VT can help carry ACC Banner better than Louisville. Lousiville even being in ACC is a joke. They do not belong in ACC. I still can't believe ACC invited Louisville into the league.
Why? Louisville cares about all sports, and has a good basketball and football following. If you want to question a team, let's start and end it with Syracuse.VT can help carry ACC Banner better than Louisville. Lousiville even being in ACC is a joke. They do not belong in ACC. I still can't believe ACC invited Louisville into the league.
Pitt makes sense to me. They care about football and have a strong history. Basketball also isn't a bad team. Maryland leaving for LVille was a huge upgrade, but I would love to have snagged West Virgina and never taken on Syracuse. That trade would be perfect.You're right, Syracuse doesn't belong in ACC either, same goes for Pittsburgh. Back in BCS era, many people said Big East did not deserve an automatic bid to a BCS Bowl because conference was so weak. Then ACC brought in all these weak teams. Doesn't make sense.
ESPN ran an article today saying that the ACC needed for VT to step up and help Clemson carry the league banner since Louisville and FSU have been such disappointments, but as much as a hate to say it, I think a VT win here looks bad on the league from a national perspective.
I'll take it, mind you (VT has it's own street cred that we're trying to build up under Fuente), but what's best for the league right now is for VT to lose a really close, well-played game, and for both teams look really good in the process, and for Clemson to then NOT stub their toe for the rest of the year. That tells the nation that the ACC is not a one-trick pony this season...but also keeps the ACC's top national title hopeful with the most street cred in play for defending their title.
BUT...if we manage to blow all that up, then that's fine, too We can start a new narrative if that ends up being the case (the ACC has yet another powerhouse coming onto the scene).
I dont think Bama would score more than 17 against Clemson though, so it would still be a very close game.I gotta be honest here. I'm in the F the ACC club! You guys weren't around in the 80's when the tobacco road schools ran things. I was and saw how the conference promoted those teams first and everyone else 2nd. It's still happening to a lesser extent, but the football powers actually have some power now.
I LIKE Boston College and VT as programs and almost always root for you guys except when it's counter to Clemson's interests. The rest of the conference... meh.
So I got zero problem with VT being on the rise... The ACC can indeed use all the help it can get. Hopefully Clemson can pull it out and make some noise in the playoffs again this year.
Personally though, I can't see this team competing with Bama this year w/o a TON of improvement out of our offense in general and Bryant in particular. Right now Clemson wouldn't score 10 on Bama.
How many of us really expected to make the playoffs this year though? Going into the the season I expected double digit wins and a New Years six bowl. This team is certainly playoff caliber though. We may not beat Bama this year, but they don't look as good as last year either.I gotta be honest here. I'm in the F the ACC club! You guys weren't around in the 80's when the tobacco road schools ran things. I was and saw how the conference promoted those teams first and everyone else 2nd. It's still happening to a lesser extent, but the football powers actually have some power now.
I LIKE Boston College and VT as programs and almost always root for you guys except when it's counter to Clemson's interests. The rest of the conference... meh.
So I got zero problem with VT being on the rise... The ACC can indeed use all the help it can get. Hopefully Clemson can pull it out and make some noise in the playoffs again this year.
Personally though, I can't see this team competing with Bama this year w/o a TON of improvement out of our offense in general and Bryant in particular. Right now Clemson wouldn't score 10 on Bama.
But VT's defense has been suspect in the passing game (again) and Clemson's offense has looked pretty sporty (again), so I think we can safety ditch any thoughts of holding Clemson in the teens. Just like last year, we'll be doing fairly well to hold Clemson in the 30s.
The good news is...the VT offense has some unexpected pop, so I'm expecting to see quite a bit more than 17 from our side as well.
The ACC is more worried about Duke and UNC Basketball.ACC and that over rated school in Indiana should never be mentioned in the same sentence. The ACC sleeps with that school. I think ACC schools should have refused to have anything at all to do with that school. Not even play them in OOC games in any sport. ACC can survive without any help from Kentucky. Indiana. Ohio.or any other mid west state. I wonder what ACC says about trouble Louisville is in. When those rogues joined ACC I said something like this would happen. They are a dirty school.
It's not just about level of competition, it's about passing the eye test, execution, focus, creative schemes and laying the wood to teams that you should be laying the wood to. Offenses under Beamer frequently stumbled and bumbled about against overmatched opponents. The coaches (and a few fans) then made all kinds of excuses about how those garbage time games didn't really count, but then the offenses ended up dying altogether at some point down the road against real defenses.The Hokies have played the following schedule: #23 West Virginia (3-1), Div.II Delaware, @ East Carolina (1-3), Old Dominion (2-2). I won't list out Delaware, due to the level of competition.
