(11-10-2015 01:50 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 11:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 10:04 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  ...but with the 4 team playoff I think it not as important as you make it out to be. How many granite lined porta-potties can the SEC teams install out on the practice field to make a difference? Government orgainizations flush with cash--->gets wasted and there is a law of diminishing returns.

It all comes down to recruiting, coaching and fan support.

Unless/until there is a salary cap for coaches, money will always allow the richest teams to hire the best coaches (they won't even have to "find" them, just hire from other P5 teams). That is the real danger of falling too far behind, IMO... facilities are secondary.

i don't see all the great SEC coaches. Dabo wasn't getting paid much at all when he started at Clemson.

SC brings in a lot more revenue than Clemson does, yet Clemson has always been the better program.

Here's some examples:
Mark Richt was hired away from Florida State
Mack Brown was hired away from N Carolina
Charlie Strong was hired away from Louisville

True, in the past it's been the NFL which has poached the most ACC coaches (think Butch Davis, Dennis Erickson, Jimmy Johnson, Tom Coughlin, etc.).

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/0...art-1.html

However, there have been times when an SEC team has hired away an ACC coach (think Charlie Pell, Danny Ford, Steve Spurrier, Bill Curry, etc.):

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/0...sited.html

Not a huge factor, but it happens. Nole's point - that it's the inability to retain talented assistant coaches when big money comes calling - that's the bigger issue, IMO.

(11-10-2015 01:50 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 11:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 10:04 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  ...but with the 4 team playoff I think it not as important as you make it out to be. How many granite lined porta-potties can the SEC teams install out on the practice field to make a difference? Government orgainizations flush with cash--->gets wasted and there is a law of diminishing returns.

It all comes down to recruiting, coaching and fan support.

Unless/until there is a salary cap for coaches, money will always allow the richest teams to hire the best coaches (they won't even have to "find" them, just hire from other P5 teams). That is the real danger of falling too far behind, IMO... facilities are secondary.

i don't see all the great SEC coaches. Dabo wasn't getting paid much at all when he started at Clemson.

SC brings in a lot more revenue than Clemson does, yet Clemson has always been the better program.

Primarily because we have A. always paid our assistant coaches more and B. had better facilities. Spurrier changed that narrative and showed them a glimpse of what they can do if they invest in their program, and they have been pouring money into it ever since. Their facilities are night and day compared to where they were just a decade ago, and they are continuing to pour money into them.

Honestly those two details were the only benefits he did bring to their program because it certainly wasn't his offensive coaching skills. Lucky for us he never adapted to the changing nature of college football where the primary focus isn't the system you run but recruiting or we would be in a bigger hole than the 0-5 streak we broke last year. We are also lucky that he underestimated the job that Ellis Johnson did and thought that Lorenzo Ward was going to be able to maintain their level of play. Between promoting Ward to sole DC and replacing Brad Lawing with Deke Adams from UNC setting back their DL he royally screwed up the best unit on their team.

The idea that things are going to revert to the past between Clemson and South Carolina is asinine, TCI level talk. They will never admit it publicly but they are looking for their own Dabo right now, someone who will bring a renewed sense of energy to their program and who understands that recruiting is the lifeblood of the program. The powers that be in Columbia know that they only hold two advantages over Clemson in football.......conference affiliation and deeper pocketbooks......and you can rest assured they are going to do what they can to maximize those advantages when they can. With the ACC forcing us to go into a gunfight with only three bullets in our six shooter we best hope that IPTAY can fill out the cylinder or we better aim perfect on the three shots we do have or we are going to get buried.

(11-10-2015 02:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 01:50 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 11:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 10:04 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  ...but with the 4 team playoff I think it not as important as you make it out to be. How many granite lined porta-potties can the SEC teams install out on the practice field to make a difference? Government orgainizations flush with cash--->gets wasted and there is a law of diminishing returns.

It all comes down to recruiting, coaching and fan support.

Unless/until there is a salary cap for coaches, money will always allow the richest teams to hire the best coaches (they won't even have to "find" them, just hire from other P5 teams). That is the real danger of falling too far behind, IMO... facilities are secondary.

i don't see all the great SEC coaches. Dabo wasn't getting paid much at all when he started at Clemson.

SC brings in a lot more revenue than Clemson does, yet Clemson has always been the better program.

