Time for a Change

Clemson lost to South Carolina, again, in baseball last night. That's not important, though. It's baseball, and even the best will drop a game every now and then. What was important was the manner in which they lost the game. In true and unique Clemson fashion, they lost yet another ninth inning lead, and this one was on the tactician.

Let's shove aside the one game for a little while, because this is really about the big picture. It's time for a change at the highest levels of Clemson baseball, for a number of compelling reasons. Clemson baseball is currently led not by a manager, but by a tactician. By a man hell-bent on interjecting himself and his philosophy into offensive and defensive situations that would have been better left to their own devices.

In judging baseball managers, I tend to follow the Bill James philosophy. As with most things about baseball, Bill James knows more about managerial capability than any human being living, past or present. James wrote a book and hundreds of essays on the topic, but it's one James quote that sums up the problem with Clemson tactician Jack Leggett in succinct and direct fashion.


"I believe that Joe McCarthy was the greatest manager in baseball history,'' Bill James declares -- not because McCarthy led seven world championship clubs, but because he could adapt: he never let the game pass him by. Early in his career he had no use for relief pitchers, but by 1935 he was sending Johnny Murphy of the Yankees to the bull pen -- the first instance of a pitcher who was pitching well being asked to work there.

-Charlie Rubin on Bill James, 1997.


So here we are. Anyone paying even a minuscule amount of attention has seen the downward baseball trend. You might not realize just how ugly things are, though. The case for replacing Jack Leggett with someone capable of managing a baseball team has many fronts, starting with what Bill James wrote so eloquently about in his book.

Refusal to change and modify his approach
James had a tremendous amount of respect for Joe McCarthy because the former Yankee skipper understood that the game is simple, yet complex. McCarthy molded the original edition of the "Bronx Bombers" to 5 championships in 6 seasons, blending beautifully the beginning of the Joe DiMaggio era with the ending of Lou Gherig's historic career. He was a visionary at the core. He never took his own ability to master the game too seriously, understanding instead that he could benefit from learning new methods.

This is where Jack Leggett fails most miserably. Leggett has always been synonymous with the term and philosophy of small ball. For those unfamiliar with the way of play, it basically incorporates a great deal of run manufacturing, which differs greatly from run producing. This philosophy employs sacrificing bunting, stealing bases, hit and run situations, and a host of other tactical moves championed by Jack Leggett and others.

That sounds like true, old fashioned baseball, right? Sure, in the same way that candles represent true, old fashioned American home lighting.

Tom Tango is another very smart man, and he wrote a book definitively called The Book to touch on many of these issues. A Pete Palmer preview of chapter nine (The Sacrifice Bunt) of Tango's book breaks down modern statistical findings on the sacrifice bunt. Palmer writes:


As with the stolen base (which has also declined dramatically), many GMs and managers have come to the realization that small-ball strategies, like the stolen base and sacrifice bunt, are not as effective in the high run environments prevalent in the modern era of baseball.

As well, conventional sabermetric wisdom says that the sacrifice bunt is generally an ineffective and archaic strategy. For example, the three highest-profile sabermetric teams in 2004 in the AL were Oakland, Boston, and Toronto. While the AL average for sacrifice hits per team was almost 39, Boston had only 12, Toronto 10, and Oakland 25, the three lowest totals in the league. The sacrifice bunt appears to be a strategy eschewed by sabermetric teams.

Palmer is well written on the subject himself, as he published a 1984 book called The Hidden Game of Baseball. In that work, Palmer and John Thorn wrote, "The sacrifice bunt...is a bad play. With the introduction of the lively ball, the sacrifice bunt should have vanished."

Statisticians and sabermetricians haven't quite come to a consensus on just how much a sacrifice bunt costs an offense. The consensus opinion is that teams can lose as much as a half-run, on average, every time they put on the play. The reasoning behind this is that with only 27 outs available to an offense each game, one out is much more valuable than one base. It's a game of commodities, and Clemson is among the teams giving up way too many of their most valuable commodity.

The difference are even more pronounced in college baseball over professional baseball, as well. With aluminum bats, smaller parks, and most hitters being farther along in their development than most pitchers, the sacrifice bunt becomes an even worse play in the college game.

So how does this relate to Clemson's tactician? In 2007, Clemson laid down 56 sacrifice bunts in 64 games. Among those doing the bunting were Taylor Harbin (6 sac bunts, .510 slugging %), Andy D'Allesio (3 sac bunts, .634 slugging %), Marquez Smith (4 sac bunts, .560 slugging %), Doug Hogan (2 sac bunts, .610 slugging %). None of these players has plus speed, so the option of beating out the sacrifice was not much of a consideration in any of these cases.

This season, Clemson doesn't have nearly the offensive potential that it had in 2007, but the sacrifice bunts are still there, crippling the already stagnant offensive effort. Clemson has sacrificed successfully 23 times in 31 games. This doesn't include the missed and failed sacrifices, which are substantial, but unrecorded in my data set. It should come as no surprise that two of Clemson's most productive hitters are being forced to give up outs. Ben Paulsen slugs for a .678 average, but has had to lay down 2 sac bunts. Though Kyle Parker has struggled early in the year, he and his .500+ career slugging average have been required to lay down 3 sacrifices.

