okaydo said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Check out Alabama's out of conference schedule if you want to see the definition of marshmallow soft...

---

That's always been my argument. Alabama only plays 9 power 5 teams a season...and their lone ooc Power 5 game is always a neutral site game in the south.

That, and the mid November cupcake makes them healthy and poised for the postseason.

Yet I think the soft schedule helps more than it hurts.

Meanwhile, Clemson played at Texas A&M and their traditional rival South Carolina this season.

---

their in conference tough games are typically neutral site, as well.

calumnus said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

Yup. WRs over TEs any day. Just go four wide and light dudes up.

---

There was a time when we had arguably the best wr group in the country.

Unfortunately we had one qb on one ankle and another who couldn't get them the ball

But damn before qb1 got hurt, we sure were exciting that year

---

QB2 that year:
36 of 56 (64.3%) for 563 yds (10.1 yards per attempt) 5 TDs and 1 INT for a 174.6 QB rating.

Riley got the ball to them just fine. The problem was he tried to run at the end of the OSU game and got benched in favor of the one-ankle QB1.

We had great WR depth jjust 2 years ago:
Demetris Robertson
Chad Hansen
Kanawai Noa
Melquise Stoval
Jordan Duncan
Drew Kobayashi
Zion Echols
Vic Wharton Iii
Jordan Veasy
Logan Gamble
Greyson Bankhead
Brandon Singleton
Jack Austin
Bug Rivera
Ray Hudson
Matt Rockett
Plus more....

---

I must be getting old, all those years are blurring together.

Well, just proves the point I guess. Really good wrs can make an avg qb look really good

LunchTime said:

---

okaydo said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Check out Alabama's out of conference schedule if you want to see the definition of marshmallow soft...

---

That's always been my argument. Alabama only plays 9 power 5 teams a season...and their lone ooc Power 5 game is always a neutral site game in the south.

That, and the mid November cupcake makes them healthy and poised for the postseason.

Yet I think the soft schedule helps more than it hurts.

Meanwhile, Clemson played at Texas A&M and their traditional rival South Carolina this season.

---

their in conference tough games are typically neutral site, as well.

---

Prove it.

GMP said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

okaydo said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Check out Alabama's out of conference schedule if you want to see the definition of marshmallow soft...

---

That's always been my argument. Alabama only plays 9 power 5 teams a season...and their lone ooc Power 5 game is always a neutral site game in the south.

That, and the mid November cupcake makes them healthy and poised for the postseason.

Yet I think the soft schedule helps more than it hurts.

Meanwhile, Clemson played at Texas A&M and their traditional rival South Carolina this season.

---

their in conference tough games are typically neutral site, as well.

---

Prove it.

---

You are right. Bama only does their OOC "A" game every year.

The things that confused me (and shows how soft their schedule is...

1. At least 4 teams in the SEC play at a neutral site every year against a rival.

2. "Neutral-site games really launched our program in Alabama when we first came there years ago," Saban said. "But I think philosophically we're sort of changing our thoughts on that and our future scheduling and trying to get more home and homes." <-That quote was from a story I found browsing a while ago about the insane number of neutral site games (what started me on the path of looking at meta scheduling). Looking at it again, Bama plays in the Conference Championship almost every year, and they counted that as a conference neutral site game.

3. Looking at the aggregate, Bama plays a total of 4 hostile stadium games per year since 2010, and only have played in opposing teams stadiums more than 5 times a year 4 times in the last 15 years.

4. Mostly it was because I was looking at aggregate schedules a while ago triggered by that article, and noticed that the SEC plays BY FAR the fewest "opposing stadium" away games. Averaging like 5 games per season, with several teams, like Bama, well below that.

That caused my assumption that Bama was one of the SEC teams that plays a rival at a neutral site.

Oh well. Bama's schedule is soft as ****, with almost no real away games, but not because of in conference neutral site games.

ducky23 said:

---

killa22 said:

---

Yup. WRs over TEs any day. Just go four wide and light dudes up.

---

There was a time when we had arguably the best wr group in the country.

Unfortunately we had one qb on one ankle and another who couldn't get them the ball

But damn before qb1 got hurt, we sure were exciting that year

---

I've read that we had the best WR corp in the country this year

Hmm

Wait a second...how the heck did Alabama lose? No matter. They should still be declared the National Champion. They won the eye test.

