This post was edited on 9/5 6:19 PM by SGamecock3

Pretty sure we are on the same page with the Auburn win - I think in my post you quoted plus my other posts I have said Auburn is a 'solid' win maybe 100 times.  You say the same several times.  Seems we violently agree on that.  Where we disagree is on Vanderbilt - which you think is not a good win and I think is a solid win.  We disagree - no problem.  In final support of my opinion, I have yet to see any unbiased national talking heads say Vanderbilt is a bad team.  Almost to a person you hear things like "get out with a win any way you can", "USC gutted one out", "it's not how you win but the win that matters", etc.  Nobody is calling Vandy a world-beater, but they are a solid team.  You disagree - I understand.

As for 2011 - yes I agree we own that as if we beat Auburn then we win the East.  We lost.  However in common opponents you leave out the fact that we beat UGA on the road, which gives us the tiebreaker.  So the Auburn loss and the UGA win effectively balance each other out.  What you are left with then is UGA played Ole Miss and we played Arkansas.  They won and we lost - therefore they won the East.  Scheduling absolutely did matter and played an important role, although you won't get any argument from me that we should have just beaten Auburn.

This post was edited on 9/5 11:35 PM by MotorCityChicken

I also would say that USC deserves some credit for finishing games, which at this point is a trend so means something is going right - whether it's conditioning, mental toughness, etc.  USC's style is also conducive to playing many close games - run the ball and play good defense.  Some of that might be due to inability to successfully complete a forward pass, but it is what it is.  Might not be pretty, but it's effective.  Now could that change?  Of course - but the trend is such that it would indicate USC might be doing something right, vs other teams just not finishing.

For example the Vandy game - from the 1 minute mark left in the 3rd qtr, USC went on to have 3 drives that totaled 23 plays, 122 yards, 1 TD, and first down late in the 4th to seal it.  Vandy had 2 drives for 16 yards.  USC dominated the final 16mins and finished the game.

This post was edited on 9/5 11:40 PM by MotorCityChicken

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:

 

Quoting a small portion to save space (good idea by you).  Disappointed to see the small 'attack' on my intelligence, but no harm no foul - I know discussions like this can get frustrating when people don't agree with you.  Will try to sum up the discussion in this post to keep the length down - been a fun one.

That's what you get when you try to make a ridiculous argument.

Pretty sure we are on the same page with the Auburn win - I think in my post you quoted plus my other posts I have said Auburn is a 'solid' win maybe 100 times.  You say the same several times.  Seems we violently agree on that.  Where we disagree is on Vanderbilt - which you think is not a good win and I think is a solid win.  We disagree - no problem.  In final support of my opinion, I have yet to see any unbiased national talking heads say Vanderbilt is a bad team.  Almost to a person you hear things like "get out with a win any way you can", "USC gutted one out", "it's not how you win but the win that matters", etc.  Nobody is calling Vandy a world-beater, but they are a solid team.  You disagree - I understand.

 

Well, here's thing. It's never "bad" to win. So when you hear a commentator say "get out with a win any way you can," that's where they are coming from. You confuse that to mean the win was "solid." Here's a good example. At the end of the South Carolina/Vanderbilt game, the commentators asked the question, "Is South Carolina a top 10 team?" None of them trashed South Carolina, but they made comments like, "They didn't look like it tonight." Then they made what is a more imortant comment. They said, "If South Carolina plays like this against other teams down the road (one specifically mentioned Georgia) then they are in trouble." Now contrast that with the Clemson/Auburn game. Did the commentators at any time say, "Does Clemson look like a top 15 team?" Did they ever say, "If Clemson plays like that against _______ they are in trouble?" No. You didn't hear any comments even remotely suggesting anything like that. Why is that? Because as apparently everybody but you realizes, Auburn is a good (again, not great) team, and Vanderbilt isn't. Now before you say it, I don't base the validity of my position on the opinions of any commentators. However, since your brought up the "talking heads" it's applicable, because it directly refutes your assertion.

As for 2011 - yes I agree we own that as if we beat Auburn then we win the East.  We lost.  However in common opponents you leave out the fact that we beat UGA on the road, which gives us the tiebreaker.  So the Auburn loss and the UGA win effectively balance each other out.  What you are left with then is UGA played Ole Miss and we played Arkansas.  They won and we lost - therefore they won the East.  Scheduling absolutely did matter and played an important role, although you won't get any argument from me that we should have just beaten Auburn.

I'm not leaving out the fact that you beat Georgia. I said common opponents. Georgia cannot play themselves, (just as South Carolian can't play themselves). Therefore Georgia is not a common opponent. I'm not concerned about the outcome of the East race last year. The problem is that you misunderstood the context in which I made that comment. When I made the comment earlier about Vanderbilt and Auburn switching divisions and what their relative success would be, the purpose of the comment was not to compare schedules. What I was doing was comparing the talent level of each team. Strength of schedule is not always the determining factor in the success of a team. For example, let's take Duke. Duke sucks. They normally only win one or two games year, and most of the time those are OOC games against AA teams. They lose most of their ACC games. Now suppose we put Duke in the SEC. What would their record look like then? Well, they would probably only win one or two games, mostly against AA teams OOC. The point being, their talent is below-average, so are going to lose to most teams they play, regardless. That's was I'm saying about Vanderbilt when I made that comparison. (Although I'll point out Vanderbilt isn't as bad as Duke.) What I'm pointing out is that Vanderbilt's talent is also below-average in comparison to most teams, especially in the SEC. However, Auburn is team that at least has a decent level of talent. Auburn went 8-5 last year. Three of those losses were to the #'s 1, 2, and 5 teams in the country. With the level of talent Auburn has, substituting some lower-ranked or unranked teams for the ones they played would logically result in a better record. The same can't be said of Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt can lose Florida or Tennessee just easily as they could LSU or Alabama. Again, because their talent is below-average. Auburn, however, at least has competitive talent, so they could easily hold their own with a Florida or Tennessee-level team. (They beat Florida, and South Carolina, last year.) Again, I shouldn't have to explain this.