This is an unacceptable trend, and it's something that has zapped Clemson's ability to produce runs at a championship level. It is part of the reason why Clemson's run production has been steadily declining over the course of this decade.

Next in order is base stealing, which Clemson has misused under Jack Leggett during the last few seasons. This is something that most baseball fans don't understand, and it's apparent that Clemson's tactician is among those individuals. People much smarter than I have concluded the following about stolen bases:

So a SB adds .353 runs per game while a CS costs .922 (Cyril Morong).

There is some debate, as well, on what rate a base stealer needs to be successful in order to add to his team's run scoring capability. The most conservative estimates put it at 72%, while some researchers have the number closer to 80%. For the sake of fairness, a 75% success rate is a good place to start for successful base stealing. Clemson has been markedly good on the base paths this season, with a success rate of 76% (38 for 50). This has not been the case during recent seasons, though.

2008:
56-81 (69%)

This included individual numbers from the following poor base stealers. At some point, one has to wonder why these guys were still getting the steal sign from the tactician.

Mike Freeman: 3-7
Jeff Schaus: 4-7
Wilson Boyd: 6-9
Doug Hogan: 10-17 - This is a catcher, stealing 17 times with a 59% success rate.
Alex Lee: 2-4

There were some examples of success, like Stan Widdman's 14-16 and John Nester/Chris Epps each going 5-6.

Here are the numbers from 2007:

62 of 94 (66%)

Proponents of the overuse of the steal play will argue that the threat of stealing offers a measure of disruption to the defense, thus allowing more hits to fall. The problem with this, of course, is that it neglects the obvious fact that hitters are human beings just like pitchers and fielders, and are thus subject to the same psychological discomfort and distraction of a bouncing runner at first base. In addition, the added worry of taking pitches to protect a stealing runner and trying to hit the ball in a certain place are detrimental to a hitter's long term success.

Leggett used the steal well in 2006, and not surprisingly, his team won more often. The problem, of course, is that the tactician has shown no ability to alter his approach, and has shown no willingness to understand the idea that running slow runners into sure outs is a sure way to lose baseball games in large number.

The heart of the first issue with Clemson's tactician is that he won't change his approach on the game of baseball. "Small ball" is a Jack Leggett staple, and a proven losing philosophy. It's something that strips runs from a team over the course of a season, yet Clemson continues to employ this strategy in the most extreme example available. The fact that a man charged with leading a once proud baseball program could be so blind to the obvious things that win baseball games is a strike against the coach. And it leads to the next problem with Jack Leggett - declining offensive trends.


Negative offensive trending
Steele Tiger of Tigerillustrated's WestZone message board put together an interesting compilation of Clemson's batting statistics during this decade, and they show an alarming trend. The splits are obviously batting average, on-base average, and slugging average, and it's clear to see that Clemson isn't doing a lot of things right lately. The 2009 stats were from 2 weeks ago, so they probably have changed a bit.

2009 - .283/.379/.426 and averaging 6.4 runs per game
2008 - .285/.368/.439 and averaged 6.2 runs per game
2007 - .293/.373/.450 and averaged 6.2 runs per game
2006 - .303/.380/.480 and averaged 7.0 runs per game
2005 - .305/.378/.472 and averaged 7.0 runs per game
2004 - .298/.375/.466 and averaged 6.9 runs per game
2003 - .309/.385/.444 and averaged 6.7 runs per game
2002 - .325/.411/.513 and averaged 8.2 runs per game
2001 - .305/.384/.487 and averaged 7.7 runs per game
2000 - .304/.396/.433 and averaged 7.5 runs per game
1999 - .306/.422/.473 and averaged 8.9 runs per game
1998 - .326/.434/.496 and averaged 9.0 runs per game
1997 - .314/.417/.508 and averaged 8.8 runs per game
1996 - .294/.396/.454 and averaged 7.0 runs per game

What is interesting to note is that Clemson changed hitting coaches in 2003, when Tim Corbin left Clemson for Vanderbilt.

From 1996-2002 under Tim Corbin, Clemson hit .310/.408/.480 and scored 8.1 RPG.
From 2003-2009 under Tom Riginos, Clemson has hit .296/.376/.453 and scored 6.6 RPG.

Clemson hasn't seen a signficant increase in schedule difficulty over that time span, so it's fair to compare the numbers. The sabermetric community has come up with the gem that on-base average is the single most correlating component to run production. More than sac bunting, base stealing, or anything else, having guys NOT make outs is the best way to score runs. It seems so simple, but it looks to be lost on the current coaching staff. Under Corbin, the team dipped below .400 in OBA only 3 times, with the lowest being .384. Clemson has exceeded that number only once under new hitting coach Tom Riginos, in his first season, and they've failed to do anywhere near that well lately.

What's causing this? It's all about plate approach and development. In sticking to the small ball style, Clemson's hitters are taught the virtue of constant contact and aggressiveness. They are celebrated for putting the ball in play, when they should be more selective at the plate. This is a basic philisophical problem, and there's no reason to believe it will change anytime soon. Clemson hitters get behind in the count by jumping out of their shoes at bad pitches early in the count. They are then forced to become defensive at the plate, trying to just put the ball in play when they're down in the count.

