Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Owners Vote to Change Trade Deadline

State of Affairs in Light of the Debacle in Boston

To adapt a line from Ole Miss alum and Saints fan "Who-Dat Holly," I wish Dabo Swinney would have pretended to be a good head football coach for Halloween (instead of putting the Tom Bowden costume in Boston). What we saw against BC was the crap that got Bowden fired and, should it continue, will be what gets Swinney fired as well. I know that we said that Swinney deserved a fair shot and an extended (3-4 years) amount of time before being judged but that was assuming that Clemson would not have another 2009 Maryland experience. What we saw out of the staff in Boston, specifically from offensive strategy/execution and special teams execution was completely unacceptable. Clemson could get nothing going on offense and the Tigers could not capitalize when they moved the ball deep into the opponent's territory in a loss to a team that has a fraction of the overall talent on their roster that the Tigers have on theirs.

Star-divide

The general overview of the contest was that Clemson was crap all day especially on offense and place kicking the ball. Chandler Catanzaro missed field goals of 44 and 36 yards on the afternoon and CU turned the ball over three times. Two of the turnovers really hurt this football team as Boston College was able to score its lone touchdown following a Jamie Harper kickoff fumble and the ridiculously stupid jump ball that Kyle Parker threw with Clemson deep in Boston College territory.

We are committed to being consistent and try to be as fair and realistic as possible so I'll start by saying that Dabo Swinney is not the root of the problem. Dabo did not hire himself and does not make the general rules that the athletic department has to follow. Dabo did not hire nor did he give a ridiculous extension to nor did he fire his predecessor. That was all the AD/President/BOT who made and approved those decisions, many of which put us in our current scenario. That was Bobby Robinson/Terry Don Phillips, Jim Barker, and a board that appears to be scared of what a good football program would mean to the university's balance of power. These are the guys who decided to piss away millions of dollars on Bowden and these are the guys who decided to proceed on the cheap and promote a receivers coach to the football program's corner office.

All this being said, is Dabo ready to be a head football coach at the college level? To this point in his head coaching career one would definitely question his resume and the results we have seen so far this year. Yes Coach Swinney did lead this program to the ACCCG last season and yes there has been more excitement under Swinney than there was under Bowden. Swinney is a better motivator than his predecessor. There is no doubt that Swinney can relate to these young folks as shown through his excellent recruiting history (as an assistant and as head coach) and his ability to lure some folks (C.J. Spiller last season and Kyle Parker in 2010) away from big bucks in the pros and back to play another year in Death Valley.

The items that I feel Swinney needs to work on includes technical aspects of his job. Personally I was not too impressed with Swinney's last group of wide receivers and our receivers continue to drop passes week after week (yes, I know Jeff Scott is the WR's coach but would expect a former wide receiver and WR's coach who is the current head coach to be able to fix issues in this area). I also must question our strategy on offense. We don't seem to understand our strengths/weaknesses AND get cute when there is no need for such. Further, we suspect that Swinney meddles in the offense a good amount which, in turn eliminates rhythm and continuity throughout the game. You have an offensive coordinator for a reason, let him do his job.

Defensively Swinney excels and for very good reasons. Our defensive staff overall is pretty good. Kevin Steele is a good defensive coordinator who understands how to make adjustments. The big thing here is that Coach Swinney is not religiously dabbling in the defensive scheme throughout the football game AND allows his assistant coaches to do their respective jobs without intense intervention.

To put this in perspective just think about this...how many times at your job does a fellow employee attempt to "help" a situation and just end up creating confusion and more work for you to overcome the extra "help"? It is not as though your co-worker(s) are trying to sabotage the workplace nor are they attempting to make your life more difficult. This is just what happens when people are out of position and dabble in other folk's responsibilities. There should only be one chief and I am definitely not a fan of the play calling by-committee strategy, especially after the Bowden/O'Cain/Scott debacle half a decade ago.

