If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

(11-22-2015 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

(11-22-2015 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

S Carolina vs. Va Tech is certainly an interesting conversation but it has NOTHING to do with whether SC has performed significantly better since it left the ACC (it really hasn't). Unless you are claiming that the Steve Spurrier 3-year run wouldn't have happened if the Gamecocks were still in the ACC?

Also, I must admit that UNC's loss to SC in game #1 was a BAD loss... how that is relevant, I have no idea. Sounds like "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy" stuff to me...

(11-22-2015 11:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

S Carolina vs. Va Tech is certainly an interesting conversation but it has NOTHING to do with whether SC has performed significantly better since it left the ACC (it really hasn't). Unless you are claiming that the Steve Spurrier 3-year run wouldn't have happened if the Gamecocks were still in the ACC?

Also, I must admit that UNC's loss to SC in game #1 was a BAD loss... how that is relevant, I have no idea. Sounds like "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy" stuff to me...

I responded because of your snarky post. You are a better writer and a more thoughtful poster than that, although it has been a tendency of yours from time to time to do stuff like this.

It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. Last year and this one may counter indicate that trend, but under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

The comment about South Carolina versus Virginia Tech during the Spurrier years is relevant as well. Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC. Your potential is still there, but the results have not been. In that regard South Carolina improved their position and the Hokies did not. There was a toughness to the Hokie teams of the Big East years that has appeared, but not been the norm during your ACC years. It looks more like the lunch pail got turned in for a lacrosse stick.

As for the quip about North Carolina's loss I was just reminding you that the 3 win Gamecock team you were disparaging did beat what is likely one of your divisional winners and that when casting stones one needed to remember ones own vulnerabilities. Should a miracle happen and they beat Clemson they may well finish with 4 wins in a weak division of the SEC and victories over both ACC division champs. I don't think it will happen but half of it may already have happened. I guess then the Citadel could claim to be the state champs.

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

Whether Maryland improves as a result of the Big 10 income is yet to be seen. I say we ought to know something definitive in about a decade. Taking shots right now is not only premature, but immature.

So contained therein is the relevance and reason for my response.

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

S Carolina vs. Va Tech is certainly an interesting conversation but it has NOTHING to do with whether SC has performed significantly better since it left the ACC (it really hasn't). Unless you are claiming that the Steve Spurrier 3-year run wouldn't have happened if the Gamecocks were still in the ACC?

Also, I must admit that UNC's loss to SC in game #1 was a BAD loss... how that is relevant, I have no idea. Sounds like "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy" stuff to me...

I responded because of your snarky post. You are a better writer and a more thoughtful poster than that, although it has been a tendency of yours from time to time to do stuff like this.

It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. Last year and this one may counter indicate that trend, but under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

The comment about South Carolina versus Virginia Tech during the Spurrier years is relevant as well. Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC. Your potential is still there, but the results have not been. In that regard South Carolina improved their position and the Hokies did not. There was a toughness to the Hokie teams of the Big East years that has appeared, but not been the norm during your ACC years. It looks more like the lunch pail got turned in for a lacrosse stick.

As for the quip about North Carolina's loss I was just reminding you that the 3 win Gamecock team you were disparaging did beat what is likely one of your divisional winners and that when casting stones one needed to remember ones own vulnerabilities. Should a miracle happen and they beat Clemson they may well finish with 4 wins in a weak division of the SEC and victories over both ACC division champs. I don't think it will happen but half of it may already have happened. I guess then the Citadel could claim to be the state champs.

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

Whether Maryland improves as a result of the Big 10 income is yet to be seen. I say we ought to know something definitive in about a decade. Taking shots right now is not only premature, but immature.

So contained therein is the relevance and reason for my response.

Before their run of 5 against Clemson, SCAR had LOST 8 0f their previous 10, while they were a part of the SEC. Spurrier capitalized on a perfect storm; Tennessee and Florida tanking for multiple seasons, and an in-state crop of recruits that were the backbone of their run. That type of crop of recruits in SC does not happen very often. That crop also occurred the same year Clemson was firing Bowden. Once those recruits finished up, SCAR was back to their normal level of performance. Spurrier recognized it, and left.

