Corps Day, spring football, and some Beautiful Bulldogs

This is basically just a post to upload a few pictures I took on Corps Day at The Citadel. I arrived on campus in time to watch most of the parade, then wandered over to Johnson Hagood Stadium to see the various entrants for the fourth annual Beautiful Bulldog Contest. I have to say the costumes on some of the dogs were…inventive.

I then watched the spring football game, though I had to leave during the third quarter.

There are, to be sure, other outlets for (much better) photos of these events, including the school’s own website. I also highly recommend this gallery of Beautiful Bulldog Contest pictures from WCIV-TV, and this one from The Post and Courier.

It was a nice day for a parade, and a game, and for a bunch of bulldogs (and their handlers) to goof around.

I don’t have any in-depth observations to make about the football scrimmage. The offense is a work in progress. Mitchell Jeter was arguably the standout player overall.

Key stat: no serious injuries were reported (Walker Smith did twist/sprain his ankle).

There was a decent crowd in attendance, perhaps around 800-1,000 fans. There may have been more; I’m not sure how many people were in the club section.

Riley Report: a brief (and late) preseason preview

Yes, this is late. I was waiting on some information that as of yet isn’t available, so I can’t work on part of the statistical breakdown I had intended to make.

Anyway, what follows is a curtailed preview.

Links of interest:

Schedule

“Quick Facts” from the school website

Season preview from The Post and Courier

SoCon preview, Baseball America

SoCon preview, College Baseball Daily

SoCon preseason polls (The Citadel is picked second in both)

SoCon preseason all-conference teams

Fred Jordan discusses the team’s preparations for the season (video)

Note: all statistics are for Southern Conference games only unless otherwise indicated.

This chart features the 2013 offensive statistics in league play for The Citadel’s returning players:

Player AB R HR BB SO AVG OBP SLG OPS
H. Armstrong 120 36 0 13 15 0.383 0.449 0.467 0.916
Mason Davis 140 30 3 7 17 0.336 0.377 0.464 0.841
Calvin Orth 124 26 7 4 25 0.331 0.366 0.565 0.931
Bo Thompson 105 27 9 33 13 0.314 0.493 0.610 1.103
Tyler Griffin 58 14 4 10 20 0.310 0.423 0.552 0.975
D. DeKerlegand 111 22 2 15 23 0.297 0.410 0.441 0.851
J. Stokes 121 20 3 9 18 0.289 0.333 0.413 0.746
Bailey Rush 55 8 2 5 16 0.273 0.328 0.473 0.801
Bret Hines 42 4 0 4 8 0.214 0.300 0.262 0.562
Jason Smith 21 2 0 1 7 0.048 0.087 0.048 0.135
Connor Walsh 3 0 0 0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Totals 900 189 30 101 163 0.309 0.389 0.471 0.860

Now, compare that to the totals in conference action for the returning players from this time last year:

AB R HR BB SO AVG OBP SLG OPS
Totals 705 94 7 78 142 0.234 0.318 0.333 0.652

You can see why there is a lot of hope for the Bulldogs’ offense this season. Every one of last year’s regulars returns except for catcher Joe Jackson (though he is a big exception, to be sure), and most of those returnees had good-to-excellent campaigns in 2013. The outlook is a lot rosier than it was prior to the 2013 season.

-

Assorted stats from this year’s returning players: as a group they were hit by pitches 25 times in SoCon play. Their walk rate (11.2%) per at bat was a tick higher than in 2012 (11.1%), with almost a third of that total courtesy of Bo Thompson, who walked in 31.4% of his at bats.

Thompson was also hit by pitches six times in the league regular season, second on the team to Drew DeKerlegand (seven).

Hughston Armstong had seven of the team’s 23 sacrifice bunts in SoCon action. Nine of the eleven Bulldogs to get at bats in conference play had at least one sacrifice fly (the team had 12 in 30 league games).

The Citadel’s 2013 returnees stole 30 bases last year in conference play (out of 42 attempts). Armstrong, DeKerlegand, and Mason Davis combined for 28 of those steals, with Bret Hines swiping the other two.

That percentage of successful steals (71.4%) isn’t bad, but it isn’t great either, and doesn’t include the seven times Bulldogs on the current roster were picked off in SoCon action.

However, what isn’t taken into account with those numbers is the potential for advancing on errors, balks, etc. Defensive execution in college baseball is not at the same level as it is in the professional ranks, and that goes a long way to explaining the emphasis by many teams on the running game and “smallball”.

Is it overdone on occasion? Yes. However, I never got the sense that was the case for The Citadel last year (other than a Bo Thompson bunt attempt early in the season that made me cringe).

That said, the Bulldogs can do better. In 2012, The Citadel stole bases at a 77.8% clip (42 for 54) while only having five baserunners picked off in league play.

