Clemson under Swinney

[Augusta_Jacket]

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.

Him and Bud Foster must have drunk from the same water.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

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.

I'm going from memory here, so I could be wrong, but I feel like somewhere around 8% of Georgia Tech graduates give back to the sports program, whereas the number is something north of 20% with Clemson. So if you're an AD who can set forth a plan and be able to tap 3x more wallets (also note that Clemson has about 20% more students), it gives you a much better chance of success. When he was here, we had Russell and everything else and were not really the hot commodity and didn't have the number of wallets accessible. So you put the alumni size and the number that give money together, and it was a good match.

 

[WreckinGT]

To accomplish this we will have to dramatically increase our fan support. Clemson was selling out games with 80k+ fans long before Dabo took over. We aren't going to compete for National Championships while struggling to fill a 55k seat stadium. Similar to that we have to improve our image and reputation in the state. We can't be seen as a distant second fiddle to UGA. We have to be seen at least as an equal to them. Is accomplishing these things possible? Probably not. We are in a position that we can improve significantly but I really don't think we have the ability to turn into a consistent Playoff and National Championship contender. Only a small handful of programs are capable of that.

 

[Milwaukee]

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.

Please don't start this " But STEM" **** again. This narrative sailed already, it's an excuse. It's wood.

 

[swarmer]

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.

Either way, the schools make it nearly impossible for a FB player to flunk out. That’s why it’s a huge surprise when someone does like JG.

I guess your argument is that GT pushing players through the business school nets a better degree than communications studies at Stanford, maybe so. But ultimately the degree only gets you so far—if you attained one without learning anything and aren’t prepared, then it won’t get you anywhere. Both schools have players that do and don’t take academics seriously, for the ones that just show up to play football, both schools have a system in place to keep them eligible and moving towards a degree.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Please don't start this " But STEM" **** again. This narrative sailed already, it's an excuse. It's wood.

Please don’t stop reading halfway through a post.

 

[GTJake]

IMO, we as a fan base need to turn the page and start thinking like our new HC /Staff ... anything is possible, heck who would have thought we'd be in contention for a Top-10 recruiting class !!

 

[bobongo]

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.

I think the average of *s is a much better metric of how good a recruiting class is than the overall. The overall is partly a reflection of your turnover rate.

By either metric, Tech beat them about half the time when they were out-recruiting us by a wide margin. Only in the last few years has the recruiting gap been too wide to overcome.

 

[BCJacket]

I've posted these charts before. I've also expressed my opinion that I believe money is the difference maker. There's two parts to that: having the money and using it wisely. Clemson under DRad and Dabo have done a better job than anyone raising dollars, but also using the money to elevate their program.

 

[Dustman]

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.

I used to feel this way about Stanford, but then I looked at a roster last year listing the players' majors. It looked very similar to ours. I see no reason why we can't achieve at Stanford's level with this staff.

I was just having this conversation with a friend this morning - what is our ceiling for consistent fund raising? Someone mentioned this in another thread - how do we get more people donating at the next lower tier? we tapped about 500 people for $404 day. How many more donors are lurking, waiting for a better sign?

 

[BCJacket]

Also, M-Bob really ****ed us.

 

[redmule]

As for Clemson recruiting, they have recently

1. Hit the jackpot on two QB's they recruited from Georgia
2. Filled up the DL pipeline.

#1 makes great WR's want to play there. With a sub par (for them) QB in 2017, they lost to Syracuse, should have lost to NC State, and were blown out by Bama. On #2, they made a great DC hire (remember when WV put 70 on them in the Orange Bowl a few years back), and that made DL's want to play there.

Wouldn't you love to watch the 1999 Friedgen offense go against their 2018 Venables defense?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Also, M-Bob really ****ed us.

View attachment 5748

By comparison, Georgia Tech spends somewhere around $20 million on football. Georgia spends $35 million. Nearly double. Across their entire athletics department, Georgia spends nearly double what we do...they're closing in on spending $150 million per year. Clemson is not far south of that, around $140 million per year.

 

[GoldZ]

I used to feel this way about Stanford, but then I looked at a roster last year listing the players' majors. It looked very similar to ours. I see no reason why we can't achieve at Stanford's level with this staff.

I was just having this conversation with a friend this morning - what is our ceiling for consistent fund raising? Someone mentioned this in another thread - how do we get more people donating at the next lower tier? we tapped about 500 people for $404 day. How many more donors are lurking, waiting for a better sign?

Looks similar until you read the courses involved.

 

[GoldZ]

IMO, we as a fan base need to turn the page and start thinking like our new HC /Staff ... anything is possible, heck who would have thought we'd be in contention for a Top-10 recruiting class !!

Curious, do you believe we are in contention for such?

 

[GTJake]

Curious, do you believe we are in contention for such?

Why wouldn't I ...

 

[GoldZ]

Perhaps because the typical top 10 teams haven't finished their classes yet and we are at least close to doing so.

 

[Ibeeballin]

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.

This. DRad was all about the appeal and shiny new object. Going to MBob stunted our growth across revenue athletics tremendously

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Long story short = DRad

IMO he did nothing for Tech other than add to the coffers and do some rebuilding. At Clemson he has done the same, but whether he has done more, or others have done it for him, and in spite of him is a question best answered by Clemson fans. The two Clemson ST holders that I know have no use for the man. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[GTJake]

Perhaps because the typical top 10 teams haven't finished their classes yet and we are at least close to doing so.

OK, that makes sense, I just looked up the 247 rankings and teams currently ranked 11-20 below us have anywhere from 11 to 6 commitments
... so if I rephrase my comment to say contention for a potential Top 20 ranking for CGC first class, I'll stand by the point I was trying to make.