I agree - a win is a win and a loss is a loss - but sure seems pretty consistent and solid play to me.  They were not an easy out in any game other Bama, which as you say for these convos you throw Bama and LSU out b/c they are a different level.  So my conclusion is that Vandy seemed to be a far more consistent team than Auburn last year.  For example they played UGA and Arky almost dead even (outplayed Arky actually) - and both of those team totally annihilated Auburn.  How do we explain that - is it coaching?  Or is it talent?  Or is that they "way" you lose doesn't matter, only that you lost?  I think most talking heads realized that last year at home Vandy went 5-2...destroying Ole Miss and Kentucky, and coming within a hair of beating both UGA and Arky.  I'm sorry - just doesn't seem that sucky to me - which is why most folks consider just getting out of there with a win a good job.  As for the not top 10 comment - I agree completely - as Palmer said "based on this performance" we are not top 10.  Of course he and everyone else know that one week doesn't predict how you will play the rest of the season, and getting a tough SEC road win is always a good thing (versus say beating UAB).

This post was edited on 9/6 4:58 AM by MotorCityChicken

When are you going to do the same instead of turn your words and others???

When are you going to add anything without spin???

You lost again wait for another topic

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:
Wait - I thought Tennessee isn't any good?  Hard to keep up sometimes.  Anyway, if we're playing the transitive property game, and if the argument is that Auburn is a solid team, and Clemson beat Auburn by 7 points, which announcers thought was pretty cool, then how do you explain Vanderbilt's losing performances from last season?  By losing "well" do they get the same credit you are giving Auburn?  Again - not saying they are equal (never did), and I agree that Auburn gets bonus points for beating USC and UF.  They also looked very Vandy-ish in their SEC losses - not only did they lose - they lost HUGE and UGLY.  Meanwhile Vandy pretty much played heads up with everyone and showed far more consistency - UGA, Arky (should have won), UF, and UT (should have won)...and destroyed UK and Ole Miss.

 

Now you are just embarassing yourself. I'll start with the simple argument. Last year Auburn was 8-5, Vanderbilt was 6-7, but Vanderbilt showed "far more consistency." Yeah, ok. That makes perfect sense. The team with a losing record showed more consistency that the team with the winning record. It's amazing that in the limited space of the human skull, you have enough room to twist your brain into such extreme contortions.

There is no transitive property in use here. You got mad at the comment made about your intelligence, but when you continually have issues comprehending simple, straightforward statements, you open the door for the question. Nowhere in my last post did I suggest Auburn should get "credit" for losing by 7. I wasn't making any argument at all. Let me ONCE AGAIN, go back and show you the comment I was responding to and the context in which I was responding. You said:

I have yet to see any unbiased national talking heads say Vanderbilt is a bad team. Almost to a person you hear things like "get out with a win any way you can", "USC gutted one out", "it's not how you win but the win that matters", etc.

 

To that, I made this point:

when you hear a commentator say "get out with a win any way you can," that's where they are coming from. You confuse that to mean the win was "solid." Here's a good example. At the end of the South Carolina/Vanderbilt game, the commentators asked the question, "Is South Carolina a top 10 team?" None of them trashed South Carolina, but they made comments like, "They didn't look like it tonight." Then they made what is a more imortant comment. They said, "If South Carolina plays like this against other teams down the road (one specifically mentioned Georgia) then they are in trouble." Now contrast that with the Clemson/Auburn game. Did the commentators at any time say, "Does Clemson look like a top 15 team?" Did they ever say, "If Clemson plays like that against _______ they are in trouble?" No. You didn't hear any comments even remotely suggesting anything like that.

 

So let me streamline all this. You claimed that no objective observers were saying Vanderbilt is a bad team. You also implied most observers thought Carolina's win was solid. What I was pointing was that in fact, objective observers did question the quality of South Carolina's win (and by extension Vanderbilt), as evidenced by the comments of the announcers. On the contrary, no such questions were raised about Clemson. So the question is, why? Both Clemson and Carolina won low-scoring games over unranked teams by single digits. That being the case, why was South Carolina questioned after the win, but Clemson wasn't, given that both games were so similar? Well, the answer is obvious. The quality of the opponent. So what I was doing was responding specifically to your claim that no objectives observers were saying Vanderbilt was a bad team, and by extension questioning South Carolina. This margin of loss comparison between Auburn and Vanderbilt is not the issue.

I agree - a win is a win and a loss is a loss - but sure seems pretty consistent and solid play to me.  They were not an easy out in any game other Bama, which as you say for these convos you throw Bama and LSU out b/c they are a different level.  So my conclusion is that Vandy seemed to be a far more consistent team than Auburn last year.  For example they played UGA and Arky almost dead even (outplayed Arky actually) - and both of those team totally annihilated Auburn.  How do we explain that - is it coaching?  Or is it talent?  Or is that they "way" you lose doesn't matter, only that you lost?  I think most talking heads realized that last year at home Vandy went 5-2...destroying Ole Miss and Kentucky, and coming within a hair of beating both UGA and Arky.  I'm sorry - just doesn't seem that sucky to me - which is why most folks consider just getting out of there with a win a good job.  As for the not top 10 comment - I agree completely - as Palmer said "based on this performance" we are not top 10.  Of course he and everyone else know that one week doesn't predict how you will play the rest of the season, and getting a tough SEC road win is always a good thing (versus say beating UAB).

