June 28, 2007
Clemson - Auburn sign series for 2010-2011
According to reports on Tigernet, the on-air team at WCCP FM is reporting that Clemson has come to terms with Auburn for a home-and-home series for 2010 (at Auburn) and 2011 (at Clemson).
The Auburn series, if it does indeed come to pass, would replace the 2010-2011 Pitt series that Clemson dropped last week.
From my perspective, this would be a HUGE upgrade to the CU schedule. I'm sure Clemson fans would be happy to see the Auburn rivalry revived, which AU cancelled back in 2003.
Neither university has confirmed the series as of yet.
UPDATE 6/28/2007 1:10P
The series is now being confirmed by both schools. Tommy Bowden shared his comments on the series:
“The two-game series with Auburn will certainly be exciting for our fans and our players, “ said Clemson Head Coach Tommy Bowden. “I have coached at Auburn (1991-96), so I know how intense their fans are when it comes to their football program. There really are a lot of similarities in the two schools. I am sure it will be a series that will be nationally televised and bring considerable exposure to both programs.“Many times when future non-conference games are announced, they are long off on the calendar. But, the freshmen on our team this year will play in that 2010 game at Auburn when they are seniors, and if they red-shirt they will play in both games.”
Hat Tip: Jeff @ Fanblogs
Comments:
posted on June 28, 2007 12:58 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta said:
Hey, hey! What did I just say under the 'Clemson cancels Pitt' thread? What a co-inky dink. Looks like they forgave us for cancelling some games back in 2003.
Clemson remains Auburn's second-most common OOC opponent of all-time in spite of having played just once in the last 36 years. Auburn has won the last 12 meetings in a row and owns a 32-11-2 all-time record against the Tiger Paws.
I'm glad this got re-scheduled, although I'm sure a lot of Clemson fans might prefer to get the series with Georgia cranked back up.
Doug said:
posted on June 28, 2007 1:20 PM — 169.200.185.19 — link — abuse?
Regan when you see this news I already know what you are going to say. "Doug I told you so"....o.k. I eat crow sometimes.... I may not make it to the Bowden Bowl afterall this year. Even though it is on Monday think I'll spend all my money in Blacksburg on Saturday. Probably won't be able to get tickets but I'll still enjoy the tailgate.
RazzMaTazz said:
posted on June 28, 2007 1:57 PM — 70.137.128.77 — link — abuse?
Playing Auburn will be far more interesting, and it will get Clemson more respect than playing Pitt, so I'm happy about the Tiger-eat-Tiger series. But that's going to be a tough game for Clemson to win. I still wish Clemson would have scheduled a Big Ten or PAC-10 school since Clemson would have gotten the same respect from the pollsters, yet Clemson would have had a much better chance of winning. The SEC is tough.
I was hoping Clemson would pick up a top tier team that could get national TV coverage. But I'm afraid the Clemson-Auburn games won't be televised because all that orange could damage the TV cameras.
War Eagle Atlanta: You got your wish. Apparently the athletic directors read your posts.
posted on June 28, 2007 2:13 PM — link — abuse?
The series is now being confirmed by both schools. Tommy Bowden shared his comments on the series:
“The two-game series with Auburn will certainly be exciting for our fans and our players, “ said Clemson Head Coach Tommy Bowden. “I have coached at Auburn (1991-96), so I know how intense their fans are when it comes to their football program. There really are a lot of similarities in the two schools. I am sure it will be a series that will be nationally televised and bring considerable exposure to both programs.
“Many times when future non-conference games are announced, they are long off on the calendar. But, the freshmen on our team this year will play in that 2010 game at Auburn when they are seniors, and if they red-shirt they will play in both games.”
posted on June 28, 2007 2:14 PM — link — abuse?
It's been confirmed now.
http://thetigernet.com/view/story.do?id=6702Maurice said:
posted on June 28, 2007 2:17 PM — 204.117.78.97 — link — abuse?
Awh So What! Big deal! I betcha next year around this time another blog will come out "Clemson pulls out of the Auburn deal and sign another a home in home series with South Carolina State and North Carolina Central for 2010 and 2011 season
posted on June 28, 2007 3:03 PM — link — abuse?
I couldn't agree more. This is a big boost to Clemson's schedule. CU's 2010 schedule now looks like a potential national championship gauntlet run, if they can gear up and sweep.
2010 - Maryland, NC State, Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), @ Auburn, @Wake Forest, @ Florida State, @ Boston College, @North Carolina, and South Carolina (exact schedule dates tba - so not in this order, per se)
That's a pretty solid run of 10 beefy games. If they can add two DI-A games (even a lower level DI-A) and steer clear of a DI-AA, then it would be hard to say that they didn't play a top BCS schedule.
posted on June 28, 2007 3:11 PM — link — abuse?
Maurice,
Then again Auburn could back out like they already did to Clemson recently so they can take on foes like The Citadel.
posted on June 28, 2007 6:06 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Razz: I'm glad my posts carry some weight with the ADs. Yes, too much orange on the screen for that game. Although Clemson's football program was founded by an Auburn guy, Auburn decided to pay homage to their cousins a few years ago with this "All Auburn, All Orange" crap. Our colors are navy blue and burnt orange, not just orange. Yes, I know, navy blue doesn't show as brilliantly on TV as orange, but that's our primary color.
More than a few Auburn fans have walked into Jordan-Hare and thought they were in Death Valley or the Swamp, or even in Neyland (slight color-blindness)
posted on June 28, 2007 6:37 PM — link — abuse?
I'd forgotten Coach Riggs was from Auburn (and brought Heisman to Clemson from AU as well) - I guess he got thrown in my memory hole with all the Bama connections (sorry) to Clemson.
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on June 29, 2007 12:42 AM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Gatorhippy post 10
you are so correct. You never know what a team will be like in a couple of years. Miss. State, Alabama having a down year, Tennessee won but 6 games a few years back.... One year Ole Miss wins 10 or 11 and the next they fire their coach.