Total Defense: West Virginia #107, East Carolina #130, Old Dominion #98
Rushing Defense: West Virginia #114, East Carolina #124, Old Dominion #91
Passing Defense: West Virginia #63, East Carolina #129, Old Dominion #80
Most of Louisvilles stats were put on the board after Clemson had pulled the starters. Also, I would argue that Clemson's schedule difficulty is light years ahead of VTs to date.Hmmm...since we're posting numbers now...check out the offenses that Clemson has faced so far...
Kent - #127 total offense, #128 scoring offense
Auburn - #68 total offense, #66 scoring offense
Louisville - #8 total offense, #40 scoring offense
BC - #114 total offense, #119 scoring offense
Louisville's offense is good, so that was a good effort holding them to "only" 433 yards and 21 points. The other 3 offenses they've played this year, however, were not much, and 2 of them rank amongst the very worst offenses in the country.
As a point of reference, VT checks in at #14 in total offense and #27 in scoring offense.
Most of Louisvilles stats were put on the board after Clemson had pulled the starters. Also, I would argue that Clemson's schedule difficulty is light years ahead of VTs to date.
Clemson's defense passes the eye test for me, so I know they're good again. But if you're the type of person that likes to posts stats on message boards to make a point about level of competition...well, then, the numbers for Clemson's defense would certainly imply that they're not all that.Most of Louisvilles stats were put on the board after Clemson had pulled the starters. Also, I would argue that Clemson's schedule difficulty is light years ahead of VTs to date.
Wow HR did you see this......I'm confused on who's played the cupcakes?The Hokies have played the following schedule: #23 West Virginia (3-1), Div.II Delaware, @ East Carolina (1-3), Old Dominion (2-2). I won't list out Delaware, due to the level of competition.
Total Defense: West Virginia #107, East Carolina #130, Old Dominion #98
Rushing Defense: West Virginia #114, East Carolina #124, Old Dominion #91
Passing Defense: West Virginia #63, East Carolina #129, Old Dominion #80
VT is in no position to say what's good for the ACC. No offense because y'all seem like great posters, but you're the new kid on the block and haven't brought much of anything to the table. Louisville at least puts eyes on the TV and is nationally ranked in football, basketball and baseball. ND would be a great addition as well in the era of conference expansion.ACC and that over rated school in Indiana should never be mentioned in the same sentence. The ACC sleeps with that school. I think ACC schools should have refused to have anything at all to do with that school. Not even play them in OOC games in any sport. ACC can survive without any help from Kentucky. Indiana. Ohio.or any other mid west state. I wonder what ACC says about trouble Louisville is in. When those rogues joined ACC I said something like this would happen. They are a dirty school.
It's not just about level of competition, it's about passing the eye test, execution, focus, creative schemes and laying the wood to teams that you should be laying the wood to. Offenses under Beamer frequently stumbled and bumbled about against overmatched opponents. The coaches (and a few fans) then made all kinds of excuses about how those garbage time games didn't really count, but then the offenses ended up dying altogether at some point down the road against real defenses.
Fuente offenses (both years so far) don't mess around. Despite having a freshman QB, this year's offense has been precise, dynamic and has operated at an impressively high execution level so far. Very few penalties, almost no turnovers, and Jackson has looked poised and relaxed in the pocket on the way to putting up some monster numbers by VT standards.
No one is saying that VT will hang 64 on Clemson because they hung 64 on ECU (for sure, it's a different level of competition)...but if you're a Clemson fan and you discount an offense that can score that many points in what was basically 2-1/2 quarters of play just because the opponent didn't have "Clemson" written on their jersey...then you're probably going to have the same look on your face on Saturday that you had last year during the ACCCG. SOS aside, it only takes about 5 minutes watching this offense to see that it has some pop to it. The 1st half of the WVU game was pretty slow out of the gate, but this offense has been on fire ever since halftime of that game. So anyone who is expecting VT to get shut down better have a bottle of Tums handy...because VT is going to move the ball and they're going to score some points.
And win or lose, you Clemson guys have fun watching Jackson. Like I said, he's just a freshman...so you're going to be looking at him for a long time. It will be reminiscent of when the rest of the league watched Watson his freshman season...and we all went "Uh oh" together.
As a point of reference, VT checks in at #14 in total offense and #27 in scoring offense.
What exactly has Fuente won as a head coach for his resume to “speak for itself”? If Dabo only had Fuente’s resume I would feel more confident about this game...Lol, do you think this only happens to Clemson? Also, we're only 4 games into the season, so a game where a team puts up a high volume of yards against someone can skew the statistical rankings somewhat. I'm not saying that's definitely happened with VT, nor am I arguing that VT's schedule is as tough as Clemson's thus far. But I think Fuente's resume speaks for itself apropos of our offensive ranking, and I think it's even more impressive that we've managed a top 15 offense considering our stinker against Delaware (303 total yards).
