Three In A Row

[CLE802A]

It's getting closer!

:)

[Mpeay]

I thought it was 4 spring practices Garcia missed? I guess it pays to be a drunk at Univ of Six Chances.

[CLE802A]

Just like at "We Can Beat Women To The Ground And Walk Away" University....LOL, Craig was even drinking alcohol under-aged, and CU officials and coaches don't even blink an eye. At least our Garcia got suspended for it.

Clemson fans have nothing to talk about regarding the inevitable 3rd loss in a row, and they can't say nothing about Garcia's petty team violations.

What do they have to talk about these days? It's sad......


:(

[howieblack85]

CLE802A it's getting pathetic already.. keep running the pie hole and I guess we will see what happens in NOV.. Good Luck with ECU(*),GA(L),NAVY(L), VANDY,Auburn(*),Kentucky(L),MSST(*),TN(L),ARK(*),F lorida(*), The Citadel, and then we will see how bangeed up and bruised you are come NOV 26th.. but best of luck..


ohh and * meand possible Loss

and I guess you know what the L Means.. Struicly my predictions.. But it's sad that you could be a great time or a 2-10 team... yea I hope this makes you think about your mouth... Your schedule is pretty tough.. and so Is ours.. cause I know after our 6-7 season and 2 losses to Yall we have learned to keep it shut.. 2008 preseason rank #9 and we blew it.. 2006 yall all the way to #6 in the nation blew it so be careful what you ask for cause some shells do tend to backfire!

[CLE802A]

CLE802A it's getting pathetic already.. keep running the pie hole and I guess we will see what happens in NOV.. Good Luck with ECU(*),GA(L),NAVY(L), VANDY,Auburn(*),Kentucky(L),MSST(*),TN(L),ARK(*),F lorida(*), The Citadel, and then we will see how bangeed up and bruised you are come NOV 26th.. but best of luck..


ohh and * meand possible Loss

and I guess you know what the L Means.. Struicly my predictions.. But it's sad that you could be a great time or a 2-10 team... yea I hope this makes you think about your mouth... Your schedule is pretty tough.. and so Is ours.. cause I know after our 6-7 season and 2 losses to Yall we have learned to keep it shut.. 2008 preseason rank #9 and we blew it.. 2006 yall all the way to #6 in the nation blew it so be careful what you ask for cause some shells do tend to backfire!

:rolleyes:

Haha...who's running their mouth?? I thought I was typing on a keyboard...

:cool:

Actually, this will be a somewhat easier schedule for us in 2011.....your schedule will certainly be tougher for y'all. All I can say is, it's about time Clemson schedules a decent slate of opponents, instead of the weakest FBS opponent in the nation (North Texas), and the weakest FCS opponent in the nation (Presbyterian) all in the same season. And y'all STILL had a losing season! WOW!!!!

:eek:

USC fans have often been criticized by you CU fans for harping about the SEC all the time. You say that USC uses the SEC like a "crutch", when comparing both team's records over the years.

But IMO Clemson fans simply are ignorant to what USC has to go through every year in football in such a competitive schedule. Clemson fans boast of playing against the national champion of FBS college football last season. USC played them as well, and we played them TWICE last season.

South Carolina has played versus Auburn, Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Florida in each season dating back to 2006 that they won the national championship. No other FBS program can make that claim. And since we also played versus LSU when they won under Saban in 2003, that means USC played against the National Champions in the seasons that they won it all, SIX TIMES IN THE LAST EIGHT SEASONS!!! There is no other FBS program in the nation that can make that claim. There is no other FBS program in the nation that can match that eight-year run in ANY time in their histories......

When was the last time Clemson played against a FBS opponent that was ranked #1 in the nation at the time? Have they ever? South Carolina played against 3 teams that were ranked #1 in the nation....IN THE LAST 2 SEASONS ALONE!

