|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [13105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14733
Joined: 11/5/01
|
Sorry, but I must bring this post back to the top.....
May 23, 2006, 4:18 PM
|
|
Rowdy28®
Biggie, you guys played a cupcake schedule EVERY
Posted: May 23, 2006 12:38 PM
year until the ACC finally became worth a #### in the last 5 years. Gimme a break man. Until FSU became a part of that league, you pretty much had a cake walk every year. It wasn't that you guys were playing Wofford in 2000, it was that you were playing them ON TOP of the other nobodies you were playing. All of those cupcakes earned you a top 5 or top 10 ranking, if I remember correctly, and then GT and FSU exposed you. Quit being so self righteous about schedules...it's all you post about anymore. Like I said, same ol' broken record.
Sorry Rowdy, but you DON'T remember correctly. Clemson scheduled UT to a home and away series in the mid 70s. We scheduled ND when they were a true national power in a home and away series in '77 and '79. CU scheduled a great Boston College team (remember Doug Flutie?) to a home and away series in the early 80s. We played the great Vince Dooley's UGA teams annually, until THEY put a stop to the series. We played FSU in a home and away series in the late 80s; before they joined the ACC. They barely beat us on a trick play the 1st game, and we returned the favor by stomping them in Doak Campbell. The first year GT was in the ACC, Clemson blasted the former SEC power 41-14 (Is that what you call being "exposed"???). We played Virginia Tech in a couple of home and away series. Even then, they were much superior to South Carolina.
And if those regular season games weren't enough proof for you, Clemson defeated the likes of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Penn St, Ohio State, West Virginia, Stanford, and UT in bowl games.
In Tommy Bowden's first year, we played (depending on whose power ratings you followed) the 1st or 2nd toughest schedule in the nation. In 2005, we played one of the 5 toughest schedules in the nation.
Yes, the ACC wasn't nearly as tough as it is today, but that's not Clemson's fault. We played the schedule handed to us by the ACC office. It was up to those schools to up their level of play, and over a number of years, that did eventually happen.
Unfortunately, Clemson has to play South Carolina on a yearly basis. The gamecocks have, unfortunately, never improved their level of play on a consistent basis. As a result, this has hurt our strength of schedule in numerous years.
Rowdy, next time you want to talk "chicken smack", please bring some facts to the table instead of making the typical cootish blanket statements.
Sincerely,
Bengal Ben
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [6224]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9276
Joined: 8/14/03
|
I could be mistaken....
May 23, 2006, 4:21 PM
|
|
but didn't Auburn back out on us and FSU in the last 5 years or so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2073]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 7/20/01
|
and OU***
May 23, 2006, 4:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [229]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 191
Joined: 12/1/98
|
Actually, we dropped OU******
May 23, 2006, 7:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14733
Joined: 11/5/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6224]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9276
Joined: 8/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [954]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1756
Joined: 11/22/04
|
I still say: ACC v SEC challenge !!!!
May 23, 2006, 4:25 PM
|
|
Encourage every ACC school to schedule at least one game with an SEC school and likewise. Add up the wins and award a trophy sponsored by some Fortune 100 company. An easy way to schedule competative games with low travel costs and make some sponsorship $$ on the side.
Clemson v S.Carolina
FSU v Florida v Miami
GA Tech v Georgia
Some of these are already taken care of! No need to add another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2361]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 8247
Joined: 11/15/00
|
Sounds good, but the $ should only go to those schools
May 23, 2006, 7:31 PM
|
|
that actually participate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1853]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3069
Joined: 9/2/05
|
I'm not so sure about last year but I do know that the ACC
May 23, 2006, 4:30 PM
|
|
has been consistently better in bowl winning % than the mighty SEC
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1357]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2200
Joined: 1/17/03
|
Both UT games were in Knoxville in the 70s and we got
May 23, 2006, 4:36 PM
|
|
royally screwed in the first one.
