|
Replies: 55
| visibility 727
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
So let me be sure I understand this...
Jan 5, 2014, 12:39 PM
|
|
coots say they didn't get a BCS game because of their conference, and the only reason we got in was because we play in a weak conference. Correct?
So them not making a BCS game had nothing to do with losing to 2 teams who finished the season unranked?
Quit blaming your conference coots and beat the teams you should beat. Your coot brain logic is just a bunch of chicken chit
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Icon [24063]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 20306
Joined: 2011
|
Had Clemson finished 10-2
Jan 5, 2014, 12:46 PM
|
|
with losses to FSU and any other ACC team, we wouldn't have went to the OB,They would have picked someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6247]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Along those same lines...
Jan 5, 2014, 12:48 PM
|
|
if you ask any Coot if they would rather be in the ACC (since its an easier path to a conference championship)they almost all say no. Yet they still argue that its not fair that they are left out because of teams in their own conference going in front of them. So you'd rather be 4th in a conference than having a shot at going to a BCS game? Clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [19]
TigerPulse: 15%
2
|
Re: Along those same lines...
Jan 5, 2014, 12:54 PM
|
|
SC didn't go to the BCS bowl because they didn't get done what needed to be done. They didn't win the games they needed to win. Simple as that.
Just like Clemson didn't reach all of its goals this year (BCS bowl wasn't only goal) because they didn't get done what needed to be done. They didn't win the ACC Champ because they didn't take care of business vs FSU. They didn't win the instate rivalry because they didn't get it done on the field.
Pretty simple really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
+1 - you are absolutely correct about both teams***
Jan 5, 2014, 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
21
|
Re: +1 - you are absolutely correct about both teams***
Jan 5, 2014, 1:16 PM
|
|
Agreed.
Both teams have done well recently, but they both fell short of their goals.
And I won't waste my time trying to find logical reasoning with a college football fan. (especially from South Carolina)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5420]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17567
Joined: 2005
|
We could have lost to two top 10 teams
Jan 5, 2014, 12:56 PM
|
|
and we still wouldn't have made a BCS Bowl.
The rules are the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [121028]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 77584
Joined: 2003
|
Re: We could have lost to two top 10 teams
Jan 5, 2014, 12:58 PM
|
|
who would want to see those awful uniforms and your always constipated coach limping along the sidelines? I am sure the bowl committed did some market research when pitching to their potential advertisers as to which teams are most pleasing to the eyes?.
Watching a bunch of thugs dressed in black hardly makes anyone want to buy a Nissan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
That's incorrect, but I wouldn't expect anything less from
Jan 5, 2014, 1:03 PM
[ in reply to We could have lost to two top 10 teams ] |
|
a chicken brain.
If you beat both unranked teams that you lost to, you go to the SECCG undefeated and likely the #2 team in the country. Beat AU and you're in the national championship game. Lose to AU and you're probably still in a BCS game.
If you beat one of the two unranked teams you lost to, you go to the SECCG, and all you have to do is beat Auburn to be guaranteed a BCS game.
So no matter what the rules are, making a BCS game was in your hands and you didn't cash in. So don't blame the conference or the rules. You have nobody to blame but yourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5420]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17567
Joined: 2005
|
So nothing I stated was incorrect?
Jan 5, 2014, 1:07 PM
|
|
Sure we could have won the SEC and made a BCS Bowl. Clemson could have won the ACC.
However, the fact remains that both teams lost two games. Clemson got in ahead of USC only because of the conference limit on amount of teams.
I'm not sure why that is so hard to admit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
28
|
"Clemson got in ahead of USC only because..."
Jan 5, 2014, 1:09 PM
|
|
...they lost to UGA and (5-7) Tennessee".
Notice the period at the end of that sentence.
Man, you argue worse than Toogie. Whatever happened to him anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5420]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17567
Joined: 2005
|
I'm assuming you are the Tooka/Goat Cheese/etc/etc/?***
Jan 5, 2014, 1:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
28
|
What the heck does that even mean Toogie?
Jan 5, 2014, 1:25 PM
|
|
I mean, you do know the FACT here right?
You didn't get into the BCS because you lost to UGA and a bad 5-7 team. Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
Everything you stated was incorrect
Jan 5, 2014, 1:10 PM
[ in reply to So nothing I stated was incorrect? ] |
|
The only thing keeping you out of a BCS game was losing to two unranked teams.
I'm not sure why that is so hard to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [19]
TigerPulse: 15%
2
|
Re: Everything you stated was incorrect
Jan 5, 2014, 1:12 PM
|
|
I have no problem admitting it and did above already.
I said SC wasn't in a BCS bowl game because they didn't get done what needed to be done. They didn't win the games they needed to win.
