What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

(02-01-2021 11:52 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

If they keep winning as much as they are now, yes. If they start becoming mediocre, they'll become irrelevant. I'd say they would be Nebraska but at least Nebraska will always be relevant in Nebraska. Clemson can't even always be relevant in their own state.

(02-01-2021 02:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:52 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

If they keep winning as much as they are now, yes. If they start becoming mediocre, they'll become irrelevant. I'd say they would be Nebraska but at least Nebraska will always be relevant in Nebraska. Clemson can't even always be relevant in their own state.

Dabo wasn’t around when Clemson won the national championship in 1980. Danny Ford led the program that decade. Clemson is in a southern state that doesn’t have the same demographic issues that Nebraska is facing.

The better analogy to Clemson football is Auburn...another football-first university in a smaller southern state. The biggest difference being that Auburn’s in-state rival is much better at football than the USC Gamecocks.

(02-01-2021 03:16 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 02:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:52 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

If they keep winning as much as they are now, yes. If they start becoming mediocre, they'll become irrelevant. I'd say they would be Nebraska but at least Nebraska will always be relevant in Nebraska. Clemson can't even always be relevant in their own state.

Dabo wasn’t around when Clemson won the national championship in 1980. Danny Ford led the program that decade. Clemson is in a southern state that doesn’t have the same demographic issues that Nebraska is facing.

The better analogy to Clemson football is Auburn...another football-first university in a smaller southern state. The biggest difference being that Auburn’s in-state rival is much better at football than the USC Gamecocks.

Auburn however is already in the SEC and that's a big advantage over Clemson. Their rivalry game is a conference game vs. a non conference game. Auburn needs to be relevant or have Alabama be relevant. Clemson needs to be relevant or have South Carolina be relevant. And Alabama has way more of a history than South Carolina so even when Alabama's down they're more likely to be relevant. What's worse than if South Carolina's good and Clemson's not? When both South Carolina and Clemson aren't good. People will watch the Iron Bowl even if both Alabama and Auburn aren't good (we'll all probably be dead when that happens but still). Who's going to watch a ... what do they call the Clemson/South Carolina game? if both teams suck? No one outside of South Carolina.

(02-01-2021 03:16 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 02:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:52 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

If they keep winning as much as they are now, yes. If they start becoming mediocre, they'll become irrelevant. I'd say they would be Nebraska but at least Nebraska will always be relevant in Nebraska. Clemson can't even always be relevant in their own state.

Dabo wasn’t around when Clemson won the national championship in 1980. Danny Ford led the program that decade. Clemson is in a southern state that doesn’t have the same demographic issues that Nebraska is facing.

The better analogy to Clemson football is Auburn...another football-first university in a smaller southern state. The biggest difference being that Auburn’s in-state rival is much better at football than the USC Gamecocks.

Except that Auburn other than the years of Saban and Bear have held their own better than anyone else against Alabama and they have given Saban the most SEC losses he has suffered to any one SEC school and would be fairly close to being in the same situation with Bear.

And Auburn is 34-2-15 against Clemson though we've lost the last 3 or 4 in the series even those games were mostly close contests.

No doubt Clemson is at an all time peak under Dabo, even better than Danny Ford or Charlie Pell. But Auburn's football history has been consistently above average when weighed against the decades. This isn't so at Clemson. So your comparisons only go so far.

That said it is ironic that a Virginia fan is writing about Auburn and Clemson because In 1894 he became head coach at Auburn where he instituted Orange and Blue as the colors. And Heisman left Auburn to head to Clemson where he intended the colors to be Orange and Blue but he took old Auburn jerseys with him and the blue had been faded to almost a purple. A few years back there was another Virginia poster here who claimed he had something to do with UVa's colors with some weird connection to an English crew team. His early years are somewhat sketchy as he coached around. Anything to the Virginia story?

(02-01-2021 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:16 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 02:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:52 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

If they keep winning as much as they are now, yes. If they start becoming mediocre, they'll become irrelevant. I'd say they would be Nebraska but at least Nebraska will always be relevant in Nebraska. Clemson can't even always be relevant in their own state.

