Dabo has been crazy successful during his tenure with Clemson. That's undeniable.
Dabo can be poached, especially with this financial gap in the current media deals. SEC and Big Ten programs will be more aggressive with a clear financial advantage.
How much of Clemson's brand is Dabo?
Is Clemson a top P2 expansion candidate without Dabo?
They likely are top 6 pick with or without him. Enough FB history to keep them high on the list.
FSU, OR, and NC likely higher, Pick 3 more and Clemson almost has to be one of them.
(03-01-2023 09:46 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Dabo has been crazy successful during his tenure with Clemson. That's undeniable.
Dabo can be poached, especially with this financial gap in the current media deals. SEC and Big Ten programs will be more aggressive with a clear financial advantage.
How much of Clemson's brand is Dabo?
The late 90s and 00s, Clemson hovered around .500. I remember the Bowden Bowl being the first time (in my life) Clemson was somewhat relevant due to Bowden's name. Then Dabo built a dynasty built on success (and under the table payments prior to NIL).
Is Clemson a top P2 expansion candidate without Dabo?
- Facilities are top of the line
- TV Numbers look great because they have been a Top5 team for like a decade
- TV Markets are comparable to many already within the leagues
Definitely P2 worthy. This topic was pretty well covered in the past day or two in another thread. They also won their first Natty with Danny Ford back in '81.
(03-01-2023 09:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]They likely are top 6 pick with or without him. Enough FB history to keep them high on the list.
FSU, OR, and NC likely higher, Pick 3 more and Clemson almost has to be one of them.
1. Notre Dame
2. FSU
3. Miami
4. ???
5. ???
6. Clemson without Dabo?
(03-01-2023 09:57 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ] (03-01-2023 09:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]They likely are top 6 pick with or without him. Enough FB history to keep them high on the list.
FSU, OR, and NC likely higher, Pick 3 more and Clemson almost has to be one of them.
1. Notre Dame
2. FSU
3. Miami
4. ???
5. ???
6. Clemson without Dabo?
The decision made by the SEC or B1G in regards to Clemson won't be about whether the Tigers have good enough football chops (they do). It will be made based on revenue generation, cultural/academic fit, and strategy. Their weak spot is they probably are not on the B1G's list (cultural/academic fit), which means the SEC doesn't have to consider grabbing them in a defensive move, and the SEC already has USCe. But they're a big enough brand that puts a ton of eyes on TV's and butts in seats to be on the SEC's very short list. I can't imagine Clemson anywhere other than the SEC when its time in the ACC comes to a likely close.
I think they are, but Clemson as a P2 candidate at all comes with a caveat. They're a great candidate for the SEC, and a horrible candidate for the B1G. Even without Dabo and the success of the last decade, Clemson would fit easily into the SEC.
We'll see what happens, but if there is a limited jailbreak from the ACC then Clemson could fall victim to a lack of urgency. The B1G may waive AAU membership for a Florida school on track to achieve it before too long, but I don't see Clemson on their radar at all for that and many other reasons. So the SEC may feel that Clemson will be waiting at the altar whenever we're ready, similar to the way the B1G is treating Oregon/Washington right now.
Dabo has increased Clemson's appeal, but IMO the bedrock of their appeal is their fan base.
In 2009, before Dabo, or, before Dabo was "Dabo", Clemson was 17th in football attendance, at 75,000.
That is IMO a P2 fan base. Easily.
Miami is not the blue blood team like they used to be. Their stadium at game day looks like a ghost town.
(03-01-2023 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Dabo has increased Clemson's appeal, but IMO the bedrock of their appeal is their fan base.
In 2009, before Dabo, or, before Dabo was "Dabo", Clemson was 17th in football attendance, at 75,000.
That is IMO a P2 fan base. Easily.
(03-01-2023 10:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]Miami is not the blue blood team like they used to be. Their stadium at game day looks like a ghost town.
These two statements are both true, and for the same reason.
Will the TV networks want them in the SEC? That's the question you need to answer.
