|
Replies: 26
| visibility 1,240
|
Legend [16186]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8525
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Who are we, really?
Oct 11, 2009, 6:38 PM
|
|
From the beginning of college football, through 1977, the Tigers ranked 57th nationally in winning percentage. We had some good years, we won some Southern Conference and ACC titles but we ranked 57th nationally in winning percentage. We had a nice bowl history, especially for such a small school, but at 57th in winning percentage, we were nowhere near a top 20 program. Our stadium was nice, but it was smallish by national standards.
Between 1978 and 1991, we ranked 5th in the nation in winning percentage. We won 6 or 7 conference titles, we won one national title and we put up some very nice national wins over Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgia, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Florida State and Penn State. Our stadium grew to seat 80,000 and we filled it up regularly. Clemson, small land grant school in a small state had hit the big time in football.
Between 1992 and 2008, the Tigers fell back a long way from the peak level of performance in the 1980s. Over the period of 92 through 2008, we ranked 31st nationally in winning percentage. We continued to sell a lot of tickets. Interestingly from 99-2008, we again ranked 31st nationally in winning percentage, holding our own over the entire 92-08 time frame.
So who are we really?
I'd say we are a mid level program that reached solid top ten status under a great coach. When the great coach left, we fell back, but not to the historic levels where we existed for much of our history. Right now, we are on the cusp on being a top 25 program. We are not there now. Still our history suggests that with a great coach, we can become a top ten program.
That's what I think from looking at the data. No one sold me this idea. I got it myself from watching Clemson play football for 40+ years and looking at the records of what happened in this distant past.
Harley
|
|
|
|
 |
null [277]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1221
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Completely accurate. If not for the Danny Ford years we are
Oct 11, 2009, 6:52 PM
|
|
USuC. Plain and simple. Most fans dont want to believe that though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [133]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 989
Joined: 7/24/01
|
The school for the most part has overacheived in the FB
Oct 11, 2009, 6:55 PM
|
|
department. All things point to the fact that we should be a basketball...considering size and conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3350]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 7782
Joined: 11/6/03
|
What a minute there. That's BS. How can you say that?
Oct 11, 2009, 7:12 PM
[ in reply to Completely accurate. If not for the Danny Ford years we are ] |
|
Even after the Ford years we won WAY more games than USuCk! That's a terrible thing to say and you should be admonished for saying such an aweful thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
Dude, before Danny, we had already won a Cotton Bowl,
Oct 11, 2009, 8:15 PM
[ in reply to Completely accurate. If not for the Danny Ford years we are ] |
|
an Orange Bowl and played (and lost) in another Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl. We had played in an addition four other bowls.
To date, USuC has still never played in any of those New Years Day Bowl games. In those days, only about 16-18 teams even played in bowls games, instead of the 60+ today.
From Pell (1977) and beyond, we have only NOT gone to a bowl 8 times; three probation years 1982-84, 1980, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2004 (brawl with USC). So, Clemson has therefore gone to a bowl 24 times since 1977. We only had three losing seasons (92, 92, 98).
Since 77, USC has only gone to a bowl 12 times (half as many), missing 20 times. USC has also had more than 10 losing seasons. We are NOT USC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9048
Joined: 2/22/00
|
The Danny years were fabulous but we had 3 college football
Oct 11, 2009, 8:24 PM
[ in reply to Completely accurate. If not for the Danny Ford years we are ] |
|
hall of fame coaches at CU before Danny and to dismiss them as "we were like USC before Danny" is both ignorant ill informed and disloyal. What Clemson accomplished as a small military school up until the middle to late 50s is miraculous.
We have a really neat history. We arent Alabama or one of those all timer programs but CU football history should be a point of pride to all of us..It's more than 11 years of Danny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
Amen. Some of our fans need to stroll by our bowl trophy
Oct 11, 2009, 8:32 PM
|
|
case to view what we have done since 1940.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16186]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8525
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I did not intend to make an expectations argument.
Oct 11, 2009, 8:48 PM
|
|
I looked at the numbers. We are who we are.
