Talk:Clemson–Florida State football rivalry

Image copyright problem with Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png

The image Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:FloridaStateSeminoles.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even an article?

I don't think this should be an article. Bowden Bowl, maybe. But as far as I know, as an FSU fan, the Clemson game is not a rivalry, not anymore. Just an ACC game. Heck, there's more reason to call FSU-VT a rivalry than this game, because we've played against them in the 2000 Sugar Bowl for a national title as well as multiple times in the ACC Championship game and in other bowl games. Hell, there's even the Jefferson-Eppes Trophy for the UVA games, but that's not considered a rivalry. This page is far from notable. It should be retitled "Bowden Bowl" and only include games with both of the Bowden coaches. As it stands right now, it's not a rivalry. 68.59.126.206 (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 2602:304:CDA2:CDD0:BC07:6618:4BF:359F (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Because this is not one of FSU's main rivals, Clemson fans pay far more attention to it and revert honest edits that illustrate the difference between FSU and Clemson. As of this post, FSU has over DOUBLE the number of wins as Clemson in the "rivalry," three times the number of national titles, and more success on a national level than Clemson has ever had in less time. It makes it seem like both teams are on equal footing when that's not the case at all. 20-9. 3-1. 15 conference titles in 24 years vs. 15 titles in 62 years (FSU couldn't win ACC titles when FSU wasn't a member of the ACC). The article is RIFE with excuses for Clemson. Why is it slanted in Clemson's favor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmithgeneric (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Clemson fans are still trying to spread their slanted, orange reality as fact. Issues still present in previous comment, and POV check was removed without the slightest bit of discussion. Johnsmithgeneric (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This topic is actually covered below. If you feel this isn't a rivalry (which is irrelevant, and recognized as one by the press, analysts, conference, fans, etc.), then why are you here wasting other editors' time? And I see you have contributed little to nothing in terms of "neutrality" in any of your "contributions." This is an encyclopedia. This article was actually heavily biased before as evidenced in the page history, as most FSU articles, before it became more neutral with more sourced material, highlighting BOTH programs being in the spotlight again. I also see nothing about FSU's loss in the 2010 championship game, a huge rout in the playoff against Oregon, nothing about vacated wins, and no mention of recent criminal charges against Winston, all of which have been removed. Stating facts concerning histories or detailing closer, more relevant games, makes the article more enjoyable and credible. They are usually, intentionally succinct, with a sentence or two, to leave room for future ones, and are notated so the reader can read much more details from the actual source. 2602:306:25EC:A989:E07E:2AC0:FA73:41C3 (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What does Oregon's playoff win have to do with FSU playing Clemson? What does the 2010 ACC championship game have to do with FSU playing Clemson? I might as well bring up all the recruiting violations that occurred during Clemson's only national championship* from 1981 or all the pictures of Clemson recruits holding wads of cash. The fact is, the 2013 game is excused for Clemson (4 turnovers, as if FSU didn't turn the ball over once in any of their 9 whole losses to Clemson). In 2015 there's no mention of an underwhelming FSU season with rebuilding to excuse the loss. The article is heavily slanted in Clemson's favor. 20-9 series record is not even close to even. Clemson has won less than 1/3 of their games against FSU. Some of the NCAA Football games have FSU/NC State as a rivalry. Just because a few normally-reputable people claim a rivalry exists doesn't make it so. Please tell me how

In 2015 in yet another marquee matchup, after giving up a 75-yard TD to Dalvin Cook on the game's second snap, Clemson's defense showed toughness, allowing just two field goals the rest of the way, as the Tigers stopped Cook on third and fourth down runs in the fourth quarter with the Seminoles a yard from a first down. Clemson's Heisman finalist quarterback Deshaun Watson threw a go-ahead TD to Deon Cain, and Wayne Gallman came through with a game-sealing scoring as #1 Clemson held off #16 Florida State, opening a path for the Tigers to the ACC Championship, College Football Playoff, and the 2016 National Championship Game.

