In light of some recent Clemson blogs and internet reports not associated with STS, I felt like I have a big picture take of expansion that I think would be worth reading. Fans have so much pull and influence these days that I hope this gives Clemson fans a more bottom line perspective on expansion and our future.

Let's get right to it.

First off, Clemson has screwed the ACC.

Clemson has screwed the ACC more than the ACC and Swofford have screwed Clemson.

More accurately, Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT, as the football bell-cows of the conference, have most greatly contributed to the ACC's weak financial bargaining position. And now, the conference is in jeopardy because of it.

What some fans have failed to grasp since the onset of the BCS and following the ACC expansion in 2005 is that the best possible financial and opportunity booster for ACC football is for the league members to WIN NON-CONFERENCE GAMES especially on the highest level.

Im not going to bore you by listing the ACC’s countless non-conference failures over the years. I’ll just say that, unlike other conferences, there is no high level victory over the past ten years for the ACC to hang its hat on. Therefore, there is a perceived lack of quality nationally for ACC football compared to say, SEC or Big 12 football.

Had the ACC teams capitalized on some of these high level non-conference opportunities, I believe that The ACC #2 would still play in the Gator Bowl, C.J. Spiller would have been invited to the Heisman ceremony, the conference TV deal would be more lucrative, there would be no talk of ACC schools leaving the conference and in fact, depending on how high The ACC was in the pecking order, The ACC could have had the opportunity to add Big 12 teams last year instead of being threatened by them today.

Instead, The ACC's bell-cows in football have not delivered anything remotely substantial as far national credibility since expansion.

So, even though Clemson has dominated South Carolina for the better part of the past century, it did not get us a better TV deal or more money than them. That is because The SEC dominated the highest level of college football, and South Carolina is reaping the financial gain from that. That is a non-debatable fact.

All along, some in our fanbase, seemingly stuck in the 80s, tried to maintain that “it is good for Clemson to have our conference opponents down so that we can win the ACC.” This false measuring stick allowed Clemson football to set it's standards lower than it should have and tolerate things it shouldn't have (Tommy Bowden for 10 years for example).

We have always had the resources to compete on a national level but, for the better part of the past twenty years we have chosen not to. That decision by our administration has contributed to the low value and weak perception of ACC football.

Now we think we deserve to be paid more. Based on what?

It seems that the rally cry for fans is to believe that because The ACC has chosen to hang its hat on basketball in expansion, it has cost Clemson the same kind of money South Carolina makes. That is not true.

If you eliminate revisionist history, you'll see that we were and have always been a basketball conference that tried to become a relevant football conference. Picture the original ACC schools from 1953-1980 and name the national power in football? Exactly. We added GT in the early 80s, FSU in the 90s, and Miami and VT in the 2000s...all for football.

If you think the ACC and Swofford are “all basketball all the time”, ask yourself these questions:

In 2005, what schools were the two best possible programs that the ACC could have poached for football?

Did the program you just pictured play in three of the first five BCS NC games like Miami and VT did?

Does Boston College have a great basketball program, or instead, do they have a bigger TV market for football?

Why was Coach K publicly against the expansion?

To this day there were, and still are, many better basketball options out there for ACC expansion. If Swofford is trying to get money to the basketball schools, then he's trying to do it with better football.

Now fast forward to 2011.

I think if there's anything to be upset about in recent expansion, it's that The ACC should have taken West Virginia instead of Syracuse from a football-only standpoint. However, outside of WVU, name two schools that the ACC could have actually landed that have more football tradition than Pitt and Syracuse?

With 10 claimed national titles and alumni like Jim Brown, John Mackey, Larry Csonka, Tony Dorsett, Art Monk, Hugh Green, Dan Marino, Mark May, Donovan McNabb, Marvin Harrision, Dwight Freeney, and Larry Fitzgerald, you could easily argue the two school's football tradition is higher than The ACC's original members. Again, the better basketball move would have clearly been to take UConn and Louisville. If anything, academics played a bigger role here than basketball.