Why do we even play the games? It just gets in the way of already knowing who the best teams are by the never-wrong eyeball test. There should have been more SEC schools in the playoff too, because the REAL four best teams in the country are all in the SEC and we just let other conferences into the playoff as a courtesy.

Next year, when we pick the playoff teams, we don't need to look at results, just conference affiliation, the stars of the recruits, and the program's legacy. But NEVER should we let teams earn their way in on the field, like only taking conference champions, other joke conferences would just be taking the deserved places of the mighty infallible SEC teams who play great defense.

Golden One said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

how did Clemson get this good?

---

How did either of these teams get so good.
Probably a lot of shady dealings going on.
And money...er sorry commitment to winning.

---

That unique and special academic major at Alabama certainly helps--Exercise Science!

---

I've heard they changed the name and dropped the 'Science'.

KenBurnski said:

---

The Tosh D looks stout

---

Tosh looks stout.

I don't think Clemson is losing the eye test to anyone these days. They recruit and sign from the same pool of players that Alabama is after (Georgia maybe the only other), so I really don't see much of a difference. They're both 5 stars and high 4 stars across the board. There's no difference anymore. Plus, Clemson is very SEC and night as well just be in the conference. Culture, location, educational quality, football orientation, demographics; etc, it's just as SEC as the rest and exists as more of an outlier in the ACC.

hanky1 said:

---

Initial estimate is Niners will lose $12 million from this game.

---

But they claim they made it back in concessions and good press ...

Volunteer Reverie must be a happy camper, right about now.

Golden One said:

---

How did we ever let Trevor Lawrence and Tyron Ross get away from Cal?

---

What does that even mean? I assume Tyron Ross is actually Justyn Ross, but with you - who knows?

Lawrence and Ross were never on Cal's radar. Are you just making shyte up so you can have more to whine about?

AunBear, I could be wrong but I think he is missing the Sarcasm icon... or is it the Being Facetious icon...

AunBear89 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

How did we ever let Trevor Lawrence and Tyron Ross get away from Cal?

---

What does that even mean? I assume Tyron Ross is actually Justyn Ross, but with you - who knows?

Lawrence and Ross were never on Cal's radar. Are you just making shyte up so you can have more to whine about?

---

Golden One is obviously being osarcastic. But regardless, we did throw our hat in the ring with an offer to Lawrence, at least according to 247. I mean, doesn't hurt.

https://247sports.com/Player/Trevor-Lawrence-61350/high-school-106646/

TheSouseFamily said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

How did we ever let Trevor Lawrence and Tyron Ross get away from Cal?

---

What does that even mean? I assume Tyron Ross is actually Justyn Ross, but with you - who knows?

Lawrence and Ross were never on Cal's radar. Are you just making shyte up so you can have more to whine about?

---

Golden One is obviously being osarcastic. But regardless, we did throw our hat in the ring with an offer to Lawrence, at least according to 247. I mean, doesn't hurt.

https://247sports.com/Player/Trevor-Lawrence-61350/high-school-106646/

---

And I could throw my hat in the ring with Sofa Vergara - doesn't mean I have a chance in hell of getting her.

I suppose he was being sarcastic - but given his posting history, hard to tell for sure. The internet is hard for the old timers like Golden Onenote.

Somewhat boring game played by two NFL light teams. Lots of bad turnovers and some dubious play calling. Overall college football had a very mediocre year locally, regionally and nationally. TV and the NFL continue to negatively affect the college game. Go Bears.

Not sure why you'd blame TV and the NFL. To me college football suffers from disparity caused by regional fanbase interest. In the South, fan interest is red hot. So is the caliber of play. In the Northeast fan interest is weak. So is the caliber of play. In the West, fan interest is weak and so is the caliber of play. In the Midwest / North fan support is high but these regions are aging and getting poorer relative to the rest of the country. Their caliber of play is high but they can't stay with the South.

When something fails there is a tendency to look for an external cause. That's rarely the case.

