»
Topic: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
Replies: 61   Last Post: Dec 30, 2014 12:20 AM by: Main_Tiger
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 61  

If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:27 PM
 

Beat those Sooners Tigers!


Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:29 PM
 

Well, ACC is 1-4 so far. You gotta win to earn respect.


Wrong

[4]
Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:30 PM
 

Vt and ncst won, Miami dook and Bc lost

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Re: Wrong


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:33 PM
 

Sorry meant 2-3. Still pitiful, I was really hoping Duke and BC could win their games. They played well, just didn't execute at the end.


Tarholes lost to Rutgers didn't they?***


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 10:00 AM
 



military_donation.jpg

Fiat Justitia et Pereat Mundus


Not only lost but gave up 40 points and got blown out.


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 11:22 AM
 

That was the worst ACC performance to date by far. ACC is 2-4 i think. UNC, BC, Miami, and Duke all lost.


Duke was a big underdog playing against a much better


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 11:21 AM
 

team. They played pretty well and could have won the game, but Duke definitely should not have been expected to win.


the slim losses don't get much closer!!! 9 pnts total in losses yesterday

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 11:32 AM
 

One lucky break or call in any of the games completely changes the outcomes in those games....but those breaks didn't happen.
NC straight blew it...
Nobody's mentioned the VT upset win....
Nearly every ACC team has been picked to lose, except for the canes, & they just suck!
They're worse than USuCk even, & that's tough to do this year!!! ;)

The fact that the ACC teams are coming so close & the spreads aren't getting covered is awesome! Gonna be a lot of other-pumpers & ACC haters who bet on these games losing some money & mad! LOL!!!

35-17, from #9 to 7-6 & # NOTHING!!!!!

We've got y'alls 1-bombs* for you coots though...(*hint: it's the finger in the middle).

CLEMSON, LET'S STAKE OUR CLAIM ON THE BOWL TROPHY AGAINST THE SOONERS, and...
GO TIGERS!!!! WIN!!!!!!


Message was edited by: jbthe1tiger99®


2-3***


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:32 PM
 




2-4 forgot duke***


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:33 PM
 




Re: 2-4 forgot duke***


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:35 PM
 

I can't count. 2-4 it is.


Re: I hope Tigers win and hope most of the others lose. I


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:36 PM
 

did pull for BC.


Re: I hope Tigers win and hope most of the others lose. I


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:40 PM
 

We don't really necessarily need the ACC to rack up bowl wins to recruit well. We beat out rival. During the final week of the season the ACC was 4-0 against the SEC. Clemson has been recruiting well anyway.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:57 PM
 

really? is that why the acc gets no respect or is it that espn hates the conference?


Hey Blue Caddy

[8]
Posted: Dec 27, 2014 9:00 PM
 

Clemson beat the shat out of your chickens. That's what's most important when you're hanging out here with your twisted charade.


Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:29 PM
 

Can't kick a pat. Sad

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:38 PM
 

Just like usuck about half the teams in the ACC that went to bowls did not deserve it. Unc and Miami should have had to stay home.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:42 PM
 

BC didn't intercept that first pass in OT...always bites you in the end. SMH....ugh


2 teams isn't half***


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 11:12 PM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: 2 teams isn't half***


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 11:23 PM
 

Add Va Tech, Miami to the list. NC state did not beat anyone but Unc so add them to the list.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

They're gonna bash the ACC regardless.

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2014 8:42 PM
 

Even if the conference went undefeated in bowls and FSU won the NC, it will be the same old song. I just watched a 24/7 Sports recruiting show on FOX that was basically a tribute to Alabama and OSU's recruiting prowess. It's the way it's always been...Only the SECheat and Big 10 or 12 (or whatever the # is now) gets any recognition.

2019 purple level member

Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 9:47 PM
 

2 of 4, unfortunately the 2 wins come against non-power 5 conferences (UCF and Cinci in AAC). The only way the ACC is going to get respect is on the field against power-5 teams.

2019 orange level member

Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.

