Booing characterizes a maturing fanbase

The first time I remember hearing the Boo Birds at Clemson was during the Ken Hatfield years. I remember thinking as an early 20-something, “this is new.”

As a kid, I was taken aback not because I disagreed with it, but rather it was something I’d simply never experienced. I’d heard it on the telly with other teams, whether college or NFL or baseball or whatever, so it wasn’t like it was totally foreign to me. I’d simply never heard it at Clemson.

This past Saturday as Clemson headed into the locker room trailing Troy 13-16 at halftime, the Big Black Flock took flight once again and let the team have it.

Maybe it had an effect, maybe it didn’t, but you bet your ass it was heard by the coaches. Clemson then went on to rip off a whopping 30 points (which included four touchdowns, not shitloads of field goals this time mind you) in the second half to seal a 43-19 win.

Talk about a tale of two halves. Another bipolar Clemson team? If history’s any indicator, yep.

Then game’s end comes and we’re treated to the usual coaching interviews, blah blah blah, but in this case it was reported that defensive coordinator Kevin Steele, offensive coordinator Chad Morris and offensive line coach Robbie Caldwell had some colorful opinions on the booing. Needless to say, they didn’t like it and that is putting it nicely.

Head coach Dabo Swinney, on the other hand, opted to take his usual bullshit moral highroad and said that he didn’t need the fans’ input to tell him Clemson sucked in the first half.

Oh Dabo, you elitist you. But don’t worry, coach, that’s just that crazy five-percent crowd. Must’ve been a loud five-percent because their boos accounted for 95 percent of the sound in the stadium as your team trotted into the locker room.

It's been written in the Clemson beat media that the booing was aimed at taking a knee in the last seconds of the half. Please, it was aimed at the entire team for their so-called performance of the entire half, not just one play. Look at it this way; do you think the Birds would have taken flight if Clemson still took the knee yet was up, say, 27-16? I’ll let you think on that one.

Here’s a fact of big-time sports: there’s absolutely nothing wrong in booing. Nothing at all. It absolutely does not damage the psyche of the players unless they’re dumpling soft and can’t...oh wait... Anyway, does not damage the players’ psyche which is the argument held by many of the Tigers’ fanbase’s leading enablers.

Could it be possible that the fans are tired of getting fed recruiting hype preseason after preseason and, come gameday, the reality is nowhere close? Nope, not a bit.

I’m not saying the typical flimsy reason for it being okay is because everyone does it. Rather, a fanbase who isn’t afraid to boo a shitty product is one sign of a maturing fanbase. Why? Because they now have standards, and high ones at that. But that’s only one sign. Intelligence is another and Clemson’s fanbase still lacks in that category.

I love it when a coach goes to this school or that and says, “The fans are great! They’re very passionate, the best in the nation and we wouldn’t have it any other way!” Then they get pissed when these same passionate fans boo them when they shit out a pathetic team. Well, guess what, genius? A fanbase that boos is...here it comes...indicative of a passionate one. It’s impossible to have a passionate fanbase who won’t boo when you fuck up. What do you want, one that will pat you on the head, tell you everything will be okay and Jesus is in control and put a gold star by your name on the chalkboard?

Obviously we’re not talking about fans like that of many pro teams who go there only to bitch and throw stuff. I’m talking about fans who release the Flock from the birdcage when it’s warranted.

And you bet your ass going into the locker room with a halftime deficit to a Sun Belt team warrants it. And you’re a nadless shithead if you think it doesn’t.

If Caldwell, Steele, Morris and Swinney take issue with booing, they best not go to the NFL (assuming they even have a shot in their ass to begin with). At least not to Philly or Oakland. Because if they think Clemson fans are asspains wait'll they get a load of certain NFL fans. What's more, wait’ll they get a load of the NFL players they’ll be coaching.

If Swinney’s going to make the players tougher, perhaps he and his staff should set a better example. Pissing and moaning over bitchy fans, who ironically are paying for their bloated paychecks, won’t do anything but turn them against you. Pissing back is a losing venture at other places.

Maybe he should say something like what I said above, “we have very passionate fans and booing comes with the territory. It happens with all passionate fanbases.”

See how easy that was?

The Hatfield era was when Clemson’s fanbase sprouted its first pube. Unfortunately they’re still at peach-fuzz level two decades later and haven’t fully grown into a zero-tolerance, no-bullshit group. After all, this is the same nutless bunch that allowed Bowden to hang around and hang around for almost a decade only to give Terry Don Phillips the opportunity to hire a total downgrade, then fans give this downgrade two years to get it over the hump at which point he hands Clemson its first losing season in 12 years and second straight loss to South Carolina only to give him another two-year pass like the eunuchs they are.

But at least booing was a start.

Thank god booing is something fans continue to do when the team fucks up. And in this era of Clemson football where the average fan clearly is resented and viewed as a necessary evil by the athletic department and university, that’s a good thing.

Clemson's penchant for blowing early leads

In light of the basketball team blowing leads against North Carolina in the ACC Tournament and again against West Virginia in the NCAAs, I'm reminded that Clemson's football team has a huge problem in this area as well, and it goes back a ways.


Let first define and early lead: having one in either the first or second quarter. With normally-functioning football programs with championship-caliber coaching and an actual supportive university, this kind of thing is capitalized upon. Momentum is established and rarely, again with good football teams, is that momentum taken away.


