SportsAndLady;1879816 wrote:Clemson got ranked so high yesterday because of their “quality wins”. Teams like Georgia tech and wake forest had winning records so they called it a quality win.

Michigan and Iowa, especially on the road, are quality wins if ga tech and wake forest are too.

I chuckled when ESPN commented on that. Well they did lose to Syracuse, BUT...some real high quality wins against 5-3 Wake and 4-3 GT. :rolleyes:

SportsAndLady;1879816 wrote:Clemson got ranked so high yesterday because of their “quality wins”. Teams like Georgia tech and wake forest had winning records so they called it a quality win.

Michigan and Iowa, especially on the road, are quality wins if ga tech and wake forest are too.

I admit, I didn't get to see the show. I figured Clemson's quality wins were just Auburn and Virginia Tech, and then maybe a little bit of credit for just playing teams with winning records. Did the committee chair state the specific criteria that they focus on?

I guess I was assuming that a quality win would be one over a team ranked in the committee's Top 25.

ironman02;1879856 wrote:I admit, I didn't get to see the show. I figured Clemson's quality wins were just Auburn and Virginia Tech, and then maybe a little bit of credit for just playing teams with winning records. Did the committee chair state the specific criteria that they focus on?

I guess I was assuming that a quality win would be one over a team ranked in the committee's Top 25.

Holcutt said he had Clemson in there because they played 6 teams with winning records.