I think a lot of fans overrate Clemson’s position in realignment due to recency bias of performance. That doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually get into the SEC, but they’re not “100% unambiguous lock status” for the P2 in the same way FSU would be.
Let’s put it this way: if Clemson had performed the way FSU has during the CFP era, we wouldn’t be taking about Clemson as a P2 candidate whatsoever. They certainly weren’t in the discussion in 2010 when the modern form of realignment really kicked into gear.
The point is that FSU is still in that position for the P2 *despite* performance because it’s desirable as a *brand*, just like Texas and USC. Clemson is currently desirable for *performance*, more like Oregon (albeit Clemson obviously reaching much greater heights during the CFP era).
To me, Miami is a more durable brand compared to Clemson along with being directly located in arguably the best per capita football talent producing market in the country, yet we don’t talk about Miami as quite the same no-brainer for a P2 invite as we do with FSU. The recent weak performance of Miami has diminished the desirability of that brand, so that would be the risk of adding Clemson (as I see them as having a lower floor compared to Miami). Now, I think Miami ends up in the P2 to the extent that there’s movement, but it’s not a 100% lock. (To me, 100% locks are the Texas and USC types.)
Generally speaking, I think fans overrate the number of ACC schools that would truly add value to the Big Ten and SEC at the top. We can see this with the Pac-12 - I would say that FSU, UNC and Miami are the only ones that are clearly worth more than Washington and Oregon when looking at whole package (athletic brand, financial value, recruiting location, market, academics), who aren’t deemed to be adding enough for the Big Ten to expand right now. I’d put Clemson as being closer to UW/UO than the other ACC schools that I mentioned. Likewise, there is no better combination of a large market and academics than Stanford and Cal, so I don’t buy whatsoever that any ACC school is getting added on a “large market/great academics” basis (see UVA, Georgia Tech, etc.) as long as Stanford and Cal are sitting out there. The Pac-12 schools really show the baseline of at least what it would take to get into the Big Ten, which is going to have similar financial requirements as the SEC (even if the academic requirements aren’t the same).
By the same token, though, I see fans underrating the value of the depth of the ACC behind the small handful of P2 candidates. Virginia Tech, NC State, Pitt, Georgia Tech, even BC and Syracuse (who when you look at historical TV ratings, they’re actually among the strongest when they’re matched up against another strong brand, e.g. they’re very solid draws as opponents versus the headliner compared to other opponents)… none of these schools are likely to end up in either the Big Ten or SEC even with a total meltdown of the ACC, but I’d take that group to form the basis of a “P3” league much more than either the Big 12 or Pac-12.
Essentially, people are overrating the number of ACC schools that are true P2 candidates, but underrate the value of the rest of the ACC in terms of their ability to be the base of whatever becomes the “best of the rest” conference.
I actually don't think pre-Dabo Clemson would be picked by the B1G or SEC. The SEC would grab FSU, Miami, UNC-or-NCSU, & UVA-or-VT before pre-Dabo Clemson, IMO.
(03-01-2023 09:46 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Dabo has been crazy successful during his tenure with Clemson. That's undeniable.
Dabo can be poached, especially with this financial gap in the current media deals. SEC and Big Ten programs will be more aggressive with a clear financial advantage.
How much of Clemson's brand is Dabo?
The late 90s and 00s, Clemson hovered around .500. I remember the Bowden Bowl being the first time (in my life) Clemson was somewhat relevant due to Bowden's name. Then Dabo built a dynasty built on success (and under the table payments prior to NIL).
Is Clemson a top P2 expansion candidate without Dabo?
- Facilities are top of the line
- TV Numbers look great because they have been a Top5 team for like a decade
- TV Markets are comparable to many already within the leagues
I said this elsewhere, but they're only a top-flight brand under Dabo, similar to Gonzaga and Mark Few although that's been going on for about 10 years longer than the Dabo era. Yes I know they won a national title in 81 so they weren't irrelevant, but they were pretty mediocre as soon as FSU got to the ACC. I'd trade SC in a heartbeat for Clemson but since SC already has a seat at the table, Clemson is dependent on keeping the current high level of play going into the 2036 expansion. If Dabo leaves and this turns into an 8 or 9 win team every year, no thank you.