But at Clemson, it's not rare - it's pretty damn common. At Clemson, early leads cause anxiety and stress, because we all know that an early lead only translates to plenty of chances to blow them. So let's go through, year by year, and showcase yet another wart on the Tigers' collective backside:


2010 Blown leads, early or not


vs. South Carolina: Clemson jumped out early to a 7-0 lead within two minutes of 1st quarter; lost lead eight minutes later, never scored again and proceeded to lose 7-29.


@ Florida State: 10-3 advantage entering second half; lost lead in 4th quarter, never scored another touchdown and proceeded to lose 13-16.


@ Boston College: 10-3 advantage entering second quarter; lost lead in second quarter, never scored again and proceeded to lose 10-16.


vs. then-No. 16 Miami: 14-7 advantage soon after second quarter began; lost lead just over a minute later and proceeded to lose 21-30.


@ then-No. 16 Auburn: 17-3 advantage entering second half; lost lead with under four minutes to go in third quarter and proceeded to lose 24-27 in overtime.


**Among Clemson's seven total losses, five were where Clemson blew an early lead (in either the first or second quarter). (Clemson never had a lead against USF nor UNC at all so they're not listed as blown early leads above.)


Before I go any further, let me make you aware of something - in the lists above I've included all instances where Clemson lost after having a lead at some point in the game, whether an early lead or they finally gained a late one. I write this because if I didn't showcase late leads, a lot of you numbnuts out there would whine and bitch and use it as some sort of retarded excuse to discredit facts as so many of you are prone to do.


So there are three tiers of losing at Clemson: 1) not having a lead at all (which is not in the lists above), 2) blowing late leads and 3) blowing early leads. The lists above detail both late and early leads but our focus here is early leads. Let's continue.


2009 Blown leads, early or not


vs. GT (ACC Title Game): 7-3 advantage entering second quarter; lost lead inside two minutes of second quarter and never gained another lead until 6:11 to go in the game when the Tigers went up by one point. Lost lead again at 1:20 mark in regulation and proceeded to lose 34-39.


@ South Carolina: Jumped out to early 7-0 advantage via C.J. Spiller's opening kickoff return; lost lead about nine minutes later, never regained a lead, and proceeded to lose 17-34.


@ Maryland: 13-3 advantage up until 4:32 mark in second quarter; lost lead with 35 seconds left in the half and proceeded to lose 21-24.


vs. then No. 15 TCU: 3-0 advantage at 8:21 mark in first quarter; lost lead about five minutes later, regained 10-7 lead in second quarter but lost lead again just inside fourth quarter, and proceeded to lose 10-14.


@ GT: Didn't get a lead until 11:33 in fourth quarter when the Tigers went up 27-24; lost lead six minutes later and proceeded to lose 27-30.


**Among Clemson's five total losses, four were where Clemson blew an early lead.


2008 Blown leads, early or not


vs. Nebraska (Gator Bowl): 21-10 advantage in under five minutes into the second half; never scores again, loses lead with 1:40 left in third quarter and proceeds to lose 21-26.


@ Florida State: 10-0 lead up until about six minutes into first quarter; loses lead with 4:16 left in first, regains lead at 8:17 mark in second quarter, loses lead again at 1:25 mark and proceeds to lose 27-41.


vs GT: No lead until 2:16 mark in third quarter when Clemson went up 17-14; lost lead with 5:22 left in game and proceeded to lose 17-21.


@ Wake Forest: Grabbed 7-3 advantage with seven seconds to go in third quarter; lost lead at 5:28 mark and proceeded to lose 7-12. (NOTE: This was Tommy Bowden's final game.)


vs. Maryland: 10-0 advantage entering second quarter; lost lead with 10:25 to go in game and proceeded to lose 17-20.


**In Clemson's six total losses, three were where Clemson blew an early lead. (Clemson never had a lead at all against Alabama so it's not listed as a blown early lead above.)


2007 Blown leads, early or not


vs. Auburn (Chick-fil-A Bowl): 7-3 advantage entering second half; lost lead about four minutes into third quarter, regained lead at 11:24 mark in fourth, lost lead three minutes later, regained three-point lead in overtime but lost lead on a Kodi Burns scoring run, proceeding to lose 20-23.


vs. Boston College: 10-3 advantage entering fourth quarter with Atlantic Division title on the line; lost lead a minute-and-a-half later, regained lead at 5:28 mark but lost lead again with under two minutes to go, and proceeded to lose 17-20.


@ GT: "Whopping" 3-0 lead in just over a minute into first quarter; never scored again, lost lead at 5:05 mark and proceeded to lose 3-13.


**Of Clemson's four total losses, three were where Clemson blew an early lead. (Clemson never had a lead at all against VT so it's not listed as a blown early lead above.)


So in short, over the past four seasons (and I included Bowden's last years intentionally so you Dabo Dipshits won't think I'm beating up only on him), Clemson has lost a grand total of 22 losses. Of those 22, 15 of them were where Clemson had a lead in the first or second quarter then proceeded to blow it. That's 68 percent, and this two-thirds-plus leads-blowing crap has cost the Tigers wins against arch-rival South Carolina (twice), an ACC championship, an Atlantic Division title, bowl games and a win over an ensuing national champion on their own turf.


Face it: there's absolutely no way in hell Clemson will ever get over any humps if they can't maintain early momentums for any significant length of time. And because these early leads aren't all that large to begin with (most are only 10 points), there's no way you can expect your defense to keep any good offenses out of the endzone while your offense sits on the rock and plays conservatively to run out the clock. As if you can magically speed up 30 or 45 minutes of remaining gameclock that much to keep a measly 10- or 14-point lead. Please.