USC has regularly had schedules that were ranked in the top 10 toughest in the nation by all the so-called experts: Lindys, Athlons, Steele, The SportingNews, ESPN, CBSSports, etc. etc. On some occasions, we've had the toughest schedule by one or more of those sources.

Typically, playing regularly against the likes of UF, UGA, and UT played a huge role in that. This season it looks like those 3 may be a little down. But that's OK. At least we don't play against the likes of Duke, WF, UVA, NCSU, and the occasional UNC or MD that's down big time. A down year for those programs is winning 2 or 3 games: for a UF or UGA or UT, it's going 7-6 or 8-5.

So I guess it's OK for USC to have a breather once in a while after such consistent meat grinders like we regularly play. It's good also that CU is preparing to play a rare schedule that's actually impressive for more than 1 or 2 decent opponents, then a bunch of mediocre basketball schools. Let's see who endures these schedules better between the two rivals, OK?

;)

[Mpeay]

Just couldn't last huh there cleo, had to go back to writing books....

[CLE802A]

LOL, I got to make up for lost time.....

:p

[Tiger80]

CLE802A,

Yes, USC plays in a very tough conference, but they still manage to be way behind us in head-to-head match-ups. In fact, they would have to win about twenty-five in a row to catch up to us in our little annual meeting. This fact is rather surprising when you bear in mind that for the first 60 years, the game was an AWAY game for Clemson because it was played at the Fair Grounds in Columbia.

[jlcu91]

Just like at "We Can Beat Women To The Ground And Walk Away" University....LOL, Craig was even drinking alcohol under-aged, and CU officials and coaches don't even blink an eye. At least our Garcia got suspended for it.

Clemson fans have nothing to talk about regarding the inevitable 3rd loss in a row, and they can't say nothing about Garcia's petty team violations.

What do they have to talk about these days? It's sad......


:(



Garcia wasnt drinking under age during any of his alchohol incidents(long list)?Garcia just gets little slap on the wrist with getting suspended for spring and smiles and says "it wont happen again coach". Craig was suspended for the summer and is suspended for fall camp until school starts.

[howieblack85]

CLE

so what my counterpart just stated I shatt state to.. If your schedule is so much tougher and ours is so much weaker then Why do we dominate you year in and year out.. and on the occasion you have sucess.. against us ie 09,10...... it goes with the old statement even a blind squirell finds a nuts sometimes!!

[CLE802A]

CLE802A,

Yes, USC plays in a very tough conference, but they still manage to be way behind us in head-to-head match-ups. In fact, they would have to win about twenty-five in a row to catch up to us in our little annual meeting. This fact is rather surprising when you bear in mind that for the first 60 years, the game was an AWAY game for Clemson because it was played at the Fair Grounds in Columbia.

CLE

so what my counterpart just stated I shatt state to.. If your schedule is so much tougher and ours is so much weaker then Why do we dominate you year in and year out.. and on the occasion you have sucess.. against us ie 09,10...... it goes with the old statement even a blind squirell finds a nuts sometimes!!

Meh....IMO I truly believe that USC leaving the ACC was an ultimate necessity for USC to truly grow to it's full potential in college athletics. However, USC leaving so hastily without first preparing an "exit plan" - ie. having another quality conference to go to - and then choosing to remain an independent in college football for as long as it did was what truly hurt USC and led it to fall behind CU in most areas regarding football.

There were a few programs that were independents at the time that realized success for various reasons: FSU and Miami capitalized on the rich talent base within their own state to rise up; Notre Dame saw success in the 60s and 70s with their great coaches, but then had poor seasons in the 80s until Holtz came in. They however had a tremendous history that they milked for TV contracts and a HUGE alumni base for financial support; Boston College was up and down for years, and like USC was way behind in facilities, and still are today in many ways.

USC was in 2 major football conferences with Clemson throughout it's athletics history: the once monstrous Southern Conference for 30 years (1922-1952), and the Atlantic Coast Conference (1953-1971). From it's football program's conception until 1922, USC was 5-13-1 versus Clemson. During it's 20-year self-imposed exile as an independent USC was 5-14-1...

