- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Scheduling Clemson for the first game: good move or not
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:28 pm
Pros: Beating Clemson at Clemson would he a big step to getting in the playoffs. It’s one the bigger opening games in recent college football history, the entire country will be tuned in, its great for LSU’s brand. A win at Clemson would create huge momentum, just as the win at Texas in 2019 was one of several signature wins that spurred on their championship season. Big games are more exciting than rent-a-wins. No pollster or media person will accuse LSU of padding their schedule. The game features two legit Heisman hopefuls in Nussmeier and Clubnik and Nuss can get a leg up with a big game. Brian Kelly and Dabo Swinney are two of the most successfully coaches and personalities in college football, adding more intrigue to the game and a chance for Kelly to exorcise his first game demons in a big way. Swinney is a dick, so ruining his season in game one would be cool. Big games are good for recruiting, kids want to be on national tv in big games. And we get Clemson in Tiger Stadium next year for another great opening game in front of a national audience.
Cons: Pretty much the opposite of the above. The selection committee has never fairly rewarded teams with the balls to play big teams, on the road and lose. LSU would probably get more credit for beating a Syracuse in Tiger stadium than for a close loss at Clemson. A loss to Clemson gives LSU little to no margin for error with games at Ole Miss and Alabama coming up and tough home games with A&M and Florida. Two SEC losses might eliminate LSU as a three loss team, whereas with only two losses LSU would probably be a shoe in to the playoffs. Another opening game loss for Kelly would tarnish his image. Klubnik could be the one to get a leg up should he and Nuss be in the Heisman conversation at the end of the year. Swinney is a dick and listening to him do his country bumpkin crowing after the game would be insufferable.
I’m sure there are other pros and cons I missed, and maybe got some wrong that I did.
That said, I think there are enough pros and cons to the point where I can’t predict how the rant will vote. I will say this, if the committee wants college football fans to see more great games like Texas at Ohio State and LSU at Clemson this year, they have to figure out a way where if a team like LSU who loses a close game to Clemson gets less credit than a team like Georgia for beating Marshall, Austin Peay, the Charlotte 49ers and Ga Tech as their out of conference games.
Cons: Pretty much the opposite of the above. The selection committee has never fairly rewarded teams with the balls to play big teams, on the road and lose. LSU would probably get more credit for beating a Syracuse in Tiger stadium than for a close loss at Clemson. A loss to Clemson gives LSU little to no margin for error with games at Ole Miss and Alabama coming up and tough home games with A&M and Florida. Two SEC losses might eliminate LSU as a three loss team, whereas with only two losses LSU would probably be a shoe in to the playoffs. Another opening game loss for Kelly would tarnish his image. Klubnik could be the one to get a leg up should he and Nuss be in the Heisman conversation at the end of the year. Swinney is a dick and listening to him do his country bumpkin crowing after the game would be insufferable.
I’m sure there are other pros and cons I missed, and maybe got some wrong that I did.
That said, I think there are enough pros and cons to the point where I can’t predict how the rant will vote. I will say this, if the committee wants college football fans to see more great games like Texas at Ohio State and LSU at Clemson this year, they have to figure out a way where if a team like LSU who loses a close game to Clemson gets less credit than a team like Georgia for beating Marshall, Austin Peay, the Charlotte 49ers and Ga Tech as their out of conference games.
This post was edited on 6/25/25 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:32 pm to paper tiger
I'm not even going to read.
We just need to win the damn game. Fans were never worried about winning an opener until the last few years.
We just need to win the damn game. Fans were never worried about winning an opener until the last few years.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:35 pm to paper tiger
I'm glad they scheduled it as a home and home instead of those neutral site abominations. I would have preferred it to be scheduled week two so that we could get a rent a win in first.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:35 pm to paper tiger
In this era, the playoff era, it is, without question, a terrible beyond words move.
Zero upside. Should have been cancelled as soon as they moved beyond a 4 team playoff
Zero upside. Should have been cancelled as soon as they moved beyond a 4 team playoff
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:36 pm to paper tiger
It doesnt mean much losing game 1 anymore. To be the best to gotta beat the best. I don't see any problem with it at all. Next season Clemson comes here.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:38 pm to paper tiger
Very bad move. This game (ON THE ROAD) has a very high chance of hurting your playoff chances. The strength of the SEC is also you need. This kind of scheduling reeks of the Sunbelt.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:42 pm to paper tiger
These are the kinds of games people want to watch and pay to see. No one goes to the games like SELU and WKU because there's no thrill or excitement.
We are paying the head coach and these players a lot of money to get the job done. If we have a team that's actually ready to go to start the season, these are the games we will want to see moving forward.
