Re: Clemson made itself a target in recruiting

This is not a hit piece, simply an observation that may or may not be true. We've lost 7 commits so far from the '25 class, which I believe represents ~1/3 of the class.

It made me wonder, "Why us" when I don't really see other programs losing this many commits, unless their head coach has taken another job, or been fired. My conclusion is we have become a target because other programs simply don't think we will fight back to keep our recruits. We might make a counter offer and then if the bidding goes higher, we simply walk away.

Schools know we are really good at identifying talent, and they see a weakness in our ability to hold on to them, so they come after us. It's kind of like we have become the "Baby Huey" of college football where we are a big time program that lets the little guy push us around. You younger guys may not get this reference but most others will

I just think until we really take a stand, put an aggressive posture around our commits, and fight fire with fire as best as we can, this is going to continue to happen to us.

If the likes of Duke and Ga Tech can steal from us, then the excuse of not having the money or resources to compete kind of goes out the window for me.

I hope we take off the gloves and start fighting back, and defending our turf. Lots of areas need to be addressed, and I believe this is a critical one for our future success.

RememberTheDanny

All-In [10416]

TigerPulse: 97%

Posts: 12950

Joined: 2021

Not saying this is it - but ~ collusion among several teams to go after Clemson

Dec 3, 2024, 7:58 PM

- - - makes Clemson (or any other single school which must withstand a collusion among several other schools pursuing that single school’s recruits) disproportionately vulnerable to having Dabo’s verbal recruits being ‘poached.’

(Note: Formal ‘collusion’ by competing schools against Clemson is not necessary to create circumstances which makes Clemson especially vulnerable to ‘pack’ poaching of Dabo’s recruits.)

Two examples to clarify the argument.

(1). If Clemson wasn’t an obvious target for not fighting hard enough to keep our recruits from leaving, then one single other competing school would need to have the resources to go toe to toe with Clemson for a Clemson verbal commitment.

(2). On the other hand, if each among numerous other schools were individually targeted one verbal commitment each, then in effect Clemson would have to ante up to pay extra for each verbal commitment in order to keep him in our class. The combined money from each of the other schools (let’s assume each of those other schools … individually … had less NIL funds than Clemson) would significantly exceed lesson’s NIL money.

In the face of numerous less financially underpinned schools each pursuing a Clemson verbal commitment using top dollar to get him, then Clemson would get outbid one at a time for enough verbal commits until the recruiting class shrunk to the point where we could afford to keep every one from that smaller pool of recruits.

If Clemson is perceived as unable or unwilling to ‘pay up and match competitive offers,’ then this is akin to a pack of coyotes preferring to target a crippled deer as the target meal instead of attacking one from among the not-crippled deer.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Clemson made itself a target in recruiting

Up front money. Plain and simple.

Re: Up front money. Plain and simple.

You're right...

This is not new. At lot of schools offer kids

What?

Re: What?