|
Replies: 61
| visibility 609
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 10900
Joined: 2007
|
If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
Dec 27, 2014, 8:27 PM
|
|
Beat those Sooners Tigers!
|
|
|
|
 |
Head Coach [767]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
Dec 27, 2014, 8:29 PM
|
|
Well, ACC is 1-4 so far. You gotta win to earn respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 11103
Joined: 2012
|
Wrong
Dec 27, 2014, 8:30 PM
|
|
Vt and ncst won, Miami dook and Bc lost
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [767]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: Wrong
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1846]
TigerPulse: 59%
31
|
Tarholes lost to Rutgers didn't they?***
Dec 28, 2014, 10:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13855]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23084
Joined: 2004
|
Not only lost but gave up 40 points and got blown out.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13855]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23084
Joined: 2004
|
Duke was a big underdog playing against a much better
Dec 28, 2014, 11:21 AM
[ in reply to Re: Wrong ] |
|
team. They played pretty well and could have won the game, but Duke definitely should not have been expected to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2537]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
the slim losses don't get much closer!!! 9 pnts total in losses yesterday
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®
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7853]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 15770
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7853]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 15770
Joined: 2001
|
2-4 forgot duke***
Dec 27, 2014, 8:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [767]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: 2-4 forgot duke***
Dec 27, 2014, 8:35 PM
|
|
I can't count. 2-4 it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6938]
TigerPulse: 88%
41
Posts: 22593
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2355]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: I hope Tigers win and hope most of the others lose. I
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [1051]
TigerPulse: 31%
25
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
Dec 27, 2014, 8:57 PM
[ in reply to Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing. ] |
|
really? is that why the acc gets no respect or is it that espn hates the conference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Hey Blue Caddy
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [73514]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 117794
Joined: 1998
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
Dec 27, 2014, 8:29 PM
|
|
Can't kick a pat. Sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2396]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16940]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
Dec 27, 2014, 8:42 PM
|
|
BC didn't intercept that first pass in OT...always bites you in the end. SMH....ugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 58393
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2396]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: 2 teams isn't half***
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3508]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
They're gonna bash the ACC regardless.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 18413
Joined: 2014
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [38595]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 33260
Joined: 2011
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [171]
TigerPulse: 42%
12
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: If BC loses, queue the ACC bashing.
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
The ACC makes more money per team w/ all sports included
Dec 28, 2014, 5:03 PM
|
|
than does the SEC. You got anything worth talking about??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: The ACC makes more money per team w/ all sports included
Dec 28, 2014, 8:58 PM
|
|
> than does the SEC. You got anything worth talking
> about??
Link please, I call B.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Calling B.S.?? LOL, that coming from a twisted coot
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, ####:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: Calling B.S.?? LOL, that coming from a twisted coot
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, ####:
>
> 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Are you an idiot? You must be an idiot.
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
ACC is winless against P5 teams
Dec 27, 2014, 10:16 PM
|
|
Dang BC and Miami
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5919]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: ACC is winless against P5 teams
Dec 27, 2014, 10:18 PM
|
|
and Duke.
All were very close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: ACC is winless against P5 teams
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [38595]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 33260
Joined: 2011
|
Re: ACC is winless against P5 teams
Dec 27, 2014, 10:26 PM
[ in reply to ACC is winless against P5 teams ] |
|
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 ".
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [11066]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 13143
Joined: 2014
|
That was 70-80's, different ball game now.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [38595]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 33260
Joined: 2011
|
Re: That was 70-80's, different ball game now.
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 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1132]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: That was 70-80's, different ball game now.
Dec 28, 2014, 9:27 AM
[ in reply to That was 70-80's, different ball game now. ] |
|
> 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12506]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10500
Joined: 2011
|
My brother is a UMD/Little Ten fan
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: My brother is a UMD/Little Ten fan
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Hey ####
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: Hey ####
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2537]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
say whatever you will tabledancer....
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: say whatever you will tabledancer....
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2537]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
sorry it took so long to reply...
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: sorry it took so long to reply...
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: sorry it took so long to reply...
Dec 28, 2014, 9:03 PM
[ in reply to sorry it took so long to reply... ] |
|
> 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
At least 80% of the ACC would beat you w/ all things even...
Dec 28, 2014, 5:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: say whatever you will tabledancer.... ] |
|
So if they suck, where does that leave you?
Has anyone ever told you that you have issues? Because you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: At least 80% of the ACC would beat you w/ all things even...
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Well therein lies your problem.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Clemson, FSU, Louisville, GT would all beat the snooze out of
Dec 28, 2014, 12:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: Hey #### ] |
|
your team, ####, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: Clemson, FSU, Louisville, GT would all beat the snooze out of
Dec 28, 2014, 12:22 PM
|
|
> your team, ####, 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: Clemson, FSU, Louisville, GT would all beat the snooze out of
Dec 28, 2014, 12:23 PM
[ in reply to Clemson, FSU, Louisville, GT would all beat the snooze out of ] |
|
> your team, ####, 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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Duke would beat you. Boston College would beat you. NCSU
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [757]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
It's conceivable that Pitt would beat you and even
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [228]
TigerPulse: 50%
13
|
Re: It's conceivable that Pitt would beat you and even
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [503]
TigerPulse: 100%
19
|
Who gives a #### about the ACC?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
35
Posts: 10336
Joined: 1997
|
Re: Who gives a #### about the ACC?
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [503]
TigerPulse: 100%
19
|
i repeat, who gives a ####?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1361]
TigerPulse: 100%
28
|
Because we play lots of conference games, our strength of
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2537]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Because we play lots of conference games, our strength of
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!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2537]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Don't cheer for the conference necessarily, but by default..
Dec 28, 2014, 1:12 PM
[ in reply to i repeat, who gives a ####? ] |
|
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
| visibility 609
|
|
|
50
