'17' TN ATH Tee Higgins (Clemson commit)

#6,327
#6,327
VersaceButch said:
Clemson would do especially well if they played in the East. They could easily beat USCe, Mizzou, Vandy, and UK year in and year out, and with the talent level they have acquired lately, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't be able to beat UF, TN, or UGA.
Click to expand...

People seem to forget that before Spurrier started mailing it in and dreaming about daily visits to Augusta, he beat Dabo and the tigers 5 times in a row (with some of the best teams the tigers have ever had)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#6,328
#6,328
Kristy* said:
If we're talking about what could have been (almost beating Bama), then let's look at the rest of their season too. The squeaked by Louisville. Barely beat Notre Dame in flood-like conditions. Beat South Carolina by less than a TD. Beat NC because of an incorrect offsides call on an onside kick late in the game.

Maybe they could have beaten Bama; maybe they could have lost half their games also. Just if we're playing the what-if game. They had many bounces go their way last year. I don't think they'll be so fortunate this year.

It's all speculation because it's not provable, but I don't think there is any way they could hold up in the grind of the SEC. And in that same token, we would have a much, much better record in their weak-ass conference. But I wouldn't trade playing in the SEC.
Click to expand...

They didn't beat UNC cause of the call. The call prevented UNC from having a chance to win it; it simply allowed Clemson to preserve it. ND was a 10-win top 15 team so not sure what the argument is there. We barely beat that same USC at home they did it on the road. The argument is weak. Clemson has top 10 talent on paper; that's good enough to compete in the SEC as well as anybody not named Bama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,329
#6,329
sanddune50 said:
A lot easier to gear up for one or two games a year than to play stiff competition week in and week out. None of the Clemson homers factor in dealing with injuries and player attrition when beating their chest about their bowl accomplishments.
Click to expand...

It is easier to go undefeated, yes. But folks act like Clemson only wins because they play WF instead of Vandy or UNC instead of Mizzou. We can't beat our chest too much because the East has been utterly pathetic the last few years. It doesn't matter how good the west is if we only play 2 of the 7. Only 1 team is even coming close to undefeated in the SEC consistently, while everyone else is 9-10 win teams. If you don't think Clemson has the talent to be that in the SEC then you're either naive or ignorant. They won't be 12-0 in the SEC but they're easily 9-3, and likely better if theyre in the East, which is all anyone is arguing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,331
#6,331
bowlinggreenvol said:
They didn't beat UNC cause of the call. The call prevented UNC from having a chance to win it; it simply allowed Clemson to preserve it. ND was a 10-win top 15 team so not sure what the argument is there. We barely beat that same USC at home they did it on the road. The argument is weak. Clemson has top 10 talent on paper; that's good enough to compete in the SEC as well as anybody not named Bama.
Click to expand...

UNC: they recovered 2 onside kicks (iirc); both were overturned by penalties. The second one was egregious as nobody was close to being off-sides. This was in the championship game. To the casual observer, it appeared to be rigged - best outcome for the conference was to have an undefeated, play-off bound team.

SC: when SC played us, they still had bowl hopes. They had mailed it in by Clemson. Also, our games leading up to SC were Bama, KY. There's were Syracuse, WF. Your argument about SC is my point. We both beat that team similarly. Yet, Clemson is an "elite" undefeated team, and we're a 4 loss "underachieving" team. Flip conferences, flip outcomes. Clemson is a good team. They're not elite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,332
#6,332
bowlinggreenvol said:
It is easier to go undefeated, yes. But folks act like Clemson only wins because they play WF instead of Vandy or UNC instead of Mizzou. We can't beat our chest too much because the East has been utterly pathetic the last few years. It doesn't matter how good the west is if we only play 2 of the 7. Only 1 team is even coming close to undefeated in the SEC consistently, while everyone else is 9-10 win teams. If you don't think Clemson has the talent to be that in the SEC then you're either naive or ignorant. They won't be 12-0 in the SEC but they're easily 9-3, and likely better if theyre in the East, which is all anyone is arguing.
Click to expand...

I agree. Clemson would be a very strong, competitive school in the SEC. Recruits obviously don't care Clemson isn't in the SEC. There's a reason we seem to be in a battle with them for everyone.
 
#6,333
#6,333
Kristy* said:
UNC: they recovered 2 onside kicks (iirc); both were overturned by penalties. The second one was egregious as nobody was close to being off-sides. This was in the championship game. To the casual observer, it appeared to be rigged - best outcome for the conference was to have an undefeated, play-off bound team.

SC: when SC played us, they still had bowl hopes. They had mailed it in by Clemson. Also, our games leading up to SC were Bama, KY. There's were Syracuse, WF. Your argument about SC is my point. We both beat that team similarly. Yet, Clemson is an "elite" undefeated team, and we're a 4 loss "underachieving" team. Flip conferences, flip outcomes. Clemson is a good team. They're not elite.
Click to expand...

I know what the UNC call was at the end. Had the play stood, UNC had 14 seconds roughly to try and win the game. That call assured Clemson would win and wouldn't have the "opportunity to lose". It's not like it took points off the board.