I watched almost none of the playoffs and zero of the championship game. None of the teams are teams I care about. The teams in the championship game are simply a reflection of misguided priorities of the local populations. It's not something I think the rest of the country should aspire to.

dajo9 said:

---

Not sure why you'd blame TV and the NFL. To me college football suffers from disparity caused by regional fanbase interest. In the South, fan interest is red hot. So is the caliber of play. In the Northeast fan interest is weak. So is the caliber of play. In the West, fan interest is weak and so is the caliber of play. In the Midwest / North fan support is high but these regions are aging and getting poorer relative to the rest of the country. Their caliber of play is high but they can't stay with the South.

When something fails there is a tendency to look for an external cause. That's rarely the case.

I watched almost none of the playoffs and zero of the championship game. None of the teams are teams I care about. The teams in the championship game are simply a reflection of misguided priorities of the local populations. It's not something I think the rest of the country should aspire to.

---

Exactly. I also did not watch. Could care less other than hearing Alabama got smashed.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

I don't think Clemson is losing the eye test to anyone these days. They recruit and sign from the same pool of players that Alabama is after (Georgia maybe the only other), so I really don't see much of a difference. They're both 5 stars and high 4 stars across the board. There's no difference anymore. Plus, Clemson is very SEC and night as well just be in the conference. Culture, location, educational quality, football orientation, demographics; etc, it's just as SEC as the rest and exists as more of an outlier in the ACC.

---

I was trying to make a larger point. At the start of the season and many times throughout the absolute consensus would have been that Alabama is the greatest team ever and would win the Eye Test National Championship against anyone. They had the #1 seed going into the playoffs.

Now #2 seeded Clemson is making the claim to not only be the best team this year, but ever. So what changed? Did the eye test fail in week 1 or week 2 or week 3 or just last week...? Is the eye test correct now that the season is over--or is Alabama still the winner of the eye test, or is the eye test simply hindsight affirming actual results?

The eye test is a total subjective myth perpetuated so that sports fans can feel in the "know" and part of the selection committee in their mind? And the same subjective judging of seeding 1 vs 2 can be applied right down the list of rankings. The selection of the 4 teams and the seeding is guess work, often political, and on the basis of apples to oranges resumes and so-called eye tests. There are no actual "four best teams," that is a myth, an opinion, and so the best you can do is create an objective criteria (win your conference) for qualification to the playoffs. If we KNEW the 4 best teams there would be no point to play the games, and the results would always align with the ranking of the teams.

In an alternate reality if #5 played #4 and won, would that mean that 5 was better than 4 and "should" have been one of the playoff teams? Or does that just mean that 5 got lucky? Or that 4 is still better even thought they lost to 5?

blungld said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

I don't think Clemson is losing the eye test to anyone these days. They recruit and sign from the same pool of players that Alabama is after (Georgia maybe the only other), so I really don't see much of a difference. They're both 5 stars and high 4 stars across the board. There's no difference anymore. Plus, Clemson is very SEC and night as well just be in the conference. Culture, location, educational quality, football orientation, demographics; etc, it's just as SEC as the rest and exists as more of an outlier in the ACC.

---

I was trying to make a larger point. At the start of the season and many times throughout the absolute consensus would have been that Alabama is the greatest team ever and would win the Eye Test National Championship against anyone. They had the #1 seed going into the playoffs.

Now #2 seeded Clemson is making the claim to not only be the best team this year, but ever. So what changed? Did the eye test fail in week 1 or week 2 or week 3 or just last week...? Is the eye test correct now that the season is over--or is Alabama still the winner of the eye test, or is the eye test simply hindsight affirming actual results?

The eye test is a total subjective myth perpetuated so that sports fans can feel in the "know" and part of the selection committee in their mind? And the same subjective judging of seeding 1 vs 2 can be applied right down the list of rankings. The selection of the 4 teams and the seeding is guess work, often political, and on the basis of apples to oranges resumes and so-called eye tests. There are no actual "four best teams," that is a myth, an opinion, and so the best you can do is create an objective criteria (win your conference) for qualification to the playoffs. If we KNEW the 4 best teams there would be no point to play the games, and the results would always align with the ranking of the teams.

In an alternate reality if #5 played #4 and won, would that mean that 5 was better than 4 and "should" have been one of the playoff teams? Or does that just mean that 5 got lucky? Or that 4 is still better even thought they lost to 5?

