Will 2 teams from the same conference make the playoffs ???

[CWood21]

8 minutes ago, PAW said:

Lol...I never said their offense is going to get shut down.  You are the one who jumped to that conclusion.  I said their defense isn't championship caliber, and all you want to talk about is their offense.  All I said is their offense won't put up 40 in playoff games and you act like it's a ridiculous statement and start throwing around 30 point games and what not.  Clemson and Auburn would run all over that defense and Oklahoma will have to put up a lot of points to win which I don't see them doing.  Scoring 25 on Clemson or Auburn would be an accomplishment, but I don't see it being enough to beat either one of them.

You made the original statement saying that they weren't going to put up 40+ points against a championship caliber defense (link).  My response just two posts later said that I didn't think they needed to score 40+ points in order to win the game, in fact I argued that I thought 30 points would be more than enough for Oklahoma to win a game against Auburn/Georgia/Alabama.  I then went a step further and said I thought they could win the game with just 25 points, but that's probably a tad optimistic.  But with 30+ points, I'm feeling very comfortable with Oklahoma's chances to win.  The fact is Oklahoma doesn't have to score 40+ points to beat an SEC team, 30 should be more than enough.  And I'm pretty damn comfortable saying that Oklahoma can and would score 30+ points.

When did Auburn or Clemson face an offense as explosive as Oklahoma?  They haven't.  But neither Auburn nor Clemson's offense scare me enough, and I don't think that either of those teams are going to magically figure out how to stop Baker Mayfield or the Oklahoma offense.

[PAW]

Didn't realize you're an Oklahoma fan, makes a lot more sense now.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, PAW said:

Didn't realize you're an Oklahoma fan, makes a lot more sense now.

Continue to ignore forum rules if you want to see where that goes.

[PAW]

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Continue to ignore forum rules if you want to see where that goes.

Implying someone is bias is against forum rules?  Can you warn yourself as well then since you accused me of having an SEC bias (even though Clemson is in the ACC).

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, PAW said:

Implying someone is bias is against forum rules?  Can you warn yourself as well then since you accused me of having an SEC bias (even though Clemson is in the ACC).

No, but the reading comprehension comment from the last page and the most recent comment are trolling/baiting.

Now, let's get back to discussing football.

[PAW]

Ok, here are some stats for you (and goes back to my original point that I don't see this Oklahoma team much different than the 2015 one, but after looking at the numbers the 2015 team had a much better defense which only further strengthens my point)

2017 / 2015 (both years with Riley + Mayfield):

Offense

45.3 PPG (#4) / 45.8 PPG (#3)

593.5 YPG (#1) / 542.9 YPG (#7)

Playoff points: tbd / 17

Defense 2017 / 2015

25.7 PPG (#57) / 22.0 PPG (#28)

390.4 YPG (#62) / 364.5 YPG (#39)

5.69 YPP (#73) / 4.79 YPP (#15)

Now, just because the stats on offense are similar doesn't mean the same outcome will occur again.  Mayfield is a little better and Big Game Bob is gone.  But my concern with Oklahoma, like stated in my OP, has to do with their defense not being championship caliber and the numbers don't change that concern for me.  There offense is going to have to play lights out in both games to win the Championship.  Can they? Absolutely.  Do I think it is likely considering the defenses they will be up against (assuming Auburn and Clemson both win this week)? No.

[CWood21]

13 minutes ago, PAW said:

Now, just because the stats on offense are similar doesn't mean the same outcome will occur again.  Mayfield is a little better and Big Game Bob is gone.  But my concern with Oklahoma, like stated in my OP, has to do with their defense not being championship caliber and the numbers don't change that concern for me.  There offense is going to have to play lights out in both games to win the Championship.  Can they? Absolutely.  Do I think it is likely considering the defenses they will be up against (assuming Auburn and Clemson both win this week)? No.

So...why does the game 2 years ago mean something, but the game 4 years ago doesn't?  Just because it doesn't fit your arbitrary definition of meaningful?  But back to your point about that game, I know exactly when that game swung Clemson's way.  Right after Clemson had that missed FG, Oklahoma had the opportunity to retake the lead.  Instead, they ended up giving the ball back on downs, and the next series a couple of big plays gave Clemson a two-score lead.  It probably wouldn't have been a huge issue had two of next three series led to interceptions, and a 3-and-out for the other series.  Do you truly believe that Oklahoma is going to commit two turnovers AND a 3-and-out?  Oklahoma is tied for 5th in interceptions and 5th in 1st downs.  It literally took a perfect storm for Clemson to create an insurmountable lead.

[PAW]

Just now, CWood21 said:

So...why does the game 2 years ago mean something, but the game 4 years ago doesn't?  Just because it doesn't fit your arbitrary definition of meaningful?  But back to your point about that game, I know exactly when that game swung Clemson's way.  Right after Clemson had that missed FG, Oklahoma had the opportunity to retake the lead.  Instead, they ended up giving the ball back on downs, and the next series a couple of big plays gave Clemson a two-score lead.  It probably wouldn't have been a huge issue had two of next three series led to interceptions, and a 3-and-out for the other series.  Do you truly believe that Oklahoma is going to commit two turnovers AND a 3-and-out?  Oklahoma is tied for 5th in interceptions and 5th in 1st downs.  It literally took a perfect storm for Clemson to create an insurmountable lead.

