Tigers not the biggest underachievers

By Chris Preston  |   Monday, August 25, 2008  |  Comments( 4 )

 Clemson Tigers
Judging by the number of win-or-else articles written about Clemson football as we approach the start of the 2008 season, it’s clear that the national media are quite intrigued by the Tigers’ much-heralded underachiever status during head coach Tommy Bowden’s tenure. Scribes far and wide have weighed in on the tantalizing possibilities...
What's the buzz about?

Log In above and share your thoughts on this topic with other fans!

CommentsComments: 4
 No.1
RazzMaTazz		 05:01 AM
08/25/2008
If you define underachieving as ending up ranked around the average of the ranking of your recruiting classes, then apparently Clemson hasn't been underachieving over the last 4 years, but VT and Wake have been overachieving. However, there are other yardsticks. For example, if you take a once-great football program with a strong fanbase, and turn it into a perennially upper-mediocre for almost 2 decades, one might consider that underachieving. Or if you tend to lose big games where you're favored, one might consider that underachieving.

Good analysis though. I feel much better about not having won an ACC title since 1991, now that I know we're not underachieving.
 No.2
NB		 02:56 PM
08/25/2008
I totally agree with the writer's premise that Florida State and Miami have been collossal underacheivers in the last 3 seasons of college football. However, the reason why these programs receive less flak than Clemson is because they have recemtly won national titles and conference titles. the Tigers have not won either since 1991 (18 yrs.). The Clemson faithful, as well as this writer, needs to stop being satisfied with 9-4 records and second-tier bowl bids. If Jim Grobe had this team, forget the Orange Bowl, the Tigers would be in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl playing for the national title. The reason for the decline in these three programs is simple: they have abandoned the fundamentals and are relying on talent and speed alone. While those attributes have their place, they are NO substitute for the pure fundamentals of the game. Great coaches throughout history have always been great motivators. I have always believed that when a coach can't motivate, he loses his edge.
I believe this is the case with Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno, who in the past had the energy to motivate. However, with the aging process overtaking them, the energy is gone, therefore their players simply aren't responding to them as much today.
The wealth of knowledge and the wisdom is still there, but they no longer can summon up the energy to motivate, drive their players to excellence like they once could. To them it's all about notebooks, earphones and game strategy now, no fire. The motivational cup is empty now. Clemson has the players now, but where is the FIRE, the fervent desire, the NEED to win? that comes from the head coach, The energy supplier, the feeder of life to the program. Like Knute Rockne, Bear Bryant, Ara Parseghian, John McKay, Vince Lombardi, Barry Switzer or Bud Wilkinson.

All these coaches had one thing in common: they were great motivators. Lou Holtz was a tremendous motivator at Notre Dame until he got older and lost his edge. They found ways to light a flame under their players. Is Tommy Bowden a motivator? The last nine years would say he is not, and this is why Clemson doubters knock their chances. With all that said,
if the fundamentals are preached, and the motivation is strong, a very good to great team will be built. Miami, Fla. State and Clemson lack both right now in their programs, and this is why they are underachieveing programs despite having great athletic talent. The one program that seems to have both these elements in strong operation is Ohio State, who has played in three national title games in the 2000s, and are predicted by some this year to get back there again. Give Jim Tressel credit.
 No.3
paw'em		 11:09 AM
09/04/2008
NB, well put. Can't do better but do have one objection. Ohio State. If the buckeye's played in the sec, big 12 or pac 10 they would not be the perennial fav for the bcs championship. Not only is there a big 10 prejudice (although slight) in the sports media but OSU has had the luxury of breezing thru a relatively easy big 10 conference. Don't believe me? Dukes only win last year....Northwestern. Purdue hit a last sec fieldgoal to beat C.Mich. in thier bowl.....the same C.M. team Clemson pounded 70-14. Wisc. survived a close one with the Citadel. App. State over Mich. in the big house. The illini was good but outside the conference they couldn't stop anything on defense. Looks like the same this year. Ohio State's lack of motivation in their last two bowls rivaled Clemson saturday night. OSU's last bowl victory was over N.D. The one national champ Tressel got was at the hands of a horrible call. Keith Jackson said the call against Miami in that game wasn't a bad call...it was a crime. I could go on forever baby. I'm not saying the big 10 is bad, just overrated. To Tressel's credit. You gotta win consistently in your conference to get there and he does. Bowden can't make that claim.
Comments that include profanity, or personal attacks, or antisocial behavior such as "spamming" or "trolling," or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of use. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.