nzmorange
Heisman
Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location: |
RE: Permanent Rivals: Your Choice vs ACC Choice
(05-04-2014 01:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote: (05-04-2014 01:10 AM)nzmorange Wrote: (05-04-2014 12:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote: (05-03-2014 10:48 AM)nzmorange Wrote: (04-30-2014 09:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Syracuse and Pittsburgh have both been very good in the last 20 years, but not in the last 10 years. I think a lot of older guys feel like that's too harsh and that the window is too short, but the counter argument is that actual recruits weren't alive 20 years ago...
It's a 'what have you done for me lately' world.
This is what I don't get:
FOOTBALL
There are 14 ACC fb members. Those 14 members are split into 2 divisions of 7, meaning an average team would finish 4th in their division. SU was put in the harder of the two divisions, and finished 3rd. Sure we are tied for 3rd, but we won the tie breakers. We finished above average in the harder division, and we are pretty clearly a team on the rise.
BASKETBALL
We are pretty clearly one of the top tier programs in the ACC. No, we are not UNC or Duke, but we do belong on the same court as them.
LACROSSE
We are arguably the second most storied program of all time.
BASEBALL
We don't field a team, so we have nothing to do with ACC baseball. We don't help it, but we also don't drag it down.
MONEY
We are one of the most profitable teams in the ACC and have been for decades. That isn't the result of timing differences. I fact, our mere signing, along with Pitt, increased the ACC contract by about $4 million. Sure some of that was by lengthening the contract and some of it was because the ACC contract was undervalued, but a good chunk of that was because the Orange were joining. Therefore, we are clearly above the ACC's average.
In what way are we dragging the ACC down? We either don't compete (i.e. baseball), or are above average in every major ACC sport, and we bring more money into the conference. Yes, we were bad from the Champs Sports Bowl in 2004-2005 (#GT) to the Pinstripe Bowl of 2010-2011. However, we have been pretty solid since, and we have been steadily getting better. We were also really bad in the late 70's and almost dropped the program in '79ish (#[]_[]), but we bounced back from that with a vengeance. I don't get what the big deal is.
Football - You were third in the Atlantic. Congrats. You were still mediocre both nationally and by conference record. You were closer to being beat by the teams behind you than beating the teams ahead of you.
Basketball - You have less national titles than UNC, Duke, and NC State. You deserve to be in the discussion with NC State, but for a supposed basketball power you are title-lacking. Louisville comes in July 1, you are behind them as well.
None of the other sports mentioned matter.
At least we're clearly in the top 15 in our sport and #1 in our own state. That's more than Clemson can say. While we're at it, Syracuse has as many NC's as Clemson in football, and so do Colgate, Army, and Cornell (actually Army and Cornell have significantly more). So if NC's is the only measure or relevance, the state of SC is a back water, and Clemson is equal to the 4th best school in NY (assuming the likes of NYU and Hofstra don't have any hardware).
You talk a lot of trash so please enlighten me, what's good about Clemson? Is it the baseball team that has never been relevant (due to systemic obsolescence stemming from the existence of minor league ball), or the basketball team that stormed the court after beating Belmont?
It's one thing for a FSU fan to talk smack. A least FSU has hardware, competitive teams (elite football and good basketball), and money. What does Clemson have that gives you a superiority complex over anyone?
Since 1953 Clemson has carried this conference in football. Football pays the bills.
Never once have I claimed that Clemson is some sort of national power in football, nor have I tried to say Clemson isn't anything more than what it is.....one of the best in the ACC in the sport that pays the bills.
We aren't good at basketball, and we don't have a lot of tradition in the sport. It's primarily demographics. Urban kids tend to be better at hoops and we are a rural school with few cake walk majors. South Carolina isn't a hoops hotbed (primarily because our best athletes play football and baseball) so we are always recruiting against the grain.
You Syracuse fans, however, have tried time and time and time again tried to make it out like you are the bee's knees not only in football "We have a national title in the 1950's and Ernie Davis played here dammit!" but in basketball "We are UNC and Duke's equal even though we have fewer national titles than Louisville and NC State"
That's the difference between me and you Syracuse fans.
Of course since I busted yet another Syracuse bubble this will get moved to the smack board. For God's sake we can't have anything negative said about Syracuse on this board.
1. Money pays the bills, not football. It doesn't matter how that money is made. Until Clemson leads the ACC in revenue, quit pretending like you are especially important. At lest we make money. For as much as you complain about falling financially behind USCarolina (which is beyond rich if you know anything about eastern football), you should be thanking your lucky stars that we're here, because Clemson is NOT paying the bills.
2. "Never once have I claimed that Clemson is some sort of national power in football." Out of curiosity, who do you think you are fooling?
3. "For God's sake we can't have anything negative said about Syracuse on this board." No. You can, and you do constantly.
4. Clemson hasn't carried the ACC in football in over 20 years. That would be VT in the 00's, FSU now and in the 90's, and GT just before that. Even then, from your own description, Duke and UMD both had runs back in the early days.
|
|
