(11-11-2012 11:02 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I'll go on the record right now and say that neither school with be within 14 points of Clemson in 2013. In the immortal words of Dabo Swinney "print that, tweet that, whatever"

I can't say that yet about next year's team, because we lose Nassib and Lemon on offense. But I'd say that about this year's team versus Clemson this year.

Maybe I'd be proved wrong, but I don't see Clemson being that much better this season than they were last year where we handily beat a West Virginia team that wiped the floor with the Tigers in the Orange Bowl.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-12-2012 01:06 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 11:02 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 05:50 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:07 AM)omniorange Wrote:  I think you should seriously consider becoming a Gamecock fan, you're ***** envy for the SEC might then be satisfied.

Cheers,
Neil

I think you should seriously consider a lobotomy. It might give you a few IQ points.

So it's wrong for me, a football fan of a football school, to be upset that the conference, which has never put a priority on football, adds three basketball schools and tries to sell it as a football move? The only good thing out of any of these moves is they did away with the 9th conference game. God help our SOS this year if we had to play another ACC game.

Are you still going to keep calling Pitt and Syracuse BB schools? C'mon, I know Pitt's a mess right now due to a steady stream of poor coaching hires, but please try to give our schools the benefit of the doubt for at least a few seasons.

The last 20 years (including this year) have been considered a down period for Clemson football. We have had 3 losing seasons.

In the same time period Pitt has had 10, and Syracuse 7....with both potentially adding to the total this year.

Put yourself in the shoes of a fan of an ACC football fan and truthfully tell me what either adds to the ACC as a football conference.

Quote:If Pitt or Syracuse beats Clemson during the 2013 FB season, I'd hate to be the one that would have to clean up YOUR house...

I'll go on the record right now and say that neither school with be within 14 points of Clemson in 2013. In the immortal words of Dabo Swinney "print that, tweet that, whatever"

The only thing I ask is that the folks who would like nothing more than to throw this back in my face post and claim this between now and the first game in 2013. Don't be scared Nancys. Afterall Pitt won a ton of National Championships before WWII and Syracuse won one before the advent of color TV.

Dude I don't care what you are saying...Clemson has done less with more than any school out there. Great fan base but you guys almost always crap your pants in bowl games. Hell Cuse has a more impressive win each of the last two seasons than any game you've won in that time. We'll see what you do with the 'c ocks. Cuse is on the upswing and we bring a NE TV market along with Pitt and BC.

(11-11-2012 11:02 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 05:50 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:07 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 09:49 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  Just replace the current logo with a basketball and everybody will know which conference it is.

I think you should seriously consider becoming a Gamecock fan, you're ***** envy for the SEC might then be satisfied.

Cheers,
Neil

I think you should seriously consider a lobotomy. It might give you a few IQ points.

So it's wrong for me, a football fan of a football school, to be upset that the conference, which has never put a priority on football, adds three basketball schools and tries to sell it as a football move? The only good thing out of any of these moves is they did away with the 9th conference game. God help our SOS this year if we had to play another ACC game.

Are you still going to keep calling Pitt and Syracuse BB schools? C'mon, I know Pitt's a mess right now due to a steady stream of poor coaching hires, but please try to give our schools the benefit of the doubt for at least a few seasons.

The last 20 years (including this year) have been considered a down period for Clemson football. We have had 3 losing seasons.

In the same time period Pitt has had 10, and Syracuse 7....with both potentially adding to the total this year.

Put yourself in the shoes of a fan of an ACC football fan and truthfully tell me what either adds to the ACC as a football conference.

Quote:If Pitt or Syracuse beats Clemson during the 2013 FB season, I'd hate to be the one that would have to clean up YOUR house...

I'll go on the record right now and say that neither school with be within 14 points of Clemson in 2013. In the immortal words of Dabo Swinney "print that, tweet that, whatever"

Judging by Clemsons Highly, very pourous defense the last couple seasons, I would say that you are dead wrong. SU's potent offense would run up and down the field on Clemson's defense this season. Clemson would not be able to stop SU. But would SU be able to stop Clemson? I like SU's chances of stopping Clemson, better than Clemsons chances of stopping SU.

(11-13-2012 08:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 11:02 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 05:50 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:07 AM)omniorange Wrote:  I think you should seriously consider becoming a Gamecock fan, you're ***** envy for the SEC might then be satisfied.

Cheers,
Neil

I think you should seriously consider a lobotomy. It might give you a few IQ points.

So it's wrong for me, a football fan of a football school, to be upset that the conference, which has never put a priority on football, adds three basketball schools and tries to sell it as a football move? The only good thing out of any of these moves is they did away with the 9th conference game. God help our SOS this year if we had to play another ACC game.

Are you still going to keep calling Pitt and Syracuse BB schools? C'mon, I know Pitt's a mess right now due to a steady stream of poor coaching hires, but please try to give our schools the benefit of the doubt for at least a few seasons.

The last 20 years (including this year) have been considered a down period for Clemson football. We have had 3 losing seasons.

