(12-14-2015 10:37 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  South Carolina has zero SEC titles.

That is correct, but you'd never know it by how much pub they were getting with Spurrier. 11-2 three years in a row was no joke.

(12-14-2015 08:51 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Clemson just needs to make a brand name for itself....just like Baylor or Oregon. Keep winning and the money will follow.

i wonder how Clemson got Sammy Watkins, CJ Spiller, Taj Boyd, Deshaun Watkins, out of other states with no brand recogintiioin. these were highly recruited players by top football programs.

you are not making any sense. anybody that pays attention to colelge football is aware of Clemson.

Clemson has had 5 straight seasons of 10 plus wins with numerous wins over SEC schools, OSU, ND, FSU, and Oklahoma. no brand? But SC has a brand b/c of three 11-2 seasons?

(12-14-2015 10:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 09:07 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 09:05 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 08:51 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Clemson just needs to make a brand name for itself....just like Baylor or Oregon. Keep winning and the money will follow.

Clemson and FSU's best path to the playoffs is through the ACC...I know it doesn't follow their agenda...additionally the bump that Notre Dame delivers the conference helps.

We're talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about Clemson making more money by increasing brand recognition. You don't have to leave the ACC to do that.

Goes hand in hand...The Big East was awesome for Cuse in the 80s/90s as they built up their brand winning in both sports. They had a decent FB brand (albeit tarnished) but the BE made them a national elite brand in Hoops too with the BE and allowed them to rebuild their FB brand (which they puked all over the last 15 years).

Clemson excelling in the ACC is doing the same thing for them in FB...it is allowing them to get to national elite status in FB. Not sure it would happen in the SEC as easily.

Clemson's recruiting would be even better if it was in the SEC. the main selling point SC and other SEC schools use against Clemson with recruits is Clems is not in the SEC. Clemson is going to be one of the best football programs regardless of what conference it is in.

(12-15-2015 07:55 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 08:51 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Clemson just needs to make a brand name for itself....just like Baylor or Oregon. Keep winning and the money will follow.

i wonder how Clemson got Sammy Watkins, CJ Spiller, Taj Boyd, Deshaun Watkins, out of other states with no brand recogintiioin. these were highly recruited players by top football programs.

you are not making any sense. anybody that pays attention to colelge football is aware of Clemson.

Clemson has had 5 straight seasons of 10 plus wins with numerous wins over SEC schools, OSU, ND, FSU, and Oklahoma. no brand? But SC has a brand b/c of three 11-2 seasons?

How did this conversation start Clem? We were talking about money and Clemson making more of it. Having brand recognition helps bring in the money. I never said Clemson had NO brand recognition. I suggested if they keep winning they will INCREASE their brand and therefore start making more money.

lol no you've said severl times Clemson doesn't have much of a brand and point to clothing sales. lol

I counter that by pointing out Clemson recruits well out of state and you shifted your argument.

you've also asserted SC has a brand due to three 11-2 seasons while not granting CLemson the same brand for being one of the most winning schools of the past 5 years.

(12-15-2015 08:49 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  lol no you've said severl times Clemson doesn't have much of a brand and point to clothing sales. lol

I counter that by pointing out Clemson recruits well out of state and you shifted your argument.

you've also asserted SC has a brand due to three 11-2 seasons while not granting CLemson the same brand for being one of the most winning schools of the past 5 years.

I said Clemson doesn't have the same level of brand recognition and I even used us as an example. Recruiting well doesn't make people buy your merchandise...WINNING does. Clemson has always recruited fairly well but they weren't WINNING enough. SC became the "cool" school in the state when they kicked Clemson in the teeth 5 years in a row ending with their 3rd consecutive 11-2 season. Now Clemson has won 2 in a row. Now Clemson is in the college football playoff. Now Clemson has a Heisman Trophy candidate. Now Clemson is ranked #1 for the first time in over 30+ years. Now people are talking about Clemson. Now people are starting to buy Clemson. You see how that works?????

SC never kicked Clemson in teeth all 5 years. last two years of their streak, the games were close. Clemson was the better team the last year of it , but the punt returner fumbled twice and gae them short field.

