»
Topic: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed
Replies: 111   Last Post: Jan 3, 2014 12:32 PM by: elcid1985®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 111  

For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed

[11]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:49 PM
 


And in year one:


How did they do that with their new, incredibly tough schedules after being so average in their previous conference?

They've accomplished more in their two years than SCAR has the last 100 years. Too funny. I can't speak for y'all, but that'd bother me a little bit if I were you. These newcomers coming in and handling your vaunted SESHEE.


Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed

[3]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:53 PM
 

I think it is both amusing and sad for you that your only source of joy comes from trying to make data support your already clouded view. Let me help you...best 5 years of Clemson football, and we own you.

Deal with it.


I think it is both amusing and sad that you are on your

[9]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:54 PM
 

rival's board. Surely you have more celebrating to do after your come-from-behind win in the Toilet Bowl?

Let's not forget, you are here when you could be doing countless other more productive things.


Re: The dude is sick and has severe emotional problems.***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:18 PM
 




Must have been on the road the entire 80's but he is still

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:20 PM
 

sick about the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP year for Clemson.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re:Nae,I doubt if he is over 12 or 13***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:21 PM
 




I can agree with that.***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:34 PM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: I think it is both amusing and sad that you are on your


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:46 PM
 

> rival's board. Surely you have more celebrating to do
> after your come-from-behind win in the Toilet Bowl?
>
> Let's not forget, you are here when you could be
> doing countless other more productive things.

It's called multi-tasking, you may have read about it even if you're not up to doing it.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Why are you here? Has nothing to do with multi-tasking


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:53 PM
 

Surely you have something better to do. Like celebrating your come-from-behind Toilet Bowl win against the mighty Wisco.


the night owl's multitasking is why your fries


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 12:04 PM
 

are sometimes cold at McDonalds!


3 11 wins seasons. Thanks to a cupcake 12th game


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:54 PM
 

per season.


3 11 wins seasons and no better than 4-5th in your conf.***

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:55 PM
 




Yea, but the joke is on you. Those finishes come with


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:22 PM
 

RINGS!!!!!!! Better buy some Josten's stock.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: 3 11 wins seasons and no better than 4-5th in your conf.***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:44 PM
 

If only your team could beat the 4-5th best team in the SEC. Actually we are the 2-3 best team this year


LSU is CLEARY one of the best teams in the SEC and more


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:46 PM
 

often better than USuC - definitely last season.

UGA, well, they kicked your butt pretty good this year, no?


And it all comes back to your rival (who has owned you)


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:50 PM
 

I think this is excellent evidence of how disappointing these "golden years" have been for SCAR. For any other "elite" team, they'd be mad as #### at not really doing anything. No BCS games, a blowout in their only SECCG.

But with SCAR, it's "No big deal, we beat Clemson". You guys really are obsessed, and the number of you that are here lurking on a Clemson board reinforces that.


Re: 3 11 wins seasons. Thanks to a cupcake 12th game


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:37 PM
 

Yep..I have to agree with that statement. Any idea who our 12th game is?


dude, Tigers were their 12th game this year, rephrase***


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 12:32 PM
 



military_donation.jpg

Fiat Justitia et Pereat Mundus


Also, these aren't our glory years

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:56 PM
 

Lest we forget, football history goes back further than five years.



When has SCAR ever had a decade like that?


Those are all conference championships, btw

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:57 PM
 

You had failed to win any of them while you were still in the ACC, too.


U brag on your conf, but they hate u. Too funny.***

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 7:56 PM
 




Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed

[3]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:10 PM
 

son listen here "own" is not in your vocabulary, yeah you beat us five in a row, but you are far from "owning" us. Know that


You will never own us...good try bud. Next?***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:39 PM
 




BUT , all U Coots told us, it'd take those 2 as long as

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:43 PM
 

it took you to compete in the SEC ??? They walked in and OWNED it, while ad@mn good conference, it doesn't seem to be quite what it's promoted as. Still took USuC 20 years to compete, no matter how good or average it may be, while those 2 below average Big 12 teams walked right in.


1 NC, 18 conference championships and who know how many

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:48 PM
 

divisons.

