Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Feb 17, 2015, 12:04 PM

a poster below:

Steven Bradley: Clemson would be foolish to let Leggett go
Submitted by esprott on February 14, 2015 – 12:10 am
Share

Jack Leggett packs a calculator whenever he hits the road recruiting. It’s just as vital a tool for his job these days as a fungo bat or lineup card.

Steven Bradley is an award-winning columnist and reporter who has covered college and high school sports for The Journal since 2004. He was recently promoted to News Editor, but maintains this weekly sports column. He can be reached via email at sbradley@upstatetoday.com.

That’s because Leggett is acting not only as a salesman for his program and Clemson University, but thanks to the NCAA’s kooky rules, he has to act a bit like a used-car salesman, too.

College baseball teams have 11.7 scholarships to give 27 players, and any player on scholarship is required to get at least 25 percent of one. Contrast that to women’s basketball, for example, which allots 15 scholarships — enough for everybody from stars to benchwarmers to have a full ride.

Heck, the Clemson women only have 13 players on their team this year.

Meanwhile, Leggett has had four players on full scholarship in 21 years as Clemson’s baseball coach, and he doesn’t have the luxury of letting scholarships, even fractions of them, sit idle.

When he goes into a recruit’s home and hears, “I want to play at Clemson, Coach, but School X is offering me $10,000 more than you are,” Leggett has a decision to make. If he wants the player bad enough, he’ll match the offer, but does so knowing he has to go back to Clemson and convince a current player (or combination of players) to give up $10,000 of scholarship money.

One can only imagine it’s a tough balancing act having to mentor young men you are also haggling with over money.

All that would be well and good if it were an even playing field and the competition were facing the same scenario. But that’s not the case.

While Leggett is basically bound by that 11.7 scholarship limit, many of his closest rivals have ways to circumvent it. South Carolina, for example, was able to land Jackie Bradley Jr. and several other players from the state of Virginia that helped it win back-to-back national titles thanks to help from the Academic Common Market.

The ACM allows schools to offer in-state tuition to students from partnering states so long as those students enroll in a major that is not offered in that state. The program applies to all students, not just athletes, but the bottom line is South Carolina offers it and Clemson doesn’t.

Other rivals such as North Carolina have a leg up by being able to offer need-based financial aid, meaning if a top recruit comes from a low-income home, those schools can offer the player basically a full ride without it counting against their scholarship allotment. Clemson can’t do that either.

I know many fans have become frustrated with the Tigers’ success, or lack thereof, on the diamond in recent years, and some have suggested this could be a make-or-break season for Leggett.

Athletic director Dan Radakovich went so far as to publicly point out a series of problem areas in Leggett’s program and offer suggestions for how to address them at the conclusion of last season. That was after multiple media outlets, some of which scarcely cover the program, called for Leggett’s head.

Let me make sure I’m not mincing words on my opinion — the idea of firing Leggett is preposterous.

I completely understand fans are frustrated by a lack of trips to Omaha lately and, perhaps more importantly, a lack of wins over rival South Carolina. But do people really think Leggett just forgot how to coach? This is a man who was inducted into the American Baseball Coaches Association Hall of Fame last season and is tied for the ninth-most wins in Division I history (1,300 going into the 2015 season).

Even if Leggett were totally to blame for the downturn in the Tigers’ product on the field, it would be a boneheaded business decision to get rid of him anytime soon. His contract runs through June 30, 2016, and if he were fired without cause, he would be due $200,000 per year left on the deal.

I know people consider baseball a “revenue sport” because the school charges money for tickets, but truth be told, the program cost the athletic department more than $1 million last year.

Most every college sport everywhere besides football and men’s basketball loses money to some degree, and by comparison, $1 million is only about half of what women’s basketball cost Clemson last year.

Point is, it wouldn’t make much sense for the Tigers to pay $200,000 to fire a Hall of Fame coach, on top of paying to hire a new one, for a program that already makes the NCAA Tournament every year and is going to lose money either way.

Personally, I think Leggett is an outstanding coach who is respected by his peers and on the way to getting the program turned around (thanks in no small part to the work done by assistant coach — and Walhalla native — Bradley LeCroy on the recruiting trail).

It’s been said that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone, and I suspect Tiger fans would find that to be the case with the man who wears No. 7 on his jersey.

Letting Leggett go wouldn’t just be a bad idea — it would be bad business.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

toward Coach Leggett or any other, for that matter.

There is a time when any leader has to consider his worth to an endeavor, and if not, then someone has to perform the scrutiny for him. Often, a leader will fail to understand an old caveat: all glory is fleeting; today's heroes become tomorrow's villains when they rest upon laurels.

Even Frank Howard knew when to bow out gracefully before low rumblings became loud outbursts. Today he is considered a legend.

The important matter for all within the Clemson family is to place loyalty to Clemson above loyalty to any coach or staff, for the good of the University must prevail. Should any coach fail to meet responsibilities for positive accomplishments, then he must be replaced. Yet, each of us, who call ourselves members of the Clemson family, has a responsibility to support our efforts, academically and athletically, despite misgivings until change occurs.

And despite the author's arguments otherwise, every member of our family has a right to demand excellence and if lacking, then demand change. And for its own good, the University has to be willing to effect change.

Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Not a Jack hater/lover but...

If this is correct, does anybody know

It wasn't until a few weeks ago that Clemson was in the

It's not like these scholarship limits are new to baseball***

Fire Jack!! What the article says may be true however,

Why doesn't Clemson offer the ACM or

Can BOT, President fix those problems or are we stuck with

This does not explain why we seem to only recruit

The premise of his article is flawed

Re: The premise of his article is flawed

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

Re: Here's the article by Steven Bradley mentioned by

So now I understand why CU keeps Jack....

My thinking is only general in nature and not directed

TigerBoard POTD