[3]
Posted: Dec 27, 2014 9:57 PM
 

Conference strength arguments are all invalid . This is a ploy that was punted forward by the ESPN regime to gain footholds in viewing audiences , to partition areas of the country and to bring those who would have no interest in such folly into the ring , so to speak.
There are college football teams in conferences , and within those conferences there are both good and bad teams . Ranging from great to terrible. The depth , and quality of play argument is one of little substance. As an individual team sport , there can be no " conference vs conference " discussion unless the fans believe what ESPN has created is real. It is all just fluff for ratings. Another way to strangle the money out of the football loving college fanbases around America.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

DB23


Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 10:14 PM
 

That's a stupid post. Are you denying the ACC is the best basketball conference? Look at the record against the other top conferences. Unfortunately in football it's a different story.


Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 9:24 AM
 

> That's a stupid post. Are you denying the ACC is the
> best basketball conference? Look at the record
> against the other top conferences. Unfortunately in
> football it's a different story.

Wait a minute, I thought only football mattered!


The ACC makes more money per team w/ all sports included

[4]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 5:03 PM
 

than does the SEC. You got anything worth talking about??


Re: The ACC makes more money per team w/ all sports included


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 8:58 PM
 

> than does the SEC. You got anything worth talking
> about??

Link please, I call B.S.


Calling B.S.?? LOL, that coming from a twisted coot

[3]
Posted: Dec 29, 2014 12:19 AM
 

pretending to be a tiger fan with a dozen different poser handles no less? Son, not only are you never right about anything while hiding behind your charade, you also have some issues upstairs.

You ever hear of Forbes? Perhaps the leading business magazine in America.

Read and weep, cock:

1. Big Ten

Total income: $310 million
Bowl games: $40 million
NCAA tournaments: $20 million
Television revenue: $250 million

2. Pac-12

Total income: $303 million
Bowl games: $39 million
NCAA tournaments: $14 million
Television revenue: $250 million

3. ACC

Total income: $293 million
Bowl games: $35 million
NCAA tournaments: $17 million
Television revenue: $240 million

4. SEC

Total income: $270 million
Bowl games: $50 million
NCAA tournaments: $15 million
Television revenue: $205 million

5. Big 12

Total income: $262 million
Bowl games: $42 million
NCAA tournaments: $20 million
Television revenue: $200 million

6. Big East

Total income: $94 million
Bowl games: $30 million
NCAA tournaments: $28 million
Television revenue: $36 million


Re: Calling B.S.?? LOL, that coming from a twisted coot


Posted: Dec 29, 2014 8:49 AM
 

> pretending to be a tiger fan with a dozen different
> poser handles no less? Son, not only are you never
> right about anything while hiding behind your
> charade, you also have some issues upstairs.
>
> You ever hear of Forbes? Perhaps the leading business
> magazine in America.
>
> Read and weep, cock:
>
> 1. Big Ten
>
> Total income: $310 million
> Bowl games: $40 million
> NCAA tournaments: $20 million
> Television revenue: $250 million
>
> 2. Pac-12
>
> Total income: $303 million
> Bowl games: $39 million
> NCAA tournaments: $14 million
> Television revenue: $250 million
>
> 3. ACC
>
> Total income: $293 million
> Bowl games: $35 million
> NCAA tournaments: $17 million
> Television revenue: $240 million
>
> 4. SEC
>
> Total income: $270 million
> Bowl games: $50 million
> NCAA tournaments: $15 million
> Television revenue: $205 million
>
> 5. Big 12
>
> Total income: $262 million
> Bowl games: $42 million
> NCAA tournaments: $20 million
> Television revenue: $200 million
>
> 6. Big East
>
> Total income: $94 million
> Bowl games: $30 million
> NCAA tournaments: $28 million
> Television revenue: $36 million

Yeah, I'm calling BS. Citing your source, Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/04/15/the-most-valuable-conferences-in-college-sports-2014/

Read it, weep and then get your facts straight. Keep reading my posts too, please and fact check on Google every now and then. Google can be your friend when you have no others.


Are you an idiot? You must be an idiot.

[5]
Posted: Dec 30, 2014 12:15 AM
 

The link you provided shows the ACC has moved up to #2 while the SEC is still #4.

There's something wrong with you. Look man, obviously your elevator stops several floors short of the top floor, and you lack any meaningful intelligence, but must you continue to expose it with this and your dozen other coot poser handles?


ACC is winless against P5 teams


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 10:16 PM
 

Dang BC and Miami

2019 white level member

Re: ACC is winless against P5 teams


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 10:18 PM
 

and Duke.