"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:48 PM
 

Best 5 years of Clemson football? You must not have been around from about 1975-1990 then were you? These are YOUR glory days and the only trophies you have to show for it are from the Outback or Capital One Bowl….

2019 student level member

Your best years ... and you still have no SEC championship


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:28 PM
 

or BCS bowl.

Peck on that, coot.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"When I was young, I was sure of many things; now there are only two things of which I am sure: one is, that I am a miserable sinner; and the other, that Christ is an all-sufficient Saviour. He is well-taught who learns these two lessons." -John Newton


Best years of your program and all you've got are 5th place


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:47 PM
 

Rings...Bless it.


you own 5%...get over it***


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 8:29 AM
 



2019 student level member

Lets see S car .....Ah thats the team

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:01 PM
 

That is coached by an old dried up ball sack! That always taking cheap shots at Clemson all year long


Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:05 PM
 

I don't think either has finished top 10 the last 3 years in a row. Only 4 teams have done it the previous 2 years with a chance to do it again this year. Alabama, Oregon, Stanford and SCAR. Pretty elite company.

SCAR and Oregon pretty much guaranteed another top 10. Stanford may or may not fall out, Alabama should remain in win or lose.

Curious, has Clemson ever done it 3 years in a row. They may have in the 80's. They were pretty strong then.

It's not a national championship or a conference championship, but it is elite consistency.

To answer your question, both teams have done well. TAMU finished 6th in the SEC (based on bowl selection) and beat the #3 Duke team from the ACC with probably the best player in college football Johnny Manzeil. Missouri was a huge surprise and had a really good team. The Sam kid that plays DE for them is a stud.

BTW it is year 2. Missouri finished close to last in the east last year and TAMU did really well.

If your point is that Mizzou and TAMU solidifies the SEC as the best football conference in America, I agree.


Re: Another sick one.***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:20 PM
 




Elite is contending for championships. Rules you out.

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:23 PM
 

You haven't done that. Rankings are only good for the natty, which you haven't sniffed.

Also, Missou and TAMU have shown that the SEC probably isn't as good as ESPN has advertised. These weren't even two strong programs that came into the SEC, they were every bit as average as both Clemson and SCAR have been the last ten years, maybe even worse.


nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:28 PM
 

you can harp & love your precious conference all you want...
but THEY (SEC) are the reason you guys can beat us & win 10 or 11 games each of the last 3 seasons & still be piece-o-shiat lameclucks!

i thought it was pretty simple to understand, but that's above y'all i guess...just like HALF OF YOUR SEC CONFERENCE, even in your lousy division, AND even though y'all don't play ANY of the stronger "elite" teams in your conference.

which is why ya'll didn't make the BCS bowls.
You've reached your apex most probably & barely beat most of the teams you even did play...EXCLUDING A SHEETY TENNESSEE TEAM!

yeah, your so wonderful & that conference is really helping y'all win those big conference trophies, Nat'l championships, right...?

To teams that SHOULDN'T be able to come in & compete & take over YOUR world have, & they've leap-frogged USuCk soo quickly & easily.

hmmm...that didn't happen in our "weak" conference with our additions did it!?

clucks beat us..KUDOS! now do something that will get you the nat'l spotlight other than bragging about beating you in-state rival as if it's never happened before & we're the only team to beat on your schedule.

worked well for you huh?

ORANGE BOWL vs Capitol 1 bucket ANYDAY Coot!
suck it & enjoy watching the real bigboys play from the sofa! ;)

dayum shameclucks will get that shame back soon enough...


Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:49 PM
 

Contractual Obligations =/= bragging rights

Also, there was no crystal football back in 1981. That was made years later and then put in the trophy case.

No one says that a national championship never took place at Clemson, but it did take place with a price...to the sum of 150 violations. That is not something to be proud of. USC is riding their best football ever...sure, no BCS but what does that matter except money to the conference...win or lose. The BCS won't exist after this season.