However, UNC has talent... now they have a coach. i suspect they will be real good in 3 years. Maryland has always been good. A large school in a heavily populated area. They beat Tennessee by 30 points in the 2003 Peach Bowl.
I have no idea why anyone would want to play a tough team out of conference. Why would Florida want to play Miami..... Nothing good can happen. If you beat them you hold ground or move up in the polls a spot or two. If you lose, you are going to drop. I am sure Auburn would have rather played UT Chat. twice than Ga. Tech twice in 2003 and 2005. Two losses..... OUCH! That should never happen when a big time SEC school plays a mid level ACC school..... Nothing gained and everything lost. Auburn would have had a 10 win season in 2005 had UT Chat. been on the schedule instead of the Jackets.Andrew R said:
posted on June 29, 2007 10:59 AM — 67.78.225.112 — link — abuse?
Volrocker, Amazing? Where have you been this decade? With teams like USC, Georgia Tech, Washington State, and Kansas State on Auburn's schedule how can your comment #15 be anywhere near the truth? Granted the OCC schedule in 2004 was less than spectacular, but they did beat your beloved Vols twice on national TV. Pretty badly too if I remember right (34-10 and 38-28), and UT was a good team that year.
posted on June 29, 2007 12:13 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Jeff Q: Yes, and Frank Howard and Danny Ford both played for Alabama, so quite a few state of Alabama connections for the Tiger Paws.
Auburn and Clemson used to play frequently in the old days because they used to be in the same conferences, the old Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association and then the old Southern Conferences. Auburn and 12 other teams defected in 1933 to form the SEC, but Clemson stayed on in the Southern until the 1950s, eventually defecting themselves with 6 other teams to form the ACC in 1953.
What's amazing is that the Southern Conference still exists today. After 2 major defection sessions, they still had the ability to survive. Good for them!
AU03 said:
posted on June 29, 2007 1:44 PM — 205.255.224.10 — link — abuse?
CUTotalTiger- In '03 Auburn wasn't exactly top tier in the SEC. We were ranked high preseason, of course, but our offensive playcalling (especially early that season) was awufl. I went to the USC game that year, and was able to predict our offensive plays most of the time- we had co-OC's trying to emulate Petrino, and we failed miserably.
In '05, I attribute the loss to GT to the fact that we relied too much on an unexperienced QB. It was Cox's first start, and he had over 50 pass attempts if I remember correctly (something that has rarely ever happened in AU history, regardless of the QB's experience).
We were supposed to play them again in '04, but the NCAA mandated a shorter schedule, so we got dropped by GT (it would have been a nice boost to the SOS had we beaten then that year, which would have been likely).
Looking forward to playing Clemson, though. In spite of me not liking our AD since he's a Bobby Lowder puppet (Lowder's jet was the one that flew to Lousiville to try to hire Petrino, but I have other reasons for hating him that are not football-related) Jacobs has been good in scheduling some quality OOC games thus far. I just wished we'd stop playing 1-AA teams, as we have another this year.
posted on June 29, 2007 3:05 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
CUTotalTiger: You play ranked and historical-power teams so you can build or maintain prestige for your program, not to mention the effect it has on BCS ratings. Your fans demand it, too. I will eat my tickets for New Mexico state and Tenn Tech this year, rather than travel all the way down there to watch a shellacking. If we played someone better, it would be a different story. I know you have to schedule tune-up and homecoming games, though. With four OOC games now able to be scheduled, 2 BCS conf. schools and 2 weaker teams isn't unreasonable.
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on June 30, 2007 1:18 AM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
Gatorhippy, Au03 and War Eagle.....
I loved when we played Mizz and Texas A&M. I am looking forward to playing Auburn and we SHOULD play Georgia every year.
But come on guys, it you are Phil Fulmer and year in and year out you have a chance to win the natioanl title..... why would you want a home and home series with Michigan? You have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
You have to win your conference to have a realistic chance for the national title. Do you think Florida would have played for the title had they lost in the SEC champ. game? Now suppose they had played Miami the third game of the year and lost.... Do you honestly think they would have been considered a national title contender? Smart coaches play the patsies.
AND here is one to think about.... Suppose Georgia Tech and Georgia have wrapped up their divisonal titles and are headed to their conference championship games. Now also suppose that the polls (which i hate) have determined that the Irish and Penn State will play for the national title. So now all the conference championship games are about is who is going to a big time bowl game. Still very important from a prestige and money factor.
As head coach to you sit your stars in the rivaly game. the game is absolutely meaningless and most recruits have long since made up their mind as to what school they will attend. All you can do is get your star tailback hurt or get your qb a broken arm. Why would you risk it? The season is over and you are not going to play for the national title. The game you must win is your conference championship game the following week. Just playing devil's advocate but it is a great question.
posted on June 30, 2007 12:09 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
CutTotalTiger: I don't buy your "nothing to gain" premise. In your scenario, Tennessee plays Michigan. If they win, I think they have a lot to gain, considering Michigan is a tier one program. You gain a lot in the polls, which is still your bread and butter for getting into the national title game. Even if Michigan was having a down year, beating them is better than beating a nobody 1A school. If you lose to a strong Michigan team, it's not the end of the world; it is possible to bounce back with national title expectations. Look at the last game for Michigan last year, against Ohio State. Even though they lost, half of the college football world was ready to give them another shot in the national title game almost immediately. Good thing that smarter heads prevailed, given that both schools were severely overrated.
Everyone notices when you don't play a tough schedule--fans, coaches, the polls. The only way your scenario works is if you are Notre Dame, and you have an automatic BCS berth. Then you are able to take the path of least resistance, and it doesn't matter, because of your guarantee.
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on June 30, 2007 1:47 PM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?
War Eagle..... we will have to disagree.. If you are going to play for the National Title you are going to have to win your conference. The only people willing to give Michigan a second chance last year was Michigan. I still say if you win your
Are you saying that as an Auburn fan you would like to come to Death Valley, make a trip to the Doak, go to Bobby Dodd stadium and then start your conference games?