(11-22-2015 01:24 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

S Carolina vs. Va Tech is certainly an interesting conversation but it has NOTHING to do with whether SC has performed significantly better since it left the ACC (it really hasn't). Unless you are claiming that the Steve Spurrier 3-year run wouldn't have happened if the Gamecocks were still in the ACC?

Also, I must admit that UNC's loss to SC in game #1 was a BAD loss... how that is relevant, I have no idea. Sounds like "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy" stuff to me...

I responded because of your snarky post. You are a better writer and a more thoughtful poster than that, although it has been a tendency of yours from time to time to do stuff like this.

It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. Last year and this one may counter indicate that trend, but under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

The comment about South Carolina versus Virginia Tech during the Spurrier years is relevant as well. Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC. Your potential is still there, but the results have not been. In that regard South Carolina improved their position and the Hokies did not. There was a toughness to the Hokie teams of the Big East years that has appeared, but not been the norm during your ACC years. It looks more like the lunch pail got turned in for a lacrosse stick.

As for the quip about North Carolina's loss I was just reminding you that the 3 win Gamecock team you were disparaging did beat what is likely one of your divisional winners and that when casting stones one needed to remember ones own vulnerabilities. Should a miracle happen and they beat Clemson they may well finish with 4 wins in a weak division of the SEC and victories over both ACC division champs. I don't think it will happen but half of it may already have happened. I guess then the Citadel could claim to be the state champs.

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

Whether Maryland improves as a result of the Big 10 income is yet to be seen. I say we ought to know something definitive in about a decade. Taking shots right now is not only premature, but immature.

So contained therein is the relevance and reason for my response.

Before their run of 5 against Clemson, SCAR had LOST 8 0f their previous 10, while they were a part of the SEC. Spurrier capitalized on a perfect storm; Tennessee and Florida tanking for multiple seasons, and an in-state crop of recruits that were the backbone of their run. That type of crop of recruits in SC does not happen very often. That crop also occurred the same year Clemson was firing Bowden. Once those recruits finished up, SCAR was back to their normal level of performance. Spurrier recognized it, and left.

Or like with Brown, Beamer and to a certain extent Snyder and others who are at that age, once the rumors of your imminent retirement start circulating the recruiting gets very very difficult. To expand upon another part of Spurrier's favorable climate, Tennessee had been in a prolonged lull. That was a big issue. They were coming out of it and that put a pinch on recruiting North Georgia and Eastern Tennessee.

Dabo's a good guy. But it will be interesting to see if top programs shopping for a coach come calling on him this year, as they are certain to do with Jimbo.

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. ...under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

Actually, there was a 9-year span from 1946 to 1954 when Clemson only won once, there was a tie, and SC won the other 7 games... so no, this was not the best ever for the Gamecocks (they'd need to win this year and next to tie). Also, I think it's very presumptuous to claim that it was SEC membership - rather than, say, having Spurrier as coach - which caused this Gamecock run.

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ...Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC.

Prior to joining the ACC, VT had five 10-win+ seasons under Beamer, but never more than 2 in a row. After joining the ACC, the Hokies had 8 more double-digit-win seasons, all consecutive. I don't think we need some theory about the ACC affect to explain the recent decline - Beamer has simply gotten old and other coaches have used that against him on the recruiting trail.

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I responded because of your snarky post...

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

You can't be serious!?! You're trying to play the SEC-as-victim card? The SEC and Big Ten are the favorite sons, certainly NOT victims, and this is an ACC board, not a general public one. ACC fans have to have thick skins because we are constantly bombarded with posts claiming that the league is the weakest of the P5 and will soon be raided. Try living with that for about 4 or 5 years, then feel free to play that card...

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

S Carolina vs. Va Tech is certainly an interesting conversation but it has NOTHING to do with whether SC has performed significantly better since it left the ACC (it really hasn't). Unless you are claiming that the Steve Spurrier 3-year run wouldn't have happened if the Gamecocks were still in the ACC?

Also, I must admit that UNC's loss to SC in game #1 was a BAD loss... how that is relevant, I have no idea. Sounds like "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy" stuff to me...

I responded because of your snarky post. You are a better writer and a more thoughtful poster than that, although it has been a tendency of yours from time to time to do stuff like this.