FSU was in the ACC for two years and won the national championship. How long was Clemson in the ACC before it won theirs? 28 years. Also, FSU won another one 6 years later and if they win Monday, well, that will be 3 since 1991. That is one every 8 years that they were in the ACC. If not, it will be one every 11 years, still more than what Clemson has done and the only reason I bring that up is because you talked about what aTm ad mizzou has done.

aTm went 8-4 regular season this year. Manziel caught everyone by surprise his first year behind NFL talent in the OL. Mizzou was not a slouchy team when they came in to the conference. Sure, they weren't world-beaters, but they were a consistent football team with a respectable record. Franklin was banged up most of their first year and they also fired their OC after their first year in the SEC. Looking at their record, I wonder why... :)

The bottom line is that neither major university in this state sucks. Put together their records for the last 3 years and you have over 65 wins. That's very respectable for the football teams in this state considering the size of the state. What other state, except for Alabama, can claim something like that? We should be united on that front alone


I have a hard time finding any relevancy in this post


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:55 PM
 

No knock on you, but this is a big, sissy ramble.


Clemson will never Unite with the coots buddy!


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:58 PM
 

we may take some of your ex-coaches & make something better out of them though after they defect to God's Country! ;)


Re: I have a hard time finding any relevancy in this post


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:04 PM
 

Ok...I can respect our difference in opinion without getting into a pissing contest. I reckon my point was missed, but I take blame for that


Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:08 PM
 

take a vote in any room full of kids & ask how many would like to be in Florida at the beach or in little town Clemson...?

what we have accomplished here is miraculous simply by that comparison!

all Clemson has to offer is a beautiful landscape & lakes, quaint & close to campus downtown scene, excellent athletics & facilities, plus a highly touted education that's highly ranked & pays pack.

these big-time recruits typically want to go to the party town that's big, where everything is always happening...yet we get some great talent here & compete well with the rest of the nation, when we don't have all the lights & glamour.

still it's amazing what Clemson has & will continue to accomplish at a high level. most schools have tons of advantages over us...

but yeah...there's something in these hills apparently!

Go Tigers!!!


Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:26 PM
 

It is a pretty campus, but so are many colleges, except my alma mater...they moved the entire school to a small town outside of the bama state line. Hoping it will grow and they are doing the right thing.

Milligan's campus is very scenic as is Johnson University. Very few campuses have something so unique that there is nothing else like it. Maybe some IVY league schools since they are so old


Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:32 PM
 

well thanks for a sensible post Morti & not an attack against our team on our board.

we can appreciate that at least ;)

but when my fire is lit, i'll make it an inferno with more fuel! lol


Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:36 PM
 

Well, we all know gas can be thrown on by BOTH sides...lol


Re: nope coot...his point is this:

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:23 PM
 

You're barking up the wrong tree if you're going to talk NCAA violations. Your school has been caught violating the rules more times and has been on probation for twice the amount of time that Clemson has. Also, care to remind me which of the two programs is CURRENTLY on NCAA probation? During YOUR glory years? Anything to say about that?

You can say "sure, no BCS but why does that matter?" But that is wrong. You know why? Because money is important to schools but winning is as important; they go hand-in-hand. And I'm not talking about Outback Bowls and Capital One Bowls here. Teams play to win championships, so yes, BCS bowl appearances and victories DO matter.

Comparing Florida State to Mizzou and A&M is like comparing David and Goliath. FSU is one of the most successful programs of all time. I hate them about as much as I hate South Carolina on most days, but there isn't much I can say to knock them. They had 3 unclaimed national titles before joining the ACC and then 2 consensus titles and 3 more unclaimed titles after the 1991 inaugural ACC season. Florida State was an absolute powerhouse for years before joining. They won 10+ games AND finished in the top 5 every season from 1987-2000, never losing more than 2 football games per season. Missouri has never had a consensus national championship and hadn't won a conference championship since the Big Eight in 1969 when they were co-champions or 1960 when they won it outright. Texas A&M has three consensus national titles, none of which came after 1939. Their last conference title was 1998--their lone Big 12 title, and first of any kind since 1993.

The difference? Missouri and Texas A&M were below average Big 12 teams added to the SEC to increase viewership and added revenue. Florida State was a national powerhouse before they joined the ACC and well after they joined the ACC. The ACC was a great conference at the time, but the SEC right now is viewed as THE power conference, and your own fans don't see the irony that two average teams can come in and win in two seasons. That doesn't make you scratch your head at all?

