Re: Clemson itself didnt get worse; rather, the rest of the ACC improved

Tigerdrafted · 2025-10-26T20:59:00.030Z

The perception that Clemson football has declined in recent years overlooks an important reality: Clemson itself didn’t get worse; rather, the rest of the ACC improved by embracing changes that Coach Dabo Swinney resisted. Under the old system, Dabo had built a powerhouse by mastering recruiting and player development, creating a winning formula that dominated the conference. However, as the college football landscape shifted—particularly with the introduction of the transfer portal and more flexible NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rules—ACC rivals adapted quickly, using these tools to strengthen their rosters and attract top talent. Dabo, valuing team culture and continuity, hesitated to leverage these new mechanisms, sticking to the approach that had brought Clemson so much success. As a result, while Clemson maintained its standards, other programs caught up and even surpassed them by taking full advantage of the new system, making the ACC more competitive overall and altering the balance of power.

rhpltmeg® said:

Are you kidding? Yes there are some better ACC teams the last couple of years but it’s fairly obvious we are no where close to where we were.

Used to feel we could line up with anybody and win. This week I’m worried about the Duke game.

Absolutely, there’s a compelling case to be made that Duke’s current football program reflects many of the core strengths that once defined Clemson’s dominance in the ACC. Like Clemson under Coach Dabo Swinney at the height of its power, Duke now displays a cohesive team identity, disciplined execution, and a belief that they can compete with anyone. The difference lies in the way Duke has embraced the evolving landscape—especially the strategic use of the transfer portal and NIL opportunities. These tools have allowed Duke to attract talented players who might not have considered the program before, instantly raising the team’s ceiling.

While Clemson built its legacy through recruiting and player development within a stable culture, Duke has accelerated its progress by leveraging modern mechanisms to fill roster gaps and add top-tier talent. In many ways, Duke represents what Clemson once was: a confident, well-coached team capable of challenging the conference’s elite. But Duke’s willingness to adapt has made them a real threat, embodying the kind of transformation that Clemson hesitated to pursue. This season, it’s not far-fetched to say that Duke is closer to the old Clemson than Clemson itself—precisely because they’ve embraced the new rules and used them to level the playing field.

CU_Tigers4life®

National Champion [7543]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 5709

Joined: 2009

Clemson Didnt Just Stand StillIt Slipped

Oct 27, 2025, 7:45 AM

The idea that Clemson “didn’t get worse” but was merely caught by a rising ACC tide is a comforting myth, not a rigorous diagnosis. It frames Clemson as a static gold standard while ignoring the very real erosion in execution, adaptability, and institutional reflex.

Let’s trial this point by point:

Recruiting and Development Plateaued Clemson’s recruiting hasn’t cratered, but it has stagnated relative to elite peers. The Tigers have missed on key positions—particularly at quarterback and offensive line—and the developmental pipeline hasn’t produced the same NFL-caliber depth it once did. That’s not just “others catching up.” That’s a decline in hit rate and talent evaluation.

Scheme and Staff Stagnation While other programs modernized their offensive and defensive schemes, Clemson doubled down on internal promotions and continuity hires. Loyalty is admirable, but when it calcifies into insularity, it becomes a liability. The 2021 and 2022 offenses weren’t just out-talented—they were out-schemed.

Portal Paralysis Wasn’t Neutral The transfer portal isn’t just a tool for desperate rebuilds—it’s a strategic lever. Clemson’s refusal to engage meaningfully in the portal didn’t preserve culture; it preserved roster holes. Meanwhile, programs like FSU and UNC used it to plug gaps and elevate ceilings. That’s not others “getting better” in a vacuum—it’s Clemson choosing not to compete on a critical front.

NIL Hesitancy Cost Momentum While Dabo emphasized culture, other programs built NIL infrastructure that attracted and retained talent. Clemson’s slower embrace of NIL didn’t just maintain purity—it created a perceptional and practical disadvantage in the eyes of recruits.

The ACC Didn’t Become the SEC Overnight Let’s not overstate the “rise” of the ACC. Yes, teams like FSU and Louisville surged, but the overall depth of the conference remains middling. If Clemson were truly holding steady, it would still be winning 10+ games and contending for playoff spots. Instead, we’ve seen uncharacteristic losses to unranked teams and a shrinking margin for error.

Bottom line: Clemson didn’t just get caught—it got complacent. The program’s refusal to adapt wasn’t a noble stand against change; it was a strategic misstep in a rapidly evolving landscape. The rest of the ACC didn’t pass Clemson by accident—they exploited the very gaps Clemson refused to close.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Thanks to the TNET Grammar Police correcting me, I do get an occasional assist with AI to clean up my post. The talking points are mine but my typing, grammar and spelling isn't what it used to be so get a little help to put out a better post.

Clemson itself didnt get worse; rather, the rest of the ACC improved

Wrong!***

Re: Wrong!***

As did all of our OOC P4 opponents?***