The only major conference the ACC can poach is The Big East right now, and since 2004, the ACC did so with the 5 of the 6 traditionally best football programs that we could get.

The most recent expansion gave the ACC a chance to renegotiate its current TV deal. And, before the negotiation, our conference finally got the opportunity to have two teams in the BCS. This would have been ideal except that we delivered the two lowest rated games. Clemson's delivered the lowest rated BCS game ever.

Not to mention that we were destroyed by a Big East team and VT followed up their massacre by Stanford last year with a loss to a non-division champion in the Big 10.

So, the ACC just gave the lowest return on investment by a conference ever to ESPN on the big stage right before they had to ask for more money.

Now, we Clemson fans wake up in a burning house and are left with pocket-book envy. Most of us see South Carolina’s SEC income and can’t take it. We don't like losing to USCe and think that money is the reason to leave the ACC.

This is true, but this should not be about a quick comparison of conference value as perceived by ESPN in May of 2012.

We should be looking for the best deal that will secure Clemson's viability and great potential for many many years. In other words, if we're going to acquire the resources and opportunity to compete on the highest level, we need to align ourselves with schools that are aggressively football oriented for the monetarily expanding future of college football.

There needs to be a longterm financial commitment to football from the schools with whom we chose to associate.

I have seen a couple accounts saying that the ACC generated more money than the Big 12 throughout most of its history. Some reporters have printed that the Big 12 passed the ACC financially only recently. If that's true, it should be something to consider. (I can't find the links so any help finding them would be greatly appreciated or maybe someone at STS has that information already)

We already know the Big 12 is going to be able to out-bid the ACC today but, what about tomorrow? A move to the Big 12 should be first and foremost to align ourselves with the best...the best facilities, the best recruits, the best money, the best chance at a NC, the most interested TV viewers, and most importantly, the best committed institutions to football success at the highest level.

We must think differently than we did in the 80s and agree that for Clemson to move forward, money is going to be the by-product of conference/opponent success in football, and not the other way around.

It takes TWO great teams to play a football game that casual fans would want to watch. It takes TWELVE to fill out your schedule. That's the pertinent math.

Therefore, when you go to align yourself with other schools, it's certainly not just all about Clemson or today's paycheck. There isn't a one-time revenue check for your athletic department that secures you forever.

Look, some advent in technology could drop ESPN's viewership drastically overnight. Then what? Hopefully, we would be aligned with great teams so that in the ever changing landscape of college football, we will be secure as a major player no matter what happens.

Does anybody remember the Ivy League being the #1 conference in football? Remember when Army was one of the top programs? Me neither. Things change. Money is the driving force behind conference expansion but remember, it is mostly speculative future money and not a lump sum check delivered overnight. Expect more change.

On the flipside, I'm of the opinion that it's perfectly ok for our administration to come out and say, we've made the decision to not keep up with the big boys and have chosen to operate on a slightly lower level than some of the higher profile schools. As long as they are honest and don't try to sell me big boy football when it's not, I'm ok with that.

It would be awfully difficult for a University President to agree to abandon its gentlemanly association with great universities like Duke, UNC, Wake, Virginia, Georgia Tech etc. An academic institution doesn't have play keep up with the Jonseses in football.

Some FBS schools are going to be left out when the dust settles. In fact, many already are. One could argue that the new ACC deal is a step in that direction.

However, the specific numbers involved in the current Big 12 deal vs. The current ACC aren't that relevant.

What we Clemson fans must accept is that over time the great teams are going to align themselves together in the most effective way possible to get that money.

THE TEAMS earn the money for the conference. So far, Clemson, Miami, FSU, and VT have let the ACC down in that regard. The one brightspot is that our TV ratings were actually better than the Big 12 last year. We're about half of the SEC viewership though.