We have placed a realistic goal of 10 wins per year in place for this football program. The possibility of winning 10 is off the table for this season barring some miraculous chain of events by our ACC Atlantic Division foes. Without 10 wins and with the talent and resources that we have, the season is a failure. I am also fearful that next season will be another struggling experience in terms of offensive line performance as we cannot seem to develop quality depth and have big turnover every 4 years, so it was critical that we take advantage of this experienced group while they are still at Clemson.

If you are not happy with what is going on at Clemson remember that there is but a small and elite group of people who are in a position to make widespread improvements here. These include Jim Barker and the Board of Trustees. TDP has some input also, so make your voices heard and demand improvement in our overall athletics programs. Our coaches (no matter what you think of them) are doing the best they can with what they have and, in many occasions, are being handicapped by the powers that be. As an athletic department (holistically) we need big changes if we are to ever be a serious threat in major college athletics.

Comment 63 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Shakin The Southland

Boston College Game Film Review

Nov 2010 by DrB - 5 comments

"All In" to "All Done"

Oct 2010 by DrB - 49 comments

Comments

Display:

Not disagreeing with you, but what would you propose Barker/BOT do?

by Hairytiger on Oct 31, 2010 6:54 PM EDT reply actions  

BOT needs to ask for Barker's resignation.

He is the one handicapping the CUAD by taking away $2.5-3 million a year when he, when appointed to the office, set a goal of winning a national championship in 10 years and going to the Final Four in basketball. This lack of funds puts our AD in the RED financially every year, which we’ve discussed in many posts before, see the sidebar.

There must be accountability for ALL concerned.

Barring that, if Barker will not remove TDP, then the BOT should step over him and remove Phillips immediately.

by DrB on Oct 31, 2010 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree

Removing Barker for these types of athletic issues would send the worst kind of message about Clemson. It would say that athletics run the show at the expense of everything else. While there may be some academic gripes about Barker, most evidence shows that he has increased Clemson’s academic quality while maintaining the in-state to out-of-state ratio and facing significant budget cuts from the state government.

To me the real problem is the management structure. I don’t think a lifetime academic, any university president, is the best person to be in charge of the AD. Since there’s obviously some overlap between athletics and academics the hierarchy can’t really be undone, but I think we could take some steps to get the core athletic issues out of the university president’s hands. I think we should create an athletic committee who’s sole purpose is to manage the athletic department. They would have the power to hire/fire the AD, with the university administration having some sort of veto power (discussed later). They could require the AD to report to them and otherwise hold the AD accountable for sports issues. The university president would still have the power to fire the AD and any coach for non-sports issues.

The BoT would appoint the sports committee for the most part, with the university president appointing one member who would be there to address academic concerns (graduation rates, NCAA academic issues, Vickery Hall, etc.). The members would serve set terms.

As for veto power, the university president would have veto power over hiring of the AD. This would allow the university president to have some control over who is running the department, but the committee would always have the power to fire the AD when it wanted to do so. In general I feel this arrangement would allow the university administration to focus on academics and allow the athletic department to be governed by people who know about sports.

by CMontgomery on Nov 1, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't blame Barker for that.

Barker has to find money to keep the university running. The state government has slashed funding so dramatically it’s disgusting. Also, who has cost the athletic department more money, Barker or the ACC and their inferior television contracts?

by CMontgomery on Nov 1, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

We cannot control the ACC TV deal

Will Barker raise his tax on the department for the next deal? Likely.

How does that help his stated goal of winning a national title and going to the final four if he takes away the money that puts the CUAD into the Red financially? It does not.

by DrB on Nov 1, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

What I’m getting from your posts is that Clemson’s athletics take priority over Clemson’s academics.

That should never be true.

by Revan on Nov 1, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

No one here has said that

What we’re saying is that if you tell us youre committed to winning in sports as well as your Top 20 goal, then don’t handicap one hand to benefit the other and try to hide it.