Clemson hitters don't strike out enough. Strikeouts are typically looked at with ire by baseball fans, but they aren't nearly as ugly a result as you might think. Players who strike out a lot are typically taking pitches, drawing walks, and working deep into counts. They are selective, and they don't swing at bat pitches.

In Major League Baseball last season, of the 4 NL playoff teams, they ranked as follows in team strikeouts.

Philly - 8th
Chicago - 6th
Milwaukee - 5th
Los Angeles - 13th

American League:

Tampa Bay - 2nd
Boston - 6th
Chicago - 7th
Los Angeles - 11th

Obviously, striking out is not a good thing, because it's making an out, and that's the worst result for a hitter at the plate (short of making 2 outs). But the evidence exists that teams that strike out a little bit more tend to be the more patient teams. These teams work deep into counts, get into bullpens quicker, and get better pitches to hit late in counts. Clemson batters would be better served to wait on their pitch a little bit more, instead of swinging for contact at everything that approaches the plate.

Another issue at work here is Leggett's inability to make the necessary changes to his staff. It's obvious that something is amiss with either he or Riginos, and Leggett seems reluctant to make any change here. Instead of thinking of ways to rectify an obviously downward trend, the Clemson tactician is resolved to try MORE run stealing plays instead of less, and seems averse to solutions that might actually address the problem.

Struggling against quality competition
Since the beginning of last season, Clemson is 2-26 against UGA, South Carolina, Miami, FSU, and North Carolina. None of those wins have come against South Carolina, as Clemson lost its 6th in a row to the hated rival last night. Think about 2-26 for a moment. Now, on to the really scary portion of the equation.

Folks, South Carolina baseball has passed Clemson. They, for the lack of a better phrase, own Clemson. It's not really even close, either. They've got a $30 million baseball facility that rivals the best places to play in the country, they've recruited a team with strengths suited for that ball park, and they are preparing ball players for the professional ranks more effeciently than Clemson is at this moment. These are the facts, and they're not pretty. There is no reason to think this is about to reverse itself in the near future, either.

If Clemson can't do better than a 7% winning mark against quality competition, it shouldn't be fielding a team. For a program that used to expect to sweep bad teams and beat the good ones, this is simply unacceptable.

Convoluted recruiting approach
One of the major issues with the Clemson tactician is his recruiting outlook and overall plan, if there is one. Clemson's roster has 33 players. Of those 33, 11 are from the state of South Carolina. Personally, I could care less if the players came from Gaffney or China, as long as they can hit, run, and throw, but Leggett seems to be scouring the far reaches of the country to find guys who look like him and play like him.

What this has led to is a small team that can't hit. He recruits players who can put the ball in play, but can't drive it for power to all fields. There are exceptions, of course, but this is a growing trend. While future Major League all-stars like Matt Weiters and Justin Smoak make their plays for Clemson's rivals, Leggett is looking to places like Cooperstown, New York to fill out his roster. Who has ever heard of baseball in a vacation retreat like that?

In all seriousness, Clemson's recruiting approach must change. Some people like to bring up Leggett's troubles with losing players to the draft, but evaluating that part of the recruiting mix is his job. He needs to know which players are going to go pro and which are not. Leggett has be able to recruit players whose talent butts right up to the pro-ready line, but doesn't quite exceed it. At current standing, the Tiger tactician is not doing that.

It is also time to begin questionning why Clemson loses so many players to the draft. It has a lot to do with the fact that the Clemson coaching staff does little to develop the talent that they have at Clemson. Take a player like Chris Epps, for instance, who came in with a draft pedigree and some good raw skills. He has an exceptional combination of power potential, speed, and a solid plate approach. Last season, he posted an on-base average well over .400, despite his low batting average. He took walks and stole bases at an efficient clip. Now, he's been relegated to the bench while the offense struggles. His skills have not been developed in any fashion.

This is a guy who Kenny Williams of the White Sox saw enough in to spend a 20-something round draft pick on, and Clemson's staff of tacticians hasn't been able to bring the skills out in him. This is a toubling, and it's why Clemson will struggle more and more on the recruiting trail.

If I was a parent with a kid who had an opportunity to play professional baseball, I'd advise him to take the money and work with a major league appointed hitting instructor. I'd have a director of player development looking after him before I would send him to sit the bench and bunt the ball with Jack Leggett.

Pitching approach
Clemson's pitching staff is one area where a lot of focus has been placed. Clemson is recruiting pitchers more frequently. They've hired a good, young pitching coach to replace Kevin O'Sullivan. Kyle Bunn has a chance to be a great coach, but he's handicapped by some of the Tiger tactician's decisions.

Clemson's pitching staff doesn't use but one side of the plate. All too often, they pitch as if the strike zone was high and away. Coached not to use the inside part of the plate, Clemson's pitchers nibble away on the outside, often leaving fat fastballs in the middle of the plate. In a game that features small stadiums and aluminum bats, this is a bad idea. When every small second baseman from Duke or Boston College can lead out over the plate with no fear of a fastball coming into his kitchen, it should be no surprise when one of these kids extends on a flat, 88 MPH fastball and drills it 400 feet.

In general, building a team around pitching is difficult in college baseball. This is because pitching just takes longer to develop than hitting. It's why you see young hitters break into Major League Baseball with more frequency than young pitchers. At the same age, a young hitter will have an advantage over a young pitcher, given the same level of talent. So when you build your team around young, 19 year old pitching, you are asking for trouble.