It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. Last year and this one may counter indicate that trend, but under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

The comment about South Carolina versus Virginia Tech during the Spurrier years is relevant as well. Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC. Your potential is still there, but the results have not been. In that regard South Carolina improved their position and the Hokies did not. There was a toughness to the Hokie teams of the Big East years that has appeared, but not been the norm during your ACC years. It looks more like the lunch pail got turned in for a lacrosse stick.

As for the quip about North Carolina's loss I was just reminding you that the 3 win Gamecock team you were disparaging did beat what is likely one of your divisional winners and that when casting stones one needed to remember ones own vulnerabilities. Should a miracle happen and they beat Clemson they may well finish with 4 wins in a weak division of the SEC and victories over both ACC division champs. I don't think it will happen but half of it may already have happened. I guess then the Citadel could claim to be the state champs.

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

Whether Maryland improves as a result of the Big 10 income is yet to be seen. I say we ought to know something definitive in about a decade. Taking shots right now is not only premature, but immature.

So contained therein is the relevance and reason for my response.

JR, it pains me to ever disagree with you 😀 but I'll add a few grains of salt to the discussion...

Not sure that South Carolina has that much potential. In over 20 years in the sec, they've been consistently bad except for a few years under Spurrier. Their biggest hinderance is being in the same division as Florida, UGa and Tennessee. Even Spurrier 's success happened at a time when Florida and Tennessee were both down at the same time. Add Clowney, the best DL in the past 10-15 years, and some great runningbacks like Lattimore and it was the perfect storm.

Can the right coach win at USC east? Sure, but so far it has taken a hall of fame coach to do it.

Clemson, on the other hand, had internal power struggles during much of the post-Ford era. Once the administration and athletic department got on the same page, they found a gem in Swinney, and good things are happening. FSU is our biggest obstacle, but that rivalry has become must see tv, which is great for recruiting. We certainly don't have 3 major programs in our division with which to contend like our feathered friends.

That's my $0.02, respectfully offered, of course.

(11-22-2015 04:28 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you combine their wins you STILL wouldn't be bowl-eligible!

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2015/1...r-acc.html

CLEARLY the ACC was holding those teams back in football, no?

I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

S Carolina vs. Va Tech is certainly an interesting conversation but it has NOTHING to do with whether SC has performed significantly better since it left the ACC (it really hasn't). Unless you are claiming that the Steve Spurrier 3-year run wouldn't have happened if the Gamecocks were still in the ACC?

Also, I must admit that UNC's loss to SC in game #1 was a BAD loss... how that is relevant, I have no idea. Sounds like "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy" stuff to me...

I responded because of your snarky post. You are a better writer and a more thoughtful poster than that, although it has been a tendency of yours from time to time to do stuff like this.

It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. Last year and this one may counter indicate that trend, but under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

The comment about South Carolina versus Virginia Tech during the Spurrier years is relevant as well. Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC. Your potential is still there, but the results have not been. In that regard South Carolina improved their position and the Hokies did not. There was a toughness to the Hokie teams of the Big East years that has appeared, but not been the norm during your ACC years. It looks more like the lunch pail got turned in for a lacrosse stick.

As for the quip about North Carolina's loss I was just reminding you that the 3 win Gamecock team you were disparaging did beat what is likely one of your divisional winners and that when casting stones one needed to remember ones own vulnerabilities. Should a miracle happen and they beat Clemson they may well finish with 4 wins in a weak division of the SEC and victories over both ACC division champs. I don't think it will happen but half of it may already have happened. I guess then the Citadel could claim to be the state champs.

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

Whether Maryland improves as a result of the Big 10 income is yet to be seen. I say we ought to know something definitive in about a decade. Taking shots right now is not only premature, but immature.

So contained therein is the relevance and reason for my response.

JR, it pains me to ever disagree with you ? but I'll add a few grains of salt to the discussion...

Not sure that South Carolina has that much potential. In over 20 years in the sec, they've been consistently bad except for a few years under Spurrier. Their biggest hinderance is being in the same division as Florida, UGa and Tennessee. Even Spurrier 's success happened at a time when Florida and Tennessee were both down at the same time. Add Clowney, the best DL in the past 10-15 years, and some great runningbacks like Lattimore and it was the perfect storm.

Can the right coach win at USC east? Sure, but so far it has taken a hall of fame coach to do it.