Here's some examples:
Mark Richt was hired away from Florida State
Mack Brown was hired away from N Carolina
Charlie Strong was hired away from Louisville

True, in the past it's been the NFL which has poached the most ACC coaches (think Butch Davis, Dennis Erickson, Jimmy Johnson, Tom Coughlin, etc.).

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/0...art-1.html

However, there have been times when an SEC team has hired away an ACC coach (think Charlie Pell, Danny Ford, Steve Spurrier, Bill Curry, etc.):

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/0...sited.html

Not a huge factor, but it happens. Nole's point - that it's the inability to retain talented assistant coaches when big money comes calling - that's the bigger issue, IMO.

Point of order.....Danny Ford was unemployed and working on his farm when he was hired as an assistant by interim HC Joe Kines to fill out his staff when Jack Crowe was fired during the 1992 season. Kines and Ford had worked together on Charlie Pell's staff and ironically Jack Crowe had been Ford's OC at Clemson from 86-88 before leaving to take the OC job at Arkansas. He was hired by and replaced as HC Ken Hatfield......when Hatfield left for Clemson.

my point is that higher paid coaches are not necessarily better coaches. these coaches may have left ACC schools but Richt is known for not winning big games, Strong may be fired soon, etc. Mack Brown never did much at Texas outside of the one title with a big athletic QB.

What Clemson has that SC doesn't is it is more unique, the hill, being next to a lake near the mountains, etc. SC is basically like every other university in a city. CLemson is good at recruiting Florida because Clemson looks a lot different from Florida, Columbia, not so much

There is no 100% rule in college football.

There are ALWAYS exceptions when you look at individual wins and seasons in vacuums.

UF lost to Ga Southern last year.

Boise State beat OK in the Fiesta Bowl years ago.



But do we see those type of exceptions for teams who win the national title?


Not in recent history.

recent national title winners:

2014 Ohio State - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2013 FSU - Largest budget in ACC. Florida schools are able to offset SOME revenue shortage with insane recruiting territory.
2012 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2011 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2010 Auburn - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2009 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2008 LSU - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2007 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2006 Texas - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2004 USC - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.


Miami....which has the best recruiting territory in the nation (one way to overcome lack of $$$$) is the last exception over a decade ago. Money has grown greatly since then. The title winners since then were elite in the revenue dept.


Can low revenue teams have good season? Yes, there is proof of that. Can low revenue teams beat high revenue teams? Yes, there is proof of that.


Can non elite revenue teams win a national titles.........the odds, the facts, suggests it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Ironically, Clemson has a decent chance to be that incredibly rare exception this year.


But if you have 15 or so elite revenue teams paying large sums to coaching staffs......not all 15 are going to be successful......but the odds show that the national title winner almost certainly will come from that elite high revenue group. Not from a lower revenue school.



We can look at this from EVERY angle.....there is no getting around this. Money matters....it matters a lot. Not sure why this reality is so upsetting to ACC fan bases.

Nole...money is important...no one doubts that but, I'm not ready to use BCS rules and apply them to the 4 team College Football Playoff.

ESPN shilling for the SEC is just as important as money flowing in...the ACC suffered a drought and just the last 3 seasons or so is starting to build some power at the top. The ACC needs to improve its' depth. The goal should be 5-7 teams in or just outside the Top 25 every year.

Even in hoops...it is usually just the big established teams that make the F4 and win it all. It isn't surprising that Bama, tOSU, Texas, etc...wins championships.

The ACC will not catch the B1G and SEC in revenue for the foreseeable future...but if they can remain fairly close it won't matter greatly...as long as the recruits come and they can retain quality coaches.

(11-10-2015 04:20 PM)nole Wrote:  There is no 100% rule in college football.

There are ALWAYS exceptions when you look at individual wins and seasons in vacuums.

UF lost to Ga Southern last year.

Boise State beat OK in the Fiesta Bowl years ago.



But do we see those type of exceptions for teams who win the national title?


Not in recent history.

recent national title winners:

2014 Ohio State - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2013 FSU - Largest budget in ACC. Florida schools are able to offset SOME revenue shortage with insane recruiting territory.
2012 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2011 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2010 Auburn - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2009 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2008 LSU - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2007 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2006 Texas - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2004 USC - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.


