BSB Update: Clemson ranked #7 Baseball Program in last decade

1. Not bashing Jack, you just don't like the facts. I was making an observation based on the study. We have a great regular season RPI under Jack, but he sucks in the post season. It is what it is. The truth hurts.

2. You don't read & comprehend worth a d@mn if you think I'm arguing against the credibility of the study. I perfectly understand the methodology and what they were trying to accomplish and think it provides very interesting results. And it proves that money beyond roughly $1m/year is NOT a big factor in overall success, especially in regards to post season play and championships.

You tried to discredit the study by acting like my examples were outliers, which they were not, and you keep trying to discredit the monetary numbers. What rock have you been living under? Every year "Shakin' The Southland" does an analysis of the line item AD budget submitted to the SC Legislature, as required by law. They also examine the IPTAY budget. Most years they don't even have to file a FOIA request because Becky Bowman gives it to them. This data is also given to the ACC, and the CUAD files tax returns. All of this info is available to the public for every public school. The ACC usually provides macro data for all conference schools, which gives us accurate budgets for the private schools by sport. Other websites for other schools and USA Today do the same thing allowing programs to be compared.

Here are some examples ...

http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/3/7/2845152/iptay-finances-and-cuad-budget-fy11

http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/3/20/2880533/financial-comparison-acc-athletic-department-budgets-10-11

http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/3/22/2892299/financial-comparison-sec-athletic-department-budgets-10-11

Lowcountry_Tiger

Devotee [305]

TigerPulse: 71%

Posts: 449

Joined: 1/14/15

Re: OK ............

Jun 14, 2015, 3:35 PM

It's hard to have a conversation when one person wants to stick their head in the sand and tries to discredit everyone and everything counter to the their view.

To get an exact breakdown you would need our line item budget, which anyone can get via FOIA. STS get's it from Katie Hill every year (I wrote Becky Bowman earlier but meant Katie Hill) and they do a detailed analysis. Unfortunately they lump the Olympic sports together. At a school like Clemson and conference like the ACC where baseball, soccer, and even golf are followed closely by fans it would be interesting to see STS do some detailed analysis comparing those sports to the rest of the ACC, SEC, and top programs nationally.

The information is out there. Schools are required to provide it and the NCAA and each conference provide data. People writing these reports do this for a living. Sources like "USA Today" get the official budgets via FOIA. Even if there are some discrepancies I'm confident the totals are pretty accurate. Certainly accurate enough to make comparisons among programs and conferences. Just look at the numbers comparing average SEC to ACC program. The SEC outspends the ACC by more than double, but the two conferences are pretty much even based on RPI, tourney hostings, and participation in the CWS. Access to talent is pretty much equal except for Miami's Latin pipeline.

Therefore, the numbers clearly show that beyond a certain point there is no significant advantage to spending money. Only a handful of programs spend $3m or more. There really aren't that many programs outspending us.

If there were only a few good coaches or great players, then the few uber rich programs would have a huge advantage, but baseball is a different animal. FB & BB require huge sums of money due to facilities and staff. FB is heavily QB centric and you have to be highly successful in a major conference to have realistic championship hopes. In BB a great team can be built around 2 or 3 players. Baseball is far less high profile and the best players typically skip college and turn pro. And there are very few blacks in college baseball.

Let's face it, college baseball is a warm weather, white, middle class sport. That means there is a ton of talent to go around for schools with the right geographic address. Academics and coaching are bigger factors than an extra million because each team can only have a limited roster and a few coaches. Once you get into post season play money is no factor at all because all you need is two solid pitchers to win a championship. That's why a talent rich region like the south can have a bunch of tiny schools go the NCAA tourney. Liberty and Coastal will never play for an NCAA FB championship and it would take a near miracle for them to get to the Sweet 16. But in college baseball there are always plenty of small schools earning their way into the tourney. And there is almost always at least 1 small program in the CWS. A few years ago SC put 6 or 7 schools in the regionals. Creighton and The Citadel will never be in the Final Four or win a football championship, but both have been to Omaha.

If money bought championships, Oregon, Texas, OK State, and Michigan would be in the top 5 every football season.

The numbers in this report look pretty similar to the other report. And I've seen some other studies posted on TNET with similar numbers.
http://diycollegerankings.com/how-much-do-d1-colleges-spend-on-baseball-programs/2505/

By the way, here is an excellent read on why Jack had to go. Our problems are not money nor talent. Our problem is/was coaching.
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150409/PC0312/150409332/1032/from-bad-to-worse-clemson-baseball-historically-lost-at-home

This pretty much sums it up ...
http://www.independentmail.com/orange-and-white/another-early-postseason-exit-could-bring-major-changes-to-clemson-baseball_70723931

A year after Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich outlined an offseason plan for coach Jack Leggett to improve the baseball program, the Tigers went 0-2 in the NCAA Tournament for the second consecutive season.

Clemson, which also lost 7-4 to Arizona State on Friday, went 32-29 in the regular season and 1-2 in the ACC Tournament after nearly missing that event. The Tigers then slipped into the NCAA Tournament as the last team in but fell to 1-6 in the last three regional appearances.

Clemson’s home attendance declined for the second consecutive season.

Speaking of Katie Hill, I thought this was a nice article from 2012. Much of this we already knew, but her baseball, swimming, and golf comments were interesting and show the importance of baseball to our bottom line, which reinforces why Jack had to go. Getting the perspective of those in the AD and seeing their thought process is always interesting.
http://www.independentmail.com/news/finance-chief-clemson-sports-is-a-business-sort

One thing a new coach almost always does is create excitement around a program and increase donations & attendance. At Clemson the obvious exception is Ken Hatfield. That hire went over like a lead zeppelin. Falling attendance gets coaches fired and getting 10% of our revenue from baseball is big. CU baseball has been "standing room only" since the early 80's even with several stadium expansions. We can't have a third straight season of declining attendance and quick post season exit.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

null

Well we have fixed that problem.***

How? We want excel over the coots, but we spend 1/2 the $'s

Haha.***

RPI is a terrible baseball stat

There is no perfect ranking system, but for the most part

lol at Oregon. Spending tons of money, ave RPI of 66. Of course, they

RE-HIRE JACK!

#RHJ***

If we are the #8 Winningest program, who did we jump for #7?

It is NOT basd on wins or outcomes, just regular season RPI***

Dang we should fire whoever was in charge the last decade

I'm a Clemson man through and through, but SCAR ...

this ranking factors in financial disadvantages.***

No it does not. Cal State barely spends $1m/yr but they are

can you please list all the other low funded baseball

I listed multiple teams that outspent us with a lower RPI.

Re: I listed multiple teams that outspent us with a lower RPI.

OK ............

Re: OK ............

Re: OK ............

Because you don't understand the study, It's your

Sure doesn't feel that way, but we forget that nearly every

Actually we did in fact under achieve. With an average RPI

Re: Actually we did in fact under achieve. With an average RPI

Re: Sure doesn't feel that way, but we forget that nearly every

Depends on if the NCAA and ACC start accepting this metric.

USC cheated in a big way. Then NCAA closed that unintended

No worries, the new guy will save us...***

TigerBoard POTD