Replies: 12
| visibility 1,898
|
Orange Blooded [3855]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 3201
Joined: 11/27/12
|
Anyone listen to that idiot Braden Gall last night?
Oct 26, 2016, 10:47 AM
|
|
Talking about his top 4. He went ahead and referred to Clemson as a 1 loss team after Saturday. Then went on about how Louisville is the better team, but he guesses that Clemson should stay ranked ahead just because they beat them..... even though Louisville is better, need some reward for head to head..... but head to head rarely matters.....
By that logic why play the game? Bama could lose to LSU and auburn but it doesn't mater. They are better, they just lost a flukie game....
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [703]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 980
Joined: 6/8/04
|
Re: Anyone listen to that idiot Braden Gall last night?
Oct 26, 2016, 12:46 PM
|
|
I definitely heard all of his flawed logic about Louisville being better than Clemson even though we beat them head-to-head. Makes absolutely zero sense. I think I also heard him rank Ohio State higher than Clemson if I heard him right. I am not even sure where he got that logic from. He has zero credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3855]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 3201
Joined: 11/27/12
|
Yeah.... the Ohio State was funny as well.
Oct 26, 2016, 1:30 PM
|
|
He talked about how the Big 12 hasn't beat anyone, but talked about how great Michigan is. I'm okay for you to have your own system do rating teams, but be consistent. Don't say strength of schedule matters for one team, but not the other....
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13057]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22373
Joined: 4/24/04
|
I've never listed to him and therefore can't say whether or
Oct 26, 2016, 1:27 PM
|
|
not he's an idiot, but i do agree that there can be a distinction between better and more deserving. Right now we are more deserving than Louisville, but it is also possible that they could be the better team. I'm not saying they are - we could certainly be better AND more deserving - but i do think there's a difference.
For the purpose of championships and playoff bids, i believe the more deserving team should get the nod. There are others though that think it should just be the 4 best teams, period.
2014 FSU is probably a good example. If you remember anything about that team, you can probably recall them narrowly escaping virtually every game en route to a 13-0 season. The record didn't impress the advanced metrics (or me) as they finished the season 15th in the F/+ combined on FO (not sure where they were before the playoff loss to Oregon, but not top 10).
Would anyone really feel comfortable leaving that 13-0 FSU team out of the playoff. On one hand they were clearly deserving based on hardware and resume. On the other hand, it was also pretty clear from watching them that they weren't a top 4 team. But in order to leave them out you would have to completely ignore actual W/L records and championships, and that's not something I'm willing to do. Winning games has to mean something.
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [703]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 980
Joined: 6/8/04
|
Re: I've never listed to him and therefore can't say whether or
Oct 26, 2016, 2:06 PM
|
|
It seemed that Gall compared Penn State beating Ohio State to us beating Louisville when talking about the better team not winning those respective games. I would find it difficult for me to say that UL is a better team than Clemson. Although there has been a lot of negative media bias against Clemson, we seem to be getting more of a benefit of the doubt overall this season. It's amazing how last year has bought Clemson a lot of goodwill this season.
But Saturday is a huge test and will dictate the media's narrative going forward. If we show up strong and handle FSU with no turnovers and we convert red zone possessions to touchdowns (not field goals), we should see this negative talk about Clemson diminish and it will be clear that Clemson is better than Louisville.
Please, Football Gods, have the offensive line show up and open some holes for the running game!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3855]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 3201
Joined: 11/27/12
|
Everything he says is flawed.
Oct 26, 2016, 2:10 PM
|
|
If Clemson had lost to NC State, Clemson would be the better team... but NC State will finish the year 7-5....
If Clemson had lost to NC State, and they won't the ACC at 13-0 or even 12-1, they would be better than us. They won the same or more games and beat us.... that's how it works.
If Clemson finishes the year 10-2, then loserville can make a claim at being better, but there is no argument while they have more losses than us.
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [376]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 540
Joined: 9/21/15
|
Yes, I heard him. Wish the offense would just "click"
Oct 26, 2016, 1:33 PM
|
|
on all cylinders already and shut everyone up! I'm tired of it! Come on TIGERS!!