During the 50 years that USC was in the Southern and Atlantic Coast conferences with Clemson, their series record was 22-26-2 in favor of Clemson. It was 9-10 in favor of CU for the ACC alone. Not such of a big disparity there....

IMO, those independent years plus the first 10 years or so when USC joined the SEC, the Gamecocks were well behind the Tigers in facilities and in dedication to the athletic programs. There was no challenge or goals at the time of the independence years to monitor what other major programs in the southeast - mostly programs in major conferences that USC would schedule or recruit against - were doing in terms of upgrading or building up their programs, facilities, etc. Or in how they were going about in recruiting the very best prospects. Perhaps the financial ability for USC to play catch-up was not there either. But it was clear that over time, USC fell way behind it's regional contemporaries...

Thankfully, the SEC being such a HUGE draw in college football, and the television revenues that were being generated as a result has helped USC regain lost ground very rapidly. Today, we can say that our facilities - stadium, lockerooms, training facilities, players lounges, educational facilities, etc. etc. are in line with the better facilities of our conference mates. And we are still striving forward, with plans for a new video board for W-B, a new indoor practice facility, and new improvements/beautifications to the surrounding parking areas, farmer's market, etc.

USC is 7-12 versus Clemson during it's time in the SEC, including the poor 90's when the Gamecock program was still gathering itself from it's days as an independent, and the Tigers program was coming off it's Dubious Decade of ACC dominance in football. The prospects for improving to 8-12 are looking very, very good.

So you break down the "Eras" of significance within the series between USC and CU:

Pre-Southern (USC vs CU): 5-13-1

Southern Conf.: 13-16-2

ACC Conf.: 9-10

Independent: 5-14-1

SEC Conf.: 7-12

I don't even pay any mind to what took place in the 1900s and 1910s, as the game was totally different then, the players were totally different then, and the fanbases regard of the sport was totally different then. Only Clemson fans choose to dwell on those years. It's clear that USC shot itself in the foot several times over by choosing the route of independence during the 70's and 80's. I'm glad that we were given the opportunity to join the SEC of all conferences, as it's our golden goose to bringing our athletic programs back to the forefront, and beyond....

The Southern Conference, ACC, and SEC years, we are 29-38-2 versus Clemson. Looking to improve to 30-38-2 later in November. ;) That will represent 2/3rds of our entire series history. That's not much of a dominance at all, IMO.....


:)

[AlabamaTigerfan]

Meh....IMO I truly believe that USC leaving the ACC was an ultimate necessity for USC to truly grow to it's full potential in college athletics. However, USC leaving so hastily without first preparing an "exit plan" - ie. having another quality conference to go to - and then choosing to remain an independent in college football for as long as it did was what truly hurt USC and led it to fall behind CU in most areas regarding football.

There were a few programs that were independents at the time that realized success for various reasons: FSU and Miami capitalized on the rich talent base within their own state to rise up; Notre Dame saw success in the 60s and 70s with their great coaches, but then had poor seasons in the 80s until Holtz came in. They however had a tremendous history that they milked for TV contracts and a HUGE alumni base for financial support; Boston College was up and down for years, and like USC was way behind in facilities, and still are today in many ways.

USC was in 2 major football conferences with Clemson throughout it's athletics history: the once monstrous Southern Conference for 30 years (1922-1952), and the Atlantic Coast Conference (1953-1971). From it's football program's conception until 1922, USC was 5-13-1 versus Clemson. During it's 20-year self-imposed exile as an independent USC was 5-14-1...

During the 50 years that USC was in the Southern and Atlantic Coast conferences with Clemson, their series record was 22-26-2 in favor of Clemson. It was 9-10 in favor of CU for the ACC alone. Not such of a big disparity there....

