CFN.com Bowl Projections: Week 12

[TheGridironGeek]

I think it gets a lot more complicated. For starters every conference has its own unique style. The SEC was always defense. Big 12 was offense for example. Teams/coaches/players get used to playing in those styles and learn what works best. If you just transplant a team it's not just going to magically make them worse or better. Texas A&M was going to get destroyed in the SEC be their offense wouldn't be able to handle those SEC defenses that were miles above in talent... We saw how that worked out. Yes they're doing worse this season but again adjusting to tendencies takes time.

But I'd like to take your other point about them being more talented. I won't refute the SEC bc statistically they have had more talent based on players sent to the NFL. Second most is the ACC, not the Pac 12. Maybe our coaching is better then, but if you go back through the years in recruiting the ACC constantly has 3-4 teams in the top 15 recruiting rankings while the Pac 12 has 1-2( some combination of UCLA and either USC/Stanford). Clemson consistently brings in more talent every year based on recruiting rankings than all the pac 12 teams.

Let's go with a quick eyeball test. UVA/UCLA/GT. No team except Arizona(17) and Utah(28) has held UCLA to fewer points in the pac 12 so far. UCLA (win/lose) has piled on the points otherwise. See 62 points on previously top 10 ASU 30 on Oregon 44 on Washington(only Oregon scored more by 1). UVA held that offense to 28. We managed 35 so I'd say our offense would stack up pretty well I the pac 12. Heck even FSU managed 34 so I'll say the same and while FSU has been confusing and not good on defense, there offense has been very good.

Again, I won't bother to do an SEC comparison. I think it's understood they're the most talented and have had the best record of the last decade ( although I don't think the gap between them and everyone else is as big as it once was), but I think it's really hard to say the Pac-12 is more talented than the ACC. Hell UNC has had more talent than half the Pac-12 (again based off their recruiting and NFL Prospects) and they haven't managed to be some powerhouse in the ACC.

True on all counts. If the SEC were just in a different galaxy, Mizzou/Texas A&M couldn't have transferred in and made waves immediately. I give the SEC credit for having the best, most consistent top tier and strutting through national championship games in the past decade. But that isn't to say Clemson or Louisville couldn't compete against South Carolina, for instance.

Navy gave South Carolina a fierce battle a few years back, with Clowney at defensive end. Flexbone teams can match up well against the SEC because it's so different from what those teams are used to seeing.

 

[RamblinCharger]

By all means AE enlighten me on what you're saying. I'm thinking that if Tech played in a in the two conf's I referring to their stats would be vastly different. Therefore the rankings would be different. That goes for Clemson also. The defenses in the ACC don't compare talent wise, athletic wise to the defenses in the SEC or PAC12. Also, the offenses in the SEC or PAC12 are superior to those in the ACC. Also, i'm of the opinion that if Watson doesn't go down or if Sout wasn't injured the game's outcome would probably be different. I would imagine that if Tech played in the Sun Belt or any other less heralded conf that we would have incredible stats on both sides of the ball. I prefer to use the eye ball test and what actually happens between two teams on the field. The Clemson defense I saw was not a top five defense in the country.

All I do is watch football, (and drink) on Saturdays because it's pretty much my only day off. I have 3 TVs going every week and I've seen as much college football this year as anyone I know, and I can tell you for a fact that the PAC 12 is pure ****. The SEC has 3 good teams as usual and the rest are average. Every conference is like that. I hate this conference BS. It's about the players you get and the coaches that coach them. The ACC puts more players into the NFL than anyone other than the SEC and when you look at "starting players" and "star players" the ACC to SEC margin gets even more slim. The sec has done well with 3-4 teams over the last 10 years or so but they aren't heads and shoulders above us. We stick with UGA year in and year out and usually lose because we have a bad qb. That isn't the case this year. The pac 12 is more overrated than the sec. Oregon squeaks by teams and puts garbage TDs up every single week. Ucla should have lost to Virginia, and Arizona state just lost to Oregon state...
I'll take GT, FSU, and Clemson (with watson) against any other top 3 teams from other conferences and I think we would fair well. I would even venture to say that Miami is a pretty darn good football team as well and I think if they played Nebraska again they would win along with a couple of other games. Most importantly GT has a good team and I think we'll see that on 11/29.