And FWIW I think Dabo is likely to take an NFL job at some point as opposed to another college job.
(03-01-2023 10:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I think a lot of fans overrate Clemson’s position in realignment due to recency bias of performance. That doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually get into the SEC, but they’re not “100% unambiguous lock status” for the P2 in the same way FSU would be.
Let’s put it this way: if Clemson had performed the way FSU has during the CFP era, we wouldn’t be taking about Clemson as a P2 candidate whatsoever. They certainly weren’t in the discussion in 2010 when the modern form of realignment really kicked into gear.
The point is that FSU is still in that position for the P2 *despite* performance because it’s desirable as a *brand*, just like Texas and USC. Clemson is currently desirable for *performance*, more like Oregon (albeit Clemson obviously reaching much greater heights during the CFP era).
To me, Miami is a more durable brand compared to Clemson along with being directly located in arguably the best per capita football talent producing market in the country, yet we don’t talk about Miami as quite the same no-brainer for a P2 invite as we do with FSU. The recent weak performance of Miami has diminished the desirability of that brand, so that would be the risk of adding Clemson (as I see them as having a lower floor compared to Miami). Now, I think Miami ends up in the P2 to the extent that there’s movement, but it’s not a 100% lock. (To me, 100% locks are the Texas and USC types.)
Generally speaking, I think fans overrate the number of ACC schools that would truly add value to the Big Ten and SEC at the top. We can see this with the Pac-12 - I would say that FSU, UNC and Miami are the only ones that are clearly worth more than Washington and Oregon when looking at whole package (athletic brand, financial value, recruiting location, market, academics), who aren’t deemed to be adding enough for the Big Ten to expand right now. I’d put Clemson as being closer to UW/UO than the other ACC schools that I mentioned. Likewise, there is no better combination of a large market and academics than Stanford and Cal, so I don’t buy whatsoever that any ACC school is getting added on a “large market/great academics” basis (see UVA, Georgia Tech, etc.) as long as Stanford and Cal are sitting out there. The Pac-12 schools really show the baseline of at least what it would take to get into the Big Ten, which is going to have similar financial requirements as the SEC (even if the academic requirements aren’t the same).
By the same token, though, I see fans underrating the value of the depth of the ACC behind the small handful of P2 candidates. Virginia Tech, NC State, Pitt, Georgia Tech, even BC and Syracuse (who when you look at historical TV ratings, they’re actually among the strongest when they’re matched up against another strong brand, e.g. they’re very solid draws as opponents versus the headliner compared to other opponents)… none of these schools are likely to end up in either the Big Ten or SEC even with a total meltdown of the ACC, but I’d take that group to form the basis of a “P3” league much more than either the Big 12 or Pac-12.
Essentially, people are overrating the number of ACC schools that are true P2 candidates, but underrate the value of the rest of the ACC in terms of their ability to be the base of whatever becomes the “best of the rest” conference.
Really, you could say the same thing about the SEC and Big Ten members.
Which SEC teams would the Big Ten add as a stand-alone addition? Georgia, Florida, Texas A&M. And maybe LSU.
Which Big Ten schools would the SEC add as a stand-alone addition? Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan. And maybe Iowa/Nebraska/Wisconsin, but probably not.
That's almost as many schools as they'd add from the ACC without a second thought (The SEC would add Clemson, FSU, or UNC without hesitation, and the Big Ten would add Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke without hesitation)
(03-01-2023 10:04 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]I think they are, but Clemson as a P2 candidate at all comes with a caveat. They're a great candidate for the SEC, and a horrible candidate for the B1G. Even without Dabo and the success of the last decade, Clemson would fit easily into the SEC.
We'll see what happens, but if there is a limited jailbreak from the ACC then Clemson could fall victim to a lack of urgency. The B1G may waive AAU membership for a Florida school on track to achieve it before too long, but I don't see Clemson on their radar at all for that and many other reasons. So the SEC may feel that Clemson will be waiting at the altar whenever we're ready, similar to the way the B1G is treating Oregon/Washington right now.