In the same time period Pitt has had 10, and Syracuse 7....with both potentially adding to the total this year.

Put yourself in the shoes of a fan of an ACC football fan and truthfully tell me what either adds to the ACC as a football conference.

Quote:If Pitt or Syracuse beats Clemson during the 2013 FB season, I'd hate to be the one that would have to clean up YOUR house...

I'll go on the record right now and say that neither school with be within 14 points of Clemson in 2013. In the immortal words of Dabo Swinney "print that, tweet that, whatever"

Judging by Clemsons Highly, very pourous defense the last couple seasons, I would say that you are dead wrong. SU's potent offense would run up and down the field on Clemson's defense this season. Clemson would not be able to stop SU. But would SU be able to stop Clemson? I like SU's chances of stopping Clemson, better than Clemsons chances of stopping SU.

Have you actually looked at the stat rankings? Syracuse is allowing 10 less yards and four more points per game this year than Clemson, while Clemson is gaining 44 more yards per game and scoring 14 more points on offense.

You will lose ten players off your offensive two deep next season. We lose four.

You will lose seven players off your defensive two deep next season. We lose five.

You are bringing in a top 75 recruiting class. We are bringing in a top 15 recruiting class that is heavy with defensive talent.

(11-13-2012 11:36 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 11:02 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 05:50 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I think you should seriously consider a lobotomy. It might give you a few IQ points.

So it's wrong for me, a football fan of a football school, to be upset that the conference, which has never put a priority on football, adds three basketball schools and tries to sell it as a football move? The only good thing out of any of these moves is they did away with the 9th conference game. God help our SOS this year if we had to play another ACC game.

Are you still going to keep calling Pitt and Syracuse BB schools? C'mon, I know Pitt's a mess right now due to a steady stream of poor coaching hires, but please try to give our schools the benefit of the doubt for at least a few seasons.

The last 20 years (including this year) have been considered a down period for Clemson football. We have had 3 losing seasons.

In the same time period Pitt has had 10, and Syracuse 7....with both potentially adding to the total this year.

Put yourself in the shoes of a fan of an ACC football fan and truthfully tell me what either adds to the ACC as a football conference.

Quote:If Pitt or Syracuse beats Clemson during the 2013 FB season, I'd hate to be the one that would have to clean up YOUR house...

I'll go on the record right now and say that neither school with be within 14 points of Clemson in 2013. In the immortal words of Dabo Swinney "print that, tweet that, whatever"

Judging by Clemsons Highly, very pourous defense the last couple seasons, I would say that you are dead wrong. SU's potent offense would run up and down the field on Clemson's defense this season. Clemson would not be able to stop SU. But would SU be able to stop Clemson? I like SU's chances of stopping Clemson, better than Clemsons chances of stopping SU.

Have you actually looked at the stat rankings? Syracuse is allowing 10 less yards and four more points per game this year than Clemson, while Clemson is gaining 44 more yards per game and scoring 14 more points on offense.

You will lose ten players off your offensive two deep next season. We lose four.

You will lose seven players off your defensive two deep next season. We lose five.

You are bringing in a top 75 recruiting class. We are bringing in a top 15 recruiting class that is heavy with defensive talent.

Syracuse goes on a 4 yr clock...some of our players listed as Seniors are actually Redshirt Juniors. We are never really sure how many will return.

(11-13-2012 11:36 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 11:02 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 10:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 05:50 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  I think you should seriously consider a lobotomy. It might give you a few IQ points.

So it's wrong for me, a football fan of a football school, to be upset that the conference, which has never put a priority on football, adds three basketball schools and tries to sell it as a football move? The only good thing out of any of these moves is they did away with the 9th conference game. God help our SOS this year if we had to play another ACC game.

Are you still going to keep calling Pitt and Syracuse BB schools? C'mon, I know Pitt's a mess right now due to a steady stream of poor coaching hires, but please try to give our schools the benefit of the doubt for at least a few seasons.

The last 20 years (including this year) have been considered a down period for Clemson football. We have had 3 losing seasons.

In the same time period Pitt has had 10, and Syracuse 7....with both potentially adding to the total this year.

Put yourself in the shoes of a fan of an ACC football fan and truthfully tell me what either adds to the ACC as a football conference.

Quote:If Pitt or Syracuse beats Clemson during the 2013 FB season, I'd hate to be the one that would have to clean up YOUR house...

I'll go on the record right now and say that neither school with be within 14 points of Clemson in 2013. In the immortal words of Dabo Swinney "print that, tweet that, whatever"

Judging by Clemsons Highly, very pourous defense the last couple seasons, I would say that you are dead wrong. SU's potent offense would run up and down the field on Clemson's defense this season. Clemson would not be able to stop SU. But would SU be able to stop Clemson? I like SU's chances of stopping Clemson, better than Clemsons chances of stopping SU.

Have you actually looked at the stat rankings? Syracuse is allowing 10 less yards and four more points per game this year than Clemson, while Clemson is gaining 44 more yards per game and scoring 14 more points on offense.