Bottom line, you are right. Both schools are very well respected in the college football world as well as the academic world. Neither should be knocking each other but that is what a rivalry is about, I guess. The states of Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina are sitting atop the country as far as most dominant coexisting programs representing one single state. That is something to be proud of and something worth acknowledging.

2019 student level member

great post BKendal...nice stats & facts to back it up!


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:30 PM
 

i'm not naive enough to think both programs are doing big things...but i do think Clemson has done more with what they've had & their resources considering location & everything.


Re: great post BKendal...nice stats & facts to back it up!


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:31 PM
 

I won't argue without stats. Then it's not an argument. It's just drivel. I will leave that to less educated people to take care of that.

2019 student level member

Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:31 PM
 

I think you missed my point about the violations and apparently it hit a sore spot since you threw out the proverbial, "well you did it too" but we didn't...not by boosters and not to that extent and players paid it back and dismissed from the team...it's like comparing a parking ticket to breaking and entering, but we'll end that part of the discussion...it was more about pride when it was gained in a manner people are not proud of. I think you get what I mean

BTW, I agree with your last sentence or two


Re: nope coot...his point is this:

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:40 PM
 

And now you're defending your cheating. "Well we cheated too, but not as bad." That doesn't mean crap. There are few teams that haven't been caught by the NCAA, that doesn't make it defendable. It's not comparing a parking ticket to breaking and entering because both were considered improper benefits and failure to monitor. It all reads the same in NCAA reports. Not that I am defending the violation and the resulting probation in the early 80s, but I believe you are also misinformed about the whole subject as well. I'd post a link explaining what actually happened but you wouldn't read it, so I'll save my time.

2019 student level member

Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:08 PM
 

Nope...I'm not defending cheating. I loathe it...do the crime and do the time...no matter who you are. I reckon you say any violation is considered cheating...someone sells a jersey on ebay (cheating)...someone pays a player (cheating)...am I correct on what you mean? Not trying to put words in your mouth but want to make sure I fully understand your POV


Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:52 PM
 

You do know we beat Mizzou right? I guess your logic now is the team that loses is better than the team that wins. Makes you feel better about 5 in a row.


Re: nope coot...his point is this:


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:55 PM
 

i guess all you coots are in a tizzy that bama is struggling with a lowly big 12 team.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Missing the point entirely

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:56 PM
 

Missou came into your mighty SEC and has succeeded without even getting a full four years of your recruiting advantage.

Also, you barely beat a Missou without their starting QB. Are you really proud of that?


Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:54 PM
 

Pretty good company. Sure. But ask the general public and none of them will be able to name the 4th team (meaning you.) You can finish in the top 10 for ten years in a row but if you aren't playing for conference championships or decent bowl games--the "national stage" games--nobody will care. All of those other teams have at least one conference championship AND BCS Bowl appearance over the previous 3 and now 4 seasons. How many for South Carolina?

2019 student level member

Thanks to the cupcake 12th game....


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:48 PM
 

...you're right, CLEM5ON. lmao


Re: Thanks to the cupcake 12th game....


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:54 PM
 

That's cute. What are you 14? You must forget that football existed before 2009.

2019 student level member

Too bad you blew it with your other cupcakes (UGA, TN)

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 8:56 PM
 

If it isn't Vandy, it's always someone else upsetting the yard birds.


Geez imagine if that "cupcake" wouldn't have given you 21


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:59 PM
 

points along with 6 turnovers. You know full well we gave you the game. Conner Shaw had some nice runs, but other than that you did nothing to take the game from us. Stop kidding yourself.


Re: Geez imagine if that "cupcake" wouldn't have given you 21


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:02 PM
 

Forcing turnovers is part of the game of football. The only TO that wasn't really forced was the muffed punt. Hurrying the QB and causing him to make bad throws is called forcing a TO. They are not called giveaways...unless someone were to hand the ball off to the wrong team, which would be really weird


What you force, one of those?***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:03 PM
 




Re: What you force, one of those?***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:06 PM
 

One of the punt returns was stripped...that was an act by a defensive player to cause the ball to come loose.

The 4 INTS that Boyd threw...go back and look at them...hurried, good coverage, etc.


You seriously don't have a clue, do you?