isn't completely in Clemson's favor. Please. Enlighten me how that's even close to being neutral. It's a bunch of Clemson pride sold as "encyclopedic." If you can't accept the truth of this Clemson propaganda article, stop editing. Johnsmithgeneric (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed POV check after removing excuses and balancing the page to highlight both teams accomplishments (not just Clemson's), including fleshing out the early years and Bowden Bowl sections. As much as I could have, I did NOT include the excuse that Clemson didn't win another ACC title until 2011 while FSU was underperforming and still trying to get back to national relevance. I also added Tommy Bowden's win streak over Bobby without Lost Decade excuses, unlike a lot of Clemson editors who blame their 11-game losing streak to FSU on the fact that Danny Ford left 3 years prior to FSU joining the ACC, their 2013 massacre on 4 turnovers, their 2014 loss on key mistakes (every loss involves key mistakes), etc. I also didn't include the embarrassing fact that while FSU was struggling from roughly 2001-2011, FSU won 5 ACC titles while explicitly comparing it to Clemson's 0 in that time frame. If I wanted to act like the Clemson propaganda editors, I would have. But since I want a fair and balanced article, I didn't. Just stop making excuses and stick to relevant facts. Then we won't have any arguments here. I don't want arguments. Just fair representation. Johnsmithgeneric (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That was before when I was fighting fire with fire. Funny how all the non-succinct information (the comparably long 2015 game description being a glaring example) seems to glorify Clemson and excuse them for poor performance while none of FSU's losses are given the same treatment. So an anonymous contributor jumping around AT&T IP addresses can remove edits, but not me? Is that what you're getting at? Those articles may be source but news articles are not encyclopedic. There is a huge bias in the article with your edits towards Clemson: downplaying Clemson failures and losses while aggrandizing Clemson accomplishments (such as including only Clemson's national title in the conference championship) and minimizing FSU's accomplishments (you edit out the mention of FSU's 2 national championships in the same section). How can I assume good faith when you revert all my NPOV edits in order to skew the article in Clemson's favor? Johnsmithgeneric (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how these vitriol arguments have anything to do with "relevance for both programs," so I am archiving here. And you can find sources, rather than tear down information. Just trying to help you. Have you contributed something about both programs? I actually did some research, and have written about both programs. And as I said, I have been busy and have not had time to combine the two together. Seriously, maybe you could offer up something more than just relisting the same championships. I was also trying to find a few game summaries during the Bowden Bowl era, worth mentioning [1]. Maybe you could contribute that? Like Warricks 2 TD's, or the missed field goal that I just read about? 2602:306:25EC:A989:F1D9:749:7B7E:9619 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize excuses and explanations for poor performance were considered encyclopedic (as many of Clemson's losses are blamed on Danny Ford leaving 3 years prior to FSU's 11-game win streak), sourced or not. I added bits about where Clemson beat FSU's ACC championship teams. I tried to keep data "succinct" and celebrating both programs achievements without going into excuses before, only to have it removed because some overly long or biased entries (again, 2015 game summary has a running back's name attached) had a source attached. Just because you can find information online doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. But as a Clemson fan I imagine you would be averse to mentions of FSU's 3 national titles considering FSU has historically dominated the series and became the dominant ACC program from the get-go. I really don't know how the ACC got dramatically "easier" from 1991 to 1992, but that message is right there in this article undermining FSU's amazing ACC championship streak.

Speaking of advice, have you ever tried to look at how many excuses there were/are for Clemson losing compared to FSU? Do you consider that fair and balanced? If so, is it because FSU shouldn't have excuses for losing because they are the superior program? [[2]] seems like a constructive edit to me. When have you mentioned Charlie Ward, Chris Weinke, or Jameis Winston (actual Heisman winner) outside of the profanity incident? Why does Deshaun Watson get a mention of a Heisman finalist while Dalvin Cook doesn't? Why is Wayne Gallman even in a "succinct" summary of the 2015 game? Just because there's a source? As you have stated, if readers want the specifics, they can view the reference material.

