Started By
Message
re: Why do so many Clemson fans flock to this board?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:08 am to CU_Tigers4life
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:08 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
Absolutely..and the they "did that" so well that when the put Alabama and LSU in the MNC Game that the backlash is what accelerated the end of the BCS era to make way for the Playoffs...
You are now seeing a variety of competition getting a fair shot on the field rather than hiding behind conference games and dodging tough non-conference games.
This is also impacting recruiting. Top rated players no longer fell that they have to play for an SEC school to have a chance the compete for a national title.
The BCS Era stacked the deck for the SEC and you guys had a helluva a good ride. Now team like Alabama are having to do it the old fashioned way and competed at the highest level.
How did the BCS era stack the deck for the SEC? How did other teams from other conference not a get a fair shot? Why do you say that the SEC "dodges tough non-conference games?" Clemson played TWO SEC teams in the regular season 4 of the last 5 years of the BCS era. What is your point?
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 11:16 am
0
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:09 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
They did the same thing in 2010 and 2011 with baseball, but when they beat us this year, it becomes a big deal because they beat us in all 3 sports.
"They" is a lot of people.
Football, men's basketball, then baseball. Huge drop after that to what? Soccer? Softball? Women's basketball? Golf? They're interchangeable after the top three.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:18 am to rockiee
quote:
Kind of stated all I wanted to above two posts ago. I have been the first to admit the SEC has been down but if someone doesn't recognized the difficulty of the SEC, especially SEC west, in that "BCS time frame", I don't really know what to say.
During the BCS everything was about "The Conference" and not the individual teams. I still remember the "ACC Wheel of Destiny" and comic relief...I am not going to stay the the SEC didn't have a good selection of solid individual programs...but the SEC hype was really over-sold to a degree....
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:19 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
You are now seeing a variety of competition getting a fair shot on the field rather than hiding behind conference games and dodging tough non-conference games.
Again, as the old guy here is the reality check
South was good but told they were no good until they started winning Rose Bowls. B1G tried (and succeeded with Walter Byers as dictator for NCAA) to win this narrative by shutting SEC schools out of the Rose Bowl from the post war to the NCAA era instead of playing them (check the early Michigan and Ohio State games and how imbalanced they were on home and home series). Finally Sooners and Dawgs took it to the Supreme Court and broke that monopoly while Penn State vs Miami shifted the playing ground from the Rose Bowl to newer bowls in determining MNC's.
Rose may still be the granddaddy according to Brent shilling for them but the reality was it was less likely to produce a MNC. B1G seeing their monopoly broken bought Penn State in the first realignment and Nebraska in the second one but it is still the domain of Ohio State and Michigan (even tho Michigan has not been relevant for ages). BCS era opened up the football power of the SEC and some ACC teams and the PAC and B1G were falling behind.
B1G used the CFP to limit the SEC to just 1 team and now they have slipped in dominance coupled with the Saban effect of folks like Miles and Richt getting canned and Ohio State having to buy an SEC coach to win again. Look I will give the ACC props in football but the SEC is not your enemy, it is the B1G and PAC making you think they are that has caused most of this angst. You are free to deny all of this but it was your own coaches that shunned the SEC because of the competition in the first realignment of the 1990's.
If Taters and Free Shoes took the bids back then (even Bobby Dodd later lamented leaving the SEC) you guys would be making SEC dollars and getting SECN exposure but please do not imply playing an ACC football schedule is equal to or harder than playing an SEC one because then you do look like a green eyed troll instead of a real fan actually discussing the sport. The problem is Bowden took the easy path back then and now Free Shoes has had to pay it back in massive lost revenue.
I am not singling Bobby out as most coaches would probably take the same path to a MNC. Like or hate Rupp and Summit, they set the standard for the SEC in their sport by playing anybody, anytime, and anywhere. I respect the hell out of them for taking the much harder path to success.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:23 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
Look I will give the ACC props in football but the SEC is not your enemy, it is the B1G and PAC making you think they are that has caused most of this angst
They don't have to be..as long as you don't visit their boards and try to participate..right?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:28 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
If Taters and Free Shoes took the bids back then (even Bobby Dodd later lamented leaving the SEC) you guys would be making SEC dollars and getting SECN exposure
I don't really care about FSU or any other ACC school...We just don't think like that.
As for exposures, I think we are doing ok. As for the money, have you looked at our facilities?