Both were good, close games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14733
Joined: 11/5/01
|
I stand corrected***
May 23, 2006, 4:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27378]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31829
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: Both UT games were in Knoxville in the 70s and we got
May 23, 2006, 5:03 PM
[ in reply to Both UT games were in Knoxville in the 70s and we got ] |
|
I remember Coach Parker saying after the UT games that their fans were so bad that " they threw babies in the aisles". Clemson fans should ALWAYS remember that UT was most instrumental in our probation years. More so than Ga. or USC or anyone else. I strongly dislike UT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3454]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 6200
Joined: 9/13/00
|
The SEC is done in the southeast
May 23, 2006, 4:39 PM
|
|
kids want to play in the ACC now - much better reputation for academics and a more exciting brand of football overall. Sure the SEC has Florida but the rest of them are grind it out teams. The ACC is a better football conference than the SEC and has always been a better basketball conference. The SEC also has a cheaters reputation. Sorry if it hurts Coots and go to the Danny Ford card if you want but the facts are the you're on probation now. Charles Barkley had it right when he said "Hey, this is the SEC; if you're not winning, you're not cheatin'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [368]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 262
Joined: 2/6/06
|
Re: The SEC is done in the southeast
May 23, 2006, 4:42 PM
|
|
I think kids want to play for good teams...period!!!! SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12....on and on....
Right now, I see the ACC and SEC even.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3599]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 10451
Joined: 1/1/01
|
This was the point of my post.
May 23, 2006, 5:04 PM
|
|
"Yes, the ACC wasn't nearly as tough as it is today, but that's not Clemson's fault. We played the schedule handed to us by the ACC office. It was up to those schools to up their level of play, and over a number of years, that did eventually happen."
I absolutely agree, and that was the point of my post. I'll be the first to admit that you had a great series against UGA while it lasted, and a good one against FSU before they joined the ACC. But, the fact of the matter is that you had to go out and schedule a few of those because the ACC was a weak conference until FSU joined, followed by Miami, VT and BC, assisted by Friedgen legitimizing Maryland, Groh at UVA, and Amato at NCSU. That, my friend, only happened in the last 5-7 years. Before then, it was Clemson, GT occasionally, FSU, and UVA occasionally. The fact that you are reaching back to the seventies and to bowl games to show legitimate opponents proves my point entirely.
And post 2000, i'm not really arguing your schedule. The ACC has upped its level of competition tremendously and I find it comparable to the SEC, with either conference edging out the other in various years. But to argue that your schedule was somehow "tough" in the pre-expansion ACC is an argument that I do not believe can be made.
Sincerely,
Rowdy28
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14733
Joined: 11/5/01
|
I made my point...
May 23, 2006, 5:12 PM
|
|
I went from the 70s until the present; not just the 70s.
Your lack of knowledge concerning Clemson and ACC football is really pathetic. Maryland was a powerhouse under Coach Claborne (won the National Championship), and was a very strong team under Bobby Ross. It wasn't until Ross left Maryland, that they started a downhill slide. South Carolina's football history pales in comparison to the Terripans, as well the rest of the ACC Well, I think you do have a winning record versus Wake. So, I do give credit, where credit is due.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3599]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 10451
Joined: 1/1/01
|
I don't claim to be an expert on ACC football. But, I do
May 23, 2006, 5:28 PM
|
|
know that pre-expansion, it was an 8 team conference composed of Duke, Wake, Clemson, FSU, UNC, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia Tech.
Other than FSU and Clemson during the Ford years, we aren't talking about powerhouses. From 1980 forward, GT has won 8 games or more only 7 times. 7 times in 25 years. That's not exactly a "powerhouse".
Maryland? In the same time period, they've won 8 games or more 8 times, 3 of which were under Friedgen.
UNC was a powerhouse in the early 80s. I remember when we beat them at home and they were number 3 in the country. In the last 25 years, they've won 8 games or more 10 times. Not too bad.
Virginia? 11 times.
NC State? 8 times.
I'm not arguing that the ACC was "bad" per se, but if I change the above number to 9, instead of 8, and take out the last 5 years, these numbers change alot. My point is that the ACC, pre-expansion, was not known as a tough football conference. 8 wins is respectable, better than what USC has done, but come on...we aren't talking about many powerhouses pre-expansion.
And I'm sorry my "lack of ACC knowledge" is "pathetic". But, I can go to cfbdatawarehouse and look at numbers like any other moron, and use my memory, to tell you that most of the country would agree with me that the ACC was not thought of as much of a football conference before it expanded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3978]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11350
Joined: 12/15/01
|
9-team pre-expansion
May 23, 2006, 5:30 PM
|
|
you left out NCST in your top line list. Assuming you meant the most recent one since you had FSU listed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3599]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 10451
Joined: 1/1/01
|
My bad, thx.***
May 23, 2006, 5:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follower [295]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1267
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Talking about the ACC before FSU, UNC and Maryland
May 23, 2006, 5:19 PM
[ in reply to This was the point of my post. ] |
|
were pretty good back in the early to mid 80's.
