Started By
Message
re: Good news
Posted on 1/11/17 at 7:18 am to WG_Dawg
Posted on 1/11/17 at 7:18 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
then Dabo wouldn't have a title or any top 2 finishes either (since both came in the last 2 years)
I was about to argue this point with you, since Dabo did have a title. However, you are correct, that Clemson was the #3 seed going into this playoff year, so he would not have played for a title this year. (Under the old BCS rules)
I would have to say that Dabo probably does populate a roster a bit better than Richt did. He probably (I'm not too sure and I'm too lay to look it all up) is a better evaluator of talent, as, I would guess, he probably did not bring in as many top classes as Richt did.
This post was edited on 1/11/17 at 7:19 am
1
Posted on 1/11/17 at 7:25 am to djsdawg
quote:
Seems like a reach.
I's always a reach to say someone would have...or would not have done something. Too many factors involved to speculate. Richt MIGHT have won a title, but then again, he might not have.
I think the point of Dabo not having a title based on the last two years, is they were the #3 seed this year, therefore would not have been in the championship game under the BCS. Last year they were #2(I think?) and got beat by Saban, so it is a valid point.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 7:31 am to DawgsLife
Clemson was #1 seed in 2015 and #2 seed in 2016. Uga never would have been a top 2 seed during the richt years. We would have likely been a top 4 seed once, in 2002. It's a no brainer to conclude that Dabo has taken Clemson further than richt ever took uga.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 7:32 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
If the playoffs didn't exist yet (like they didn't during richt's first 8 years) then Dabo wouldn't have a title or any top 2 finishes either (since both came in the last 2 years)
Clemson was #1 last year and #2 this year in final four rankings so this is wrong. In the BCS age, they we have made both
ETA Unless you are talking about the simulated BCS
This post was edited on 1/11/17 at 7:39 am
Posted on 1/11/17 at 7:32 am to DawgsLife
quote:
However, you are correct, that Clemson was the #3 seed going into this playoff year
wrong. #2
Posted on 1/11/17 at 11:22 am to djsdawg
quote:
#2 seed in 2016.
You are right. For some reason I was thinking it was
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Washington
ETA
It would be reasonable to expect the same results that we got....which would be a Title for Clemson. Edge would have to be given to Sweeney.
This post was edited on 1/11/17 at 11:24 am
Posted on 1/11/17 at 11:27 am to djsdawg
quote:
Uga never would have been a top 2 seed during the richt years. We would have likely been a top 4 seed once, in 2002. It's a
Maybe not a no brainer. We don't know how UGA would have done in a playoff situation when we did finish in top 4. As I said in another post or thread....I hate saying something would have happened, or would not have happened, but it is reasonable to think Sweeney has done better, based on what definitely did happen.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:56 pm to djsdawg
quote:
If the playoffs didn't exist yet (like they didn't during richt's first 8 years) then Dabo wouldn't have a title or any top 2 finishes either (since both came in the last 2 years)
quote:
I don't quite understand this point.
This year, the year that gave dabo his trump card over richt, Clemson was ranked 3rd by both teh AP and coaches after championship weekend. If the playoffs didn't exist (like they didn't for richt), dabo doesnt' play for a title much less win one. In 2015 they were ranked in the top 2 so even if the system existed as it did for richt dabo would have played for a title, but as we saw on teh field alabama won so again, no title for dabo.
The only reason anyone can say "yes dabo is undoubtedly a better coach than richt is because he won a national title"...but the only reason he won one was because of a system that helped them out that didn't even exist for richt.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:58 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Clemson was #1 seed in 2015 and #2 seed in 2016.
According to a playoff committee that didn't exist for richt.
according to the polls that were used for richt, dabo wouldn't have played for a title this year (so obviously woudln't have won one) and would have lost last year.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:59 pm to djsdawg
quote:
It's a no brainer to conclude that Dabo has taken Clemson further than richt ever took uga.
it's very much a brainer if you do an apples to apples comparison.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 3:16 pm to WG_Dawg
What if we start slicing those apples up? Richt never had a run quite as good as the one Dabo is currently on.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 3:33 pm to djsdawg
quote:
What if we start slicing those apples up? Richt never had a run quite as good as the one Dabo is currently on.
I am going to let you two continue arguing these points, but lets face it....other than this year, the ACC has been a MUCH weaker conference in which to make that run.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 3:36 pm to DawgsLife
But in the year Dabo DID win the MNC, it was arguably the toughest
Posted on 1/12/17 at 5:55 am to DawgCountry
quote:
But in the year Dabo DID win the MNC, it was arguably the toughest
But would not have played for the championship if WG is correct. ****according to the polls that were used for richt, dabo wouldn't have played for a title this year (so obviously woudln't have won one) and would have lost last year. **** So...he would not have that title. The years that Richt might have played for a title the SEC was tougher.
This post was edited on 1/12/17 at 5:57 am
Posted on 1/12/17 at 7:57 am to DawgsLife
quote:
But would not have played for the championship if WG is correct. ****according to the polls that were used for richt, dabo wouldn't have played for a title this year (so obviously woudln't have won one) and would have lost last year. **** So...he would not have that title. The years that Richt might have played for a title the SEC was tougher.
You know who else wasn't going to win a title this year under the old or the new system? Mark Richt.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:00 am to FinleyStreet
quote:
You know who else wasn't going to win a title this year under the old or the new system? Mark Richt.
Was somebody arguing he would?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:26 am to DawgsLife
This is really a pointless argument. The is no way to prove if the polls would be different without the playoffs in place. Other than jersey color, there is no risk is ranking a team 2 or 3 in the playoff. Without the playoff in place, the rankings would be under much for scrutiny and therefore might be different. I find it hard to believe a 1 loss Clemson team who won their division would have gotten snubbed in the BCS system in favor of OSU
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:34 am to DawgCountry
quote:
This is really a pointless argument.
It really is pointless. There is no way anybody can say "This would have happened...or this would not have happened...." Do I believe we would have beaten Notre Dame in the title game in 2012? yes. But there is no way I could no that. I would be basing my opinion on us playing Alabama close, and Alabama beating the crap out of Notre Dame.
quote:
I find it hard to believe a 1 loss Clemson team who won their division would have gotten snubbed in the BCS system in favor of OSU
It's hard to say. OSU did not even win their conference, but the team that did win the conference did not go while a team that did not even play for the conference championship (Arguably the #3 team in the conference) went to the playoffs. Unfortunately the eye test and opinions win out most of the time. Examples? Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Oklahoma etc quite often get the benefit of the doubt based on past history. Yes, we can include Alabama and Ohio State to that group, too.
This post was edited on 1/12/17 at 8:36 am
Page 3 of 3
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News