Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think we are struggling to keep up with SC or most programs in the SEC right now. Clemson has had top recruiting classes the past 5 years under Dabo and we always recruit better players out of Florida and other states than SC. I can't think of a Sammy Watkins or CJ Spiller type of player that SC has gotten out of another state. That Garcia QB was out of Florida but he wasn't really that great. We only get to play SC once a year, and I think SC would have a hard time stopping Clemson's offense last year over a series of games last year. Your QB couldn't have played a better 2nd half in that game. Given we beat LSU and Auburn last year and only lost by 10 to SC, it is hard to say Clemson can't roll with SEC. FSU spanked SC just two years ago after SC made the title game and was spanked by Bama. I think FSU still got more overall talent than SC even though they been a little down compared to Bowden's big run in 90's.
SC has always gotten most of the in-state recruits even when they were a horrible program simply b/c Columbia is closer to most towns in the state and the black kids usually prefer a more urban area for college.
Are you sure cancelling swimming and diving programs was about funding Clemson football? I dont' see a whole lot of money coming out of that. Could just be there was little interest in those programs, and it isn't like people would pay to go watch that.
FSU "spanked" SC? Really? By 9 points? C'mon... You're probably thinking of that hit that Greg Reid laid on Marcus in that game, which was a wallop. But for the game overall, 9 points is not a spanking. FSU has loads of talent. They have more talent than SC.
Clemson could very well roll with the SEC. I think its foolish for anyone to think otherwise given the victory over a pretty good LSU team in the bowl game. When Clemson gets up for games, they do have the talent and potential. The ACC is holding them back. I for one, and many other Gamecock fans don't want Clemson in the SEC for many reasons, but one of them is we know Clemson would be elevated to a major power in the college football world.
The embolden sentences above are a bit funny. I think all teams in collegiate (except for maybe a handful of teams) got to play each other once that year, or for every year for that matter lol. This isn't baseball as you know. But even then, I think SC would have had little to no problem stopping Clemsons offense, even if it was at Death Valley. The stage was set, Clemson was playing at home and the result was SC's defense was too good. Simple as that. And you're right, our back-up, second string quarterback could not have played a better game.
The bottom 3 teams in the SEC last year were 1-23 in conference play, with two of those teams failing to win a single game. There were also two 2-6 teams. So your bottom 5 teams were 5-35 in the SEC last year. It really doesn't get much worse than that. If an average team in the SEC like SC was able to play these 5 teams or 4 of them with Ole miss who finished 3-5, they would easily have a 5-3 record in SEC just for showing up which would be touted as a solid record in SEC play b/c SEC is so awesome.
Last year, the SEC went 1-4 against Big East teams including regular season and bowl games, with losses to powerhouses Rutgers, Syracuse, and Lousville, two of which are joinging the ACC this year.
Vanderbilt lost to mighty Northwestern in the Big 10.
Clemson was 2-1 against SEC teams.
Ole Miss got crushed by a medicore Texas team 66-31.
You're talking about the bottom 3 teams out of the 14 team conference, right? Lol... Every conference has its cellar dwellers. Its pretty much a mathematical impossibility to have a conference full of winners. And don't scoff at Northwestern, they're a darn good team. I was relieved when we (SC) didn't have to play them in a bowl game. They would have been tough. Ole Miss was just pitiful.
Making a conference look bad by looking at the bottom 3 worst teams is not a breakthrough in college football analysis.
Auburn spanked SC in the title game that year, not Alabama. That was Alabama's "off year" between championships when they only won ten games - one of those losses coming here in Columbia, as my friends always find ways to remind me.
The bottom of the SEC looked worse than usual last year. Ole Miss was in a serious funk, and Arkansas was...well, I don't think Arkansas' official history books will even acknowledge that there was a 2012. Kentucky's gonna Kentucky. Normally Ole Miss is at least average, and Arkansas would have been in much better shape if Petrino could ride a motorcycle better.
I was pulling for Clemson over LSU in the bowl game, I have lots of friends that are Clemson fans. I thank God their not like this clown. Seeing as y'all like living in the past so much, y'all better worry about Georgia first, or else they will stomp that --- in your own stadium, just like we did last time we were there.
FSU "spanked" SC? Really? By 9 points? C'mon... You're probably thinking of that hit that Greg Reid laid on Marcus in that game, which was a wallop. But for the game overall, 9 points is not a spanking. FSU has loads of talent. They have more talent than SC.
Clemson could very well roll with the SEC. I think its foolish for anyone to think otherwise given the victory over a pretty good LSU team in the bowl game. When Clemson gets up for games, they do have the talent and potential. The ACC is holding them back. I for one, and many other Gamecock fans don't want Clemson in the SEC for many reasons, but one of them is we know Clemson would be elevated to a major power in the college football world.