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Never give credibility to anyone who discounts head-to-head
Oct 26, 2016, 1:36 PM
|
|
It's just that simple.
If everything else is equal, head-to-head is *all* that matters.
Also, never listen to anyone who racks up an automatic loss ahead of time to bolster their argument about the state of things today.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13057]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22373
Joined: 4/24/04
|
In terms of being more deserving for a playoff bid, yes.
Oct 26, 2016, 1:41 PM
|
|
OTOH, i think Ohio State was better than Michigan State last year. Heck, i think Michigan was probably better than Michigan State last year too and would've beaten them if not for a 1-in-500 play.
Ultimately, MSU deserved a playoff bid because they did win those games, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the better team.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
MSU was better on the day they played OSU and Michigan and
Oct 26, 2016, 1:49 PM
|
|
that was the only time that the Buckeyes and the Wolverines could have legitimately made their case as the better team.
Head-to-head is real ... everything else is just conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13057]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22373
Joined: 4/24/04
|
That's not really true. We have ~14 games worth of
Oct 26, 2016, 2:56 PM
|
|
data on teams by the end of the year. Why focus on just 1 of those 14 games? Head to head becomes more relevant if the teams are close, but do you really believe that Texas was a better team than OU last year? Was VT better than Ohio State in 2014?
Granted, in the case of MSU, OSU, and Michigan last year, all of the teams had similar records. Michigan and MSU was probably a wash, but OSU was rated considerably higher than MSU in pretty much every metric that i pay attention to.
Again, I'm not saying that MSU wasn't deserving of their spot in the playoff. I agree that playoff bids should be awarded to the most accomplished teams. I supported their inclusion in the playoff last year - and FSU's in 2014. But when it comes to which teams are actually better I'm taking a Vegas approach. I know a handful of non-playoff teams would've been favored over MSU last year (including OSU if they had rematched) just as teams like Baylor and TCU (probably a couple others as well) would've been favored over FSU in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I prefaced it by saying "All things being equal" so ...
Oct 26, 2016, 4:32 PM
|
|
... of course it would depend on both teams continuing to win after the head-to-head matchup.
For example, I would never say Ole Miss was better than Bama last year even though they beat The Tide head-to-head. Alabama won out and Ole Miss lost more games, so the head-to-head argument was not valid anymore.
But, when teams like Clemson and Louisville are compared ... and Clemson is undefeated and Louisville still has that one loss to Clemson, then saying Louisville is better is a totally unsupportable statement.
In that case, head-to-head is all that counts regardless of what else Louisville did before or does after the loss to Clemson. If both win out, there is no way to seriously argue that Louisville is better than Clemson.
Still, there are those who will try. They will want to say Louisville is better because of what happened in other games. They'll say something like "Louisville hung 63 on Florida State, and Clemson struggled to win." But, because of the head-to-head loss to Clemson, their argument just doesn't stand up.
PS: You mentioned that certain teams that lost in upsets would be favored in a re-match. I won't argue that point, because being "favored" is a matter of someone's opinion, but if in the re-match, the favored team won (once again, head-to-head) then it can be legitimately said that they were the better team, because they won the game.
Trying to debate the issue can become difficult and convoluted, but I still think things clear up rapidly when you just look strictly at the head-to-head match-up to gauge superiority between teams that are equal otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24375]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9850
Joined: 10/7/15
|
Re: that 'idiot' Braden Gall...
Oct 26, 2016, 8:57 PM
|
|
.... folks, I spend way more windshield time than I really care for, but the upside is I listen to a LOT of xm - and except for the insane amount of commercial breaks (seriously, WHY am I paying for the service AND inundated with commercials?! But I digress...).
Anyway, to a PERSON - Gall, Staples, our 'own' Mark Packer, and many others - REPEATEDLY say "their job is to keep listeners listen and callers calling, and the BEST way to do that is stir up controversy and to keep listeners 'riled up' ".
After reading all of your discussion, theories and conjecture, I would have to say they have done just that!
hth
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 1,898
|
|
|