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:12 PM
 

1) Sammy had Humphries WIDE OPEN. He took his time and lobbed it on top of that. The defender was nowhere near the play otherwise. That's was not a forced turnover.

2) The first muffed punt was caused by Martavis Bryant running into Humphries.

3) On the other punt, Humphries did not secure the ball and lost it switching arms. It was not stripped at all.

4) Tajh was in panic mode and threw an inexcusable pass right into to the defense.

5) Same as #4

6) Tajh's fumble was a nice play by the defender, i.e. it was "forced".



That's one forced turnover. The punt turnovers and resulting complete loss of possession were enough to lose most regular games, and 4 more turnovers only made it worse.


Re: You seriously don't have a clue, do you?


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:19 PM
 

1) Sammy had Humphries WIDE OPEN. He took his time and lobbed it on top of that. The defender was nowhere near the play otherwise. That's was not a forced turnover.

Negatory...it was read and defended perfectly. Wide open passes aren't picked off

2) The first muffed punt was caused by Martavis Bryant running into Humphries.

I said this in one of my previous posts

3) On the other punt, Humphries did not secure the ball and lost it switching arms. It was not stripped at all.

No, the defender had his arms wrapped on his and caused the strip with a downward motion

4) Tajh was in panic mode and threw an inexcusable pass right into to the defense.

Why was he in panic mode...defensive pressure

5) Same as #4

Same as 4 too

6) Tajh's fumble was a nice play by the defender, i.e. it was "forced".



That's one forced turnover. The punt turnovers and resulting complete loss of possession were enough to lose most regular games, and 4 more turnovers only made it worse.


You're simply not very bright.


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:24 PM
 

That was evident when you said Boyd had four INTS.

1) You are dead wrong. The safety was nowhere in the time zone until given that opportunity with a late, lackadaisically thrown ball.

2) Unforced agreed.

3) Wrong. Humphries dropped the ball while switching arms. The defender never touched it.

4) Defensive pressure? LOL. Desperate much?

5) See #4.



You trying to adjust on the run is comical. The bottom line is, you were outplayed minus an astounding FIVE unforced turnovers.


Re: You're simply not very bright.


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:30 PM
 

Both of my degrees say otherwise.

I'll just end the conversation with civility since we obviously don't agree, but hey...I'll allow you to be wrong.


It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing or whatever


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:31 PM
 

meaningless degrees you may have. FACTS are, you were completely wrong on a couple different levels.


Re: It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing or whatever


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:35 PM
 

No, I'm not. ANd I'll end with the watkins INT...you said he was wide open and then it was a poorly thrown ball. I said it was covered well...go back and look at the highlights for that one play alone...here is the link AND it is from the ACC network

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tloU6rb5E3U

He comes over and makes the play = well defended


You simply cannot be serious?


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:43 PM
 

Adam was open most of the entire route. The defender wouldn't have been able to get within 5 yards of the play had the ball been thrown on time with a little more realistic velocity. Thanks for the video, but very weird you can't see that.

And what about Boyd's "four interceptions"? You had no clue, right? What about Humphries' second muff and resulting complete loss of possession and giving you the ball in great field position (again)?

Please stop making it up as you go along.


if either of those degreescame from that school in

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:08 PM
 

Cootville, then you are helping solidify his point.


Dang Squishy,


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:37 PM
 

You hit a nerve with the dirtpeckers.

"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


Still trying to figure out how they have accomplished more...


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:39 PM
 

Mizzou won the East, which SCAR did.

A&M hasn't won anything.

So....


They've accomplished the same amount

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:41 PM
 

still sad

"We establish no religion in this country, we mandate no belief. Nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate." ~Ronald Reagan


Re: Still trying to figure out how they have accomplished more...


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 9:58 PM
 

> Mizzou won the East, which SCAR did.

And how many years did it take them to do that? How many years did it take you to win the East before them?

> A&M hasn't won anything.

Nor has SCAR, really. They knocked off better teams than you the last two years. Played a much harder schedule to boot. Didn't choke it up to TN or Vandy.


Re: Still trying to figure out how they have accomplished more...


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:06 PM
 

Not sure the point of your post because nothing you said helps anyone figure out how they have accomplished more.


