|
Replies: 58
| visibility 1
|
null [1125]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1703
Joined: 7/17/00
|
The SHOCKING truth about Clemson Football and Tommy Bowden
Sep 10, 2008, 12:30 PM
|
|
I've been thinking about this, and gathering data for a few days now, and finally decided to post. It's long (as you can see), but I think it's very telling.
There is so much talk these days between the "haters" and the "blind loyalists". In my experience, people with extreme view points rarely have a good perception of any situation. They are blinded by passion, and it tends to drown out both logic and reason. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle, and I believe that is the case when looking at Clemson Football under coach Tommy Bowden. So, I would like to address a few points/myths, and show documented statistical evidence about what is really going on with this program.
First, we start with the popular assertion that Tommy is a "good, Christian man". I think we can all agree on this one. He is an upstanding man who is true to his Faith, and lives it in his daily life. Nothing wrong with this at all (quite the contrary), but it doesn't exactly make for a good argument when discussing the Xs and Os of football.
Tommy's overall character does relate to football in several ways. He runs a VERY clean program. Clemson recruits good, class-act kids (for the most part), and graduates over 95% of them. I was at Clemson during the 3-8 season of '98, so I can say without a shadow of a doubt that this program is in a MUCH better place today than it was pre-Bowden. Recruiting, getting better facilities, and running the overall program are BIG parts of Tommy's job, and I think he deserves credit where credit is due.
Now that we have established that Tommy is indeed a good man who does a good job of bringing in talent, graduating them, and making advances for our facilities (amongst other "managerial-type" duties), we can focus on the real issue that is upsetting many Clemson fans: the play of the Tigers on the football field.
This is where my praise for Tommy ends. Just as credit must be given where it's due, criticism needs to be given where it is due. And where it's due is on the field.
I've heard the argument that you can't look at the last 10 seasons and measure them in an apples-to-apples fashion, due to recruiting limitations, largely attributed to facilities spending. Ok. That seems like a reasonable argument, so let's disregard '99-'05. The win range for those years was about 7-8 (two 6-win seasons, two 7-win seasons, one 8-win season, and two 9-win seasons), and there was no ACC title, or even participation in the ACC title game. I think it's reasonable to say that those numbers are less than acceptable, but understandable if you believe the impact of the recruiting/facilities issues.
So let's use the past two seasons as our barometer. This is post-West End Zone, and post Top 25 recruiting classes. We had already landed players like JD, CJ, Jacoby, Hamlin, Sapp, etc... The former excuses should have little to no impact on these seasons.
I am basing the following data on Clemson's performance versus two types of teams: those that finished the season with a .500 or less record (i.e. "losing teams") and those that finished above .500 (i.e. "winning teams"). I think the real measure of a program is to see how it fares against decent competition, and not just look at overall wins/losses. I find this especially true in today's 12-game regular season where you have at least 2 "gimmies" on the slate in any given year.
2006
Clemson finished the 2006 season with an 8-5 record. The Tigers were a perfect 5-0 versus teams that finished the season with a losing/non-winning record. They were also 3-5 (38%) against winning teams. (We also need to acknowledge that this season saw a "roller coaster" ride that included starting 7-1, then losing 4 out of 5.)
2007
Clemson finished 2007 with a final 9-4 record. Closer inspection reveals that the Tigers were again 5-0 vs the losing teams, and only 4-4 against the winners (and one of those wins came against 1-AA Furman). That's a 50% clip against "decent" competition, and that's only if you count Furman (43% without them).
What does that mean?
That means that we are 10-0 versus losing teams, which seems to add validity to the notion that we "beat the teams we are supposed to beat". It also means that we are only 7-9 (44%) against the better teams on our schedules.
And THAT, my friends, is the crux of the frustration shared by many Clemson fans. Don't you want/expect to win more games than you lose against decent teams? I surely think so. In the past two years, we are 1-4 against the SEC (20%). And for as many games that we had that were "1 play away" (and there were several), we had several games where we got embarrassed (think Va Tech '06).
I know that several people will point out that this is in the past, and we need to let this season play out, and I agree with you. But the season isn't off to a great start. Based on the same logic, we are 0-1 versus a team with a winning record (and our 5th loss to the SEC in 3 seasons), and 1-0 versus a .500 team from the lower division. If we do not see a marked improvement, the rationale exists for a change in coaching administration (despite the recent contract extension). Yes, the injuries that we continue to sustain are unfortunate, and could lead to less wins in '08 than anticipated, but that's something that all coaches know they may have to deal with.