 

[up state jacket]

AE I completely understand what you're saying. Probabilities are if these events happen then this should happen and so on and so forth. You can debate that all day long. I like to use the results that occur on the field of play between two teams not statistical data. Most college games are won by the team whose coached better and whose players commit the least amount of errors. Talent differences in teams will show up when both teams perform at their best, which allows talent to win out. All too often, Tech has to be superior to most opponents in game day preparation and play as error free as it can. There have been many times under Tenuta that Tech had a top 10 defense nationally, but in games with teams that had superior talent the ugly truth was revealed about the actual talent level on the defense. You live in world of numbers and comparisons. I live in a world where the best man wins. Call your point what you will, but FACTUAL it is not. So WOW, I hope you understand that.

 

[potatohead]

Remember when we played Iowa in the Orange Bowl a few years back? We did not exactly wallop them or their defense. Alabama is that good. And they would likely make our offense look that bad. Again.

Now, any other teams for the SEC West we would have a decent shot at, because all the others have flaws.

Alabamas defense has been pretty weak against option teams, at least the past couple years. It'll be interesting to see how auburn does against them this year.

 

[up state jacket]

True on all counts. If the SEC were just in a different galaxy, Mizzou/Texas A&M couldn't have transferred in and made waves immediately. I give the SEC credit for having the best, most consistent top tier and strutting through national championship games in the past decade. But that isn't to say Clemson or Louisville couldn't compete against South Carolina, for instance.

Navy gave South Carolina a fierce battle a few years back, with Clowney at defensive end. Flexbone teams can match up well against the SEC because it's so different from what those teams are used to seeing.

Clemson University had never lost two in a row to USCE since 1960 something, until the last five years. With Watson down, it will more than likely be six in a row this year. Dabo has beaten the game cocks one time. He has won more games in his first six years than any other Clemson coach in history, but all you hear here "he can't beat SC"

 

[DTGT]

I would prefer to put you in the PAC12 or SEC message boards.

Ban Bruce please, personal attacks are not tolerated on this board. At least that is what I was told.

And up state jacket has been added to my ignore list. Where are we getting these people? forum was better without all the trolls.

 

[gtrower]

Did you not see how Clemson completely stopped us wide, stopped us on the dive, stopped us on the midline? We were fortunate to get points from the defense and fortunate that the muffed PAT, failed two point, and missed fg (six points left on the field) didn't affect anything.

That being said, we punted once.

 

[DaddyBill]

It always amazes me how threads on this site begin on a certain topic and then transform into some tangent discussion which are basically unrelated.

 

[Eli]

T

By all means AE enlighten me on what you're saying. I'm thinking that if Tech played in a in the two conf's I referring to their stats would be vastly different. Therefore the rankings would be different. That goes for Clemson also. The defenses in the ACC don't compare talent wise, athletic wise to the defenses in the SEC or PAC12. Also, the offenses in the SEC or PAC12 are superior to those in the ACC. Also, i'm of the opinion that if Watson doesn't go down or if Sout wasn't injured the game's outcome would probably be different. I would imagine that if Tech played in the Sun Belt or any other less heralded conf that we would have incredible stats on both sides of the ball. I prefer to use the eye ball test and what actually happens between two teams on the field. The Clemson defense I saw was not a top five defense in the country.

The acc has just as much talent if not more than both the pac12 and sec. The difference is coaching

 

[Eli]

The sec has far better coaches than any other conference

 

[GTrob21]

It always amazes me how threads on this site begin on a certain topic and then transform into some tangent discussion which are basically unrelated.

haha, yup pretty much par for the course. If you really want some laughs go visit some the schools that think they are God's gift to college football, especially after a loss.

 

[ibeattetris]

It always amazes me how threads on this site begin on a certain topic and then transform into some tangent discussion which are basically unrelated.

It's the 2 dimensional aspect of a standard forum, where all posts are linear. Forums become a bit more organized once you make replies become another dimension.

Reddit is a good example of how comment replies can spiral out of control, but since the replies are grouped, each response to the original post usually remains poignant.

I guess I just went on a tangent from the tangented post.

