|
Replies: 33
| visibility 3,568
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Your TigerPulse is 24%
Nov 2, 2012, 9:45 PM
|
|
I'm surprised you haven't realized yet that your articles are not popular here at all. I personally consider them to be basically spam. This is a site about our Clemson Tigers, and in the only article about them you've posted that I've seen, you basically trashed them. Most of them are just uninformative, general, and poorly-written garbage though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: Your TigerPulse is 24%
Nov 2, 2012, 10:31 PM
|
|
Thank you for the PSA. I'll file it with Mitt Romney's promises.
Glad you're big on Tigerpulse.
Do you count your Facebook friends too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [61846]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39644
Joined: 12/16/01
|
Is the filing cabinet with the Obama promises
Nov 3, 2012, 3:04 PM
|
|
already full?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: Your TigerPulse is 24%
Nov 2, 2012, 10:33 PM
[ in reply to Your TigerPulse is 24% ] |
|
Not to mention I don't recall one comment from you on any article.
As I've said to others in the past, IF they're poorly written PLEASE do point out all the errors.
Otherwise I'll assume you have no leg to stand on and are just spewing insults without anything to support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 3, 2012, 12:52 AM
|
|
You claimed both West Virginia and Texas Tech as 2-loss teams would be picked for a BCS bowl ahead of Clemson as a 1-loss team...and you claimed Northwestern was still in contention for an at-large BCS bowl. All of these are absolutely ridiculous notions. And I don't understand why articles like this one are posted here on tigernet...they have nothing to do with Clemson University, and they aren't particularly interesting. There are minor grammatical errors in your articles, but the main thing is they seem like they were written by an average 12th grader, rather than a true journalist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 3, 2012, 11:52 AM
|
|
Texas Tech was listed as a maybe and I still stand by the notion that if WVU won out they would go ahead of Clemson.
Please find anywhere that I said Northwestern was in a BCS at-large position. You won't find that in anything I wrote.
Take your displeasure with my writing style up with the FWAA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 3, 2012, 2:00 PM
|
|
BCS bid earlier this week, and Northwestern was on that list. I have no idea where anything on that sucky site goes because on page 1 is stuff from October 31 to November 3, but then page 2 goes straight to October 10. I have no idea how to find the posts from October 10-October 31, and I'm not going to spend all day looking on a dysfunctional website for a crappy post you wrote. The whole website is unorganized and a complete mess, and it's impossible to find anything. I mean why on Earth is it that when you click on the College Football tab, the first post shown is from October 12? Didn't you just write an article yesterday? This adds to my point as to why the website and your links are spammy. The website is just not professionally maintained. If it was a Clemson-related blog or you were a Clemson fan at all, I wouldn't complain, but it's clear you're just here to get random hits on your site.
However, the other main point was that you clearly listed Northwestern as a team still being in contention for an at-large BCS bid in a post earlier this week. My apologies for not being able to find that post any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 4, 2012, 8:02 PM
|
|
Yea that's not my article. I don't do the list of all the teams in contention for BCS at-large bids. That was someone else.
So you're already wrong in your first claim alleging I ever had Northwestern as a BCS at-large contender.
Second you're wrong again about clicking on a tab and being taken to old articles. If you clicked on page 2, then you need to learn how to read better or follow numerical order.
Thirdly, we've now clarified your criticism of my writing is indeed statements made in someone else's article.
As for being a Clemson fan, as a student here of course I'm a Clemson fan. The fact I'm not delusional like yourself and apparently 85% of the TB posters doesn't change that.
Unless you take time to complain about every single non-Clemson thread, starting with any SEC threads, South Carolina hate threads, BCS standing threads, etc., then you'll have to forgive me if I don't really care if you don't like me posting stuff on here for reading.
You can just skip over my threads. There should be plenty of other material for you to comment on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Re: You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 4, 2012, 8:44 PM
|
|
Congratulations on making it in to Clemson. My gut feeling that you weren't a journalism or sports journalism major was confirmed.
As far as your website, when I'm on the home page of your website it says I'm on Page 1 of 146.
When I scroll down and click on page 2, it takes me to Page 2 out of 140, and goes to articles that are about four weeks old.
Your website isn't working correctly, at least not for me. Maybe this is a problem that is just isolated to me though. Or maybe I'm wrong to assume that page 2 is directly after page 1, and your website isn't intuitive at all.
If Clemson wins out, we will see who is actually delusional, us Tigernet posters and several actual sports writers for major college football websites, or you, who believed West Virginia and Texas Tech were major threats to us. In the meantime, I will continue to comment on whatever I feel like commenting about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 4, 2012, 8:53 PM
|
|
Your gut feeling was right. If only the you were on the FWAA board to rule on acceptances and declines I'd be concerned.
