'17' TN ATH Tee Higgins (Clemson commit)

#6,651
#6,651
BowlBrother85 said:
This is not just directed at you but to any poster who complains about a topic they don't like seeing at the top of the page:

Is bumping it with another reply the best solution or would simply ignoring it make more sense?
Click to expand...

I'd guess they open it hoping to hear the NCAA has hammered Clemson. That and or Tee is reconsidering Tennessee. If that's not the news, they complain and say it should be ignored. Then they open it again.
 
#6,652
#6,652
BowlBrother85 said:
This is not just directed at you but to any poster who complains about a topic they don't like seeing at the top of the page:

Is bumping it with another reply the best solution or would simply ignoring it make more sense?
Click to expand...

I understand but if everyone keeps posting on it it's not going to make a difference if me or someone else replies
 
#6,654
#6,654
BowlBrother85 said:
This is not just directed at you but to any poster who complains about a topic they don't like seeing at the top of the page:

Is bumping it with another reply the best solution or would simply ignoring it make more sense?
Click to expand...

Pearson thread redux...complainers of that thread's mere existence, bumped it into infinity. :lol:
 
#6,655
#6,655
BowlBrother85 said:
Putting their weak a$$ conference aside (which is not part of this argument)... I strongly disagree especially for a defense which was not that good a year ago when facing quality competition. They allowed 37 points to UNC and 32 points to SC, 41 points to NC State (and even 27 to Syracuse)...and we won't even talk about the Alabama game... We will see but anyone they are bringing off their bench now, has very little experience (they lost 8 starters)... and also 13 4 or 5 stars is not exactly what Alabama does over a two year period either. I stand by what I said.
Click to expand...

Great numbers! try these;
NCAA Total Defense rank
Clemson 10th, Tennessee 36th
Football Studyhall Defensive S&P+ Rankings
Clemson 4th, Tennessee 17th
This was after losing 7 starters from the previous year's Defense.
You should definitely make a phone call and correct some folks who clearly aren't as learned as yourself.
I'm not here to troll, I am a Clemson fan first, but also a UT supporter. I've just seen too many baseless statements to ignore.
 
#6,658
#6,658
noogatiger16 said:
Great numbers! try these;
NCAA Total Defense rank
Clemson 10th, Tennessee 36th
Football Studyhall Defensive S&P+ Rankings
Clemson 4th, Tennessee 17th
This was after losing 7 starters from the previous year's Defense.
You should definitely make a phone call and correct some folks who clearly aren't as learned as yourself.
I'm not here to troll, I am a Clemson fan first, but also a UT supporter. I've just seen too many baseless statements to ignore.
Click to expand...

Ignore or don't...you don't matter. :matrix:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,661
#6,661
vol2002 said:
And common opponents. We held Bama to 19 in Tuscaloosa. They held them to 45 at a neutral site.
Click to expand...

I don't usually like arguments based on a single outcome, but this one is pretty solid when compared to each team's respective schedule and remaining common opponents.

Each team also played Oklahoma and South Carolina. Tennessee and Clemson each gave up 17 points to OU in regulation, and CU gave up 32 points to Tennessee's 24 points vs USCe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,662
#6,662
noogatiger16 said:
Great numbers! try these;
NCAA Total Defense rank
Clemson 10th, Tennessee 36th
Football Studyhall Defensive S&P+ Rankings
Clemson 4th, Tennessee 17th
This was after losing 7 starters from the previous year's Defense.
You should definitely make a phone call and correct some folks who clearly aren't as learned as yourself.
I'm not here to troll, I am a Clemson fan first, but also a UT supporter. I've just seen too many baseless statements to ignore.
Click to expand...