In addition to that, Leggett has shown little to no ability to handle his bullpen. In a loss to top-ranked Georgia, the manager watched starter Justin Sarrat dominate and confuse UGA hitters for eight innings, only to pull him in favor of Matt Vaughn in the ninth. Sarrat had a high pitch count, but there were no signs of him laboring at all.

Last night, Leggett replaced Tomas Cruz, who had given up only one hit in four innings, with Casey Harman in the ninth inning. Harman has been bounced between starting and relieving, and has never pitched in an environment like the one he saw last night. It's the manager's job to know what his players can handle and what they can't. Cruz had it going, had his changeup working, and was locating his fastball. He was throwing three pitches for strikes and didn't show signs of fatigue. His trail leg wasn't dragging, his velocity wasn't declining, and he didn't seem to be dropping down at all. Simply put, Leggett made the call to throw an unprepared sophomore into the lion's den because he was a left hander. He micromanaged, again, and his team paid for it.

Tomas Cruz is the best reliever on the Clemson baseball team. I had watched him throw literally four pitches against Florida State when I came to this realization. That was my first viewing of the kid, and I was immediately impressed with his throwing of three different pitches for low zone strikes in his first four pitches. He has good movement on his fastball, has a nice changeup differential, and has a fair breaking pitch to compliment his plus pitch and live fastball. He also has a nice approach, and is the type of pitcher not flustered by intense pressure. But Cruz continues to catch time in low to medium leverage situations, while other pitchers get their opportunity to choke away leads. If Leggett is set on having a closer, which is pretty unnecessary in general, then he's got one made for the job. The fact that he can't see this is another strike against him.

It speaks to the overmanaging that goes on in Clemson's dugout every game. I've been careful not to call Leggett a manager, because he does very little managing. He's a micromanager, a man who is set on inserting himself and his will into every situation. In many instances, he'd be better just allowing his players to play. Instead, he focuses way too hard on trying to have them "execute" offense, when they should be producing offense. He has them wound so tight with his dogpiling antics and his go-go nature that they can't make any plays with the game on the line. Leggett needs to get out of the way, quite literally, and allow the baseball game to be played without his constant influence.

So why do we have to have a change?
Some sort of change is needed. Jack Leggett took over a great program, sustained a nice run, but only a has a couple of conference championships to his credit. The issue here is not the past, though. It's the present and the future. The program is in steady decline right now, and if nothing changes drastically soon, it will stay that way. The problem, of course, is that Leggett has no willingness or desire to change his approach. He's actually proud of his stubborn, losing philosophy, which is a very frustrating thing for people who love the game. The answers are right in front of him, but there's little chance that he will implement them.

Can Phillips make this move? Probably not. It's unlikely that he has either the gaul or the understanding to make a move with such foresight. Phillips' feel for the baseball program is akin to Leggett's feel for the coaching staff. It doesn't exist.

To evoke a phrase from baseball's greatest manager, "Never give up on a player until you know whom you're going to replace him with."

In this case, the man to replace Jack Leggett is Tim Corbin, who seems to have inherited some decent Leggett qualities, but has retained the ability to have an original thought, which distinguishes him from his former boss. The time to make the move is soon, if Clemson has any interest in playing winning baseball again.

Jon Wilner is a Moron

For the last few days, I've been through a period of serious self-debate. It's been about Jon Wilner, the now-infamous Bay Area sports writer who, for lack of a better phrase, aneurysm-ed his Associated Press poll this week.

His crime? Leaving Clemson on the outside. That's the kind way to put it, at least.

So what was this great debate of which I speak? I thought for a while that he might be a genius. You know, taking one for the team in a way. I thought he had sacrificed every ounce of his sports credibility in a desperate attempt to draw readers to an obviously struggling online blog. Maybe he was desperate? Maybe his editor was down his throat (more truth to this than we probably know just yet)? Regardless, it was a beautifully scripted ploy so silly that Clemson nation took up arms against him.

Now, he's belying the "hundreds" of comments and emails he's gotten from people who think he's short on brain starch.

Then he had to go and write this, a follow up post defending his position.

Listen, Jon. It's one thing to be wrong. It's a completely different thing to be stubborn, as well. That makes you not only incorrect and ignorant, but also stupid.

In the interest of full disclosure, let's look at his reasoning in some odd "action-reaction" column setup.

Action: More than 100 Clemson fans rip me (on the Hotline comment board) for leaving the Tigers off my top-25 ballot even though they’re No. 12 in the AP poll.
Reaction I: Not. A. Typo.


Fine, Jon. Now you're a dick. You're off to a strong, compelling start, though. Instead of giving some sort of nice reasoning to back up your obvious mistake, you're standing behind it like Hitler in the last days of the Third Reich. Your version of Mein Kampf is just as illogical, friend. Not. A. Typo. Who the hell do you think you are?


Reaction II: If I didn’t have the Tigers ranked last week, I’m certainly not going to put them on the ballot after wins over not-even-close-to-ranked East and South Carolina.

Here's the obvious flaw in your logic, law student. You're basing this week's poll on the fact that you soiled your loins last week.

Searching the marvelous intra-webs has led me to this gem. There is precedent here, folks. Jon Wilner also sucks at football. Like here, when he ranked South Carolina 4th in the country.