As for the website, the first article on page 2 is from Halloween. However the CFB tab on the top takes you to all CFB related articles that take out other sports you'd have to scroll through, hence the sport title.
I said WVU and TT were major threats if they won out. I did not predict either to win out. Boise State's loss last night was extremely beneficial to Clemson which since you seem to struggle with how the BCS works I feel obligated to tell you.
I look forward to more of your comments on my articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Re: You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 4, 2012, 10:19 PM
|
|
I understand exactly how the website should work, and I am aware that it does work for you. I'm telling you, that on my computer, it doesn't work and content is missing.
When I visit the website, the first article on Page 2 is from October 10th, and it is titled "Week 5 NFL Recap: Buffalo Bills at San Francisco 49ers." When I click on the College Football tab, on page 1, the top article is from October 12th. It's the same for every other sport's tab. All of the content is from early to mid-October.
It's a glitch or malfunction that affects me and probably others.
As for my knowledge of how the BCS works...I know exactly how the selection process works...every nuance of it. I knew Boise State would likely make it if they won out, although Nebraska probably would have actually passed them up if they also won out. I don't think Boise would have ever cracked the top-12, but I agree they were a team to watch if Nebraska were to slip up.
I also knew that the odds of Texas Tech or West Virginia winning out were so low, that it wasn't worth worrying about. For most people, it's laughable to think that a team that had lost their lost 2 games by a combined score of 104-28 was going to a BCS bowl, but for you, the football expert member of the FWAA, I guess that wasn't as apparent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 4, 2012, 10:45 PM
|
|
You're the first person whose had issues with the site. Everybody else who has navigated it doesnt seem to have a problem. Maybe upgrade your computer? I don't know what to tell you.
For the second time, I never once said Texas Tech or West Virginia would win out. If you can find anywhere that I predicted them to win out, please show me.
You clearly don't know every nuance of the BCS or else you would know at-large selections don't care anymore about a team losing two game 104-28 than they do about Clemson having two wins over teams over .500%.
BCS at-large bids are based solely on money and tickets. If the Texas Longhorns were to win out and finish #13 in the BCS, they'll be chosen over a 1-loss Clemson 100 times out of 100.
It's why Virginia Tech who got pummeled in the ACCCG last year and beat nobody went over Kansas State when the Sugar had to make a choice.
I guess those aren't apparent to you however.
Do let me know if you have any questions. I'm always happy to help out the misinformed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Re: You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 4, 2012, 11:28 PM
|
|
The title of your article was something like, "Clemson Fans Should Be on Their Hands and Knees Praying Because Things are Bleak." I don't know the exact title any more because the site doesn't work for me.
The point is that you told people that we had almost no chance at an at-large bid, and that we should be worried about teams like West Virginia and Texas Tech, when, in actuality, these teams were never truly in the conversation. My 104-28 point wasn't about the BCS and its structure, it was about the fact that West Virginia isn't a good team this year, and their odds of winning out when they still had Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and TCU on the schedule were incredibly low. And I still maintain a 1-loss Clemson team would be selected over a 2-loss Texas Tech team because they carry the better football brand (just as VT did when compared to KSU last year). Maybe I am just too big of a Clemson-homer, but I think I am on the right side of this argument. We'll never know for sure though.
(By the way, Clemson currently has 3 wins over +.500 teams).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: You had a list of teams still in contention for an at-large
Nov 4, 2012, 11:32 PM
|
|
Yes and prior to Boise State's loss, Clemson's at-large hopes were bleak.
And regardless of how likely or unlikely WVU/TT were of winning out, the only thing that article covered was what Clemson fans needed to root for to happen to help our chances.
Fortunately Boise's gag job made Clemson's path a lot brighter than it was 48 hours ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 3, 2012, 3:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: I commented on one of your articles. ] |
|
I have a hard time thinking WVU would be taken over Clemson if they won out considering they were absolutely destroyed in both of their losses.
I also found it a bit strange that Clemson losing @ FSU should be considered "Clemson pulling a Clemson". I think there's some merit to the "FSU not living up to the hype" claim, but I think despite their letdown loss, they're arguably a top 3 team in the nation talent-wise. I think you'll see this when they absolutely destroy Florida in the season finale.
However losing to the #4 team in the nation as the visiting team wouldn't constitute "pulling a Clemson".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 4, 2012, 8:05 PM
|
|
Yes, the reason for the quotations around Clemson pulling a Clemson was for the very reasons you stated.
That's what its been called even though it doesn't fall in line with pretty much every other example of that from the past.
