Clemson under Swinney

tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Wanted to show how Clemson has gotten where they are by winning, and how their recruiting has been affected by winning. Below is a list of the year, W-L, and recruiting rankings under Swinney. Because you sign a recruiting class for the year after your season I will use the rankings that way. For an example, we are entering the 2019 season, but 2020 recruiting class.

2009, 9-5, (2010) 27th
2010, 6-7, (2011) 10th
2011, 10-4, (2012) 20th
2012, 11-2, (2013) 15th
2013, 11-2, (2014) 16th
2014, 10-3, (2015) 9th
2015, 14-1, (2016) 11th
2016, 14-1, (2017) 16th
2017, 12-2, (2018) 7th
2018, 14-0, (2019) 10th


In the 2016 season when they beat Bama in the National Championship their recruiting looked like this (including redshirt seniors)

11th, 9th, 16th, 15th, and 20th.


This imo boils down to great coaching, development, and finding talent that fits your system. Of course the money they have put into their program has helped, but more or so the other three things I listed imo.

So this is the question, can GT accomplish this?
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,970
Yes we can accomplish this. But the important part about clemsons rise was money. Prior to the venables hire and the ability to pay him a g5 hc a part to be a.c. clemson was good but not great.

If we had the funding and ability to pay assistants across the board as well as a recruiting staff in the 30s we could do something similar. Its always been about resources
 
smokey_wasp

smokey_wasp

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,486
Yes. I don't see any reason we can't. Doesn't mean we will.

Now, Clemson has caught up with Bammer and uga in recruiting, so they could be heading for a period of dominance, to be honest.
 
LibertyTurns

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
smokey_wasp said:
Yes. I don't see any reason we can't. Doesn't mean we will.

Now, Clemson has caught up with Bammer and uga in recruiting, so they could be heading for a period of dominance, to be honest.
Click to expand...

A. Clemp had leadership buy in and commitment from both the academic and athletic sides of the house.

B. Clemp developed a multi-prong strategy and resourced it fully. Facilities, Culture, Recruiting, Game Day Environment, Academics, Staff and Assistants, etc.

C. Clemp hired a staff to execute and drive success relentlessly.

I’m of the opinion we have half of “A”, we have some elements of “B” with some others but not all in work at a modest or better level, and we have 100% or close of “C”.

In summary, the 3 legged stool has 1 full leg, a second leg that’s almost long enough and a third leg that’s way too short. If GT hires another athletics is a nuisance leader, good luck to CGC & staff because it’s a rare organization that can overcome pitiful leadership in critical positions.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Mmmmm, they don't typically take 30 man classes like the SEC. I think the more insightful metric is their rank on average star rating. They had some sub-15 man classes. In other words, ignore if they took 15 guys compared to 30 - how did their average star ranking fare over time:
2005: 18
2006: 14
2007: 18
2008: 12
2009: 12
2010: 21
2011: 16
2012: 13
2013: 19
2014: 17
2015: 11
2016: 7
2017: 4
2018: 3
2019: 17
2020: 1

So as you can see, they have always been great at recruiting. And honestly, how you could barely play 0.500 football with those classes is beyond me...hence why they got rid of Tommy Bowden and gave Dabo a chance.

But not until 2015 was there even another step change to recruiting. They've had the best of the best over the last 5-6 years. And don't let the 2019 class fool you. Their average star rating was 3.5. They would have been 5th with a 3.7. It was just a close group of teams. And they finished 9th overall that year because they took 28 players.

IMHO, around that 2015 time was where Liberty's above-described plans were formulated and implemented. The $55M football operations building for example was announced in 2014 I believe.
 
RickStromFan

RickStromFan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
899
Can we catch up to Clemson and be perennial top-10? No. Their curriculum and lower academic standards gives them more flexibility in recruiting than does ours.
Can we be perennial top-35, ala Stanford? Yes. (I know Stanford has a few basket-weaving scholarships but on the whole, the comparison is as close to us as we can get. Them or perhaps Northwestern, but NW isn't as perennially strong as Stanford)
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
RickStromFan said:
Can we catch up to Clemson and be perennial top-10? No. Their curriculum and lower academic standards gives them more flexibility in recruiting than does ours.
Can we be perennial top-35, ala Stanford? Yes. (I know Stanford has a few basket-weaving scholarships but on the whole, the comparison is as close to us as we can get. Them or perhaps Northwestern, but NW isn't as perennially strong as Stanford)
Click to expand...

Stanford is not a STEM school. We are like CalTech, MIT, and Carnegie Melon. Which one is different? Stanford has said literally that they treat their athletes like special needs students.

That is not to say we can't beat Clemson or be a great team. Hell, Paul Johnson beat Clemson FIVE TIMES, on inferior talent, budget, facilities, etc.
 

swarmer

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
700
bwelbo said:
Stanford is not a STEM school. We are like CalTech, MIT, and Carnegie Melon. Which one is different? Stanford has said literally that they treat their athletes like special needs students.

