Guess I’ve been under a rock, didn’t realize UGA v Clemson week 1

[DawgAlum2054]

i don't like uga, but i'd like for them to win. plus, it is hard to respect a team that plays football in a basketball conference...& dabo is really annoying now.
i think clemson will win, but i don't want them to

I think what bothers me about clemson is their cake walk of a regular season schedule each year. They may not even play a ranked team the rest of the season after playing Georgia before the ACC championship

 

[crimsonaudio]

I think what bothers me about clemson is their cake walk of a regular season schedule each year. They may not even play a ranked team the rest of the season after playing Georgia before the ACC championship

Twice in the last decade the Coastal division champ in the ACCCG wasn't even ranked...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I guess I'm going to have to pull for Georgia and then hope somebody else beats Clemson just to eliminate them. Others may disagree regarding who they want to win and that's fine, but it's time for Clemson to get knocked down a peg or ten.

Georgia is one that is on our plate that we can handle ourselves if needed in the SECCG.

 

[JustNeedMe81]

I think what bothers me about clemson is their cake walk of a regular season schedule each year. They may not even play a ranked team the rest of the season after playing Georgia before the ACC championship

Doesn't bother me a bit. I don't mind Clemson having easy schedule and then going to CFB and getting exposed two years in a row.

2015-Clemson 14–1 8–0

2016 Clemson 14–1 7–1

2017Clemson 12–2 7–1

2018 Clemson 15–0 8-0

2019 Clemson 14–1 8–0

2020 Clemson 10–2 8–1



When Clemson plays against teams that aren’t Alabama, They don’t play well. I think they’re like 1-2 when play teams that aren’t Alabama. I may be wrong.

Alabama seasons since 2015:

14-1 (Ole Miss)

14-1 (NC Loss )

13-1 (Auburn)

14-1 (NC Loss)

11-2 (LSU and Auburn)

13-0

We face far better schedule than Clemson does and we are more prepared for Playoff than Clemson is.

There is a reason why Clemson is wanting to get better schedule, so they can get little of more preparation for CFB should they play there.

Clemson and Georgia game will tell us a lot about both teams. Too many unknown teams playing against Clemson. SC, Florida State, WF. Clemson Can easily go undefeated or have 2 losses at most.



Georgia, they have easy schedule, but can easily slip up against wrong team. I think they make to SEC Championship with 1 loss. I’m willing to bet that Battle of SEC Championship will once determine the playoff spot for potentially Alabama and Georgia/Florida.

 

[dtgreg]

I don't mind pulling for Georgia in this one. I may regret it; the 'Dogs are so delusional. I should probably know better. Shoot, when I was a kid (pre-Fulmer), much to my father's chagrin, I would even pull for Tennessee against the likes of UCLA and such. Listen to your parents, kids. They know things you haven't had time to learn yet.

 

[KrAzY3]

I guess I'm going to have to pull for Georgia and then hope somebody else beats Clemson just to eliminate them. Others may disagree regarding who they want to win and that's fine, but it's time for Clemson to get knocked down a peg or ten.

Georgia is one that is on our plate that we can handle ourselves if needed in the SECCG.

I'm so on the fence about this I had to go back and check to see that I said I hoped Georgia lost.

I'm waffling on that right now. If Clemson loses that does set up the scenario you mentioned, and I'm all for path of least resistance when it comes to championships. Furthermore if Alabama did lose to an undefeated Georgia team in the SECCG, that might not mean an automatic elimination.

Part of this is that I'm not sure losing really matters. I still am a bit irritated by two loss Auburn being ranked over one loss Alabama (which eventually became four loss Auburn and one loss Alabama), but that was ironically because their 14-6 loss to Clemson was counted as a non-loss basically. We have a similar situation here, where the loser could be ranked as though the loss never occurred.

So, more than anything I'd like this to be a blowout. A clear winner and a clear loser will make it harder for the committee to pretend it didn't happen.

 

[81usaf92]

I'm so on the fence about this I had to go back and check to see that I said I hoped Georgia lost.