Now if you are a coach, would you want to do the same? Just win baby.... Florida has the correct idea and i wish Clemson would follow suit. So we beat Alabama or Penn State..... still gotta win your conference. But if you have a shot at national title.... No one cares about your non-conference schedule beacause you will start the season in the top 10 and will just need to win.
How about the other scenario? Say Auburn has wrapped up the West and will be playing Georgia in Atlanta for a shot to go to the Sugar Bowl. The Alabama game means nothing except to the fans. The recruits know where they are going. Do you risk an injury to a key player? After all the pollsters have said Ohio State and Notre Dame are going to play for the natioanl title.... What do you do?UWDAWG said:
posted on July 1, 2007 7:23 AM — 62.215.5.4 — link — abuse?
It is refreshing to see some contenders scheduling some actual competition...Someone mentioned it up there, but Auburn is one of the best in the SEC for doing just that...Kudos to both schools...And for the record C-Dogg...You're the only one to bring it up...
Regan said:
posted on July 1, 2007 12:40 PM — 75.176.145.199 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta (#25):
I agree that strong OOC matchups are important as well, even for a Tennessee-Michigan style game.
The logic on the other side is that the SEC is tough enough without scheduling strong OOC games. (Glad UT was used as an example, since they rarely schedule light OOC.
I would have disagreed with you prior to 2004, but when Auburn ran the gauntlet of the SEC, went undefeated overall and didn't get the chance to play for the Title,that changed it all. Now, everyone has got to think about who they schedule and what it might mean for them.
Zac said:
posted on July 1, 2007 2:54 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
I've given this article some thought, and I've also considered the article regarding Clemson & Pitt. Quite frankly, I don’t think Clemson should be congratulated. Yes, they did establish a home and home series with one of the more respected and consistently stronger teams in the SEC. All well and good, but my concern is, they did this at the expense of Pitt. Clemson broke their commitment with their series against Pitt, that they may play an arguably tougher opponent, and garner the greater recognition, recruiting, money, and all the advantages that come from scheduling worthy opponents. I don't like the message that sends to our young men and women, student athlete or otherwise. Basically, they're hearing that breaking commitments, even those in writing, is OK. And, if they visit this blog, whether they respond or not, they'll see that many of us endorse that way of thinking. That, my friends, is disappointing. The leadership of such fine institutions as Clemson should be providing a better example than, if the money is better, it's OK.
To Pitt's credit, the breaking of this agreement between them & Clemson worked out to be an amicable one. Still, where does that leave Pitt? Yes, they're trying to fill said open date with Penn St, who shares the same open date, but egos being what they are… Sadly, they'll likely wind up with some Div-2 opponent and catch hell because of the weak schedule argument.
It's one thing to make a commitment, only to find one is incapable of meeting said commitment. It's quite another to say, "Look, we don't want to play you guys; we'd rather play somebody else. Do you mind?" The leadership of our institutions of higher learning should display better ethics than that. They should lead by example, because from the example of the likes of individuals such as these, the next generation of leadership is born. I'd like that leadership to have a better sense of integrity. Just a thought.
Regan said:
posted on July 1, 2007 5:31 PM — 75.176.145.199 — link — abuse?
Doug (#3):
No worries, bud. But yeah, these Labor Day Monday night ACC games really annoy me because they are kinda difficult to really schedule around.
Not to mention that starting the season off with a tough opponent really isn't a good idea; especially when so much in the conference race is on the line.
I dunno, though...it's still going to be a great game. I'll probably be having to do the ESPN thing too; you won't be missing out on anything alone. :-)
Neither Clemson nor FSU is really exited about breaking in all these new personnel this soon. While both teams are on the same footing, it still seems eerily similar to looking forward to a Thursday night game in Lane Stadium after five days rest.RazzMaTazz said:
posted on July 2, 2007 11:16 AM — 70.137.128.77 — link — abuse?
Zac (#31): Clemson asked to be released from the Pitt series and Pitt agreed. Pitt's AD said that he agreed because he found that there were lots of other good potential opponents available. (And I assumed he meant preferable.) Two gentlemen agreed to the change. Clemson didn't FORCE Pitt to cancel the series. I don't see how that sends a bad message to the players.
The crime is that Penn State refuses to play Pitt. When I was a kid growing up in PA (as a big Penn State fan), that was THE game of the year. THE game. The tear-down-the-goal-posts in-state rivalry. Talk about sending a bad message to your players. Pussing out of playing your only in-state rival so that you can play another cupcake. I've lost all respect for Penn State.
posted on July 2, 2007 12:02 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
CuTotalTiger: I'm not saying load every single OOC game up with a tough team, with four now available in the expanded 12-game season. But like that Meatloaf song went, "Two out of four ain't bad".* While we are still without a playoff, you still have to play somebody good in addition to winning your conference.
Regan: Yes, the SEC is tough enough. Outsiders don't realize that rarely does a team skate through the SEC undefeated. When they do, however, they're usually the national champs. Alabama did in '92, Florida did (with 1 ooc loss) in 1996, and Tennessee did in '98. I said long ago that if an undefeated SEC team didn't get a shot in the title game, it would be a travesty. Then it happens to my team. I think though that the strength of our OOC schedule in 2004 had less to do with it than the fact that 2 historical powers, USC and Oklahoma, both started the preseason ranked in the top 5, and we started at #17. With everybody winning all their games, I don't think we would have caught them no matter what our schedule was.
* I know the real lyrics to the song.Tomcat said:
posted on July 2, 2007 7:34 PM — 69.150.78.60 — link — abuse?
#24 CUTotalTiger I would beg to differ with ya.
Example the home & home series between
Ohio St and Texas Both games the winner was the visiting team. Both games the winner went to the Nat Title game. So on the contrary the Tenn vs Mich makes sense.
#26 ya why not how about playing in the Horseshoe in front of 100,000 plus prior to your conference matchups.Its what football fans want to see, and if you lose so what, it was against a top ten opponent. Take for example the Home & home between Neb vs USC. Why not play a USC? It can only help your team. If you lose, its okay you still have a shot at winning your conference and a loss to a top team is really no disgrace. If you win, then its real big especially for the teams confidence. I honestly beleive that after 2004 that AU will continue to schedule tough OOC games.