Again, my simple response, Auburn was 8-5. Vanderbilt was 6-7. When you try to argue that a team with a losing record was "more consistent" that a team 3 games over .500, that's completely asinine.

They were asked who their best candidates for 'bounce back' this week are - Kiper said Michigan and McShay said USC.  

McShay said about USC - "they got a win against a very good Vanderbilt team, so don't know if it's really a bounce back, but they are a team that struggled in week 1 that I think is going to go on and have a lot of success."

Even I don't understand this debate.

Both fan bases are happy to win game 1.

Time for the next game.

I'm extremely consistent with my opinions - would love for you to join in if you have opinions and thoughts of your own to offer. No problem if you think I 'lost' - since we're just offering opinions - as I agree topdeck has made lots of good points and arguments.  It's been a fun discussion.

The discussion though is about whether both wins were 'solid', or if only Auburn is good and Vandy is not.

Let's look at common opponents from 2011:

USC: Auburn W (16-13), Vandy L (21-3)...adv Auburn

UGA: Auburn L (45-7) , Vandy L (33-28)...adv Vandy

Arky: Auburn L (38-14), Vandy L (31-28)...adv Vandy

Bama: Auburn L (42-14), Vandy L (34-0)...push

Ole Miss: Auburn W (41-23), Vandy W (30-7)...push

UF: Auburn W (17-6), Vandy L (26-21)...adv Auburn

So if you take out wins and losses and just look at performance, it's a push.  Wins and losses - Auburn went 3-3 and Vandy went 1-5.  But Vandy 'looked better' in 2 of their losses.  I think I said before that Vandy was 'more' consistent, so I take that back as it was wrong.  It was a relative push.

Now look at the 2 games that weren't common opponents...Auburn got drilled by LSU 45-10 and beat MSU 41-34.  Vandy drilled Kentucky 38-8 and lost to UT 27-21.  Again pretty close.

So contrary to popular opinion in this thread - I am not trying to say that Vandy and Auburn are equal.  What I am trying to say is i'm not really sure how you look at all of that and form the conclusion that Auburn is good and Vandy sucks.  My very simple and humble opinion all along has been that both USC and Clemson should be happy to be 1-0 with two solid wins. The disagreement comes where people think Vandy is not a solid win, and there is a gaping hole between Auburn and Vandy. I don't see it

This post was edited on 9/7 1:09 AM by MotorCityChicken

If i'm arguing only Ws and Ls though, then I would simply say Clemson is 1-0 and USC is 1-0, and Vandy is 0-1 and Auburn is 0-1.  Both Vandy and Auburn lost by similar margins to two teams ranked closely to each, so therefore with that logic i'm not sure at this point how anyone could come to a conclusion that one was "good" and one was "bad".  They are both 0-1.

As for the third paragraph - the piece you are missing is that USC is/was a top 10 team and Clemson is not.  Therefore expectations are higher for USC.  Nobody I have heard (other than this board) has questioned the quality of the Vandy win, only how USC looked in winning the game.  That is relative to how people expected USC to look, and those expectations are higher for USC than for Clemson.  It's all about expectations.  USC looked worse than people expected on offense, and I would argue as good or better than expected on defense.  However defense doesn't have the sizzle of offense, so people focus on the offense.  No problem - I agree - relative to expectations USC didn't look good on offense...not like a top 10 team which they are expected to be.  But it doesn't mean it wasn't a solid win.  Your expectation may be that Clemson and USC are similar teams, but that expectation going into the season is not shared nationally.  Therefore it's more than just the quality of the opponent, it's the performance relative to expectations.  People expect more from USC.

As for me getting 'mad' or having limited intelligence - don't worry about that - nothing anyone ever says on a message board will ever make me 'mad'.  You can have whatever opinion of me you want - all good.  I can assure you 43 and others have certainly tried to make me 'mad' - which in the message board world is just a silly notion.  To me it's simply an entertaining and challenging deal to 'argue' with folks who share different opinions than me.  I learn a lot and it's fun.  I find it's usually easier to try to understand the opposition's views and opinions versus just getting frustrated by them and calling them dumb...no matter how much I disagree.  Anything beyond that is more of an ego thing than an argument/discussion - and sometimes it's tough to put ego aside.

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:

 

As for the third paragraph - the piece you are missing is that USC is/was a top 10 team and Clemson is not.  Therefore expectations are higher for USC.  Nobody I have heard (other than this board) has questioned the quality of the Vandy win, only how USC looked in winning the game.  That is relative to how people expected USC to look, and those expectations are higher for USC than for Clemson.  It's all about expectations.  USC looked worse than people expected on offense, and I would argue as good or better than expected on defense.  However defense doesn't have the sizzle of offense, so people focus on the offense.  No problem - I agree - relative to expectations USC didn't look good on offense...not like a top 10 team which they are expected to be.  But it doesn't mean it wasn't a solid win.  Your expectation may be that Clemson and USC are similar teams, but that expectation going into the season is not shared nationally.  Therefore it's more than just the quality of the opponent, it's the performance relative to expectations.  People expect more from USC.

