Auburn Predictions and Ramblings

So we are finally beginning the season. Gameday. First I love Brent Musburger--he loves Clemson and the Esso Club and coined the now infamous phrase the 25 most exciting seconds in ALL of college football. A bold statement by any announcer but Musburger exudes class. He also does his homework and is very competent.

I guess I should really start over--if we win, we are beginning the season(and should pass South Caroline). If we lose the season starts with ACC play. Ha.

Another thing--South Carolina has beaten Southern Miss and then a substandard Georgia team and we are crowning them Natl Champs. Its pathetic. Sure, give credit where it is due--you beat Georgia, pat yourself on the back but the ESPN/SEC bias gets nauseating when its talked about incessantly and the Cocks shoot up to #13?? Its insane. Then I start seeing pictures of Marcus Lattimore everywhere and even a blurb about him as a Heisman contender. Really media, are we that starved for content?? Georgia had a horrible run D last year--give me a break. Now they play Furman. Where is all the crying about the powderpuff schedule?? huh?

So lets talk Auburn before I throw up even more in my mouth. Auburn is one of the cooler programs in the SEC--good people, they hate Alabama and Georgia. They have unreal expectations (just like us!) and fired Tuberville and got Chizik who was hired over Gill Turner. Seems like its been working out pretty good so far. They got some limo's for recruiting. Challenged the UT Wildboys for the biggest recruiting stunts and hauled in a good class. Even got a top RB in Dyer.

First Auburn has Cam Newton who is just ginormous. It really is Daquan Bowers at QB. He has a rocket arm but hasn't been tested in terms of accuracy but led his Jr College to the Jr College Champs so its not his first rodeo. I guess I'm saying that this guy isn't just a hyped athlete who hasn't learned to play QB. Runs like a gazelle mixed with a freight train, if that helps.

Since we made Chris Turner of Maryland look like an athlete last year--pretty much any QB can run on us. We have also historically sucked against misdirection. We all like the same gap assignment--what can I say...

So for RB they have Dyer (protypical back) and McCalebb (explosive guy) who aren't proven as everydown backs yet but have the talent. Our LB's are beat up with Maye coming off injury and Tig hurting his elbow so I have no confidence there(I am actually really disappointed with the LB play thus far--thought Corico would take that proverbial 'next step') and our D-Line can sometimes disappear in big games. We need our safeties to step up and CB's not to blow coverage.

So Auburn will score points but we need to create turnovers on defense. We need to have a Miami game where we give up yards and points but we also make some big plays that give us a chance.

On Offense we know what we get out of KP and hopefully what we get out of our RB's. We need no turnovers and we need the Offensive Line to be able to get some push at the point of attack. They have a veteran defensive group with top notch LB's who are All-SEC, no glaring weaknesses. But they have given up a lot of points in the past and DC Ted Roof won't be doing all that much blitzing. We have a chance to put up points but if WR's don't catch balls it will be a long day. I am interested to see what Napier has in store--his progression as a play caller is perhaps the most important thing of all.

I keep hearing how Clemson has the advantage in special teams and I have to scratch my head. Auburn has a preseason Groza candidate and we have a freshman kicker. Sure he can make XP's and made a 47 yarder (all great things, don't get me wrong) but the Cat Man is going on the road to a hostile environment with plenty of pressure. It is just another animal altogether. Their punter averages 40 yards a kick, ours does too minus one 70 yarder. Gilchrist has been solid fielding kicks but hasn't proven that he has the top end speed to take it to the house.

If I take the orange colored glasses that are glued to my head off for a minute I say Auburn by 4. But since that won't happen I am going Clemson 28 Auburn 27.

ACC Tournament: NC State vs. Clemson Recap

Needed a couple of days to calm down after that lost, hence the lack of a post. Probably the worst all-around performance for the Tigers since the Boston College game, except this time the offense was wretched throughout the entire game instead of the defense. A few bullet points, then we'll shift focus to Clemson's upcoming first-round exit:

