Clemson. 63-20? This has to be ranked among the worst performances in BCS history. Eastern Michigan could have performed better than this.
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
You know who does not belong in the BCS?
January 5th, 2012 at 12:26 AM
#1
You know who does not belong in the BCS?
January 5th, 2012 at 1:58 AM
#2
I want you to know
I want you to know I love your signature.
#HokeisAmerica
January 5th, 2012 at 2:02 AM
#3
uuummm
Clemson beat VT twice...I don't like this win for WV
January 5th, 2012 at 9:06 AM
#4
For Michigan's sake, why does
For Michigan's sake, why does it matter that West Virginia beat Clemson?
You do realize that Syracuse thrashed West Virginia 49-23?
January 5th, 2012 at 9:12 AM
#5
posted from iPhone
Sparty fans keep bringing that up, also. We beat two teams they lost to...
January 5th, 2012 at 10:35 AM
#6
RIGHT!?
My facebook news feed was blowing up with Sparty fans talking about Michigan barely BEATING a team that got blown out by Clemson, who in-turn, got blown out by West Virginia.
To this, I asked myself..."why do I have so many Sparty friends?"
January 5th, 2012 at 11:16 AM
#7
Yeah, I've never understood
Yeah, I've never understood that logic. Notre Dame beat MSU, MSU beat Michigan, so does that mean Notre Dame is better than Michigan, despite Michigan having beaten them?
Of course not.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:08 PM
#8
Also, we beat Nebraska and
Also, we beat Nebraska and they lost to Nebraska.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:28 AM
#9
This is a trainwreck and I
This is a trainwreck and I cannot look away. I have to know how bad it gets. Starters are getting sat for WVU so 100 isn't in play, but 80 is a distinct possibility.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:29 AM
#10
But if Clemson > VT and we beat VT in OT.....
January 5th, 2012 at 12:31 AM
#11
Transitive property doesn't always apply
Zillions of variables in every game. Matchups matter.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:38 AM
#12
And we lost to Iowa who lost
And we lost to Iowa who lost to Minnesota who lost to New Mexico State. This is football not math, there is no transititve property
January 5th, 2012 at 12:56 AM
#13
forgot my /s
January 5th, 2012 at 11:05 AM
#14
Not only that
But we lost to Iowa, who lost to Minnesota, who got demolished by Michigan.
So glad we don't have to play that team, though; we'd never stand a chance.
January 5th, 2012 at 10:17 AM
#15
Bowl Games are weird
I think the take away is that bowl games are weird, played after a month or so layoff, after a bowl week of promotional shenanigans, etc. I am not at all certain bowl games give an accurate read on the teams that play. I think this calls into question the assumption that we can rely on bowl games to evaluate the teams, determine rankings, and pick a "champion."
January 5th, 2012 at 12:30 AM
#16
Eh
This is a total train wreck, but matchups/motivation in bowls are tricky. Clemson blew the doors off of Va Tech, while we struggled with them. Clemson just couldn't bounce back from that fumble return.
But man - this is effing hideous.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:45 AM
#17
Blew the doors off of them
Blew the doors off of them twice.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:31 AM
#18
sigh
I went to Clemson and Michigan. I did not talk any tash and am proud of them no matter what.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:33 AM
#19
I'm vacationing in Florida and happen to be staying at the same hotel as the Clemson team and fans...I doubt I will get any sleep tonight
January 5th, 2012 at 12:35 AM
#20
Thread!?
How in the hell isn't there a thread for this game!? Anyway, listening to Joe Tess and Rod Gilmore do this game on our drive home from NOLA. As the hip-hoppers say these days, This Sh*t Cray. Dana Holgorsen had these boys ready to play, while the youth of Clemson is shining brightly. As also mentioned above, I can't even turn the radio to music/iPod, I want to hear how this mess ends!
January 5th, 2012 at 12:37 AM
#21
No. What this shows is that
No. What this shows is that 1) the Clemson coaches don't know how to make adjustments and 2) Clemson doesn't know how to deal with adversity very well. Lou Holtz has said precious few correct things in his life, but one that is completely true, is that you never know for 100% certain what team will show up on gameday. This is the posterchild of that thought.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:52 AM
#22
Agree on Your Points
However, the Clemson team seemed to have been playing fine right off the bat and looked like they were prepared, ready to go. They punted on the first possession, but after that they were up and firing on all cylinders (more or less). That whole fumble return episode, however, seemed to have F'd with these kids heads, maybe even the coaches. I dunno, it's probably a combination of many things, but something happened. Which is too bad, because they earned this trip to Miami, as did their fans that made the trip, but to say this has been a disappointment for all involved would be an understatement.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:59 AM
#23
What it really shows is that
What it really shows is that the Clemson coaches did not have their players prepared to face adversity. They got fucked on a terrible turnover, and then collapsed.