Clemson beat LSU and UGA the same season that SC lost to them. SC also lost to a bad TN team. so the idea that they were this much better program is only the result of tunnel vision. you have to look at the whole resume not one game.

what proof do u have clemson sales are going up? Clemson fans have always bought a lot of Clemson stuff.

how do we know the exact number of merchandise sales for each university? So if I go buy a Clemson hate in downtown Clemson at Knickerbockers, that sale gets reported in the overall sales number for Clems merchandise? loll bullshite

(12-15-2015 09:29 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  SC never kicked Clemson in teeth all 5 years. last two years of their streak, the games were close. Clemson was the better team the last year of it , but the punt returner fumbled twice and gae them short field.

Clemson beat LSU and UGA the same season that SC lost to them. SC also lost to a bad TN team. so the idea that they were this much better program is only the result of tunnel vision. you have to look at the whole resume not one game.

what proof do u have clemson sales are going up? Clemson fans have always bought a lot of Clemson stuff.

how do we know the exact number of merchandise sales for each university? So if I go buy a Clemson hate in downtown Clemson at Knickerbockers, that sale gets reported in the overall sales number for Clems merchandise? loll bullshite

Maybe you should do more research before you run your mouth

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/ar...40470.html

i guarantee the true merchandise sales for Clemson is as good as any university in the country and has been since the 80s. There might be less merchandise sales on a specific website but the total sales from all retailers is competitive. You don't have to be no. 1 and winning national titles to sell university gear.

sales going up and down based on how good the season is, is a lot different thing than branding. Branding is about name recognition, being asssociated with having a decent football program. Clemson has a brand. every program has some average and bad seasons.

i doubt most Clemson fans get their stuff at House Divided. lol going to cost a lot more than somebody at Kohl's or similar store.

(12-14-2015 08:51 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Clemson just needs to make a brand name for itself....just like Baylor or Oregon. Keep winning and the money will follow.

Oregon I'll give you, but when did Baylor become a brand name?

The Bears have had a nice little run, but I don't consider them a brand name at all.

Their next significant OOC victory, will be their first one.

so, to reduce your argument to its ramifications, the only way Clemson can have a brand is basically to never lose football games, b/c when a program is losing or mediocre, merchandise sales fall.

so in other words, Texas and Michigan and other colleges don't have a brand anymore b/c they've struggled in recent years.

lol

(12-15-2015 09:46 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 08:51 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Clemson just needs to make a brand name for itself....just like Baylor or Oregon. Keep winning and the money will follow.

Oregon I'll give you, but when did Baylor become a brand name?

The Bears have had a nice little run, but I don't consider them a brand name at all.

Their next significant OOC victory, will be their first one.

When they replaced Oregon as the most prolific offense in the country. The fact they can play no one OOC and still be an eyelash from making it into the college football playoffs (see last year). The fact RGIII was able to win the Heisman Trophy playing for said college. Analysts now see them as a perennial contender.

(12-14-2015 10:27 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  The more I think about how the B-10 is really trying to claim the Northeast for themselves, the more it becomes apparent that the ACC needs one more good expansion. We cannot ignore that part of the country, but it doesn't have to weaken a more southerly, football-oriented flow, either.

Remembering what happened to the unfortunate Big East---the ACC must seek to be proactive or get picked apart. The B-10 with their blocking of CCG deregulation clearly illustrates that whatever hogwash Delamey is spewing, he's trying to shake something loose from either the B-12 or ACC.

I've always assumed ND would stay Indy in football, and that is fine, but we can still go to 16, 17 all-sports w/ ND. The BE was going to do this before all the evil happened.

Here is what we do: something for everyone. We bring in West Virginia & UConn. That will please all factions, we keep the divisions the same and add WVU to the Atlantic, UConn in the Coastal. This will Greatly boost the conference and I believe secure it's future...

If I had to guess, Clemson and Florida State were likely opposed to adding Syracuse and Pitt. Maybe not expanding in the northeast was one of the promises kaplony says the ACC made to them but didn't keep. Pushing the balance of the league even further north is more likely to drive those two schools away than it is to secure the ACC's future.

If the SEC were to accept Clemson and FSU, they would leave so fast it would make your head spin. With 8 former Big East members in the league, they would probably accept an invitation to the Big 12, albeit a little more reluctantly.

lol i love it when ppl assert CLemson would leave the ACC if SEC offered. the SEC brownnosers think that every program is dying to be in the SEC.

there also isn't evidence that Clemson opposed Cuse or Pitt being added. I believe Clemson voted for it.