Miami....which has the best recruiting territory in the nation (one way to overcome lack of $$$$) is the last exception over a decade ago. Money has grown greatly since then. The title winners since then were elite in the revenue dept.


Can low revenue teams have good season? Yes, there is proof of that. Can low revenue teams beat high revenue teams? Yes, there is proof of that.


Can non elite revenue teams win a national titles.........the odds, the facts, suggests it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Ironically, Clemson has a decent chance to be that incredibly rare exception this year.


But if you have 15 or so elite revenue teams paying large sums to coaching staffs......not all 15 are going to be successful......but the odds show that the national title winner almost certainly will come from that elite high revenue group. Not from a lower revenue school.



We can look at this from EVERY angle.....there is no getting around this. Money matters....it matters a lot. Not sure why this reality is so upsetting to ACC fan bases.

If Clemson doesn't have much revenue, how you explain the nice and huge stadium with recent upgrades, nice facilities, a new pricey facility about to be built, and highly touted recruits leaving other states including Florida to go to Clemson.

Obviously Clemson does not lack money. We are beating out SEC programs for Sammy Watkins, Deshuan Watson, etc.

MIchigan has a ton of money, what have they been doing lately. lol

ACC's main challenge is the schools are smaller than other conferences on average with smaller alumni base, and we have more private schools, and the private schools focus more on basketball and hockey and other sports. The other main problem is we have 4 schools in the state of NC that cannabalize each other for in state talent, and East Carolina steal some too. They basically have as many major programs as Texas with a lot less population.

Even if Clemson does not win the title this year, it is clearly one of the best teams in the country. It has been one of the best programs the past 5 years with numerous wins over SEC schools and other historic powers like OSU.

Clemson won a title in 81 and I think the uni has much less revenue then than now and our facilities are definitely much better now.

(11-10-2015 05:39 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 04:20 PM)nole Wrote:  There is no 100% rule in college football.

There are ALWAYS exceptions when you look at individual wins and seasons in vacuums.

UF lost to Ga Southern last year.

Boise State beat OK in the Fiesta Bowl years ago.



But do we see those type of exceptions for teams who win the national title?


Not in recent history.

recent national title winners:

2014 Ohio State - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2013 FSU - Largest budget in ACC. Florida schools are able to offset SOME revenue shortage with insane recruiting territory.
2012 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2011 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2010 Auburn - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2009 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2008 LSU - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2007 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2006 Texas - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2004 USC - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.


Miami....which has the best recruiting territory in the nation (one way to overcome lack of $$$$) is the last exception over a decade ago. Money has grown greatly since then. The title winners since then were elite in the revenue dept.


Can low revenue teams have good season? Yes, there is proof of that. Can low revenue teams beat high revenue teams? Yes, there is proof of that.


Can non elite revenue teams win a national titles.........the odds, the facts, suggests it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Ironically, Clemson has a decent chance to be that incredibly rare exception this year.


But if you have 15 or so elite revenue teams paying large sums to coaching staffs......not all 15 are going to be successful......but the odds show that the national title winner almost certainly will come from that elite high revenue group. Not from a lower revenue school.



We can look at this from EVERY angle.....there is no getting around this. Money matters....it matters a lot. Not sure why this reality is so upsetting to ACC fan bases.

If Clemson doesn't have much revenue, how you explain the nice and huge stadium with recent upgrades, nice facilities, a new pricey facility about to be built, and highly touted recruits leaving other states including Florida to go to Clemson.

Obviously Clemson does not lack money. We are beating out SEC programs for Sammy Watkins, Deshuan Watson, etc.

MIchigan has a ton of money, what have they been doing lately. lol

ACC's main challenge is the schools are smaller than other conferences on average with smaller alumni base, and we have more private schools, and the private schools focus more on basketball and hockey and other sports. The other main problem is we have 4 schools in the state of NC that cannabalize each other for in state talent, and East Carolina steal some too. They basically have as many major programs as Texas with a lot less population.

Even if Clemson does not win the title this year, it is clearly one of the best teams in the country. It has been one of the best programs the past 5 years with numerous wins over SEC schools and other historic powers like OSU.

Clemson won a title in 81 and I think the uni has much less revenue then than now and our facilities are definitely much better now.

Discussed Clemson in other threads. Their budget is 9th largest in ACC...which is the poorest conference of P5.

In those discussion it was surmised that Clemson spends as much as anyone in football but shorts other sports programs.

