The CardBoard
CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson (/thread-17071.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - BostonCard - 12-29-2018

As laughable as Notref Dame’s schedule was, Compared to UcF, whose best game was ? (Maybe Memphis, who it beat twice), Notre Dame actually played some teams.  I mean Michigan was a very good win.  And they had decent wins against Notthwestern and Syracuse, plus They also beat us, which was not entirely a pushover.  SC and Virginia Tech has disappointing seasons, but they would normally have been decent teams.

Notre Dame’s schedule was exposed, but at least it passes the red faced test; UCF is like the Boise State teams of old wo dominate a weak G5 conference and get up for one game a year against a P5 team.

BC

RE: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - Goose - 12-29-2018

(12-29-2018, 05:45 PM)Austroturf Wrote:  
(12-29-2018, 05:40 PM)Goose Wrote:  Not really. Clemson has a very good defense. ND hadn't played anything like it this year. That tends to snowball in a game like this, where once ND got behind they had to take chances, and against such a good defense that just doesn't work.

30-3 doesn't surprise you?  Would you have bet on that spread (-27)?  Not me.
No and no. It was very probable Clemson would win. 30-3 wasn't as probable, but that or worse was easily possible if ND fell behind early. If ND could have hung in there a bit longer and not been forced to quit running, it would have been easier to keep it "close".  However, ND was playing to win, not to keep the final score respectable. When you do that against a good defense, things can (and probably will) go south fast. Every 3 and outs puts your defense on the field too much. The second quarter was brutal for ND. They also lost the turnover battle. They completed basically 50% of their passes. They averaged 2.5 yards per rush. Their only hope was to keep Clemson's offense off the field, maintain time of possession, and shorten the game. (sound like any other team we know?) They couldn't, so 30-3 seems about right.
(12-29-2018, 05:53 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Notre Dame’s schedule was exposed, but at least it passes the red faced test; UCF is like the Boise State teams of old wo dominate a weak G5 conference and get up for one game a year against a P5 team.

BC
I agree. ND at least had a schedule that passes the "red face" test. (Is that a reference to their coach or just to red faces in general?) ND being a "semi-independent" in football is an interesting problem. They can't win a conference championship, but they also don't have the grind of a conference schedule. I think that this usually is an advantage to them that makes it possible to go undefeated, If they were in the ACC they certainly wouldn't have, IMO. Somebody would have ambushed them, and then they would have to play Clemson every year. As it is, they often get the benefit of the doubt IMO.

RE: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - 2006alum - 12-29-2018

Well, the Sooners look baked after a quarter. It's ironic that since the CFP era, there have been only two close SF games - the rest have been blowouts. Suggests the top 2 teams in the country are considerably better than the rest, just like the BCS era presumed...

RE: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - BostonCard - 12-29-2018

(12-29-2018, 05:45 PM)Austroturf Wrote:  
(12-29-2018, 05:40 PM)Goose Wrote:  Not really. Clemson has a very good defense. ND hadn't played anything like it this year. That tends to snowball in a game like this, where once ND got behind they had to take chances, and against such a good defense that just doesn't work.

30-3 doesn't surprise you?  Would you have bet on that spread (-27)?  Not me.

No, obviously I wouldn’t have taken Clemson at -27, but that’s not the same as the result not surprising me.  I expected Clemson to win, and to do so comfortably (at least two scores).

B
The “red faced test” might be an industry term, though I did find it on wiki:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/red_face_test

Basically, if you can make an assertion with a straight face, and without your face turning all red, whatever you are saying passes the red face test.

BC

RE: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - d4cohn - 12-29-2018

(12-29-2018, 07:04 PM)2006alum Wrote:  Well, the Sooners look baked after a quarter. It's ironic that since the CFP era, there have been only two close SF games - the rest have been blowouts. Suggests the top 2 teams in the country are considerably better than the rest, just like the BCS era presumed...

This. UGA had their chance and lost. Ohio State would have been smoked by either Clemson (31-0 loss in 2016) or Alabama.

That being said, my preference is for an 8-team playoff (5 Power 5 winners, best Group of 5 conference winner, 2 at-large bids), even if it would likely lead to lopsided results. I am a big believer in deciding it on the field, even if we likely know the result of most of these games ahead of time.

RE: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - stupac2 - 12-29-2018

The thing that people always forget is that it's actually harder to play a bunch of pretty good teams than a couple of great teams a bunch of nobodies. Like, a team that's a 70% favorite in every game is 10X less likely to go undefeated than the team that's got a couple of 50% games but the rest 95%, even though most people will find the latter schedule more impressive.

RE: CFP Semifinal- ND vs. Clemson - needle - 12-29-2018

Notre Dame very rarely trailed in the second-half of games this year and so was clearly deserving of a playoff bid, imo.

I had not seen any Clemson games and thought ND had a chance, but the Clemson offense truly has some quick strike capability and, I predict, will be able to match what Oklahoma's offense did against Alabama. I think the national championship game will be very close.