(12-15-2015 09:50 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  so, to reduce your argument to its ramifications, the only way Clemson can have a brand is basically to never lose football games, b/c when a program is losing or mediocre, merchandise sales fall.

so in other words, Texas and Michigan and other colleges don't have a brand anymore b/c they've struggled in recent years.

lol

So your way of dealing with being wrong is to turn everything into a joke. No one ever said they can't lose. Alabama LOSES.

If you're good for a long time, you can create an entire generation of fans. That in turn generates sales no matter what the team does. Here is an example that is near and dear to my heart...maybe this will help you.

Before 1985, the state of NC was generally split between UNC and NC State in basketball...UNC had the majority but it wasn't an insane split. Duke was pretty much an afterthought. Coach arrives on the scene and within a few years he has his team in the Final Four and winning championships and NC State stopped winning. By the time we get to 1995, NC State is the afterthought and NC is split between Duke and UNC. That continues to today.

It's the same for Clemson. If they continue winning at a high level. 5-10 years from now they can be a household name like Texas, Alabama, FSU, etc.

(12-15-2015 10:02 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:50 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  so, to reduce your argument to its ramifications, the only way Clemson can have a brand is basically to never lose football games, b/c when a program is losing or mediocre, merchandise sales fall.

so in other words, Texas and Michigan and other colleges don't have a brand anymore b/c they've struggled in recent years.

lol

So your way of dealing with being wrong is to turn everything into a joke. No one ever said they can't lose. Alabama LOSES.

If you're good for a long time, you can create an entire generation of fans. That in turn generates sales no matter what the team does. Here is an example that is near and dear to my heart...maybe this will help you.

Before 1985, the state of NC was generally split between UNC and NC State in basketball...UNC had the majority but it wasn't an insane split. Duke was pretty much an afterthought. Coach arrives on the scene and within a few years he has his team in the Final Four and winning championships and NC State stopped winning. By the time we get to 1995, NC State is the afterthought and NC is split between Duke and UNC. That continues to today.

It's the same for Clemson. If they continue winning at a high level. 5-10 years from now they can be a household name like Texas, Alabama, FSU, etc.

literally every footballl fan in the country has heard of CLemson. it is a household name but the reality is your average fan doesn't care about TTexas, Bama , etc football. if they don't root for those schools

i don't care if Clemson is a 'household name' with people as long as it gets good recruits. if if we are recruiting well out of state, it means it has a name and a brand. i don't see how u can deny this

If SC had a great brand now after Spurrier, it seems like they would have landed a different coach than Muschamp.

(12-15-2015 10:05 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:02 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:50 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  so, to reduce your argument to its ramifications, the only way Clemson can have a brand is basically to never lose football games, b/c when a program is losing or mediocre, merchandise sales fall.

so in other words, Texas and Michigan and other colleges don't have a brand anymore b/c they've struggled in recent years.

lol

So your way of dealing with being wrong is to turn everything into a joke. No one ever said they can't lose. Alabama LOSES.

If you're good for a long time, you can create an entire generation of fans. That in turn generates sales no matter what the team does. Here is an example that is near and dear to my heart...maybe this will help you.

Before 1985, the state of NC was generally split between UNC and NC State in basketball...UNC had the majority but it wasn't an insane split. Duke was pretty much an afterthought. Coach arrives on the scene and within a few years he has his team in the Final Four and winning championships and NC State stopped winning. By the time we get to 1995, NC State is the afterthought and NC is split between Duke and UNC. That continues to today.

It's the same for Clemson. If they continue winning at a high level. 5-10 years from now they can be a household name like Texas, Alabama, FSU, etc.

literally every footballl fan in the country has heard of CLemson. it is a household name but the reality is your average fan doesn't care about TTexas, Bama , etc football. if they don't root for those schools

i don't care if Clemson is a 'household name' with people as long as it gets good recruits. if if we are recruiting well out of state, it means it has a name and a brand. i don't see how u can deny this

You must not understand there are different LEVELS of branding. As I stated earlier, this conversation started about Clemson making more money. Clemson keeps winning now, that fan base will increase for future generations. Think FSU. Before Bowden started turning FSU into the elite, no one batted an eye about them. Now they are one of the top brands in college football.

(12-15-2015 10:07 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  If SC had a great brand now after Spurrier, it seems like they would have landed a different coach than Muschamp.

You haven't noticed that the SEC is turning into an inbred conference from a coaching standpoint? Don't you think Florida should have been able to do better than McIlwain? Kirby Smart is really the best Georgia can do?

SC has always liked Muschamp for some reason. They considered bringing him in to be the HCIW before he went to Auburn.