It is very similar to why Clemson isn't the best team in the state right now. They haven't been able to get done what they needed to get done. Not sure why that is so hard to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
Agreed, as I did above. You need to convince your
Jan 5, 2014, 1:15 PM
|
|
fellow gamecock '09 and help him come out of denial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
what if
Jan 5, 2014, 1:19 PM
|
|
i like him that way?
what then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5420]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17567
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
I'm being objective. Clemson didn't make the
Jan 5, 2014, 1:19 PM
|
|
ACCCG because we didn't show up against FSU. Clemson didn't make the national championship game because we lost to two teams who will finish in the top 5, including y'all. But we made a BCS game because we won the rest of our games, including UGA, which helped propel us into the top 3 at one point.
USuCk didn't make the SECCG because you failed to beat either UGA or UT. Plain and simple. So don't blame your conference, blame yourselves. Win either of those games and you have a chance to beat AU for the championship. Win both of those games and you would've been a lock for a BCS game whether or not you beat AU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18450]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 11973
Joined: 2007
|
Re: So nothing I stated was incorrect?
Jan 5, 2014, 5:06 PM
[ in reply to So nothing I stated was incorrect? ] |
|
What I don't see anyone pointing out is that Alabama was an at large selection. You only had one less loss and were BCS eligible. You missed out on the BCS because of Alabama - not Clemson. The rules limiting conference participation were designed to create matchups with a large national interest. An all SEC BCS is a bad product - regardless of how many teams you may con voters into ranking. This is proven by the Alabama / LSU national championship game being the lowest rated championship game of the entire BCS era.
Your proposition that you wouldn't have gone even if you lost to two top ten teams is erroneous. If you had lost to Clemson but beaten Tennesee you almost certainly would have been in the BCS. It is your (USC's) own fault. And it is abundantly clear that Spurrier has emphasized Clemson in a manner that he himself stated was detrimental to winning championships when he arrived at Carolina. He also stated the same thing at Florida when folks complained about losing to FSU - telling them to go live in Georgia if the didnt like it. After being embarrassed by Dabo in 2008 he has decided that championships are all but impossible at South Carolina (pretty much admits that in this interview) and is now trying to save face by focusing solely in Clemson. I'm pretty sure he'll run to retirement as soon as he drops one to Dabo too so he can rest on his rivalry record as a talking point at South Carolina. Pretty sad for a guy who was once considered one of the best ever. He'll still be viewed as a great coach - but more like a Philip Fulmer Citrus Bowl champ type coach than a Nick Saban national championship type coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17544]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 15432
Joined: 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [62]
TigerPulse: 18%
7
|
Re: We had one division loss and one conference loss
Jan 5, 2014, 5:18 PM
|
|
if we would have beaten Tn and lost in the SEC title game we still would not have gotten a BCS over Bama. You went to a BCS because you were the best choice for the ACC other than FSU. Same with the SEC noone can rival Bama and their fan base. It is the same reason Missouri did not go to a BCS even though they were more deserving that USC or Bama. It is what it is you got the at large over Oregon because the Orange Bowls tie in with the ACC and nothing else. It wasnt because you deserved it more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18450]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 11973
Joined: 2007
|
Re: We had one division loss and one conference loss
Jan 5, 2014, 5:28 PM
|
|
That's not necessarily true. What if you had gone undefeated in the SEC regular season but lost to Clemson and in the SEC championship game. Yes, they could have taken Alabama but you'd have had a much stronger argument at that point. Your only losses would be two probably top 5 teams and you would no longer have the head to head argument against Clemson going. If Alabama would be selected in that case you have only two things to be mad at - the SEC for promoting Alabama above all others and your own fanbase for being so obviously less desirable than Alabama. And for the same reason they would choose Alabama over you, you don't know that they wouldn't have taken Clemson over you anyway, if it were an option. You've been playing football a long time. Long before conference tie-ins Clemson got invited to multiple Orange Bowls, the Sugar Bowl and the Cotton Bowl. There is a reason, beside generally bad football, that South Carolna has never been given an invitation to any of those games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17544]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 15432
Joined: 1999
|
He said we both had two losses...no difference
Jan 5, 2014, 5:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: We had one division loss and one conference loss ] |
|
They were different. Yours were both in your division, and against teams that finished unranked.
Ours were out of conference to a top 5 team and in conference to the #1 team in the country.
Just pointing out that our losses and yours were NOT the same.
Without the established rules, I agree that you would probably have been chosen for an at large bid over us. Cry to the BCS...or the SEC...or to BAMA, but don't cry to us.
You want to help us get into the SEC? Then do, and we will happily accept the rules as written (especially now that the BCS is gone).