If this trend continues, will Swinney lose his job? Probably not, because as long as Terry Don Phillips is running the athletics department (into the ground), Swinney will be there. Swinney is TDP's golden child, and to fire Swinney is an admission of failure by TDP, and he's way to proud for that. But with Swinney at the helm, you can count on blowing early leads and continue Clemson's fine tradition of "WTF" losses.


Swinney can scold the fans countless more times for being quacky, crazy and irrelevant, and he can ban media access to this person or that all he wants. But the continues losing will happen because, well, he's Dabo Swinney - a former real estate agent who thinks he can actually talk his way out of losing.

Swinney’s media lockout good and bad, but why?

By now many of you have heard of Dabo Swinney's new media policy. Among its tenets are...

1. Swinney will no longer do one-on-one interviews with local media, including radio.
2. No media access to assistant coaches.
3. Only the coordinators will be available to media.
4. Freshman players won’t be available for interviews until week of the first game
5. No media access to grad assistants, strength coaches, player development coaches, and so on.

Now, I’m told by my bullshit “sources close to the situation” this isn’t the brainchild of athletics director Terry Don Phillips, nor SID Tim Bourret. This is all Swinney.

I can understand a few of them. The ban on assistant coaches is a good one, I think. Assistants are way way way too busy recruiting and coaching to worry about media access. If I were a head coach, I’d rather them focus on recruiting than half-and-half between that and interviews. Sure, former running backs coach André Powell had a foot-in-mouth moment when he said that backs André Ellington and Jamie Harper decided who would play and when during games, and that was beyond stupid and irresponsible as a coach. But there is a bigger issue I think.

Same thing with the grad assistants, strength coaches, development coaches, and so on. They’re so far down the totem pole I’m not sure there would be any meat on that interview’s bones.

I do think the restriction of access to incoming freshmen is a good idea, too. Those youngsters are too busy acclimating to a new life, independence, an academic environment and so on, in addition to football responsibilities mind you, to have to worry about media interviews and what to say and how to say it and when. I’m sure many of them would love an interview; they’re in the spotlight. What campus celebrity wouldn’t love that? But there are more important things for them to be concerned with initially. And, this access is only temporary. After their cherry is busted during that first game, they’re open to the media.

I’m guessing those freshmen’s parents like that too.

What’s baffling, though, is that Swinney is self-imposing a ban on the media, and stranger it’s only the local media.

After coming off Clemson’s first losing season in over a decade, first back-to-back losses to the South Carolina Gamecocks in 40 years and him scolding the fanbase multiple times during this past season (quacking ducks, crazy five percenters, message board fans being irrelevant), the timing of this can’t be considered as mere coincidence. Swinney utterly failed Clemson in 2010, and this particular media restriction smacks of humiliation and unwillingness to face the music.

Sure he's admitted failure, that it's all on him. But it's easy to take full responsibility when there are no real consequences, isn't it? As long as Phillips is there, Swinney's job is safe wins and losses be damed. So Swinney's mea culpa is light and airy at best. He's also doing this in the comforts of a press conference, where he's not being thrown fastballs and the questions pretty much controlled. Throw in there that Clemson's local beat media has been a rather nutless bunch ever since I can remember, and it makes for situation that's an all-out joke.

Furthermore, if his scoldings of the fans have alienated him from them, this only alienates him more. No radio interviews translates into no call-ins from fans during the broadcast, I’d think, which means even more disconnection from the fans.

One thing that suckered many fans in to him was his likeability and openness. After all the hideous “accomplishments” he’s achieved this past season, it’s easy to think that Swinney is now skulking into a corner hoping that time will pass and fans will forget the atrocities he’s committed in light of the program's top-10 recruiting class. As if Swinney can actually coach and develop these fine athletes to be better than they are. Please. And don’t think that fans are letting him off the hook. Swinney's enemies in the fanbase seem to be on the rise.

Not only is Swinney alienating himself further from the fans, but now he’s alienating himself from the local media. Not the national media, mind you. Probably because he feels the national humps don’t know (nor care) about Clemson enough because their livelihood doesn’t depend on the school and therefore they’ll likely be more distant, and thus nicer, to him in interviews. The local media knows him all too well, warts and all, and Swinney doesn’t want anyone with a mirror holding it up in front of him.

A while back I saw ESPN’s “30 For 30” on Southern Methodist's glory years back in the 1980s, a time the Mustangs were hell on wheels but were brought down by scandal and were subsequently put on probation, including the death penalty. During that segment legendary announcer Brent Musberger said something like “when the local beat media turn on you, you’re finished as a coach”.

If that’s true, then Swinney has indeed laid the groundwork to be skewered by everyone from Bart Wright to Travis Sawchik to Larry Williams. The only way out of it is to have a humongous season this year, and humongous doesn't mean nine goddamn wins; it means at least 10 regular season wins, an ACC title and an Orange Bowl win. If he loses or continues on with Tommy Bowden's 8-win tradition with all that talent, the media will have a field day. I know I will.

And after inexplicably driving a 10-win talented team head on into 6-7 last year, what do you think will happen in ’11?

Clemson fans officially enter Austerity

If you’ve read The Guardian (UK), NewStatesman (UK) or Le Monde (France) the past year, you likely noticed a catchy new europhrase to describe all the economic collapses and other malgoings-on in places like Spain, Greece, Ireland and, when it comes to university education and specifically tuition hikes, The Realm.