Hookem-Horns
Congrats to Tigers vs Tigers sounds like a great seriesJoe said:
posted on July 2, 2007 9:18 PM — 65.32.170.228 — link — abuse?
War Eagle stated:
"Regan: Yes, the SEC is tough enough. Outsiders don't realize that rarely does a team skate through the SEC undefeated."
I would state I don't believe this is quite the rare event that you make it to be. "going undefeated in SEC play" since the SEC expanded in 1992 showed that:8 times in the last 15 years an SEC team has not lost a regular season SEC game 1992-2006
also,
8 times in the last 15 years an SEC has only lost 1 game in the regular season 1992-2006
Certainly it is never easy to go undefeated in any conference but I am not sure it is any harder in the SEC than anywhere else. 16 times in the last 15 years with one loss or undefeated is really not such a rare event. Of course certainly the SEC seems to have more teams capable of going undefeated which would point to better balance in the league. Not sure if anything else can be concluded.
U. of S.C. 1978 said:
posted on July 2, 2007 11:03 PM — 97.82.188.250 — link — abuse?
Clemson schedule, Clemson schedule, who cares? Hell fire fellas, they tried to get out of playing The U. of S.C. many years ago. The state legislature had to pass a law requiring an annual game. Here kity kity, come on kity, we got something for ya kity.
AU03 said:
posted on July 3, 2007 10:19 AM — 205.255.224.10 — link — abuse?
Joe, War Eagle was referring to going through the regular season schedule AND the Championship game. Only 5 times has the SEC champ been undefeated in conference since '92:
Bama- '92*
Florida- '95, '96*
Tenn- '98*
Auburn- '04*= NC
LSU lost a confernce game in 2003 and still won the NC, as did Florida last year.
posted on July 3, 2007 11:06 AM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Joe: I stick by my statement. Only thrice in 15 seasons. Having one loss doesn't fit the criteria of my statement, no matter if it's in conference or out. Give me your apples for my oranges. What's the one statistic you would accept that would prove to you that a SEC schedule is the toughest in the land?
shiguy said:
posted on July 3, 2007 12:14 PM — 64.9.12.234 — link — abuse?
right on RazzMaTazz(35). it's sad just how childish that penn st. (joe pat in particular) is being with the pitt situation. he's still mad because pitt shunned making a new northeast conference and joined the big east. i hope that there is somebody there reading these realizing that the rest of the football fans out there think they're being a-holes about the whole thing. and yes befoer i start getting blasted we know that they charged more for that game the last time that it was played at pitt but so what. wouldn't you do the same for one fo the biggest games of the year? several schools do the exact same thing and if i remember correctly the cost of general admission tickets for the backyard brawl is usually higher as well at both schools.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on July 3, 2007 1:31 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
In regards to Strength of Schedule:
I really couldnt care less what CONFERENCE overall has tougher schedules. It really only matters what my favorite TEAM's schedule is like.
Here's what I find interesting:
FSU has gotten a lot of grief for playing in the ACC during the 90's - from UF fans and everyone else under the sun.
Well, lets take a look at this:
http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_sched_rankings.php?period=1990-1999
During the 90's FSU ranked 3rd in the nation in OVERALL strength of schedule. The highest SEC team that decade is Tenn @ #19.
For this decade:
http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_sched_rankings.php?period=2000-2006
So far this decade FSU ranks 7th in the nation in OVERALL strength of schedule. The highest SEC team is UF at #16.
Sure, the SEC may be tough - the toughest. However, the OVERALL schedules of SEC teams aren't highly ranked or tough compared to other teams.
Just thought that was interesting.
RazzMaTazz said:
posted on July 3, 2007 1:33 PM — 70.137.128.77 — link — abuse?
Come to think of it, Penn State should probably just join the Big East. Geographically, that's probably a much better fit-- and it would force PSU to play Pitt. It also might force them to upgrade to a 21st century coach. And it would enable the Big Ten to be ten.
Except for free student-tickets, I'm a free-market guy. If a school sells tickets below market value, the school just leaves money on the table, and many of the under-priced tickets will just sell on Ebay or Craigslist for their true market value. Should Barry Manilow concert tickets cost as much as U2 tix?
posted on July 3, 2007 2:56 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Seminole Nation: Although I concur with the stats you use, you're comparing one team to an entire conference. Only when you compare SOS of FSU with that of say, Tennessee do you have something statistically credible. Or compare the ACC to the SEC. Also, breaking it down to decades is nice, but most folks tend to look at the all-time stats when evaluating their team.
It does appear that FSU's SOS during that time is very high. That's strange considering how they ran away with the ACC; although for the 90s, the ACC's SOS is slightly higher than that of the SEC. Not to take anything away from FSU. They had quite a run. They've taken 12 of the first 15 ACC titles since they joined. I was beginning to wonder if they were going to let anyone else win it.
I've often wondered how CFBD warehouse computes their SOS percentages. They have Auburn pegged at #4 All-Time in toughest SOS. It's justifiable because for years Auburn played AL, TN, and GA every single year, three of the top 11 powers. Perhaps it's time to send them an email and ask for the breakdown.
Another thing I ought to ask them: Why, when computing All-Time Team Rankings Indexes, do they accept a program's claim for national championships rather than what is generally accepted? The points awarded for NCs in their matrix is weighted heavily, so it makes quite a difference. Take a look at a team like GA Tech, which claims 4 NCs but really only has a single legitimate one. Their inflated claims are enough to rank them #11 all-time in the index. Teams like FSU are penalized, because all their NCs came legitimately during modern times, where scrutiny is high--unlike yesteryear, when teams like Alabama padded their resume after the fact and no one noticed or cared...
USC = Univ. of Second Choice said:
posted on July 3, 2007 4:27 PM — 75.182.55.172 — link — abuse?