You fail to mention those teams. When Bobby Ross was at Maryland he fielded some good teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
UNC was a very good team in the 70's and 80's. It wasn't
May 23, 2006, 5:39 PM
[ in reply to This was the point of my post. ] |
|
unitl 87 that they started to fall off. They came back under Mack Brown in the early/mid 90's with top 10 teams. They finished 9th in 1981, the same year Clemson was MNCs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2361]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 8247
Joined: 11/15/00
|
Re: Good grief
May 23, 2006, 7:50 PM
[ in reply to This was the point of my post. ] |
|
Rowdy, you're a decent guy, but this is dumb. Have you forgotten about Georgia Tech's national title? Were you not paying attention to the good teams that Welsh, Sheridan, Brown, Crum, O'Leary, Ross, Dooley, and O'Cain fielded? And (the BIG one), do you really think Groh and Amato have improved UVA and NCSU all that much?
I will grant that the ACC lacks the tradition and passion of the SEC. There's been a lot of good football played in this conference, though. Perhaps not as much as in the SEC, but I don't think it's anything to sneeze at.
Below is a list of ACC teams' poll rankings since 1970 (besides Clemson, FSU, VT, and Miami). I also included USC's. These stats are available from cfbdatawarehouse.com. Below the year they list the record, the AP rank, and then the Coaches' Poll rank.
----------------
Maryland Totals:
----------------
1973
8-4-0
20
18
8
1974
8-4-0
13
13
9
1975
9-2-1
13
11
10
1976
11-1-0
8
11
11
1978
9-3-0
20
12
1982
8-4-0
20
20
13
1984
9-3-0
12
11
14
1985
9-3-0
18
19
15
2001
10-2-0
11
10
16
2002
11-3-0
13
13
17
2003
10-3-0
17
20
---------------
Virginia Totals:
---------------
2
1984
8-2-2
20
17
3
1989
10-3-0
18
15
4
1990
8-4-0
23
15
5
1994
9-3-0
15
13
6
1995
9-4-0
16
17
7
1998
9-3-0
18
18
8
2002
9-5-0
22
25
9
2004
8-4-0
23
23
----------------
UNC Totals:
----------------
7
1971
9-3-0
18
8
1972
11-1-0
12
14
9
1977
8-3-1
17
14
10
1979
8-3-1
15
14
11
1980
11-1-0
10
9
12
1981
10-2-0
9
8
13
1982
8-4-0
18
13
14
1992
9-3-0
19
18
15
1993
10-3-0
19
21
16
1994
8-4-0
21
17
1996
10-2-0
10
10
18
1997
11-1-0
6
4
-----------------
WF Total:
-----------------
3
1992
8-4-0
25
25
-----------------
NCSU Totals:
-----------------
5
1972
8-3-1
17
6
1973
9-3-0
16
7
1974
9-2-1
11
9
8
1977
8-4-0
19
9
1978
9-3-0
18
19
10
1988
8-3-1
17
11
1991
9-3-0
24
25
12
1992
9-3-1
17
15
13
1994
9-3-0
17
17
14
2002
11-3-0
12
11
----------------
GT Totals:
----------------
16
1970
9-3-0
13
17
17
1972
7-4-1
20
18
1985
9-2-1
19
18
19
1990
11-0-1
2
1
20
1997
7-5-0
25
21
1998
10-2-0
9
11
22
1999
8-4-0
20
21
23
2000
9-3-0
17
19
24
2001
8-5-0
24
----------------
USC Totals:
----------------
2
1984
10-2-0
11
13
3
1987
8-4-0
15
15
4
2000
8-4-0
19
21
5
2001
9-3-0
13
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [892]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1394
Joined: 4/25/04
|
pwn3d***
May 23, 2006, 5:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3599]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 10451
Joined: 1/1/01
|
And to make sure we're clear, I'm not downplaying the
May 23, 2006, 5:10 PM
|
|
ability of your teams in the years you describe. Clearly, you had the ability to defeat some good teams. However, the schedule you played did not really test you. That's all I'm saying. In the end, it doesn't really matter because you showed up at many bowl games against legitimate competition and won, in spite of the schedule. So, I don't know why everyone gets in a tizzy. I just think it is tough to argue that "our schedule was tougher" in the pre-expansion ACC. Doesn't mean you didn't have a good team in plenty of those years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