I'm waffling on that right now. If Clemson loses that does set up the scenario you mentioned, and I'm all for path of least resistance when it comes to championships. Furthermore if Alabama did lose to an undefeated Georgia team in the SECCG, that might not mean an automatic elimination.

Part of this is that I'm not sure losing really matters. I still am a bit irritated by two loss Auburn being ranked over one loss Alabama (which eventually became four loss Auburn and one loss Alabama), but that was ironically because their 14-6 loss to Clemson was counted as a non-loss basically. We have a similar situation here, where the loser could be ranked as though the loss never occurred.

So, more than anything I'd like this to be a blowout. A clear winner and a clear loser will make it harder for the committee to pretend it didn't happen.

Auburn deserved to be over Alabama for that one week 2017. Dominating two #1 teams in the last 3 weeks of the season, having both losses on the road in single digits, and being SEC West champs vs a team without a top 10 victory and wasn’t really impressive up until that point is understandable.

 

[KrAzY3]

Auburn deserved to be over Alabama for that one week 2017. Dominating two #1 teams in the last 3 weeks of the season, having both losses on the road in single digits, and being SEC West champs vs a team without a top 10 victory and wasn’t really impressive up until that point is understandable.

This isn't the first time you've given this response to me and I guess our disagreement on that particular issues goes all the way back to that ranking back in 2017. I laid my argument out then, in the immediate aftermath and I stand by it. Auburn went on to lose 2 more times and what I said then as I say now is it was basically an overreaction to rank them ahead. They forgave Auburn for a loss, they didn't give Alabama the same benefit of a doubt. Alabama still won a championship so not like that ranking aged well.

Also, let's not have revisionist history. Alabama demolished the then #3 team, the fact that the lost their QB for the season and went into a tailspin does not diminish the value of that win. They were a top 10 team the year before, they were a top 10 team going into that game. That win didn't count, that Clemson loss didn't count. Committee gets to pick what matters to them and that's why this Clemson Georgia game doesn't necessarily matter. They can just forgive the loss, or ignore the win depending on how things go.

 

[81usaf92]

This isn't the first time you've given this response to me and I guess our disagreement on that particular issues goes all the way back to that ranking back in 2017. I laid my argument out then, in the immediate aftermath and I stand by it. Auburn went on to lose 2 more times and what I said then as I say now is it was basically an overreaction to rank them ahead. They forgave Auburn for a loss, they didn't give Alabama the same benefit of a doubt. Alabama still won a championship so not like that ranking aged well.

Also, let's not have revisionist history. Alabama demolished the then #3 team, the fact that the lost their QB for the season and went into a tailspin does not diminish the value of that win. They were a top 10 team the year before, they were a top 10 team going into that game. That win didn't count, that Clemson loss didn't count. Committee gets to pick what matters to them and that's why this Clemson Georgia game doesn't necessarily matter. They can just forgive the loss, or ignore the win depending on how things go.

1) The problem is that Florida St basically became UAB or Duke with their season. It wasn’t a 2016 USC kinda thing in which USC got better and held firm after their beating. Plus here is the thing… Alabama was #3 to start 2000… Does UCLA really deserve that much credit for beating a #3 team who only ended up winning 3 games? FSU would have done us no favors in ANY system you pick. The BCS wouldn’t give us credit for it either.

2) The bigger issue is that Alabama really up until that point wasn’t impressive. We were outgained by LSU at HOME. We needed a last second victory vs MSU. Those were our two best wins. The offense was mediocre with Jalen and the defense was beat to hell.

3) Adding point 1 and 2 together everyone could see that Alabama and Wisconsin were in the same boat. If they lose with that offense and that resume then it’s most likely over. Alabama had an edge over Wisconsin.

 

[KrAzY3]

1) The problem is that Florida St basically became UAB or Duke with their season. It wasn’t a 2016 USC kinda thing in which USC got better and held firm after their beating. Plus here is the thing… Alabama was #3 to start 2000… Does UCLA really deserve that much credit for beating a #3 team who only ended up winning 3 games? FSU would have done us no favors in ANY system you pick. The BCS wouldn’t give us credit for it either.