Northwestern had the 13th best statistically ranked defense last year...45-6. Sometimes, you have to take into account who the teams are playing on their schedules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,663
#6,663
noogatiger16 said:
OK
Clemson
Beat #6 Notre Dame, #16 FSU, #10 UNC, #4 Oklahoma
Lost to #2 Bama
Tennessee
Beat #19 UGA, #13 Northwestern
Lost to #19 Oklahoma, #8 Bama

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Apparently a lot since you switched from to defense to ranked teams Clemson and UT played. What argument are you trying to make exactly? And is #4 Oklahoma better then #19 Oklahoma? And what about #8 Bama as opposed to #2 Bama? Clemson's defense rankings look better than what they are because they played a schedule of Rudy's. Clemson gave up 30 or more points in 2015 as opposed to 3 times against Tennessee's defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,664
#6,664
bignewt said:
The argument to that would be the schedule each play bub.
Click to expand...

Is that the schedule where they played 7 teams in the top 50 in scoring and we played 4? Or the one where we played 6 teams with scoring offenses ranked 100 or less?

I'm not defending Clemson at the sake of UT as much as I'm imploring folks to do some damn research before just spouting stuff off. I'm sure now it'll be pointed out that the offenses in the SEC are so pitiful because the defenses are so good.
 
#6,665
#6,665
sanddune50 said:
Apparently a lot since you switched from to defense to ranked teams Clemson and UT played. What argument are you trying to make exactly? And is #4 Oklahoma better then #19 Oklahoma? And what about #8 Bama as opposed to #2 Bama? Clemson's defense rankings look better than what they are because they played a schedule of Rudy's. Clemson gave up 30 or more points in 2015 as opposed to 3 times against Tennessee's defense.
Click to expand...

Mizzou, SCar, NT, Vandy and NW all averaging about -5ppg had nothing to do with our defense looking great did it?
 
#6,666
#6,666
bowlinggreenvol said:
Mizzou, SCar, NT, Vandy and NW all averaging about -5ppg had nothing to do with our defense looking great did it?
Click to expand...

And Clemson's weak opponents had nothing to do with theirs. :loco: At least get his point that they changed common opponents rankings to make their point.
 
#6,667
#6,667
butchna said:
And Clemson's weak opponents had nothing to do with theirs. :loco: At least get his point that they changed common opponents rankings to make their point.
Click to expand...

Clemson's worst opponent offensively was BC; we played 3 teams who were worse offensively. So if their defense was statiscally superior than ours and their opponents offenses were statically superior, wouldn't that imply that their defense is actually better than ours? I'm not arguing poll rankings because that's irrelevant, subjective and fluid; I'm presenting tangible on the field stats.

But yes, using separate rankings for the same teams is dumb. The teams are what they are. OU wasn't a different team from Sep 15 to Dec 31 just because the number in front of them changed.
 
#6,668
#6,668
sanddune50 said:
Apparently a lot since you switched from to defense to ranked teams Clemson and UT played. What argument are you trying to make exactly? And is #4 Oklahoma better then #19 Oklahoma? And what about #8 Bama as opposed to #2 Bama? Clemson's defense rankings look better than what they are because they played a schedule of Rudy's. Clemson gave up 30 or more points in 2015 as opposed to 3 times against Tennessee's defense.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't know a better way than to use the ranking when the game was played. Sometimes it worked in favor of one or the other, but it went both ways. Northwestern ended up ranked 23rd, which sounds a lot less impressive than a drubbing of # 13.
End of Year was
Bama #1
Oklahoma #5
Notre Dame #11
FSU #14
UNC #15
Northwestern #23
I agree that to use transitive arguments (which are terribly flawed) combined with differential rankings ads an extra variable making it less valuable.
I just didn't know which way to go, and was responding to a transitive argument to begin with, but plug rankings however you'd like, I don't think it changes the results.
 
#6,669
#6,669
noogatiger16 said:
OK
Clemson
Beat #6 Notre Dame, #16 FSU, #10 UNC, #4 Oklahoma
Lost to #2 Bama
Tennessee
Beat #19 UGA, #13 Northwestern
Lost to #19 Oklahoma, #8 Bama

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
So you are saying it was a different Alabama team. I get it. You guys beat Sonners and we did not which we knew before you wasted everyone's time. We beat SC barely same as you. Very little difference. Tech beat FSU and should've beat UNC. I mean you had a good little team that lost to the only ranked SEC team you played. UT would've beat FSU and UNC in my opinion. You had a good little team but the ACC in football is not that tough. UNC benefited from being an ACC team last year.
 
