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.
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.
These teams are't national champion teams every year though but that is the impression you SEC superfans like to push. Florida, Auburn fell off big time after their title years. Outside of Alabama and LSU, there hasn't been a whole of consistency at the top of SEC. The Auburn title was a Scam Newtown and they paid the price for that past two seasons. I'd rather not win the ttile and be a competitive team across 3 years then be horrible 2 out of 3 years and win the title. Alabama and Florida account for 5 of the titles. LSU for the other two, including one under Saban. Also keep in mind that Ohio State was undefeated last year and Alabama was not. Alabama didn't win their division two years ago, only got to title game b/c of SEC bias. Alabama really got in last year b/c of SEC bias, I'm not sure losing at home to Texas AM makes you title game worthy. They got in over 2 teams with no losses happened to lose late in the year and Bama managed to squeak out the win over flawed UGA team after a near epic choke. I think the case could be made that Kansas State and Oregon deserved to be in title game over Alabama but again SEC bias. I think ALabama avoided Florida and UGA and SC in the regular season last year so their big wins were UGA in the bowl game, barely, and a LSU team with a bad QB. They lost to the other decent team they played in Texas AM but who did Texas AM really beat last year outside of Alabama. They lost to both LSU and Florida despite all the hype surrounding their wonderboy QB.
I'd have no problem playing SEC teams every year, and give all the free publicity on ESPN for SEC and tv money that comes with it, we would just recruit even better. Already a top 10 recruiting class most every year.
SC used to pack their stadium out when they were winless. I know I wouldn't be going to Clemson games if they were that bad. But ACC does have some smaller basketball schools with small stadiums but I don't think lack of fan support is a problem in ACC. Clemson teams, win or lose, are usually much more fun to watch than SC fans, and I would be surprised if SC has more people at their games than Clemson on average.
I think most Clemson fans are going to sound alike because the facts are the facts.
I note no SC fans is doing a good job supporting their arguments on here. That's why you resort to these types of posts.
You guys have said over and over SEC is best conference top to bottom and I exposed that as flawed over and over.
SEC has really been two aweome coaches Saban and Urban Meyer winning mulitiple titles, with Saban have 4 of them including the one at LSU. LSU been solid as well but Auburn was a fluke title and if you look at their overall results over a 4 year span it is really as bad as as any bad ACC team. The SEC is basically bragging about the success of a few multi-win programs in their conference but the conference overall is nothing special. SC has only been better b/c UGA, FL, Tenn, Auburn, even Kentucky has been less competitive in recent years, and b/c of an impact player like Clowney who should have been able to go straight to NFL who they won't be able to replace ever with new recruits.
Sam's arguments are the same tired arguments you will read on Tigernet, nothing more. Trying to diminish the SEC is laughable even according to reporters who cover the ACC. In the WS Journal, the lead Wake Forest Reporter said that the ACC is better with the new teams but no on the same planet as the SEC. The ACC bloggers on ESPN talk repeatedly about the ACC being the nation's 5th best conference and what it has to do to make improvements. All of the stuff by Sam is the same Clemson BS. Fact is that Clemson wins 1/3 of their games against SEC teams, they are only getting at best 75% of the revenue stream of SEC teams and that gap will widen. On the field, Clemson played the game of their life and barely beat an uninspired SEC team with a last second FG at a neutral site. Playing SEC teams on occasion is a lot different than playing UGA, LSU and UF back to back, 2 of the 3 on the road. Would Clemson challenge for an SEC title, doubt it.
There is a difference in the teams between the two conferences. While the ACC loads up on skill positions, the SEC loads up on linemen. The defensive line at Carolina is terrific and not just because of Clowney, Quarles is a run stopper and Sutton had roughly 5 sacks last year as a backup. Carolina's season will be decided on how well the receivers come along. New linebackers can be helped a lot by a great line but, without being able to throw the ball, teams will out 8 folks in the box and stuff the run, that is hard to do in the SEC. Hope we can get the stable of running backs in shape quickly.
Looking at bowl records the past year, the SEC had 9 wins over teams such as Michigan, Notre Dame, & Nebraska. And, keep in mind that lower ranked SEC teams play higher ranked teams from other conferences. The ACC has only won 2 BCS games in forever.....according to the WS Journal, "The ACC disaster begins with the 2-13 record in BCS games, which trails the Big East (7-7) and every league right up to the SEC kings (15-6)".
Financially, Clemson and FSU are trying to be creative in keeping up with UF ad Carolina. The financial gap will widen between the schools in the coming years as the SEC Network comes online. What does that GAP mean? I am not sure but, in the 70's and 80's when Carolina was independent and had less money than Clemson, things went south for Carolina. I don't expect for Carolina to always have huge win streaks but, I also don't see Clemson dominating the series for a long time.
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?
Fear the thumb, dude. Excuses aren't worth the time.
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?
Statistically against FSU, Carolina did dominate the offensive side of statistics. Although when you have 4 or 5 turnovers, whatever it was, it doesn't matter if you had 600 yds of total offense, it gets negated. As for the Clemson game, Carolina had 100 more yds of total offense and nearly 2-1 possession time. That's dominating a football game. If a team playing with their 2nd string quarterback can do that to you at home, then you got spanked.
