more than one SEC team) should be eligible for a slot in a National Championship tournament to make the SEC happy.

Right now the so called "Plus One" tournament of 4 teams has made compromises to permit the Big 10 and Pac 12 to dominate the Rose Bowl and, in theory, permit more than one team to be selected to the 4 team tournament.

I don't think it will take a prophet to predict that after a few years the Rose Bowls pre-eminence will continue to decline and as more and more fans come to see the conference championship games as an integral part of the national championship tournament. With the end result that the Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC's opposition to a truly representative national championship tournament will also decline. Particularly if the "Plus One" format generates huge revenues and, again, that doesn't take a prophet to predict that it will.

I'm very optimistic that in the near future we will have a true national championship playoff in college FBS division football. Probably by 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top