If you want Clemson to be Princeton of the South, go ahead and tell me you have no intention of supporting athletics whatsoever. Barker does it but talks out of the other side of his mouth and says he wants to support athletics where there is none.

by DrB on Nov 1, 2010 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

He says that ten years ago,

Then the state of South Carolina slashes Clemson’s budget and he has to adjust the priorities. He obviously values academics over athletics, the way it should be.

by CMontgomery on Nov 2, 2010 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's not impossible to have both

A few examples are VA Tech, UNC, and UVA.

UNC is obviously one of the best basketball programs, but they are building a football program with Butch Davis (if he is allowed to stay).

UVA is struggling now in football and will in basketball this year:
Football – Rebuilding w/ a first year coach @ $1.7 mil/year
Basketball – Rebuilding w/ a 2nd year coach @ 1.7 mil/year

In these instances, the school has shown a desire to have competitive teams by paying a decent salary for their football coach (especially for a 1st time division 1 coach) and a very good salary for a basketball coach.

Now here is where UVA gets you. Lacrosse (top 3 program), Baseball (number 1 team throughout the year last year, bringing back possibly the number 1 team this year), Men’s and Women’s soccer are both VERY good, tennis is VERY good.

Va Tech is very good in football and their basketball program continues to get better and better each year.

I think the point is that Clemson doesn’t need to sacrifice athletics in order to bring their academic standards up to where they want them. Other school have proven it can be done.

by ggggmen08 on Nov 2, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maintaining the in-state to out-of-state ratio

I’ve heard this before and I have a difficult time believing it. Does this include people in the Bridge Program?

Where is the source for this?

I agree the state of South Carolina does a horrid job of funding higher education.

by geegecko on Nov 1, 2010 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ratio Source

I had this same argument recently and a state government website used to have a page on this, but now it is no longer there. As I remember it the in-state percentage has hovered around the 70% mark pretty consistently. There are year to year fluctuations which I’d mostly attribute to the fact that it’s hard to predict who is going to matriculate after receiving an acceptance letter. I’ve heard that the ratio is set by state law, but I’ve yet to see proof of this.

by CMontgomery on Nov 2, 2010 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

What someone sent from Cris Ard on Barker

Will you please try to find some answers as to why Barker has overstayed his 10 year promise? Will you also try to gauge when we can expect him to move along?

I’m still trying to figure out why he was brought here in the first place. I’m convinced it would help Clemson’s athletics programs if he were not the president, because I think he’s so far out of touch with athletics and recruiting and the obstacles coaches deal with when recruiting at a place that attempts to be Princeton 6 days a week but wants to be Clemson on Saturday afternoons in the fall.

by DrB on Oct 31, 2010 7:08 PM EDT reply actions  

I’m sure Barker is using that money to push Clemson to be a top 25 public university. Any chance the ACC “TV” money will be designated for just athletics, or does the money go to Barker first, then distributed? Any anticipated changes in the BOT in the next year?

by Hairytiger on Oct 31, 2010 7:27 PM EDT reply actions  

I'm sure, but you can give the money back if youre really committed to your 10 year goal.

When the new TV deal goes into effect during the summer, CU should get about 6 million per year more.

Will Barker raise his “tax” on the department? I believe he will.

by DrB on Oct 31, 2010 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

BC talent

It must be an article of faith among the Clemson crowd that your team ALWAYS has superior athletic talent to BC. Ha! More self delusion by the most delusional fans in America.

Did Mr Bowers have his super talented way with BC?

I luv beating Clemson because you are such sore losers.

by waterwater on Oct 31, 2010 8:02 PM EDT reply actions  

Nice non-point

Where will you be trolling next…the Weber St. site? I would scroll down rivals/scout list to find where your team is listed talent-wise but, why risk getting carpal tunnel syndrome just to prove a point.

It wasn’t delusion that took the #1 team in the country to OT earlier this year.