I don't need to take many more shots at his credibility. As we established earlier, it flew the coup around the same time Vanderbilt started the demise of Spurrier's Fourth Reich.


Reaction III: Here’s the background: For the week of Dec. 29 - Jan. 4, the Tigers were No. 20 in the AP poll but not on my ballot (and I never heard a peep from anyone, by the way). Then, with Clemson beating up the two Carolina directional schools, a slew of higher-ranked teams lost and the Tigers subsequently jumped to 12th. Unimpressed with the wins, I continued to leave Clemson unranked. Because of the eight-spot climb, my ballot became an outlier and Clemson fans unloaded.

Listen, Jon. You never heard a peep from anyone because no one knew who the hell you were until your latest screw-up.

So what was Clemson supposed to do with those "two Carolina directional schools"? Were they supposed to lose? Would that have been more impressive? I guess winning by 20+ on the road against a quality opponent doesn't earn respect from Jon Wilner. Ironically, South Carolina went on the road and beat a ranked Baylor team in its next game.

So he wasn't impressed with the wins? Fine. Neither was I. We've owned South Carolina for years and East Carolina isn't very good.

Here's the problem, Jon. You apparently don't understand how polls work. You don't rate teams in a vaccum. Polls are relative. They're a measure for comparing teams in one season against one another. There's not some magical formula that says Clemson is or is not playing "like a 12th ranked team". All it means is that, at this very moment, Clemson has done more and is better than all but 11 other teams in the country.

And another thing. Don't you bring your logical fallacies into this argument to chastise Clemson fans. Your's is an "outlier" because you were the only person without the brain starch to throw Clemson into your poll. And the criticism has been rained down from well beyond Clemson nation. Most any person with working parts raised an eyebrow at your, if we can call it this, poll.


Reaction IV: When the Tigers’ strength of schedule climbs into the top 250, I’ll consider them.

This is Jon Wilner's way of saying that Clemson hasn't played anyone. Awesome. As usual, he doesn't let delictable fact nuggets get in the way of his good argument, though.

According to Realtimerpi.com, Clemson currently ranks 67th in SOS. Jon Wilner. Epic Fail.


Now I wanted to take the time to look into some of the teams he voted ahead of Clemson. Since his apparent lone criterion is strength of schedule, let's see if consistency is his bag.

At 18th, there's Texas A&M. They're a curious case, having beaten pretty much no one. And get this for a punchline, they have a strength of schedule at #252 in the country. Hey Jon, get back to me when the Aggies are in the top-250. Or better yet, when you need a job, because we're always looking for guest bloggers here at the CCB.

A&M's best win is over 9-5(0-2 PAC 10) Arizona, a one point home escape. They also own an inspiring loss at Tulsa, a team located outside the top-100 in most every ranking system. Sweet. That's what top-20 teams are made of, at least for the Bay Area's best.

He has Minnesota ranked 16th, with a SOS of 124. Sneaking in at #25? Wisconsin. They've played a pretty tough schedule, but have lost against the three good teams they've played. I guess we now understand Jon's ranking system. He rewards you for just trying. Getting actual wins (road ones at that) against actual opponents is no way to climb the rankings.

Jon, do yourself a favor and issue an apology/retraction/promise to change your ways. Supporting future decisions based upon previously moronic premises is what awful polls are made of, and it's been known to lead to costly wars in Iraq.

Taking a step back

The 2009 Gator Bowl was played in Jacksonville, but Clemson fans would have felt much more at home in Orlando. Given more than a month to prepare for a pretty average Nebraska team, Clemson showed us all once again that the program is run like a Mickey Mouse show.

The facts are things everyone could see. The offensive line was bad, the quarterback was bad, the tackling was, as always, at its worst with the game on the line. An uninspiring football season ended with yet another uninspired performance from certain players and a clearly overmatched coaching staff.

I don't really care about that, though. In the end, going 8-5 with a win over the Big 12's 5th best team doesn't rank much higher than 7-6 in the grand scheme of things. What is important is that, at this point, I think it's fair to do a little bit of evaluation on the state of the program.

What transpired on October 13th of this year started a chain of events that has left us with a 3.5 million dollar downgrade. A very expensive reduction in coaching prowess, in my opinion.

Tommy Bowden's gone, golden parachute on back, in favor of the now 4-3 Dabo Swinney. Most fans have championed the firing of Rob Spence, likely a smart move, unless of course his successor is Billy Napier. The best coach on the staff jumped ship for Kansas State in light of all of the lambasting he took for simply putting out a good product. You know, not aggressive enough to suit the masses, most of whom desired a pressure-based, please throw touchdowns over the top of us approach.

So now where are we?

What happened yesterday was ugly. The clock was mismanaged again. The offense, given a month to implement its first play, had to burn a timeout before ever taking a snap. C.J. Spiller was inexplicably replaced every other punt by Jacoby Ford, leaving me to assume that the new (snicker) coaching staff is under the assumption that the two are in the same stratosphere athletically (they're not). Davis got touches few and far in between, giving him nary a chance to get into any sort of rhythm. The team that looked so "motivated" for the last six weeks of the season, suddenly looked like they had nothing to play for. I guess when playing for their beloved coach's job was taken out from under them, motivation was hard to come by.