It will only get worse for you if the new playoff format limits participants to conference champs. SEC! SEC! SEC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1132]
TigerPulse: 99%
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Clemson and South Carolina are not tied together at
Jan 5, 2014, 5:14 PM
[ in reply to So nothing I stated was incorrect? ] |
|
the hips in the selection process. We made the BCS, y'all did not. Not sure why that is so hard to understand. Spin it anyway you want to but those are the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1401]
TigerPulse: 100%
29
|
If we're going to speculate about other losses, that maybe
Jan 5, 2014, 1:05 PM
[ in reply to We could have lost to two top 10 teams ] |
|
USC beat Georgia and Tennessee. To whom will you ascribe the two new losses? Would that have put you into the SEC championship game?
USC didn't handle weak teams. Simple as that. Believe me, Clemson fans know how that feels. Difference is that we don't attribute our losses to anything other than our own performance, so we get take the opportunity to learn and get better. Spurrier (thinks he) already knows everything, so you'll always be sitting on the outside looking in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
21
|
Re: UGA and UT. That's why.
Jan 5, 2014, 1:18 PM
|
|
Specifically, the loss to UT.
And although Missouri finished in the top 10 (and it was a road win) South Carolina was fortunate to get that win. (it could have easily been a third loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: So let me be sure I understand this...
Jan 5, 2014, 1:45 PM
|
|
GWP, I leave you alone for one minute and you go off the handle? 
Think about it this way. If Duke beats FSU then Clemson doesn't go to a BCS bowl, and if Bama beats Auburn then we do go to a BCS game. Total flip flop from the actual situation and neither variable has anything to do with anything that either of our teams did, or did not, do.
That being said, I think the silly arguing between the fan bases is getting ridiculous. Heck I think we all could switch sides and make the same arguments for each team because we have all heard them so often. I can play that game, it is just boring and mind numbing.
Let's argue about which team is going to take the next step and really do something big in the world of CFB, since both seem on the verge of doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
21
|
Re: So let me be sure I understand this...
Jan 5, 2014, 1:48 PM
|
|
I think they will both take a small step back next year.
Considering the talent that both programs will lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
I'm afraid of that, too*****
Jan 5, 2014, 1:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
21
|
Re: I'm afraid of that, too*****
Jan 5, 2014, 2:05 PM
|
|
Clowney and Watkins won't be replaced.
Boyd & Shaw will take time to be replaced. (and who knows if they will be as good) I think Watson might have at least as much potential as Boyd did, but you can't replace 5 years of college game experience, knowledge, trust of coaches, etc.
Bryant/Beasley will take time to replace. (and I'm not sure how long it will take to find a guy with Bryant's combination of size/speed)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: I'm afraid of that, too*****
Jan 5, 2014, 2:13 PM
|
|
I agree. That is why it is a better discussion to have because it is a guess at the future, not how we all FEEL about what has already happened.
I think the immediate future is a challenge for both teams. I might give a slight nod to my coots because of the experience at QB. I'm a believer that proven is better than unproven, but you never know if someone like DW is going to come in and be a transforming type player.
The SEC is always very difficult, but there doesn't appear to be a FSU type roadblock in our way like there is for Clemson in the immediate future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105932]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44238
Joined: 2008
|
I get that CC, but if Duke beat FSU
Jan 5, 2014, 2:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: So let me be sure I understand this... ] |
|
Clemson wouldn't have gone to a BCS game because we failed to beat FSU, not because Duke beat FSU.
That's the problem I have with the chicken logic here. Y'all didn't get held out of the BCS because of your conference, you got held out because you lost to UT and UGA.
Week 1, everyone has their own destiny in their hands, win and you're in. Lose...well that's your fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
dood, i made a snowman on that par 5 because they put a
Jan 5, 2014, 3:02 PM
|
|
pond there, not because i hit it in the pond...twice.
how could you possibly say it's scar's fought they 4 jacked from inside 3 feet in knoxville?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: dood, i made a snowman on that par 5 because they put a
Jan 5, 2014, 3:28 PM
|
|
DSP, even with the 4 jack at UT and the loss to the leg jumpers we still get in if Bama doesn't get DQd at Allbarn.
Certainly you see my point?
Even with the Tigers sterling record against unranked teams they don't get in if.....
Win your conference, neither of us did.
The rest is just a snap hook off the tee......maybe the monkey helps you, maybe he doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
i see you counting on others to do for you what you didn't
Jan 5, 2014, 3:37 PM
|
|
do for yourself. you had every opportunity to do so.
don't lose and you go to the bcs. period.
nothing else matters.
once you give away the ability to determine your own fate, you're left grasping at straws just like now.
if you want me to see that you're desperately trying to avoid scar's hand in their own fate, yes, i agree, you are doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: i see you counting on others to do for you what you didn't
Jan 5, 2014, 3:42 PM
|
|
We finally agree. Once you give up your own fate you are grasping at straws. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Difference is the ACC threw CU a straw, the SEC was not so kind.