Can you blame Clemson for trying to stop playing South Carolina? It's tough to justify keeping a team on your schedule that accounts for about one third of the wins in the overall series. Not to mention, they only started going to Clemson every other year since 1960. Before then, it was always in Columbia, and Clemson still had the winning record. Since then, the revenue justifies it. Before then, we could've found a much better revenue producing match up. Why even bring that up? Really, that's just asinine. For your coach to have a 1 and 1 record against us, you guys are awfully cocky. Absolutely no pun intended. Go yell at Stewart Mandel for taking you out of the Southeast in his latest mailbag or something.
Back to the post that is relevant, I'm glad to have Auburn on the schedule. It will be a fun 2 years in 2 great football towns. We certainly won't miss Pittsburgh.
posted on July 3, 2007 4:52 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Razz: If Penn State defected to the Big East, it would sure make the math for the Big 10, I mean Big 11, a whole lot easier.
Good point on ticket prices, but you may be forgetting one thing. Most big time athletic departments require huge donations for the 'priviledge' of purchasing a lot of these tickets. If this 'donor' then advertises them for sale, any 'overage' he may receive may offset these donations paid on top of the face value of the ticket. I've paid premium bucks for good seats, we all have, but I know that whoever got these tickets had to cough up a lot more than what's printed on it.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on July 3, 2007 7:04 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta #45:
The main purpose of my post was due to all the grief FSU gets from mainly UF fans due to playing in the ACC. A lot of the time FSU's dominance during the 90's is quickly followed by - "well they played in the ACC." But in fact, their OVERALL strength of schedule for that decade was #3 - yet they still won close to 90% of their games. I mainly posted in defense of FSU and the heat they take for playing in the ACC (from pretty much everyone but especially UF fans) and didn't mean to compare FSU to an entire conference.
Since 1990 FSU has had an OVERALL tougher schedule then UF. I'm sure most UF fans won't like hearing that.
Also, if you get any feedback about their formula I'd appreciate you filling me in. I have a general idea of what I think they do but I'd like to know for certain.
U. of S.C. 1978 said:
posted on July 3, 2007 10:14 PM — 97.82.188.250 — link — abuse?
Before 1960 the only thing in Clemson, was Clemson. It wasn't called MOO-U for no reason at all, it did get it's start as an agricultural college and there were plenty of cows. Everybody understood why the game was played in Columbia. The past is the past. It's part of the reason we so look forward to the future. Hang on to that series record book, I hope you are able to find some solace with it in the future.
Joe said:
posted on July 4, 2007 9:31 AM — 65.32.170.228 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta,
I do believe we have a problem with communicating what is being stated.
You are referring I guess to Regular season, championship and Bowl game where I was only referring to REGULAR SEASON SEC GAMES. I wasn't including the SEC championship or Bowl game in my remarks.
When you stated: "Regan: Yes, the SEC is tough enough. Outsiders don't realize that rarely does a team skate through the SEC undefeated."I took that to mean "IT IS TOUGH TO WIN IN THE SEC DURING THE REGULAR SEASON" Obviously, misinterpreted on my part.
As to my statement of 8 times in the regular season
I was in error as I counted UF going undefeated in the regular season in 1991. This would of course reduce the number to 7 times since 1992 they were:Alabama 1992 13-0
Alabama 1994 Lost SEC championshipAuburn 1993
Auburn 2004Tennessee 1998
Florida 1995, 1996That of course would be 7 times undefeated during the regular season in SEC play
And of course in 1991 UF went undefeated in the SECThere of course also been 8 times that SEC teams only lost 1 game in the regular season.
They were:
Tennessee 1997 1 loss
LSU 2003 1 loss and national championship
Georgia 2002 1 loss
And of course Florida who has had 5 one loss seasons:
Florida 1993, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006 all were one loss regular seasons in the SEC.
As to answering your question I most certainly agree that the SEC is the toughest conference overall in CFB. They have more contending teams on an annual basis. Of course unless one plays all those contending teams every season they can’t be used in the blanket statement that because one plays in the SEC one plays the toughest schedule every season. Only those seasons when a team plays Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia Tennessee, Florida, and perhaps Arkansas during the regular season could one lay claim of playing an extremely tough schedule.
Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss St, and South Carolina have little history of producing dominant football teams in the last 40 years. Playing those teams on an annual basis is nothing special.
Joe said:
posted on July 4, 2007 11:25 AM — 71.15.81.82 — link — abuse?
Now that clemson and Auburn have come to terms on the home and home games for 2010 and 2011 I would like to see them honor their meeting in 1962 at clemson by using the exact same cover on their game program they used then of which I still have and did attend. I think Clemsom won that game.
Do it in honor of Frank Howard.
posted on July 4, 2007 2:27 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Seminole Nation: Although I'm a big fan of Bobby Bowden and have much respect for FSU, I admit that I, too, have chided FSU in the past for playing a (perceived) weaker schedule in the ACC. I think mainly my stance originated from the fact that I really wanted FSU to join the SEC back in 1992. Having seen the stats that you brought up, I realize now that I don't have a (factual) leg to stand on.
With the inclusion of VA Tech and Miami into the ACC, the conference got it's much needed infusion of parity to offset FSU dominance, which although not goodfor Seminole fans, is good for the ACC and college football. Now the ACC has, in my opinion, passed the Big 10 in conference dominance, given the latter's reluctance to add a 12th team and play a title game like a real conference. While they languish in obscurity, other conferences are moving ahead into the 21st century. If the ACC ever gets an attractive venue for their championsgip game, watch out!
posted on July 4, 2007 3:11 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Joe: No bigee. I should have been more clear with my original statement. Certainly, some SEC schedules might be a bit tougher than other ones, year to year. Having Florida as one of our rotators this year is certainly a tougher game than having Kentucky.
Unfortunately, it looks like Auburn won that 1962 game. Auburn has won the last 12 meetings, going back to 1952. That could soon change, though. Auburn had won the last 10 meetings with GA Tech when that series ended in 1987. Then Auburn just layed down for them when they played the two games in 2003 and 2005. Auburn was so bad, they made Reggie Ball look good.
I might have to think twice about attending that game in Clemson in 2011. You guys have the worst game-day traffic of just about anyone, I think.