To recap, Tommy is a good man, who has built a solid program. For that, he should be commended and credited. On the field, we are currently seeing a winning percentage against good teams that is somewhere around 41%-44% (depending on if you count Alabama). That is mediocre performance, and should not be acceptable at Clemson. I am not a "hater" for thinking this, but merely someone who has taken time to evaluate the situation, and break down the numbers.
If anyone has a rebuttal for my arguments, I'm all ears. Just don't use the same old arguments about being "loyal" and a "true fan". Tell me why it's ok for us to win less than 50% against decent competition, and why I should be encouraged that it will change in the future.
Whew! Enough of that...
GO TIGERS!!!
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [14494]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 22933
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: The SHOCKING truth about Clemson Football and Tommy Bowden
Sep 10, 2008, 12:32 PM
|
|
hopefully you are as good at your job at mcdonalds as you are telling us "the shocking truth" about clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [1125]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1703
Joined: 7/17/00
|
I am. Making the big move up to the fryer next month.***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14494]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 22933
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I am. Making the big move up to the fryer next month.***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:36 PM
|
|
maybe someday you can be a greeter at walmart with your rosey personality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [1125]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1703
Joined: 7/17/00
|
Work for you? Don't think so.***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [762]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 1092
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11170]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 24737
Joined: 9/10/99
|
^^^ what he said***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11074]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 18816
Joined: 7/24/00
|
hater***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [1125]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1703
Joined: 7/17/00
|
Bottom line: 44% winning percentage over past 2 seasons.
Sep 10, 2008, 12:34 PM
|
|
If you want more info, read the post above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [68092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115560
Joined: 11/30/98
|
excellent analysis but "solid programs"....
Sep 10, 2008, 12:36 PM
|
|
...don't do what we did vs Bama. Tommy has built a good program maybe a decnet program. Solid programs show up ready- all the time.
It is a minor point in the scheme of what you discussed but I cringe when I see our inconsistency and hear the term solid.
Message was edited by: 74TIGER®
Message was edited by: 74TIGER®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14429]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 24902
Joined: 10/22/01
|
"really?" -- signed...
Sep 10, 2008, 12:41 PM
|
|
Virginia Tech (v. LSU)
OSU (v. LSU and Florida)
Georgia (v. UT in each of the last two seasons)
The fact is, every team in college football has bad games and gets a beatdown once in a while. No one has been trying to argue that Clemson has had some bad losses under Tommy Bowden. But to say that it doesn't happen to "solid programs" is just a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40954]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42965
Joined: 11/30/98
|
those teams are all under 500 against teams with
Sep 10, 2008, 12:43 PM
|
|
winning records over the last few years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14429]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 24902
Joined: 10/22/01
|
Don't know...
Sep 10, 2008, 12:52 PM
|
|
But that's not my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junkie [563]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 585
Joined: 5/7/08
|
thats insane
Sep 10, 2008, 12:47 PM
[ in reply to "really?" -- signed... ] |
|
so your saying that Clemson fans should be patient because it happened to OSU, VT, and UGA?
ok Tommy, but they won something we haven't the past few years..
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14429]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 24902
Joined: 10/22/01
|
That's clearly not what I'm saying...
Sep 10, 2008, 12:51 PM
|
|
What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to argue that "solid teams" never have bad games and never have bad losses.
Unless you're LSU or USC in recent years, your team has had bad games and bad losses. That's a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11170]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 24737
Joined: 9/10/99
|
but we do have a pattern of it
Sep 10, 2008, 12:52 PM
|
|
once or twice I get, but it is a habit for us
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14429]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 24902
Joined: 10/22/01
|
Again, what team is it not a pattern of?
Sep 10, 2008, 12:53 PM
|
|
Unless you're talking about USC and LSU (and LSU is a stretch), there are no teams like the one you're describing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [762]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 1092
Joined: 11/30/98
|
at least
Sep 10, 2008, 12:57 PM
[ in reply to "really?" -- signed... ] |
|
"solid programs" can console themselves with recent gridiron glory conference titles, bcs game appearances and the like - unlike clemson
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14429]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 24902
Joined: 10/22/01
|
So that causes the bad losses to not exist?