 

You're flat out wrong. The reason people are questioning South Carolina is because they looked bad AGAINST VANDERBILT. If you had been playing Tennessee, or Florida, or even Auburn, and the game turned out exactly the same, no one would have questioned South Carolina. Let's use Auburn, since they are at the heart of this. If you had beaten Auburn 17-13, then nobody (outside of some Clemson fans) would have questioned your team at all. The announcers would not have made the comments about you that I referred to in a previous post. That was the entire point. One specific point that the announcers made was the if you played like that later on in the year, you would be in trouble. Now anybody with common sense knows what they meant: You can get away with playing like that against Vanderbilt, but not better teams. You heard similiar comments about Florida after they narrowly defeated Bowling Green last week. If Florida had beaten, say, Georgia Tech 24-14, would anyone have questioned Florida? Of course not. So why were they questioned after the Bowling Green game? It's because they struggled against a LESSER OPPONENT.

As for me getting 'mad' or having limited intelligence - don't worry about that - nothing anyone ever says on a message board will ever make me 'mad'.  You can have whatever opinion of me you want - all good.  I can assure you 43 and others have certainly tried to make me 'mad' - which in the message board world is just a silly notion.  To me it's simply an entertaining and challenging deal to 'argue' with folks who share different opinions than me.  I learn a lot and it's fun.  I find it's usually easier to try to understand the opposition's views and opinions versus just getting frustrated by them and calling them dumb...no matter how much I disagree.  Anything beyond that is more of an ego thing than an argument/discussion - and sometimes it's tough to put ego aside.

Well this kind of goes to the hear of it. For some reason, you can't distinguish between figures of speech that most people use in casual conversation. For example, I didn't mean that you literally got "mad" at any comments I made. If you want to be hyper techincal, what I meant was you "didn't like" my comments. People commonly use the term "mad" as a convenient way to refer to someone disliking a something. The average person understands this. Another example would be the comment I made about contorting your brain. That wasn't a comment on your intelligence. What I was simply saying was that you spin things. I just used hyperbole and imagery to "dress up " the comment and make it a little more creative. Again, most people would realize the meaning and understand it's a figure of speech. Where this is important in relation to this conversation is the comment I made about Vanderbilt not having Andre Ellington or DeAndre Hopkins. I was not suggesting that it was solely these two players that would make the difference in comparison with Vanderbilt. I was using those two as a metaphor to illustrate the disparity between the overall talent level of Vanderbilt vs.Clemson. I did that to make the point that Vanderbilt wouldn't have the talent to equalize any deficiencies on the line like Clemson did. Most people would understand that reference. You however, took my reference hyper-literally,and tried to specifically match Ellington and Hopkins point for point. Basically, you got so hung up on a minute point, you lost the bigger picture. I didn't go into the drawn-out explanation I just made for two reasons. One, most people get the reference. Two, it's kind of like a joke. Once you have to explain it, it's not funny.

Consensus seems to be - whether folks like it or not - that we played below expectations but still came away with a big road win and against a good team. ?That's as clearly as I can say it. ?I've heard it said by just about every single person nationally who has made a comment about our game. ?I agree. ?Vandy is a solid team and a road win there is a good win.

Obviously if we play that way later in the year we likely aren't going to reach our goals, like winning the East. ?We'd lose to the better teams on our schedule..like UGA and Arkansas (assuming LSU is a loss which it should be).

No worries or need for long explanation on the other stuff - doesn't really matter to me like I said. ?Just doesn't do anything to support a point or an argument, so no real use for it either way on my side. ?I do like a good joke though.

This post was edited on 9/7 7:03 AM by MotorCityChicken

Only question is could we still have won playing that way against say Auburn.

History says NO

Vandy is a solid win because it's a conference game.  Being on the road makes it a good game to win.

Auburn is a good win for Clemson because it's an ACC-SEC matchup against a historically solid team.

Both fans are happy with the wins.

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:

 

Actually - one question is could we have beaten Auburn playing the way we did, as it was obvious to everyone that on offense we didn't play up to expectations. ?On defense we did. ?We played below expectations as an overall team - period - and expectations were that we would play like a top 10 team. ?Doesn't matter who we played - people would say the same about the performance. ?Only question is could we still have won playing that way against say Auburn.

Consensus seems to be - whether folks like it or not - that we played below expectations but still came away with a big road win and against a good team. ?That's as clearly as I can say it. ?I've heard it said by just about every single person nationally who has made a comment about our game. ?I agree. ?Vandy is a solid team and a road win there is a good win.

 

Yes, the question is could you have beaten Auburn playing the way you did. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT. I'll go back to the commentators. They said (paraphrasing), "If South Carolina plays like this against other teams, they will get beat." The point being, you can get away with playing like that against Vanderbilt, but not other teams. Ok, Vanderbilt is a team you can get away with not playing good against, then by definition they don't consider Vanderbilt to be a good team.

People would not have said the same thing about your performance no matter who you played. If you had played Georgia, the announcers would not have questioned you at all. You know it, you just don't want to admit it in the forum.

Consensus is not that you got a "big road win" against a "good team." As I pointed out, the announcers during the game said that. What you are doing is claiming that if you can find just one person who agrees that South Carolina got a big win, it proves your point. It doesn't.

Vanderbilt is not a solid team. Solid teams don't have losing records. You cannot argue otherwise.

 

Obviously if we play that way later in the year we likely aren't going to reach our goals, like winning the East. ?We'd lose to the better teams on our schedule..like UGA and Arkansas (assuming LSU is a loss which it should be).

 

EXACTLY!! That was the exact point! If you play that way over the rest of the year, you are going to lose games. Yet, that performance--which you are saying is going to be insufficient to beat other teams--was enought to beat Vanderbilt. Well, if a subpar performance is good enough to beat Vanderbilt, but not good enough to beat other teams, then what the hell does that say about Vanderbilt? This is the point.