Nice snap hook off the tee, you really crushed it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
not in the least, scar is whining like a 12 year old girl
Jan 5, 2014, 3:47 PM
|
|
that got her first period because they lost to ut. no one's fault but their own.
did the rules change? nope, you know what you needed to do and you failed miserably.
again.
auburn 16-13.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: not in the least, scar is whining like a 12 year old girl
Jan 5, 2014, 3:55 PM
|
|
I haven't lumped you in with the idiot CU posters on here so don't lump me in with the idiot Coots.
Not once have I whined that we "got it's done". We didn't and I have said so many times just in this thread.
Just surprised to see you be so persistent in declaring that CU somehow did get it done, going 1-2 in the only games that remotely mattered.
Whatever, see my OP in this thread. These arguments are stupid. CU fans see what they want and Coots see what they want. I'd rather discuss who has the best chance to "get it done" next year, since neither of us did this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117416]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 64972
Joined: 2006
|
first, i didn't lump you in with the "idiots", it's me
Jan 5, 2014, 4:07 PM
|
|
referring to the "scar" that is.
scar did not do what they needed to do, had they, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
apparently cu's gravity somehow alters scar's course?
no, i'm pretty sure scar's course was set by their inability to manage their business in 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [26353]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 13702
Joined: 2013
|
^^^Fight***
Jan 5, 2014, 5:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [88619]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 48331
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [62]
TigerPulse: 18%
7
|
Re: This post made me guffaw***
Jan 5, 2014, 4:47 PM
|
|
Basically Auburn beating Alabama sealed our fate. But lets say Duke beat FSU that would make Duke in the orange and maybe FSU as the at large. The only way we could have gotten the at large is if Alabama stayed undefeated. This is all pretty easy to comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [88619]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 48331
Joined: 2007
|
Learn how to respond moron.
Jan 5, 2014, 4:50 PM
|
|
And no, losing to Georgia and Tennessee sealed your fate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: I get that CC, but if Duke beat FSU
Jan 5, 2014, 3:23 PM
[ in reply to I get that CC, but if Duke beat FSU ] |
|
I could maybe agree if you include winning your conference to that argument. We didn't win the games necessary to win our conference, neither did CU. After that it is all just a crap shoot based on the BCS rules and what other teams did.
You made my argument when you stated that if Duke won, you wouldn't have gotten in because you lost to FSU.....you did lose to FSU, and still got in. Certainly you see my point, even if you don't agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14582]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23650
Joined: 2004
|
It's all part of being in the SEC. SC fans are quick
Jan 5, 2014, 2:12 PM
|
|
to brag about the conference, and I'm sure they enjoy the extra money, media attention, and recruiting advantage.
This, however, is part of being in the SEC too. Even after the 3 best seasons in schools history they are still behind Bama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia as programs. Probably A&M too.
Lots of dogs fighting for 2 spots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
42
|
Re: It's all part of being in the SEC. SC fans are quick
Jan 5, 2014, 2:16 PM
|
|
Totally agree. SEC means if you can win it you are likely playing for it all, but it is a freaking grind to do so.
We are likely to finish our 3rd straight year ranked in the top 10 in the nation, without being better than third in the conference.
It is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7198]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
but look who you lost to...
Jan 5, 2014, 2:27 PM
|
|
certainly not the power houses of the conference, you laid an egg.... chicken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2487]
TigerPulse: 81%
32
|
No harm intended
Jan 5, 2014, 3:49 PM
|
|
But too many Clemson fans CARE what "they" think.
We are just coming off a great season, and look forward
to a wonderful 2014, who cares what they think, really!!
Ya gotta get over it, seriously.
#21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2557]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Yep, losing to Tennessee may have had a
Jan 5, 2014, 4:01 PM
|
|
little bit to do with it. We thought you'd thank us for beating up on Girly and Marshall for you. Little did we know you'd still lose UGA. Oops! Wait to beat us by 13 after we give up 6 TO's! Wow! What jugerNOTS on O you guys are! Furman or Citadel may've beat us by 13 with us giving them 6 TO's.
Message was edited by: TigerGrant8®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2609]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
But you see that didnt happen now did it??***
Jan 5, 2014, 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2609]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Pretty sad all the if then and but but but...***
Jan 5, 2014, 4:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [39]
TigerPulse: 96%
4
|
Re: Pretty sad all the if then and but but but...***
Jan 5, 2014, 5:33 PM
|
|
This horse is officially dead......NEXT!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [58]
TigerPulse: 14%
6
|
Re: Pretty sad all the if then and but but but...***
Jan 5, 2014, 5:39 PM
[ in reply to Pretty sad all the if then and but but but...*** ] |
|
0-5 is all I know,
Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Bluebonnet Bowl, Tangerine Bowl
Who cares?
All I know is 5 straight defeats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 55
| visibility 727
|
|
|
50
