(10-04-2026 01:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

This is correct. People drastically under appreciate the staying power of large sports brands. Reading people on here discount brands like Tennessee, Auburn, Nebraska, and even Florida because they have had a run of bad years is naive to the point of sympathetic embarrassment.

Other than having sufficient academics, which is now a little lower bar than it used to be a few years ago because the money at stake has grown to epic proportions, the only real challenge to brand value supremacy in conference realignment is the still relevant cable market dynamic of a new state, or possibly still a large metropolitan area, that generates new cable fees. Of course that dynamic is slowly shrinking, but it may level off at about 50 million households nationwide.

That means UVA and/or VT, North Carolina, and maybe another NC school or two, can still offer about an additional $40 to $60 million dollars a year to a new conference. That is a big advantage these schools have over larger football brands. However, the importance of ad rates has also increased as college football continues to grow. My estimation is a new national brand that can bring in a 6.5 million viewers per football game matches the new media footprints of North Carolina and Virginia.

I think FSU, Miami and Clemson most likely bring that level of interest, or more, as college football continues its growth, and over time brand power probably continues it value enhancement while regional cable carriage fees continues its decline against national streaming fees primary driven by national brands. It is important to note that while carriage fees are shrinking they still offer guaranteed income for many years, so those dollars are worth a little more now in predicting future income.

I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

(10-04-2026 01:37 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

This is correct. People drastically under appreciate the staying power of large sports brands. Reading people on here discount brands like Tennessee, Auburn, Nebraska, and even Florida because they have had a run of bad years is naive to the point of sympathetic embarrassment.

Other than having sufficient academics, which is now a little lower bar than it used to be a few years ago because the money at stake has grown to epic proportions, the only real challenge to brand value supremacy in conference realignment is the still relevant cable market dynamic of a new state, or possibly still a large metropolitan area, that generates new cable fees. Of course that dynamic is slowly shrinking, but it may level off at about 50 million households nationwide.

That means UVA and/or VT, North Carolina, and maybe another NC school or two, can still offer about an additional $40 to $60 million dollars a year to a new conference. That is a big advantage these schools have over larger football brands. However, the importance of ad rates has also increased as college football continues to grow. My estimation is a new national brand that can bring in a 6.5 million viewers per football game matches the new media footprints of North Carolina and Virginia.

I think FSU, Miami and Clemson most likely bring that level of interest, or more, as college football continues its growth, and over time brand power probably continues it value enhancement while regional cable carriage fees continues its decline against national streaming fees primary driven by national brands. It is important to note that while carriage fees are shrinking they still offer guaranteed income for many years, so those dollars are worth a little more now in predicting future income.

I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

You really think so? Name 24 bigger college football programs as of 18 years ago.

(10-04-2026 01:41 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:37 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

This is correct. People drastically under appreciate the staying power of large sports brands. Reading people on here discount brands like Tennessee, Auburn, Nebraska, and even Florida because they have had a run of bad years is naive to the point of sympathetic embarrassment.

Other than having sufficient academics, which is now a little lower bar than it used to be a few years ago because the money at stake has grown to epic proportions, the only real challenge to brand value supremacy in conference realignment is the still relevant cable market dynamic of a new state, or possibly still a large metropolitan area, that generates new cable fees. Of course that dynamic is slowly shrinking, but it may level off at about 50 million households nationwide.

That means UVA and/or VT, North Carolina, and maybe another NC school or two, can still offer about an additional $40 to $60 million dollars a year to a new conference. That is a big advantage these schools have over larger football brands. However, the importance of ad rates has also increased as college football continues to grow. My estimation is a new national brand that can bring in a 6.5 million viewers per football game matches the new media footprints of North Carolina and Virginia.

I think FSU, Miami and Clemson most likely bring that level of interest, or more, as college football continues its growth, and over time brand power probably continues it value enhancement while regional cable carriage fees continues its decline against national streaming fees primary driven by national brands. It is important to note that while carriage fees are shrinking they still offer guaranteed income for many years, so those dollars are worth a little more now in predicting future income.