Also, it should be mentioned that the giving up of The ACC's third tier rights was seemingly terrible, but at the same time, one can only speculate about how much money we would have made on them vs. how much money we actually got from ESPN to give them up. So I won't touch that.

I will say though that third tier rights are the obvious gateway to conference/team networks and also to ESPN's eventual demise...and they know that. If Swofford actually played that card then third tier rights are probably worth a good bit. However, he publicly admitted he didn't play it in the last negotiation.

The problem longterm for The ACC is that the original ACC teams don't seem to have as much upside to ever reach the level that The ACC would need to be nationally relevant. Miami, FSU, GT, Clem, Pitt, and VT together at full effectiveness do though.

So, while we're not nationally relevant since FSU took over the ACC in 1992, we have everything in place and tremendous sellable upside. So does FSU. So does Miami.

The ACC, though, is struggling while it absorbs the hit of Miami, FSU, and Clemson all being down at the same time. How many conferences could thrive with their top three traditional programs being down for an extended period of time? The answer is...none.

Right now we should ask the ACC one question, "Specifically, how are we going to improve the league's reputation in football?"

Of course, we are going to hear the Big 12s plan as well. Although, we can all see that the Big 12s plan is unfolding in plain sight.

I'm not going to post an opinion on what we should do here but I do think that the choice will become obvious as soon as the new playoff system is announced, we see what the other bell-cows of the conference choose to do, and when we get the ACC and Big 12's answer that question above.

The point to remember here is that the money will come to a conference when that conference has a product worth paying for. The conference will approach a team when they have a product worth selling. Fans will watch a conference that has games worth watching.

That's why the competition you keep has become just as important as your own team.

We all use statistics to form our opinion.

We use statistics because we believe them to be objective and to tell the story from a point of view that cannot be disputed (sans Wilt Chamberlain’s claim, of course).

If I had to summarize what I have posted over the previous four parts in just two statistics it would be these.

The average scoring defensive rank of a “top ten team in plays run” over the past 5 years is 60.3

The average rank of the “top ten scoring defenses” in “offensive plays run” is 85.2

I like these two the best because they encapsulate 100 years of football evolution that says that a coach can choose to use his offense to control the clock and keep his defense off the field to keep them rested and hungry (Bryant, Ford, Saban).

Or, you can choose not to, as we have chosen at Clemson, and choose to win “Offense First.” You can take rest and opportunity from your own defense and use it to put more pressure on the opposing defense.

I’m not saying that when the defense gets mudstomped, it’s the offense fault. It’s not the offense’s fault.

It’s the offense’s fault when they don’t double-mudstomp the opposing defense.

Continue reading this post »

We’ve looked at offense and defense “per possession.” Now, let’s look at overall production (offense + defense) to gauge how well the offensive philosophy change is working to make Clemson a better football team overall.

There is a lot of information here so feel free to read this in increments.

We saw in part 1, how teams that run offensive plays at the rate we do typically have defenses in the bottom half of the national rankings. The thought process here is that it’s ok to adapt an offensive philosophy that diminishes defensive performance as long as the offensive gains out-weight the defensive losses.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to assign a clear value as to what those defensive losses should be. It’s even more difficult to separate philosophy, depth, talent, and scheme issues to come up with a quantitative value of where we should be. What we know is that at Clemson there is about a 6% difference in “per possession” production between getting a raise and getting fired as a defensive coordinator.

Now we’re looking at the combined level of “per possession” effectiveness to gauge how much more effective The Tigers have become as a team.

Continue reading this post »

Alright, that’s enough dwelling on our defensive futility, let’s examine the brightspot of 2011, the offensive side of the ball. Last time we looked at how our defense performed “per possession” over the past few years. Now we are going to look at the offense.

First, let’s review through Part 2 by the numbers:

The average defensive rank of the “top ten team in plays run” is 82.3

The average defensive rank of a “top ten team in plays run” over the past 5 years is 60.3

In the first year of Malzahn’s offensive philosophy Auburn’s defense dropped 58 spots to 73.