 

[B Lifsey]

It always amazes me how threads on this site begin on a certain topic and then transform into some tangent discussion which are basically unrelated.

I also read forums on RVing, wood working and boating...they all do the same thing...its just human nature like having an in-person conversation.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

When we beat UGA and possibly get a chance to play FSU (and win), I for one would like the chance to play Alabama. Our odds may not be great but I would not shy away to a lesser opponent to close out this great season.

I seem to recall a year when Alabama had an even better team than this year's. The team that gave them the most trouble that year offensively? A flex bone from Georgia Southern. Just sayin'.

 

[potatohead]

Okay. First, I'll explain the term "opponent-adjusted stat." This term does not refer to a raw stat but rather looks at the quality of the opponent and the opponents they've faced.

So, yes, the stats for GT and CU would be different facing different opposition. However, the stats for the GT O and CU D would be better than those facing the same opposition. Sites like footballoutsiders.com try to account for differences in opposition

For an example of the sort of calculation, consider that after week 8, GT's O was averaging 3.4 pts/drive and CU's D was allowing 1.29 ppd on average. When they played GT's O scored 2 ppd, indicating that GTs O and CUs D were better than previous average opposition. Opponent-adjusted stats use computer algorithms to look at all the games and match-ups to determine their rankings.

Oh, good god, shut up. You are so pedantic. All the guy is saying is if Tech was in Pac or SEC, Tech would have more losses and worse stats. It his opinion, that's it. If he took the time, wanted to super smart on a message board like you, he could search the internet and find statistics that back his position. I guarantee it. You might not like those statistics, but arguing over stats is stupid and fruitless. It's one of the few (only?) sciences that two experts with the same data can draw different conclusions.

 

[ibeattetris]

Oh, good god, shut up. You are so pedantic. All the guy is saying is if Tech was in Pac or SEC, Tech would have more losses and worse stats. It his opinion, that's it. If he took the time, wanted to super smart on a message board like you, he could search the internet and find statistics that back his position. I guarantee it. You might not like those statistics, but arguing over stats is stupid and fruitless. It's one of the few (only?) sciences that two experts with the same data can draw different conclusions.

And AE is saying that the whole point of opponent adjusted stats is to determine what someone's stats would be against common opponents. Luckily, numbers don't have the same biases that your precious eye test will have. Every attempt at opponent adjusted offense I have seen has GT in the top ten. That is a fact. Saying we could not compete offensively in the SEC or PAC## is pure conjecture, and imo bad conjecture based on no fact.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Wish we would just beat uga.

 

[potatohead]

And AE is saying that the whole point of opponent adjusted stats is to determine what someone's stats would be against common opponents. Luckily, numbers don't have the same biases that your precious eye test will have. Every attempt at opponent adjusted offense I have seen has GT in the top ten. That is a fact. Saying we could not compete offensively in the SEC or PAC## is pure conjecture, and imo bad conjecture based on no fact.

"facts"..people keep using this word when referring to statistics..does not compute.

Go check out sagarin ratings, GT is ranked 30th with 10 SEC teams ahead of us.

 

[Dustman]

"facts"..people keep using this word when referring to statistics..does not compute.

Go check out sagarin ratings, GT is ranked 30th with 10 SEC teams ahead of us.

Is that Sagarin ratings of offense?

 

[ibeattetris]

"facts"..people keep using this word when referring to statistics..does not compute.

Go check out sagarin ratings, GT is ranked 30th with 10 SEC teams ahead of us.

I don't think you read my post. I will reiterate.

Our OFFENSE is consistently ranked in the top ten from all opponent adjust measures I have found. The fact isn't the statistics. The fact is I have searched through various opponent adjusted methods of gauging offensive production and we are consistently in the top 10. If you find one that disagrees with this assessment feel free to bring it to my attention.

These same measures, also agree that our defense is putrid, and when evaluating a team, this will have an effect on our overall ratings. If you had read my post you'd notice my post never mentions how our defense will compete, so I will stand by my claim that our OFFENSE would be competitive against any team SEC, PAC, or otherwise. This is what I initially claimed, and I stand by it. All objective analysis I have seen points in this direction, and until I see signs to the contrary, will continue to stand by it.