Sep 10, 2008, 1:02 PM
|
|
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [54]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 127
Joined: 1/12/02
|
No, they exist, but
Sep 10, 2008, 4:08 PM
|
|
A coach who wins conference championships should be given a bit more leeway when they slip up. Tommy should be given no quarter b/c he hasn't won $hit since he's been here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6222]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8863
Joined: 5/30/01
|
Give the reigns to DABO!***
Sep 10, 2008, 4:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [54]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 127
Joined: 1/12/02
|
Or Napier or Blackwell
Sep 10, 2008, 5:03 PM
|
|
All three of these guys would do a far better job of motivating this team. If we could just rid ourselves of Bowden and Spence we would have it rolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6592]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 8159
Joined: 1/2/00
|
3 things
Sep 10, 2008, 12:47 PM
|
|
1) I wanted to point out that in the yrs 99-05 there was no ACC championship game to participate in and had there been we would have been in it atleast 2 times cause we finished second in the conference.
2) You cant make a valid arguement using 2 yrs worth of data. Also, you have to realize that this is the 1st senior class of the post WEZ recruits. Plus, even though the initial class was good, it still only featured a few 4 star or more talent. As realized recruiting has drastically gotten better the last 2 yrs with a solid class building this yr. Those recruits are only a bunch of sophomores and freshmen with not much experience yet.
3) We very well could still finish the season with 11 wins or more, and if we do that your arguement would be destroyed. Besides having Bama 1st game, our schedule setsup well to gives us some games here where we can work on experience and get our players healthy and keep them fresh for the meat of the schedule. It also will help having 3 off weeks where they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1669]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 1/20/03
|
One thing
Sep 10, 2008, 12:48 PM
|
|
Wake Forest
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7510]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15427
Joined: 2/2/01
|
2-7 vs CTB.***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1669]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 1/20/03
|
And that's what we're going to hang our hat on?***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7510]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15427
Joined: 2/2/01
|
you brought up Wake- I didn't ...... fact are facts they've
Sep 10, 2008, 1:03 PM
|
|
have big problems with us while most(evidently includes you) will try to lead people to believe it's the other way around. They are a good program, well-coached, with good players but Clemson has the better program. And don't give me the ACC Championship they won BS because they won that largely because of the unbalanced schedules that are used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1669]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 1/20/03
|
That's why I brought up Wake...because***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1669]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 1/20/03
|
They are well-coached!***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49613]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30357
Joined: 12/10/98
|
So we're 7-2 against a well-coached team?
Sep 10, 2008, 1:10 PM
|
|
Works for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1669]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 1/20/03
|
We're 7-2 against a bottom feeder in the SEC***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49613]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30357
Joined: 12/10/98
|
And they were coached by saviors!***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1053]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2897
Joined: 12/6/01
|
saviors! in the eyes of Gamecock Nation and ESPN***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9869
Joined: 10/29/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1669]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 1/20/03
|
How long did it take DF to accomplish all that?***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9869
Joined: 10/29/00
|
I don't understand the question
Sep 10, 2008, 1:34 PM
|
|
He won the ACC for the first time in 1981, the same time as he won the MNC. But he also started with the #7 team in the country, and didn't win a weak ACC in 1979 or 1980 (UNC was about the only good team). He also finished 3rd in 1989 with arguably his most talented team.
Upsets happen to every coach from time to time. That's my point. I've got problems with Bowden, but losing to WF twice in 9 years is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junkie [563]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 585
Joined: 5/7/08
|
Re: 3 things
Sep 10, 2008, 12:49 PM
[ in reply to 3 things ] |
|
even if we finish with 11 wins, his argument would still not be"destroyed". the stats are always evolving for the better or worse of Clemson...
doesn't look good so far though cause our schedule sucks from here on out
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6592]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 8159
Joined: 1/2/00
|
that should say having the off weeks not 3 off weeks***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:49 PM
[ in reply to 3 things ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [1125]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1703
Joined: 7/17/00
|
Thx for the logical response. Good points.
Sep 10, 2008, 12:52 PM
[ in reply to 3 things ] |
|
1) We finished 2nd to Florida State, so they would have been the Atlantic division reps in those years.
2) Good point about the limited data set. I just chose the last two years to address the trouble we had before the WEZ and Top 25 recruiting classes. If you include the full 10 years, the numbers do not improve.