There are bunch of extremely wealthy programs that are not worth a plug fart in a stiff breeze..Texas? Notre Dame? USC? Just to name a few.
If money were the only driving issue then even the Universtiy of South Carolina would have some how fielded a solid, sustainable program by now.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:32 am to Cheese Grits
Most years the SEC is tougher. Most of us agree with that. Lately though, the SEC is banking on the name of the team and their history. Tennessee was great. And Florida, etc. Now they're not.
Every year it's (insert team) is going to have a breakout season, until they don't.
I also have to laugh at the money argument you cherish. There isn't enough to spend the money we have now on. Clemson is finally bringing in softball. Every facility is undergoing upgrades, both sports and academics. Where is this great money advantage you shout about making a difference? Let me guess - ten years from now it'll really be apparent, right?
News flash - everyone has money. Not everyone is willing to spend it on football, though, and that's the difference between our conferences.
Every year it's (insert team) is going to have a breakout season, until they don't.
I also have to laugh at the money argument you cherish. There isn't enough to spend the money we have now on. Clemson is finally bringing in softball. Every facility is undergoing upgrades, both sports and academics. Where is this great money advantage you shout about making a difference? Let me guess - ten years from now it'll really be apparent, right?
News flash - everyone has money. Not everyone is willing to spend it on football, though, and that's the difference between our conferences.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:33 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
During the BCS everything was about "The Conference" and not the individual teams.
I would argue it still is, not as much as it use to be but still
quote:
I am not going to stay the the SEC didn't have a good selection of solid individual programs...but the SEC hype was really over-sold to a degree....
If you mean in the sense that anything that is on top is over-sold then I can understand that. I even get the hate after the 2012 National Championship game but it seems like many outside the conference want to under-value those years because those people feel it was "over-sold". It really doesn't have to be one or the other. You said it earlier the SEC had a good run. The SEC having success on the field affected the BCS polling. Not the other way around.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:37 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
I don't really care about FSU or any other ACC school...We just don't think like that.
This is what I was trying to explain earlier. The reason you don't think that way is because of the arguments being made, are you telling me that if I went to a site that was dominated by ACC posters, they wouldn't begin defending their conference if I started talking trash. Everyone school wants his/her conference to be good, it would be foolish not to.
Hell, a fellow Clemson fan was defending his conference when it came to basketball selections not to long ago. There isn't anything wrong with that. I wouldn't label him as some "conference cheerleader" for doing so though. That would be very ignorant.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:37 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
They don't have to be..as long as you don't visit their boards and try to participate..right?
PAC really don't have boards with much discussion. B1G boards are locked in the 1960's with any SEC discussion coming down to a handful of talking points.
#1 SEC cheats
#2 SEC is racist
#3 SEC has terrible academics
None of this has anything to do with on the field play (at least in terms of reality) yet B1G fans get locked in these talking points and all other discussion grinds to a halt. First, Rose Bowl should have remained an open bowl after WWII but B1G did not want the chance they would not be invited and a SEC, Big 8, SWC, or ACC team would (also Notre Dame and the IND teams in the east like Pittsburgh and Penn State).
Second, BCS just put the bullet to the old Rose Bowl which should have happened long ago. Once that happened the B1G scrambled to guarantee at least a B1G slice of the post season and the CFP gained traction. In a few short years the media has said how great the B1G is yet they keep failing to show it in the post season. Problem is they have brought down elite teams like Penn State and Nebraska by focusing the attention on academics instead of actual gridiron success.
If you don't believe me just look at Ohio State. Told everybody for quite some time that CCG's mattered until this year and they jumped Penn State for the CFP spot. How would you like to be a Penn State, Nebraska, or Wisconsin fan and see it snatched from you by Ohio State and Michigan after the fact? Historically the PAC was no hotbed of college football so I think they just went along for the ride.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:48 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
If you don't believe me just look at Ohio State. Told everybody for quite some time that CCG's mattered until this year and they jumped Penn State for the CFP spot. How would you like to be a Penn State, Nebraska, or Wisconsin fan and see it snatched from you by Ohio State and Michigan after the fact? Historically the PAC was no hotbed of college football so I think they just went along for the ride.