#6,670
#6,670
noogatiger16 said:
Sorry, I didn't know a better way than to use the ranking when the game was played. Sometimes it worked in favor of one or the other, but it went both ways. Northwestern ended up ranked 23rd, which sounds a lot less impressive than a drubbing of # 13.
End of Year was
Bama #1
Oklahoma #5
Notre Dame #11
FSU #14
UNC #15
Northwestern #23
I agree that to use transitive arguments (which are terribly flawed) combined with differential rankings ads an extra variable making it less valuable.
I just didn't know which way to go, and was responding to a transitive argument to begin with, but plug rankings however you'd like, I don't think it changes the results.
Click to expand...

Your defense sucks. :hi:
 
#6,671
#6,671
bowlinggreenvol said:
Clemson's worst opponent offensively was BC; we played 3 teams who were worse offensively. So if their defense was statiscally superior than ours and their opponents offenses were statically superior, wouldn't that imply that their defense is actually better than ours? I'm not arguing poll rankings because that's irrelevant, subjective and fluid; I'm presenting tangible on the field stats.

But yes, using separate rankings for the same teams is dumb. The teams are what they are. OU wasn't a different team from Sep 15 to Dec 31 just because the number in front of them changed.
Click to expand...

It's not UT D VS CLEMSON D. It is more their D wasn't all that good to be a playoff team. It was their O and Watson that carried them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,672
#6,672
bowlinggreenvol said:
Mizzou, SCar, NT, Vandy and NW all averaging about -5ppg had nothing to do with our defense looking great did it?
Click to expand...

Never said that. Was just pointing out your fellow Clemson fan's flawed thinking. Way to put words in someone's mouth though. And speaking of South Carolina, they were one of the teams that hung over 30 on Clemson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,673
#6,673
JacketVol said:
It's not UT D VS CLEMSON D. It is more their D wasn't all that good to be a playoff team. It was their O and Watson that carried them.
Click to expand...

Their defense was top 10 in the country and some geniuses decided to argue it was because they played weak teams. Teams who's offensives were pretty damn good. We can go round and round with this all day. I'll say the offenses they played were good so no wonder they gave up some points. You and others will argue the offenses are good because the defenses are bad. I could argue the offenses in the SEC are terrible that's why the defenses look good. You'll argue the offenses are terrible because the defenses are so good. It's a circle that never ends.
 
#6,674
#6,674
bowlinggreenvol said:
Their defense was top 10 in the country and some geniuses decided to argue it was because they played weak teams. Teams who's offensives were pretty damn good. We can go round and round with this all day. I'll say the offenses they played were good so no wonder they gave up some points. You and others will argue the offenses are good because the defenses are bad. I could argue the offenses in the SEC are terrible that's why the defenses look good. You'll argue the offenses are terrible because the defenses are so good. It's a circle that never ends.
Click to expand...

I will argue that any defense that allows 41 points to NC State while allowing 135 yards on the ground and 264 through the air is not that good... and that same defense will be minus 7 draft picks this year. You will probably argue anything just for the hell of it. You have gone to some incredible lengths in this thread to build a case for Clemson and Ohio St which is just weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#6,675
#6,675
sanddune50 said:
Never said that. Was just pointing out your fellow Clemson fan's flawed thinking. Way to put words in someone's mouth though. And speaking of South Carolina, they were one of the teams that hung over 30 on Clemson.
Click to expand...

It's not putting words in your mouth, it's showing statistically why we were less likely to give up 30. If one teams plays more teams who avg 30+ than the other team does, then there's a good chance that team will have 30 scored on them. We played 8 who avg less than 30, they played 7 who avg more than 30. I like our odds to hold our opponents to less 30 because that would be the status quo.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top