Props to BC for wearing us out on Saturday. Congrats on your biggest win of the year en route to your 4ish win season.

by TheKraken on Oct 31, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

clearly the "experts" say that clemson has recruited more talented players over the past 5 years

http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2010/10/26/1774489/recruiting-comparison-clemson-and-boston-college

If you have information to the contrary by a credible recruiting site, I would like to see this information.

And yeah, it sucks to lose to a shitty team

Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com

by FIGUREFOUR on Oct 31, 2010 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Talent

The initial comment was too antagonistic. I’ve been at every BC-Clemson game in Chestnut Hill and you guys have been nothing but great fans.

The point remains that BC is sensitive to every school assuming that they have superior talent. Recruiting rankings are not gospel. Rivals/Scout are businesses that do better when more/passionate customers (e.g., big state schools) are happy. Small schools that provide limited revenue (like BC) are never going to get the benefit of the doubt for recruits.

Case and point – look at our best players and how they were ranked. Two-star Montel Harris is arguably the best back in the ACC (not the biggest HR threat but most consistent). Three-star Luke Kuechly is the conference’s best LB as a sophomore (as was Herzy pre-cancer). Two-star Anthony Castonzo is probably a first round pick. My point is don’t assume that our players have no talent because they were less heralded in high school. I don’t claim to know nearly enough about your roster to do a joint starting lineup, but I guarantee a lot of BC players would be starting on Clemson. This is not to say that you are not more talented to a certain extent (I would argue this but will concede it for now), but it’s not like you guys just lost to a high school team. If we didn’t have an equally incompetent staff, we’d be at the top of the division again like we always are.

by 31southst on Oct 31, 2010 8:38 PM EDT reply actions  

point well made

Unfortunately all we have here that is “independent” to assess talent is a Rivals or Scout type of service. I agree that bigger schools sell more magazines and understand your point. The defensive side of your staff appears quite competent…I am just not sure about your 70 year old OC.

Best of luck for the balance of the season.

Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com

by FIGUREFOUR on Oct 31, 2010 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd like to add a couple things...

Recruiting rankings are in no way an exact science, of course. However, offer sheets are.

If programs that ARE winning 10 games and ARE more successful have evaluated your players and would rather have had THEM coming out of high school, there is a huge problem in development of players (or evaluation) and that falls on the coaching staff.

So, what you see on the field is an underachieving team based on recruiting. We are bringing in top 25 talent. After you have repeated this same routine for 10-20 years, some of us are going to be a little antagonistic.

The best example you just mentioned is Montel Harris who is the best back in the ACC. Harris was the backup to our 2nd string RB (who was a 4 star) in high school. What happened between 2007 and 2010?

That brings me to this: I would trade coaching staffs with BC right now except for the fact that we at Clemson have a “Mandatory Southern Accent Policy” in regards to coaches. Be careful what you ask for…your horse, Harris, go the ball 37 times. Our horse, Ellington, gets it about 15.

by TheKraken on Nov 1, 2010 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think Clemson fans feel that Clemson out-talents BC every year.

But THIS year, with BC coming into the game 0-5 against AQ schools, and a mess at QB, I think Clemson fans, and just about any objective observer would have said Clemson had more player-talent on the field. Las Vegas had Clemson as 7-point favorites. Three years ago, I’m not sure Clemson fans would have felt that they out-talented a BC team with Ryan, Brice, Raji, Herzlich, Callender, Challenger, et al.

by RazzMcTazz on Nov 2, 2010 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks

In all honesty I think Clemson does bring in better raw talent while BC does a better job developing players, but it’s just annoying to always hear how we shouldn’t be on the same field as whatever school we play (you’d think our first five years in conference would show we’re legit).

Our defensive staff is frustrating but ultimately good. Our offensive staff is epically incompetent. I’m hoping for wholesale housecleaning but will settle for a new OC. Anyway best of luck to you guys as well – most BC fans respect Clemson and definitely want to see you guys beat NC State.

by 31southst on Oct 31, 2010 8:49 PM EDT reply actions  

Uh Oh !!!