Wow, you're dense. The reason Clemson's defense checks in at #3 is BECAUSE they've played 3 really bad offenses, 2 of which rank in the bottom 10 in the country. And now you're going up against the best offense you've seen yet this year?They check in at #14, BECAUSE they've played 3 defenses ranking in the lower 1/3 of D1 football and an FCS team. Now, to go up against a #3 overall defense? Temper your expectations.
Fuente took the worst college football program in the entire country and turned it into a 10 win, ranked, bowl winner in 3 years time. Dabo has never come close to showing that kind of coaching chops, and he never will.What exactly has Fuente won as a head coach for his resume to “speak for itself”? If Dabo only had Fuente’s resume I would feel more confident about this game...
Wow, you're dense. The reason Clemson's defense checks in at #3 is BECAUSE they've played 3 really bad offenses, 2 of which rank in the bottom 10 in the country. And now you're going up against the best offense you've seen yet this year?
So how's this for tempered expectations...I promise you that on Sunday, Clemson will not still be ranked #3 in the country in total defense. Please feel free to revisit the board next week and congratulate me on being right.
And for the record, VT's starters played sparingly in the 2nd halves in those games you mentioned above. If Fuente was just about big numbers against bad opponents, the carnage could've been much, much worse, and VT's offensive rankings could've been much, much higher. But he sat the starters in those games because they executed the game plan as well as any offense he's ever had. Fuente is hard to please, and he's been thrilled with this offense so far, which is more than good enough for me.
Fuente took the worst college football program in the entire country and turned it into a 10 win, ranked, bowl winner in 3 years time. Dabo has never come close to showing that kind of coaching chops, and he never will.
Wow, you're dense. The reason Clemson's defense checks in at #3 is BECAUSE they've played 3 really bad offenses, 2 of which rank in the bottom 10 in the country. And now you're going up against the best offense you've seen yet this year?
So how's this for tempered expectations...I promise you that on Sunday, Clemson will not still be ranked #3 in the country in total defense. Please feel free to revisit the board next week and congratulate me on being right.
VT is in no position to say what's good for the ACC. No offense because y'all seem like great posters, but you're the new kid on the block and haven't brought much of anything to the table.
I disagree as a Tiger fan. VT ( when FSU was down)football carried the ACC for a few years until about 2011.
Why don't you "man up" and predict a shutout for your dominant defense? If VT's offense isn't nearly as good as the numbers would suggest and Clemson's defense is God's Gift to mankind, then what are you scared of?Why don't you really "man up" and predict your dominant offense will score 40 and stay in the top 25 in scoring average? I'd check back for that!
Yes...a simple play that Clemson's defense was not good enough to stop, so Fuente kept calling it over and over. And it kept working over and over.You're best play in the ACC CG was Evans QB keepers.
So how's this for tempered expectations...I promise you that on Sunday, Clemson will not still be ranked #3 in the country in total defense. Please feel free to revisit the board next week and congratulate me on being right.
Why don't you "man up" and predict a shutout for your dominant defense?
I cringe sometimes when I watch Louisville's offense. It's one incredibly exciting player scrambling around trying to invent plays from nothing, but he doesn't get a lot of help and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme, reason or focus to the plays being called.Better than the offense at Louisville? You seem to not understand just how good this Clemson defense is. Don't worry, you will after Saturday night.
Yes...a simple play that Clemson's defense was not good enough to stop, so Fuente kept calling it over and over. And it kept working over and over.
VT had 386 total yards and 35 points in that game...so it's very lucky for you that we didn't have any more good plays, or you would've lost that game pretty handily.
Heck, you BARELY hung on and won against all the bad plays we were calling.
The final score was 1 score difference. You cannot claim garbage time because in this game there was no garbage time. We pulled within 1 score of you early in the 4th so you had to keep 1st string in the game. In fact at the end of the game we had one drive left going for the tie at your 23 but failed. So I think everyone here can agree that this was a pretty close game. Much closer than anyone expected. I will be elated if the same were to occur for this game.You're kind of a "I know you are but what am I?" guy aren't you?
Louisville had a great game against us last year and thought that that would matter this year. They were wrong, very wrong.
As much as you think you "almost won" last year, the realty was you battled late to keep it close, it was a 3 TD game with 2 minutes to go in the 3rd.
again...fact checking!
The final score was 1 score difference. You cannot claim garbage time because in this game there was no garbage time. We pulled within 1 score of you early in the 4th so you had to keep 1st string in the game. In fact at the end of the game we had one drive left going for the tie at your 23 but failed. So I think everyone here can agree that this was a pretty close game. Much closer than anyone expected. I will be elated if the same were to occur for this game.