 

This post was edited on 9/7 7:03 AM by MotorCityChicken

---

This post was edited on 9/7 6:26 PM by MotorCityChicken

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:
Topdeck - now you're not listening. USC is a top 10 team - therefore they are expected to be able to beat 'good' teams without their A game, which is exactly what happened, and why Palmer made the comment. Although not sure why you keep repeating the announcer comments since it appears you don't put any stock in what those folks say. I bet if we roll back the game we can find somewhere where they also call Vandy a good or solid team. Would you agree the since you're doing similar as me and basing your some of your premise on one line from the end of the game made by one announcer? Much more flimsy than the many 'announcers' who have called it a solid win for USC and said Vandy is a good team. Again - the two can coexist b/c USC is a top 10 team...better than good.

No, I am listening. What you are just saying is wrong. You just contradicted yourself. You said:

 USC is a top 10 team - therefore they are expected to be able to beat 'good' teams without their A game

Ok, so if USC is expected to beat good teams without their A game, then why would anyone make the comment that USC would be in trouble if they played, for example, Georgia? Georgia is a good team. You just said USC is expected to beat teams good teams without their A game. So if that's the case, why couldn't they beat Georgia (or whoever)? Because again, Vanderbilt is not a good team. Good teams don't have losing records. Plain and simple.

I'm not putting any stock into the announcers whatsoever. I'm bringing them up because you made the comment that "nearly everyone" said Vanderbilt was a solid team. If "nearly everyone" said that, then I should have been forced to make a long and extensive search to find someone who disagreed. My point in bringing up the announcers was that I didn't even have to look past the game itself to find someone who disagreed with your premise. THAT'S why I keep bringing up the announcers. It's not because the announcers are a good source. It's because they illustrate how easy it was to find someone to disprove your point.

I would also point out that you have no basis in fact to claim that "nearly everyone" agrees that Vanderbilt is a good team. You just throw the claim out there and expect me to take on good faith. I reject that. The only way I will accept your point is if you can provide evidence, and evidence constitutes more than one example. You would have to find A LOT of examples.

Or maybe we are just talking about defining 'good' - and our definitions of good are simply different - that is fine. I would consider both Auburn and Vandy solid teams...not great and not bad...just solid teams that the best teams should beat but cannot sleep on. But if the best teams show up to play, then it shouldn't be an issue...for example what both UGA and Arky did to Auburn in 2011.

Vanderbilt is not a solid team. Again, you can't claim that 6-7 team is on the same level as an 8-5 team. Your argument is lost right there. I can easily go further and demonstrate the point, but it's unnecessary, because that one fact is irrefutable. A 6-7 team is not as good as an 8-5 team. Not anywhere in this universe.

---

This post was edited on 9/7 9:48 PM by MotorCityChicken

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:
1. I have not seen you show me an announcer who said Vandy is a bad team. Heck, even one when speaking of them hasn't called them good or solid. I have seen numerous who have. What you showed me is an announcer who said USC didn't play like a top 10 team. See - there are elite teams and top 25 teams, and then there are good and solid teams. Then there are crap teams. USC won't beat other elite teams playing like they did, which means they won't win the East. Could they beat Vandy - a solid team - sure. They could also lose to a solid team if not careful. That is my opinion. If you want to draw a different line in defining a solid team than the majority of America and people who cover football (and me - who just happens to share that opinion) - that is fine - but I wouldn't call everyone else wrong or stupid for having a different, shared, majority opinion. It's an opinion - they are fun to discuss - and neither right nor wrong. I enjoy reading you argue yours against mine.

When an announcer says, "If South Carolina plays like this against other teams, they will lose," that is a clear implication that Vaderbilt is not a good team. That is an entirely different statement from the one about not playing like a top 10 team. What the announcer meant was, Vanderbilt is bad enough that USC can get away with playing like, but if they play a good team, they won't be able to. See, you are playing a little game here. You are trying to claim that since the comment wasn't spelled out specifically, word for word, that the idea is somehow invalid. It's not. Anyone observing this impartially will know that if someone makes the comment, "You will get beat if you play like this against other teams," it is a natural implication that the team you are playing wasn't very good. There is no argument to that point.

To your other point, a majority of those who cover college football do not consider Vanderbilt a solid team. You are just wrong when you say that. You haven't proven that for one thing. But even besides that, just common sense tells you that a majority of people who cover football will never say that a 6-7 team is solid, and surely won't say a 6-7 team is in league with an 8-5 team. This has to be one of your all-time most ridiculous claims. Teams with losing records are not solid. End of story.

2. Auburn is a 3pt dog to Miss State this weekend. What type of team would you consider MSU, a team who is 0-12 under Mullen against the West when you take away Ole Miss (a crap team)? I think MSU is solid, just like Vandy and Auburn. I know - Vegas is stupid and stuff - but I imagine more people will also pick MSU to win. Of course the on the field result is what matters - but you get my point - in how others view and lump those teams - which are solid teams. Also, I explained in another post breaking down each game and 'how' Vandy played compared to Auburn, and the results were pretty close. That post has not been commented on - i thought it was an interesting analysis. I also said I'm fine simply arguing Ws and Ls if we want to go that route - so it win't work to try to paint me in a corner here - argument works and opinion stays consistent no matter which way you want to go. I'm fine with either. Vandy and Auburn are both solid wins and both teams should be pleased.

Point spreads are not evidence. They hold no weight in this debate. They are completely irrelevant.

I don't care what type of team Mississippi St is. I don't care at all. I'm making a simple argument here. I'm saying Vanderbilt is not a good team. The reason Auburn is involved in this discussion is that you made the claim that Vanderbilt and Auburn are similar teams (before you tried to walk it back), and I said you were wrong, and in fact you are.