I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

You really think so? Name 24 bigger college football programs as of 18 years ago.

18 years ago:

West Virginia

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, FSU, Miami

Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, LSU

Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa

Texas, aTm, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado

Washington, Oregon, Cal, Southern Cal, UCLA, Arizona State

Utah, TCU, heck even Boise State

All were more nationally relevant than Clemson in 2008.

People seem to forget Clemson was a national afterthought for about 20 years until Dabo. There was the Woody Dantzler for Heisman blip and that’s about it.

(10-04-2026 02:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:41 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:37 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

This is correct. People drastically under appreciate the staying power of large sports brands. Reading people on here discount brands like Tennessee, Auburn, Nebraska, and even Florida because they have had a run of bad years is naive to the point of sympathetic embarrassment.

Other than having sufficient academics, which is now a little lower bar than it used to be a few years ago because the money at stake has grown to epic proportions, the only real challenge to brand value supremacy in conference realignment is the still relevant cable market dynamic of a new state, or possibly still a large metropolitan area, that generates new cable fees. Of course that dynamic is slowly shrinking, but it may level off at about 50 million households nationwide.

That means UVA and/or VT, North Carolina, and maybe another NC school or two, can still offer about an additional $40 to $60 million dollars a year to a new conference. That is a big advantage these schools have over larger football brands. However, the importance of ad rates has also increased as college football continues to grow. My estimation is a new national brand that can bring in a 6.5 million viewers per football game matches the new media footprints of North Carolina and Virginia.

I think FSU, Miami and Clemson most likely bring that level of interest, or more, as college football continues its growth, and over time brand power probably continues it value enhancement while regional cable carriage fees continues its decline against national streaming fees primary driven by national brands. It is important to note that while carriage fees are shrinking they still offer guaranteed income for many years, so those dollars are worth a little more now in predicting future income.

I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

You really think so? Name 24 bigger college football programs as of 18 years ago.

18 years ago:

West Virginia

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, FSU, Miami

Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, LSU

Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa

Texas, aTm, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado

Washington, Oregon, Cal, Southern Cal, UCLA, Arizona State

Utah, TCU, heck even Boise State

All were more nationally relevant than Clemson in 2008.

People seem to forget Clemson was a national afterthought for about 20 years until Dabo. There was the Woody Dantzler for Heisman blip and that’s about it.

You are confusing on field performance with program strength. Clemson easily was in the top 24 in their lowest years.

(10-04-2026 02:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 02:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:41 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:37 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  This is correct. People drastically under appreciate the staying power of large sports brands. Reading people on here discount brands like Tennessee, Auburn, Nebraska, and even Florida because they have had a run of bad years is naive to the point of sympathetic embarrassment.

Other than having sufficient academics, which is now a little lower bar than it used to be a few years ago because the money at stake has grown to epic proportions, the only real challenge to brand value supremacy in conference realignment is the still relevant cable market dynamic of a new state, or possibly still a large metropolitan area, that generates new cable fees. Of course that dynamic is slowly shrinking, but it may level off at about 50 million households nationwide.

That means UVA and/or VT, North Carolina, and maybe another NC school or two, can still offer about an additional $40 to $60 million dollars a year to a new conference. That is a big advantage these schools have over larger football brands. However, the importance of ad rates has also increased as college football continues to grow. My estimation is a new national brand that can bring in a 6.5 million viewers per football game matches the new media footprints of North Carolina and Virginia.

I think FSU, Miami and Clemson most likely bring that level of interest, or more, as college football continues its growth, and over time brand power probably continues it value enhancement while regional cable carriage fees continues its decline against national streaming fees primary driven by national brands. It is important to note that while carriage fees are shrinking they still offer guaranteed income for many years, so those dollars are worth a little more now in predicting future income.

