I feel like this board overrates how good a program Clemson is historically

[CanadianSU]

I hate Clemson. Sorry. If anyone has lived in sc like me you would see what I mean cuse 24 cu 14

 

[Chip]

They underachieved for far too long. The infrastructure is there. The scary part is that they are accomplishing this with Spurrier succeeding a mere 2 hours away at the hated in state rival. There were times that people thought both schools couldn't play at a high level simultaneously.

I don't think they're going anywhere, they will reload. But for SU's sake, it would be nice if we played them early in a transitional season. This year would have been nice, but playing the game down there makes it that much tougher.

 

[retro44]

we as a fan base can't always keep looking into the past if we want to be better in the future. Syracuse University and the fans together should be looking at today and saying what can we do to make us better now and for tomorrow.

 

[TexanMark]

I hate Clemson. Sorry. If anyone has lived in sc like me you would see what I mean cuse 24 cu 14

Did you live in Myrtle Beach like the rest of Ontario/Quebec?

BTW, I respect the hell out of Clemson...great stadium, gameday atmosphere and passionate fan base. Are they provincial? 100% Yes but they care about their football.

 

[Eric15]

Really? I'd put Pitt, Georgia Tech, and Syracuse ahead of Clemson. In fact I'd put Pitt, GT, and SU ahead of FSU and Miami historically. Virginia Tech is behind Clemson, definitely.

What's your rationale for putting SU ahead of Miami and Florida State, historically or otherwise? Miami has 5 national titles.

 

[Tigertrain]

Clemson was "lost in the wilderness" from 1992 to 2009. We were never really terrible save 1998, but just plain average as a team. The one thing you could count on over that time period was we still had one of the best college football game day experiences around. We still put 80k in the seats on Saturday. That is what the ACC needs.

 

[OrangeCrush22]

What's your rationale for putting SU ahead of Miami and Florida State, historically or otherwise? Miami has 5 national titles.

FSU was an all-girls school from 1905 til 1947. '47 was the first year they played football. They had moderate success in the 60's under Bill Peterson but it wasn't until Bowden's second year, '77, that they took off.

Mimi had sporadic success from the 30's to 60's. In the 70's they were terrible. It wasn't until Schnellenberger's second year, '80, that Miami started to win consistently.

Syracuse had more early success (I just noticed SU never accepted a bowl invite until 1952, despite being eligible often) and sustained it over longer periods of time.

Basically they've accomplished more, but over a shorter period of time, that was my rationale.

 

[HtownOrange]

FSU was an all-girls school from 1905 til 1947. '47 was the first year they played football. They had moderate success in the 60's under Bill Peterson but it wasn't until Bowden's second year, '77, that they took off.

Mimi had sporadic success from the 30's to 60's. In the 70's they were terrible. It wasn't until Schnellenberger's second year, '80, that Miami started to win consistently.

Syracuse had more early success (I just noticed SU never accepted a bowl invite until 1952, despite being eligible often) and sustained it over longer periods of time.

Basically they've accomplished more, but over a shorter period of time, that was my rationale.

I agree with the above and I add that neither Miami nor FSU was noted for using real students to accomplish their championships. Both schools are noted for using questionable athletes. Sure they have more titles but Syracuse enforces academics and behavior. I would stack up our football players as human beings and commercial success and overall leadership in their communities.

 

[Eric15]

FSU was an all-girls school from 1905 til 1947. '47 was the first year they played football. They had moderate success in the 60's under Bill Peterson but it wasn't until Bowden's second year, '77, that they took off.

Mimi had sporadic success from the 30's to 60's. In the 70's they were terrible. It wasn't until Schnellenberger's second year, '80, that Miami started to win consistently.

Syracuse had more early success (I just noticed SU never accepted a bowl invite until 1952, despite being eligible often) and sustained it over longer periods of time.

Basically they've accomplished more, but over a shorter period of time, that was my rationale.

Fair enough - but I think I would have to disagree with you. While SU unquestionably has a very rich football history, we have 1 national title and have finished in the Top 10 of the AP Poll only 5 times in our history. FSU has 3 national titles and 16 Top 10 finishes, and Miami has 5 national titles and 17 Top 10 finishes.

 

[CanadianSU]

Did you live in Myrtle Beach like the rest of Ontario/Quebec?

BTW, I respect the hell out of Clemson...great stadium, gameday atmosphere and passionate fan base. Are they provincial? 100% Yes but they care about their football.

Hahahah, funny you asked. Yes I did live Very close to myrtle.

Wait for it Mark, your thoughts will change when we beat them this year.

 

[TexanMark]

Hahahah, funny you asked. Yes I did live Very close to myrtle.

Wait for it Mark, your thoughts will change when we beat them this year.

Canadian...if you want a cheap trip to Myrtle Beach...Allegiant is flying nonstops twice a week from Syracuse.

https://www.allegiantair.com/route-map

 

[TampaNole]

 

[TampaNole]

 

[Pat Kelly]

FSU was an all-girls school from 1905 til 1947. '47 was the first year they played football. They had moderate success in the 60's under Bill Peterson but it wasn't until Bowden's second year, '77, that they took off.

Mimi had sporadic success from the 30's to 60's. In the 70's they were terrible. It wasn't until Schnellenberger's second year, '80, that Miami started to win consistently.

Syracuse had more early success (I just noticed SU never accepted a bowl invite until 1952, despite being eligible often) and sustained it over longer periods of time.

Basically they've accomplished more, but over a shorter period of time, that was my rationale.

That is an extremely foolish and biased argument