re: Georgia vs Georgia Tech || Comparing the SEC schedule to the ACC schedule

Georgia Tech is hard to watch but who cares as long as they win.

quote:

---

Baw, you are not even the "Premier Football Program" in your conference.

---

Teams in (or kinda in) the ACC with more MNC's than Tater U

11 Notre Dame
9 Pittsburgh
5 Miami
4 Georgia Tech
3 Florida State

If current ACC teams Boston College or Syracuse won a 2nd MNC they would be tied with Tater U. Lafayette Leopards have 3 MNC's and they are not even in FBS football anymore. Not getting to go to the 1949 Sun Bowl was probably cool with a school like Clemson even tho David Showell was a Tuskegee Airman.



ACC was never known as a football conference yet Taters still are not #1 or #2 in their home conference. To quote Tillman… lol

quote:

---

Yeah, seriously

You are having a good run, and last year was special for y'all

But no, Clemson is by no means a "premiere program"

---

Eh, how many programs can claim multiple undisputed national titles since full racial integration? That puts Clemson in some pretty rare company - roughly starting at 1970, that includes only Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Miami, Florida State, Florida, LSU (kind of), Nebraska, Penn State, and Texas (again, kind of)...and Clemson.

They've been one of the four or so best programs of this decade along with Alabama, Ohio State, and FSU, and that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon. They're very well-positioned from a regional talent perspective, an institutional commitment perspective, and from a marketing/reputation/coolness perspective.

ETA: And Cheese is trying to grasp at titles won before George Wallace like the Cats fan he is. Cheese is also throwing in titles from sports - basically everything other than football and men's basketball in March - that people really don't give a shite about.

I wanted to call you out on this but somebody already spotted your bullshite

quote:

---

Cheese is also throwing in titles from sports - basically everything other than football and men's basketball in March - that people really don't give a shite about.

---

In the north, folks care about hockey and in the south they care about baseball. As for the other sports it is a rough gauge of balance than football only schools. Women's basketball is selling tickets and I have been to Joyce and seen firsthand the Irish fans filling it for women's basketball. Granted it does not have the same pull as CFB, but when you put 400K though the gates at LSU for baseball in a season or fill a 20K venue for women's basketball in Knoxville it is clear somebody is paying to see it and some of those are paying good money as Lady Vols run about $ 1,300 a seat a season after the required "donation"

As for Clemson in 81, yes they went undefeated but played in an ACC back then that did not include Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, and the others since expansion.

Clemson 81 = Wofford, Tulane, UGA by 10 @ home, Kentucky, Virginia, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, UNC, Maryland, and SC (pre SEC) and a large section of schools could have a similar record that season. Basically the Taters got UGA and Nebraska (in bowl) as a two game run to the NC.

Imagine for a second tho that Donald Trump does not end Herschel Walkers time at Georgia a year early and he plays for Georgia that season. 10 point loss to Clemson and 4 point loss to Pittsburgh and the Dawgs are undefeated and getting back to back Natties.

Winning a Natty is a big deal and takes a team, favorable schedule, and a bit of good fortune like UGA losing HW to Trump. However, if modern rules applied, it seems certain that BYU's Natty in 1984 falls away. In 1981, Nebraska had 3 losses but played a ranked Florida State and a ranked Penn State along with a schedule that had no FCS schools like Wofford and had only P5 opponents including Iowa and Auburn out of conference. Imagine if the schedules were swapped that year and Nebraska played the Clemson schedule that year, they may go undefeated and Clemson playing Nebraska's schedule has a loss or two in the regular season.

The debate continues today in the debate between 8 and 9 conference games and how the P5's are not all created equal so going undefeated is also unequal by seasons end and the pollsters do reward on 0 losses over SoS no matter how much they say they don't.

If you really wanted a starting point then the 1st BCS might be a s good as any on a "future" crystal ball on who really matters in CFB today.

1998 Tennessee - downhill since losing the fat man
1999 Florida State - able to replace Bowden with Jimbo
2000 Oklahoma -with Stoops
2001 Miami - the "U" is now just a u
2002 Ohio State - able to replace the vest with CUM
2003 LSU with Saban / USC with Carroll
2004 USC with Carroll - now vacated
2005 Texas - downhill since butter tooth
2006 Florida - with CUM
2007 LSU - with Miles (could be the next Tennessee post fat man)
2008 Florida - with CUM
2009 Alabama - with Saban
2010 Auburn - with Cam
2011 Alabama - with Saban
2012 Alabama - with Saban
2013 Florida State - with Jimbo
2014 Ohio State - with CUM
2015 Alabama - with Saban
2016 Clemson - with Dabo

The "real" reality may be it is just the Saban and CUM show going forward till one or both of them retire and everybody else is just hoping to get a Natty when one of them lose a game. Maybe Clemson goes back to back and pulls at least even with Florida State but they could equally go the way of Miami or Tennessee in the modern world.

If I were trying to predict the future (assuming head injuries don't end the sport) the networks will want the predictable eyeballs and the AD's will want the biggest live audiences across a given conference. Only the B1G and SEC seem so poised to own that future. Florida State and Clemson are outliers in ACC football.

The question may be who goes to Alabama after Saban because if Dabo left Clemson for Tuscaloosa then all Clemson is today will be dust in the wind tomorrow.

No, most experts don't. That is you Hogtown guys and your Spurrier worship.

You spout bullshite only rivaled br Rooster.

If I'm not mistaken, and I know I'm not, Herschel did play in the '81 game. He never scored a TD against Clemson, either. UNC was also a top 10 team when Clemson played them, but I realize none of this fits your narrative that Clemson was somehow given an unearned championship.

You can cry all day long about it, but Clemson has two titles. Undisputed. Not shared. Real ones, not awarded retroactively by some organization that didn't even exist at the time. Why don't you make another wind-bag post with some more 'ifs and buts' so we can enjoy how upset you are that little ol Clemson is on top of your tiny little universe.

And please keep trying to convince everyone that hockey and girls basketball are equal to football in importance, viewership, money, prestige, and whatever else you can think of. I always enjoy those inanely ridiculous rants from you.

quote:

---

That's not a bad comparison, but a big factor in Georgia Tech's demise as a national power that's not there with Ole Miss is a (maybe not even deliberate) de-emphasis on the sport on the part of the alumni and administration. Atlanta's rise as a major American urban center also neatly coincides with GT's demise - I think GT shifted priorities to be an elite international research and academic center in a global city rather than a solid academic land grant football power with a huge and loyal following - I think they (rightly, probably, given the future of the tentative future of the sport and importance of research and location in bolstering academic prestige and university finances) rather be a UCLA, Cal, Rice, Northwestern, etc. than a UGA or Nebraska

---

This is actually a really good take on it.

Also, I'm enjoying that this thread turned into a tater-dwag pillow fight.

Clemson is Auburn with a lake. Same battered woman syndrome as each other same little mans disease etc.

Clemson is a pathetic entity

more blather - do you do anything except blah blah blah

none of what you say makes any sense or is relevant