All were very close.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


Re: ACC is winless against P5 teams


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 9:25 AM
 

> and Duke.
>
> All were very close.

And all lost. No matter how you skin it, except for FlaSt and Clemson, the ACC is a weak football conference.


Re: ACC is winless against P5 teams

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2014 10:26 PM
 

When I was growing up (1970/80's) there was no talk of any one conference or the other being superior , or deeper , or greater . There was Ohio State , Michigan , Texas , ND , Oklahoma , Penn State , Alabama and USC . These teams were great ...not the conferences they played in . They did not boost the status of their conference mates , they stood alone because that is how it is supposed to be.
If I choose to only follow Clemson football , and some talking head in a head mic says that I am also a UNC or VT fan by their afilliations to CU , I politely deny that invalid statement and say ...as my mother always said when it was well intentioned but also to clarify that you were dealing with the mentally deficient -"...bless their heart ".

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

DB23


That was 70-80's, different ball game now.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 10:39 PM
 

The perceived respective conference strengths can determine who make the playoff, and who doesn't. Since there are so few regular season OOC games, the bowl season is the best chance for the conferences to improve their perceived strength, relative to each other.

You folks that don't generally pull for the other ACC teams in the bowls and regular season OOC games, are being very shortsighted. As long as the playoff is stupidly limited to four teams, down teh road, maybe even next year, we could end up like Baylor this year, left out in the cold.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: That was 70-80's, different ball game now.


Posted: Dec 27, 2014 10:50 PM
 

I don't see why Baylor was any more deserving than the 4 that are in this inaugural playoff ? What about TCU then ? How about MSU ?
Controversy of this type will always follow a sport that is controlled in media sensitive polls .
Conference or no conference , 4 teams will be in and 60+ will be left out .

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

DB23


Big Ten conf sucked so how did OH ST get in.


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:08 AM
 

They travel better. No different now then it ever was.


Re: That was 70-80's, different ball game now.


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 9:27 AM
 

> The perceived respective conference strengths can
> determine who make the playoff, and who doesn't.
> Since there are so few regular season OOC games, the
> bowl season is the best chance for the conferences to
> improve their perceived strength, relative to each
> other.
>
> You folks that don't generally pull for the other ACC
> teams in the bowls and regular season OOC games, are
> being very shortsighted. As long as the playoff is
> stupidly limited to four teams, down teh road, maybe
> even next year, we could end up like Baylor this
> year, left out in the cold.

How does posters on this board pulling for one team or another have any effect on the outcome of that game?


My brother is a UMD/Little Ten fan

[2]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:45 AM
 

I had to explain to him tonight that winning the Yankee Bowl and the Detriot Motors bowl doesn't define a conference. Had to explain that last year ACC won the Orange and National Title. That's what matters. Big boy bowls, big boy football.

Case in point, who can tell me who won the Yankee bowl or the Detriot bowl 3 years ago? Exactly.


Re: My brother is a UMD/Little Ten fan


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 9:28 AM
 

> I had to explain to him tonight that winning the
> Yankee Bowl and the Detriot Motors bowl doesn't
> define a conference. Had to explain that last year
> ACC won the Orange and National Title. That's what
> matters. Big boy bowls, big boy football.
>
> Case in point, who can tell me who won the Yankee
> bowl or the Detriot bowl 3 years ago? Exactly.

For that matter, most people couldn't tell you who won the Sugar Bowl 3 years ago.


Hey ####

[3]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 9:38 AM
 

When you contribute to your conference at a better average than 4 out of 23 years, then you may actually be qualified to speak on perceptions of conference strength. Playing in the SEC Least is no better than the old Big East, and you still haven't accomplished jack squat.


Re: Hey ####

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 11:06 AM
 

> When you contribute to your conference at a better
> average than 4 out of 23 years, then you may actually
> be qualified to speak on perceptions of conference
> strength. Playing in the SEC Least is no better than
> the old Big East, and you still haven't accomplished
> jack squat.

Hey #### breath, the ACC is a weak football conference, period. You are stupid if you believe otherwise.


say whatever you will tabledancer....

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 11:19 AM
 

YOU ARE STILL A 100% USuCk lamecluck SUPPORTER!!!!
& on the wrong website! SMH

You remind me of one other coot troll on here that goes through a thread & attacks every other pro-clemson post with your drivel, after nobody is really following the thread anymore.
Does that make your bird brain feel better doing that...?
The reality of the USuCk slacking off & tumbling towards oblivion surely doesn't! LOL!!!