I am so glad you brought up that post about your comparison of Auburn and Vanderbilt, because I did in fact comment on it. I simply used your own numbers. Against common opponents last year, Auburn was 3-3 and Vanderbilt was 1-5. I don't need to say any more than that. My point was proven before I even responded. It's completely irrelevant what the score was or how many yards they had. Against common opponents, Auburn was .500 and Vanderbilt was .167. That's a difference of .333 in their winning percentage against common opponents. To quote that famous line, "That's the only argument I need."

However, I expand on it anyway. Every single team Auburn lost to was ranked last year. They lost to the national champs, the runners up, the #5 team in the country, the SEC East champs, and the ACC champs. They won their bowl game over an ACC team. Vanderbilt lost to two unranked teams, one with a losing record, and lost their bowl game to a Big East team. Auburn also beat the #9 team in the country on the road, for good measure. Vanderbilt, by contrast, did not beat a team with a winning record last year. (Auburn by contrast beat 5 teams with winning records.)

Basically what you have just done here is bring a knife to a nuclear war.

No problem with you having that opinion - it's just a minority opinion - nothing wrong with that.  I do find it interesting though that you keep wanting to attack my opinion as if it's simple-minded, or crazy, or just dumb.  Not really the way to approach an argument, but to each his own.  I think there is plenty of value to your opinion - I just disagree with it as does most everyone who follows or speaks/writes about college football.  Doesn't mean I think you are wrong or not smart - you just have a different opinion...and now we know that your opinion is 'teams with losing records are not solid'.  Fair enough - Auburn and Vandy are both 0-1.  I think they are both solid teams, you think they are both bad teams.  What Palmer meant (and this was pretty obvious), is that USC can't get away playing like that and expect to remain in the top 10 or win the East.  He is correct.  Reference my previous post about elite, top 25, solid, and bad teams.  There are more categories than just "good" and "bad"...IMHO

Knife to a nuclear war - kinda funny.  But another example of an "attack" on an opinion to try to prove you're "right", which is not really how an argument works.  It might make you feel better - like your'e hammering a point you think is important - but it doesn't really add anything.  I'm with you - we can do Ws and Ls - and in that case both Vandy and Auburn are 0-1 and are bad teams.  We will find out on 10/20 which team is worse.  I also never said Vandy and Auburn were "equal" - I very specifically had Auburn in a higher 'tier' than Vandy when I was asked.  But I still believe both were solid wins for USC and Clemson - thus my argument.

Miss State is actually a little bit relevant - since they were 6-6 last season just like Vandy, and they are a 3-point favorite against Auburn this weekend.  Now of course they finished 7-6 and Vandy finished 6-7, but guess who Miss State played in their bowl game?  Wake.  Beat them by 6 after Vandy beat them at Wake by 34 in the last game of the year.  If only Vandy had played Wake in their bowl game and went 7-6...I guess then you would consider them a solid team?

Conclusion?  Most folks would probably put Auburn, Vandy, and Miss State in a similar clump of 'solid' teams - I know I would.  Sure maybe there is a little separation there and i'd put Auburn slightly ahead of both - but they're all solid.

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:

 

We disagree - I get it.  McShay actually said Vandy is a "very good team".  The guy who made your comment actually picked Vandy to win the game.  I'm 99.9% sure he would tell you Vandy is a solid team.  I've read probably 10 blogs, articles, or watched highlights that have mentioned Vandy as a good or solid team.  Not once have I heard anyone say they are a bad team.  Now if you haven't read or watched any of that - no problem - feel free to either not believe it or put your fingers in your ears and ignore it.  Nothing I can do about that.  Would love to see just one person who has said Vandy is a bad team.  I haven't.  You say i'm wrong - prove me wrong.

 

You claim that there are all these people saying Vanderbilt is a good team, but so far you have produced one person. You say you have 10 sources. Ok, then I want 10 different links.

 

No problem with you having that opinion - it's just a minority opinion - nothing wrong with that.  I do find it interesting though that you keep wanting to attack my opinion as if it's simple-minded, or crazy, or just dumb.  Not really the way to approach an argument, but to each his own.  I think there is plenty of value to your opinion - I just disagree with it as does most everyone who follows or speaks/writes about college football.  Doesn't mean I think you are wrong or not smart - you just have a different opinion...and now we know that your opinion is 'teams with losing records are not solid'.  Fair enough - Auburn and Vandy are both 0-1.  I think they are both solid teams, you think they are both bad teams.  What Palmer meant (and this was pretty obvious), is that USC can't get away playing like that and expect to remain in the top 10 or win the East.  He is correct.  Reference my previous post about elite, top 25, solid, and bad teams.  There are more categories than just "good" and "bad"...IMHO

 

It's not a minority opinion. You are just making that claim without any evidence.

 

I'm attacking your opinion because it's wrong. I'll keep saying it. A team with a losing record is not solid. It doesn't matter how many yards they rushed for, or if they played close. A team with a losing record is not solid.

 

What you are claiming the announcers meant is not correct. Again, when someone says you can't get away with playing like that AGAINST OTHER TEAMS, then that is a direct indictment of the opponent you just played. Your argument about elite, top 10, top 25, solid, is just something you came up with because you had no direct way to refute the point. It's just spin on your part.

