|
Replies: 26
| visibility 3552
|
Top TigerNet [29784]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 34771
Joined: 2009
|
SEC teams won 4 national titles from 1980-2000
Jan 8, 2014, 1:44 PM
|
|
And yet ESPN article says that FSU did their 90s domination in that time "in SEC country". Now they are trying to re-write history.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
true, and wasn't the "u" 's domination in the '80's ?
Jan 8, 2014, 1:47 PM
|
|
the sec wasn't DOMINATE until this past streak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3245]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Well I'm sure SCAR claimed the natty those years too
Jan 8, 2014, 1:49 PM
|
|
Why not add them to the SEC book$
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3926]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
to their credit. Most of the ESPN writers
Jan 8, 2014, 2:02 PM
|
|
were not alive in the 80's...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66429]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 24658
Joined: 2011
|
Just means they don't do their homework***
Jan 8, 2014, 2:12 PM
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [713]
TigerPulse: 38%
22
|
Re: SEC teams won 4 national titles from 1980-2000
Jan 8, 2014, 2:48 PM
|
|
To be fair do we talk about Army as a dominant program anymore.
There is a point in time when you talk about today and what is relevant
The last 20 yrs is probably a good place to start. some may argue the last 15 when talking relevance and some may say only the last 5-7.
Just people's personal opinion on things. I think of relevance as far back as I can remember but that is just me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
the last 5 ? hmmm, i wonder who that is ? but, you have to
Jan 8, 2014, 3:21 PM
|
|
forget about the 7 part of that theory, we are the only ones to do that in this rivalry !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junkie [590]
TigerPulse: 34%
20
|
Re: the last 5 ? hmmm, i wonder who that is ? but, you have to
Jan 8, 2014, 3:26 PM
|
|
We have all seen the Clemson "This is USC" history post so I was interested in looking at the history of the Tater program.
Last 54 year final rankings: Now you tell me if this qualifies as an elite program? See the difference is we know we don't have a great history and don't brag about few accomplishments where Clemson always brags about their "elite" status and their great history. You judge.
Clemson rankings at year end:
1960's: No top 20 ranking
1970's: 1977 #19 1978 #6 Not ranked any other year
1980's: Golden era
1980: not ranked 1981: #1 (that is their history) 1982: #8 1983: #11
1984 and 1985: not ranked
1986: #17 1987: #12 1988: #9 1989: #12
1990's: 1990 #9 1991 #18 1993 #23 not ranked any other years
2000's: 2000 #16 2003 # 22 2005 #21 2007: #21 2009: #24 not ranked other 5 years
2010-present
2010: NR
2011: #22
2012: #11
2013: #8
Clemson has never finished top 10 in 3 consecutive seasons. They have 1 top 5 finish (nat'l title 43 years ago)
So the elite program that is Clemson has been ranked 20 times in the last 54 years.
They have been ranked 12 of the last 25 years and 8 of the last 14.
Clemson is 1-1 in BCS games with the record for most points allowed in a bowl game.
Their 1 victory in a BCS bowl left them 4 spots behind South Carolina in the final rankings.
They have 1 ACC title in the last 24 years.
That my freinds is what Clemson fans call relevant and elite.
Again, we do not claim to have elite history while Clemson fans brag of their outstanding achievements.
To put in context: Our last 4 years are a better period than any 4 year period Clemson has had in the last 54 years.
They have never finished in the top 10 for 3 consecutive seasons and their greatest 3 year period saw them land on probation with more violations than any other program except for SMU.
Just thought you would enjoy seeing what Clemson fans believe is an elite program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22815]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
Re: The steroid scandal would have nuked USC's football
Jan 8, 2014, 4:40 PM
|
|
program if Coach Morrison lived longer. A friend's father handled the case and also attended USC School of Law. Let's just say it was a really ugly case that disposed of itself with the untimely death of Morrison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3390]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 11103
Joined: 2012
|
First of all
Jan 9, 2014, 12:09 AM
[ in reply to Re: the last 5 ? hmmm, i wonder who that is ? but, you have to ] |
|
Nobody, even the biggest Clemson supporters would argue Clemson as an "elite" program
Definitely one of the top 20 greatest football programs of ALL TIME (YES, this dates back to the beginning of football)
An "elite" program is an Alabama of today, A Miami of the early 2000's, or a Penn State in the 80's-90's under JoePa
Now to quote you...."They (Clemson) have 1 top 5 finish (nat'l title 43 years ago)" - That was 32 years ago, idiot. Proof that coots are stupid and can't count higher than 5
"Clemson is 1-1 in BCS games with the record for most points allowed in a bowl game. Their 1 victory in a BCS bowl left them 4 spots behind South Carolina in the final rankings." - LOL...trying to downplay our 2 BCS appearances in 3 years....why haven't you guys been to one??? And for the record, 1 of our losses was to the National champion and the other to you. You lost to a team we beat, and a team that got beat 7 times
"They have 1 ACC title in the last 24 years." - Again...LOL. You have 1 ACC title. Period. In all your years
Now for the best part....
"To put in context: Our last 4 years are a better period than any 4 year period Clemson has had in the last 54 years." - Honestly, you can't be serious. Really? Basing overall "success" simply by the final polls? You ended up ranked that high because you played overrated Big 10 teams in your mid-level Capital One/Outback Bowls.