The embolden sentences above are a bit funny. I think all teams in collegiate (except for maybe a handful of teams) got to play each other once that year, or for every year for that matter lol. This isn't baseball as you know. But even then, I think SC would have had little to no problem stopping Clemsons offense, even if it was at Death Valley. The stage was set, Clemson was playing at home and the result was SC's defense was too good. Simple as that. And you're right, our back-up, second string quarterback could not have played a better game.
SC's backup QB is a much better passer than the starter, and USC benefited from the fact Dabo thought Shaw was going to start and our defense had a different gameplan for a running QB.
I think SC would have lost 7 out of 10 times to Clemson last year if they played 10 games. or 3 out of 5.
SC didn't dominate the game, as you said FSU didn't dominate SC 2 years ago, it was only 10 point win despite SC killing us in time of possession. SC did't do much on 1st and 2nd downs against our weak pass defense and they were forced to convert on 3rd and long numerous times which is the main reason why they ate up so much clock. If a team is continuously having to convert on 3rd and long, they aren't really playing great on offense and they are getting fortunate, not to take anything away from them b/c they made big plays when they had to but most of the time SC isn't going to convert much on 3rd and longs. If you can't beat Clemson by more than 10 despite dominating in time of possesson and Clemson's worse secondary in probably Clemson history, how will SC roll with Clemson who looks to be much better on defense this year?
I was pulling for Clemson over LSU in the bowl game, I have lots of friends that are Clemson fans. I thank God their not like this clown. Seeing as y'all like living in the past so much, y'all better worry about Georgia first, or else they will stomp that --- in your own stadium, just like we did last time we were there.
I think Clemson is actually 9-3 or 9-4 in Columbia last 12-13 years. SC is finally have some success with Florida's ex coach who won a title. It took him 5 years to finally put out a decent squad at SC. His time is about up though so these are the glory years of SC football, one that has seen them not win a SEC title and be uncompetitive in the one SEC title game they made it to which shows the folly of divisions in conferences. They were probably 4th best team in SEC that year.
The reality is it is SC fans who are obnoxious when they finally win 4 in a row in the series, something Clemson has done 4 different times since 1980s. That's why I am analyzing their results in more detail.
I'll give SC credit for their 2 first wins in their 4 game run on us b/c those were team wins but last two years it has been all Clowney up in Boyd's grill. Clemson did much better against him in the first half of last year's game but he was unstoppable in the second half. We looked like the better team in the first half and SC looked like better team in 2nd half, that's because Clowney is a unbelievably good player and really should be Heisman and really should been allowed to go straight to NFL b/c he is too good for college ball. GOod luck replacing Clowney after he leaves this year. LOL
You're talking about the bottom 3 teams out of the 14 team conference, right? Lol... Every conference has its cellar dwellers. Its pretty much a mathematical impossibility to have a conference full of winners. And don't scoff at Northwestern, they're a darn good team. I was relieved when we (SC) didn't have to play them in a bowl game. They would have been tough. Ole Miss was just pitiful.
Making a conference look bad by looking at the bottom 3 worst teams is not a breakthrough in college football analysis.
I was talking about bottom 5 teams and it really you can add Ole Miss and Miss State to that. That is half the conference that is horrible to below average, yet SC fans on here have said over and over that SEC is best conference top to bottom. They have been the best conference top to bottom in the past but really last 5 years or so it has been very top heavy, with the top team, Florida with Tebow, the Auburn team with Scam Newtown, and the ALabama teams being much better than the rest of the teams with a 2nd team like LSU being solid top 10 team. The rest of the SEC is far behind the top two teams, there is a middle tier like UGA, SC, and then there are 7 pretty bad teams.
In the Bowden years in the ACC, Va Tech, Miami, NC State (Philip Rivers), Boston College (Matt Ryan), Maryland, Ga Tech, Virginia (Matt Schaub), UNC, even Wake Forest (they had one of the best small running backs I ever seen, Barkley I think ewas his name) were solid programs all pretty much at the same time. The ACC has gotten worse in last few years but so has the SEC and really all the conferences were pretty weak last year compared to most years. A lot of the historically good programs are struggling right now compared to where they normally were a few years ago, for whatever reason. I think a lot of it is defenses have not figured out how to deal with all the colleges going with a spread pass happy offense and doing it well. Nick Saban even acts like spread offenses should be illegal b/c defensive players can get hurt. It did look like LSU's defensive players were going to die last year in the Clemson game b/c they couldn't deal with our pace and fitness and I swear a few of them were crying on the field at the end of the game. LOL
do you all realize who the nat'l champs for the last decade or so have been ? Put those type teams on yer schedule - year in year out and call the conference weak. the a-sheshe cannot touch it. then compare game attendances - by conference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
