That's ultimately his point. If you really want the top 4 teams -- why make them play another game that means nothing? If Alabama and Georgia are two of the Top 4 -- they should both be in.....the SECCG was fine until the playoff format started. Now, it's just a roadblock to a deserving team.It certainly doesn't in this case. It did help us last year, when we didn't play in it. I find it a little odd that the other teams in consideration for one of the top 4 spots have such an easy game to win this week (ND- off, Clemson - Pitt, Ohio St - Northwestern, Oklahoma - Texas), while two of the top 4 have to play and possibly eliminate each other. Notre Dame has a better chance to lose in its bye week than any of the other contenders, with the exception of Oklahoma, who is playing a team that already beat them once (tough to beat the same team twice though, just ask Auburn).
You are forgetting about the $$$$$.That's ultimately his point. If you really want the top 4 teams -- why make them play another game that means nothing? If Alabama and Georgia are two of the Top 4 -- they should both be in.....the SECCG was fine until the playoff format started. Now, it's just a roadblock to a deserving team.
Most of the other conferences are a hot mess this year outside of a couple of teams. That’s why the ‘Bama didn’t play anybody ‘ argument doesn’t hold water. 2 of the 3 SEC losses this year were to Clemson, and A&M shoulda won and Carolina put up almost 650 yards against them. Best argument that Georgia should get in with a loss.It certainly doesn't in this case. It did help us last year, when we didn't play in it. I find it a little odd that the other teams in consideration for one of the top 4 spots have such an easy game to win this week (ND- off, Clemson - Pitt, Ohio St - Northwestern, Oklahoma - Texas), while two of the top 4 have to play and possibly eliminate each other. Notre Dame has a better chance to lose in its bye week than any of the other contenders, with the exception of Oklahoma, who is playing a team that already beat them once (tough to beat the same team twice though, just ask Auburn).
Yes, but aren't you the guy who likes gals with *TROUBLE* written all over them? :biggrin2:I will be one who says he likes Dabo.
This reads to me like his team is slopping around in practice and he's trying to motivate them to play hard and focus in on this game against Pitt. Sounds like his team may be acting like they can "mail it in". Piqued my interest in this game. May have to watch it now.See his quote below. I'm not sure how the ACC championship is a quarterfinal. With that logic, so was the iron bowl.
Isn't the requirement that EITHER team has the opportunity to progress if they won? Let's take a look....
2014 FSU (#4) GT (#11)
2015 UNC (#10) Clemson (#1)
2016 Clemson (#3) VT (#23)
2017 Miami (#7) Clemson (#1)
2018 Clemson (#2) Pitt (unranked)
So one year, maybe, the other team could have made the playoffs. Man I hate dabo. And can a mod fix "Dani" to dabo please?
From this article
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...tate-oklahoma-loses-happens-then?platform=amp
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Respectfully, I disagree. Were it not for the championship game last year, odds are even we would have stayed home.Like Coach said last night ---
If we didn't have Conference Championships......the four best teams are: Alabama, Clemson, ND and Georgia.
The SECCG does nothing to help teams get into the playoff......
dsp, I think you are right.I think what Dabo is saying is that the ACC is an "elite" conference and the champion is always going to end up being in the playoffs and the loser out, so in that sense it is a quarterfinal.
In that spirit, the proper reply to Dabo's remark is "Maybe if you coached in a league as tough as the SEC you might have a better chance of getting in if you lose your conference championship."No, not particularly. I just dislike Dabo and took the quote as an excellent opportunity to disparage him. Even if out of context......Even if he hasn't said it. Even if he wasn't Clemsons coach