Knife to a nuclear war - kinda funny.  But another example of an "attack" on an opinion to try to prove you're "right", which is not really how an argument works.  It might make you feel better - like your'e hammering a point you think is important - but it doesn't really add anything.  I'm with you - we can do Ws and Ls - and in that case both Vandy and Auburn are 0-1 and are bad teams.  We will find out on 10/20 which team is worse.  I also never said Vandy and Auburn were "equal" - I very specifically had Auburn in a higher 'tier' than Vandy when I was asked.  But I still believe both were solid wins for USC and Clemson - thus my argument.

 

It's not an attack. I gave you plenty of factual evidence to back up my point and disprove your point. I just threw in that last line to punctuate it. The reason I did that was highlight the riduculous nature of your argument. You keep making this flippant response, "we can do Wins and Losses," as if that's just one of several measuring sticks, and not any more valid than another. Stats, or "playing close" is not even in the same stratosphere as wins and losses. And you know it is. I pointed out that, playing in the same conference, Auburn was 8-5, Vanderbilt 6-7. Auburn beat 5 teams with winning records, Vanderbilt beat none. All of Auburn's losses were to ranked teams. Vanderbilt lost to two unranked teams, one with a losing record. Auburn was 3-3 against common opponents. Vanderbilt was 1-5. That's not an "attack" or a deflection. Those are cold had facts. And the mean a hell of a lot more than stats, or betting lines. You know it. You just don't want to admit it.

Miss State is actually a little bit relevant - since they were 6-6 last season just like Vandy, and they are a 3-point favorite against Auburn this weekend.  Now of course they finished 7-6 and Vandy finished 6-7, but guess who Miss State played in their bowl game?  Wake.  Beat them by 6 after Vandy beat them at Wake by 34 in the last game of the year.  If only Vandy had played Wake in their bowl game and went 7-6...I guess then you would consider them a solid team?

 

Nope, Mississippi St is not relevant, nor is the betting line. What's relevant is what I just posted in the previous paragraph, and you have absolutely no answer for it. You have to keep deflecting attention away from those facts and trying to find different points to argue, because you have no possible way to argue against the specific points I raised. You can try all the smoke and mirrors you want, but when it comes down to it, you have no way to refute the points I raised.

Conclusion?  Most folks would probably put Auburn, Vandy, and Miss State in a similar clump of 'solid' teams - I know I would.  Sure maybe there is a little separation there and i'd put Auburn slightly ahead of both - but they're all solid.

Vanderbilt is not solid, and most folks would not say that. You can claim it all you want, but it isn't true.

Again, respond to the specific points I raised. You can't. That's why you bring up all this other foolishness.

And if you watched the game you heard Brian Griese when discussing the East say Vandy "played very well" last week, and is a contender to win the East.  He also said Auburn is a "complete mess" on defense.

Personally I think as i've said all along that Auburn and Vandy are both solid teams.  I stand by that.  And let's not play the 4for game of "producing links" - not worth the time and not sure how you want me to produce clips from tv shows.  Like I said you can choose to believe or not - doesn't matter to me.  I know what i've read and heard and what people are saying - surprised even when we started this that someone was calling Vandy a "bad" team.  Still have seen zero evidence that anyone has actually called them a bad team though - other than on Clemson boards.  You now have two examples from me without even trying to support my side...just watching games and listening to announcers.

This post was edited on 9/8 7:34 PM by MotorCityChicken

I didn't say it was a great win.

I said it's a solid win because it's a conference game.   I'm not talking about how many points were scored, or how pretty it happened to be or not be.

I'm saying what any fairminded football fan knows to be true- that the season is 12 games- and every game you win is something to celebrate- because each game is so important - especially conference games.

I'm not considering what fans think of it.  Fans are fickle and we could spend 100 years talking about what fans think of something.   There are fans that aren't happy with 21 point wins.  There are fans that find problems if the starting runningback doesn't score 2 touchdowns are rush for 120 yards - or if the other team scores.   So what fans think of it is irrelevant.

Miss State- not exactly a great team -  made Auburn look like a high school team today.   How Miss State didn't score 40 points I'll never know.

But that doesn't make Clemson's win over Auburn any less solid - it was solid because it was a big matchup - and meant a lot for the winning team.

---

Originally posted by tigeronthelake:
Wow vandy is a good solid win because it's a conference game? Really??? So when Clemson goes to Duke and wins by 3, that's a great win? I wouldn't that good about that. I dont feel great about beating AU by 7. I think we missed a lot, but the misses are correctable before fsu. I think socar has as many if not more questions going into this week as going into vandy. Socar is looking for an identity, and not working out kinks. That's the difference.

---

---

Originally posted by MotorCityChicken:
I rest my case after today

And if you watched the game you heard Brian Griese when discussing the East say Vandy "played very well" last week, and is a contender to win the East.  He also said Auburn is a "complete mess" on defense.

Personally I think as i've said all along that Auburn and Vandy are both solid teams.  I stand by that.  And let's not play the 4for game of "producing links" - not worth the time and not sure how you want me to produce clips from tv shows.  Like I said you can choose to believe or not - doesn't matter to me.  I know what i've read and heard and what people are saying - surprised even when we started this that someone was calling Vandy a "bad" team.  Still have seen zero evidence that anyone has actually called them a bad team though - other than on Clemson boards.  You now have two examples from me without even trying to support my side...just watching games and listening to announcers.

I guess you missed the Vanderbilt game, where they got beat by Northwestern.

Vanderbilt is not a solid team. Vanderbilt is going to have a losing record this year. Now, if Auburn does a flop and ends up 2-10 or something, you could look back and say in retrospect that wasn't a solid win either. (Although given what we saw from Arkansas Saturday, they might have a chance to square things.)