I had a big problem with Ohio State getting in over PSU. It worked out well for us since we beat them with in an ounce of their life in the semifinals, but I think tOSU cheapened the value of CGI's by leaping over Penn State and if the playoff committee doesn't handle this I foresee a problem.
just like I think there was some "extra love" thrown at the SEC (and maybe it was deserved even), the CFP is not free from the politics of having 4 representatives from 4 different conferences and giving preferential treatment to certain programs like Michigan and Ohio State. It was pretty obvious to most they wanted one of those programs in the playoffs
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:50 am to CU_Tigers4life
the com. taking Ohio State over Penn State is no different from the NCAA giving UNC a 1 seed even though Duke won the ACC. they look at overall resume.
OSU beat Michigan who beat PSU.
OSU beat impressively Okla at Okla, who won the Big 12.
Penn State had a 2nd loss, to Pitt.
OSU beat Michigan who beat PSU.
OSU beat impressively Okla at Okla, who won the Big 12.
Penn State had a 2nd loss, to Pitt.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 11:53 am
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:51 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
I don't really care about FSU or any other ACC school...We just don't think like that.
I watched the NC in a bar on FSU's campus, and there wasn't a soul in the place that was rooting for Alabama. Everyone was emphatically cheering for Clemson. I asked a few people their reasoning, and each one said that it was a conference thing.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:52 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
I don't really care about FSU or any other ACC school...We just don't think like that.
Which goes back to my post above about the early leadership of the ACC that you never answered. If you don't know, just say so, or at least try and talk to some old timers and come back with their answer. Again, we were all in the same family once in the old SIAA and SoCon so why did ACC (when they split from the SoCon) take the opposite view of conference unity that the SEC did when they split from the SoCon?
Could it be the SEC was born from the Great Depression and the ACC was born from the economic boom of the 1950's and in that short span individual greed took over?
quote:
If money were the only driving issue then even the Universtiy of South Carolina would have some how fielded a solid, sustainable program by now.
They have
SEC money does not change you overnight but here we are a generation later and the change in SC and AR facilities are nothing short of stunning. What you are missing in all of this is the "across the board" mantra of spending on SEC sports. While football drives the bus (basketball is close but most goes to the NCAA instead of the conferences) that money has been plowed back into all the other SEC sports. While folks view the SEC as a football conference I would argue they dominate other sports more because they are so competitive.
15,000 for a non conference Bama gymnastics meet
24,000 for a non conference Kentucky WBB game
400,000 a season for LSU baseball
Nice TV audiences for SEC baseball and softball
Lots of SEC exposure for volleyball
In all these sports it is not just the "usual suspects" who win in a give year. 5 years ago would you have guessed South Carolina or Mississippi State would be in the SEC championship much less the NCAA championship? Sure you expect Arkansas to be good in T&F but who predicted Kentucky would finish in the Top 5 in Oregon?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:58 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:
I watched the NC in a bar on FSU's campus, and there wasn't a soul in the place that was rooting for Alabama. Everyone was emphatically cheering for Clemson. I asked a few people their reasoning, and each one said that it was a conference thing.
I think that night only Alabama fans were pulling for the tide. FSU people don't like Clemson and we don't care much for them..I think Alabama Fatigue had a lot to do with that. The whole nation was rooting for Clemson that night...but if we show up again they will get tired of us...
Posted on 4/3/17 at 11:58 am to Funky Tide 8
It's become a backlash. You stuck that stupid little brother SEC chant out there for everyone to hate, and they do.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 12:05 pm to Tillman
quote:
yeah we so insecure
You really are. You're desperately seeking attention and gloat like a 5 yr old. Pretty pathetic. When you haven't won anything since the 80's, you get twats acting like Clemson fans on this board.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 12:07 pm to IStillMissDanny
quote:
You stuck that stupid little brother SEC chant out there for everyone to hate, and they do.
99% of the time this is done because everyone knows its annoying to the other fan basePosted on 4/3/17 at 12:07 pm to tigercreole
quote:
You really are. You're desperately seeking attention and gloat like a 5 yr old. Pretty pathetic. When you haven't won anything since the 80's, you get twats acting like Clemson fans on this board.
i never bring up on the football natty unless somebody starts talking trash. i hate ppl who gloat. so nice false narrative homey.
lsu only has one more national title than Clemson.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 12:12 pm to Tillman
You know, one of you enterprising taters should spend a little less time and energy posting here and create ACCRant.com. Everyone would be much happier and you might make a little money on the side to boot.....
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 12:14 pm
Page 21 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News