• It was interesting, I thought Clemson came out and played with the requisite energy but they just weren't there mentally. No excuse for that many mistakes.
• The first half they couldn't even get set in the offense 'cause they kept giving the ball to NC State on stupid passes. Poor spacing was partly to blame; later it escalated as everyone started getting frustrated with their own bad play.
• As bad as the offense played in the first half, I thought the halfcourt defense was pretty solid. NC State made a series of ridiculously difficult shots despite good defense in the first half. Without that, Clemson could very well have been leading at halftime. Of course, the defense played worse in the second half which was partially offset by Clemson tamping down the inexplicable turnovers.
• T. Booker made a lot of crucial mistakes and the FT shooting performance was inexcusable. A fitting end to a dreadful career of ACC Tourney games.
• The clock management was inexcusable down the stretch. We've commented on the Tigers' inability to play with any urgency as the clock is winding down. This is squarely on the coaching staff. They have to have a set of understood plays they can execute with one hand tied behind their collective back when we're behind by 3 with 2:00 minutes to go.
• I would have liked to see Purnell employ the foul 'em with 4:00 minutes to go strategy that worked well at FSU. NC State isn't a great foul shooting team and while we weren't exactly knocking the threes down, we had a chance to shoot down NC State from behind with their league-average FG% defense.
• Tanner Smith. I hope he does nothing but practice a freakin' jump shot in the offseason, because he can't drive to the hoop and he can't hit the three. He's had his moments this season on defense (particularly in the halfcourt) but it's barely enough to justify a roster spot next season, much less his starter status.

That's enough, before I say something I'll regret. But hey, it's Selection Sunday, and Clemson's name is going to be called. Things could be much worse. Might as well ask, even though there's not much time left: which #1/#2 seed would you rather be grouped with? My vote is for Kentucky: they're (slightly) overrated largely due to playing in the dreadful SEC and if USuCk can beat them, I like our chances.

Ron Morris Is Barely a Journalist

**UPDATED BELOW**

Ron Morris produces another winner article today that needs a response. How this man is able to cover Clemson sports when he clearly can't be an objective journalist is beyond me. The State just loves its Gamecocks, if your listening editors--reel in all this constant cock loving. Maybe it is time for a letter writing campaign or something.

The article's title says Clemson is squarely on the bubble. This is true but with a couple weeks to go thats not such a bad place to be. Bracketology and all leading publications on the NCAA tourney have us in with a 9 or 10 seed. We are on the bubble, it's true, but if the season ends today we are in(unlike another team from this state).

Ron goes on to provide this rational, "Let's break it down and determine how many games Clemson needs to win. Clemson is 7-6 in the ACC and 19-8 overall. Its remaining games are at Florida State, at home against Georgia Tech and at Wake Forest. In all likelihood, Clemson will finish 8-8 in the league and 20-10 overall. That will not get Clemson in the tournament, unless the Tigers win at least two games in the ACC tournament." Ron I am still waiting for the breakdown--all you got is your measly opinion so far. How do you somehow predict that Clemson needs to win TWO games in the tourney if we go 8-8. I can understand ONE but TWO?? What is your rationale??

He stupidly says, "Clemson's resume is not the greatest. Its RPI is 36, and its strength of schedule is 34. Its best wins are against Butler on a neutral court and against Maryland and Florida State at home. Its only road win in the league is at last-place N.C. State." While its true we struggle on the road an RPI of 36 is golden and a SOS of 34 helps our cause. That Butler win really stands out and we have a chance to beat either FSU or Wake to improve our road record. Plus we only have one bad loss to BC and they just crawled into the top 100, meaning we have no really bad losses. Pomeroy has us at #17. Lets not forget the fact that we play one of the toughest ACC Conference schedules. With single games against NC, NC State, and Miami.

Oh but about that ACC?? "Breaking even in the ACC will not help Clemson's cause because the league is not considered among the elite this season. Only Duke is considered a national title contender, and no other team in the league has elevated itself from good to great." First relying solely on conference strength to gauge a teams probability for the NCAA tourney is shaky reasoning and its a big assumption to think that a .500 record is going to hurt your resume.

So the Big East is the best conference. Followed usually by the Big 12, Big 10 and then the ACC. (We don't need to get into a debate about whether or not the Atlantic 10 is better than the SEC) The problem with this is that the Big 12 is top heavy and has some really bad cellar dwellars, as well as the Big Ten. The ACC has ZERO teams under .500 and the team at .500 beat Michigan State. In our Big Ten match-up we basically split (not all teams played as well) and I am confident if we played that tourney challenge again we would win going away. Of the Big Ten's 11 teams 4 have losing records. The ACC has more parity than the Big 12 and certainly the Big 10. So I think 8-8 in conference isn't as bad as Ron Morris makes it out to be.

Another contributing factor to remember is never before in the history of the selection committee since I was alive has the Pac 10 only produced one team for the tourney, maybe two. Thats a good 3-4 slots automatically up for grabs. Not to mention that the SEC is pretty pathetic too. Now the Atlantic 10 will push for slots but they won't chose a 19-8 Charlotte or 18-9 Dayton over Clemson.