“Austerity”.

Which basically describes a period of widespread and enormous hardship. And with the release of Clemson president James Barker’s blog where he and university board chairman David Wilkins endorsed failed athletic director Terry Don Phillips and failed head football coach Dabo Swinney, many fans, especially the long-time ones, will begin enduring said hardship.

“Cut the hyperbole; it’s just a game silly!”

Wrong. When you’re talking about fans who’ve spent thousands of their hard-earned dollars each year on IPTAY membership dues, season ticket purchases and tailgating paraphernalia, it’s no longer a game. It’s an investment. And some people spend tens of thousands of dollars each year on games.

Thinking people who view it as “just a game” don’t spend that kind of coin. Unless they’re naive, which many Clemson fans are unfortunately.

No pun intended, but while the HSAS at Clemson isn’t at red alert, it’s a damn solid orange. I shouldn’t have to remind fans of the failures of Phillips, Barker or Swinney (okay, I’ll throw you a bone - Bowden extension then firing him six games later then promoting in experienced receiver coach to head coach, manipulating classroom metrics to climb a magazine’s abstract ranking, meddling in Billy Napier’s playcalling which directly causes offensive failures, respectively), so when university brass endorses this clear string of failure, it sends a clear message to the fans.

“We don’t care and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

They believe this because they know that Clemson fans not just among the most loyal in the nation, but they are so to a big fault. They know many fans have this religious worship of everything Clemson, or that they’re addicted, and they know these fans will pony up their money no matter what. It makes no sense but the fans nor the administration cares.

What the university is to fans is what a televangelist is to the poor elderly. It’s sickening and wrong, but the duped masses “believe” anyway.

Hell, there are many fans who have zero faith in the university, the athletic department and the football program but they still toss Clemson their salad anyway. It’s ridiculous and pathetic. Talk about a bunch of rubes.

In the end, you’ll see Clemson’s fans continuing to shovel money at their addiction, incorrectly thinking that to not give money is the worse alternative, Clemson football will continue to go 7-8 regular season wins with no ACC titles and a quaternary, quinary or senary bowl per year and then reward its bad head coach a contract extension for stability purposes. There will be an outcry, then Clemson will sign a top-15 recruiting class, the fans will rejoice, spring ball will come and Swinney and company will laud the players’ efforts (as if he really is capable of accurately analyzing players), fans will buy into it, summer comes and we hear more hype, fall comes and fans discover that this or that freshman is tearing it up, the hype goes through the roof once again until...

The season starts and Clemson, as normal, looks barfy right out of the gate. Seven to eight regular season wins ensues, no ACC titles...well, you get it.

The cycle starts once again and fans, particularly those who’ve been around for decades, have been stuck in it.

But this time there is no hope of change. Or at least positive change. Because he is his golden boy, Swinney is going nowhere as long as Phillips runs the athletic department, and as we now know from Barker and Wilkins, Phillips is going nowhere as long as Barker is there. And Barker is going nowhere.

The failed status quo is firmly entrenched at Clemson, and the fans and players, believe it or not, will suffer the consequences. Fans will give their money and time for naught, and the players will suffer because they will not be properly coached and developed, much less prepared for the NFL, the dream of many top high school prospects.

Firing off e-mails to the board or the president won’t do. Putting up billboards won’t change a thing. Bitching on message boards is pissing against the wind.

I’m not even certain stopping your contributions will change anything. But at least you won’t be wasting your money any longer.

And at this point, that’s the only way Clemson fans can exit their austerity.

It's over - Max Lennon has won.

Last rumors we've all heard on the possible departure of Clemson athletic director Terry Don Phillips don't offer any resounding hope for athletics, particularly football.

After the past few weeks of hearing of TDP being on a hot seat, that the university board of trustees have taken keen interest in Phillips' leadership for the past year or two, Phillips is out by year's end, and all that, we're now hearing that university president James Barker is not only not going to force Phillips out but that Phillips left the meeting with Barker encouraged?

It's almost a law of physics at this point: whatever encourages Barker and Phillips should be discouraging to fans.

At this point, as fans you have to be solidly in the fifth stage of grief: acceptance. How anyone can still get pissed over the endless stream of poor decisions made by athletic department officials and university brass? This has been 25 years in the making when then-president Max Lennon launched a war against Clemson's nationally-vaunted football program with his “academics will never be subordinate to athletics” manifesto.

But that was then, and this is now. And the mediocrity will....check that, let's not call this phenomenon at Clemson “mediocrity” anymore. This is failure.

Sure, Clemson posts non-losing seasons in football, as the administration is clearly not playing to win as much as they're playing not to lose. But when you have the facilities Clemson has, the fan support, the money (it's there, y'all, Clemson is solidly in the black), the recruits, the tradition and so on and you continue to fall short every single time, that's failure. Because failure is determined by what resources you have available to you and what success is defined as being (ACC title), and when you can't be successful in a terrible football conference with SEC-level resources, you're a failure. Plain and simple.

Laziness, frugality, unjustified arrogance, complacency, visionless, just-another-day-at-the-office – this is the energy at Clemson right now. Abject carelessness and resentment toward anything football by university leadership has been so strong for decades that it's spilled over into all other sports. Clemson athletics has had a significant overall drop in ACC championships, swimming and diving programs have been dropped, and an all-time low morale lives inside Jervey walls as verbal abuse by one or more athletic officials has been widely reported.