In a different way, but like Miami, Clemson is 'different'....in a good way honestly.

For me personally, I love FSU's other sports, but as the revenue gap grows, I believe FSU will have to follow Clemson's lead and short other sports to fund football at the elite level like Clemson.

I wish ACC kept the gap from going to large so FSU could avoid this.

(11-10-2015 04:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nole...money is important...no one doubts that but, I'm not ready to use BCS rules and apply them to the 4 team College Football Playoff.

ESPN shilling for the SEC is just as important as money flowing in...the ACC suffered a drought and just the last 3 seasons or so is starting to build some power at the top. The ACC needs to improve its' depth. The goal should be 5-7 teams in or just outside the Top 25 every year.

Even in hoops...it is usually just the big established teams that make the F4 and win it all. It isn't surprising that Bama, tOSU, Texas, etc...wins championships.

The ACC will not catch the B1G and SEC in revenue for the foreseeable future...but if they can remain fairly close it won't matter greatly...as long as the recruits come and they can retain quality coaches.

Very much agree.

It has been said in other threads by myself and others as long as the gap is at the 85% level and not lower.....the ACC is fine.

But as that gap gets worse......and it is now, things will be problematic.


Swofford needs to address this.......right now his strategy seems "hope" and "hope" is not a strategy.

(11-10-2015 05:53 PM)nole Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 05:39 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 04:20 PM)nole Wrote:  There is no 100% rule in college football.

There are ALWAYS exceptions when you look at individual wins and seasons in vacuums.

UF lost to Ga Southern last year.

Boise State beat OK in the Fiesta Bowl years ago.



But do we see those type of exceptions for teams who win the national title?


Not in recent history.

recent national title winners:

2014 Ohio State - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2013 FSU - Largest budget in ACC. Florida schools are able to offset SOME revenue shortage with insane recruiting territory.
2012 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2011 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2010 Auburn - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2009 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2008 LSU - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2007 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2006 Texas - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2004 USC - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.


Miami....which has the best recruiting territory in the nation (one way to overcome lack of $$$$) is the last exception over a decade ago. Money has grown greatly since then. The title winners since then were elite in the revenue dept.


Can low revenue teams have good season? Yes, there is proof of that. Can low revenue teams beat high revenue teams? Yes, there is proof of that.


Can non elite revenue teams win a national titles.........the odds, the facts, suggests it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Ironically, Clemson has a decent chance to be that incredibly rare exception this year.


But if you have 15 or so elite revenue teams paying large sums to coaching staffs......not all 15 are going to be successful......but the odds show that the national title winner almost certainly will come from that elite high revenue group. Not from a lower revenue school.



We can look at this from EVERY angle.....there is no getting around this. Money matters....it matters a lot. Not sure why this reality is so upsetting to ACC fan bases.

If Clemson doesn't have much revenue, how you explain the nice and huge stadium with recent upgrades, nice facilities, a new pricey facility about to be built, and highly touted recruits leaving other states including Florida to go to Clemson.

Obviously Clemson does not lack money. We are beating out SEC programs for Sammy Watkins, Deshuan Watson, etc.

MIchigan has a ton of money, what have they been doing lately. lol

ACC's main challenge is the schools are smaller than other conferences on average with smaller alumni base, and we have more private schools, and the private schools focus more on basketball and hockey and other sports. The other main problem is we have 4 schools in the state of NC that cannabalize each other for in state talent, and East Carolina steal some too. They basically have as many major programs as Texas with a lot less population.

Even if Clemson does not win the title this year, it is clearly one of the best teams in the country. It has been one of the best programs the past 5 years with numerous wins over SEC schools and other historic powers like OSU.

Clemson won a title in 81 and I think the uni has much less revenue then than now and our facilities are definitely much better now.

Discussed Clemson in other threads. Their budget is 9th largest in ACC...which is the poorest conference of P5.

In those discussion it was surmised that Clemson spends as much as anyone in football but shorts other sports programs.

In a different way, but like Miami, Clemson is 'different'....in a good way honestly.

For me personally, I love FSU's other sports, but as the revenue gap grows, I believe FSU will have to follow Clemson's lead and short other sports to fund football at the elite level like Clemson.