I just read where Ellington will miss two games from a toe injury . That means our most productive player won’t play against NC State or Florida State……….

by tyeargin on Oct 31, 2010 10:02 PM EDT reply actions  

10 per year as in 10-2?

Or as in including the bowl game?

Not many programs average 10-2 per year over a 5-year span. I’d say only two or three in a BCS conference.

This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.

Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!

by Bud Elliott on Oct 31, 2010 11:39 PM EDT reply actions  

about our lack of ability to get there- we just want 10 wins

I’m 33 years old. I don’t remember the last 10 win season.

by Lawtonfunk on Nov 1, 2010 7:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

You might be waiting a long time then.

Clemson has only won 10 games 7 times since 1945 and they haven’t won 10 games in 20 years.

"We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time." - Vince Lombardi

by 1newplayer on Nov 1, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree DrB it isn't unreasonable....history just isn't favoring it.

"We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time." - Vince Lombardi

by 1newplayer on Nov 1, 2010 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

The difference between 9 wins and 10 wins last year was beating Maryland

…a team that only won one other game.

Having 10 win seasons is not unreasonable at Clemson with this schedule.

“Averaging” 10 wins a year is a totally different expectation because you can have five straight years of 10 win seasons and then one year of mediocrity means you don’t average 10 wins a year.

by TheKraken on Nov 1, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ok I think if you want to average 9 over a span of 3 years that's reasonable

10 really is not. It sounds good in theory but it is quite tough and you do have to play FSU & SoCar every year.

This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.

Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!

by Bud Elliott on Nov 1, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

We don't even average 9

We haven’t had a 10 win season in 20 years.

We haven’t won the ACC in 20 years either. Wake has. Maryland has. Georgia Tech has.

We have the resources. The administration has promised improvement and raised season ticket costs.

People are very frustrated right now. We are the national example for underachievement in preseason publications and on ESPN.. Nobody means to demean any other program or fanbase. Most fans simply feel like we should be better than we are.

by TheKraken on Nov 1, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Many Good Points

1. Agree that the problem starts at the top. VeryVeryProud hit the nail on the head – the powers are satisfied with mediocrity on the field as long as the money comes in. No question the success of the 80s brought some negatives, but its time to move on. The problem is not just the hiring practices, its also the failure to keep facilities competitive, vague admissions policies that have kept guys out that are now playing at other ACC schools and make recruiting JUCOs impossible.

2. Dabo – I think Dabo brings a lot of positives to the job as you guys mentioned. He is a good fit, does not threaten the admin, and may stick around if he has success (unlike Pell, Barnes, etc.). However, the offensive situation mirrors Bowden. Dabo wants to be his own co-coordinator, there is no identity, the OL coach still can’t make adjustments, and the talent utilization is suspect.

3. Ten wins a year may be a tad optimistic. During the Bowden era it should’e been achievable, but there are better coaches now in the ACC and the competition on the field and in recruiting may get tougher.

by HJPirate on Nov 1, 2010 11:30 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Barker

I don’t get the hate for President Barker. What kind of messages does it send if Athletics is allowed to financially prosper while Academics is cutting things left and right? This isn’t a sports franchise, it’s a University comprising mostly of students and some STUDENT-athletes. To get overly upset at the administration for using athletic money to keep professors in the classrooms in the middle of a terrible recession and shameful state budget cuts is a bit weak.

by Revan on Nov 1, 2010 1:22 PM EDT reply actions  

well

other schools (Florida, Georgia, Duke, GT, Stanford – I could go on but my hand would hurt typing) who have academic reputations “above” Clemson don’t seem to have a problem dedicating the necessary resources and supporting the AD of their respective schools. One gets the impression that Barker not only doesn’t do this, but is hostile to athletics at Clemson.