In the first year in Morris’ offensive philosophy, Clemson’s defense dropped 70 spots to 81

In 2011, Clemson’s defense dropped in “stop rate per possession” 6.25%

In year one in Malzahn’s system, Auburn’s defense dropped in “stop rate per possession” 10.57%

Auburn’s National Championship defense out-performed Clemson 2011 “per possession” by 1.82%

Oregon’s National Runner –Up defense out-performed Clemson 2011 by 10.36%

The logic here remains the same as Part 1-2. The offense and the defense are married to each other and work together to help the team win. Their effectiveness is linked together. If the defense can get off the field quickly, it increases the effectiveness of our offense by creating more stress for the opposing defense and more possessions for them to defend.

Continue reading this post »

Again, this one is a lot of information so, take your time and don’t hesitate to stop and come back later. I’ll give you a few days before I post part 3.

In part 1, we saw how running more plays attributes greatly to poor statistical defense and we examined some accomplished defensive coordinators that were unable to overcome it. Again, my goal here is to affect perception and to better allow all of us (including myself) to become better educated football fans.

After researching for part 1, it occurred to me that our offensive philosophy might affect the defense but, I’m pretty sure I never saw Kevin Steele and Homer Simpson together…coincidence? And wait, didn’t Auburn just win the National Title with Malzahn using this same offensive philosophy? Yes, they sure did. Let’s look at that. Let’s use Auburn as the control. Not only do they use our system, they won the national championship with it.

As you probably already know, in 2003, Chad Morris and his high school staff met with Gus Malzahn to borrow his big picture offensive philosophy. Since then, the two have skyrocketed from coaching high school to becoming the "highest paid offensive coordinators" in FBS football.

Continue reading this post »

Are you ready to get your geek on? Oh, I know you are. Well, here comes a post that would make my math teacher in high school blush. Ok, not really. Actually if you can read a chart and understand what a percentage is, you’re good.

You’ve probably seen the theory that "offense affects defensive performance" before but, probably nothing like this. I have been working on this most of the season so, I realize there is a lot of stuff here. I had a lot of questions that I wanted answered so, I just kept digging and digging.

This is divided into 5 parts.

My goal here is much like Shakin The Southland. I want us to all better educated football fans (myself included) so that our grief, elation, and/or influence is (mostly) directed to the right areas. I also invite you to tell me what you think, let me know what I might could add to this, and where you think I’m wrong.

Sources: cfbstats.com, teamrankings,com, FootballOutsiders.com, Rivals.com

This post is about perspective.

This is not a "defending Kevin Steele" post. It’s an "It is what it is" post designed to help create perspective. It may not look like it at first but, I will try to show you that we should be doing better defensively but not necessarily in ways that show up on a National Ranking. I do not take issue with Kevin Steele being fired for job performance.

I’m also not trying to convince you that you didn’t see what you saw with your own eyes on a play-by-play basis on Saturdays. If you didn’t see that our defense had problems, you should probably seek litigation against your optometrist immediately. We can be better.

Continue reading this post »

What's up everybody,

Clemson fan here. Since we both had Danny Ford and Ken Hatfield as head coaches. I was wondering, looking back, who do Arkansas fans hold in higher regard, Ford or Hatfield?

I'll give you a little background first on why this would interest me and some other Clemson fans.

For Clemson fans, Danny Ford is an icon and widely regarded as the most successful coach in Clemson history because he led us to our only National Championship in '81 and also under his guidance, we were the 5th winningest program of the 80s.  It's been a long 20 years for us since he was forced to resign. 

Ken Hatfield was the man who replaced the man at Clemson and is commonly regarded by Clemson fans as a mistake of a hire that ended the most successful run in Clemson history.