3) This season does need to play out, and I acknowledged that. Tommy may turn the whole thing around and win 11 games AND the ACC title. If he does, I promise I will be the first one to eat my words and give him credit. I try to give him credit where it's due, and frankly, the on-field performance (THUS FAR) is the only area where it's not deserved.
But thanks for the counter-point. Good discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6592]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 8159
Joined: 1/2/00
|
thanks...you have some points as well...one more thing
Sep 10, 2008, 1:07 PM
|
|
We dont know that the divisions would have been setup the same way so we may not have finished 2nd to FSU. Im guessing if Miami Vtech and BC didnt join the conference, they would have put us and FSU on different divisions since we were 2 of the stronger/bigger programs in the conference. Also, I realize what you were trying to do with eliminating those years, and I think that is the way this should be approached, but I think its too soon to the WEZ to start evaluating, and as another poster pointed out we just now started signing good oline men in the past 2 classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7510]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15427
Joined: 2/2/01
|
Your analysis is terribly flawed.
Sep 10, 2008, 12:49 PM
|
|
First of all-- if you are 7-9 against teams that "are BETTER than you"-- that's probably a pretty good mark considering in a perfect world the best team would win and you'd be 0-10. That gaffe aside-- here's the biggest problem I have with your breakdown.
1)You can't ignore wins against teams we should beat. We should beat them because we have the players, coaches etc. that make us better and that is what it's all about.
2) Take any 9-4 team-- doesn't matter who and go through their schedule-- IF they have a better record in toss-up/vs. "better" opponents than Clemson then that means 1- thing-- THEY DIDN'T BEAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE TEAMS THEY SHOULD HAVE!!!! I bet their fans are really happy about losing to teams they shouldn't.
I agree with you on roughly when you start gauaging the success of the program. The last 3 years we've won 25 games- I imagine that ranks pretty well nationally. I expect our total to go up again this year and be the winningest SR class since early 90's. Next year's SR will have even more wins. The biggest issue we face right now is the fact that our OL recruiting didn't pick-up 4 years ago, it didn't pick up until 2 years ago and that is going to keep us from being a Top 10 type team this year. However, playing those guys earlier than intended should allow us to raise the bar higher for the coming years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [1125]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1703
Joined: 7/17/00
|
Never said we were 7-9 against "better teams than us"
Sep 10, 2008, 12:59 PM
|
|
I said we were 7-9 against WINNING teams. That could mean a 7-5 record, as well as 14-0. Sure we should expect to lose to SOME of those teams. Absolutely. But winning less than 50% against them? Not acceptable by my standards.
And I didn't ignore the 10-0 record versus losing teams. I said we were 100%, "beat the teams we should beat". (If I included '04, that wouldn't be the case.)
I disagree that the analysis is "terribly flawed". You may have a different opinion, but the data is simply based on facts. If you want to do an analysis of teams that are comparable to us, and see how they do against winning teams, I'd love to see it. Prove to me that other teams of note are only winning 40% against winning teams, and I'll agree that it's ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7510]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15427
Joined: 2/2/01
|
you actually said "better teams on our schedule" -- I
Sep 10, 2008, 1:26 PM
|
|
inferred differently than you implied evidently - no big deal-- sorry for the confusion on that.
I stand behind my 2 points though. ESPN site makes it very difficult to look-up results like you're talking about because it doesn't have the final record of the team you played on the schedules when you're looking back. I did look up 2 teams that won 9 games last year on our schedule-- WF and Auburn--- by my count both were 4-4 last year against winning teams. It goes back to my point. If you win 8/9 games, you're more than likely beating the teams you're supposed to and splitting the rest. If you lose to someone that you're not supposed to, and have 9 wins then you're more than likely will have a slightly betther than 50/50 with the winning team--- obvious catch-22 though.
If you win 10+ games you're probably doing both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [555]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 4205
Joined: 6/29/06
|
Spew it brother ! May the whole world know the truth!***
Sep 10, 2008, 12:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Right on the point, unfortunately, Sunshine Pumpers
Sep 10, 2008, 12:56 PM
|
|
can't accept the truth. If you can't play ball with the big boys, don't get off the swing set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [36414]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21516
Joined: 10/27/03
|
Like Yesterday Feeding the Animals makes their Tummies hurt***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Know-it-all [2481]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 11/1/03
|
I would point out one thing
Sep 10, 2008, 1:06 PM
|
|
TBs recruiting class after 2000 was one of his highest ranked. Yes we lost two big WRs, but the rest were never developed.