Connor Shaw is a very efficient passer as well. If Dylan Thompson was that much better, he'd be starting. So what you're saying is, Clemson's coaching staff was so bad, they couldn't make in-game adjustments to a 2nd string quarterback? Pshh... Please.
You have absolutely no facts to support such an opinion on a series out of 10 like that. I completely disagree.
Football is about execution. If you execute 3rd downs, then you're playing efficient football. It's also strategy of playing "keep-away" football, which is similar to what 'Bama does. Clemson just plain lost. It wasn't some gimmick. I'd take a 10 point win at Clemson ANYDAY, no matter how good or bad y'all are, I'll take it any day.
Not even barely thinking about the game this coming November, but, Clemson will be a good team again this year and they'll be playing at Williams-Brice. Carolina will be just as good of a team. I'm not ready to say Clemson is poised to defeat Carolina this year- I'll have to see it to believe it.
Statistically against FSU, Carolina did dominate the offensive side of statistics. Although when you have 4 or 5 turnovers, whatever it was, it doesn't matter if you had 600 yds of total offense, it gets negated. As for the Clemson game, Carolina had 100 more yds of total offense and nearly 2-1 possession time. That's dominating a football game. If a team playing with their 2nd string quarterback can do that to you at home, then you got spanked.
Connor Shaw is a very efficient passer as well. If Dylan Thompson was that much better, he'd be starting. So what you're saying is, Clemson's coaching staff was so bad, they couldn't make in-game adjustments to a 2nd string quarterback? Pshh... Please.
You have absolutely no facts to support such an opinion on a series out of 10 like that. I completely disagree.
Football is about execution. If you execute 3rd downs, then you're playing efficient football. It's also strategy of playing "keep-away" football, which is similar to what 'Bama does. Clemson just plain lost. It wasn't some gimmick. I'd take a 10 point win at Clemson ANYDAY, no matter how good or bad y'all are, I'll take it any day.
Not even barely thinking about the game this coming November, but, Clemson will be a good team again this year and they'll be playing at Williams-Brice. Carolina will be just as good of a team. I'm not ready to say Clemson is poised to defeat Carolina this year- I'll have to see it to believe it.
Clemson had a lot of injuries in the secondary last year, one of our best guys didn't play all season. We also didn't have a good pass rush last year and you guys could only sqeak out a 10 point win with a lot of 3rd and long plays. It isn't good offense as much as fortunate offense if you got to convert a lot on 3rd and long to move the chains.
Your backup is much better passer than Shaw. Shaw is like a slower Tim Tebow, he can throw the deep ball well but he is isn't good if a defense forces him to throw shorter passes to move the ball. LSU and Florida exposed this. I would have rather faced Shaw than the other guy with our secondary issues. Spurrier just favors the running QB but the other guy has more talent.
Clemson has beat a LSU team and a weak Auburn team SC has lost in the past two seasons. So Clemson is doing some stuff your team hasn't. SC is just a matchup problem for Clemson, especially Clowney. Most teams will do a better job blocking Clowney than Clemson could, and most teams don't have a NFL stud like that. He's been the difference maker for SC and I always say we lost to CLowney last two years not SC. Just the fact he's out there has a clear psychological impact on Boyd.
SC has lost a lot on offense from last year including your vastly underrated WR Ace Sanders ,and your top RBs, and that thug on defense to the NFL. SC is definitely going to lose at least 4 games this year and probably more like 5-6.
You can't prove SC would win a series with Clemson last year. You just basing that on one game that you won by 10. Sample size doesn't get smaller than that. Given SC's 1-3 record with Arkansas last year as that guy was pointing out on here, the more times you play Clemson the more probable it is you lost cuz Arky hasn't been any better than Clemson.
Fear the thumb, dude. Excuses aren't worth the time.
SC knows all about excuses. One of the worse college football programs of all time. a decent 3 year run under Florida's ex coach isn't going to wipe that away and his time is about up and your losing ways will resume.
When SC just wins one SEC title then they can brag a little. Because all they doing right now is riding on Florida/Bama/LSU's success and claiming it as their own. LOL
Clemson couldn't beat Carolina head-to-head and that's all that matters.
You couldn't beat LSU or FLorida. Weren't even competitive. If a team can do a decent job blocking Clowney they are going to beat SC. It is that simple. Clemson was more competitive in that game with SC. Just some big broken plays on 3rd and long went SC's way like that long (fluke) run by your "backup" quarterback.
Really, against SC is the best that sorry LSU QB looked all year and the funny thing is your thugs on defense were talking trash to him before the game according to him.
You couldn't beat LSU or FLorida. Weren't even competitive. If a team can do a decent job blocking Clowney they are going to beat SC. It is that simple. Clemson was more competitive in that game with SC. Just some big broken plays on 3rd and long went SC's way like that long (fluke) run by your "backup" quarterback.
Really, against SC is the best that sorry LSU QB looked all year and the funny thing is your thugs on defense were talking trash to him before the game according to him.
Interesting that you are talking trash to a team that beat you at your house.
Actually, against LSU, Carolina was leading in the fourth quarter in Deth Valley. So, I would call that competitive.
As for Clemson, Carolina did dominate the 2nd half. I can't remember how many plays Clemson ran but, the Clemson offense was shut down. You had no answer for Clowney, Swearinger, Hampton, Taylor or any of the other 2 deep. On offense, you had no answer for back up running backs or a 2 star QB out of HS.
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.
