Clemson Football: One of 16 unbeatens, little credit given

Imagine the excitement of being a fan of one of the undefeated college football teams left in the 2022 season.  That’s where Clemson football finds itself this season.

It hasn’t been a perfectly even season for Clemson, it rarely is.  Even in the recent championship seasons, there was a loss to Pittsburgh at home and a scare against Syracuse in the Valley that I still owe Chase Brice and Tee Higgins a beer for.

There are those out there who believe Tiger fans are paranoid and see a bias that doesn’t exist and I sometimes agree with that assessment.  For example, it’s really difficult to believe there’s any bias by the networks in 2022 as the Tigers will be making three consecutive primetime appearances on ABC, and that’s after the Labor Day Night game against Georgia Tech.

Before I get into the weeds, let me provide credit where it’s due.  Despite their weak endorsement of D.J. Uiagalelei’s performance this season, the guys at the Cover 3 podcast were complimentary of Clemson and suggested they were rounding into a playoff team.

But after beating their second straight undefeated top-25 opponent the Tigers didn’t move in the AP Poll, despite a lackluster Michigan win over an embarrassing Iowa team.

You, AP pollsters, were the ones who ranked Wake Forest in the top 25 and placed North Carolina State in the top 10, it wasn’t Clemson fans that did that.  You said they were good, we didn’t.

That’s OK, surely everyone’s favorite objective nerd, Bill Connelly will rectify this and have the Tigers ranked higher in his “objective” SP+ rankings.

"“My SP+ ratings don’t trust them because they aren’t dominating a weak ACC landscape”"

In a word, “No”.

The SP+ rankings have Clemson at number 18, which seems like a farce, even to Paul Finebaum.

Mr. Connelly has Wake Forest at number 42 and North Carolina at number 28, so to his algorithm these are not top 25 wins, much less a top 10 win over the Wolfpack.  I get that.

But yet he extolls Michigan’s victory over Iowa who he inexplicably ranks 29th.  Perhaps it was the 7-3 victory over South Dakota State that impressed Mr. Connelly on the Hawkeyes behalf. Or the 10-7 loss to Iowa State. Or maybe the wins over Nevada and Rutgers.

By now you get my point.  This is madness.

Michigan hasn’t beaten two top-25 teams, they haven’t even played one.  Clemson is “penalized” for not “dominating a weak ACC landscape” (only three games into their ACC schedule I might add), but Michigan is lauded for beating a team that got two safeties and a field goal against South Dakota State. What are we doing?

By the way, the “weak ACC landscape” Connelly references, so far includes two AP top 25 teams in three games (one of which was in the top 10) who were both undefeated until they played Clemson.

Perhaps he’s penalizing the Tigers for the games they have yet to play, which wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Except the Tigers future schedule contains six teams ranked in his own top 60 and the weakest FBS team Clemson has played is 39 spots higher than the weakest on Michigan’s schedule.

I don’t know where Clemson should be ranked.  I believe they’re a notch or two below Alabama, Georgia and Ohio State.  There are better teams out there and Michigan may be one of them.  The Wolverines just haven’t done anything to prove that yet, either with your eyes or your algorithm.

I do know this ranking is ludicrous to most objective fans and weakens the argument around using algorithms to rank teams, especially when the authors words are included.

There was a time when I saw algorithms as an objective way to compare Clemson football to other teams

There was a time when I saw algorithms such as this as an objective way to compare college football teams and hope to minimize inherent human bias, but those days are long gone.

When your formula places 3-2 Texas fifth and 3-2 Oklahoma sixth – yes, the Oklahoma team that just gave up 41 first-half points and 55 in three quarters – twelve spots ahead of a team that just won back-to-back top 25 games then you may need to do some soul searching, or at least algorithm adjusting.

Now I see these algorithms as hubris by the authors and “content”, not the answer to anything, but clicks and arguments.

Mr. Connelly is much smarter than I am, of that there is no doubt.  I readily admit I don’t get it, I don’t understand the details of his algorithm and why Clemson is 18th and Michigan fourth given his nonsensical comparison of the schedules to date, nor do I understand why Texas and Oklahoma are where they are and I don’t care how smart you are, you’d have a hard time justifying that to anyone but your most hardcore acolytes.

Maybe that’s the whole point.  That it’s meant to be too complicated and confusing for the “average” college football fan to understand and we should just shut up and listen to the genius.

Not me. Not anymore.