|
Replies: 34
| visibility 6238
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
13
13
Aug 24, 2024, 3:53 AM
|
|
First, is the list of schools that had the most transfer portal departures.
Colorado - 41
Indiana - 39
Michigan State - 39
Alabama - 39
Houston - 33
Cincinnati - 32
Georgia Tech - 32
Arkansas - 31
Texas A&M - 31
Louisville - 30
Arizona - 29
Arizona State - 29
So. Cal - 29
Washington - 29
Miami — 28
Purdue - 28
LSU - 27
Syracuse - 27
South Carolina - 26
UCF - 26
Mississippi State - 25
Ohio State - 25
Ole Miss - 25
Oklahoma - 25
Vanderbilt - 25
West Virginia - 25
Georgia Bulldogs — 24
Texas - 24
Utah - 24
Florida - 23
Wisconsin - 23
Auburn - 22
Cal - 22
Florida State - 22
Illinois - 22
Iowa State - 22
Kentucky - 22
NC State - 22
North Carolina - 22
Texas Tech - 22
Oregon Ducks - 20
Pittsburgh - 20
Missouri - 19
TCU - 19
Minnesota - 18
Notre Dame - 18
Virginia Tech - 18
Boston College - 17
Duke - 17
Kansas State - 17
Michigan - 17
UCLA - 17
BYU - 16
SMU - 16
Virginia - 16
Baylor - 15
Rutgers - 15
Tennessee - 15
Wake - 15
Iowa - 13
Kansas - 13
Maryland - 13
Penn State - 13
Stanford — 13
Clemson - 12
Northwestern - 12
Oklahoma State - 10
Nebraska - 8
Now that we've seen the departures, let's take a look at the additions. I'll break this on down by conference.
ACC
Boston College - 10
California - 24
Clemson - 0
Duke - 18
FSU - 18
Georgia Tech - 14
Louisville - 27
Miami - 14
UNC - 10
NC State - 15
Pitt - 15
SMU - 21
Stanford - 3
Syracuse - 20
Virginia - 13
Virginia Tech - 7
Wake - 7
BigXII
Arizona - 24
Arizona State - 28
Baylor - 16
BYU - 10
Cincinnati - 26
Colorado - 43
Houston - 28
Iowa State - 9
Kansas - 11
Kansas State - 8
Oklahoma State - 8
TCU - 22
Texas Tech - 18
UCF - 26
Utah - 12
West Virginia - 13
Big10
Illinois - 13
Indiana - 30
Iowa - 4
Maryland - 9
Michigan - 9
Michigan State - 24
Minnesota - 13
Nebraska - 9
Northwestern - 7
Ohio State - 8
Oregon - 13
Penn State - 7
Purdue - 19
Rutgers- 6
UCLA - 23
So. Cal - 16
Washington - 29
Wisconsin - 17
Pac2
Oregon State - 17
Washington State - 11
$EC
Alabama - 14
Arkansas - 22
Auburn - 16
Florida - 14
Georgia - 11
Kentucky - 12
LSU - 9
Mississippi State - 19
Missouri - 16
Oklahoma - 15
Ole Miss - 25
UofSC - 22
Tennessee - 10
Texas - 10
A&M - 25
Vandy - 23
Independent
Notre Dame - 10
Interestingly, the only schools, including Group of 5 programs, that did not pick-up any players from the transfer portal were Army, Navy, Air Force, and Clemson.
|
|
|
|
 |
National Champion [7136]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Good Stuff...... That Is A Whole Lot Of Mercenaries***
4
Aug 14, 2024, 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8064]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
4
Aug 14, 2024, 12:22 PM
|
|
Thank you for this information BigCUFan!
I wonder how many scholarships were not renewed? How many promises were broken; because a player didn't live up to their expected potential?
Clemson has had kids who "retired from football" as well. So that happens. Graduation happens. Early departures happen.
The ship has sailed on the concept that CFB is about "building character and a solid contributing young person for the future" is over! B/C of the amount of money and exposure for a school( affluent alumni ) it's become "something else"!
Everybody says Dabo needs to use the portal; but they do not talk about the fact Clemson hasn't had massive departures(some yes, not massive like some schools). If you are willing to go back on your word; you tell a kid to "leave" if they don't produce. And, bring in someone else who was developed somewhere else. SMH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11469]
TigerPulse: 86%
46
Posts: 14590
Joined: 2004
|
Clemson's losing 35-45% of a recruiting class to the portal each year.
3
Aug 14, 2024, 1:18 PM
|
|
while it's lower than most.........it's still significant to only be replaced by the next year freshman and/or walk-ons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24892]
TigerPulse: 94%
54
Posts: 17252
Joined: 2002
|
Tell 'em shill II
2
Aug 14, 2024, 1:48 PM
|
|
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19002]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 13886
Joined: 2009
|
Hmm. You sure about that math?