I wish ACC kept the gap from going to large so FSU could avoid this.

what other sports have we shorted? We are competive in basketball, baseball, golf, soccer, etc. building a new arena for basketball right now.

i think u assume a lot of things about Clem. it's never been a football only school. Clemson did cancel the swimming team but it isn't like that freed up tons of money for football. lol

(11-10-2015 06:09 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 05:53 PM)nole Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 05:39 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 04:20 PM)nole Wrote:  There is no 100% rule in college football.

There are ALWAYS exceptions when you look at individual wins and seasons in vacuums.

UF lost to Ga Southern last year.

Boise State beat OK in the Fiesta Bowl years ago.



But do we see those type of exceptions for teams who win the national title?


Not in recent history.

recent national title winners:

2014 Ohio State - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2013 FSU - Largest budget in ACC. Florida schools are able to offset SOME revenue shortage with insane recruiting territory.
2012 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2011 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2010 Auburn - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2009 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2008 LSU - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2007 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2006 Texas - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2004 USC - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.


Miami....which has the best recruiting territory in the nation (one way to overcome lack of $$$$) is the last exception over a decade ago. Money has grown greatly since then. The title winners since then were elite in the revenue dept.


Can low revenue teams have good season? Yes, there is proof of that. Can low revenue teams beat high revenue teams? Yes, there is proof of that.


Can non elite revenue teams win a national titles.........the odds, the facts, suggests it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Ironically, Clemson has a decent chance to be that incredibly rare exception this year.


But if you have 15 or so elite revenue teams paying large sums to coaching staffs......not all 15 are going to be successful......but the odds show that the national title winner almost certainly will come from that elite high revenue group. Not from a lower revenue school.



We can look at this from EVERY angle.....there is no getting around this. Money matters....it matters a lot. Not sure why this reality is so upsetting to ACC fan bases.

If Clemson doesn't have much revenue, how you explain the nice and huge stadium with recent upgrades, nice facilities, a new pricey facility about to be built, and highly touted recruits leaving other states including Florida to go to Clemson.

Obviously Clemson does not lack money. We are beating out SEC programs for Sammy Watkins, Deshuan Watson, etc.

MIchigan has a ton of money, what have they been doing lately. lol

ACC's main challenge is the schools are smaller than other conferences on average with smaller alumni base, and we have more private schools, and the private schools focus more on basketball and hockey and other sports. The other main problem is we have 4 schools in the state of NC that cannabalize each other for in state talent, and East Carolina steal some too. They basically have as many major programs as Texas with a lot less population.

Even if Clemson does not win the title this year, it is clearly one of the best teams in the country. It has been one of the best programs the past 5 years with numerous wins over SEC schools and other historic powers like OSU.

Clemson won a title in 81 and I think the uni has much less revenue then than now and our facilities are definitely much better now.

Discussed Clemson in other threads. Their budget is 9th largest in ACC...which is the poorest conference of P5.

In those discussion it was surmised that Clemson spends as much as anyone in football but shorts other sports programs.

In a different way, but like Miami, Clemson is 'different'....in a good way honestly.

For me personally, I love FSU's other sports, but as the revenue gap grows, I believe FSU will have to follow Clemson's lead and short other sports to fund football at the elite level like Clemson.

I wish ACC kept the gap from going to large so FSU could avoid this.

what other sports have we shorted? We are competive in basketball, baseball, golf, soccer, etc. building a new arena for basketball right now.

i think u assume a lot of things about Clem. it's never been a football only school

Clemson is no different than FSU in basketball.....we aren't killing it in that sport. Sorry, I would argue both FSU and Clemson short things in bball.....or have historically ( I know you guys are doing things now).

But if your budget is $76 Million and there are 27 schools over $100 Million......either you are shorting something or working miracles.


maybe our assumptions were wrong.

Educate me. What is your recent rankings in the all sports cup.

Any national titles?

Any top 5 finishes?

(11-10-2015 06:15 PM)nole Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 06:09 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 05:53 PM)nole Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 05:39 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 04:20 PM)nole Wrote:  There is no 100% rule in college football.

There are ALWAYS exceptions when you look at individual wins and seasons in vacuums.

UF lost to Ga Southern last year.

Boise State beat OK in the Fiesta Bowl years ago.



But do we see those type of exceptions for teams who win the national title?


