By Ed McGranahan.
By Ed McGranahan
Ever have a moment, after trying to make sense of something until your head hurts, that you erase the mental chalkboard and start from scratch?
For instance, if you presume Clemson deserves to be in the top 10 at this point of the season, does it necessarily follow that Clemson is one of the 10 best teams in the nation?
In the Darwinian monkeys-begat-man order in which Clemson opened the season at No. 14, the current status at No. 9 and 10 make sense. It’s survival of the fittest in the jungle. Attrition created an opportunity for a Clemson team that won its first three games.
However, if you apply the college football Big Bang approach, where everybody begins as an alpha particle and logarithms rather than attitudes are applied, the conclusion is far different.
Five of the six computers programs employed to determine the BCS rankings place Clemson in a range from No. 12 to 30 this week. Three don’t include Clemson in their top 20 – Sagarin (26), Anderson & Hester (28) and Massey (30). The two that do are Billingsley, which spat out a No. 15 this week, and Colley which registered No.12. In the spirit of full disclosure, Colley’s top three teams are Stanford, Iowa State and Alabama.
Bull? Maybe, but what do we really know for sure?
Unlike betting lines and times in the 40, these numbers are pure, though they can’t be totally divorced by preconceived attitudes about relative strength of schedule and conference muscle. In this realm, the sheer act of winning three games does not provide the same catapult effect as a poll. For instance, Clemson began 17th in the Billingsley ratings.
What the computers did not know was that Clemson started with three new offensive linemen and by the second half of the Furman game all three were on the sidelines with injuries. A computer also does not account for the irregularities in run defense, the abysmal pass rush against an offensive line with a 260-pound right tackle or the little mistakes that can become huge against a defense that hasn’t allowed a touchdown.
Those contribute to the two-touchdown betting line.
Coaches are players seem content accepting the underdog role.
“I think we’ve got the ability to be,” said guard Tyler Shatley, when asked if Clemson was truly a top 10 team. “I’m not sure that we’ve played top-10 football yet.”
Dalton Freeman toed the company line, pointing out that the Seminoles are picked to win the ACC Atlantic Division and in some circles are the favorite to win the national championship.
The hype for Saturday night’s game in Tallahassee should reach a shrill level, but there are reasons that games between top 10 ACC teams are rarer than vegans at a steak house. For several years we have listened to arguments that the ACC does not deserve consideration as a major football league.
A wiser point of view reveals that the ACC was seldom a big player. Florida State had a run with Clemson in a supporting role. Before Florida State joined the league, Clemson parried with Maryland or North Carolina or Georgia Tech or Virginia, though rarely all at once like Zorro.
Even in the post-Bowden Bowl era, any Clemson-Florida State game requires at least some attention. Heck, the winner may wind up in Charlotte again which, and in a perfect world, puts the ACC champion be in the mix for the Big Plum. Clemson-LSU for the national championship has a nice vibe, right?
Beating Florida State won’t impress the computers as much as it would the poll parrots. The computers aren’t dazzled by beat downs of over the State of Murray and Savannah. Sagarin’s computer spat out Florida State at No. 10. Colley’s funky machine said FSU at 18. And Massey (20) Billingsley (26) and A & H (31) aren’t giving the Seminoles any love at all.
Fortunately for the ACC, the computers count for only one-third of the BCS Rating.
Still, it makes my head hurt.