All I am saying is that if this all gets down to who attracts the most dollars for a conference, I could see a day where it might not be USCs decision. Same for Vandy, and a couple of others.
People forget recruiting has to get you to the playoffs in the first place to even be a factor. Clemson has been recruiting in the top ten for almost a decade now. They recruited well before the playoffs. They get recruits because they out players in the nfl.
clemson last season had a halftime lead against Wake Forest by 27 points, Citadel by 49 points, Georgia Tech by 52 points and Pittsburgh by 28 points. At the start of the fourth quarter, clemson led Virginia by 17 points, Miami by 25 points and Virginia Tech by 21. I guess the point i am trying to make is clemson has an advantage playing in the ACC that they are able to protect their starters by sitting them on the bench sometime in the start of the third to the start of the fourth quarter. Not only can they protect their starters, but it also gives them an opportunity to develop and evaluate younger players with real game time experience.
Good points, however i still believe that SEC would cause clemson difficulty with reaching the playoffs year in and year out.
Clemson and Maryland made their bed back in the early 70's when they both agreed to leave the ACC with USC. They made their bed when they turned their back on USC and left them on their own. I say no let them stay in the ACC. I have never forgotten this and never will. Well you know what they say about karma. I will leave it at that.
No they would make the playoff and then win the national championship much like Bama does. The big matchup is just played in early December vs January.
Money talks in different ways...Look at Texas, they have more money than they know what to do with yet still have not shown results on the field for many years.
Well it certainly is easier to operate in a more money environment than not enough. With NIL more money may become more important than in the past. I understand what you are saying and there's a lot more intangibles for success. Other than lots of money, Texas has been a dumpster fire since Mack Brown left.
Their record over the last 8 years against the SEC, which is the most favorable sample by far you could pick for them, they are 15-6. So yeah, that's one 8-3 season and one 7-3 season, or a conf record of either 6-2 or 5-3. If you take a more representative sample though, say 20 years, they are 25-17, which percentage wise translates to 7-5, or if you confine that percentage to conference schedule 5-3 in conference. If you take 50 years, they were 40-43 which is more like 6-6, or in conference 4-4 or 3-5. So yeah, even here at their prime they're gonna lose 2-3 conference games a year. If they slip at all, it's more like 4-5. That ain't garnet glasses, that's facts.
Show me any SEC teams schedule in the last 5 years where Clemson would have gone 5-3.
How many of those games were against upper level SEC teams versus lower level teams? It's not like they would come in and play only the UGAs, LSUs, Bamas, etc. of the conference.
Those are the intangibles that I mentioned. The places you named have never decided that they wanted to be great at football and have not kept up with the rest of the SEC traditionally with coaching hires, facilities etc. Kentucky has begun to but is still a basketball school. The other SEC schools have used the money to make the SEC the premiere football conference on the nation. USC wants to be good in football and has used the money to improve everything that would make it successful in football. We have made some bonehead hires for coaches and AD that have hindered that process.
And 5 of their losses were against us when we were upper level. That is why I asked for the breakdown.
Clemson was never considered for SEC expansion in 1992.
Agreed. Like or not and being objective, the SEC is just as top heavy as the ACC or Big10.
I think he was saying that Clemson might have been considered if they had left with USC and were no longer in the ACC.
Clem would never leave the ACC in hopes of getting a SEC invite. The SEC was willing to raid a conference for two new members, primarily Texas and Texas A&M, but never considered anyone from the ACC.
I would the credit the 5 year run to a HOF coach and an unprecedented run of talent in the SCHS ranks during that period, moreso than any conference affiliation.
Who knows? I would say yes on Holtz. On Spurrier, I have no clue but he did want a place to land and wanted to be at a place where he could be the first to accomplish something no one else had. Both previously coached in the ACC.