From 1948 through 1959, under Frank Howard, we ranked 19th in the nation in winning percentage, we won 3 of 6 bowls games and won 4 conference titles.
Between 1978 and 1991, we ranked 5th in the nation in winning percentage. We won 6 or 7 conference titles, we won one national title and we put up some very nice national wins over Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgia, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Florida State and Penn State.
The record seems clear to me on a couple of points.
1. With an excellent coach, we can be a significant player on the national scene.
2. Since 91, with the 31st best winning percentage, we are on the cusp but have not been a top 25 caliber program.
Finally, since 1977, a decently long period of just over 30 years, we rank 17th in the country in winning percentage. I've been lucky enough to have watched the best long run of Clemson football EVER. Over that time frame, we've got more wins than Notre Dame, LSU, VT, TAMU, UCLA, and most other programs.
I'll take us. I'm happy with who we have been. I'd like to have another golden period where, under a great coach, we do great things. I hope Coach Swinney is that fellow. If he's not, we'll try someone else.
Go Tigers!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
Your first point is what it is all about. With an excellent
Oct 11, 2009, 9:39 PM
|
|
coach, we can be a national player. With an above average coach, we can win multiple conference titles.
With average to below average coaches, we won't.
Again, the point I've been making for some time, all the way back to last November, we need to stop hiring inexperinced head coaches (this is our third in a row since 1994).
Danny was a unique situation, and we keep trying to catch that same lightning in a bottle. Of the last three head coaches hired, only TB had proved himself at all, and it was for only two years, with the same QB and same staff (especially RR). There was no real body of work to successfully judge whether any of the last three coaches had the ability to be successful at Clemson. Nothing is a guarantee, but some hires are much bigger gambles than others. TB's ability to be bowl eligible every year saved his career on several occasions.
We have become a punch line nationally over the last 18 years over the lack of success of our head coaches. Nationally, folks have called us "SEC Lite" for years. A school with the passion for football that all the SEC schools do. Unfortunately, our athletic administration that has done a poorer job finding competent coaches over the last 18 years than most of our conference brethren.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5330]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 10/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
a team without an offensive identity in a conferene that
Oct 11, 2009, 7:00 PM
|
|
only has 1 or 2 "national powers" and a division that should be ours for the taking.
History has nothing to do with it. Like it or not, Bowden brought us to national prominence, and got us to the "cusp" of great things. Our recruiting is outstanding, our facilities are now competitive, our fanbase is rabid, and we play in a mediocre division of a mediocre conference.
We have the athletes and talent to win games and be in the conference championship discussion every year. The sad part is that we are only in the discussion until we start dropping games we shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [639]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3848
Joined: 8/13/09
|
Re: a team without an offensive identity in a conferene that
Oct 11, 2009, 7:05 PM
|
|
what he said...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3454]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 6200
Joined: 9/13/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
I agree with you to a point, but here are a couple of things
Oct 11, 2009, 7:23 PM
|
|
that make me think we should expect a lot more than we have gotten since 1991.
If Clemson was in the SEC, I might agree with you, but;
1. We have facilities that are in the top 2 of the ACC and should (and have) recruited better talent year after year than "most" of the league.
2. Va Tech, FSU, and Miami were all no better programs than Clemson in 1977. BB had just come to FSU, Miami had just hired Schenelberger and were still teams homecoming opponent, and Va Tech was rotating with Duke as our annual homecoming foe in the years they played us in Clemson. There is no reason to accept that we cannot be as good or better than any of those teams today.
3. Wake and BC have no business being "better" than Clemson given number 1. above, and continually keeping Clemson from winning the Atlantic division.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6729]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 7/23/05
|
I don't think Harley was addressing expectations...
Oct 11, 2009, 7:26 PM
|
|
Harley was addressing cold hard facts. And the fact is, we aren't a top tier team, period.
And of course we all expect better, but that doesn't change our record/recent history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
Well, I don't know what going back to 1896 proves, or
Oct 11, 2009, 7:33 PM
|
|
even 1976, when the three schools I just mentioned FSU, Miami, and Va Tech (who we all would be thrilled to have their recent history) were all lesser or equal programs to Clemson even before our trip back to bowl games in 1977.