Clemson, on the other hand, had internal power struggles during much of the post-Ford era. Once the administration and athletic department got on the same page, they found a gem in Swinney, and good things are happening. FSU is our biggest obstacle, but that rivalry has become must see tv, which is great for recruiting. We certainly don't have 3 major programs in our division with which to contend like our feathered friends.

That's my $0.02, respectfully offered, of course.

Respectfully accepted.

(11-22-2015 03:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. ...under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

Actually, there was a 9-year span from 1946 to 1954 when Clemson only won once, there was a tie, and SC won the other 7 games... so no, this was not the best ever for the Gamecocks (they'd need to win this year and next to tie). Also, I think it's very presumptuous to claim that it was SEC membership - rather than, say, having Spurrier as coach - which caused this Gamecock run.

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ...Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC.

Prior to joining the ACC, VT had five 10-win+ seasons under Beamer, but never more than 2 in a row. After joining the ACC, the Hokies had 8 more double-digit-win seasons, all consecutive. I don't think we need some theory about the ACC affect to explain the recent decline - Beamer has simply gotten old and other coaches have used that against him on the recruiting trail.

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I responded because of your snarky post...

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

You can't be serious!?! You're trying to play the SEC-as-victim card? The SEC and Big Ten are the favorite sons, certainly NOT victims, and this is an ACC board, not a general public one. ACC fans have to have thick skins because we are constantly bombarded with posts claiming that the league is the weakest of the P5 and will soon be raided. Try living with that for about 4 or 5 years, then feel free to play that card...

The SEC is most certainly not a victim. But posters who associate with the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC on this board most certainly are. Those of us who don't care about the numbers and are secure enough in what we know aren't bothered by it. But we are few. Most of the posters are younger people and it angers and offends them just as much as the constant talk about the demise of your conference bothers you and your posters. Snarkiness won't end until behavior is altered all the way around. In that regard it is much like the differences in our nation. From an older man's perspective, and one who lived through the upheaval of the 50's and 60's I can only say that provocative posts discourage listening, promulgates the trolling, and ends constructive conversation.

I came to the board in 2012 because it was unique. I knew what the SEC fans thought. But I also knew almost first hand what had happened in 1990-2. I was interested in finding the posts of those from other conferences that had the ring of truth to them instead of the usual internet hooey. Many of those posters have left. It is the constant din of jibes and taunts and the romper room antics that follow that have helped them to manage to just lurk at best and to have left at worst.

This stuff is going to wind down. It was interesting to me as a sociologists to see just how far corporate agenda could push in the area of sports broadcasting without producing a walloping backlash from the public. Sadly now I'm convinced it won't be coming. The fabric of our society has been radically altered from the changing of our Bill of Rights through judicial review to include such formally sacrosanct matters such as imminent domain to the very granting of the legal rights of individuals to corporations, a chilling change to be sure. I thought that if the precious institutions that the public universally loved were besieged by corporate America that perhaps the response would be a reflexive "no more".

Our churches were subtly altered by legislation in the mid 50's sponsored by LBJ that made political involvement in the election process a mandated reason to lose tax exempt status. In the last two decades corporate donations to large mainline denominations is up further curtailing what may or may not be talked about. While legislation was not involved with this, the hierarchy of the churches receiving those funds looks down heavily upon the local pastor who might get involved.

When our colleges were first besieged it was in the form of legal entanglements where grants were concerned. Many of our schools had to employ larger legal teams to comb through the grants before they used them just to make sure that intellectual property wasn't forfeited by said use. Then came the networks. Football was a particularly undervalued cheaply produced product that needed to be made more market friendly for the sake of utilizing and maximizing advertising revenue. I figured when that happened that everyone would howl. Instead they blamed it on the Big 10, or the SEC, or anyone else used to acquire the properties that the networks wanted, like the ACC acquiring Big East property.

As usual the great lie stuck. People didn't want to identify the conglomerates that owned the business they worked in as the culprit so they blamed the conferences that were paid to accomplish these ends. I hate to see them win. I hate that old rivalries and the love that alumni have for their schools have been swept away by the loads of corporate money the same way that the once honored bond between representatives and the people have been swept away by PAC money.

I'll sit back now and simply enjoy my family and watch that which once made us the greatest nation on the face of the earth swept away by greed, the corruption that it breeds, and by the freedom that is lost when a few buy their power. I'll only lament the futures of my grandchildren and pray for the coming of the catalyst that brings the change that is needed. This wasn't it. I had hoped it would be because it would have been more peaceful.