Let me spell it out for you


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:11 PM
 

#1: They matched your win total in their second year with lesser, non-SEC athletes. No SEC speed to be found.
#2: Missou came in and almost immediately won your sorry division, which you frequently dangle over us. Your schedule is supposedly "much harder". Missou doesn't think you're anything special.
#3: When they did get to the SECCG, they didn't lay a huge egg like you guys did. You laugh at our last Orange Bowl, but your SECCG massacre was even worse. You just didn't ring up as much offense as we did.

Missou has entered, got up to speed, and made short work of your division. You beat them, but I think that's a pretty hollow win without Franklin. And they still beat you where it mattered by not choking on a GIANT cupcake.


Re: Let me spell it out for you


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:27 PM
 

Dude SCAR has beaten Clemson 5 years in a row. Everything you say makes you sound ridiculous.


That's the funny thing about you SCAR fans


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:31 PM
 

You are willing to label this your "golden years" just because you beat your rival in a rivalry that has been traditionally one-sided. As long as you beat us, you are happy.

I keep seeing "elite" mentioned on here by you coots, but you can't be "elite" without being relevant in your conference and/or nationally. You have had the least flashy high win count seasons, and that's not something to be proud about.

You have completely shat the bed when it comes to your conference. Spurrier is basically March Richting it up. Beat the pants of your rival (GT), fail to do anything more.


Re: Let me spell it out for you


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:28 PM
 

Umm and how is that accomplishing more? They have accomplished the same in less time.

Good try though.


Coots have played 22 seasons of SEC football.


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:17 PM
 

One division title and a resulting beat down in the championship game is all you have to show for it.

Clear?


It's funny that this has to be spelled out for him

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:21 PM
 

They're so caught up in their "glory years" that they forget how unremarkable they've been.


Gotta speak s-l-o-w-l-y. He's a coot.***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:23 PM
 




Re: Coots have played 22 seasons of SEC football.


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:31 PM
 

Not really. Still trying to figure out how 1 SEC EAST CHAMPIONSHIP is greater than 1 SEC EAST CHAMPIONSHIP, instead of 1 = 1.


Um, 22 years >> 2 = much better rate.


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:32 PM
 

Need a calculator?


Wow...just wow***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:34 PM
 




Re: Um, 22 years >> 2 = much better rate.


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:35 PM
 

No. They still have accomplished the same amount, not more.


Doing it so soon is quite an accomplishment in itself


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:36 PM
 

After all, this is the big, bad SEC we're talking about.


Re: Doing it so soon is quite an accomplishment in itself


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:37 PM
 

It's a great accomplishment.


Soooo


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:44 PM
 

22 >>> 2, correct?


Yes. But careful with those crazy looking symbols.

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:49 PM
 

You might confuse him more.


Just explain it how we explain it to students. > is like an

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:53 PM
 

Alligator mouth. Alligators love to eat the biggest meal (number). Hence, 22>2...or, 22 is GREATER than 2. Got it?


I just can't fathom the stupidity


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:35 PM
 

You had 22 chances to win that division. Missou has had two. They came in from an "inferior" conference, had a recruiting "handicap", lacked "SEC speed". Despite all of this, they won the division almost immediately.

You've had no excuse.

Though that does bring up an interesting question. If Missou comes in 20+ years ago, how many more titles do they win than SCAR?


Re: I just can't fathom the stupidity


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:36 PM
 

If they did, and had won more than one, then they would have accomplished more. But they've still only won one.


Winning so quickly is a big accomplishment***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:37 PM
 




Re: Winning so quickly is a big accomplishment***


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:38 PM
 

It's a great accomplishment.


You are ALL wrong...


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:20 PM
 

Winning the SEC East isn't an accomplishment at all.

The SEC Champion hasn't come from the East since Tebow was at Florida. (2008)

Tweet That!


Also USuCk is 0-1 in SEC Title games and has suffered

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:26 PM
 

(by far) the biggest blowout in the history of the game (39 points). That's something I would want to forget, not promote.


Ya'll must have hurt 18wheelers feelings......he gone...


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:28 PM
 

Go Tigers.....