I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

You really think so? Name 24 bigger college football programs as of 18 years ago.

18 years ago:

West Virginia

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, FSU, Miami

Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, LSU

Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa

Texas, aTm, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado

Washington, Oregon, Cal, Southern Cal, UCLA, Arizona State

Utah, TCU, heck even Boise State

All were more nationally relevant than Clemson in 2008.

People seem to forget Clemson was a national afterthought for about 20 years until Dabo. There was the Woody Dantzler for Heisman blip and that’s about it.

You are confusing on field performance with program strength. Clemson easily was in the top 24 in their lowest years.

I’m talking about national relevancy. You seem to be making up some metric that only exists in your head.

The PCSA probably passes when congress comes back after the election recess. And it passes as is, or with only a minor commonsense adjustment for a problem all sides agree on, because it has to survive reconciliation (the Senate has said this is it, no changes). That means 20 & 3 is the rule.

Yes, some ACC schools want bigger max and no independence period, but that isn't happening. Honestly, I don't think 3 years of Indy football is going to stop anyone. Any school the B1G or SEC adds will almost certainly negotiate a scheduling agreement to cover their three years of football independence, to at least get a couple games in October and November. They will be hurting for TV money, but no doubt they'll get some decent money for the two or three B1G/SEC and any other A4 opponents they host. Almost certainly any schools joining the B1G or SEC will agree to play each other to help fill out the schedule (e.g., say Miami, FSU, Clemson and North Carolina all move; they will no doubt agree to play each other in October/November as well). They'll fill September with A4 opponents. Getting 8 is easy enough, but 10 all three years to qualify for the CFP might be near impossible. No doubt they'll ask for a waiver. Also, how much CFP money they'll get will very much be up in the air, have to be negotiated.

Thinking this through, even best case scenario, the ACC schools have a point about the costs to them, potentially three lost seasons.

(10-04-2026 04:46 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 02:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 02:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:41 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:37 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

You really think so? Name 24 bigger college football programs as of 18 years ago.

18 years ago:

West Virginia

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, FSU, Miami

Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, LSU

Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa

Texas, aTm, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado

Washington, Oregon, Cal, Southern Cal, UCLA, Arizona State

Utah, TCU, heck even Boise State

All were more nationally relevant than Clemson in 2008.

People seem to forget Clemson was a national afterthought for about 20 years until Dabo. There was the Woody Dantzler for Heisman blip and that’s about it.

You are confusing on field performance with program strength. Clemson easily was in the top 24 in their lowest years.

I’m talking about national relevancy. You seem to be making up some metric that only exists in your head.

This board has way too short a memory about Clemson. They were a top 25 caliber program before Dabo.

(10-04-2026 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  This board has way too short a memory about Clemson. They were a top 25 caliber program before Dabo.

Yep. The Clemson Tigers have long been bowl regulars, stadium fillers, TV ratings draws, and originators of the catchiest logo in scholastic sports.

(10-04-2026 06:17 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  This board has way too short a memory about Clemson. They were a top 25 caliber program before Dabo.

Yep. The Clemson Tigers have long been bowl regulars, stadium fillers, TV ratings draws, and originators of the catchiest logo in scholastic sports.

I like Clemson and most Clemson folks. But this simply isn't true either way. They haven't always been terrible, nor have they ever been consistently great. What they have been is loyal to their school. IPTAY got things cranked years ago, "I Pay Ten A Year" was an athletic fund drive. But even with the initial success under Charlie Pell (who had dubious recruiting tactics there and at Florida) they were an afterthought for bowl selection. To boost that in the early 80's when they went to the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, they all spent money wherever they shopped in $2 bills with an orange tiger pay stamped on them to show merchants in the location how much they impacted their economy. It was a neat trick, and I have some of those $2 bills. Back in the day one perk I gave my client list was a pair of tickets to the Gator Bowl. I bought a block of tickets in early sales before even the teams were known for about $8 bucks a ticket. Most years I gave 'em all away, some years I passed some out. But my point is Clemson has never been consistently good for a long period of time, but they've always had spurts when they were really good. Heck in the 60's they were scheduled as SEC homecoming games.