How Death Valley still stuffs 70,000+ most autumn Saturdays amazes me. If this were any other school whose fans cared about athletics more than the administration, you wouldn't have near that number.

But at Clemson, you do. And it's because fans have long had this religious loyalty to football, and religion can be a very blinding entity. I direct you to the followers of Muslim extremism and wacko Christian evangelism for evidence. But I do know one thing - you don't make some earthly entity or person (like a coach) into a god, and then follow him into hell. Nor do you don't allow yourself to be put into a position to where if you are considering not giving to Clemson anymore that the university or its henchmen guilt you out of it by convincing you that if you stop giving then you'll be taking food out of some “poor” player's mouth. That just makes you a dumbass and you deserve to get taken for a ride by the carnies at Clemson University if you're this stupid.

How else do you explain why 70,000+ show up every autumn Saturday after spending thousands of hard-earned dollars (in this economy no less) on IPTAY dues, season tickets and tailgating paraphernaila to watch a chronically-failed football program at work? It's religion and that's what the university is counting on. For you to be so blindly loyal that you continue to giving these carnies dollar on top of dollar and they continue to do the same failed things they've always done. They're taking you for a ride – you just haven't realized it yet.

Perhaps it's time for you to wake up a bit out of your drunken stupor from that orange kool-aid bender you've been on for 20 years. Perhaps you should consider other outlets for your entertainment, or pursue some other life path that won't lead you into failure for once. Cut bait and move on from fishing in the same spot that hasn't given you a bite in years.

In other words, if the university doesn't care about athletic success and ACC championships in football, why should you? As a fan you can't do anything to overcome poor leadership. The boosters can't even do that. Clemson's proved it for years.

If you're still worried that if you stop giving then you're turning your back on “your kids”? Don't worry, Clemson graduates numerous people every year, they'll be more than happy to take your spot and loyally feed those starving players in your absence.

Because after all, there's a sucker born every minute.

Fan departures and the hypocritical pumper backlash

So I perused a Clemson fansite and came across this 25-year-old guy whose only Clemson football experience is the dreaded Hatfield and West years. To wit: he never experienced what a championship Clemson team.

You know about message boards, right? Those whose posters coach Dabo Swinney referred to as “irrelevant” in his post-game press conference after the inexplicable loss to Florida State? The third swipe he’s taken at fans this season?

Dude went on to say that he’s quitting his Clemson patronage after this season because he’s sick of it.

Gotta say, I’m impressed with the forethought and wisdom in this young man, as he is seeing the writing on the wall at such an early age, a wall scrawling that people twice his age have yet to realize.

It is indeed disheartening, discouraging, and every other dis to be a Clemson football fan nowadays. No conference title in almost 20 years, no 10-win season, no BCS bowl invite, nothing. It’s become a waste of time, energy and money for many fans, and this 25-year-old has accepted this fact at such an early age.

Gives you a glimmer of hope that those of his age aren’t all a bunch of Jersey Shore-watching, Facebook-posting, Halo-3 nerdberries.

There were some who understood his pain but, as expected, there was a backlash from the Pumper commune.

“Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

“Calm down.”

“While you’re at it cancel your subscription.”

“Take all those fair-weather fans with you.”

Those are a few of the comments. The fact these come from the Pumpers is funny on many levels.

Funny strange, not funny ha-ha.

First, the pumpers are largely the group that bitch and moan about the “haters” dividing the fanbase with their negativity. Yet when a fed-up fan decides to quit on Clemson, which I understand completely, they launch into said fan, effectively dividing the fanbase themselves with their negativity.

But the haters largely direct their negativity toward Swinney, Terry Don Phillips, James Barker and the board of trustees. These morons, on the other hand, direct their negativity at other fans and, in sleight of hand fashion, at the players with their “we don't have the talent we think we do” crap. So, who is dividing the fanbase more?

Second, I’ve noticed after an inexplicable loss, which are many, when the realists launch into Swinney, TDP, etc then the pumpers come out and say something like “it’s just a game.” But when a fan such as the guy above realizes it is just that and gives it up, the same pumpers launch into him for not being a true fan like them. They basically bid a nasty farewell by saying “good riddance, we don’t need fans like you!”

But I thought this was just a game, right? If it’s just a game, then why are you getting all riled up over a fan who decides this so-called “game” is no longer worth his time and resources and decides to live life differently?

To the pumpers, it is just a game when Clemson loses. But when Clemson wins it is the start of something “special”. And when a justifiably disgruntled fan departs, these same people label him as a bad fan.

The pumper crowd rears its duplicitous head when fans decide to take direct action instead of pouring money into a failed program and burn a candle by their bedside hoping for the best as they do. It’s like the pumpers want the whole of Clemson’s fanbase to be just like them - a throng of rubes who are continually taken on a ride by the university’s marketing and public relations arms. To dutifully eat the same old shit sandwich the university feeds them and like it out of some warped moral obligation to “the kids”.

Clearly, Clemson’s fanbase is still divided into two distinct camps - the “true” fans, a.k.a. the pumpers, and the realists, a.k.a., the haters. Who knows the percentage of each but judging the message boards it appears slightly in favor of the realists but not by much.

But it’s rather like Congress. Sure one party has a majority, but there’s still enough of the minority party to be obstructionist and bring everything to a halt.