This is because Clemson has played a lot of other teams with porous defenses. Take a look at Yahoo stats. SU has played 3 teams with top 25 defenses while Clemson has played 1. SU has played 5 teams with top 35 defenses while Clemson has played 3. SU has played 7 teams in the top 50 defenses while Clemson has played 4.

You will lose ten players off your offensive two deep next season. We lose four.

You will lose seven players off your defensive two deep next season. We lose five.

You are bringing in a top 75 recruiting class. We are bringing in a top 15 recruiting class that is heavy with defensive talent.

The last several years, Clemson has been bringing in great recruiting classes. Those great recruiting classes hasnt stopped teams like WV from scoring 70 points on them, who Clemson has outrecruited the last several years. Also Clemson has lost games to other teams that they have outclassed on the recruiting trail in last couple of years, like BC, NC State, UNC, Georgia tech etc....

(11-13-2012 02:21 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The last several years, Temple has been bringing in great recruiting classes. Those great recruiting classes hasnt stopped teams like WV from scoring 70 points on them.

Really? Perhaps that's the problem. Never heard anybody else call a 5 year class ranking average of 79, with a highest rated class of 55 called great before.

Of course I guess it's relative, considering Syracuse's average is 67, with a highest ranked class of 51 and they are a football power.

(11-13-2012 02:31 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 02:21 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The last several years, Temple has been bringing in great recruiting classes. Those great recruiting classes hasnt stopped teams like WV from scoring 70 points on them.

Really? Perhaps that's the problem. Never heard anybody else call a 5 year class ranking average of 79, with a highest rated class of 55 called great before.

Of course I guess it's relative, considering Syracuse's average is 67, with a highest ranked class of 51 and they are a football power.

LOL, nice diversion tactic. You know I meant Clemson.

We have averaged a ranking of 22, with the highest ranking being 14. We have also won the division twice, the conference once, and if we beat NC State Saturday the ACC will give us our 3rd ACC Atlantic Trophy in Dabo's 4 full years of coaching. (Yes, we will be co-Atlantic Champions with FSU. FSU wins the tie-breaker and goes to the ACCCG, but the ACC gives both teams ACC Atlantic Trophies, just like they used to give ACC Championship Trophies to co-champions, even though both teams played each other during the season)

The WVU Bowl game y'all like to throw out there like you did it yourself was a perfect storm. Holgerson has said many times since the Orange Bowl that WVU never gained a full understanding of his offense until bowl practices. Combine that with a Clemson team full of freshmen who had hit the wall, and what seniors we did have were leftovers from the Bowden era where leadership, responsibility, and accountability were not a factor and it is a wonder we didn't give up 100. Also, DC Kevin Steele simply did not have a clue how to handle a high tempo spread offense.
That team had pretty much quit after GT. The only way we beat VT is the fact that I don't believe that Bud Foster could figure out a way to stop this offense two times if we played them ten in a row, and that it really isn't hard to stop a Stinespring offense with the brain-dead Mike O'Cain calling plays.

There is a reason why the past two years the two deep has been so young....Bowden recruited to recruiting rankings rather than need, and he didn't recruit either side of the lines at all. He's a lot like Mack Brown in that he seemingly cares more about winning in February than he does in October. He consistently signed a ton of highly rated skill position players (many that didn't ever set foot on campus) and neglected the lines. He liked to sign what he called "Jumbo Athletes".....TE/DE types that had the body type to add weight and play on the OL/DL rather than true OL and DTs. One year one of our starting DTs was a 255lb converted linebacker. Because of this seven of ten OL on the two deep this year are freshmen or sophomores, on of them a true freshman....and one of the juniors was a DT this time last year. Seven of eight on the DL two deep this year are freshmen or sophomores, with two true freshmen DTs getting significant playing time.

Another symptom of the Bowden era was the avalanche effect. While Bowden did a lot of good for Clemson, and history will judge him as a better coach than he looks right now because of it, his teams were mentally soft. They didn't get up for every game, and when something bad happened it tended to result in a series of bad things happening. A Bowden coached Clemson team would have went to BC after losing to FSU and lost. A Bowden coached team would have went into the high school stadiums at Wake and Duke and sleepwalked through half the game. Last year was a prime example, what few leaders we had on the team were all Bowden players. When adversity hit they expected more and got more as a result. This year the leaders are by necessity the sophomores and juniors and they don't have the same mindset of "Oh no! Here it comes again!" that pervaded the team in the Bowden era. That's why I think this team is special. We might not win out, as we are still an incomplete team with too many missing pieces, but like I said after last season and preseason this year.....you best get your shots in this year because you aren't going to get many chances the next 2-3 years.

BTW Catdaddy you piqued my interest. We lose 9 starters, 3 second teamers and 2 walk-ons...not as bad as you stated. Like I said Cuse's policy is to grant a 5th year and nothing is guaranteed. We have on true senior (OL Pugh) who might get drafted in the first round or two and he might declare.

If you blame the ACC for Clemson's losing seasons, do you also credit the ACC for Clemson's winning seasons?