2) The bigger issue is that Alabama really up until that point wasn’t impressive. We were outgained by LSU at HOME. We needed a last second victory vs MSU. Those were our two best wins. The offense was mediocre with Jalen and the defense was beat to hell.

3) Adding point 1 and 2 together everyone could see that Alabama and Wisconsin were in the same boat. If they lose with that offense and that resume then it’s most likely over. Alabama had an edge over Wisconsin.

I wasn't trying to start an argument with you or anything, I just want to make that clear. However, I do find it to be an interesting topic since both the Alabama vs. FSU matchup and the Auburn vs. Clemson matchup have real simularitiesto the UGA vs Clemson game. So it is interesting to ponder the fact that this game could end up not meaning all that much by the end of the season.

I can reiterate my argument as I did the week of the ranking, and I assume you'll still feel the same way you do but I might as well put it out there.

First, we have to establish some groundrules. We can't give a bonus to Auburn for beating the then #1 teams and deprive Alabama of a bonus for beating the then #3 teams. Even then, from my perspective that kind of doesn't become as big a deal once you break things down.

A: Both teams played in the SEC West so we really don't have to look that hard games both teams won. Some of those games Auburn did look better in (like Miss. St) and some Alabama looked better in (like Ole Miss). Alabama beat Ole Miss by 63 points, if we're going to analyze outcomes that's one to ponder a bit. Really though it's easiest to just set those aside since it's wins both teams had.

B: The LSU outcome stands in stark contrast since Alabama won by 14 and Auburn lost to LSU. On the other hand, Auburn beat Alabama by 12. I'm willing to go with the SEC method here in giving Auburn the tie breaker since they won the head to head. That LSU loss has to matter though! Alabama beat them, Auburn did not. So via SEC rules Auburn leaves these games with only a tie breaker advantage.

C: Alabama beat then #3 FSU by 17 (decimating them physically and mentally). Auburn beat Georgia by 23. Clearly the Auburn win was better, but I felt then as I feel now that you can't just assume outcomes that haven't happened. We didn't know Alabama would lose to Georgia (they didn't and I argued at the time you can't assume Alabama wouldn't beat Georgia or Clemson and they went on to beat both) and we didn't know how Auburn would have done against a healthy FSU team. So you give Auburn some credit here, but it shouldn't be enough to erase a loss.. Basically it's another tie breaker. At this point in time if Auburn and Alabama are both one loss teams, Auburn is clearly more deserving of being ranked ahead, but wait there's more....

D: Auburn lost to Clemson by 8 points. Now, I get the other argument. It's basically saying that dual tie breakers going to Auburn erase what is a not particularly bad loss. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with that now. Losing a game shouldn't matter selectively. Alabama got punished for losing to Auburn, Auburn should have faced comparably severe punishment for losing to LSU and Clemson. This isn't a tie breaker scenario, it's a loss. Auburn can't use tie breakers in a scenario where there's no tie.

I can see how people twisted themselves into saying well, Auburn has two tie breakers, that's enough to overcome the Clemson loss. Or just say hey Auburn has two tie breakers and the Clemson loss doesn't count. I can't follow that logic. If Alabama losing to Auburn counted, then Auburn losing to Clemson darn sure counted and for more than a tie breaker. Any way I look at things and assign some sort of a value, I'm ranking the one loss team in this scenario ahead of the two loss team. Remember they played in the same division. This isn't comparing a one loss WAC team to a two loss SEC team, but we've disagreed on this for years so it won't change now.

It does have interesting implications going forward though, because the team that wins or loses here might feel like it meant a lot more than it ends up meaning. Auburn's loss to Clemson probably should have meant more than it did, but it ended up being nearly meaningless.. Alabama's win over FSU should have meant more in my opinion, but while it meant a lot for the loser it meant very little for the winner. So, we'll see...

Edit: TLDR is SEC West schedules cancel out most games, Auburn's LSU loss cancels out Alabama win except for tie breaker, Auburn's win over Georgia was better than Alabama's win over FSU but not enough that it erased the Clemson loss.

 

[81usaf92]

I wasn't trying to start an argument with you or anything, I just want to make that clear. However, I do find it to be an interesting topic since both the Alabama vs. FSU matchup and the Auburn vs. Clemson matchup have real simularitiesto the UGA vs Clemson game. So it is interesting to ponder the fact that this game could end up not meaning all that much by the end of the season.