And we didnt have the facilities then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: The SHOCKING truth about Clemson Football and Tommy Bowden
Sep 10, 2008, 1:08 PM
|
|
I read your post and some of the comments and gave up. You are certainly correct that readers in either of the two camps will never agree and proponents for either side will swarm to the perceived slight. Of course both sides to this "discussion" are entitled to their opinions and that is all they really are.
I agree that Coach Bowden is a credit to the University with his program, his character and that of his staff and athletes and his winning record. He is most definitely is a good coach judged by his program. Whether or not he is a great coach is yet to be decided.
I wish the team great success as they have enough adversity already. Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [751]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 1508
Joined: 9/1/03
|
E True Hollywood Story.....Tommy Bowden.***
Sep 10, 2008, 1:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [47]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 64
Joined: 10/19/06
|
Re: The SHOCKING truth about Clemson Football and Tommy Bowden
Sep 10, 2008, 1:16 PM
|
|
Actually, pre-2005 recruiting has a lot to do with the present state of our program. 2003 and 2004 were relative disasters as we only got a few premium players in each of these classes. These classes are our current 4th and 5th years players and are weak in numbers compared to most "solid" programs. One decent measure of talent is Rivals' composite ranking of a program's recruiting from the last 5 years. Clemson ranks 22nd because of 03 and 04. Our rank will go up substantially the next 2 years. Hopefully, we will have more team leadership with experience among the upperclassmen.
Also, only the 06 VT game and the 08 Ala games were solid defeats the last 4 years. Think about this for a minute. UGA,LSU,real USC,WF,VT Ohio St,Texas,FSU,Florida,Tenn,Okla,Nebraska,WVU,Alabama and many others have all had horrible football performances the last 12 months. Why should Clemson and Tommy Bowden be immune to a bad game? To me, the frustration is how close we have been teetering on the edge of almost winning a championship (and I believe that an argument could be made that CTB has overachieved to have us there and we don't appreciate it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97847]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64957
Joined: 7/13/02
|
See attached post from 12/4/06 - Pay attention to the last part
Sep 10, 2008, 1:32 PM
|
|
Tiggity®
Orange Blooded [16054 pts]
Posts: 11,068
Cootlumbia,SC
Registered: 7/13/02
Season Summary [5]
Posted: Dec 4, 2006 11:36 AM
Report Abuse Rate:
I find it a lot more accurate to look at the teams we played after the season is over to gage how good or bad Clemson really is. Below is a brief summary of each game. Everything is factually accurate (according to ESPN).
Our record this year:
Florida Atlantic - (54-6)W at Death Valley
This game started off slow but ended with a bang. Clemson easily defeated a FAU team that went on to finish with a 5-7 with losses to Troy, MTSU, La Monroe, and LaLa among other expected losses.
Boston College - (34-33)L at Chestnut Hill
This game was a tough one right down to the end. This game went into 2 overtimes, with the difference being a missed extra point. BC went on to finish with a 9-3 record with losses to NC State, WF, and Miami. BC is bowl eligible and will play Navy at the Meineke Car Care Bowl in Charlotte on December 30.
Florida State - (27-20)W at Tallahassee
Clemson won this game with the help of a great running game and a horrible FSU offense sputtering along on one cylinder. At the time FSU was ranked 9th, which turned out to be their highest ranking of the season. FSU went on to lose to WF, BC, NCSU, MD, and Florida to finish 6-6 overall. They are bowl eligible and are going to play UCLA December 27th in the Emerald Bowl in San Francisco.
North Carolina - (52-7)W at Death Valley
Clemson rolled in this game, demoralizing the Tarholes with a running clinic led by James Davis and CJ Spiller. This one was a blowout. UNC went on to lose to Rutgers, VaTech, Miami, S. Fla., UVA, Wake, ND, and GaTech. They finished the season 3-9 and have fired their head coach.
Louisiana Tech - (51-0)W at Death Valley
Another blowout for the Tigers, again highlighted by a punishing running attack. This game, shown on ESPNU, represented Clemson's most lopsided victory. La. Tech went on to lose to Nebraska, Texas A&M, Boise State, Idaho, San Jose State, Hawaii, Nevada, NMSU, and Fresno State.