Until Clemson’s fanbase gets to about three-fourths of one side or the other, you’ll have this infighting but the infighting will continue regardless if the underachievement continues. Hopefully the future three-fourths will be those with a brain and clear vision and will see the deplorable state the football program is in and demand (not hope for) change.

But forget all this verbose bluster - I thought it was just a game?

Swinney insults fans for third time

From Swinney's press conference post-FSU...

"We still have a lot out there, trying to get bowl eligible this week."

Really? A bowl invite is "a lot" to Swinney? Who doesn't get invited to a bowl? Losers get bowl invites nowadays, so Clemson will be in good company.

"Last night, offensively, just missed opportunities. We moved the ball down the field but again some kicking miscues that cost us some points in the red zone. For whatever reason that's where our miscues are coming."

So, Swinney's throwing the kicking game under the bus for this loss? As if his offense had nothing to do with it? Yeah the kicking was horrific but clearly Swinney is passing the buck and blaming Chandler Catanzaro and Co. for this loss. Nowhere did he mention offensive woes (he did praise Kyle Parker for an "excellent" showing even though he had two picks against zero scores and only a 5.4 yard average). Speaking of miscues costing points, how about getting first and goal inside the 10 in the second and you can't punch it into the end zone? How is that a kicker's fault? Or first and 10 at the FSU 14 and your quarterback you can't stop raving about throws a pick on second down? Was that Catanzaro's fault too?

"...we have several dinged up"

See how he slipped the injury excuse in?

"We have a lot of good things happening in recruiting and a bunch of good kids we've redshirted."

Using recruiting as his human shield. Nice. Very vajayjay.

"I don't pay any attention to what some people on some message board may say. That's totally irrelevant to what reality is."

This is the third time Swinney's insulted the fans (first the quacking ducks snap, then the "crazy" five percenters, now this). Earth to Swinney, message board or not these are still real, fleshy fans who pay thousands a year in IPTAY memberships, season tickets and tailgating paraphernalia and have supported Clemson through thick and thin for decades, you know, the ones paying your unjustified salary...and you're failing them left and right. You best realize they're very relevant. They're tired of the mediocrity and they're tired of you dismissing them as 'irrelevant" or otherwise.

As I said in a previous blog entry, you've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt you're completely immature and can't handle the stresses that go with a head coaching job. You're like a four-year-old who didn't heed your parents' warnings and went out into the ocean as the tide is going out and now you're being carried out to sea while the lifeguard is getting his third nap of the day in. You're a lame-duck coach...well, you're just lame. Speaking of 'what reality is", your record since taking over as head coach is 14-13 when you remove all non-BCS foes except TCU. You suck and don't realize it because you're arrogant and stupid.

"There will be a time where we'll look back at this and we'll say 'Wow, we've made a lot of progress.'"

Just how delusional are you? Please, research Seroquel, then consume some.

We've definitely seen enough

See post below...

Don't blame me for being ahead of the curve.

Clemson head coach (and athletic director) candidates

I was considering not posting this right now, but on second thought I think we’ve seen enough. Don’t you?

I mean, I'm no longer willing to wait around two more years for coach Dabo Swinney's impending failure to prove itself when the writing is and has been on the wall since he was hired. The proof is there, anyone who doesn't see it is blind. Fans did that "two more years" crap with Tommy Bowden every time he had a strong recruiting class and it never paid off, and I'm not about to do it with a guy who is even less qualified than Bowden was.

But for Clemson to merely replace Swinney while keeping athletic director Terry Don Phillips around is like, well, getting an oil change while not getting your broken tie rods fixed. Merely changing the oil won’t do.

However if Clemson does fix its tie rods, it still has to change the oil. You can't solve the problem (TDP) and leave the symptoms as-is (Swinney) and think you're healed. When you're sick and you end up getting cured, the symptoms naturally go away. If you are "healed" and still experience symptoms, you're not really healed are you?

But Clemson does need an oil change regardless, so let’s start there. Some realistic replacements for Swinney might be:

Gary Patterson, head coach, TCU

Sure he turned Clemson down before, but if you were being interviewed by apathetic director Phillips wouldn’t you? Would you want to work for him? With a respectable AD running the ship, one that measures success only in championships, Patterson may be interested.

Regardless, Patterson’s track record at TCU speaks for itself. Multiple conference championships (across multiple conferences no less), BCS bowls, beating up on BCS foes including yours truly, what’s not to like? The only thing holding him back at TCU is the corrupt BCS system, which will never allow his Horned Frogs to play for the National Championship. For as good as TCU is, and they are indeed quite the program, Patterson would have a far better chance of playing for a NC at Clemson than at TCU. Proper university support being assumed, that is.

Although Patterson is not the most gettable, he is the most ideal on my board. The most gettable would be...

Gus Malzahn, offensive coordinator, Auburn

This guy will get snapped up by a BCS school sooner than later. This is one of those ‘mark it down’ moments. Arkansas offensive coordinator in ’06 when the Hogs last won the SEC West, then spent two years at Tulsa where he fielded the nation’s top offenses those years, and now at undefeated Auburn where he is coaching Heisman candidate quarterback Cam Newton. Swinney only says he’s never failed. Malzahn has actually never failed thus far in major college football.

Malzahn is probably the most gettable candidate on my board.

Rich Rodriguez, head coach, Michigan

Was Tommy Bowden’s first offensive coordinator at Clemson and then went on to his alma mater West Virginia in 2001. I don’t think I need to expound upon Rich-Rod’s successes at Clemson and West Virginia.