We are divided Red / Blue, liberal / conservative, and race against race. Those are all real differences but they are heightened intentionally by the media who are now owned by the same corporations in whose interest is the need to keep us a nation divided. They know that should we ever find a unifying factor that their days of control would be numbered.

I hate what has befallen the SEC. I hate realignment although if fascinates me like a slowly unfolding train wreck. I see it now as just another instrument to keep us divided. I know it sounds paranoid. But just wait until you are my age and then tell the next generation what you think. Maybe somebody will be listening besides the folks at Homeland Security. To paraphrase from Gladiator, "We once had a dream that was the United States, this is not it."

I think we could all benefit from hearing what each other truly knows and truly believes. The rancor of rah rah is too loud. And the only ones that are really beating their chests over the developments are those pocketing the checks. TV money now dwarfs the need to listen to the fans. Thursday night games is proof of that. JR

Honestly JR, you should have known what you were going to read before clicking the link.



or what you always get from HokieMark's blog.

Like I said on an another thread, Randy Edsall was brought in to raise the graduation rates/GPAs and impose on/off field discipline. Edsall accomplished those two goals but at the expense of winning. He was only fired because boosters refused to donate money towards the UA Sports Medicine and Performance Center under the belief that the university wasn't serious about football.

(11-22-2015 06:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Honestly JR, you should have known what you were going to read before clicking the link.

or what you always get from HokieMark's blog.

ACCFootballRx: PUMPING SUNSHINE SINCE 2/14/2012.

(11-22-2015 08:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ACCFootballRx: PUMPING SUNSHINE SINCE 2/14/2012.

Finally admit it.

Can't wait to see how you spin the ACC not fulfilling it's bowl obligations this year as a good thing. I'm sure it'll be tough, but nobody is better at spinning than you are.

(11-22-2015 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 08:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ACCFootballRx: PUMPING SUNSHINE SINCE 2/14/2012.

Finally admit it.

Can't wait to see how you spin the ACC not fulfilling it's bowl obligations this year as a good thing. I'm sure it'll be tough, but nobody is better at spinning than you are.

Kap, you are a piece of work. No, failing to come up with 9 bowl-eligible teams is NOT a good thing. However, the bowl(s) which may go unfilled pay very little - if it was Clemson going to one of those I doubt you'd care whether they were eligible or not.

This was a DOWN year for ACC football. It followed TWO good years. It is what it is.

By the way, if I pump sunshine, what is the sludge that you pump? Don't try to say "truth" because it smells like something else...

(11-22-2015 09:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 08:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ACCFootballRx: PUMPING SUNSHINE SINCE 2/14/2012.

Finally admit it.

Can't wait to see how you spin the ACC not fulfilling it's bowl obligations this year as a good thing. I'm sure it'll be tough, but nobody is better at spinning than you are.

Kap, you are a piece of work. No, failing to come up with 9 bowl-eligible teams is NOT a good thing. However, the bowl(s) which may go unfilled pay very little - if it was Clemson going to one of those I doubt you'd care whether they were eligible or not.

This was a DOWN year for ACC football. It followed TWO good years. It is what it is.

By the way, if I pump sunshine, what is the sludge that you pump? Don't try to say "truth" because it smells like something else...

(11-22-2015 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 01:24 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 11:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I somehow think that Spurrier's record while at South Carolina outstrips that of your alma mater during the same period of time. Clearly the Gamecocks have potential. Maryland is another matter. And while thumping others, which is what you are doing, remember that North Carolina, most likely one of your divisional champions, lost to those Gamecocks early in the year. Football is a funny game. Eras of coaches can turn on a few games. If your Hokies don't take care of the Cavs I think there is somebody else around here that won't be bowl eligible, although I would like to see Beamer go out with a bit more fanfare than 5 - 7.

The changes in head coaches this year will radically change the landscape of the game in 2016, and that is barring any further movement of schools. South Carolina could head into a down time easily. Tennessee is on the upswing. But the fortunes at Georgia could also give a new Gamecock head coach the window he needs to succeed. I would think a new coach at Va Tech is walking into a very doable situation. But if UNC & Pitt are on the rise it could be another matter. We'll all have to wait and see.