Losing another season opener is bad look from a morale standpoint, but it's not a death sentence given the 12-team playoff now.
We are paying the head coach and these players a lot of money to get the job done. If we have a team that's actually ready to go to start the season, these are the games we will want to see moving forward.
Losing another season opener is bad look from a morale standpoint, but it's not a death sentence given the 12-team playoff now.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:44 pm to sharkfhin
quote:
It doesnt mean much losing game 1 anymore.
Put down the drugs. If you lose this one, you can only lose one more game to make the playoffs. The margin of error becomes very small. There is absolutely no need for LSU to play such a highly ranked OOC opponent on the road.
This post was edited on 6/25/25 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:46 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
n this era, the playoff era, it is, without question, a terrible beyond words move. Zero upside. Should have been cancelled as soon as they moved beyond a 4 team playoff
I think with the way the committee penalizes teams for losing tough games and rewards teams for rent-a-wins, we probably lessen our playoff chances scheduling Clemson. Clemson took the same risk, as beating LSU even at Clemson is no given and they have to come here next year. If the goal is to make the playoffs, as it should be, it’s kind of hard to argue scheduling Clemson was a good move. I agree with your rationale there.
But zero upside? There’s a huge upside for LSU if they beat Clemson on the road. It’s the same thing for Texas if they beat Ohio State. The selection committee historically has rewarded teams who win big out of conference games, it’s just that they unfairly punish teams for taking a chance on a big game and losing while rewarding one loss teams who play the likes of Austin Peay.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:46 pm to paper tiger
i'll let you know after the game
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:51 pm to da prophet
quote:
Very bad move. This game (ON THE ROAD)
Do you like having a non-conference home schedule of 4 games all against FCS and G5 teams every year? Or would you rather have a somewhat exciting non-conference home game once in a while? Because the only way you're going to get P4 teams to come to Baton Rouge for a non-conference game is to agree to a home-and-home series.
Campus will be buzzing for the home opener next year when Clemson comes to Baton Rouge.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:53 pm to Sheriff Brackett
quote:
We are paying the head coach and these players a lot of money to get the job done. If we have a team that's actually ready to go to start the season, these are the games we will want to see moving forward.
Incorrect, you're paying the head coach to make the playoffs, just like you're paying Johnson to make Omaha. Baseball played Purdue Fort Wayne at home the first series of the year. Not Oregon State or Arizona on the road. You know why because they didn't need to.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 2:56 pm to paper tiger
BK just doesn't have what it takes to get the team ready for the first game as other teams do. It's almost like he holds back scared to frick up instead of having confidence in his players to get the job done IMHO.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 3:09 pm to paper tiger
Let’s put it this way: these high-profile games are great for the fans and for the sport as a whole. But for Brian Kelly, they’re also high-stakes. He’s going to find out quickly whether he’s on track for a title run—or if his time might be cut short. He simply can’t afford to lose another season opener.
Sure, in theory, he could bounce back and go 11-0 after that, but the schedule isn’t exactly built to make that realistic. A 10-2 season would be a strong showing and should be the baseline expectation this year—which makes winning that opening game absolutely critical.
Sure, in theory, he could bounce back and go 11-0 after that, but the schedule isn’t exactly built to make that realistic. A 10-2 season would be a strong showing and should be the baseline expectation this year—which makes winning that opening game absolutely critical.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 3:13 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:I care zero, nothing, nada about shitty cupcake games. And I actually don't watch them - they mean nothing.
In this era, the playoff era, it is, without question, a terrible beyond words move.
Zero upside. Should have been cancelled as soon as they moved beyond a 4 team playoff
I'd rather we play a very good team game 1. I want dramatic, tough games. It's entertainment, after all. If we have our eyes set on the playoff, then win the damn game.
Hell, idiot Les Miles played very good OOC teams week 1 and did very well.
I have no desire to wait 8 months for football, only to open against a shite opponent. I'd prefer to get rid of all cupcake OOC games and schedule real teams.
Posted on 6/25/25 at 3:29 pm to mikesliveisacheater
quote:
I'm glad they scheduled it as a home and home instead of those neutral site abominations.
Why does our home and home always start with away from home. Make Clemson come to BR.
Advantage Clemson
Posted on 6/25/25 at 3:33 pm to paper tiger
It has no upside in current playoff model, and should be scheduled week 2 (like UT in 2019) to allow transfer portal players at least a week to gel together AND get game tape on the opposing team with any transfer portal players they brought in
Moving forward playing a big game week 1 just isn’t worth it
Moving forward playing a big game week 1 just isn’t worth it
This post was edited on 6/25/25 at 7:22 pm
Popular
Back to top

21