Dabo wasn’t around when Clemson won the national championship in 1980. Danny Ford led the program that decade. Clemson is in a southern state that doesn’t have the same demographic issues that Nebraska is facing.

The better analogy to Clemson football is Auburn...another football-first university in a smaller southern state. The biggest difference being that Auburn’s in-state rival is much better at football than the USC Gamecocks.

Except that Auburn other than the years of Saban and Bear have held their own better than anyone else against Alabama and they have given Saban the most SEC losses he has suffered to any one SEC school and would be fairly close to being in the same situation with Bear.

And Auburn is 34-2-15 against Clemson though we've lost the last 3 or 4 in the series even those games were mostly close contests.

No doubt Clemson is at an all time peak under Dabo, even better than Danny Ford or Charlie Pell. But Auburn's football history has been consistently above average when weighed against the decades. This isn't so at Clemson. So your comparisons only go so far.

That said it is ironic that a Virginia fan is writing about Auburn and Clemson because In 1894 he became head coach at Auburn where he instituted Orange and Blue as the colors. And Heisman left Auburn to head to Clemson where he intended the colors to be Orange and Blue but he took old Auburn jerseys with him and the blue had been faded to almost a purple. A few years back there was another Virginia poster here who claimed he had something to do with UVa's colors with some weird connection to an English crew team. His early years are somewhat sketchy as he coached around. Anything to the Virginia story?

https://uvamagazine.org/articles/1888_th...e_and_blue
https://www.thewareaglereader.com/2011/1...l-history/

Nice to read about the origins of UVA and Auburn’s mutual colors (see above links)...from an Oxford University rowing team.

(02-01-2021 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:16 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 02:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:52 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

If they keep winning as much as they are now, yes. If they start becoming mediocre, they'll become irrelevant. I'd say they would be Nebraska but at least Nebraska will always be relevant in Nebraska. Clemson can't even always be relevant in their own state.

Dabo wasn’t around when Clemson won the national championship in 1980. Danny Ford led the program that decade. Clemson is in a southern state that doesn’t have the same demographic issues that Nebraska is facing.

The better analogy to Clemson football is Auburn...another football-first university in a smaller southern state. The biggest difference being that Auburn’s in-state rival is much better at football than the USC Gamecocks.

Except that Auburn other than the years of Saban and Bear have held their own better than anyone else against Alabama and they have given Saban the most SEC losses he has suffered to any one SEC school and would be fairly close to being in the same situation with Bear.

And Auburn is 34-2-15 against Clemson though we've lost the last 3 or 4 in the series even those games were mostly close contests.

No doubt Clemson is at an all time peak under Dabo, even better than Danny Ford or Charlie Pell. But Auburn's football history has been consistently above average when weighed against the decades. This isn't so at Clemson. So your comparisons only go so far.

That said it is ironic that a Virginia fan is writing about Auburn and Clemson because In 1894 he became head coach at Auburn where he instituted Orange and Blue as the colors. And Heisman left Auburn to head to Clemson where he intended the colors to be Orange and Blue but he took old Auburn jerseys with him and the blue had been faded to almost a purple. A few years back there was another Virginia poster here who claimed he had something to do with UVa's colors with some weird connection to an English crew team. His early years are somewhat sketchy as he coached around. Anything to the Virginia story?

You need a better history book because other than the jersey color fading you got everything else incorrect.

Walter Riggs, Clemson's first coach and AD, got the jerseys from Auburn when he was putting together the first football team at the school he was newly employed at as an instructor. He had to do this because as a school Clemson was only six years old at the time. The year was 1896, not 1894.

Heisman didn't start as HC at Auburn until 1895, ironically brought to Auburn from employment outside of football by Walter Riggs. Heisman donated the old jerseys to Riggs. Riggs would later bring Heisman to Clemson in 1900.

(02-01-2021 06:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:16 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 02:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:52 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  What happens when Dabo leaves Clemson? Clemson still going to be high on the list?