Point was, if one only weighs resumes' to judge CFB teams, Clemson and Florida State are out of any discussion for a BCS at-large by the very nature of the fact the ACC is terrible.
Thus, not using the eye test at all is foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 4, 2012, 8:10 PM
|
|
Well wins over South Carolina (BCS #8) and Florida (BCS #7) would sure do something to change the poor resume...especially if done in convincing fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 4, 2012, 8:14 PM
|
|
If you strip your emotion from Clemson would you call a win over South Carolina and no other top 25 wins a good resume' or a good win?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 4, 2012, 9:13 PM
|
|
Not a fantastic résumé, but certainly a win over a very good team. I'm not going to sit here and say the ACC is good, because it isn't. But if Clemson is able to move the ball efficiently and beat South Carolina it'll show that we weren't just moving the ball like this throughout the year because of the competition...but because we're actually a great offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 4, 2012, 9:15 PM
|
|
I dont think anyone questions we have a great offense. Louisiana Tech has a great offense too and almost beat Texas A&M.
Doesn't mean Clemson or LT have a great resume'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
Re: I commented on one of your articles.
Nov 5, 2012, 5:29 AM
|
|
but, the argument you are making for (or justifying) usuc's spot in the top-10 of the bcs is that they beat uga- usuc's only decent win while our only loss was against (at the time) #4 team in the nation at night,in their house, while usuc got outright pummeled at florida, and struggled against overmatched vandy,kentucky, tenn,etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [949]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 893
Joined: 9/16/08
|
Re: Re: Your TigerPulse is 24%
Nov 2, 2012, 10:38 PM
|
|
Really? Like Obama has done soooooooo much to help our nation. Go tigers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16330]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25411
Joined: 10/10/06
|
the only eye test that matters to the media pollsters is..
Nov 3, 2012, 12:23 PM
|
|
does the teams uniform have an sec patch on it.if so they do not fall much when they lose.or go up many spots when they win
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: the only eye test that matters to the media pollsters is..
Nov 3, 2012, 12:25 PM
|
|
Which of their top teams have lost to a mediocre team?
UGA's only loss is to SC.
SC losses to UF and LSU.
LSU loss to UF.
UF loss to UGA.
Clemson didn't plummet with a loss to FSU either.
When you lose to top teams I dont see why you should drop far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16330]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25411
Joined: 10/10/06
|
lol nice resume's good almighty bama has here..
Nov 3, 2012, 2:05 PM
|
|
Alabama: 8-0, beat Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
you left out Big 10 power Michigan***
Nov 3, 2012, 2:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16330]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25411
Joined: 10/10/06
|
o yeah they slipped my mind...
Nov 3, 2012, 2:31 PM
|
|
k state and nd has a far better resume than bama.yet for some reason bama is ranked number one.they say no bias but it speaks for itself
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13764]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4970
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Logic is not allowed when discussing or deciding rankings***
Nov 3, 2012, 2:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16330]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 25411
Joined: 10/10/06
|
im holding out to see what oregon can do on the road..
Nov 3, 2012, 3:01 PM
|
|
tonight against usc.if they win that i would give them the edge over take your pick of k state and nd.no way should bama be ahead of those two at this point though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: the only eye test that matters to the media pollsters is..
Nov 3, 2012, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to Re: the only eye test that matters to the media pollsters is.. ] |
|
I agree that for the most part, teams shouldn't fall very far if they lose to a top-ranked team...but at the same time I think some attention should be paid as to how they won or lost.
Clemson gave FSU and their incredible defense all they could handle (and more) for 3 quarters and came up short.
Georgia was absolutely destroyed from the starting gun against Carolina.
Carolina was absolutely embarrassed by Florida and totally dominated by LSU. They couldn't move the ball whatsoever.
So yea, losing to a top-ranked team needs to be treated specially.
I wonder how this picture would look if FSU didn't have the letdown against NC State. Where would they fit in the Top 5, and how would Clemson's rank be affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3555
Joined: 7/7/12
|
Who will be the next to pull an LSU - or a USuc - or a UGA -
Nov 4, 2012, 8:13 PM
|
|
or a UK - or a UT - or an Arky - or an Ol' Miss - or a UF - or an Auburn - or a Vandy - or a........... UM - or a..... well, you get the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: Who will be the next to pull an LSU - or a USuc - or a UGA -
Nov 4, 2012, 8:54 PM
|
|
I think 5 of the top 8 in the BCS speaks enough volumes about the quality of the SEC. Other than the Big 12, nobody should be criticizing the SEC. It would be rather foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 33
| visibility 3,568
|
|
|
50