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Work Hard, Do Your Best, Keep Your Word, Never Get Too Big For Your Britches, Trust In God, Have no fear and Never Forget a Friend ~ Harry S. Truman


Easy

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 10:53 PM
 

Scar thumps their chest over sec but Clemson is their Super Bowl. Interesting, even Spurrier can't get Clemson off his mind.


my mistake on one


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:00 PM
 

Two ints from boyd...my mistake. One from Sammy and the strip on boyd...my bad.

The definition of a muff is not securing possession on a punt or kick, so there was one muff, which I correctly identified and the other ball was knocked loose


So, you were WAY off base?


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:03 PM
 

2 out of 6 versus 4 out of 6?? Sounds like more than one to me.

Sammy's ball was ALL on him. The defender was lost otherwise.

Again, the second muff by Humphries was on him not securing the ball, but it was not "stripped" by the defender.

LOL. Missed it by just a hair.

Fact is, 5 unforced turnovers are the reason we lost the game. NOBODY survives that.


Martavis


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:03 PM
 

Bryant caused one muff, ahump's second fumble sealed it for coots, they only needed the 5 turnovers, not 6. That and their center's illegal fake snap that got them a free 1st down on 4th and short deep in their own territory(after a timeout), you can't tell me spurrier wasn't behind that.


Good point.


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:36 PM
 

The "fake" snap was entirely by design. Cheating, if you will.


Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:25 PM
 

Shane, the defender got a hand in there to knock away/strip/force/assist, etc. whatever you want to call it. Good defense helped out with those 3 ints...not 4...if it makes any difference,I think Clemson takes osu by 3...look at clemson's stats when they have a month to prepare minus the last orange bowl for them. pretty good success rate


You just keep revising the story as you go along.

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:28 PM
 

Show me where the defender touched the ball on the second MUFFED (unforced) punt.

Good defense is not required when a QB throws the ball directly to a defender. That is an unforced INT.

5 out of 6 TO's were unforced. That's why we lost.


Turnovers are EXACTLY why we lost. Pretty much handed

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:31 PM
 

You coots the game. Funny, I can hear all you coots now saying Bama gave OU the game because they spotted them 21 points. You will admit it for Bama, but not us.


Go home, silly Coot***

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:29 PM
 




Re: Go home, silly Coot***


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 8:19 AM
 

Hey, thanks for that response. I'll do as I please. Hey, I wouldn't like the recent losses either, but that is not what I am discu5sing.


Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:30 PM
 

Search YouTube for the highlights. Good gosh it's late...enjoyed the conversation Shane. Take care.


So,


Posted: Jan 2, 2014 11:35 PM
 

You were wrong, about everything?

Agreed and noted. Thanks.


Re: So,


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 8:17 AM
 

No, I was not incorrect about everything. There are times when people are wrong and if they admit their mistakes, then good for them. If you refuse to agree with me, I have zero problem with that. At least you are not rude about it.

have a good day and here is an internet high 5 for you


Interesting...the last thing you did last night was post on


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 8:33 AM
 

Your rivals message board and the first thing you do this morning is post on your rivals board. Obsessed much?


Re: Interesting...the last thing you did last night was post on


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 11:55 AM
 

No...I'm not spewing vitriol, but I try to finish discussions. I haven't said Clemson sucks or Dabo can't coach or whatever. I'm attempting to have a good discussion with some level headed rivals. Shane seems to be one of those people.

I actually think Clemson is a good team overall. Records speak for themselves.

BTW, the first thing I did this morning was not jump on tigernet


Re: For the house coots: A&M and Missouri have SEC speed


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 8:38 AM
 

OBS = tommy Bowden they both could beat instate rival but couldnt beat the lesser teams usuc will be lucky to win 8 games next year


FSU won 9 straight and 12 out of 14, VA Tech 4, MD, WF


Posted: Jan 3, 2014 9:36 AM
 

CU and GA Tech (forfeit) have 1 since 1992. FSU added 2 straight for a total of 14.

Using my coot math skills that means that CU has one ACC title in a 22 year stretch. Yet, youse guys ;) always make fun of our 1 as 19 year members of the ACC.


Replies: 111  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Charlotte
FOR SALE: Two tickets North stands section UL Row D seats 5 & 7 lower deck. Numbered space in Brooks Center....

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
3724 people have read this post