They really aren't that bad a candidate for the Big 10. They aren't typical Big 10, but academically, they are a match for Nebraska. They are a pretty solid school. But they would just fit better in the SEC. That is the area where their recruiting and rivalries are. Georgia was a pretty big rivalry before the SEC went to 8 games. Clemson is the 2nd closest school to Georgia after Georgia Tech.
They have plenty of history pre-Dabo. They average 75-80k a game. Notre Dame, FSU and Clemson are the only schools over 70k not in or headed to the P2. Washington is the only other school even over 61k. So they easily fit.
(03-01-2023 10:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]To me, Miami is a more durable brand compared to Clemson along with being directly located in arguably the best per capita football talent producing market in the country, yet we don’t talk about Miami as quite the same no-brainer for a P2 invite as we do with FSU. The recent weak performance of Miami has diminished the desirability of that brand, so that would be the risk of adding Clemson (as I see them as having a lower floor compared to Miami). Now, I think Miami ends up in the P2 to the extent that there’s movement, but it’s not a 100% lock. (To me, 100% locks are the Texas and USC types.)
I think this may be a generational thing.
I started following college football in the mid-2000s. That seems forever ago, nearly 20 years. And that entire time, Miami has been a mediocre school with almost zero fan support.
But if you started watching CFB 5 years earlier than I did, Miami was a top-5 school for 4 years in a row.
Miami's brand is a lot like Boise. It's great when they're winning, but they don't have the fan support to maintain interest when they're not winning. Sure, they're in a great recruiting location, but much like FIU & FAU & FGCU & Rice & Houston, location only helps you when you're winning.
(03-01-2023 11:25 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-01-2023 10:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I think a lot of fans overrate Clemson’s position in realignment due to recency bias of performance. That doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually get into the SEC, but they’re not “100% unambiguous lock status” for the P2 in the same way FSU would be.
Let’s put it this way: if Clemson had performed the way FSU has during the CFP era, we wouldn’t be taking about Clemson as a P2 candidate whatsoever. They certainly weren’t in the discussion in 2010 when the modern form of realignment really kicked into gear.
The point is that FSU is still in that position for the P2 *despite* performance because it’s desirable as a *brand*, just like Texas and USC. Clemson is currently desirable for *performance*, more like Oregon (albeit Clemson obviously reaching much greater heights during the CFP era).
To me, Miami is a more durable brand compared to Clemson along with being directly located in arguably the best per capita football talent producing market in the country, yet we don’t talk about Miami as quite the same no-brainer for a P2 invite as we do with FSU. The recent weak performance of Miami has diminished the desirability of that brand, so that would be the risk of adding Clemson (as I see them as having a lower floor compared to Miami). Now, I think Miami ends up in the P2 to the extent that there’s movement, but it’s not a 100% lock. (To me, 100% locks are the Texas and USC types.)
Generally speaking, I think fans overrate the number of ACC schools that would truly add value to the Big Ten and SEC at the top. We can see this with the Pac-12 - I would say that FSU, UNC and Miami are the only ones that are clearly worth more than Washington and Oregon when looking at whole package (athletic brand, financial value, recruiting location, market, academics), who aren’t deemed to be adding enough for the Big Ten to expand right now. I’d put Clemson as being closer to UW/UO than the other ACC schools that I mentioned. Likewise, there is no better combination of a large market and academics than Stanford and Cal, so I don’t buy whatsoever that any ACC school is getting added on a “large market/great academics” basis (see UVA, Georgia Tech, etc.) as long as Stanford and Cal are sitting out there. The Pac-12 schools really show the baseline of at least what it would take to get into the Big Ten, which is going to have similar financial requirements as the SEC (even if the academic requirements aren’t the same).