Joe said:
posted on July 4, 2007 6:16 PM — 65.32.170.228 — link — abuse?
Seminole_Nation,
Figuring Strength of Schedule is an arduous task and truthfully I don't think any are completely accurate.
The NCAA just takes the won/loss record of the opponents regardless of whether you play Division One or a lower Division team. That most certainly is flawed.
Sagarin has done his for years and I am sure it has more merit than the NCAA's version but most certainly his also has a bit of "bias" as well.
As to the link you posted I likewise would be curious in how they make their determinations on SOS.
USC = Univ. of Second Choice said:
posted on July 4, 2007 10:10 PM — 75.182.55.172 — link — abuse?
Hold on to the record book. Really? First of all, Clemson got it's start as a military college, not an agriculture school. Clemson was the 19th hardest school to get into this year in the nation. You are unbelievable. Moo-U? Really? Perhaps, a great academic institution that has a definable campus and a nationally respected sports tradition is an ideal that still manages to elude you. Good luck finding tradition in Columbia. Oh that's right. A weaker football tradition than Duke. Weaker than Temple. Spectacular. Ben Tillman (former Governor of SC) founded Clemson on the premise that "the Citadel produces Military dudes, and USC produces idiots. We need a school for everyone else." This is a post about Clemson playing Auburn in 2010 and 2011. I am not too sure where South Carolina comes into play here. Apparently, if you graduated from the University of Second Choice in '78, Mr. Tillman's statement still holds true. Your blatant lack of logic proves that he wasn't off base at all, even over 100 years later. Again, find something promising to do with yourself. Learning arithmetic is a great thing for you folks. Politics would be nice for someone from Richland County to figure out (without the cocaine, rape, sexual harassment, or stabbing).
posted on July 6, 2007 6:07 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Univ of Second Choice: Life ain't so bad. Imagine being looked down upon and called a cow college by a team that claims 12 national championships. Imagine further that said team had arguably the greatest collegiate coach of all-time. But things get better once you imagine that your team is only 6 games out of tying up the all-time series record with the team in question. How good can you be if you're only number 2 in your own state?
It would be hard for you, however, since South Carolina has never won any national championships and Clemson owns a very comfortable margin in the all-time series, bordering on dominance. See, though? Life AIN'T so bad...
USC = Univ. of Second Choice said:
posted on July 9, 2007 12:47 AM — 75.182.55.172 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta:
You're right. No, it isn't so bad. I've never thought it was. I just don't understand how a post about Clemson playing Auburn has anything to do with South Carolina, or Alabama for that matter. I guess some people just get their kicks from inserting pointless asinine statements. Anyway, you guys have great fans, and a strong tradition. I very much look forward to the 2 games. It wouldn't be a bad rivalry at all to make a regular fixture on either team's schedule either. Of course, it'd be nice if our coach could get the team to where they should be. Oh well, if this year is a repeat of last, we'll have a new one. Maybe just in time for playing you guys. Good luck this season.Cock_N_Fire said:
posted on July 9, 2007 4:38 PM — 167.127.24.69 — link — abuse?
Keep dancing around that 'L' we laid on you last year, Mr. USC. Fancy language, useless trivia and trite drivel about the Governor (?) and the Citadel (?) still won't make it go away!
Maybe that jolly, good chap from Allbarn can keep you pacified this year with the gentleman's rivalry you can both look forward to. Barf.
This is football you pompuss ass! (and yes, I spelled pomPUSS that way on purpose)
Regan said:
posted on July 9, 2007 7:01 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Cock_N_Fire (#58):
Greetings. As one jolly good chap to another...
The South Carolina Gamecocks seem to be a team on the rise lately. Kudos!
Here’s hoping your team is able to pull off two consecutive victories against Clemson for the first time since the Nixon Administration.
Here’s props for your ever-so-witty use of “Allbarn” to describe yet another team that usually beats the Gamecocks year in and out. And Pom-Puss? Classic. I guess that was in reference to the Cat/Tiger or something, but it doesn’t really matter. Name-calling is such a rewarding way to talk trash when you aren’t able to get it done on the field.
Here’s some dancing around that ‘L’ your team laid on us last year after sheer luck has led to Clemson winning 8 of the last 10; you’re certainly catching up with us (63-37-4) – just think, in 26 straight victories, you could be even with us. Think the Ol’ Ball Coach will be still going strong in 2033?
Maybe by then the Gamecocks could have a winning percentage of over .50 all-time against either the ACC or the SEC; or at least possibly get the school’s all-time 5th Bowl win.
I’m sure that Spurrier will lead the Gamecocks to almost as many national championships as he had at Florida.
Thanks for brightening up our day by such enlightened comments on this Clemson-Auburn thread, and best of luck for South Carolina Football mattering in some way this fall.
Cock_N_Fire said:
posted on July 10, 2007 12:32 PM — 167.127.24.25 — link — abuse?
True, most USC fans have short memories but most football fans like to live in the present. Yes, ClemPson leads the series, leads in bowl victories (although none too impressive lately) and yes, I love to banter with ClemPson fans...so what makes all of this especially "rewarding" is that one lucky (as you put it) victory of 31-28 is all that really matters today.
Isn't it odd that of all the great Tiger accomplishments it's one little defeat to the poor, helpless Gamecocks that gets you the most riled up? Odd.
Looking forward to 11.24.07 - Please be prepared for yet another witty comeback, to include past accomplishments and some inept stats ahout the Governor, Citadel and Nixon, just in case we take it to you 2 years in a row!
posted on July 10, 2007 12:37 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Regan: Nice beat-down of Cock-N-Fizzle. Done very gentlemanly--I would expect no less from jolly good chaps such as us. This Allbarn chap would like to know if the Gamecocks will ever beat Allbarn again--something they haven't done since FDR's first year in office.
USC: I'm looking forward to the games. I'm curious though: given a choice, wouldn't most Clemson fans want to start playing Georgia again over Auburn? You guys used to have some good games in the 1980s. I think it was in '84 when Kevin Butler kicked a 60-yd field goal to win it for Georgia. Sucked for Tiger fans, but you have to admit, it was a pretty spectacular ending!