Can any other tiger fans on here guess which other coot troll it is that I'm referring to????
Points will be provided for correct answer(s).

TIA!

GO TIGERS!


Re: say whatever you will tabledancer....


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:20 PM
 

> YOU ARE STILL A 100% USuCk lamecluck SUPPORTER!!!!
> & on the wrong website! SMH
>
> You remind me of one other coot troll on here that
> goes through a thread & attacks every other
> pro-clemson post with your drivel, after nobody is
> really following the thread anymore.
> Does that make your bird brain feel better doing
> that...?
> The reality of the USuCk slacking off & tumbling
> towards oblivion surely doesn't! LOL!!!
>
> Can any other tiger fans on here guess which other
> coot troll it is that I'm referring to????
> Points will be provided for correct answer(s).
>
> TIA!
>
> GO TIGERS!

Guess you really told me. Whoa, big man you are. ACC still sucks, said nothing about Clemson. But get your rocks off on the internet if you want to, you have to get your pleasure somewhere.


sorry it took so long to reply...


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:59 PM
 

I was getting some pleasure laying in bed with my sweetie...Mmmm, afternoon delight! ;)

You're typing away on the T-net, so I guess you're wrong, probably mad now, and still a hen.

HTH!

Something about Clemson: hmmm...35-17 winners of the '14 Palmetto Bowl, 9 wins & about to be 10 after we stymie the Sooners...
66-42-4!!!!!!

Amidoinitright?


Re: sorry it took so long to reply...


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 9:01 PM
 

> I was getting some pleasure laying in bed with my
> sweetie...Mmmm, afternoon delight! ;)
>
> You're typing away on the T-net, so I guess you're
> wrong, probably mad now, and still a hen.
>
> HTH!
>
> Something about Clemson: hmmm...35-17 winners of the
> '14 Palmetto Bowl, 9 wins & about to be 10 after we
> stymie the Sooners...
> 66-42-4!!!!!!
>
> Amidoinitright?

Wow, bragging on the internet about banging your "sweetie". Stay classy there. Sheep be careful.


Re: sorry it took so long to reply...


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 9:03 PM
 

> I was getting some pleasure laying in bed with my
> sweetie...Mmmm, afternoon delight! ;)
>
> You're typing away on the T-net, so I guess you're
> wrong, probably mad now, and still a hen.
>
> HTH!
>
> Something about Clemson: hmmm...35-17 winners of the
> '14 Palmetto Bowl, 9 wins & about to be 10 after we
> stymie the Sooners...
> 66-42-4!!!!!!
>
> Amidoinitright?

Says the fool with almost 3,000 posts in less than 1.5 years.


At least 80% of the ACC would beat you w/ all things even...


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 5:02 PM
 

So if they suck, where does that leave you?

Has anyone ever told you that you have issues? Because you do.


Re: At least 80% of the ACC would beat you w/ all things even...

[1]
Posted: Dec 29, 2014 8:39 AM
 

> So if they suck, where does that leave you?
>
> Has anyone ever told you that you have issues?
> Because you do.

You or anyone else saying otherwise doesn't change it. The ACC is a weak football conference as will be borne out yet again during this bowl season. And no, no one has ever told me I have issues, except you...which of course means absolutely nothing to me. Maybe even less than that. Here's a tip for you since you can't seem to figure it out by yourself. If you don't like my posts don't click your little mouse on them and you will never see them. Wonder who has the issues?


Well therein lies your problem.

[4]
Posted: Dec 30, 2014 12:20 AM
 

If nobody has ever told you that you have issues well that's because you never asked. Tell anyone that you're a #### who uses at least 12 different handles to pose a Tiger fan on your rival's website, and you continue to do so even after getting called out time and time again, and they'll tell you straight straight to your face you're nuts. If you were to go to a specialist they'd lock you up in a rubber padded room and throw away the key.


Clemson, FSU, Louisville, GT would all beat the snooze out of

[4]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:05 PM
 

your team, cock, at a minimum. You wouldn't do anything in the ACC either.