Wake Forest - (27-17)W at Winston-Salem
Thanks to Gaines Adams making what certainly could be the play of the year, Clemson finally crossed the hump and beat WF. At this time in the season Clemson was ranked as high as 15th in the country. At the start of the 4th quarter Clemson was down 14 points and rallied for the win. WF went on to lose to only one other game, to Va Tech and are obviously bowl eligible. WF will play Louisville in the Orange Bowl on January 2, 2007.
Temple - (63-9)W at Charlotte
This game was another blowout. James Davis and CJ Spiller again torched another D1 bottom feeder and sent Temple back to Philly with a crushing loss. Temple did manage to actually win a game this season, beating Bowling Green at home. This was an improvement over last year's winless season.
Georgia Tech - (31-7)W at Death Valley
The most anticipated Clemson home game in decades was no disappointment. Clemson entered the game ranked 12th, its highest ranking of the season. Clemson again won with a punishing running game and CJ Spiller left several Tech defenders with dropped jaws as he sprinted past for a 50-yard TD run. Ga Tech went on to lose to ND, UGA, and WF to finish the season bowl eligible at 9-4 with a trip to the Gator Bowl to face West Virginia on New Year's Day.
Virginia Tech - (24-7)L at Blacksburg
The most stunning defeat for the season for the Tigers on the field. Coming off an emotional victory over Ga Tech at home, and only having 4 days to prepare for this game, the cards were stacked against the Tigers and Clemson was ripe for defeat. Clemson rushed 28 times for only 80 yards. Va Tech stopped the run. Va Tech went on to lose to Ga Tech and BC, finishing the season 10-2 and bowl eligible with a trip to Atlanta to meet UGA in the Peach Bowl on December 30th in Atlanta.
Maryland - (13-12)L at Death Valley
Another heartbreaker. Clemson first home loss of the year came on a last second, 31-yard Maryland field goal. Clemson did not score an offensive touchdown the whole game. Clemson only netted 141 yards rushing this game. Again, the run was stopped. Maryland went on to finish the season 8-4 with losses to West Virginia, BC, Wake Forest, and Ga Tech. They are bowl eligible and will meet Perdue at the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando on December 29th.
NC State - (20-14)W at Death Valley
Clemson again found the run amassing 234 yards on the ground with the help of CJ Spiller, whose 134 yards made it a career day for him. Proctor was 15-24 passing with two interceptions, accounting for 146 yards through the air. NC State went on to finish the season with losses to Akron, Southern Miss., Wake Forest, Maryland, Virginia, Ga. Tech, UNC, and ECU and a 3-9 record. Head coach Chuck "The Chest" Amato, was fired as a result of the season.
South Carolina - (31-28)L at Death Valley
Another crushing loss to the Tigers, ending the 4 years of dominance in the rivalry. In this game Clemson had it's poorest defensive game of the year allowing the "#####" to amass 492 yards of total offense. Clemson had no defensive answer for Carolina's passing attack with a QB who was on the money that day. Clemson had a chance to take the game to overtime with a last second Jad Dean field goal, but the 39-yard attempt was wide left. South Carolina finished the season 7-5 with losses to Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, and Arkansas. They are bowl eligible and will play Houston at Memphis in the Liberty Bowl on December 29th.
So basically we're 3-4 against bowl eligable teams. We are 2-4 against teams with a winning record this year. We are a perfect 6-0 against teams with a losing record or who broke even this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [423]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 223
Joined: 5/8/06
|
Re: The SHOCKING truth about Clemson Football and Tommy Bowden
Sep 10, 2008, 2:19 PM
|
|
You know MaxPower there are people like you who care a lot about Clemson football and make well thought out posts about the state of the program and the hurdles that need to be overcome, and there are a$$holes like deroberts who have obviously not had a sane thought their entire life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11074]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 18816
Joined: 7/24/00
|
Tigershark, did your parents have any kids that lived?***
Sep 10, 2008, 2:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44075]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32984
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Excellent post! Thank you for compiling this data.
Sep 10, 2008, 2:55 PM
|
|
Your post provides a great visual - in the form of cold, hard facts - that confirms what many fans intuitively realize about Coach Bowden. That is, he is a nice guy who runs a clean program but has failed to consistently compete with the better teams on our schedule. Such a problem is impossible for any objective Clemson fan to deny.