Clemson is officially middling. There's no more spinning it. There's no sugar coating it. Clemson administrators have run the program like a joke and what they put on the field is a perpetual punchline. I don't want to see anyone blaming Dabo Swinney, either. The new coach is what he is, for lack of a better cliche. He's a young, inexperienced, often overmatched coach who is very easy to like. He can only do what he can do. What Clemson administrators did was hire a college kid to cook for a restraunt full of hungry customers begging for steak. No one need complain when they get a plate of fish sticks. If you wanted and expected steak, you should have hired a chef capable of grilling the beef. Right now, Clemson's football program is limited to the microwave.

I enjoy hearing Clemson fans wax poetic about the history of the program. Someone asked me at the Winter Meetings in Las Vegas why Clemson people hold their program in such high regard. I told that man that it's because last time Clemson played Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Penn State, and other such powers, they ran over them. Then I realized something.

There's a reason why the last time Clemson played said programs was upwards of 20 years ago. It's because, ever since then, those programs have (for the most part) made decisions that propelled them into the elite of college football. Clemson hasn't had a chance to play them again because they've been busy winning BCS bowls while Clemson has been busy begging fans to facsimile their way in middle-tier ACC bowls.

On Thursday, Clemson got to face one of those opponents again. The "Big Red" waved as they passed us on the way up.

The only thing legitimate about the Clemson program right now is the fan base. We travel like a national power, only to watch a regional flop. We pack stadiums to support good student athletes handcuffed by mediocre schemes. We match Nebraska's notoriously solid group of supporters shout for shout, only to once again be treated to a second-rate football experience.

Until Clemson starts taking football seriously again, nothing will change. Until Clemson realizes that spending money on great coaches will bring success and a big return on investment (financially), they will always lag behind Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Florida State and plenty of others just in this region.

It's time for Clemson fans and administrators to lose the "Clemson is special" mantra. Clemson isn't so special that it can take an underprepared and overmatched coach and magically turn him into some motivational wizard that gets his players playing so hard that they can overcome his obvious deficiences. The idea of hiring someone who "fits the Clemson mold" needs to be thrown out with the bath water. The Clemson mold is now so far removed from one glorious, crowning acheivement in 1982 that's it not even worth mentioning anymore. Clemson football is now synonymous with underacheivement, misadventure, poor decision making, overrated talent, a lack of legitimacy, and a fan base scorned by the reality that while others play big time football, we shrink from the challenge. Clemson needs to break the Clemson mold.

The answers are incredibly difficult to come by. If Clemson ever wants a permanent chair at the meeting of national football powers, what we've seen over the last 5 months isn't going to cut it. It's not about one game, either, before people start crowing about jumping to conclusions. It's about a mindset that proliferates from the top. It's about being somehow "above" the traditional methods of choosing a qualified head coach. It's about the idiocy of using "gut feeling" and "instinct" to make the most important hire in the history of your school's athletic program. It's about Clemson fans being asked to pony up large sums of money for an upgraded program that seems to be downgrading. It's about a chief university spokesman saying that "Loyalty doesn't pay the bills" only a few days before asking for said extra money.

It's about, even more, a new insistence on comparing ourselves to South Carolina. It's the "Hey it could be worse" mentality that will always keep Clemson middling. It's time for Clemson to start comparing themselves to the Tennessees of the world if we want to play big boy football. The Mickey Mouse cherade needs to keep its act in Orlando, not move north to the upstate. The only thing holding Clemson back, at this point at least, is Clemson itself, and that's a sad reality to face seven games into the Dabo Swinney era.

Dabo Swinney says he's been dealt pocket 10s and that he's all-in with those tens. Well, on Thursday he ran into a coaching staff with pocket Jacks. A bunch of weeks, he's going to run into Aces, Kings, and Queens. When he's lucky, he'll be looking at a 54/46 advantage against a team holding Ace-King. The pocket tens reference, just like the performance yesterday, is troubling and increasingly bizarre.

More thoughts on Chambers

With a day to reflect on the Sadat Chambers situation, I've got some thoughts.

*First of all, kudos to Dabo Swinney for using common sense in this instance. Before I ever broke the actual truth in this story, Swinney had made the determination that Chambers would be allowed to play in the bowl game. He did his homework, got to the actual bottom of the story, and make a sound, swift decision. It's nice to know that he's got the autonomy to do so, as my source said. Dabo went to Terry Don Phillips with his decision, he didn't go to Phillips for his decision.

*Paul Strelow took one on the chin, for sure. What people need to remember, though, is that Strelow isn't exactly privy to the same information that someone in my position would be. I understand his need to run the story, but I'd appreciate it if he would make sure of all of the details before going forward posting something like this. Had the situation not been quickly repaired, permanent damage could have been done to a young guy's reputation. I don't think Paul has any malice towards Clemson, which is something I've seen insinuated on certain platforms. He makes some mistakes, but it's understandable when every bit of someone's work is on public display each and every day.

*So how about Chambers? Sadat wasn't particularly pleased with how his birthday started yesterday, and he understood that it probably wasn't the best idea for him to be driving around with beer-drinking passengers. I still find it encouraging that he was not one of those drinking passengers, though. Given that it was his birthday, I could have seen a scenario where he would have needed a designated driver. Instead, he was responsible in this instance. If you know Sadat, this shouldn't come as a surprise, though. I've often lauded some of the good guys of this football program, and he's one of them.