USC had mailed it in? That's the best game they played all year was vs Clemson. You don't think they relished the opportunity to ruin their biggest rivals national title hopes and played out of their minds?

We both played OU, we blew a huge lead at home they beat them like a dog on a neutral field with all the pressure in the world on them. The only game they for sure lose is Bama because they already did. Guarantee they're up on UF so bad there's no room to blow it and probably same for Arkansas.

They lost the NC by less than a TD. The difference was KO return for a TD. They beat Bama up and down the field on offense. They were elite. If you think Clemson goes 9-4 with our schedule last year you're delusional.
 
Last edited:
#6,334
#6,334
bowlinggreenvol said:
It is easier to go undefeated, yes. But folks act like Clemson only wins because they play WF instead of Vandy or UNC instead of Mizzou. We can't beat our chest too much because the East has been utterly pathetic the last few years. It doesn't matter how good the west is if we only play 2 of the 7. Only 1 team is even coming close to undefeated in the SEC consistently, while everyone else is 9-10 win teams. If you don't think Clemson has the talent to be that in the SEC then you're either naive or ignorant. They won't be 12-0 in the SEC but they're easily 9-3, and likely better if theyre in the East, which is all anyone is arguing.
Click to expand...

Having the talent doesn't really mean anything seeing as though the SEC had 9 teams in Rivals team rankings in 2016. And if you go back further, I'm sure it will reflect the same results year in and year out. Everyone has talent in this league. So suggesting a 6-6 SEC team is the equivalent of a 6-6 ACC team is not exactly boasting a high degree of football knowledge. Not saying Clemson can't compete in the SEC currently. But had they been in the SEC, I doubt they would have got any traction to be able to recruit and win like they did in the ACC. They are the flavor of the month. Their limited history and tradition suggests they will fall back down soon enough. They can also thank Lane Kiffin for gift wrapping Tajh Boyd. Without that blunder, Clemson is probably still a middle of the road team in a weak conference.
 
#6,335
#6,335
bowlinggreenvol said:
I know what the UNC call was at the end. Had the play stood, UNC had 14 seconds roughly to try and win the game. That call assured Clemson would win and wouldn't have the "opportunity to lose". It's not like it took points off the board.

USC had mailed it in? That's the best game they played all year was vs Clemson. You don't think they relished the opportunity to ruin their biggest rivals national title hopes and played out of their minds?

We both played OU, we blew a huge lead at home they beat them like a dog on a neutral field with all the pressure in the world on them. The only game they for sure lose is Bama because they already did. Guarantee they're up on UF so bad there's no room to blow it and probably same for Arkansas.

They lost the NC by less than a TD. The difference was KO return for a TD. They beat Bama up and down the field on offense. They were elite. If you think Clemson goes 9-4 with our schedule last year you're delusional.
Click to expand...

Guess I'm delusional (or maybe you are). Fun talk. :eek:k:
 
#6,339
#6,339
bowlinggreenvol said:
It is easier to go undefeated, yes. But folks act like Clemson only wins because they play WF instead of Vandy or UNC instead of Mizzou. We can't beat our chest too much because the East has been utterly pathetic the last few years. It doesn't matter how good the west is if we only play 2 of the 7. Only 1 team is even coming close to undefeated in the SEC consistently, while everyone else is 9-10 win teams. If you don't think Clemson has the talent to be that in the SEC then you're either naive or ignorant. They won't be 12-0 in the SEC but they're easily 9-3, and likely better if theyre in the East, which is all anyone is arguing.
Click to expand...

Thank you! This is all I am really trying to say. People try to puff out their chests too often, when in recent years the East has been nothing to brag about and essentially no better than the ACC. The SEC is overall the tougher conference obviously, but I just think the notion that we are the only conference that can play competent football is nuts.

It's such a tired narrative that if you take X team and put them in the SEC, then team X wouldn't be good anymore.
 
#6,346
#6,346
Kristy* said:
UNC: they recovered 2 onside kicks (iirc); both were overturned by penalties. The second one was egregious as nobody was close to being off-sides. This was in the championship game. To the casual observer, it appeared to be rigged - best outcome for the conference was to have an undefeated, play-off bound team.

SC: when SC played us, they still had bowl hopes. They had mailed it in by Clemson. Also, our games leading up to SC were Bama, KY. There's were Syracuse, WF. Your argument about SC is my point. We both beat that team similarly. Yet, Clemson is an "elite" undefeated team, and we're a 4 loss "underachieving" team. Flip conferences, flip outcomes. Clemson is a good team. They're not elite.
Click to expand...

Yep, looked like they were protecting their 'investment' for sure. As for 12-0 in the SEC, even Bama doesn't do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,348
#6,348
Any insider can only share what he's heard. When the recruit is telling two different groups different stuff, it's impossible for both to be right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,349
#6,349
tonybologna said:
OV is another you can trust on here which is the very one that posted this news about Clemson & the handler situation.
Click to expand...

He seems to be in high regard. But I take insider status with a grain of salt. I'll form my own opinions for each poster. I've not seen enough of OV to know one way or the other yet. GFW is legit IMO.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top