Let's see....which 4 span was more "successful".....
Clemson:
1981: 12-0 (6-0)...National Championship (The ultimate measure of "success" in CFB)...Conference Champion (Something you wouldn't know anything about) #1 Final Ranking (Keep Dreamin for that one)
1982: 9-1-1 (7-0)...Conference Champions....Final Ranking #8
1983: 9-1-1 (7-0)...Final Ranking #10
1984: 7-4 (5-2)...Not Ranked
South Carolina:
2010: 9-5 (5-3)...Division champs...final ranking #22
2011: 11-2 (6-2)...Won Capital One Bowl...final ranking #9
2012: 11-2 (6-2)...Won Outback Bowl...Final Ranking #8
2013: 11-2 (6-2)...Won Capital One Bowl...Final Ranking #4
So lets compare....in our 4 best years, our winning pct. was .861 (.930 in conference play), we won 2 conference championships, A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, and ended up ranked #1, #8, #10, and NR
In SC's best 4 years, winning pct. was .792 (.718 in conference play), you won 1 division title, 2 Capital One Bowls, and an Outback Bowl, and ended up ranked #22, #9, #8, and #4
Analysis: During the four said years, SC nearly lost as many games in your division-title season (5) as Clemson lost in all 4 years combined (6). Taking into account only the 3 said best years, Clemson lost 2 games. In 3 years. SC lost 6.
In summary, I would say that we could have gone 5-5 every year after '81 and could still claim the better 4 years, simply because of the fact that we won it all. I don't care if you finished #4, that doesn't make you any closer to a national championship than a team that finished unranked.
And for the record, Clemson still claims the same number of conference championships during YOUR "best 4 years" as your program claims EVER.
THAT, my friend, is the difference between a storied program, and one known for mediocrity. I really hope you enjoy your streak and your number 4 ranking....we've been there before on multiple occasions
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 11103
Joined: 2012
|
Oh, I almost forgot
Jan 9, 2014, 12:15 AM
|
|
On the subject of ELITE
During our best years, Clemson WAS elite. Clemson WAS the best team in the conference. Clemson WAS a national power. Clemson was the best team in college football
During your 4 years, you have only played in 1 truly meaningful game, and got blown out worse than we did against West Va. That, coot, is a FACT. You aren't even regarded as the best, second best, or even third best team in your conference
Now get lost!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [103]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Slow... clap...
Jan 9, 2014, 10:12 AM
[ in reply to First of all ] |
|
Well said and researched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 11103
Joined: 2012
|
Thank you sir!***
Jan 9, 2014, 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21993]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [30793]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 62760
Joined: 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24894]
TigerPulse: 94%
54
Posts: 17252
Joined: 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2102]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
SEC teams won 4 national titles from 1980-2000 and 9(?)
Jan 8, 2014, 5:28 PM
|
|
from 2001 to 2013. What changed...ESPN hype machine???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [10]
TigerPulse: 34%
2
|
Re: SEC teams won 4 national titles from 1980-2000
Jan 8, 2014, 5:34 PM
|
|
There weren't real NCG's until the BCSeC started in 1998. Just whoever finished #1 in the AP claimed the National Title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3769]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
well son you see there is a big trophy in our trophy case...
Jan 9, 2014, 1:37 AM
|
|
that says otherwise so.....suck it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [72]
TigerPulse: 55%
8
|
Using your logic
Jan 12, 2014, 10:16 AM
[ in reply to Re: SEC teams won 4 national titles from 1980-2000 ] |
|
There will not be a true NC until we have a 16 or more team playoff. Then there will be no doubt.
Not a 4 team playoff. You SEC fans think there will be 4 SEC teams in the 4 team playoff. Give us a break please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: SEC teams won 4 national titles from 1980-2000
Jan 8, 2014, 5:36 PM
|
|
You all should like that article, right? How is that ESPN spin?
It is using FSU as an example of how the SEC can be overcome.
FSU was dominant and they did do it in SEC country, as in right in the middle of the SEC footprint. The article doesn't say the SEC was dominant duriing that time....just that it is located in the southeast part of the country, where FSU is located.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14561]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23635
Joined: 2004
|
I'm not following....***
Jan 8, 2014, 5:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
40
Posts: 10117
Joined: 2011
|
2008 ESPN signs 15-year deal with the SEC
Jan 8, 2014, 10:24 PM
|
|
worth $2 Billion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addict [441]
TigerPulse: 34%
17
|
I think it means they dominated in the Southeast.
Jan 8, 2014, 11:36 PM
|
|
You know, which is SEC country. SoutEastern Conference. SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1046]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Instead of bickering over years and nattys
Jan 9, 2014, 11:53 AM
|
|
National Championships should be associated with the current conference affiliation.
This is how it works in the business world. When Verizon buys a competitor, they inherit the customer base and all associated assets.
ACC championships should now include the historical Natty successes of Miami, FSU, Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Of course, the ACC lost one Natty with Maryland moving on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1046]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Adding Notre Dame would add 13 Nattys to the ACC coffers.
Jan 9, 2014, 11:55 AM
|
|
N/M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 26
| visibility 3552
|
|
|
50
)