The opposite is the 2011 Michigan Wolverines, where anytime they faced adversity, they fought back tooth and nail. It didn't always work out, but as the ND game and the Sugar Bowl show you, never giving up a fight will win you some in the end. That is a testament to the leadership of the team, and also the real story of the Sugar Bowl.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:42 AM
#24
The ACC is awful
If Notre Dame was a conference it would be the ACC. Huge hype year after year for teams like FSU, Georgia Tech and Miami only to see the wheels fall off.
January 5th, 2012 at 6:08 AM
#25
UGA
"University (sic) of Georgia" is a thing you guys do? That right there is pretty awesome. Certainly better than scUM, O$U and the like.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:57 AM
#26
Let's not throw Eastern in to
Let's not throw Eastern in to this...
January 5th, 2012 at 12:57 AM
#27
This game is a joke. If I
This game is a joke. If I heard it correctly, didn't Herbstreit pick Clemson in a rout, or words to that effect?
January 5th, 2012 at 12:58 AM
#28
This beat down of Clemson
doesn't make us look very good.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:47 AM
#29
I'm sure that's what all the national CFB fans will remember
</sarasm>
Team 132 was a plucky unit that fought for every inch.
Winning 11 and having a chance to win the other two with five minutes to go takes consistency.
I think we saw intangibles in spades this year that are likely to be passed on to and instilled in future teams by the coaching staff. That's a good thing.
Just wait until this staff has stocked the cupboards with five top-flight recruiting classes.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:14 AM
#30
What about Oregon?
Youngstown State > North Dakota State > Minnesota > Iowa > Michigan > Illinois > Arizona State > USC > Oregon
There are very few teams you can't play this game with. Maybe just two.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:28 AM
#31
Visit this site
http://www.myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/
You can make any team better than just about any other team using the transitive property. It's a nice waste of time
January 5th, 2012 at 10:03 AM
#32
Nice find! Slippery Rock > USC. Garnett oh noes!
BTW -- Slippery Rock is better than USC by transitive property. Chart?
CHART.
| Div II | Slippery Rock | beat | California PA | 17 - 3 | |
| Div II | California PA | beat | CW Post | 41 - 13 | |
| Div II | CW Post | beat | Bloomsburg | 24 - 21 | |
| Div II | Bloomsburg | beat | Ashland | 27 - 20 | |
| Div II | Ashland | beat | Indianapolis | 39 - 36 | |
| Div II | Indianapolis | beat | Grand Valley St | 34 - 33 | |
| Div II | Grand Valley St | beat | W Oregon | 44 - 20 | |
| Div II | W Oregon | beat | Humboldt St | 40 - 24 | |
| Div II | Humboldt St | beat | UC Davis | 23 - 17 | |
| Div I - FCS | UC Davis | beat | CS Sacramento | 23 - 19 | |
| Div I - FCS | CS Sacramento | beat | Oregon St | 29 - 28 | |
| Div I - FBS | Oregon St | beat | Arizona | 37 - 27 | |
| Div I - FBS | Arizona | beat | Arizona St | 31 - 27 | |
| Div I - FBS | Arizona St | beat | USC | 43 - 22 |
I guess Garnett is really considering Slippery Rock
January 5th, 2012 at 1:29 AM
#33
Good Lord
VT probably deserved a BCS more than Clemson did. They were ranked higher, had a better record and beat teams that Clemson lost to. Clemson got bid because they won their championship game against a team that is obviously a bad match-up for them. Is NW a better team than Iowa even though they beat Iowa constantly. By your logic, no one in the B1G deserved a BCS bid because we all had two losses an kicked the crap out of each other at various times.
An why is UM playing the BCS such a big deal to anyway?
January 5th, 2012 at 1:09 AM
#34
Clemson belongs
They earned their way to this game but obviously is having their worst game of the season at the worst time. I certainly feel for the seniors on that team.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:13 AM
#35
Oh well
I was hoping for 80.
Will be interesting to see how Clemson responds to this in the off-season. If they handle adversity this poorly, there could be a hangover into next September.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:27 AM
#36
For all the crap...