10 years into the Ball Sack era.. You're 7-6 for the third time in his tenure along with another season at 6-6. You haven't accomplished jack squat in 10 years and have fallen back into the lower third of your conference, as has been the case the vast majority of your so-called life. .. But, GO SEC! Lol.


Re: Clemson, FSU, Louisville, GT would all beat the snooze out of

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:22 PM
 

> your team, cock, at a minimum. You wouldn't do
> anything in the ACC either.
>
> 10 years into the Ball Sack era.. You're 7-6 for the
> third time in his tenure along with another season at
> 6-6. You haven't accomplished jack squat in 10 years
> and have fallen back into the lower third of your
> conference, as has been the case the vast majority of
> your so-called life. .. But, GO SEC! Lol.

Feel better now?


Re: Clemson, FSU, Louisville, GT would all beat the snooze out of


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:23 PM
 

> your team, cock, at a minimum. You wouldn't do
> anything in the ACC either.
>
> 10 years into the Ball Sack era.. You're 7-6 for the
> third time in his tenure along with another season at
> 6-6. You haven't accomplished jack squat in 10 years
> and have fallen back into the lower third of your
> conference, as has been the case the vast majority of
> your so-called life. .. But, GO SEC! Lol.

Those four are the best no doubt. The rest suck!


Duke would beat you. Boston College would beat you. NCSU

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 4:51 PM
 

would beat you on a good day, and Virginia Tech would as well. What are we up to now, 8 ACC teams that would beat you? Yet here you are, trying to say the ACC sucks. LOL. Where does that out your team?


It's conceivable that Pitt would beat you and even

[3]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 4:59 PM
 

UVA if they played their A+ game. If Miami doesn't give you a gift TO, then they beat you too. But hey, at least I would put my money on you against Wake and Syracuse.. but only if it wasn't in the dome.

But yeah, "the ACC sucks". LOL.


Re: It's conceivable that Pitt would beat you and even

[2]
Posted: Dec 29, 2014 8:42 AM
 

> UVA if they played their A+ game. If Miami doesn't
> give you a gift TO, then they beat you too. But hey,
> at least I would put my money on you against Wake and
> Syracuse.. but only if it wasn't in the dome.
>
> But yeah, "the ACC sucks". LOL.

See, you finally said it, "the ACC sucks." Now get rid of all the ifs, ands and buts and other excuses and you will have it down. Keep practicing and I'm confident you will get there.


Who gives a #### about the ACC?

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 10:46 AM
 

It doesnt bother me one bit that the ACC is 2-3. The only game that matters is Monday.


Re: Who gives a #### about the ACC?

[3]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 10:52 AM
 

and people complain about the ACC getting no respect when they talk like this.. every ACC game matters to national sports writers and to Clemson!! until the entire ACC gets some respect things like FSU getting screwed will keep happening!what I just do not see is how this is so hard for some people to uderstand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


i repeat, who gives a shit?


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:07 PM
 

I don't care if every ACC team lost every game. I'm not ever going to be a ####### conference cheerleader.


Because we play lots of conference games, our strength of

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2014 12:30 PM
 

schedule depends on the rest of the conference being perceived as strong teams. Beating the SEC (4 and 0) helps, but we need consistent performance out of conference if we want a shot of the championship.

FSU is undefeated two years running, and there was still a possibility of them being left out. Just running the table won't be enough if the teams we play are not viewed as strong.

This year, the chickens hurt our strength of schedule. I expect that to happen a lot going forward, so we need the ACC to get the respect it deserves. (again, 4-0 to all you coots and SEC chumps)


Re: Because we play lots of conference games, our strength of


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 1:06 PM
 

^^^^Bewm!!!!

ESecPN desperately trying to cut the ACC out of any contention...NO MATTER WHICH TEAM IT IS!!!

CFBPOC is BS & a farce in its 1st year ever...who'd-a-thunk-it!?


Don't cheer for the conference necessarily, but by default..


Posted: Dec 28, 2014 1:12 PM
 

It's in Clemson’s best interest for the conference, or at least enough teams, to be really strong & compete/win on the national level & OOC games.

Otherwise when we deserve to be there, they will screw us over somehow, using our conference affiliation as the reason (too many weak teams, don't win ooc...).


Replies: 61  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: South Carolina
FOR SALE: I am selling my 8 Tickets to the South Carolina game coming up. These are in Section 18 and are all ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
10405 people have read this post