Because Mayfield was on one but not the other (which is why I didn't bring up 2014 which was far worse, but I noticed you skipped that game too)...

You got shut out the second half.  That's not due to 1-2 plays.  But we will see how it plays out on the field.  If Auburn makes the playoff, they are my pick to win-but I can easily see them losing this weekend considering how beat up they are, not at home, 3rd huge game in the past 4-5 weeks.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, PAW said:

Because Mayfield was on one but not the other (which is why I didn't bring up 2014 which was far worse, but I noticed you skipped that game too)...

You got shut out the second half.  That's not due to 1-2 plays.  But we will see how it plays out on the field.  If Auburn makes the playoff, they are my pick to win-but I can easily see them losing this weekend considering how beat up they are, not at home, 3rd huge game in the past 4-5 weeks.

The only reason I pointed out the Alabama game was because the same lame argument was made then.  That there was no way Oklahoma would score 30+ points on a vaunted Alabama defense.  And then after the game, all I heard was how the game was meaningless for Alabama.  It's nauseating.

Look at the score.  It was 17-16 at halftime with Oklahoma holding a slim lead.  Then Clemson scored 21 unanswered points in the second half, which were largely fueled by TWO interceptions by Baker Mayfield.  So...I'll ask you this, did Clemson magically figure out how to attack Oklahoma after halftime or did those two turnovers play a crucial role into giving Clemson the win?

[PAW]

Just now, CWood21 said:

The only reason I pointed out the Alabama game was because the same lame argument was made then.  That there was no way Oklahoma would score 30+ points on a vaunted Alabama defense.  And then after the game, all I heard was how the game was meaningless for Alabama.  It's nauseating.

Look at the score.  It was 17-16 at halftime with Oklahoma holding a slim lead.  Then Clemson scored 21 unanswered points in the second half, which were largely fueled by TWO interceptions by Baker Mayfield.  So...I'll ask you this, did Clemson magically figure out how to attack Oklahoma after halftime or did those two turnovers play a crucial role into giving Clemson the win?

The game changed on the fake punt.  We dominated the game after that play.  By the time Mayfield threw his first INT, the score was already 30-17 and well on its way to getting out of hand.  So no I don't think his INTs played a crucial role in the game.  Our offense started executing better in the 2nd half since your defense was worn out.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, PAW said:

The game changed on the fake punt.  We dominated the game after that play.  By the time Mayfield threw his first INT, the score was already 30-17 and well on its way to getting out of hand.  So no I don't think his INTs played a crucial role in the game.  Our offense started executing better in the 2nd half since your defense was worn out.

You're referring to that fake punt that happened at the beginning of the 2nd quarter?  That's a pretty broad definition of dominating, considering that including that series Clemson outscored Oklahoma 13-10.  If you want to call that dominating, go right ahead.  Most wouldn't agree with you, and I certainly wouldn't.

Let's recap this.  Oklahoma led 17-16 going into halftime.  Clemson received the ball to start the half, and promptly went 75 yards and took a 23-17 lead.  No big deal.  Oklahoma then went 3-and-out in large part because of Kevin Dodd in the next series.  Clemson had a chance to put a bigger lead on Oklahoma by kicking a FG, but they missed.  Instead of taking that momentum, Oklahoma turned the ball over on downs and the next series Clemson went down and scored to take a 30-17 lead.  That puts Oklahoma in a hole, but not an insurmountable hole.  Instead, Baker Mayfield throws his first interception but Clemson couldn't capitalize.  Oklahoma then promptly went 3-and-out which led to another Clemson TD to push the lead 37-17.  And the nail in the coffin was that final interception that pretty much ended the game at that point.  The game wasn't swung in the 1st half, it was that period from the missed FG until that second TD that Clemson scored.

[Iamcanadian]

As far as I can see, this year's playoffs are wide open. Nobody thought Ohio St. could win their championship after their starting QB got injured a few year's back. Oklahoma has an excellent shot at winning the championship this year, as they have the best QB in the playoffs and last I looked, having the best QB counts for a lot in winning championships.

Auburn could have great difficulty winning against Georgia, look what happened to Ohio St after they beat a high ranked Penn St. They had nothing in the tank against a weak Iowa and the same fate could easily overtake Auburn, after their huge emotional victory over Alabama.

Everybody seems to be assuming Ohio St. will beat Wisconsin, but Wisconsin usually plays quite well against Ohio St.

Heck, Miami could beat Clemson as well.

All the homers need to shut up, of course, you will say your team is the best??? But right now, this is a wide open competition and I'll just add, that based on SOS, I can see no way that Alabama deserves to get in under any circumstances, especially, after not even getting into their conference championship game. But for the NCAA, money talks and both Ohio St. and Alabama are huge TV draws, so the NCAA wants both of them in, as long as they believe they can get away with it. 

[Pugger]

I doubt the NCAA wants any particular team to get in but I suspect the TV networks do.  If Wisconsin wins neither OSU or Alabama will make it.  We shall see.

[MWil23]

46 minutes ago, Pugger said:

  If Wisconsin wins neither OSU or Alabama will make it.  We shall see.

What if TCU upsets Oklahoma?

[THE DUKE]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

What if TCU upsets Oklahoma?

Then Alabama will get in is the obvious answer.

Literally the only way Ohio State gets in this year is if the top 4 all lose.  It would be a glorious spectacle to behold, but alas, I don't see that happening.