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.
ESPN's Brad Edwards (Disclaimer: Isn't he a former Gamecock?) commented on the prospect of two teams that had a sour end to their seasons playing in the Orange Bowl: Alabama and Clemson. He said that after beating Georgia in the season opener (What can you really tell in the season opener, right?), Clemson basically had two games left - Florida State and South Carolina - and lost both of them.
I don't have the link. The story was picked up from The Greenville News and is in this morning's hard copy of The State.
lol this is funny coming from a fan of a SC team that lost to Tenn. Was that a game that you had left after losing to UGA, a team Clemson beat? You played UGA the week after Clemson, so I guess SC only lost b/c it was early in the season?
I think Clemson had several games and they won them all outside of FSU and SC. It isn't just about beating ranked teams.
You obviously aren't somebody who really enjoys watching football. Just a SC fanboy.
You miss the entire concept of the sport. The PLAYER is irrelevant. The BALL is what the game is about. The player is just a tool to move the ball.
Tajh Boyd or Sammy Watkins can run all they want downfield. They can run into the end zone 20 times. But without the ball, it doesn't matter.
Its not about stopping a PLAYER from forward progress. Its about stopping the BALL from that progress.
At it's core, basic roots, its about getting possession of the BALL, and then moving the BALL, within the rules, past set lines of first downs and end zones. The BALL, not the player.
Just like basketball. And soccer. And hockey. Sports involve taking a little object, and putting it into a set spot. And, about the team that has possession of that object, or, wanting possession of it.
So, by your logic, when a QB throws a pass, and it hits the WR in the hands, but he tips it up instead of catching it, fluke accident, and a defender intercepts it, that should be just an incomplete pass, not an INT? Afterall, its just a fluke accident of tipping the ball, just like dropping a fumble, right?
You have to have possesion of the ball to make forward progress so it is about stopping the player. It is player and the ball.
No, the ball is in the air, it is a free ball. That has been my point all along, once it hits the ground, it should be dead.
You guys aren't going to be open to eliminating fumbles b/c only reason you beat Clemson this year was the fumbles by Clemson.
maybe no body is open to it because it is a dumb idea from someone who apparently can't grasp the concept that one of the most important factors in football is being able to hold onto the ball.
maybe no body is open to it because it is a dumb idea from someone who apparently can't grasp the concept that one of the most important factors in football is being able to hold onto the ball.
rules of the game can be whatever you want it to be. You are not refuting my points, you are just saying fumbles should be a part of football. You are one of these old dudes that gets all uptight if somebody proposes something new. I'm talking about it from an entertainment standpoint, i think fumbles are cheap way to get ball back.
There is even this phrase called "Fumble Luck". You don't hear the phrase interception luck or sack luck or completion luck, just fumble luck.
If there were tons of posssesions in a football game like basketball the fumble luck wouldn't be a big deal
I think the thing you aren't refuting yourself is the fact that a fumble IS and WILL be part of the game for as long as we know it. It's one thing to casually discuss it, but it goes nowhere since it has zero possibility of it ever changing. I think you need to do a better job in pressing your idea of having no fumbles because frankly, its going over like a fart in the wind. So not only is it not possible, no one is sold and no one believes it will ever change. Not even Bob Costas LOL So keep trying your hardest, you're a one man party right now. To put it in relative terms for you, you're starting to sound like Obama in pressing that health care bill that no one wants.
Every play Carolina runs I'm saying "hold on to the ball" because I fear the opposing team will jar it lose or rip it away. Maybe next year Clemson will have learned to do that. haha... next year - Sounds familiar; sounds better when they're saying it and not us.
I see pelham's innovative sports ideas are really taking off. Keep it going son! Never give up your dream! Maybe if you can get your ideas implimented, you could petition the NCAA and they'll reverse the final outcome of the game and you can say that clempson actually won!
Better team gets BCS bowl though. Both teams had 2 loses. The clemson win only kind of helped offset losing to a very bad unranked team that had not won a SEC game in like 3 years until that one. lol
Clemson cleary had the best loses of the two. Teams are going to lose 50 percent of the time to other teams with fairly even talent level. The fact Clemson has beat UGA, LSU, and Auburn in recent years when SC didn't does indicate that. The more good teams you play the more it evens out in the win loss.
Boomiest.
What other 2 loss team in the country has the quality losses that Clemson does? I guess Missouri. Missouri wasn't top 5 team thoug if Auburn one-D offense could score 60 on them so easily. FSU is going to blow out Auburn.
Better team gets BCS bowl though. Both teams had 2 loses. The clemson win only kind of helped offset losing to a very bad unranked team that had not won a SEC game in like 3 years until that one. lol
Clemson cleary had the best loses of the two. Teams are going to lose 50 percent of the time to other teams with fairly even talent level. The fact Clemson has beat UGA, LSU, and Auburn in recent years when SC didn't does indicate that. The more good teams you play the more it evens out in the win loss.
Boomiest.
Ok. Lets see, how can we determine who is the better team...Clemson? Or South Carolina?
OH WAIT...they played on the field. USC 31. Clemson 17. And they played 5 times in the last 5 years. And USC won 5 times.
Boom-shaka-laka.
Scoreboard. Scoreboard. Scoreboard.
Really don't need any other argument. You can compare "best loss" or whatever you want to dream up.
What will be longer, President Obama's presidency, or USC's win streak over Clemson? Both are at 5 years. 8 for Obama is guaranteed. So is 8 for USC.
My dog is 5 and 1/2 years old. He may go his whole life without seeing Clemson beat USC.
We can argue about whether Missouri is better than Oregon. They don't play.
We can argue about whether Florida State is better than Ohio State. They don't play.
We can argue about whether Baylor is better than Michigan State. They don't play.
We can argue about whether Alabama is better than Stanford. They don't play.
We can not argue about whether Clemson is better than South Carolina.
By your own logic, Tenn is better than SC. I don't think any true football fan believes that. lol And Clemson would also lose to Tenn although actually Clemson would win by 20 points or more. 2 losses are 2 losses in the end.
I don't think there was a better team this year, just two good teams and one had to lose and the hometeam held serve b/c of the turnovers.
Duke basketball will lose a few games every season to teams that are much less talented. nobody tries to argue those teams are better though. lol in college fball this conclusions based on one game is prevalent, b/c of the short season.
Even if BCS could get another SEC team in there, they would have picked Mizzouri over SC b/c SC is boring to watch on offense. And Zou doens't choke that game with their starting QB.
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.