Admittedly he’s struggling in Ann Arbor. So much that he’s on a hot seat and may not make it to the end of the year. If so, he would be prime pickings for Clemson, and I don’t think anyone in Tigertown would hold Rich Rod accountable for his failures at Michigan. Clemson is more like West Virginia than Michigan so he would be a better fit here than in Ann Arbor.

But like for Patterson, would Rich Rod work for someone as incompetent and careless as Phillips?

Vic Koenning, defensive coordinator, Illinois

Was Tommy Bowden’s DC for four years through the 2008 season, when Koenning fielded strong defenses throughout his time at Clemson. Sure he has an elastic defensive philosophy, but stats don’t lie, as Clemson’s defenses were chronically in the nation’s top-20 in yardage allowed and scoring. Not to mention the fact he’s prepared and sent a shitload of players to the NFL (Gaines Adams, Phillip Merling, Michael Hamlin, Darell Scott, Chris Clemons, Anthony Waters, etc). There is a track record of measureable success with Koenning, unlike with Swinney.

Koenning also has head coaching experience via Wyoming. But although Koenning failed there, who wouldn’t? Clemson needs someone who is qualified, has measureable success and is competent. It doesn’t need someone who can raise the dead. (Well, maybe it does.)

Koenning is probably just as gettable as Malzahn, and it is my opinion that a responsible athletic director would have awarded the Clemson head coaching job to Koenning before to Swinney.

Bud Foster, defensive coordinator, Virginia Tech

This guy has historically fielded top defenses, period. He knows how to punch an opposing offense in the mouth to where they don’t get up. Why this guy hasn’t been snapped up by now is beyond me.

I’ll retract my statements about Koenning and Malzahn as being most gettable. Foster is by far the most gettable, as he publicly stated he would jump at the chance at the Clemson job if offered. He said that back in 2008 so I can only assume he’d still jump on it.

Kevin Steele, defensive coordinator, Clemson

Steele’s candidacy will be controversial, as he is in fact part of an overall failure of a coaching staff. His defenses have been erratic and unpredictable up until the past few games, for certain. But his candidacy will only be legitimate if his defenses continue to be a dominant ACC force, as at the time of this writing Clemson defense is first in the ACC in touchdown scoring and tied for eighth in the nation in the same category. And touchdown scoring is arguably the top KPI for defenses in my mind. Yeah it's frustrating to see a defense let an opposing offense drive down the field, but if they end up giving it away or you force them to settle for a field goal, you just made them waste a lot of time, and that can demoralize them.

Outside of Clemson, has coached at top schools, has coached in the NFL and was Baylor’s head coach at one time. But like with Koenning, it’s extremely rare and difficult to win at Baylor so I can’t hold his failures there against him.

But, again we’ll have to wait and see how his defenses fare the rest of the season. If it implodes against Florida State and South Carolina, then his candidacy will be immediately retracted.

Quick list of who I would not consider, at all, no way in hell:

• anyone on the current staff except for Kevin Steele
• Bobby Bentley
• Bobby Johnson
• Troy Calhoun
• Mark Richt
• Danny Ford (let’s give it a rest, okay?)
• Ellis Johnson
• Tommy Bowden
• Rob Spence

Why would you want any of these guys when Foster, Malzahn and Koenning would be all over this?

Now, on to the tie rods. Possible replacements for Terry Don Phillips and the era of laziness and complaceny.

Jeff Davis, Asst. AD for Player Relations and External Affairs, Clemson University

Forget football for a moment, where he won Clemson’s only national championship then played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for several years. This guy has made quite the life for him and his family after football. Started the Call Me Mister program at Clemson, which according to Clemson’s website “seeks to recruit, train, certify, and secure employment for African-American males as elementary teachers in the state's public schools. In 2001, he was awarded $100,000 for the program from Oprah Winfrey's ‘Angel Network.’”

Ordained minister on top of that, and you have a monster of ambassador for Clemson, which is what Phillips is nowhere close to being. Davis has proven he can connect with the people and can raise funds, two things Phillips fails at miserably. Clemson needs a positive force running the show, and Davis more than qualifies.

The only knock against Davis is a guilt-by-association thing. He’s part of a poor athletic department now, and that may be cause for concern. But I’m not certain fans would object to his promotion.

Dwight Clark

Played at Clemson and produced so well there that he was handpicked by Niner head coach Bill Walsh for the draft. He went on to San Francisco, earned accolades for the legendary “Catch” where he helped lead the Niners to an NFC championship. They went on to win the city’s first Super Bowl, which was the launching salvo in the 49ers becoming one of the elite NFL franchises.

After his playing career he was a team executive for the Niners and the Cleveland Browns. So he clearly knows how to run a football program from a front office standpoint, unlike Phillips.

He lives in California, reportedly, and has established a life there, so I wonder if he would be interested in the job to begin with. Nonetheless, he would be a great hire and quite frankly, Clark is choice No. 1 on my board.

Mark Richardson

Former Clemson player who went on to help create the Carolina Panthers NFL franchise, where he served as President. Like Clark, he has playing and front office experience which only lends more credibility to a hire.

Danny Ford

I was on the fence about this. On one hand I think Clemson should let the memory of Danny Ford be just that - a memory. Like Davis he is a great ambassador for Clemson and would do well, but due to his age Ford is no long-term solution. I would take Ford in a New York minute for interim athletic director while they search for a permanent replacement.