I would liken Clemson to the Children of Israel. They wander in the desert for 40 years, find the promised land, and wind back up in the desert again and repeat the cycle. The only difference is while the Children of Israel fell away from true worship from time to time, Clemson fans don't. They love their Tigers no matter what.

(10-04-2026 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ....
I would liken Clemson to the Children of Israel. They wander in the desert for 40 years, find the promised land, and wind back up in the desert again and repeat the cycle. The only difference is while the Children of Israel fell away from true worship from time to time, Clemson fans don't. They love their Tigers no matter what.

And that kind of loyalty pays off in manna.

(10-04-2026 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 06:17 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  This board has way too short a memory about Clemson. They were a top 25 caliber program before Dabo.

Yep. The Clemson Tigers have long been bowl regulars, stadium fillers, TV ratings draws, and originators of the catchiest logo in scholastic sports.

I like Clemson and most Clemson folks. But this simply isn't true either way. They haven't always been terrible, nor have they ever been consistently great. What they have been is loyal to their school. IPTAY got things cranked years ago, "I Pay Ten A Year" was an athletic fund drive. But even with the initial success under Charlie Pell (who had dubious recruiting tactics there and at Florida) they were an afterthought for bowl selection. To boost that in the early 80's when they went to the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, they all spent money wherever they shopped in $2 bills with an orange tiger pay stamped on them to show merchants in the location how much they impacted their economy. It was a neat trick, and I have some of those $2 bills. Back in the day one perk I gave my client list was a pair of tickets to the Gator Bowl. I bought a block of tickets in early sales before even the teams were known for about $8 bucks a ticket. Most years I gave 'em all away, some years I passed some out. But my point is Clemson has never been consistently good for a long period of time, but they've always had spurts when they were really good. Heck in the 60's they were scheduled as SEC homecoming games.

I would liken Clemson to the Children of Israel. They wander in the desert for 40 years, find the promised land, and wind back up in the desert again and repeat the cycle. The only difference is while the Children of Israel fell away from true worship from time to time, Clemson fans don't. They love their Tigers no matter what.

I think this is a classic example of where conference realignment value doesn’t always neatly line up directly with football media value.

FSU and Miami are examples of where their realignment values and football media values are largely aligned: they are both big national brands in a key state and where the Big Ten has an interest in getting into it and the SEC has an interest in protecting its turf.

Clemson, though, has a disconnect. Its football media value is very clear. However, they’re unlikely to be a target for the Big Ten. That in and of itself means that the SEC isn’t going to prioritize Clemson compared to other ACC brands that the Big Ten is going after. It’s not the priority region that the State of Florida is for both parties.

UNC and UVA are essentially the opposite: their realignment values far exceed their actual football media values. Why? It’s simply demand: both the Big Ten and SEC are interested in them, and having the two biggest buyers on the market interested drives up the value.

If this were simply about who brings in the most football dollars, then Clemson would easily be getting a P2 invite. However, in a world where conference expansion is capped by law, the Big Ten and SEC are going to be way more judicious and they’re going to initially prioritize the handful of schools where they’re both mutually interested in (where they’re losing out if the other league gets them instead).

Clemson has 13 top tens and 29 ranked seasons in the last 50 years. They have been nationally relevant for a long time.

Compare to Penn St, clearly a top 12 brand. 20 top tens and 33 ranked seasons. Not a whole lot better.

(10-04-2026 06:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  Clemson has 13 top tens and 29 ranked seasons in the last 50 years. They have been nationally relevant for a long time.

Compare to Penn St, clearly a top 12 brand. 20 top tens and 33 ranked seasons. Not a whole lot better.