IMO, those independent years plus the first 10 years or so when USC joined the SEC, the Gamecocks were well behind the Tigers in facilities and in dedication to the athletic programs. There was no challenge or goals at the time of the independence years to monitor what other major programs in the southeast - mostly programs in major conferences that USC would schedule or recruit against - were doing in terms of upgrading or building up their programs, facilities, etc. Or in how they were going about in recruiting the very best prospects. Perhaps the financial ability for USC to play catch-up was not there either. But it was clear that over time, USC fell way behind it's regional contemporaries...

Thankfully, the SEC being such a HUGE draw in college football, and the television revenues that were being generated as a result has helped USC regain lost ground very rapidly. Today, we can say that our facilities - stadium, lockerooms, training facilities, players lounges, educational facilities, etc. etc. are in line with the better facilities of our conference mates. And we are still striving forward, with plans for a new video board for W-B, a new indoor practice facility, and new improvements/beautifications to the surrounding parking areas, farmer's market, etc.

USC is 7-12 versus Clemson during it's time in the SEC, including the poor 90's when the Gamecock program was still gathering itself from it's days as an independent, and the Tigers program was coming off it's Dubious Decade of ACC dominance in football. The prospects for improving to 8-12 are looking very, very good.

So you break down the "Eras" of significance within the series between USC and CU:

Pre-Southern (USC vs CU): 5-13-1

Southern Conf.: 13-16-2

ACC Conf.: 9-10

Independent: 5-14-1

SEC Conf.: 7-12

I don't even pay any mind to what took place in the 1900s and 1910s, as the game was totally different then, the players were totally different then, and the fanbases regard of the sport was totally different then. Only Clemson fans choose to dwell on those years. It's clear that USC shot itself in the foot several times over by choosing the route of independence during the 70's and 80's. I'm glad that we were given the opportunity to join the SEC of all conferences, as it's our golden goose to bringing our athletic programs back to the forefront, and beyond....

The Southern Conference, ACC, and SEC years, we are 29-38-2 versus Clemson. Looking to improve to 30-38-2 later in November. ;) That will represent 2/3rds of our entire series history. That's not much of a dominance at all, IMO.....


:)

I qiut reading your rants. I'm sure I didn't miss anything!!

[jlcu91]

Meh....IMO I truly believe that USC leaving the ACC was an ultimate necessity for USC to truly grow to it's full potential in college athletics. However, USC leaving so hastily without first preparing an "exit plan" - ie. having another quality conference to go to - and then choosing to remain an independent in college football for as long as it did was what truly hurt USC and led it to fall behind CU in most areas regarding football.

There were a few programs that were independents at the time that realized success for various reasons: FSU and Miami capitalized on the rich talent base within their own state to rise up; Notre Dame saw success in the 60s and 70s with their great coaches, but then had poor seasons in the 80s until Holtz came in. They however had a tremendous history that they milked for TV contracts and a HUGE alumni base for financial support; Boston College was up and down for years, and like USC was way behind in facilities, and still are today in many ways.

USC was in 2 major football conferences with Clemson throughout it's athletics history: the once monstrous Southern Conference for 30 years (1922-1952), and the Atlantic Coast Conference (1953-1971). From it's football program's conception until 1922, USC was 5-13-1 versus Clemson. During it's 20-year self-imposed exile as an independent USC was 5-14-1...

During the 50 years that USC was in the Southern and Atlantic Coast conferences with Clemson, their series record was 22-26-2 in favor of Clemson. It was 9-10 in favor of CU for the ACC alone. Not such of a big disparity there....

IMO, those independent years plus the first 10 years or so when USC joined the SEC, the Gamecocks were well behind the Tigers in facilities and in dedication to the athletic programs. There was no challenge or goals at the time of the independence years to monitor what other major programs in the southeast - mostly programs in major conferences that USC would schedule or recruit against - were doing in terms of upgrading or building up their programs, facilities, etc. Or in how they were going about in recruiting the very best prospects. Perhaps the financial ability for USC to play catch-up was not there either. But it was clear that over time, USC fell way behind it's regional contemporaries...