I'll have to look, but in 2010-11, we may have the Gamecocks rotate back into our schedule, too. Gee, if we could only line up the Citadel or College of Charleston, we could have virtually an all-South Kakalaki OOC schedule. I'm smelling title run!!!! haha
USC = Univ. of Second Choice said:
posted on July 10, 2007 3:13 PM — 75.182.55.172 — link — abuse?
Cock: The last time I heard "fancy language" was when I was visiting a friend's class (she teaches 3rd graders) and one of the students didn't understand some of the words we were using. Maybe there's a correlation. You've missed the point completely. That doesn't really shock me, but I shall try again. This is not a post that has anything to do with USC. This is about Clemson and Auburn. That must've confused you with all the talk about Clemson and Auburn. Call me an ass all you'd like, and yes, this is about football. However, THIS is about football involving Clemson and Auburn. What does that make you, old chap?
War Eagle Atlanta: Yes, we would love to play Georgia, and we'll get to soon enough. Unfortunately though, we don't get to have them every year for whatever reason, so having Auburn for 2 years will do. If it were up to me, I'd have both on the schedule year in and year out. Those old Clemson vs. Georgia games used to usually come down to a field goal, and 2 of those games had a large hand in determining the national champions. Alas, I guess I'm just yearning to play an SEC team every year that has some tradition.
posted on July 10, 2007 6:57 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
I'm hearing mutterings out of Auburn that they may forgoe up to $1.6M in revenue in 2011 by only having 6 home games, going on the road to play Clemson. And that they don't care. Good for us. Do the right thing, play the good teams, and revenue will take care of itself in time. Like RazzMaTazz mentioned earlier, I don't have a problem with charging more for feature games. It's simple supply/demand economics. Besides, we already do it and so do most other teams, I suspect.
USC: Yea, let's see if we can get a pipeline going along I-85 again. With UGA not too far off the interstate, maybe you, us, and them can play for the 'I-85' trophy every year--sponsered by Choice Hotels, or something. haha
Don't be too tough on CockNFire. Threads about any school will always draw out their main rival to post. It's the fun of it. I always look for the Bama fans in the Auburn threads, and they sure better be looking for me. Always respectful, though. I don't talk too much trash.
Cock_N_Fire said:
posted on July 11, 2007 9:12 AM — 167.127.24.69 — link — abuse?
War Eagle: Accolades on the understanding of how rivalries work - regardless of the 'theme'
USC: Ok, I'll tuck my tail (no pun intended) & move on now b/c obviously you're the type fan that can dish it, but can't take it.
FYI - If you don't want to draw the ire of USC fans in the future, try a different screen name.
For example, I wouldn't use CU = Classless U
That would be, well, just classless!
USC = Univ. of Second Choice said:
posted on July 11, 2007 12:05 PM — 75.182.55.172 — link — abuse?
Regan: "Hey man, nice shot."
Cock: I use this name when responding to USC fans. I will consider changing it since it's directive isn't working out as intended. To me, a healthy rivalry is supposed to instill respect as much as dislike for a certain opponent. Anytime unprovoked irreverent comments are inserted (see post #39), I see that as a sign that it's no longer a healthy rivalry. When that happens, I respond accordingly. For example, if you'd like to talk about the realities of the Clemson football team, I'm all ears. I'll be the first to criticize our team on a lot of topics. However, if you call my school (yes, I actually did attend and receive an Elec. Engr. degree, among other things) Moo-U, or our team the kitties, I take offense to that and defend it. These comments, very much like my reply, have nothing to do with the football team, or the game played on the field. No, you didn't do that, but apparently my response to the one who did angered you. I sincerely apologize for not playing the "right" way. I truly didn't know there were rules for irreverence. I don't mean this as a jab in any way. I'm being completely honest, as this is my perspective.Now, if you will, I'd love to talk football. I will go a bit off topic here and say that I attended 5 of USC's games this past season. The games were exciting and USC showed some promise but ultimately couldn't finish off many of the tougher opponents (no, I do not consider Clemson to be a tougher opponent). What do you think has changed this year to indicate that this year will be any different?
As far as Clemson goes, last season's collapse was absurd. With allegedly one of the best O lines in the country, and one of the best backfields in the country, we should have been able to control games a lot better than we did (post GT game). If this is what I can continue to expect from Bowden (this is, after all, the same coach who sat a 5 star QB on the bench all season, which resulted in his transfer), then I hope everyone blows us out this year. Maybe then we'll get a change. Maybe then we'll get someone who can get the most out of the talent on the field. I hope this isn't the case and things turn around, but we'll see. I don't want to think what would happen if we for some reason went into the Auburn game with the same lack of motivation that we so often show at least 3 games a year (e.g.- Wake Forest, Kentucky, NC State, Maryland, South Carolina).
War Eagle: Apparently our views on rivalries differ a bit. Also, College of Charleston doesn't have a football team. The Citadel somewhat has a football team, but if memory serves correctly you guys have had fun beating up on them for an easy "W" a good bit lately haven't you? Anyway, if you guys aren't 4-0 going into Gainesville, you should possibly look at coaching changes as well. It must be nice to start the season with some warm up games.
Only 50 days until kickoff. Thank God.Cock_N_Fire said:
posted on July 11, 2007 2:42 PM — 167.127.24.25 — link — abuse?
USC: Fair enough.
Here's what is really troubling me today...
cnnsi.com chimes in with its national Top 25 schedule rankings and individual conference schedule rankings. Their take - Carolina has the toughest SEC schedule and the #2 toughest schedule nationally.
Road trips to Georgia, LSU, Tennessee and Arkansas would be a daunting task for any team but it should be fun nevertheless. We may not have the skill to match these teams but Spurrier will bring the 'X' factor & we'll take whatever we can get...even if it's the coach!
My optimism (in a more promising season) lies in 10 out of 19 returning starters are on defense. Losing Rice to the NFL hurt and our run game may be too predictable at times. Boyd/Davis will be nice to have but running behind 3 new OL's ... that is asking a lot. Spec Teams should improve with Beamer Jr. but his resume' has not seen action. Defense will be the key to a better season.