I can reiterate my argument as I did the week of the ranking, and I assume you'll still feel the same way you do but I might as well put it out there.

First, we have to establish some groundrules. We can't give a bonus to Auburn for beating the then #1 teams and deprive Alabama of a bonus for beating the then #3 teams. Even then, from my perspective that kind of doesn't become as big a deal once you break things down.

A: Both teams played in the SEC West so we really don't have to look that hard games both teams won. Some of those games Auburn did look better in (like Miss. St) and some Alabama looked better in (like Ole Miss). Alabama beat Ole Miss by 63 points, if we're going to analyze outcomes that's one to ponder a bit. Really though it's easiest to just set those aside since it's wins both teams had.

B: The LSU outcome stands in stark contrast since Alabama won by 14 and Auburn lost to LSU. On the other hand, Auburn beat Alabama by 12. I'm willing to go with the SEC method here in giving Auburn the tie breaker since they won the head to head. That LSU loss has to matter though! Alabama beat them, Auburn did not. So via SEC rules Auburn leaves these games with only a tie breaker advantage.

C: Alabama beat then #3 FSU by 17 (decimating them physically and mentally). Auburn beat Georgia by 23. Clearly the Auburn win was better, but I felt then as I feel now that you can't just assume outcomes that haven't happened. We didn't know Alabama would lose to Georgia (they didn't and I argued at the time you can't assume Alabama wouldn't beat Georgia or Clemson and they went on to beat both) and we didn't know how Auburn would have done against a healthy FSU team. So you give Auburn some credit here, but it shouldn't be enough to erase a loss.. Basically it's another tie breaker. At this point in time if Auburn and Alabama are both one loss teams, Auburn is clearly more deserving of being ranked ahead, but wait there's more....

D: Auburn lost to Clemson by 8 points. Now, I get the other argument. It's basically saying that dual tie breakers going to Auburn erase what is a not particularly bad loss. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with that now. Losing a game shouldn't matter selectively. Alabama got punished for losing to Auburn, Auburn should have faced comparably severe punishment for losing to LSU and Clemson. This isn't a tie breaker scenario, it's a loss. Auburn can't use tie breakers in a scenario where there's no tie.

I can see how people twisted themselves into saying well, Auburn has two tie breakers, that's enough to overcome the Clemson loss. Or just say hey Auburn has two tie breakers and the Clemson loss doesn't count. I can't follow that logic. If Alabama losing to Auburn counted, then Auburn losing to Clemson darn sure counted and for more than a tie breaker. Any way I look at things and assign some sort of a value, I'm ranking the one loss team in this scenario ahead of the two loss team. Remember they played in the same division. This isn't comparing a one loss WAC team to a two loss SEC team, but we've disagreed on this for years so it won't change now.

It does have interesting implications going forward though, because the team that wins or loses here might feel like it meant a lot more than it ends up meaning. Auburn's loss to Clemson probably should have meant more than it did, but it ended up being nearly meaningless.. Alabama's win over FSU should have meant more in my opinion, but while it meant a lot for the loser it meant very little for the winner. So, we'll see...

To just cut to the chase… I have more issues with Clemson in 2017 than I do with Auburn.
Losing to Syracuse is easily the worst loss out of any contender that year.

Auburn lost two games on the road by single scores and was easily the best team in country in November. Yes two losses vs 1, but let’s play the hypothetical… Had Auburn beaten Georgia again then would you say your top 4 should be Clemson, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Wisconsin or add UCF?

My point is that Auburn played probably the toughest schedule out of all contenders and only managed two loses. Alabama, Wisconsin, and Clemson played the easiest and still took an L.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

I am thinking Clemson will lose this game. Georgia will win on the scoreboard. JMO

 

[OSUTideFan]

Personally I think the Dawgs are gonna get pounded.

 

[techster79]

I don’t believe the dawgs can outscore Clemson. I’m not sure how good their defense is either. Unless it got better I’d say this is either a blowout loss for UGA. Hopefully this ages well.