I expect Chambers to compete for a starting spot at safety in the spring. He was a tremendous athlete in high school and remains a capable college player. Given the opportunity to settle into one position (something that's escaped him thus far), I could see Chambers making a positive impact on the field next fall.

Sadat Chambers: Setting the Record Straight

Sadat Chambers celebrates his 22nd birthday today, but birthday cake has been replaced my typical media sensationalism this time around.

Local media reports, like this one from The State's Paul Strelow have indicated that Chambers was arrested for both driving under suspension and an additional charge of possessing an open container. Reports like the one from Strelow have been characteristically devoid of any pertinent details, and they're blowing the situation out of proportion just a bit.

Chambers was indeed arrested late Monday night in Pageland. He was driving down a fairly lonely back road, taking some of his buddies home. Chambers had not been drinking, nor was he in possesion of the open container in the vehicle. A police officer passed Chambers on the road, and then turned around to pull the Clemson safety when he allegedly failed to dim his bright lights in time after the officer pulled in front of him.

Chambers was not administered a field sobriety test and was not accused of the aformentioned drinking. Upon running his license, the officer found that Chambers' was driving under suspension, the result of an unpaid $25 seatbelt infraction that Chambers had assumed was paid months before. His mother was supposed to take care of the fine, but had apparently forgotten and Chambers was unaware of the status of his license.

One of the men riding in the car with Chambers was found to be in possession of an open container, and he was arrested for that offense. Chambers was charged with nothing more than driving under suspension and the traffic violation. As of Tuesday afternoon, Chambers was in the process of having his license reinstated.

Chambers will report to Jacksonville on December 26th and will be available for the Tigers in January 1st's Gator Bowl against Nebraska.

Checking in with Demerick Chancellor

It's been a while since I put on the old blog pants and fired up the interweb box to make a post, so Clemson/South Carolina week seems like a fitting time. I usually only post when I have something to say, and if you want my thoughts any other time, you can check out Block-C.com where Willy Mac and Chili express pretty much what we're all thinking.

That said, this week I'm bringing you someone else's thoughts. I had a chance to talk to an old buddy of mine and get some perspective on the state of Clemson football. Taking a break from his NFL draft preparations, former Clemson running back and current Clemson brother Demerick Chancellor shared his thoughts on everything from Dabo Swinney to Darell Scott's dance moves. DeeMoney is one of the good guys and I'm on record as saying it sucks that he's not playing for this football team right now.

Q: What are you up to these days? And how's draft prep going?

Chancellor: I'm working out almost everyday with a personal trainer, who happens to be my stepfather. He's got me eating right and making sure I get the best training in, so that I can get a shot to perform my best at the next level. I'm just trying to get ready for the draft and work as hard as I can right now.

Q: Describe Coach Dabo Swinney as a guy, and as a coach.

DC: Oh man I love Dabo Swinney. I remember when I was there, Coach Swinney was probably the only offensive coach who recognized my talent and wanted to see me in there. I remember everytime Coach Swinney saw me even if it was a pratice, meetings, or dinner, he would always tell me to hold my head up because anyone of those guys can go down, and you will have your chance to show what you can do. Coach Swinney is a very positive person and I like the fact that he will do whatever it takes to win games. I like how he perpares players to perform at their best on gameday.

Q: How do you feel about your brother's development/success right now?

DC: Chris already knows what he's got to do. When it comes to football, that's my least worry with him. I've seen Chris play like that his whole life, so I expect him to be ballin' the way he is. It's just God-given talent. Chris is a very hard worker with a little body, but with a big heart. He saw the wizard a long time ago.

Q: With it being rivalry week, what about Clemson/USC?

DC: It is all about braging rights, the only two major colleges in the state. The winner walks away with a whole year worth of it. Man, we all know it's really important.

Q: Describe Sadat Chambers in two words.

DC: Big. Hit.

Q: What does James Davis mean to the Clemson program?

DC: James means alot. He did so much for the program, as a freshman he set all kinds of accomplishments. He gave Clemson the running back they were missing for years. James is a really good back and he is also the main reason why C.J Spiller is at Clemson. You know it will be hard to replace a James Davis. He's just special, man.

Q: Better dancer - Darell Scott or Jamarcus Grant?

DC: Haha, I've never seen D. Scott dance. Everytime I see him somewhere with music, he's just chillin. And J. Grant is a wild and funny individual, so I am pretty sure he can dance.

Q: And finally, a prediction for Saturday?

DC: I gotta go with Clemson. The way Florida did USC, I know they are still shook up. Plus these guys want it too bad; this determines a bowl game. I am pretty sure that those guys do not want to be home for the holidays.

Oliver Purnell is Not Jesus Christ

And other ramblings by Jameson Fleming.

Here, we have the take of a senior writer at a place called BleacherReport.com. I've written two articles for them, one on the Panthers' draft last season at the behest of their owner and one on Clemson basketball in the tournament last season.

Jameson Fleming apparently follows Clemson basketball, too. Or maybe he doesn't. Anyhow, he lists Oliver Purnell as the #2 coach on his list of coaches on the proverbial "hot seat" for the upcoming season.

