FanNation - The Republic of Sport

In the wake of the Tommy Bowden "resignation", I think a little perspective is in order:  I am going to compare two coaches, Bowden and Bellotti, the coach of Oregon.  Why?  Both lead teams with some amazingly similar circumstances. 

Oregon and South Carolina are both states with between 3 and 4 million people, therefore, the same local recruiting base.  Both states are home to two division 1 schools, and a number of smaller schools.  Both rely mostly on recruiting in a large neighboring state (California and Florida) for most of their talent.  Both exist in cities of between 50,000 and 100,000 and campuses the same size.  Both are members of very good but not quite elite conferences.  Both have some challenges recruiting away from more well known schools, but both have had some decent recruiting and in that respect have been seen to overachieve.  Both have had long term coaches who have dealt with high expectations.  But one is gone and one is still safe.  I think there is an interesting study here.

 So here is the comparison:

                                                                 Clemson                  Oregon

Record under current coach                      72-45   .621             109-52   .677

National Titles under current coach           0                                 0

League Titles under current coach            0/10    (0%)              2/14 (14%)

9 wins or better season under coach       3/10 (30%)               6/14  (43%)

Bowl games under coach                          8/9  (89%)                 11/13 (85%)

Bowl Record under coach                          3-5 (40%)                   5-6 (45%)

 What I see is two coaches who under similar circumstances, produced similar results.  Bellotti had a couple of extremely good seasons when Harrington was his QB and Tedford his OC, Bowden had a perfect season at Tulane the year before coming to Clemson.  Both are now above average, making bowls most years, but have not reached elite status, even within their leagues. 

While both produced similar results, one is gone and the other is relatively safe in his job.  Why?  A difference of expectations.  Clemson considers itself an elite football program.  It has a national title and even more significant, is in the South where football is king.  Oregon is in the Pacific Northwest, where football has been a joke until recent years.  But is the difference in their pasts really that big?

                                                                Clemson                   Oregon

Record since 1970                                  206-120-8 (.632)        106-149-4 (.416)

Nat Champs in prior history                    1                                0

League titles in prior history                  18                              5

Bowl Record in Prior History                   12-10  (22 games)    3-7 (10 games)

So it looks legitimate.  Clemson comes from a winning tradition that includes a national title and eighteen league titles, they have a right to expect more.  But lets look a little more recent: 

10 years prior to current coach              6 bowls, 1 conf title   4 bowls, 1 league title

In the recent past, the last ten prior to the current coaches, the teams were basically indistinguishable.  So the evidence says that Clemson fans and media have an expectation of excellence, of national titles, BCS games, and always being in the running for a league title.  Oregon fans and media look for 8-9 win seasons and an occasional Rose Bowl.  The difference is based on the distant past and is no longer valid. 

While Clemson was closer to an elite team 20 years ago, they are just a little above average now, and it can't be pinned on Bowden, it existed before he arrived.  Clemson and Oregon are at the same level and ought to have similar expectations.  Maybe that means Oregon ought to have higher demands, maybe Clemson ought to be more realist.  You want to know the big difference?  Clemson is next door to Georgia.  Georgia spent most of its recent years as another good but not elite team, similar history, similar recent history, and they went and hired Mark Richt.  They had gone 20 years without a league title, twenty two since their national title, and in 6 years, they have 2 SEC titles and are now considered elite.  Clemson measures itself by the Bulldogs, not the Ducks, and by that measurement, Bowden has failed.  Is this fair?  Is this legitimate?  You be the judge. 

 I lived in Augusta Georgia for 4 years in the Navy (1998-2002) and I always thought the 2 Georgia and 2 South Carolina teams were living off past hype and not as good as they thought they were.  Georgia made a move and has stepped up over the last six years.  Can Clemson?  Y'all tell me.