S Carolina vs. Va Tech is certainly an interesting conversation but it has NOTHING to do with whether SC has performed significantly better since it left the ACC (it really hasn't). Unless you are claiming that the Steve Spurrier 3-year run wouldn't have happened if the Gamecocks were still in the ACC?

Also, I must admit that UNC's loss to SC in game #1 was a BAD loss... how that is relevant, I have no idea. Sounds like "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy" stuff to me...

I responded because of your snarky post. You are a better writer and a more thoughtful poster than that, although it has been a tendency of yours from time to time to do stuff like this.

It is relevant because South Carolina reversed an age old tendency to lose to Clemson since joining the SEC. That alone means their football fortunes in their home state have improved. Last year and this one may counter indicate that trend, but under Spurrier the Gamecocks did much better against Clemson than they had historically as a member of the ACC or as an independent.

The comment about South Carolina versus Virginia Tech during the Spurrier years is relevant as well. Virginia Tech's football fortunes have not taken anything but a decided step back into mediocrity since your entrance into the ACC. Your potential is still there, but the results have not been. In that regard South Carolina improved their position and the Hokies did not. There was a toughness to the Hokie teams of the Big East years that has appeared, but not been the norm during your ACC years. It looks more like the lunch pail got turned in for a lacrosse stick.

As for the quip about North Carolina's loss I was just reminding you that the 3 win Gamecock team you were disparaging did beat what is likely one of your divisional winners and that when casting stones one needed to remember ones own vulnerabilities. Should a miracle happen and they beat Clemson they may well finish with 4 wins in a weak division of the SEC and victories over both ACC division champs. I don't think it will happen but half of it may already have happened. I guess then the Citadel could claim to be the state champs.

The SEC & Big 10 shots get a bit old around here, especially when the assumptions are spurious and the conclusions based upon them illogical.

Whether Maryland improves as a result of the Big 10 income is yet to be seen. I say we ought to know something definitive in about a decade. Taking shots right now is not only premature, but immature.

So contained therein is the relevance and reason for my response.

Before their run of 5 against Clemson, SCAR had LOST 8 0f their previous 10, while they were a part of the SEC. Spurrier capitalized on a perfect storm; Tennessee and Florida tanking for multiple seasons, and an in-state crop of recruits that were the backbone of their run. That type of crop of recruits in SC does not happen very often. That crop also occurred the same year Clemson was firing Bowden. Once those recruits finished up, SCAR was back to their normal level of performance. Spurrier recognized it, and left.

Or like with Brown, Beamer and to a certain extent Snyder and others who are at that age, once the rumors of your imminent retirement start circulating the recruiting gets very very difficult. To expand upon another part of Spurrier's favorable climate, Tennessee had been in a prolonged lull. That was a big issue. They were coming out of it and that put a pinch on recruiting North Georgia and Eastern Tennessee.

Dabo's a good guy. But it will be interesting to see if top programs shopping for a coach come calling on him this year, as they are certain to do with Jimbo.

What 'top program' currently looking for a coach would pay Dabo more than Clemson?

I can see any reason why Jimbo would leave FSU and don't see how he is a better coach than Dabo.

(11-22-2015 07:52 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Like I said on an another thread, Randy Edsall was brought in to raise the graduation rates/GPAs and impose on/off field discipline. Edsall accomplished those two goals but at the expense of winning. He was only fired because boosters refused to donate money towards the UA Sports Medicine and Performance Center under the belief that the university wasn't serious about football.

i thought Maryland's previous coach was a great coach and probably the best Maryland has had. i was stuneed they fired him for UCONN's coach

Dabo and Jimbo are both already at programs competing for National Championships now. And They can get any amount matched from another schools offers . Personally, I would be amazed if either one left Their respective programs.

(11-23-2015 06:18 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Dabo and Jimbo are both already at programs competing for National Championships now. And They can get any amount matched from another schools offers . Personally, I would be amazed if either one left Their respective programs.

Agree. Both FSU and Clemson pay very well, as much as anyone not named Alabama or Texas. FSU just won it all and Clemson is on the cusp of the CFP now. Why go to a tougher road to the CFP if you're already competing at that level? Even if they double the pay, going from 3.5 or 4 million to 7 or 8 million probably doesn't change your life. Doubling my salary does change my life, but there comes a point where it is probably less of a deciding factor.