Not in recent history.

recent national title winners:

2014 Ohio State - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2013 FSU - Largest budget in ACC. Florida schools are able to offset SOME revenue shortage with insane recruiting territory.
2012 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2011 Bama - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2010 Auburn - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2009 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2008 LSU - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2007 UF - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2006 Texas - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.
2004 USC - EXTREMELY high revenue school. Budget higher than every ACC school.


Miami....which has the best recruiting territory in the nation (one way to overcome lack of $$$$) is the last exception over a decade ago. Money has grown greatly since then. The title winners since then were elite in the revenue dept.


Can low revenue teams have good season? Yes, there is proof of that. Can low revenue teams beat high revenue teams? Yes, there is proof of that.


Can non elite revenue teams win a national titles.........the odds, the facts, suggests it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Ironically, Clemson has a decent chance to be that incredibly rare exception this year.


But if you have 15 or so elite revenue teams paying large sums to coaching staffs......not all 15 are going to be successful......but the odds show that the national title winner almost certainly will come from that elite high revenue group. Not from a lower revenue school.



We can look at this from EVERY angle.....there is no getting around this. Money matters....it matters a lot. Not sure why this reality is so upsetting to ACC fan bases.

If Clemson doesn't have much revenue, how you explain the nice and huge stadium with recent upgrades, nice facilities, a new pricey facility about to be built, and highly touted recruits leaving other states including Florida to go to Clemson.

Obviously Clemson does not lack money. We are beating out SEC programs for Sammy Watkins, Deshuan Watson, etc.

MIchigan has a ton of money, what have they been doing lately. lol

ACC's main challenge is the schools are smaller than other conferences on average with smaller alumni base, and we have more private schools, and the private schools focus more on basketball and hockey and other sports. The other main problem is we have 4 schools in the state of NC that cannabalize each other for in state talent, and East Carolina steal some too. They basically have as many major programs as Texas with a lot less population.

Even if Clemson does not win the title this year, it is clearly one of the best teams in the country. It has been one of the best programs the past 5 years with numerous wins over SEC schools and other historic powers like OSU.

Clemson won a title in 81 and I think the uni has much less revenue then than now and our facilities are definitely much better now.

Discussed Clemson in other threads. Their budget is 9th largest in ACC...which is the poorest conference of P5.

In those discussion it was surmised that Clemson spends as much as anyone in football but shorts other sports programs.

In a different way, but like Miami, Clemson is 'different'....in a good way honestly.

For me personally, I love FSU's other sports, but as the revenue gap grows, I believe FSU will have to follow Clemson's lead and short other sports to fund football at the elite level like Clemson.

I wish ACC kept the gap from going to large so FSU could avoid this.

what other sports have we shorted? We are competive in basketball, baseball, golf, soccer, etc. building a new arena for basketball right now.

i think u assume a lot of things about Clem. it's never been a football only school

Clemson is no different than FSU in basketball.....we aren't killing it in that sport. Sorry, I would argue both FSU and Clemson short things in bball.....or have historically ( I know you guys are doing things now).

But if your budget is $76 Million and there are 27 schools over $100 Million......either you are shorting something or working miracles.


maybe our assumptions were wrong.

Educate me. What is your recent rankings in the all sports cup.

Any national titles?

Any top 5 finishes?

You conflate being competitive with winning titles. Clemson has generally been middle of the pack in the ACC the past 10 years or so. That's competing.

All the money in the world isn't going to force good players to come to Clemson or any school. Our basketball arena was nice enough and much nicer than Duke's.

i think that you have to spend more on football than other sports in general. that's why the smaller schools have focused on other sports

"i think that you have to spend more on football than other sports in general. that's why the smaller schools have focused on other sports "


Basically what I wrote above

We agree. As the revenue gap grows, FSU will have to adjust as you state.

(11-10-2015 07:06 PM)nole Wrote:  "i think that you have to spend more on football than other sports in general. that's why the smaller schools have focused on other sports "


Basically what I wrote above

We agree. As the revenue gap grows, FSU will have to adjust as you state.

I don't think that you're agreeing, but I do think that you're right. It's my belief that you can buy wins in football (at least to an extent). Look at Oregon. As rich conferences make more money, their members will start buying wins. That trend is a problem for any schools in poorer conferences who hope to compete. To that extend, we agree. The real question is "how can we maximize the ACC's value in an economically/politically feasible way?."