Miami passed us in 1983, FSU in the late 80's, and Va Tech in the late 90's. So, do they have to always stay ahead of us? Thats stinking thinking
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6729]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 7/23/05
|
No, but if you think we have a top level team this year
Oct 11, 2009, 7:35 PM
|
|
Then you are sadly mistaken. I'm not saying you do, but many on here do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
Nowehere in my posts above did I say that. Do you think
Oct 11, 2009, 7:47 PM
|
|
Wake, NC State, Va Tech, BC, Maryland, Duke, UNC, and UVa have better histories than Clemson? Since the "expectations" argument being made here by you and Harley is based on history.
That leaves only FSU, Miami, and Ga Tech with getter expectations based on all time record, and FSU and Miami were none existant before 1977.
I was in school in the late 70's/early 80's. I've seen us win, I've seen us lose, but our losing over the last 18 years is because the combined years of previous head coaching experience of our last three hires is 3.5 years. Two of the three was partly because all the fans could see was the next Danny i.e. West/Dabo.
West had one year prior (4-7 at UTC)
Bowden two good years at Tulane (with RR)
Dabo 4-3 record as interim with wins over UVA Duke, BC, and USC.
Our failures the last 18 years is coaching hires. Do you not think Grobe would have won at least one ACC title at Clemson since 2001? He has one at Wake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [65]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 187
Joined: 9/3/04
|
Re: All very true & me thinks this all sounds like...
Oct 11, 2009, 9:05 PM
|
|
trying to find an excuse for being a mid-level program year in and year out, into perpetuity. Just calming us like Hindu Cows when agitation and dissatisfaction over failure is what precipitates the action that leads to improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13253
Joined: 11/10/00
|
we are on the cusp of being a 57th ranked team again.***
Oct 11, 2009, 7:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: Who are we, really?
Oct 11, 2009, 8:12 PM
|
|
Just my opinion,but reading between the lines ,this is what I {currently }see.Clemson is a mediocre team with a fan base that seems to buy into the media hype that Clemson is better than they are,and that they somehow think Clemson is going to go undefeated,and win the MNC.Then when they hit the wall,and lose back to back conference games,they want to fire the H/C and bring back Danny Ford.Ive only been watching Clemson for 10 years,but I don't think we are anywhere near a top 25 team and imo, it's too early to tell if Dabo will be a great coach.Let's see how this season ,and even next year play out before trying to decide who we really are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14224
Joined: 10/5/01
|
could be worse, could have been held to 3 points at home
Oct 11, 2009, 8:47 PM
|
|
by UVa. like y'all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58470]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46359
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I thought we were Clemson, proud of it no matter what.
Oct 11, 2009, 8:53 PM
|
|
That's the main thing.
As for football, the facts you've pointed out tell the story. No doubt we can have a top flight football program again, and we may have a great coach now. Maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
Love for Clemson should not equate to apathy over the
Oct 11, 2009, 9:48 PM
|
|
program. Being upset with our football coaches has nothing to do with anyones love for Clemson. I have supported Clemson when we were 3-8, just as hard as when we were 12-0. However, being apathetic over anything less than what we are capable of being (within the ACC) is in no way an indictment of someone's passion for the university, in fact, more often than not, it goes hand in hand.
My Clemson diploma is the most important thing from the university, however, I still wnat our sports programs to be all they are capable of being, who wouldn't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58470]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46359
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I don't disagree with that at all.***
Oct 11, 2009, 11:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [300]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 377
Joined: 8/5/09
|
Re: Who are we, really?
Oct 12, 2009, 12:01 PM
|
|
I think Mark Twain can snuff this one out: "there are lies, ###### lies, then statistics."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
1968-1976.....
Oct 12, 2009, 1:21 PM
|
|
I hope we are not reverting back to this terrible stretch...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 26
| visibility 1,240
|
|
|
50