It occurred to me that, living in South Carolina, this might not be the sentiment of Arkansas fans at all. In fact, it could justifiably be the opposite for Razorback fans.  So, I'm just curious as to what ya'll think and how you remember these two coaches. Thanks for indulging me and good luck this year!  We Clemson fans will be pulling for you on on November 5th.

Texas announced today that they have taken another logical step forward for college sports entertainment.   Texas just negotiated with ESPN to create the Texas Network that will launch this fall. Eventually, in my opinion, all major universities will have their own channels and phone applications allowing access to all sports no matter where you are. The first shoe has dropped on that so to speak. Link:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/19/espn-completes-purchase-of-longhorns-with-300-million-deal/

This only makes sense as each school will assume more responsibility for its own viewership and therefore, it's own profit margin. The beauty of this for Texas is that it coincides with the continued development of a "Big 12 Network" which will allow them to "double dip" into the ESPN money pot to the tune of $30M a year.  Take that SEC schools.     

If you were wondering how the Big 12 retained Texas and stayed together this past summer, I think we might have just gotten our answer. However, in the big picture, the power will now begin to shift towards the individual schools and away from the NCAA and conferences.

So, here it is, another step towards collegiate sports autonomy that is driven by the bottom line.  In my opinion this will eventually lead to the secession of the NCAA by big-time football programs, a playoff, and significantly lower academic standards for athletes at big time programs. 

That should generate a lot of money until, of course, man fuses with machine and sports can no longer be competed on a level playing field.  I'll post more future predictions later.

The Music City Bowl is not happy with the Clemson turnout and is regretting passing up UNC, BC, Maryland, and GT. The article mentions that Wake Forest brought more fans than us.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/01/1947748/charlotte-isnt-tiger-town-for.html

This is the first time in a long time I've seen Clemson fans truly express their discontent with their pocket books.  How much of this is apathy towards the bowl and how much is a message directed at the administration is irrelevant to me because 1. it is undefinable and 2. it doesn't really matter.

The only thing that matters is that the Clemson football program as a money making entity just took its first step in a negative direction.  Since, in the minds of many, the only recourse left is withholding money and attendance, this could be just the first step in what a lot of fans and donors think is the only way to truly "change the culture" at Clemson.

I have a few questions for Dr. B or anybody else that would like to answer. 

First, I would like to hear the argument for Rich Rodriguez as OC.  I am not as high on him as many others and it has nothing to do with the inappropriate man-crush on Josh Groban (zing).  Rich-Rod comes in and shrinks your OL down to about 250 lbs., has never had a winning season in his first year anywhere, and is basically known for putting together three great years at West Virginia. 

In his first run at Clemson we scored a lot of points but, we also got manhandled and severely blownout by every Big Boy team we played. And, there is the personnel problem (ie. no Woodrow Dantzler here).  Not to mention that throughout history, these geniuses regarded as "offensive innovators" have typically had about a ten year run before everybody catches up with them and their effectiveness wanes. Tick Tock.  So, why Rich Rod now?

Secondly, we keep talking about how Dabo wants to run the spread so, why do we keep recruiting marquee TEs?    What version of the spread would Dabo like to model this team after?  

If it is Texas, then what are the chances of their recently fired OC making an appearance in the upstate?

Also, if Dabo visited Texas in the offseason, and they were reportedly trending away from the spread, what did Dabo expect to learn when he visited them?

If you didn't see already, the Clemson RB commit out of Punta Gorda, FL that is putting up video game numbers this year has been given a 5th star by Rivals.  Mike Bellamy committed to Clemson back in June and was upgraded this week from 4 star status.

Bellamy is lightning fast and thus, has been favorably compared to former Clemson RB C.J. Spiller.  With Bellamy at 5 stars, Clemson's 2011 recruiting class now currently ranks 8th in the nation.

Bellamy says he is 150% a Clemson commit but that he wants to enjoy high school and take some visits to other colleges while he can.  He will be in Tennessee this week.