I feel that you were very generous to exclude the 1999-2005 seasons, simply based on the fact that we did not have the West End Zone yet. You are allowing that to be an excuse for mediocre performance, even though superior coaches would have most likely recruited well despite our subpar facilities. The fact that you excluded those years makes the stats you posted even more telling.
Essentially, Bowden has a near-perfect environment for success and he is failing to capitalize on it. I think we can all agree that the good aspects of his tenure - clean program, good graduation rate, etc. - are things that we strongly value as supporters of Clemson University. To me, they are strict requirements on par with winning football games.
The easiest solution would obviously be for Bowden to start winning more games, and I think that is what many fans (as well as the administration) are hoping for. In fact, I think it was the basis for the contract extension last summer. While that might not have been the most popular decision, it is certainly understandable given the good things Bowden brings to the table (including the excellent recruiting classes the last two years).
Most of us seem to be at a point where we feel that we have been extremely patient with Bowden. We realize that he has a great situation at Clemson and expect to see more positive results moving forward. If we don't see them SOON, we feel justified in finding another coach. How anyone could argue with that, at this point, is beyond me.
Again, thanks for your great post. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [1125]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 1703
Joined: 7/17/00
|
Thanks for the kudos
Sep 10, 2008, 3:05 PM
|
|
I did my best to show that I am a fan of Tommy the person, and I think that he does many things well that should be expected of a good head coach. But the numbers speak for themselves, and they don't tell a good story.
And I agree with you about excluding '99-'05. The numbers looked even worse, so I wanted to examine a period of time that did not include the limitations on recruiting.
Maybe things will turn around, and all of this will be meaningless. If so, I promise that I will be the first to say I was wrong.
GO TIGERS!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5310]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2515
Joined: 1/9/02
|
Excellent points you make, preach on***
Sep 10, 2008, 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15751]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17374
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Good post overall, Max...a few thoughts:
Sep 10, 2008, 5:43 PM
|
|
1) Your Subject line is probably inappropriately inflamatory (The SHOCKING truth) relative to the post.
2) Put Furman, and any 1AA team, in the "Losing Record" side. Let's be realistic about their quality. I do not care what App State did. Clemson, and any competent D-1A team, should beat the best 1AA team in the country every year.
3) I like your analysis conceptually.
4) In a subsequent post, you comment that your analysis indicates that CTB is not competing with the better teams he plays, which I would argue is a false conclusion. Winning about half the time against the winners on your schedule could be argued as competing with them. He is not, of course, dominating them.
5) Perhaps my most relevant point: Your analysis is incomplete until you take peer programs and run a similar analysis. Compare him with the rest of the ACC and some other programs with similar infrastructures and assets. Bowden comes out in the 40% area versus "winner" programs. Where are his peers?
6) I do not agree with the treatment of the "way" CTB runs the program, as if it's something to quickly acknowledge and then dismiss as a non-issue. As an alumnus, it is a very big deal to me. It does not mean that I will accept a horrible coach who runs a clean program, but I will take what we have today one hundred times out of a hundred, versus an unethical program that wins the ACC or MNC (And no, I am not saying that we couldn't remove CTB because of this. Only that this issue is huge and not, in my opinion, to be negotiated with respect to a future coach).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connoisseur [280]
TigerPulse: 29%
Posts: 1292
Joined: 12/2/98
|
again...
Sep 10, 2008, 7:39 PM
|
|
1999-2007
Clemson tied with Marshall for 30th spot.
Winning Percentage: 62%
Record: 69-42
source: www.football.stassen.com
Those ahead of us?
1 Boise State
2 Oklahoma
3 Texas
4 Virginia Tech
5 Ohio State
6 Georgia
7 Southern Cal
8 Miami-Florida
9 Michigan
10 Louisiana State
11 Texas Christian
12 Louisville
13 Florida
14 Auburn
15 Florida State
16 Tennessee
17 Boston College
18 Wisconsin
19 Oregon
20 Nebraska
21 Utah
22 West Virginia
23 Toledo
24 Hawaii
25 South Florida
26 Fresno State
27 Oregon State
28t Kansas State
28t Texas Tech
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3043]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 796
Joined: 10/3/06
|
Thank you***
Sep 11, 2008, 10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 58
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