Back to Clemson - I grew up in Gville, SC and attended MANY games at DV. I still have good friends in that 'neck of the woods' and we enjoy the same 'dialogue' that takes place on these boards so don't get too sideways ... it will make the 50 days go faster!
posted on July 11, 2007 3:04 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
USC: College of Charleston doesn't have a football team? Should be an easy game then! I was joking about them and the Citadel. No one was an unhappy as me about playing the Citadel in 2004, but they were a last minute replacement for a team that cancelled.
We should probably be 4-0 going into Gainesville this fall, but if we aren't, I'm not going to call for anyone's head. To me, coaching changes are something that shouldn't be made on a whim. One bad season or one bad part of a season aren't necessarily reasons to start taking heads off. Ever wonder why all the coaches of yesteryear tenured so long at their schools? Because there wasn't 24/7 media scrutiny second-guessing their every move. Nowadays, people just manufacture most coaching problems, it seems. Coaches get too much of the blame when things go wrong, and get too much credit when things are good.
One coach who will be under the media microscope is Nick Saban. I'll be watching closely to see if when things start to get rough for the Tide, how quickly his welcome might be worn out. Another one is Spurrier. Year three for him, and normally that means an SEC championship. If he has a lackluster season this year, I'll be curious to see the reactions of Gamecock fans. There will probably be no calls for his ouster yet, but the following year will be really intense.
AU03 said:
posted on July 11, 2007 5:22 PM — 205.255.224.10 — link — abuse?
USC=Whatever- we have only played The Citadel once ('04), and only to make up for Bowling Green dropping us at the last minute. Instead of College of Charleston, War Eagle should have mentioned Furman instead, your Week 3 Opponent.
Additionally, if you want to call K-State and South Florida "warm-up games," then go right ahead, but after your opener I see ULM and Furman. Try to find another BCS school that opens up its season with 2 OOC BCS schools in a row, as Auburn does- there likely isn't one (except ND, since all of their games are OOC). Mississippi State is usually an easy win, as is NM State, but just be thankful for Clemson's road schedule- NCSt, GT, MD, Duke as opposed to having to play Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, and LSU on the road.
If it weren't for Clemson having to play the "University of Second Choice" by law, Clemson would likely have the biggest joke of an OOC schedule in D-1 this year.
posted on July 11, 2007 7:02 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Ok, guys, I knew that the College of Charleston doesn't have a football team. It's a girl's school, or used to be. It was a joke.
On second thought, Florida State used to be a girls' school, too. Look what they've managed to accomplish. Hmmmm...
Regan said:
posted on July 11, 2007 7:30 PM — 205.188.117.75 — link — abuse?
The College of Charleston is my actual Alma Mater.
On King Street they yearly sell C of C T-Shirts that say "Still Undefeated" or "Undefeated since 1938".
This is simply to give the other teams in the nation a chance to win, since the College of Charleston is the Chuck Norris of College Football.
On an old NCAA 06 game, I created a C of C Team with realistic stats - all 99's for every player. I of course was the QB and had my friends at every position.
The result? Tackles nearly resulted in decapitations, all games resulted in 255-0 scores, and College Football would be ruined for every other teams' fans.
And thus, C of C waits for a team truly worthy for it's 69th straight year.
Still Undefeated. Yup. :-)
posted on July 12, 2007 11:19 AM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Regan: What would the mascot for CoC be? I knew a bunch of guys that went to the Citadel, and they said they always dated the girls from CoC, so we can call them the 'Dates'. The mighty Dates. Oh, you have a better idea? haha
Howard's Rock said:
posted on July 12, 2007 2:53 PM — 63.126.38.28 — link — abuse?
AU, we always play 3 cupcakes and SC. it sucks, we know. im glad to see we scheduled y'all. I'd love to play USuC, a good SEC team (Au, LSu, Uga), and a decent midwest team and then a cupcake each year instead to beef up the schedule. but we dont get to chose the games. cant wait to 2010 and when is Clemson gonna start a series with UGA again!?!?
Cock_N_Fire said:
posted on July 12, 2007 3:33 PM — 167.127.24.25 — link — abuse?
I'd have to take the mighty Winthrop Eagles over CoC anyday - I believe they've compiled an undefeated record as well! Bring on the 'Dates'!
Now ... back to regularly scheduled programming - Auburn vs Clemson ... ZZzzzzzzzzzz
Regan said:
posted on July 13, 2007 4:51 PM — 64.12.117.11 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta (#73):
We are the Cougars of the College of Charleston. When I started there in 1995, it was an 8 to 1 women to men ratio.
First semester freshman girls usually went out with Citadel guys, but for some reason they were the only ones...
LOL, JK, the Citadel guys are alright; I never had any problems with 'em...
Regan said:
posted on July 13, 2007 4:57 PM — 64.12.117.11 — link — abuse?
Cock_N_Fire (#75):
In honor of your request, I scheduled the Cougars against the Winthrop Eagles on my NCAA 06 game and...
...err...my X-Box exploded. Maybe some questions are just best left unsaid :-)
BTW...sorry I lit into ya (#59); rough day, etc. I generally try not to get destructive on the boards.
Regan said:
posted on July 13, 2007 5:02 PM — 64.12.117.11 — link — abuse?
clemson1981 (#77):
I was in Atlanta for the Peach Bowl in 2003 when Clemson played Tennessee. Even for me, all that Orange was a bit rough on the eyes. Driving home was really tough, especially at night...
Who knows? Maybe Clemson will don the all-purple jerseys when Auburn comes to town just to be different...
Yeah, sorry, I forgot we weren't supposed to talk about those uni's anymore. :-(
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
c-dogg said:
posted on June 28, 2007 12:46 PM — 76.188.144.228 — link — abuse?If this is true, good move by Clemson. You have to go through the SEC to really get respect as a program. Please guys......don't start the SEC conference crap. We know they are the best. I'm just blogging my mind (and the truth) O.K.?