6
6
Aug 14, 2024, 1:58 PM
[ in reply to Clemson's losing 35-45% of a recruiting class to the portal each year. ] |
|
Those 12 are spread across 4, if not 5, recruiting classes. And of those 12, 2 were apparently Power 5 worthy? Seems your panic is based on faulty reasoning and barely registering on the significance factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24892]
TigerPulse: 94%
54
Posts: 17252
Joined: 2002
|
facts mean nothing to shill II
2
Aug 14, 2024, 2:00 PM
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11469]
TigerPulse: 86%
46
Posts: 14590
Joined: 2004
|
yes.......
2
Aug 14, 2024, 2:44 PM
[ in reply to Hmm. You sure about that math? ] |
|
we sign ~20-24 players every year out of HS............we've lost on average 8-10/year to the portal since the portal became "a thing". Never once did I say 35-45% of ONE class, but the volume equates to those percentages of a class that's being REPLACED by freshman and/or walk-ons.
8players / 20 player class = 40%
8players / 24 player class = 33%
10players / 20 player class = 50%
10players / 24 player class = 42%
is that clear enough? It's a numbers game we lose players and replace with HS players which in turn creates a "forever young" product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19002]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 13886
Joined: 2009
|
Re: yes.......
Aug 14, 2024, 3:16 PM
|
|
Fair.
The forever young thing though still doesn't jibe. If so, explain how our recruiting class numbers remain continually lower than our competitive peers? From 2021-2024 our average class size is a shade over 25th largest. That's hardly a sign of the forever young product you and others are touting. We're clearly keeping players at a higher rate than most others, veterans who replace the departing. Yet, there are 25 programs on average that bring in more freshmen than we do? And those that bring in more consistently are the usual suspects - those at the top of the competitive food chain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24892]
TigerPulse: 94%
54
Posts: 17252
Joined: 2002
|
LOL
Aug 15, 2024, 8:35 AM
[ in reply to yes....... ] |
|
Keep digging LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [299]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: yes.......
1
Aug 15, 2024, 10:51 AM
[ in reply to yes....... ] |
|
Apples and oranges comparison. Let's just take the first scenario, we lost 8 players, there are 85
scholarships, that would be roughly 9% of our players. Replaced by 23 new ones. We never seem to have too many scholarships left, and we seem to have a lot of very good freshman contibuting early. I like
the way we are doing it now, with maybe a few portal players if they want to come to Clemson, and fit
our culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2916]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29448]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 10911
Joined: 2013
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
2
Aug 14, 2024, 12:25 PM
|
|
Getting back to our military roots I see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2249]
TigerPulse: 97%
32
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
2
Aug 14, 2024, 12:49 PM
|
|
Yes because the military schools have Clemson's roster, m o r o n.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2249]
TigerPulse: 97%
32
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
7
7
Aug 14, 2024, 1:07 PM
|
|
You can't tell me Clemson was hurt by the guys that left and they didn't either have someone better already or recruited a guy better. You can't argue Wesco and Moore aren't already better than Collins. You had Owens and Mays leave neither are losses. Barnes is clearly better than Mukuba. Sage was a career backup. The only one I would argue that remotely had a shot to start was Pride Jr... Parker hands down better than Ojiegbe. Obviously the RB Thomas was a walk on and would only see time in mop up duty. Then you had the DE that was in this class that went to Minnesota that some of you questioned why Clemson would have even taken him. That is 9 right there and the only ones I can think of but obviously Clemson got better through recruiting high school guys. Regardless of what ppl claim this is still a developmental game and we use to believe in guys getting better year over year. This transfer portal topic is old and played out. I love it when ppl like Danny Kannel just assumes if Clemson wanted Keon Coleman all they had to do was ask. Surely the $$$ FSU gave him and Clemson doesn't really have had anything to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [47594]
TigerPulse: 77%
58
Posts: 35355
Joined: 2003
|
LOL you're delusional.***
2
5
5
Aug 14, 2024, 2:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24892]
TigerPulse: 94%
54
Posts: 17252
Joined: 2002
|
Irony ?
1
Aug 15, 2024, 8:36 AM
|
|
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22899]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2916]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
False Dilemma.
4
Aug 14, 2024, 2:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment... ] |
|
We were going to get those recruits regardless of who transferred. Losing 12 transfers hurts our depth. It costs us guys that know the system.
It creates the need for additional recruits while we compete for those recruits against schools that pay NIL up front.
It also means that the "we develop players" is hollow, since we lost 14% of our roster to the portal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19002]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 13886
Joined: 2009
|
Why are our annual HS recruiting numbers so much lower than our
Aug 14, 2024, 4:01 PM
|
|
competitive peers each year then? Pretty much everyone at the top of the food chain brings in more that way than we do. Posted earlier: 2021-2024 class size is 25.25th on average. We bring in fewer people each year that don't 'know the system' than nearly everyone of relevance we're competing against. Seems we are developing and retaining kids at a much higher pace across the board, and replacing departures with fewer freshmen than competitors are.