If they keep winning as much as they are now, yes. If they start becoming mediocre, they'll become irrelevant. I'd say they would be Nebraska but at least Nebraska will always be relevant in Nebraska. Clemson can't even always be relevant in their own state.

Dabo wasn’t around when Clemson won the national championship in 1980. Danny Ford led the program that decade. Clemson is in a southern state that doesn’t have the same demographic issues that Nebraska is facing.

The better analogy to Clemson football is Auburn...another football-first university in a smaller southern state. The biggest difference being that Auburn’s in-state rival is much better at football than the USC Gamecocks.

Except that Auburn other than the years of Saban and Bear have held their own better than anyone else against Alabama and they have given Saban the most SEC losses he has suffered to any one SEC school and would be fairly close to being in the same situation with Bear.

And Auburn is 34-2-15 against Clemson though we've lost the last 3 or 4 in the series even those games were mostly close contests.

No doubt Clemson is at an all time peak under Dabo, even better than Danny Ford or Charlie Pell. But Auburn's football history has been consistently above average when weighed against the decades. This isn't so at Clemson. So your comparisons only go so far.

That said it is ironic that a Virginia fan is writing about Auburn and Clemson because In 1894 he became head coach at Auburn where he instituted Orange and Blue as the colors. And Heisman left Auburn to head to Clemson where he intended the colors to be Orange and Blue but he took old Auburn jerseys with him and the blue had been faded to almost a purple. A few years back there was another Virginia poster here who claimed he had something to do with UVa's colors with some weird connection to an English crew team. His early years are somewhat sketchy as he coached around. Anything to the Virginia story?

You need a better history book because other than the jersey color fading you got everything else incorrect.

Walter Riggs, Clemson's first coach and AD, got the jerseys from Auburn when he was putting together the first football team at the school he was newly employed at as an instructor. He had to do this because as a school Clemson was only six years old at the time. The year was 1896, not 1894.

Heisman didn't start as HC at Auburn until 1895, ironically brought to Auburn from employment outside of football by Walter Riggs. Heisman donated the old jerseys to Riggs. Riggs would later bring Heisman to Clemson in 1900.

I tend to post from memory Kap. So I was off by a year on a coach hired prior to the 1895 season and the jersey story was accurate enough with regard to colors. I was making conversation on what had been a very slow day, but as usual instead of just correcting the details and adding to the discussion you choose to be a prick.

Next time your own mods want your head don't bother to ask for help.

(01-28-2021 11:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 11:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 09:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 02:45 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Sports-wise, Clemson envisions itself as a program apart from the other original ACC programs.

Institution-wise, Clemson is similar to the other original ACC institutions.

Thus, the conundrum they face. As an institution, they're more similar to Georgia Tech than they are to Georgia. Clemson offers men's soccer, whereas Georgia does not. Btw, South Carolina and Kentucky are the only SEC programs that offer men's soccer, playing their games in Conference USA. Thus, why some of the ACC fans think that both should head for the ACC.

Florida State, NC State and Virginia Tech are more similar to each other but each are considered second-fiddle to the other public schools in their respective states.

When taken all together, it would explain why a program like Clemson would not want to jump while advocating for scheduling flexibility to make room for OOC games that appeal to their fan base. They want the benefits of playing SEC teams without giving up its ACC membership.

I wonder how long some of these olympic sports will actually last.

This season proved just how financially non-viable they are. Not that I expect another pandemic around the corner, but there is always the possibility of another serious financial loss.

How long do these schools put forth the effort to field teams in numerous sports that don't actually generate revenue?

Now, at some schools, these things are recruitment tools, but on the whole, there's still a financial burden being placed on revenue sports.

These Olympic sports were an outgrowth of the growing affluence of the alumni, at a time when the colleges could afford to entitle non-revenue sports to attract donations. It's an open question whether these sports would be offered years down the road.

However, should that happen then that would be another fig leaf taken away from what many still believe to differentiate college sports from professional sports.

Perhaps smarter people can look to that as a reason to restructure college sports, maybe by separating the sports programs from the colleges, just leasing their names to the organizations that would run the sports leagues.