Logic: [explodes]

He writes, "To put it simply: Oliver Purnell isn't going to be losing his job anytime soon. The Tigers' coach just signed a contract extension through 2014, so it appears as if Purnell won't be leaving the state of South Carolina anytime soon."

So let's get this straight. You started an article about Oliver Purnell being on the hot seat by stating that he, in fact, is not on the hot seat. We're off to a compelling start. Let's see where this road leads.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be on the hot seat.

Clever use of incoherent transitioning. Particularly intriguing, as well, is the use of a double-negative.

The last two seasons are two of the most disappointing for Tigers' fans because of how much Clemson underperformed. After slowly turning the Clemson basketball team into a bunch of winners, Purnell took two steps back the past two seasons for his failures in ACC play and the NCAA Tournament.

Two of the most disappointing what? Disappointing in terms of Clemson history? Disappointing in terms of recent Clemson history? Two of the most disappointing seasons in the last two years? I guess that works.

Clemson "underperformed"? Based upon what criteria? Maybe they failed to meet preseason expectations from people who make such predictions? No, they finished 3rd in the league, one slot ahead of where they were expected to. It must be something else. Clemson wasted a ton of talent, right?

Let's use Rivals.com for a little perspective on just how much Oliver Purnell underperformed in 2008.

Clemson's roster featured 11 3-star players. Not one player ranked above that purely mediocre ledger.

Let's compare that to teams who finished below Clemson in the ACC last year.

Virginia Tech: Four 4-star players, six 3-star players
Miami: Three 4-star players, six 3-star players
Maryland: Four 4-star players, seven 3-star players
Georgia Tech: Six 4-star players, six 3-star players
Wake Forest: Five 4-star players, seven 3-star players
Florida State: One 5-star play, six 4-star players, six 3-star players
N.C. State: Two 5-star players, four 4-star players, three 3-star players
Boston College: Ten 3-star players
Virginia: Four 4-star players, eight 3-star players

Judging from this list, it looks like Oliver Purnell's 2007-2008 Clemson team was the least talented (right there with BC) team in the entire conference. So how again did they underperform. You might say, "Well, recruiting rankings don't matter!" Just remember all of the names on Clemson's 2007-2008 roster and watch the NBA draft over the next three years. Only one of them has a chance to be called (Booker, who has lots of developing to do if he wants to be an NBA player). There's a good chance none of those guys will be drafted. Kudos to Purnell for getting the most out of them.

Two years ago, Clemson opened the season 17-0. The school was flying towards the top of the rankings and had big aspirations for the rest of the season. Things derailed quickly and Purnell's team didn't even reach the NCAA Tournament.

This guy is still writing? There's more to this lame article? The 2006-2007 team did, in fact, get off to a big start. Almost everyone remembers it, but nobody seems to remember it well enough to actually write about it.

To everyone with a pulse, it was clear that the now infamous 2006 start was a clear result of the schedule. Clemson got wins over the likes of Monmouth and Arkansas State. They beat up on Furman and Charleston Southern. The best win in that start was over Georgia Tech, who made the tournament. Old Dominion was also pretty good, and I don't recall whether they made the dance or not, though I do remember writing of how they should have. Point is, Clemson loaded up on patsies and took care of business. Nothing extraordinary there.

The team then went on to lose 10 more games that year before missing the tournament. Of those 10 losses, including the gut-wrencher to FSU in the first round of the ACC tournament, Clemson lost 8 of them by a combined 21 points. Do the math, that's 8 games by an average of like 2.6 points. It's not exactly the thing that an epic team derailment is made of. It is a result of things like bad luck, poor officiating, not making enough big plays at the end of the game, and just plain not being as good as the other team.

Among those heart-breaking games, we had infamous ones like the UVA collapse in Littlejohn, the clock fiasco in Cameron, and a bizarre foul call at the end of the 1st round ACC tournament game. No excuses, but it's hard to use these things as an indictment against Oliver Purnell.

Last year, Purnell had a team that had the talent to make the Final Four, but instead Villanova, a 12 seed, bounced Clemson in the first round.

It is true that our friend Jameson has drafted each of the graduating Tigers to his NBA fantasy team for this season. He's also put in a hold on Karolis Petrakonis for when he makes the association. You know, with that Final Four talent, Clemson players should be dotting rosters this winter. Wait, none of those guys made NBA rosters? Good call, Jameson.

This season, Purnell loses a few key components to last year's team, but returns three double-digit scores. If Purnell doesn't win at least one NCAA Tournament game this year, this South Carolina school will be a disappointment once again.

Really? Clemson basketball has made, what, like 7 NCAA tournaments ever? I'd say given that fact and given the fact that the ACC is juiced up this year, Clemson getting there would be quite an accomplishment and enough to give Oliver Purnell a contract for as long as he wants to be here.


In the spirit of full disclosure, let me mention that our fine scribe posted something of a retraction, but only after hoards of angry Clemson fans sent him what were probably dirty e-mails. He claimed to be, for all intent and purposes, a no-talent clown who in this particular instance, didn't do his homework.

We all make mistakes, Jameson. When those mistakes involve Oliver Purnell and blatant misrepresentation of our basketball program, expect an angry Clemson response, though. That man is all we have left to cling to.