---

In August, no one had yet seen Lawrence play QB at the college level. Today, every one has seen him play. Had that been the case prior to the season, Clemson would have started out #1.

oskidunker said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Not sure why you'd blame TV and the NFL. To me college football suffers from disparity caused by regional fanbase interest. In the South, fan interest is red hot. So is the caliber of play. In the Northeast fan interest is weak. So is the caliber of play. In the West, fan interest is weak and so is the caliber of play. In the Midwest / North fan support is high but these regions are aging and getting poorer relative to the rest of the country. Their caliber of play is high but they can't stay with the South.

When something fails there is a tendency to look for an external cause. That's rarely the case.

I watched almost none of the playoffs and zero of the championship game. None of the teams are teams I care about. The teams in the championship game are simply a reflection of misguided priorities of the local populations. It's not something I think the rest of the country should aspire to.

---

Exactly. I also did not watch. Could care less other than hearing Alabama got smashed.

---

As a fan of college football, I watch as many games as possible each week. Seeing Clemson and Bama play was definitely the highlight of the season - seeing two teams loaded with star players sure beats watching Oregon State play Cal....

Big C said:

---

LOL, Alabama, losing to Clemson. Heck, even CAL kicks Clemson's azz in bowl games!

---

And, of course, Cal has a win over Bama in the "Granddaddy of Them All"........

71Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Not sure why you'd blame TV and the NFL. To me college football suffers from disparity caused by regional fanbase interest. In the South, fan interest is red hot. So is the caliber of play. In the Northeast fan interest is weak. So is the caliber of play. In the West, fan interest is weak and so is the caliber of play. In the Midwest / North fan support is high but these regions are aging and getting poorer relative to the rest of the country. Their caliber of play is high but they can't stay with the South.

When something fails there is a tendency to look for an external cause. That's rarely the case.

I watched almost none of the playoffs and zero of the championship game. None of the teams are teams I care about. The teams in the championship game are simply a reflection of misguided priorities of the local populations. It's not something I think the rest of the country should aspire to.

---

Exactly. I also did not watch. Could care less other than hearing Alabama got smashed.

---

As a fan of college football, I watch as many games as possible each week. Seeing Clemson and Bama play was definitely the highlight of the season - seeing two teams loaded with star players sure beats watching Oregon State play Cal....

---

If I want to see quality football I tune into the NFL. If I want to watch a team I personally care about I tune into Cal.

oskidunker said:

---

I would rather watch a Cal and a Oregon State.

---

I got that impression. I get it - there are quite a few people who post here who are fans of Cal but not necessarily fans of college football. And, there are fans of both. No big deal. There is room for everybody......

dajo9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Not sure why you'd blame TV and the NFL. To me college football suffers from disparity caused by regional fanbase interest. In the South, fan interest is red hot. So is the caliber of play. In the Northeast fan interest is weak. So is the caliber of play. In the West, fan interest is weak and so is the caliber of play. In the Midwest / North fan support is high but these regions are aging and getting poorer relative to the rest of the country. Their caliber of play is high but they can't stay with the South.

When something fails there is a tendency to look for an external cause. That's rarely the case.

I watched almost none of the playoffs and zero of the championship game. None of the teams are teams I care about. The teams in the championship game are simply a reflection of misguided priorities of the local populations. It's not something I think the rest of the country should aspire to.

---

Exactly. I also did not watch. Could care less other than hearing Alabama got smashed.

---

As a fan of college football, I watch as many games as possible each week. Seeing Clemson and Bama play was definitely the highlight of the season - seeing two teams loaded with star players sure beats watching Oregon State play Cal....

---

If I want to see quality football I tune into the NFL. If I want to watch a team I personally care about I tune into Cal.

---

When it comes to the NFL, I only watch the Niners and whoever they are playing.....

I enjoy the nfl playoffs

oskidunker said:

---

I enjoy the nfl playoffs

---

Only when my team makes the cut

Used to watch ither pac12 teams but since DIrect Tv does not get pac12 net, I pretty much stopped doing that. Was great when everything was on Comcast sports channels.

Streaming of the Pac12 net doesnt last morevthan 20 minutes do I only do it if Cal is on. I can stream
Movies no problem. What a joke of a network. I am about ready to go back to radio.