Then Ron Morris finishes by contradicting himself, "Purnell might also want to knock on wood that Clemson wins on Sunday at Florida State or the following Sunday at Wake Forest. A win in either game will propel Clemson into the NCAA tournament." Wait you said before that 8-8 requires TWO wins in the tourney. Oh so if we only win the home game we need two ACC tourney wins. I understand your opinion but it's just that Ron. Its like me saying we need one win in the tourney with an 8-8 record. Look your just like a blogger in pajamas...

Ultimately if Clemson goes 8-8 and flames out of the ACC tourney it will have more to do with how the rest of the teams on the bubble finish the regular season. If a Gonzaga were to lose its tourney and still get an at-large or another Big East team like Louisville or UConn keep winning. We are on the bubble but it's not time to panic, it is certainly not time to listen to Ron Morris.

UPDATE by TigerMax:

I'm glad ClemBen did the dirty work of actually reading a Ron Morris article, much less spending the time to take it apart. Look, it's no secret Clemson needs two wins to assure itself a spot in the tournament, but an 8-8 record absolutely should put us in. I'm getting real, real tired of this crazy national perception that the ACC is weak. Check out Kenpom.com's conference rankings, which are based on the tempo-independent offensive and defensive numbers for all teams in the conference. The ACC tops the list, pretty much neck-and-neck with the Big12. There's a fairly sizeable gap between those two conferences and the Big East and Big10. (To its "credit", the SEC is up to #5 after two straight years at #6). (Also, if you took the top 8-10 teams in the Big East I have no doubt they would form the strongest conference, but that's not how objective rankings work, you play the teams in your conference--even the crappy ones at the bottom of the league, and that is reflected in the strength of your schedule.) Now, Kenpom rankings aren't the gospel, and they are subject to being skewed due to a small thirty game sample. But give me a break.

Make no mistake about it, 6 teams from the ACC will get in. As I mentioned a week or so ago (welcome to the party, Ron Morris!), Clemson can't afford to get into a tie with another team for sixth place. For instance, if GT and Clemson both end up at 8-8, GT gets the nod because of a much stronger SOS. But an 8-8 finish by Clemson and a 7-9 finish by GT (an outside possibility) gives us a slot.

South Carolina Recap: Piling on ClemBen's Rants

Brace yourself for the chorus of SEC love coming from every corner of ESPN.

• South Carolina's defense dominated with their pressure. Haven't seen this kind of Clemson O-line performance since the Maryland game. Not sure if it was Freeman or Austin bothered by injuries but we were getting beat bad. Matthews and Norwood are good athletes, but I don't think anyone expected them to completely have their way. It didn't help that we were pass-only mode after getting behind by so much.
• Whoever lost their assignment on the final SC touchdown play, that's a lose-your-scholarship kind of offense. You don't do that against your bitter rival, I don't care if the game is out of reach.
• Really the game was lost in the first half. Too many turnovers and stupid mistakes. If we hang onto the ball, we could have stayed with them on the scoreboard in spite of our defensive struggles.
• That being said, the offense was also hampered by some bad playcalling early on. We abandoned the run game in third and short, and SC was all over the short routes.
• The problems on defense that were manifest in the Virginia and N.C. State caught up with Clemson. We ran into a team that had the talent to consistently take advantage of our problems stopping the run.
• I know a lot of people expect us to do well against GT, but after this game I'm stuck wondering how we managed to hold them to 30 points last time.
• Hate to say it, but Carolina has put together a couple of good recruiting classes. Its not going to be easy in the next years.
• Just to echo ClemBen, can Brian Griese be any more of a complete tool? I know ESPN and the SEC have formed a pact (ESPN gets the SEC's support for the BCS through ESPN's BCS contract with the NCAA and the SEC gets an automatic birth in the championship game), but wasn't there another team playing Saturday? And didn't they have legitimate reasons to come out playing flat? I don't want excuses made by anyone for Clemson, but I'd expect the announcers to at least touch on their troubles in the last couple of weeks, instead of pretending that South Carolina came out of nowhere to run the ball on Clemson, thus proving the superiority of the SEC.
• Clemson's comeback against Butler saved this from being one of the worst sports weekends in recent memory. On top of the Gamecock debacle, the loss to A&M exposed some of the weaknesses of the basketball team that could hamper them for a while. Beating Butler gives us potentially a nice line on the tournament resume (although I'm not completely sold on Butler yet). I'll try and post something about the basketball team later in the week after I've settled down. Suffice it to say we only have two more chances to add to the non-conference resume: Illinois and South Carolina, with both games coming in the next seven days.