Clem's point, as I understand it, is that there is a high fixed cost to football, and everything after that is not very necessary. In other words, if a team can spend the required fixed cost, which virtually every P5 team should be able to do, then it should be able to compete and any additional spend will have a marginal impact on that team's ability to win. That's why historically poor/middle of the road teams like TCU, Baylor, Miami, Clemson, and GT can compete with loaded teams like Texas, Michigan, Tennessee, USC, and Nebraska.

Dunno how we are "shortchanging" other sports. We just did massive a massive renovation of Riggs Field for M&W Soccer. We just did a massive renovation and expansion of Doug Kingsmore for baseball. We just gutted Littlejohn and are essentially building a new facility within the old shell. We just finished a training facility at the fairly new itself Lake Hartwell Boathouse for Rowing. Tennis and both the indoor and outdoor Track complexes have been renovated within the past decade, and the Walker Course and the Larry Pendley Clubhouse are among the best golf facilities in the country. When the football complex is finished the athletics administration is moving into the office space of the West Zone and the other sports will take over the weight training and other facilities.

(11-10-2015 07:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 07:06 PM)nole Wrote:  "i think that you have to spend more on football than other sports in general. that's why the smaller schools have focused on other sports "


Basically what I wrote above

We agree. As the revenue gap grows, FSU will have to adjust as you state.

I don't think that you're agreeing, but I do think that you're right. It's my belief that you can buy wins in football (at least to an extent). Look at Oregon. As rich conferences make more money, their members will start buying wins. That trend is a problem for any schools in poorer conferences who hope to compete. To that extend, we agree. The real question is "how can we maximize the ACC's value in an economically/politically feasible way?."

Clem's point, as I understand it, is that there is a high fixed cost to football, and everything after that is not very necessary. In other words, if a team can spend the required fixed cost, which virtually every P5 team should be able to do, then it should be able to compete and any additional spend will have a marginal impact on that team's ability to win. That's why historically poor/middle of the road teams like TCU, Baylor, Miami, Clemson, and GT can compete with loaded teams like Texas, Michigan, Tennessee, USC, and Nebraska.

Gotcha.

TCU, Baylor (21st largest budget), Miami, Clemson, and GT as examples...thoughts:

*Miami-An exception, not a rule because of recruiting territory (and honestly, after 2003, fell off the map).

*TCU, Baylor, Clemson (stated above, like Miami, a bit of an exception....they spend money like an elite revenue school in football.....but no title since 1980 either), and GT (1990 title). All don't win national titles. So I don't think these counter my arguments.


Thanks for helping clarify.

Baylor's revenue has skyrocketed after the success...and the opening of the new stadium.

(11-10-2015 07:37 PM)nole Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 07:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 07:06 PM)nole Wrote:  "i think that you have to spend more on football than other sports in general. that's why the smaller schools have focused on other sports "


Basically what I wrote above

We agree. As the revenue gap grows, FSU will have to adjust as you state.

I don't think that you're agreeing, but I do think that you're right. It's my belief that you can buy wins in football (at least to an extent). Look at Oregon. As rich conferences make more money, their members will start buying wins. That trend is a problem for any schools in poorer conferences who hope to compete. To that extend, we agree. The real question is "how can we maximize the ACC's value in an economically/politically feasible way?."

Clem's point, as I understand it, is that there is a high fixed cost to football, and everything after that is not very necessary. In other words, if a team can spend the required fixed cost, which virtually every P5 team should be able to do, then it should be able to compete and any additional spend will have a marginal impact on that team's ability to win. That's why historically poor/middle of the road teams like TCU, Baylor, Miami, Clemson, and GT can compete with loaded teams like Texas, Michigan, Tennessee, USC, and Nebraska.

Gotcha.

TCU, Baylor (21st largest budget), Miami, Clemson, and GT as examples...thoughts:

*Miami-An exception, not a rule because of recruiting territory (and honestly, after 2003, fell off the map).

*TCU, Baylor, Clemson (stated above, like Miami, a bit of an exception....they spend money like an elite revenue school in football.....but no title since 1980 either), and GT (1990 title). All don't win national titles. So I don't think these counter my arguments.


Thanks for helping clarify.

FWIW, Baylor and TCU having/spending money is a recent occurrence. I don't think either had or spent a lot of money before their most recent run, so it wasn't there when they first started winning at a high level. I'm not sure how long it will last when they fall off.

That said, your point still stands.