I personally just don’t have an issue with it that much. Especially because it was after we won the game. No matter what happened after that with the playoff picture we already did everything we could do down the stretch. I do think Shane has an issue with being too emotional during interviews during games as we saw last Saturday. But as with most of the stuff he does when he’s winning it doesn’t really matter.
I know as fans we want Clemson to lose every game. But him and Dabo are friends why would he care what Clemson does outside the game we play against them? Especially when it puts the committee in a situation where they have to rate us more highly for getting a win over a better opponent.
I agree with this. Before Sellers went out we were driving at the end of the half and got the ball back to start the second half. Sellers could have probably at least gotten a field goal there and then had a chance to take the lead. The defense was bad especially in the second half and Sellers did make some critical mistakes but the offensive drives with Sellers the offense looked at least competent.
The vibes are not high. It’s hard for us completely healthy to beat an Eli Drinkowitz coached team fully healthy at home. Almost no chance we do it without our Quarterback. After sellers went out Tonight it felt like we damn near needed to score a touchdown on defense or special teams to win.
I want there to be more credit given to quality wins than penalty given for losing to quality teams. For example if florid went 9-3 this year with a top 5 hardest schedule in the country they should get into the playoffs over a team like Indiana if they went 11-1. Rewarding teams like Indiana and SMU who play nobody all season but win a lot of games is not how this sport should work. This isn’t the NFL not every win means the same thing
I’m not going to go back and relitigate that because I think the 4 team format and the 12 team format are inherently different. But Alabama did win their conference championship in 2023 and played a tougher schedule than FSU even though they had more losses. So in that scenario it was 100 percent justified to put bama in.
We’ll see if the changes actually make a difference this year. All I’m saying is that the committee has never shown ever in the history of the college football playoff that they are going to prioritize teams with more losses but better wins. Traditionally they only care about a teams record even when teams only have 2 wins against bowl eligible teams.
I’m just saying nothing that the committee has done since we have had this College Football Playoff would suggest that they would do anything but prioritize teams with the best record. If Sankey got guarantee’s from the committee that they are going to start doing this I think this is a great move. If not then making teams play harder schedules with no real benefit is a terrible idea
As a fan I agree it’s good because of the fact we’re going to get more high quality games instead of playing FCS teams. But I think assuming the committee would put a 9-3 SEC team in the playoff over another power team with a better record but a worse schedule seems a little premature
I remember when he said last offseason South Carolina was mediocre and would finish 6-6 and before the LSU game he doubled down and said Sellers was overrated. They would have lost to South Carolina in that game too if Nuss didn’t put on an academy award performance flopping like a bitch after throwing another game losing INT. Some people will just never admit when they are wrong