You don't have two exmaples. The Auburn game I didn't get to watch because I was at the Clemson game. The South Carolina-Vanderbilt game, the announcers didn't say what you claim that they said. You are just spinning what they said to try to make it fit your position.

As for your evidence, in just a quick look I found this preseason preview. The author said, "the Commodores are going to lose to the Gamecocks in their opening game setting the tone for a very disappointing season."

I'm not really sure how you interpret "disappointing season" any other way than to say they aren't going be very good.

---

Originally posted by hubstar55:

 

While I am laughing at this "who had the better wins" debate, I did find it odd you referenced that particular article.

---

Well first off, the debate is not about who had better wins. Aside from that, there's nothing odd about referencing that article. The reason I linked to it was because MCC said he had not seen one single outside observer be critical of Vanderbilt. The reason I linked it was to prove that in fact, someone had said that. It's not that I'm basing my position on that aricle. I could care less about the article in and of itself. I was just disproving MCC claim that not one single outside observer had a low opinion of Vanderbilt. He said, "Show me one," so I did. That was the only point of the link, and nothing more.

This thread however was not started to bash Vandy.  This thread was started because all Clemson fans have heard from the other side is how much Auburn sucks since Clemson played them.  MCC and the other resident Gamecocks have since come to this thread and attempted this damage control propaganda machine.  Yeah I know you guys don't care what other fans think, we went over this already,  I'm just stating what the original purpose of the thread was.  We'll see you in November to determine the winner of our game, we already know that we only beat Auburn.  

This post was edited on 9/9 5:48 PM by garnet fire

I didn't see a link to the article, but I believe topdeck that it's there.  I almost posted one from bleacherreport saying Vandy is a good team but figured that one might rightfully fall under some scrutiny (biased and such)

How do you say I don't have two examples?  Scratching head - but fine if you don't want to believe me.  Your call.  Have linked another one below.  And irony is i'm not spinning anything - i'm providing example of people who quite literally have called Vanderbilt "good" or "solid".  You have taken some quotes about USC and tried to twist them into a conclusion about Vanderbilt being bad.  But nobody called Vanderbilt a bad team.  At least that I have seen.  In fact - even saying a 'disappointing' season might not mean they are a bad team - e.g. USC could go say 8-4 this year and have a disappointing season, which doesn't mean they are a bad team.  It just means they didn't meet expectations.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1320998-south-carolina-football-what-we-learned-from-the-week-1-game-vs-vanderbilt

---

Originally posted by hubstar55:

 

OK, I understand, still odd (to me).

---

I don't find that suprising.

First off, here is the link.

You don't have two examples because the announcers for the Thursday night game did not say what you claim they said. The only example you had was from the Auburn game Saturday. The bleacher report article would give you two, but you didn't post it until after I my previous response. You can't go back and apply that to my previous statement when the only two examples you mentioned before then were the two announcers.

I did not spin a thing about the USC comments. I repeated exactly what the announcers said. They said, "If USC plays like this against other teams, they will lose." There is no other way to take that than to mean the opponent in front of them was of a lesser calibur. It was not a judgement on USC playing below their expectations.

Which dovetails with your next comment. Your problem is you have no concept of context. Technically, you are correct that a dissappointing season might not be a bad season, such as if Alabama went 9-3. But here is your problem. Vanderbilt was 6-7 last year. That's the baseline they are being judged by. So if they were already 6-7, and they had a disappointing season, then by definition they have to be bad. (In relation to that comment.) I mean, if you are 6-7 to begin with, and you season is disappointing, how the hell can that not be bad? Even if you want to base it off of preseason predictions, a disappointing season for Vanderbilt would still put them well below .500, which is by definition bad. I googled some SEC preseason predictions, and even the most optimistic one, the bleacher report, had them going 7-5 and 5th in the East. So even in relation to that, a disappointing season is going to be bad. However, most predictions I saw had them 5-7.  So again I ask the question, if your season is disappointing, and you were already predicted to go 5-7, where does that leave you?

That coincides with another point. You keep claiming that because someone doesn't specifically use the word "bad" to describe Vanderbilt, then nobody thinks they are a subpar football team. That's just you nitpicking to try to save your point when anybody who is being honest knows what a statement really means. For example, look at the writeup about Kentucky in the same link. They said this:

 Big Blue fans will not have much to cheer about this season and should really just go ahead and look forward to basketball season. Kentucky has a tough schedule that starts with a trip to in-state rival #25 Louisville and it doesn't get any prettier from there. Wins: Kent State, Western Kentucky, Samford, and Vanderbilt. Losses: Louisville, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, Miss State, Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee. Final 2012 Record: 4-8 overall and 1-7 in SEC play.

Now according to you, whoever wrote this article doesn't think Kentucky is bad. Where did he say that? Show me where he said Kentucky is "bad?" He never used the word. However, it's clear from the context of his comments that he thinks Kentucky is not going to be a good football team this season. Just like it's clear that when he says Vanderbilt's season will be "disappointing" he means they aren't going to be good, because as I said, their baseline is already 6-7.

I hope we can all agree that Kentucky is bad.  No real conversation to be had there.  I have also never seen anyone call Kentucky good or solid when speaking about them.  Always blurbs like the one you posted.  However everyone I have heard discuss Vandy has used the words good or solid...thus the difference.  Like I said - you seem want to choose to ignore or not believe any of that, so nothing I can do about it...is what it is.  

I think Vandy had some lofty goals this season - including being better than 6-7, with a win against USC.  To say their expectations were 6-7 for this year is not correct - expectations were higher, and even a loss to USC would be 'disappointing'. Now whether those expectations were realistic is a different story, and they are off to a poor start.  However, lots of football left to be played.