Thankfully, the SEC being such a HUGE draw in college football, and the television revenues that were being generated as a result has helped USC regain lost ground very rapidly. Today, we can say that our facilities - stadium, lockerooms, training facilities, players lounges, educational facilities, etc. etc. are in line with the better facilities of our conference mates. And we are still striving forward, with plans for a new video board for W-B, a new indoor practice facility, and new improvements/beautifications to the surrounding parking areas, farmer's market, etc.

USC is 7-12 versus Clemson during it's time in the SEC, including the poor 90's when the Gamecock program was still gathering itself from it's days as an independent, and the Tigers program was coming off it's Dubious Decade of ACC dominance in football. The prospects for improving to 8-12 are looking very, very good.

So you break down the "Eras" of significance within the series between USC and CU:

Pre-Southern (USC vs CU): 5-13-1

Southern Conf.: 13-16-2

ACC Conf.: 9-10

Independent: 5-14-1

SEC Conf.: 7-12

I don't even pay any mind to what took place in the 1900s and 1910s, as the game was totally different then, the players were totally different then, and the fanbases regard of the sport was totally different then. Only Clemson fans choose to dwell on those years. It's clear that USC shot itself in the foot several times over by choosing the route of independence during the 70's and 80's. I'm glad that we were given the opportunity to join the SEC of all conferences, as it's our golden goose to bringing our athletic programs back to the forefront, and beyond....

The Southern Conference, ACC, and SEC years, we are 29-38-2 versus Clemson. Looking to improve to 30-38-2 later in November. ;) That will represent 2/3rds of our entire series history. That's not much of a dominance at all, IMO.....


:)


Your picking it apart the best you can to make yourself feel better, dont get it wrong clemson has dominated the series. All I know is that it's 65-38-4 thats dominance, especially since we played ALL the games at your house until what the 1950's dont u think?

[CLE802A]

Your picking it apart the best you can to make yourself feel better, dont get it wrong clemson has dominated the series. All I know is that it's 65-38-4 thats dominance, especially since we played ALL the games at your house until what the 1950's dont u think?

For the majority of the ACC years, we didn't. And it's not really picking it apart, when each period (Southern, ACC, Independent, SEC) is around 20 years each, at least. Two decades is long enough for certain circumstances, like having the continuity of conference affiliations, regular conference foes and rivals that you play on an annual basis, the revenues that come with conference affiliations including television revenues in the modern eras, to serve as a valid standard or pattern in determining what influences - if any - those things have on a particular athletics program. I'm not picking out the bad years - like the '98-'99 seasons - within those periods. I'm just picking out the bad periods...

IMO, it's a pretty obvious trend how both programs were pretty even during the years that they shared a conference, then when USC became independent the programs went in separate directions....

[Tiger80]

Meh....IMO I truly believe that USC leaving the ACC was an ultimate necessity for USC to truly grow to it's full potential in college athletics. However, USC leaving so hastily without first preparing an "exit plan" - ie. having another quality conference to go to - and then choosing to remain an independent in college football for as long as it did was what truly hurt USC and led it to fall behind CU in most areas regarding football.

There were a few programs that were independents at the time that realized success for various reasons: FSU and Miami capitalized on the rich talent base within their own state to rise up; Notre Dame saw success in the 60s and 70s with their great coaches, but then had poor seasons in the 80s until Holtz came in. They however had a tremendous history that they milked for TV contracts and a HUGE alumni base for financial support; Boston College was up and down for years, and like USC was way behind in facilities, and still are today in many ways.

USC was in 2 major football conferences with Clemson throughout it's athletics history: the once monstrous Southern Conference for 30 years (1922-1952), and the Atlantic Coast Conference (1953-1971). From it's football program's conception until 1922, USC was 5-13-1 versus Clemson. During it's 20-year self-imposed exile as an independent USC was 5-14-1...