By the same token, though, I see fans underrating the value of the depth of the ACC behind the small handful of P2 candidates. Virginia Tech, NC State, Pitt, Georgia Tech, even BC and Syracuse (who when you look at historical TV ratings, they’re actually among the strongest when they’re matched up against another strong brand, e.g. they’re very solid draws as opponents versus the headliner compared to other opponents)… none of these schools are likely to end up in either the Big Ten or SEC even with a total meltdown of the ACC, but I’d take that group to form the basis of a “P3” league much more than either the Big 12 or Pac-12.
Essentially, people are overrating the number of ACC schools that are true P2 candidates, but underrate the value of the rest of the ACC in terms of their ability to be the base of whatever becomes the “best of the rest” conference.
Really, you could say the same thing about the SEC and Big Ten members.
Which SEC teams would the Big Ten add as a stand-alone addition? Georgia, Florida, Texas A&M. And maybe LSU.
Which Big Ten schools would the SEC add as a stand-alone addition? Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan. And maybe Iowa/Nebraska/Wisconsin, but probably not.
That's almost as many schools as they'd add from the ACC without a second thought (The SEC would add Clemson, FSU, or UNC without hesitation, and the Big Ten would add Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke without hesitation)
Sure - I agree.
When we’re at the levels of revenue that the Big Ten and SEC are making, they truly need superstars to move the needle. “Mere” stars don’t add enough in the way that they did even 10 years ago, where schools like Rutgers and Missouri could still make money for those leagues. The thought that the Big Ten would have Stanford and Cal begging for invites and outright *reject* them would have been inconceivable in 2013, yet that’s the situation today. The bar keeps getting raised higher and higher.
(03-01-2023 10:48 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]I actually don't think pre-Dabo Clemson would be picked by the B1G or SEC. The SEC would grab FSU, Miami, UNC-or-NCSU, & UVA-or-VT before pre-Dabo Clemson, IMO.
I agree.
But 2 national titles is enough to make a material impact on the long-term valuation of a football program.
Where would Auburn or Penn State be in the pecking order if they had zero national titles?
(03-01-2023 11:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-01-2023 10:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]To me, Miami is a more durable brand compared to Clemson along with being directly located in arguably the best per capita football talent producing market in the country, yet we don’t talk about Miami as quite the same no-brainer for a P2 invite as we do with FSU. The recent weak performance of Miami has diminished the desirability of that brand, so that would be the risk of adding Clemson (as I see them as having a lower floor compared to Miami). Now, I think Miami ends up in the P2 to the extent that there’s movement, but it’s not a 100% lock. (To me, 100% locks are the Texas and USC types.)
I think this may be a generational thing.
I started following college football in the mid-2000s. That seems forever ago, nearly 20 years. And that entire time, Miami has been a mediocre school with almost zero fan support.
But if you started watching CFB 5 years earlier than I did, Miami was a top-5 school for 4 years in a row.
Miami's brand is a lot like Boise. It's great when they're winning, but they don't have the fan support to maintain interest when they're not winning. Sure, they're in a great recruiting location, but much like FIU & FAU & FGCU & Rice & Houston, location only helps you when you're winning.
I’m sure part of it is generational since I’m a child of the late-80s and 90s (essentially Miami’s peak). That being said, Miami has reached much greater heights than any of those aforementioned schools and they basically perfected what NIL is today before it was ever legal. It’s not just the home recruiting location, but also the allure of its location from outside the region, as well - gorgeous campus that’s minutes from South Beach and football players are treated (and paid) like kings. I honestly don’t know how Miami loses many/any recruiting battles once a player actually visits the place. To that point, I’m sure someone has a good measure of quantifiable data, but my guess is that Miami has to be the most underperforming program compared to their recruiting rankings over the past decade. Note Miami has yet another top 10 recruiting class this year, so they’re still drawing the elite talent, which is a huge part of the battle. How they’re not winning despite that elite talent is a different matter.
Top 25 TV Markets with poachable P5 teams:
1. Syracuse (New York)
2. Baylor/TCU (Dallas/FtWorth)
3. Georgia Tech (Atlanta)
4. Houston (Houston)
5. Boston College (Boston)
6. Colorado (Denver)
7. UCF (Orlando)
8. Miami (Miami)
9. UNC/NC State (Raleigh)