Secondly, what he doing to “bolster” the academic reputation of Clemson is questionable. Articles have been written about this and I don’t want to rehash it here, but I would classify it as “shady” and a waste of money and resources. This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with athletics but it does call into question the effectiveness of Barker as university president.

Third, hurting athletics hurts the image of the university and IMO the university itself. By siphoning off funds that could be used by Clemson athletics to improve competitiveness, he is damaging the positive publicity and awareness of the university and, again IMO, doing damage to resources that may/will benefit the university academically. See above for the wisdom of using funds in this manner.

Finally, IMO Barker is seeking nothing more than bolstering the image of Clemson simply for the snob appeal among his peers (again, see above for the methodology employed to do this). What he apparently doesn’t understand is 1) his peers will not alter their opinion of the University regardless 2) they will not alter that opinion since Barker, as President, does not hold a Phd irrespective of the fact that it is the terminal degree in his field and 3) why should we or anyone else give a crap about others think anyway? If the perception is that Clemson is MooU and all it cares about are its football team, having a crappy football team only makes the situation worse. When we were a football power we got respect as a university, if for no other reason then we were good at what others looked down at their noses at us for. Now they still look down their noses and we aren’t even smart enough to be good at it.

by donf on Nov 1, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

The financial health of those institutions as well as their levels of support from the state govt are likely quite different from Clemson’s. Stanford and Duke are elite private institutions with large endowments. You can’t cite them as valid examples.

His methods for bolstering the academic rep of Clemson may be questionable, but if so, that should be the reason for his removal, not because he took athletic money in favor of academics. My main point is that academics should always have priority over athletics.

Finally, I’d like to think that Barker is trying to bolster Clemson’s image mainly because, well, it’s his freakin job, not for snob appeal.

by Revan on Nov 1, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I certainly can cite private schools as valid examples

the issue is athletics and academics coexisting. And the point is that he is fact NOT bolstering the image of Clemson by hurting athletics.

by donf on Nov 1, 2010 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

They’re also a pretty crummy school academically. They also have more departments (Medical, Law, etc)

by Revan on Nov 2, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with everything you have said.

We need to start with changes at the very top, and then work our way down. Some of these people are just fighting an uphill battle, which is not fair, and some have no business being head coaches. I personally think Dabo is going to win big if given time, because he has a lot of intangibles that many other coaches do not have; however, there are numerous coaches on offense that need to find a new home, and we need to go out and spend some bucks to get some better coaches in there. Just my opinion.

There is something in these Hills!

by Tigerplowboy on Nov 1, 2010 2:38 PM EDT reply actions  

Wesley McFadden

I just had an hour-long conversation with one of the best backs not named Terry Allen. He said that when he ran the ball, he was looking to punch that LB in the mouth. He wasn’t looking to run away from the backer, but to punish him! Do you all remember those Danny Ford teams?? We need to be more physical. Even with the spread offense, you can still be physical. The team that reminds me of those great Danny Ford teams is Virginia Tech. Until we stop playing pretty, we will not be legit contenders!

by White-Tiger on Nov 1, 2010 3:03 PM EDT reply actions  

And the staff figured out that the real problem was t.boyd was not getting enough snaps. Wow what a relief orange bowl here we come.

by 5knklshfl on Nov 1, 2010 4:41 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I find it hard to believe that Clemson’s administration would be embarrassed by having a Top Tier football team, if they also had their Top 20 US News academic ranking. Having a top ranked football team hasn’t diminished the academic reputations of Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia Tech, et al.

by RazzMcTazz on Nov 1, 2010 11:36 PM EDT reply actions  

I made this point a few weeks ago.

Academic excellence and athletic success are not exclusive of one another and can easily co-exist.

by Clemson Caniac on Nov 2, 2010 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes. They can coexist. I was really addressing the attribution of malice vs. stupidity.