For all the crap the Big East gets...the ACC is 2-13 in BCS bowl games. That about says it all
January 5th, 2012 at 1:31 AM
#37
Isn't the answer always
Isn't the answer always Michigan State?
January 5th, 2012 at 1:32 AM
#38
Casteel
Bet ol' Coach Rod is really chomping at the bit to get Casteel now. Probably will.
/shakes fist
/is happy with GREG
January 5th, 2012 at 1:33 AM
#39
too bad it's against West
too bad it's against West Virginia
January 5th, 2012 at 1:42 AM
#40
the big ten might be bad, but it could be worse. at least its not the acc.
January 5th, 2012 at 3:08 AM
#41
If there was ever a way
If there was ever a way for a coach who won 10 games and Coach of the Year honors to land on the hot seat based on his team's performance in a single game, Dabo Swinney just found it.
January 5th, 2012 at 3:42 AM
#42
HEy man
the BCS games have been pretty entertaining and close, there's always a dud game every year, sometimes two. It was bound to happen.
FWIW, I think VTU played their asses off yesterday and had they played like that vs Clemson either time the result could have different.
I'm just pissed because this keeps the Big East in the BCS argument relevant, they needed to get punked by Clemson for that talk to start.
January 5th, 2012 at 4:34 AM
#43
well, if its any consolation
well, if its any consolation WVU is gone from the Big East.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:13 AM
#44
Not that I think the Big East is good
but they're 7-7 in BCS games, the ACC is 2-13.
January 5th, 2012 at 7:00 AM
#45
The Discover Orange Bowl
It was a nightmare for Clemson, to be sure, and I was impressed that Dabo Swinney looked as serene as he did going into the locker room at halftime with a 29-point deficit. Obviously, it had dawned on him that the answer to his playbook is, in fact, West Virginia, of all teams.
My personal favorite was the apparent Clemson fumble (for 3/4 of each bench seemed to be on the pile) at the goal line of WVU which was returned unanswered for a TD by West Virginia as Clemson remained focused on who the hell was at the bottom of the pile. If nothing else, Dabo Swinney's squad is a persistent bunch.
Anyway, this game was one of "those" - it was one of the inevitable "bigger" bowls where one team goes out there and lays an epic turd. Unless the Compass Bowl turns out to truly be a random "WTF is this doing on the schedule after the Champs Sports Bowl" sort of affair, Clemson may be a clear frontrunner for this year's "Sh*t The Bed In My Bowl" award.
January 5th, 2012 at 9:55 AM
#46
YES! It's critical to remember that how you play IN the bowl
is only marginally related to whether you belong there, which was predicated on how you performed PRIOR to that. Nobody seems to get this, each year a few teams shit up the bed, and are then accused of unworthiness. Maybe, maybe not.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:37 AM
#47
January 5th, 2012 at 9:53 AM
#48
Well, Clemson clobbered
the team we barely beat the other night, so there's a. . . kind of. . . chain of worthiness suggested there. .. that, uh, could tarnish us too, no. . . ?
January 5th, 2012 at 10:00 AM
#49
I don't know if you
I don't know if you understand how hard it is to motivate a bunch of kids to play for 14th place. They are in a fun town, getting interviewed, getting gift packages, getting some sun and fun... then they have to get your team up for a game that quite literally means nothing. Win or lose you are in the exact same spot you were before the game (unless you are LSU or Bama this year).
It's not that easy. This entire planet is incentive based. The coach who can create a mythical incentive when there is none is usually the one who comes out on top in these bowl games. Just another reason to NEVER BET ON BOWL GAMES.
January 5th, 2012 at 10:33 AM
#50
Cmon now
The prizes and prebowl attention hit on both teams, so how can they possibly explain a lopsided score??
January 5th, 2012 at 10:55 AM
#51
Against VT, not having a
Against VT, not having a speed receiver hurt us because they could match up one on one and just load the box. Clemson just matches up better with VT than us. Clemson could have played better as well. This was an ugly game for Clemson, but it's repeated over and over that the transitive property doesn't apply all the time and it's still one of the first things whenever stuff like this happens.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:07 PM
#52
Holy Crap....Sparty is Right!
Syracuse best West Virginia by 26 points, and
West Virgina beat Clemson by 37 points, and
Clemson beat Virginia Tech by 28 points......so
Syracuse would beat Virginia Tech by 91 points.
Since Michigan only beat V Tech by 3 points, that means.....
Syracuse would beat Michigan by 88 points.
We would lose to a team that finished 1-6 in the Big East by 88 points.
Wow. Michigan must really suck. Sparty wins.
