Re: Last year all we heard was how great portal heavy FSU was BAX

HumbleServant® · 2025-01-15T14:06:07.341Z

FSU’s Novell was a genius and Dabo was lost but ohhhhh have the cards turned Predicted to win the ACC & Natty they had sold out to buy another championship with DJU! Everything in moderation, will they be back in 2025?

The portal is a crap shoot and an even bigger one for key position players. You may get a Bo Nix. You may get a BJU. Can I find the talent and can that talent learn my system in time to be effective? Kickers, long snappers, nickel backs and lineman are probably easier to get up to speed than Mike LB, QBs and receivers learning routes and timing. You can replenish with the portal but you better be planting and growing key players that know your system. I see the biggest impact in the portal is depth. UGA didn't have the hockey style line changes they had grown used to this season and it showed. Those 5 star backups that were coming off the bench realized they could get NIL and start at competitive programs. The coaching challenge going forward will be depth. Not just subbing play to play or having the next man up for injuries but who is going to fill the gap of the guy who left via portal or NFL draft. Will the replacement be able to grasp the system? Look for simpler schemes from schools that rely heavily on the portal.

NIKE

National Champion [8033]

TigerPulse: 97%

Posts: 6149

Joined: 2022

Jan 18, 2025, 2:46 PM

The Portal Dilemma: FSU vs. Clemson

Over the past few years, the college football landscape has undergone a seismic shift with the emergence of the transfer portal. It has become a key tool for programs to reload talent quickly, especially for those looking to climb back to the top of the rankings. Florida State University (FSU) has been one of the most aggressive adopters of this strategy, while Clemson has taken a more conservative, developmental approach under Dabo Swinney.

Last year, FSU’s portal-heavy strategy under head coach Mike Norvell was widely praised. The team brought in high-profile transfers, quickly elevating their talent level and raising expectations for the program. Many commentators labeled Norvell a “genius” for his ability to navigate the portal effectively, while Dabo Swinney faced criticism for being “behind the times” due to his reluctance to embrace the portal.

However, the results this season suggest that the narrative has shifted. FSU entered 2024 as a heavy favorite to win the ACC and compete for a national championship but has fallen short of those lofty predictions. Meanwhile, Clemson, often perceived as lagging in adapting to the new era, has leaned on its traditional approach of high school recruiting and player development—and is showing signs of regaining stability.

This raises an important question: Does the portal-heavy strategy provide a sustainable path to success, or is moderation and balance the better way forward?

The Case for FSU’s Aggressive Transfer Strategy

FSU’s use of the portal is not without merit. Programs in rebuild mode, like FSU when Norvell took over, need to make immediate gains to keep pace with top-tier teams. The portal provides access to experienced, game-ready players who can fill gaps faster than high school recruits. For FSU, this approach has allowed them to rapidly improve their roster’s talent level, bringing in impact players who can change the trajectory of the program.

For example, high-profile transfers on both sides of the ball have delivered standout performances, proving that the portal can yield big dividends. However, the inherent challenge with a portal-heavy strategy is cohesion. Building a team culture and chemistry takes time, and when you rely on transfers year after year, the revolving door of players can disrupt that process.

Additionally, player development often suffers when programs rely too much on instant-impact transfers. Young players on the roster may see fewer opportunities to develop if veteran transfers dominate the depth chart. Over time, this can result in a lack of continuity, with each season feeling like a new rebuild rather than part of a long-term plan.

Clemson’s Commitment to Stability

In contrast, Clemson has taken a more measured approach. Under Dabo Swinney, the Tigers have prioritized high school recruiting and player development, focusing on cultivating talent from within their program. This philosophy aligns with their emphasis on culture and continuity, two cornerstones of their success during their national championship runs.

While Swinney initially resisted the portal, Clemson has slowly begun to integrate transfers when necessary, recognizing that the landscape demands some level of flexibility. However, the program has avoided becoming overly reliant on the portal, using it as a complement rather than a foundation.

This approach has its advantages. It fosters a strong sense of identity and loyalty within the program, allowing players to grow together over multiple seasons. Additionally, it creates a more stable roster, which is essential for long-term success. Clemson’s slower adoption of the portal has also helped them avoid some of the pitfalls associated with high turnover, such as lack of chemistry or disjointed team dynamics.

That said, Clemson has faced criticism for its reluctance to fully embrace the portal. In a landscape where rivals like FSU are upgrading their rosters rapidly, Swinney’s developmental approach has sometimes left Clemson playing catch-up in terms of raw talent. However, as the Tigers adapt and find a balance, they are positioned to leverage the portal without compromising their core values.

The Sustainability Question

The real issue at play here is sustainability. While the portal can provide immediate results, it’s not a long-term substitute for recruiting and developing talent. Programs that lean too heavily on the portal risk becoming dependent on external talent, which can lead to instability and inconsistency.

FSU’s portal strategy may deliver short-term success, but the challenge will be maintaining a cohesive roster year after year. If the team experiences significant turnover each offseason, it becomes harder to establish the kind of continuity that is essential for competing at the highest level. To ensure sustainability, FSU will need to strike a better balance between recruiting, player development, and selective portal use.

On the other hand, Clemson’s approach emphasizes the long game. By investing in high school recruits and nurturing talent within the program, they create a pipeline of players who are not only skilled but also deeply ingrained in the team’s culture. As they gradually incorporate more portal additions, Clemson can enhance their roster without sacrificing the stability that has been their hallmark.

The Outlook for 2025

Looking ahead, the question is whether FSU’s aggressive approach will pay off or if Clemson’s measured strategy will prove more effective. If FSU can find a way to integrate their portal additions while maintaining a strong core of homegrown talent, they could be well-positioned to compete for championships in the coming years. However, if they continue to rely too heavily on the portal, they may struggle to build the kind of long-term stability needed to remain at the top.

Clemson, on the other hand, is betting on the durability of its developmental model. As they adapt to the changing landscape, they have an opportunity to create a hybrid approach that leverages the best of both worlds: the immediacy of the portal and the stability of a strong recruiting pipeline.

Ultimately, success in college football is about balance. Teams that can adapt to the modern era while staying true to their core principles are the ones most likely to thrive. Whether it’s FSU’s bold approach or Clemson’s steady hand, the next few years will reveal which strategy can truly stand the test of time.

Would you like to refine this further or focus on a specific point?

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Last year all we heard was how great portal heavy FSU was BAX