Many people speculate that the administration would be threatened or embarrassed by a top tier footbal program. But that’s illogical and I don’t think there’s any evidence of that. I think that it’s just not a priority or a forte for them. It won’t be a priority until somebody hits them in the pocketbook.

by RazzMcTazz on Nov 2, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

I can agree with that aswell

As a University you want something you can hang your hat on. Why can’t that be a premier athletic program? Why can’t you fund a successful and prestigious athletic department while fostering an atmosphere that respects and appreciates the efforts shown in the classroom and strives to be one of the top public universities? If your athletics make you who you are why get away from that?

by Clemson Caniac on Nov 2, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

RazzMcTazz - your letting logic get in the way.

There is no evidence that the administration is hurting the football program. Dabo and his staff have all they need to be very successful in this conference. We’re losing games to Boston College and Maryland, not Ohio State, Texas and Alabama. We’re consistently recruiting top 25 talent with facilities that are as good or better than 90% of the schools in our conference. The laughable comments are the ones that encourage you to write the BOT. Consider that just about every BOT member was a major donor to the WEZ project. Now why would a group that’s obviously pro-football with their money be anti-football in board meetings?

by RabidCat on Nov 2, 2010 3:49 PM EDT reply actions  

The BOT knows they've screwed up.

They know and acknowledge to folks we’ve talked to that the AD has declined under their watch. They will not acknowledge that Barker is at fault though.

I know there were several on the BOT last year who discussed removing TDP, but Barker would not do it. They refused to step over him and fire Phillips.

by DrB on Nov 2, 2010 9:18 PM EDT reply actions  

Declined under their watch?

We were one game away from the final round of the college world series. We were 4 points away from the acc football championship and a bcs berth. We sent our basketball team to the ncaa tournament for the third consecutive year. We were 1 of 8 universities that went to a bowl, the college world series and the ncaa tournament. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the big 3 sports we are much better than we were in the late 90s.

by RabidCat on Nov 3, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

Now go look at the decline of the AD since 2006 and recompute.

Morale in the entire department is low, extremely low for the last 2 years. Championships have become less frequent and losing records more frequent. The big 3 are not all you measure the AD by. Multiple people in and around the AD have confirmed this to us, and we have communicated with BOT members who do admit the overall trend is downwards.

The baseball program as a whole has declined since 2006, particularly talentwise. Their funding from the AD has been cut as well. Katie Hill won’t even let Jack have a radar gun or new baseballs when he requests them, and he’s our most successful coach on campus other than Penley.

by DrB on Nov 3, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Per @aimclemson

Womens’ Soccer Coach fired. Had a 1-28-1 record in conference play and team only scored 1 goal in a span of 11 games from 2009-2010.

At least the AD will fire someone for lack of results. Good sign.

by Clemson Caniac on Nov 3, 2010 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Baseball is not much better since the Late 90s

Those teams went to Omaha every year, and their records were far better, almost averaging 50 per season.

by DrB on Nov 3, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation site about the Clemson Tigers. If you want to take a hard look at both sides of something, feel free to stick around and comment. Be forewarned, we don't pump sunshine here.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Img2_small
Clemson Expansion: Big Picture
Small
2012 RULE CHANGES = THE WUSSIFICATION OF FOOTBALL
Clem_brawl-736603_small
Bellamy
Clem_brawl-736603_small
The state of Clemson Football (long)
Small
First hand (sort of) experience with Batson's system
Small
Somebody gets it
Small
Clemson Basketball Recruiting Chart
Angels_small
Brownell & Kansas State
Collegecampus_small
Frank Martin to coach USC Basketball
Small
Veteran Hopes to Fulfill Promise at Clemson.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Bengal Tiger

Danny_ford_small DrB

Slick_small FIGUREFOUR

Persian Tiger

Tyree_helmet_catch_small ggggmen08

Small QuackingTiger

Sumatran Tiger

Sma_20clemson-tiger-w_20_2__small redbricktiger

Ellington_small Peter_G

Cj_spiller_heisman_small F1NS

Clemson-tigers-fans_the_wave_small SJTill