Or maybe getting out of the sports business for good and just offer students the opportunity to participate in intramural and non-scholarship sports.

Anyway, getting back to the thread topic, I think that Clemson moving out of the ACC is easier said than done due to the reasons I stated two posts above me. It's in a region where football is a religion but its institution profile puts them closer to the ACC schools adjacent to them.

I agree with that, and in the meantime the ACC GOR will keep them from moving if we're talking about real world factors.

ESPN owns both the SEC and ACC rights, the latter for another 15 years. I see no reason ESPN would allow the move as it means paying significantly more to Clemson for broadcast rights they already control through 2036. The GOR isn’t insurmountable if challenged, but unless several other schools also wanted to invalidate it in order to join the SEC or B1G I think would be hard for Clemson to pull off. The length of the ESPN-ACC deal, the carriage issues even with Clemson in tow, and the serious decline in value for the media rights to a Clemson-less ACC makes me think the ACC would litigate more vigorously this time than they did when Maryland left.

(02-03-2021 03:12 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 11:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 11:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 09:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 02:45 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Sports-wise, Clemson envisions itself as a program apart from the other original ACC programs.

Institution-wise, Clemson is similar to the other original ACC institutions.

Thus, the conundrum they face. As an institution, they're more similar to Georgia Tech than they are to Georgia. Clemson offers men's soccer, whereas Georgia does not. Btw, South Carolina and Kentucky are the only SEC programs that offer men's soccer, playing their games in Conference USA. Thus, why some of the ACC fans think that both should head for the ACC.

Florida State, NC State and Virginia Tech are more similar to each other but each are considered second-fiddle to the other public schools in their respective states.

When taken all together, it would explain why a program like Clemson would not want to jump while advocating for scheduling flexibility to make room for OOC games that appeal to their fan base. They want the benefits of playing SEC teams without giving up its ACC membership.

I wonder how long some of these olympic sports will actually last.

This season proved just how financially non-viable they are. Not that I expect another pandemic around the corner, but there is always the possibility of another serious financial loss.

How long do these schools put forth the effort to field teams in numerous sports that don't actually generate revenue?

Now, at some schools, these things are recruitment tools, but on the whole, there's still a financial burden being placed on revenue sports.

These Olympic sports were an outgrowth of the growing affluence of the alumni, at a time when the colleges could afford to entitle non-revenue sports to attract donations. It's an open question whether these sports would be offered years down the road.

However, should that happen then that would be another fig leaf taken away from what many still believe to differentiate college sports from professional sports.

Perhaps smarter people can look to that as a reason to restructure college sports, maybe by separating the sports programs from the colleges, just leasing their names to the organizations that would run the sports leagues.

Or maybe getting out of the sports business for good and just offer students the opportunity to participate in intramural and non-scholarship sports.

Anyway, getting back to the thread topic, I think that Clemson moving out of the ACC is easier said than done due to the reasons I stated two posts above me. It's in a region where football is a religion but its institution profile puts them closer to the ACC schools adjacent to them.

I agree with that, and in the meantime the ACC GOR will keep them from moving if we're talking about real world factors.

ESPN owns both the SEC and ACC rights, the latter for another 15 years. I see no reason ESPN would allow the move as it means paying significantly more to Clemson for broadcast rights they already control through 2036. The GOR isn’t insurmountable if challenged, but unless several other schools also wanted to invalidate it in order to join the SEC or B1G I think would be hard for Clemson to pull off. The length of the ESPN-ACC deal, the carriage issues even with Clemson in tow, and the serious decline in value for the media rights to a Clemson-less ACC makes me think the ACC would litigate more vigorously this time than they did when Maryland left.

The ACC got everything they wanted with the Maryland lawsuit (jurisdiction, future venue, ETC making it unlikely that any future lawsuit against the ACC could or would be successful).
Also the Maryland suit did not address the GOR which was not in place at the time which would require separate litigation (and to this point no one has dared to challenge).
At this point even if a school could challenge and win a GOR case (which would involve taking on, not only the ACC but also ESPN as well), the possibility of sidestepping the ACC exit fee which now tops $100 Million is nil.