During the 50 years that USC was in the Southern and Atlantic Coast conferences with Clemson, their series record was 22-26-2 in favor of Clemson. It was 9-10 in favor of CU for the ACC alone. Not such of a big disparity there....

IMO, those independent years plus the first 10 years or so when USC joined the SEC, the Gamecocks were well behind the Tigers in facilities and in dedication to the athletic programs. There was no challenge or goals at the time of the independence years to monitor what other major programs in the southeast - mostly programs in major conferences that USC would schedule or recruit against - were doing in terms of upgrading or building up their programs, facilities, etc. Or in how they were going about in recruiting the very best prospects. Perhaps the financial ability for USC to play catch-up was not there either. But it was clear that over time, USC fell way behind it's regional contemporaries...

Thankfully, the SEC being such a HUGE draw in college football, and the television revenues that were being generated as a result has helped USC regain lost ground very rapidly. Today, we can say that our facilities - stadium, lockerooms, training facilities, players lounges, educational facilities, etc. etc. are in line with the better facilities of our conference mates. And we are still striving forward, with plans for a new video board for W-B, a new indoor practice facility, and new improvements/beautifications to the surrounding parking areas, farmer's market, etc.

USC is 7-12 versus Clemson during it's time in the SEC, including the poor 90's when the Gamecock program was still gathering itself from it's days as an independent, and the Tigers program was coming off it's Dubious Decade of ACC dominance in football. The prospects for improving to 8-12 are looking very, very good.

So you break down the "Eras" of significance within the series between USC and CU:

Pre-Southern (USC vs CU): 5-13-1

Southern Conf.: 13-16-2

ACC Conf.: 9-10

Independent: 5-14-1

SEC Conf.: 7-12

I don't even pay any mind to what took place in the 1900s and 1910s, as the game was totally different then, the players were totally different then, and the fanbases regard of the sport was totally different then. Only Clemson fans choose to dwell on those years. It's clear that USC shot itself in the foot several times over by choosing the route of independence during the 70's and 80's. I'm glad that we were given the opportunity to join the SEC of all conferences, as it's our golden goose to bringing our athletic programs back to the forefront, and beyond....

The Southern Conference, ACC, and SEC years, we are 29-38-2 versus Clemson. Looking to improve to 30-38-2 later in November. ;) That will represent 2/3rds of our entire series history. That's not much of a dominance at all, IMO.....


:)

CLE802A,

Wow! That was a really long post. When do you possibly have the time to write all of that?

[CLE802A]

CLE802A,

Wow! That was a really long post. When do you possibly have the time to write all of that?

Actually, I use a rant generator that I found on the internet. It's great!

:D

[Eddie Scarborough]

It took you 40 years to win2 in a row and u have won 3 straight once ever. Just be happy that you loser's got 2 in a row because 3 straight will never happen again

[CLE802A]

It took you 40 years to win2 in a row and u have won 3 straight once ever. Just be happy that you loser's got 2 in a row because 3 straight will never happen again

Yeah uhhh, OK.....

Good game Tigers....I think this game as much if not more than the past two clearly show what I and others have been talking about, that a lot of CU fans have been deriding and ridiculing against: SEC defenses are serious animals all to themselves, and are a step above what you'll see in most other conferences, especially in the ACC.

Our offense went through some serious transitions this season losing Lattimore, Garcia, and Nunn from the OL. Our passing game has struggled all season due to the OL's poor pass blocking. So we re-tool our offense with Shaw and Wilds, and option read ourselves into a pretty unstoppable run offense, becoming a 200+ rush yards per game offense post-Lattimore.

But it is our defense that's carrying our team to wins this season. They say top defenses will win over top offenses every time, and we've been showing it these past 3 games versus you guys, holding the '09, '10, and '11 Tigers to 221 total offensive yards per game, and 12 points per game.


Good luck the rest of the year.....

:)