Assume good faith: Why was [[3]] removed without trying to incorporate any of it back in by you? I thought that was a particularly good edit with neutral POV eliminating fluff and bias. I guess if there had been a ton of FSU excuses (the decade-long slump where Clemson got most of their wins against FSU) cleaned up, it wouldn't have been reverted? Johnsmithgeneric (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in all seriousness, I was trying to urge you to make complimentary edits, rather than to start edit-warring by removing other contributions, and have not had time to try to balance things more. For the record, I like both programs, and graduated from another school, and am more of a historian, but enjoy east coast sports. And having both FSU and Clemson relevant again is good for the ACC, since it was predominantly a basketball conference for decades. There were not too many game details in general, but I think you were missing the bigger picture. There were 4 sentences already devoted to FSU's 2013 win, which was important, including the aftermath with links of FSU going to the national championship game and beating Auburn. The 2015 game was also important to Clemson, ended up with more game detail, but was also condensed into 2 sentences. And details like turnovers, especially when there as damaging as 4, are a part of the game, like missed field goals, but can greatly sway an outcome. Even without them, I think FSU would still have won that game. It's not a conspiracy, I promise you. The early history contributions, make the article better, and are relevant. Both Bowden and Ford respected each other, and were both respected nationally at the time. In terms of the conference championships, several FSU fans had also been tearing down Clemson accomplishments and clarifications, while adding FSU's "streak" three times, and in the Conference Championships section, including the extra "remarkable feat" sentence. Your additions of the latter ones from the same streak in the Bowden Bowl section made four mentions, as well as the games streak in the info box. Actually both schools having 15, whether from different eras, is pretty impressive. I will try take a look at some things when I have more time, and help keep the more disruptive fans in check, if you will do the same. 2602:306:25EC:A989:B51F:131C:FA17:40D (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Team Colors

Making Clemson's background purple in the game results section makes the readability much better than when it was orange. Reversing the colors makes it easier to discern the winner; garnet vs. purple is much more distinct of a contrast than garnet vs. orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severreactor (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

National attention, relevance for both programs

First off, this is an encyclopedia, not a sports related message board. Second, this is not an in-state rivalry. I have restored some content removed by "fans," mostly some fans from Florida who had this article heavily biased, and have highlighted both programs. I also added citations about nationally relevant games, and an article emphasizing the positive media attention for both programs being back in the national spotlight, and also removed content about criminal allegations involving a certain player. This series has been fairly evenly split for almost 15 years now. Historically, FSU was mostly an all-white women's college, one of the largest in the United States, that didn't become coeducational until 1947, just as Clemson was a small, all-male military college until the 1950's and didn't even reach University status until 1962, both expanding after WWII. I see an FSU fan here complaining about conference championships Clemson won back when Florida State barely had a football program, had just turned co-educational, and was claiming championships from a now defunct Dixie league. My point is that both programs have had successes at different points in their histories, not just in the 1990's as a few fans like to rehash ad-nauseaum, and both programs have complimented each other, especially when they have both been in the national spotlight. --98.94.202.141 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, this should be neutral POV, not some celebration of Clemson football as an equal or superior program to FSU. FSU has dominated this "rivalry" and yet you wouldn't think so reading the article. Tons of excuses for Clemson losing and almost none for FSU's losses. A vast majority of Clemson's wins come off FSU's Lost Decade teams, but you don't see that here. What you do see is excuses for Clemson losing 11 straight to FSU while FSU won 9 straight conference titles (some Clemson propaganda about their program being down). If FSU fans were so inclined, they could easily chalk up the 2011 loss to mental mistakes as almost all if not all of Clemson's scoring drives were extended by FSU penalties. I updated the article with succinct encyclopedic content. When FSU and Clemson have been in the national spotlight, FSU has won national titles and big games. The best Clemson has done is a BCS win over Ohio State because FSU was good enough to go to the national title game. There's no mention of 2013 FSU being arguably the best college football team in history, but if the Clemson editors wore garnet and gold for a minute, you can bet it would be mentioned at least twice here where it has no business being. Johnsmithgeneric (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is to review standards and practices: WP:5P, WP:PG, WP:WEL and to assume "good faith". Removing sourced material by various editors that was revised to compromise previously is not what we do here. You can discuss, suggest, or make some minor additions, without removing previous contributions. You left the article kind of a mess, and no one has has had the time or opportunity to review or re-write if necessary. In terms of content, I see you made similar edits on another article that go against your own stance here: [4], that sound one-sided. The descriptions of specific relevant games and "summaries" comes directly from sourced material from journalists. The citations are there for reference, and so people can read more about them. Also, mentioning one school's championships from one era, several extra times, is redundant. The "conference championships" for both schools have been stated several times in the article, and also been been highlighted in that section. I again suggest the five pillars article cited above. 2602:306:25EC:A989:5822:A4A0:CE23:8F1A (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

add the fumblerooskie and puntarooskie to key events

please:) 205.223.223.15 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)