Message was edited by: wildblulou®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [489]
TigerPulse: 97%
18
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
1
Aug 14, 2024, 3:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment... ] |
|
Except those players you listed were already committed lol. You're replacing starters with projects. We lost Mukuba and replaced him with Joe Wilkinson not Khalil Barnes. Mitchell Mayes left, and yeah he was not a very good player, but you replaced him with Watson Young.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6308]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
3
Aug 14, 2024, 1:08 PM
|
|
This is a critical season for Clemson and Dabo. The Tigers need to be much improved on the field this season or Dabo will start getting pushback from some boosters.
I am sitting back and pulling for Dabo and his way to succeed. I also remember what happened to Danny and how he was treated. Boosters are paying the big bucks to win games. Nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [47594]
TigerPulse: 77%
58
Posts: 35355
Joined: 2003
|
Danny lost his job at Clemson because of arrogance.
3
4
Aug 14, 2024, 2:53 PM
|
|
He thought he was bigger than the program, and in some ways, bigger than the university.
He found out the hard way that he was wrong.
I'm concerned that there are similar tendencies toward arrogance with Dabo. Obviously, Dabo isn't going to IPTAY meetings bashing the administration, which I appreciate. But Dabo is showing arrogance in the way he is running the program, by not embracing the transfer portal and using NIL to its fullest extent to help our team.
Dabo has earned a lot of grace from the administration and fans, but at some point people are not going to tolerate a program that is nowhere close to what it could/should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
LOL...
6
6
Aug 14, 2024, 3:29 PM
|
|
"at some point people are not going to tolerate a program that is nowhere close to what it could/should be"...lol.
I'm curious...does that only apply to football?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2044]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [47594]
TigerPulse: 77%
58
Posts: 35355
Joined: 2003
|
I sure do, and last year felt a lot like many of those Bowden years.
1
Aug 15, 2024, 1:11 PM
|
|
String a few of those together, and Dabo will likely be getting more pressure to do things differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22899]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [312]
TigerPulse: 98%
15
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
Aug 14, 2024, 2:21 PM
|
|
Where did these numbers come from? And how
Many years go into these numbers?
I don’t think Ohio State lost 25 players to the portal this year. So it could be over 2 or more years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
2023/24 transfer portal cycle...
1
Aug 14, 2024, 2:46 PM
|
|
The numbers were obtained from 24/7 Sports and FOX Sports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8581]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 11473
Joined: 2011
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
2
Aug 14, 2024, 2:59 PM
|
|
Is it good to lose 41 and add 43?
How about losing 24 and adding 11?
Maybe losing 12 and adding 0 is not worse.
The Portal stinks. I buy into Dabo philosophy of recruiting well, committing to recruits, and building them up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2916]
TigerPulse: 72%
33
|
That can lead to constant building projects...
Aug 14, 2024, 6:04 PM
|
|
They never result in a finished product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1235]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
Re: Some transfer portal statistics for your reading enjoyment...
1
Aug 14, 2024, 3:05 PM
|
|
I would like to see this list re-posted in January 2025 and compare it to how each of these teams finish.
Because Cal, SMU, Syracuse and Louisville took in the most transfer does that translate into them being the top four in the ACC at years end? Did they get the right people? did they get rid of the the right people?
Just looking at the number is pointless. Other than to say Clemson didn't take anyone in the portal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [68088]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 90176
Joined: 2001
|
Just because Clemson didn't take anyone in the transfer portal doesn't mean...
1
Aug 14, 2024, 3:18 PM
|
|
they didn't get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [229]
TigerPulse: 75%
13
|
This is very interesting information! The differential losses in some programs
2
Aug 15, 2024, 11:54 AM
|
|
are also very interesting.
Clemson lost 12 and added 0 for a net loss of -12, which many TNETers bemoan as a loss of ground.
However, many "peer" programs have more or similar net losses, some much more, yet because they are active in the portal those losses are given a pass by the "pro-portal" crowd. A quick look at some programs of interest:
OSU - lost 25, added 8 = -17
LSU - lost 27, added 9 = -18
MIA - lost 28, added 14 = -14 interesting because these guys have supposedly now better than us
USC (real one) - lost 29, added 16 = -13
BAMA - lost 39, added 14 = -25 I realize the coaching change drove this, but still, -25 seems huge
also Univ of Wash - lost 29, added 29 that's over a third of scholarship players changed out from a playoff team - amazing! And that's just the portal, not counting graduation and early NFL opt outs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2483]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: This is very interesting information! The differential losses in some programs
Aug 15, 2024, 1:09 PM
|
|
I agree with you - the whole portal/NIL situation is more complicated than most people will concede and the numbers don't tell the whole story. Dabo may or may not have taken the correct path, but don't believe for a minute that Clemson hasn't had a large group of smart people studying the situation very carefully. A lot of people's lucrative salaries depend on them getting it right. For now I am in Dabo's corner. I hope he made the right choice. I know he and the athletic department is smarter than me about this and that is why I back him. Time will tell. Relax. As much as we love it, it is still just a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 6238
|
|
|
50