That is not to say we can't beat Clemson or be a great team. Hell, Paul Johnson beat Clemson FIVE TIMES, on inferior talent, budget, facilities, etc.
Click to expand...

Do you not think GT treats their FB players the same as Stanford? If not, you are fooling yourself
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
tech_wreck47 said:
Wanted to show how Clemson has gotten where they are by winning, and how their recruiting has been affected by winning. Below is a list of the year, W-L, and recruiting rankings under Swinney. Because you sign a recruiting class for the year after your season I will use the rankings that way. For an example, we are entering the 2019 season, but 2020 recruiting class.

2009, 9-5, (2010) 27th
2010, 6-7, (2011) 10th
2011, 10-4, (2012) 20th
2012, 11-2, (2013) 15th
2013, 11-2, (2014) 16th
2014, 10-3, (2015) 9th
2015, 14-1, (2016) 11th
2016, 14-1, (2017) 16th
2017, 12-2, (2018) 7th
2018, 14-0, (2019) 10th


In the 2016 season when they beat Bama in the National Championship their recruiting looked like this (including redshirt seniors)

11th, 9th, 16th, 15th, and 20th.


This imo boils down to great coaching, development, and finding talent that fits your system. Of course the money they have put into their program has helped, but more or so the other three things I listed imo.

So this is the question, can GT accomplish this?
Click to expand...

Clemson was recruiting well before Dabo came. the 66th ranking in 2002 had more to do with # of recruits (17) than quality of class. Dabo was finally given the resources (money) to hire the right coordinators and coaches to develop and manage the talent and has taken their program to the next level, but they have always been a top 20 recruiting team.

2001 7-5 (2002)22nd
2002 7-6 (2003)66th
2003 9-4 (2004)53rd
2004 6-5 (2005)17th
2005 8-4 (2006)16th
2006 8-5 (2007)16th
2007 9-4 (2008)12th
2008 7-6 (2009)37th
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
swarmer said:
Do you not think GT treats their FB players the same as Stanford? If not, you are fooling yourself
Click to expand...

Do I NOT think that? Ummm, how do you answer that? I guess I'd answer no. I do not not think that. Don't know why you'd think I would. Stanford is not a STEM school - if you have to treat your athletes like special needs kids when they're majoring in General Studies and Dance Theory, you're on a different level. Providing AJ Gray with a bunch of tutors and assistance to graduate with a STEM degree in Business and a concentration in IT Management is nothing to be ashamed of.
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
bwelbo said:
Mmmmm, they don't typically take 30 man classes like the SEC. I think the more insightful metric is their rank on average star rating. They had some sub-15 man classes. In other words, ignore if they took 15 guys compared to 30 - how did their average star ranking fare over time:
2005: 18
2006: 14
2007: 18
2008: 12
2009: 12
2010: 21
2011: 16
2012: 13
2013: 19
2014: 17
2015: 11
2016: 7
2017: 4
2018: 3
2019: 17
2020: 1

So as you can see, they have always been great at recruiting. And honestly, how you could barely play 0.500 football with those classes is beyond me...hence why they got rid of Tommy Bowden and gave Dabo a chance.

But not until 2015 was there even another step change to recruiting. They've had the best of the best over the last 5-6 years. And don't let the 2019 class fool you. Their average star rating was 3.5. They would have been 5th with a 3.7. It was just a close group of teams. And they finished 9th overall that year because they took 28 players.

IMHO, around that 2015 time was where Liberty's above-described plans were formulated and implemented. The $55M football operations building for example was announced in 2014 I believe.
Click to expand...
They averaged 14.1 over the past 10 recruiting classes under Swinney, and 12.8 by stars, so really not a big difference. I’d also argue that when you sign more kids you have a better chance at landing a good one. I am of the believe that if you are inside the top 15 or 20 in recruiting there is not a huge difference from team to team unless you are maybe in the top 3 or so.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
stech81 said:
It does help to have a good defensive coordinator that is a little ( lot ) crazy and teams are scared to give him a head coaching job. And Clemson does pay him and all the coaches well.
Click to expand...

Yup. Venables makes similar money as many P5 head coaches. So nobody could ever hire him away to be a defensive coordinator. And to hire him away to be a head coach, you'd probably have to hit close to $4M. Add all that up with crazy, and it would be too big a risk for most people. The guy is very good at what he does, but I'd never want that in charge of an entire program.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
stech81 said:
Ok I missed something I thought we were not to like him :)
Click to expand...

Some people don't like him. I always thought he was a pretty shrewd AD. He's done wonders at Clemson but he DID inherit a pretty good situation there. He is free with the wallet, which is good for a school like Clemson.

On the other side, an AD like MBob can often be a hindrance. I believe that had TStan immediately followed DRad we'd be in a very different place now.
 
Top