You've seen FSU's National Championship Rings (haven't you?). Here's a look at Clemson's Orange Bowl Rings:

Ahhhh, the Cornell "C" mixed with the Syracuse orange...

I think the paw would have been better.

(04-04-2014 09:07 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I think the paw would have been better.

Not if you're trying to show your undying love of NY.

I miss the days where teams used to have to win a championship to earn rings. Passing out rings to guys because their team almost won something important is a little, uh, weak. It's not as weak as storming the court after an NIT win over a Big South team but it is weak nonetheless.

(04-04-2014 10:26 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I miss the days where teams used to have to win a championship to earn rings. Passing out rings to guys because their team almost won something important is a little, uh, weak. It's not as weak as storming the court after an NIT win over a Big South team but it is weak nonetheless.

Wow! Who would have known Mr "Get off my Lawn" would have a disparaging comment about something like this?


Teams have given out bowl rings since at least the 1960's as a friend of mine's father played at Tennessee back then and after his death my friend made a display with pictures from his high school and college days, his high school and college varsity letter, and high school and college rings. It's on prominent display in his living room.

I guess. It just seems a little on the chincy side to me. As I said though, it's not nearly as weak as this nonsense. That's just plain embarrassing.

Is there an asterisk on the ring?

(04-04-2014 11:54 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is there an asterisk on the ring?

(04-04-2014 11:54 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is there an asterisk on the ring?

As any Hokies fan can tell you, winning a BCS bowl is a significant accomplishment (just getting there is tough), especially when you face a P5 opponent (like Ohio State).

Perhaps you were asking about FSU's 2012-13 Orange win over NIU? Now that one might have an asterisk, I suppose...

I'm glad they won their BCS game. The asterisk has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of their win, if that's what you are suggesting.

(04-05-2014 01:26 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I'm glad they won their BCS game. The asterisk has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of their win, if that's what you are suggesting.

While I agree with the basis of what you are trying to once again troll about, the facts are the conference we share membership has a policy that recognizes co-championships. If two schools end up with the same conference record they are both champions per our conference. As long as our conference says we tie as champions we should recognize it. As such no asterisk needed.

But you guys put the asterisk yourself. And no one's answered: Does the ring have an asterisk?

[quote='Marge Schott' pid='10640963' dateline='1396766663']
But you guys put the asterisk yourself. And no one's answered: Does the ring have an asterisk?
[/quote} No, dumb***, there are no asterisks since we alone beat Ohio State.

Creating this line of questioning is about as meaningful as asking the same question regarding a discussion about basketball. We didn't earn a per the ACC co-Atlantic championship last football season, the season we won the Orange Bowl. As such your question was just yet another example of you trolling. Congrats, you succeeded. You are free to go stroke your e-peen while you say "Gotcha!" Be sure to clean up your mess afterwards.

Ok, so you no asterisk on your ring. Too bad, that probably would've added another "diamond" to it.

I would have went with the tiger paw as well. That C looks kinda weird.

I also don't mind rings for "BCS" level games. That will change with year with the playoffs and the remaining BCS caliber games as to whether or not all teams in the playoffs deserve a ring or only for the champ..????
FLossY out...

(04-07-2014 09:40 AM)HRFlossY Wrote:  I would have went with the tiger paw as well. That C looks kinda weird.

I also don't mind rings for "BCS" level games. That will change with year with the playoffs and the remaining BCS caliber games as to whether or not all teams in the playoffs deserve a ring or only for the champ..????
FLossY out...

IMO, all 4 teams in the playoffs PLUS the winners of the other 4 "New Years" bowls deserve a ring (so that's 8 teams).

I don't get why people cares about the number of bowls or the awarding of rings. It doesn't affect anything.

(04-07-2014 06:49 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I don't get why people cares about the number of bowls or the awarding of rings. It doesn't affect anything.

The national championship in football doesn't affect anything either. What's your point? Clemson had a very good win over Ohio State. Florida State had an even better win over Auburn. More than 1 ACC team is allowed to have a good season. More than 1 team ends the season with a win. This is not basketball (or hadn't you noticed)?