But then again a couple years ago Nebraska hired the then-71-year-old Tom Osborne to be interim AD in Lincoln, only to make him the permanent director later. In his interim Osborne kicked the failed (and arrogant) Bill Callahan to the curb and hired Bo Pelini, who was a very successful defensive coordinator prior to taking the Nebraska job. If all Ford did was clean house in Jervey and kick Swinney and his bunch of failures to the curb, replacing him with a candidate with actual proven qualifications, that would galvanize Clemson fans and give them some level of true hope, unlike in many, many years.

Quick list of who I would not consider, at all, no way in hell:

• anyone currently in the Department except for Davis (hell, they all need to be fired)
• Tommy Bowden
• Ken Hatfield
• Bobby Johnson
• Dabo Swinney
• Rob Spence
• Brad Scott
• Bobby Bentley (I know some of you have a hard-on for him)
• anyone in an ACC school’s front office
• anyone in a Big East school’s front office
• anyone from any South Carolinian school

Worth mentioning: if a new head coach was hired and they asked me about position coaches who I think would be good defensive coordinators, I’d recommend Mike Ekeler, Nebraska’s linebackers coach. Long-time pupil of Bo Pelini, a fiery recruiter and was instrumental in the resurgence of Nebraska’s Black Shirt defense.

Clemson officials resent football? Not impossible.

A noted Clemson fan on a Tiger message board out there on the interweb had his opinion of the state of the football program posted (with his permission of course). Basically he argued that the university administration is willfully killing the football program so it won’t prostrate the academic side of the school as it is perceived to have done during football’s glory years of the 1980s.

It wasn’t a surprise to see a few dismiss this argument as being ridiculous.

Perhaps, because if Clemson University did indeed kill the football program, then the enormous revenue football brings the university would dry up. Given university officials are more corporate whores than true academians, I can see this also.

In reality, I think it’s both. Officials would love for football to go away but they’re not about to sacrifice the revenue that comes with it.

Because they suffer through something they resent in exchange for money, they epitomize the classic definition of whore.

As intelligent Clemson fans know, this all started in 1985 when Max Lennon was named University President after serving as an administrator at Ohio State. I’m not getting into details but I will say than when Lennon declared athletics would be subordinate to athletics, you have to remember the context of the time.

Clemson was a rising football power when Lennon took over. So much so that it is my belief that had Danny Ford been given two more years the Tigers would have been playing for a second national title. So when a university president says something like this during an era like that, the only way for that to happen with any expediency is to systematically dismantle football.

You can’t bring academics up quickly at all but what you can do quickly is bring football down.

It’s funny really. For all the academic bluster by Lennon and his cronies I don’t remember Clemson’s academics improving significantly under his watch. If true, all he did was destroy football and did nothing academically. The only thing I remember him doing was spend spend spend and build buildings. And it didn’t stop at Clemson; when he went to Mars Hill College the professors there hated him because of his fascist, corporate ways.

Nonetheless, the intentional destruction of football, no academic improvement and a deluge of cosmetic improvements to the university campus marked Lennon’s Clemson.

Is the same philosophy still present at Clemson?

I’m not certain that Clemson’s current leadership is as fascist as Lennon (maybe it is, I don’t know), but I do think it’s very probable that current officials are still intentionally reigning football in as a pre-emptive measure to keep it from being "too big".

I do know that it is highly prevalent among academians to resent sports in general. While I respect and agree with most of his philosophies, I do think prominent linguist and anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky’s view of sports is a bit over the top. A couple of quotes:

“Sports plays a societal role in engendering jingoist and chauvinist attitudes. They're designed to organize a community to be committed to their gladiators.”

“...it occupies the population, and keeps them from trying to get involved with things that really matter.”

When considering Clemson’s pitifully average to below-average state over the past two decades and the more global view of sports’ perception among academic purists, yes I do think it’s very possible that Clemson still has forces within it whose goal is to keep football down. Very.

But again, these same forces are not about to do what they really want because of one reason only - money. Clemson prefers to dupe its gullible fanbase into believing it is football friendly and there is absolutely no hostility towards it at all in hopes of keeping revenues maxed out.

For all who may disagree with him, at least Dr. Chomsky isn’t a hypocrite when it comes to sports. Clemson officials are.

* * *

What Clemson officials don’t realize, or more likely don’t want to face, is that schools can have strong academics and strong football programs as well. Here is a list of schools that are actually capable of doing both.

• Georgia Tech (2009 ACC champion)
• Texas (2005 & 2009 Big XII champions)
• Ohio State (BigTen champion each year since 2005)
• Harvard (four Ivy League titles since 2001)
• Penn (four Ivy League titles since 2000)
• USC (six straight Pac-10 titles from 2003-2008)
• Oregon (2009 Pac-10 champion and current leader in 2010)
• Florida (three SEC titles from 2000-2008, 2006 & 2008 BCS champion)

What do all these schools have in common? They’re all members of the esteemed 63-member Association of American Universities, America’s version of the UK’s Russell Group (Oxford, Cambridge, etc). Magazine rankings are a beauty pageant, but to be an AAU member is where the real prestige is. All Clemson has is a magazine ranking, something you can manipulate your way up. You can’t manipulate your way into AAU membership. That requires real work.

This is clear, undeniable proof that schools can have top-notch academics and a championship football program simultaneously. But will Clemson fact this indisputable fact? Not a chance.

Considering its long-time goal to make athletics subordinate to academics, in the end Clemson has neither.