Clemson is the perfect "top dog" football program for the ACC, which is why Notre Dame chose them as their annual ACC Big Time game.
Florida State doesn't want to stay in the ACC and Miami and Virginia Tech have proven to be unreliable top twelve contenders.

(10-04-2026 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 06:17 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  This board has way too short a memory about Clemson. They were a top 25 caliber program before Dabo.

Yep. The Clemson Tigers have long been bowl regulars, stadium fillers, TV ratings draws, and originators of the catchiest logo in scholastic sports.

I like Clemson and most Clemson folks. But this simply isn't true either way. They haven't always been terrible, nor have they ever been consistently great. What they have been is loyal to their school. IPTAY got things cranked years ago, "I Pay Ten A Year" was an athletic fund drive. But even with the initial success under Charlie Pell (who had dubious recruiting tactics there and at Florida) they were an afterthought for bowl selection. To boost that in the early 80's when they went to the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, they all spent money wherever they shopped in $2 bills with an orange tiger pay stamped on them to show merchants in the location how much they impacted their economy. It was a neat trick, and I have some of those $2 bills. Back in the day one perk I gave my client list was a pair of tickets to the Gator Bowl. I bought a block of tickets in early sales before even the teams were known for about $8 bucks a ticket. Most years I gave 'em all away, some years I passed some out. But my point is Clemson has never been consistently good for a long period of time, but they've always had spurts when they were really good. Heck in the 60's they were scheduled as SEC homecoming games.

I would liken Clemson to the Children of Israel. They wander in the desert for 40 years, find the promised land, and wind back up in the desert again and repeat the cycle. The only difference is while the Children of Israel fell away from true worship from time to time, Clemson fans don't. They love their Tigers no matter what.

Spot on. Very similar to West Virginia in that regard as well.

I guess some folks slept through the 90’s. Nobody was mistaking Clemson for FSU’s equal, and in fact only UVa and State beat the Noles from ‘92-99.

JR is really the only person here who gets it except some ACC fans who may or may not be excommunicated

(10-04-2026 06:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  Clemson has 13 top tens and 29 ranked seasons in the last 50 years. They have been nationally relevant for a long time.

Compare to Penn St, clearly a top 12 brand. 20 top tens and 33 ranked seasons. Not a whole lot better.

Since 1980 Clemson has had 3 losing seasons in conference play! 1980 and twice in the 90s. They do have a bunch of 4-4 years scattered about but just for comparison Florida St has had 5 losing conference records in 10 years. Sure, I guess you can say they haven’t been a consistently top 5-10 program but which teams that are available have? Going forward Miami is the best positioned and even they had a 20 year period of mediocrity by the standards set during the 80s and Big East.

(10-04-2026 07:45 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 06:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  Clemson has 13 top tens and 29 ranked seasons in the last 50 years. They have been nationally relevant for a long time.

Compare to Penn St, clearly a top 12 brand. 20 top tens and 33 ranked seasons. Not a whole lot better.

Since 1980 Clemson has had 3 losing seasons in conference play! 1980 and twice in the 90s. They do have a bunch of 4-4 years scattered about but just for comparison Florida St has had 5 losing conference records in 10 years. Sure, I guess you can say they haven’t been a consistently top 5-10 program but which teams that are available have? Going forward Miami is the best positioned and even they had a 20 year period of mediocrity by the standards set during the 80s and Big East.

What are we talking about here? A consistent football program? Because App State was a consistently good football program for decades and they were not a national brand.

My argument is prior to Dabo, Clemson was not a national brand. They just weren't. I have a great memory and can recall my high school and college years quite vividly. Clemson was not on Sportscenter being talked about like they have been since Dabo.

There is a VERY clear line when it comes to Clemson's brand and it was drawn by Dabo Swinney.

The NFL needs the Packers in Green Bay. That brand and their coverage of Wisconsin are too valuable.

But while the NFL needs the Green Bay Packers, the SEC doesn't need the Clemson Tigers. They already have South Carolina covering the market. They'd be better off building the Gamecock brand to become the premiere brand in South Carolina and letting Clemson's football program fade like Georgia Tech's.

College athletics departments are now just commodities.

If you're not a Buffalo Bills or Pittsburgh Steelers where your brand and its connection to a certain location can't be lost, then you're just a Houston Oilers or a San Diego Chargers. The league will move on without you for a better deal.

Clemson isn't the Bills. They're not the Steelers. They're the Raiders. A second franchise in LA and a second franchise in the Bay, just like they're the second franchise in South Carolina.

It's more valuable to a league to have them somewhere else. I have no doubt the SEC would prefer to have Clemson instead of South Carolina if they're being honest. But that's not the choice on the table. The choice is whether Clemson is too strong of a brand to pass up, and I don't think that's the case.

If there's a realignment "surprise," it'll be Clemson getting left behind.

(10-04-2026 08:35 PM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  ....
But while the NFL needs the Green Bay Packers, the SEC doesn't need the Clemson Tigers. They already have South Carolina covering the market. They'd be better off building the Gamecock brand to become the premiere brand in South Carolina and letting Clemson's football program fade like Georgia Tech's.
....

Bad entertainment.

Outside entities forcing a top-level program to ‘fade’ because they can’t be bothered to acknowledge what it’s worth, only to artificially prop up a program that doesn’t enjoy the same support and history (for very sound historical reasons), well... Fans will boo. They already hate things like that.

I can see how a fantasy like this might appeal in Jayhawk country, though...

(10-04-2026 08:35 PM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  The NFL needs the Packers in Green Bay. That brand and their coverage of Wisconsin are too valuable.

But while the NFL needs the Green Bay Packers, the SEC doesn't need the Clemson Tigers. They already have South Carolina covering the market. They'd be better off building the Gamecock brand to become the premiere brand in South Carolina and letting Clemson's football program fade like Georgia Tech's.

College athletics departments are now just commodities.

If you're not a Buffalo Bills or Pittsburgh Steelers where your brand and its connection to a certain location can't be lost, then you're just a Houston Oilers or a San Diego Chargers. The league will move on without you for a better deal.

Clemson isn't the Bills. They're not the Steelers. They're the Raiders. A second franchise in LA and a second franchise in the Bay, just like they're the second franchise in South Carolina.

It's more valuable to a league to have them somewhere else. I have no doubt the SEC would prefer to have Clemson instead of South Carolina if they're being honest. But that's not the choice on the table. The choice is whether Clemson is too strong of a brand to pass up, and I don't think that's the case.

If there's a realignment "surprise," it'll be Clemson getting left behind.

The NFL vacated LA for nearly thirty years. Bills? Steelers? Giants? Literally no-one is safe if the owner wants to move and the stadium sucks.

(10-04-2026 09:01 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 08:35 PM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  ....
But while the NFL needs the Green Bay Packers, the SEC doesn't need the Clemson Tigers. They already have South Carolina covering the market. They'd be better off building the Gamecock brand to become the premiere brand in South Carolina and letting Clemson's football program fade like Georgia Tech's.
....

Bad entertainment.

Outside entities forcing a top-level program to ‘fade’ because they can’t be bothered to acknowledge what it’s worth, only to artificially prop up a program that doesn’t enjoy the same support and history (for very sound historical reasons), well... Fans will boo. They already hate things like that.

I can see how a fantasy like this might appeal in Jayhawk country, though...

The additions of USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, etc are the best things to EVER happen to the athletics programs of Northwestern, South Carolina, Mississippi State, etc.

They're instantly the envy of Clemson, Florida State, etc. It behooves them to keep a tight P2 structure so they can become bigger sports brands than Louisville, Pitt, NC State, etc.