SoCon-only statistics for the Bulldogs’ returning pitchers:

G GS IP H R ER HR ERA K/9 BB/9
Brett Tompkins 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0.00 15.00 6.00
Ross White 9 0 8 10 4 2 0 2.25 6.75 1.13
James Reeves 13 3 32 27 11 9 1 2.53 7.59 1.69
Logan Cribb 10 8 50.1 50 30 21 9 3.75 8.23 1.97
Skylar Hunter 16 0 20 17 10 10 2 4.50 10.35 4.50
Zach Sherrill 23 0 19 16 13 10 0 4.74 7.11 3.32
David Rivera 18 0 19.2 22 11 11 1 5.03 7.32 2.29
Austin Mason 10 9 33 59 43 34 2 9.27 6.00 2.45
Austin Livingston 2 0 1.2 3 2 2 0 10.80 5.40 5.40
Kevin Connell 10 0 10.1 24 17 15 1 13.06 4.35 2.61
Totals 114 20 197 229 141 114 16 5.21 7.58 2.51

Last year’s corresponding totals:

G GS IP H R ER HR ERA K/9 BB/9
Totals 91 29 226 259 144 123 14 4.91 5.38 3.83

During last year’s preview, I wrote:

The walk rates [in 2012] were obviously too high, and must be lowered. They were not completely unmanageable…but typical Bulldog pitching staffs do not walk people at that rate. Teams that contend for league titles do not walk people at that rate.

I am particularly concerned with the strikeout totals, however. Having a 5.38 K/9 rate as a team is problematic. Pitchers need those strikeouts.

Well, they got those strikeouts, all right. Look at those improved K and BB rates for the 2013 campaign .

In conference play, Bulldog pitchers struck out almost 2 1/2 more batters per nine innings than they did in 2012, and at the same time lowered their walk rates by about 1 1/3 BB per nine IP (remember, this doesn’t count Austin Pritcher’s numbers, and he was only the league’s Pitcher of the Year).

Based on that comparison, you would have to say the Britt Reames Experience is having a very positive effect.

-

There are some things to be cautious about, however. The Bulldogs do have to replace Pritcher in the weekend rotation. Last year, returnees had started 29 of the previous year’s 30 league games.

Also, pitching success can vary from year to year, even among returning hurlers. The good news is that the Bulldogs have a lot of options.

The obvious statistic of concern is the team ERA, which actually increased in league play by 0.3 of a run per nine innings. What is interesting about that is the hit rate per nine innings showed almost no variance from 2012 to 2013.

Homers were up, though. On the other hand, nine of the sixteen home runs hit off Bulldog pitching in conference play were allowed by Logan Cribb, and he still fashioned a fine 3.75 ERA.

The increased ERA can be partly attributed to a few bad outings by Bulldog pitchers,and the conference run environment was also an issue. Updated park factors for the league are not available yet, but there was a significant increase in runs (and corresponding league ERA) in 2013.

There were 2068 runs scored in SoCon play in 2013, after 1843 runs were scored in conference action in 2012. The league ERA jumped from 4.69 to 5.42.

-

One other thing: no, that’s not a typo, Zach Sherrill really did pitch in 23 of 30 conference games in 2013. He appeared in 48 games overall, shattering the school record for pitching appearances and leading the entire nation in regular-season games on the hill.

At one point during the season, Sherrill pitched in 11 consecutive games. He was very effective (which is why he kept getting the call from the bullpen), but part of me hopes the Bulldogs don’t have to lean on him so often this year.

The Citadel’s DER (defensive efficiency rating) in SoCon play last season was 68.9%, right around where it had been in 2012 (68.8%). The Bulldogs’ DER the last two seasons is much improved from 2011 (63.2%).

While The Citadel committed many more errors in league action in 2013 (57) than in 2012 (39), in terms of actually getting to balls and recording outs, the results were about the same. This indicates that a number of the “extra” errors were overthrows and other types of mistakes, which allowed opponents to advance further on the basepaths.

Double play totals declined from 25 to 14. That may be related to ground ball/fly ball rates from Bulldog pitchers, however.

The league DER in 2013 was only 66.1%, which was down considerably from 2012 (68.4%). I’m not quite sure what to make of that, other than it certainly contributed to the higher run totals across the conference.

Opponents were 29 for 42 on stolen base attempts against the Bulldogs in SoCon games. Ten opposing baserunners were picked off.

The conference as a whole averaged 52 attempted steals per team in league games, with a success rate of 74.3%. Those numbers are inflated slightly by Wofford, which attempted 101 steals in its 30 SoCon contests (and was successful 78 times).

Only Western Carolina allowed fewer stolen bases in conference play than The Citadel, with the Catamounts having a very impressive 51% defensive caught stealing rate (21 for 41).

This is a season that Bulldog fans have been waiting for since…well, since last season ended. The Citadel should be very good on the diamond in 2014. The squad has considerable talent and a lot of experience.

I really like the non-conference schedule this year. Plenty of quality opponents are on the slate, both at home and on the road.

As a result, the Bulldogs may struggle at times in the early part of the season, but they should be well prepared once league play rolls around.

A few things to watch:

1) The weekend rotation, especially the Sunday starter

2) Possible platoon situations at first base/third base/DH

3) The pitcher-catcher dynamic (particularly with regards to baserunners)

4) New contributors, including some who have been around the program (Ryan Kilgallen, for example), and others making their collegiate debuts (such as Austin Mapes)

5) Whether or not Bo Thompson can hit a ball on the fly into the Lockwood Boulevard parking lot

I’m tired of winter. I’m ready for spring.

Spring on the diamond in 2014 could be a lot of fun.

Improving the gameday experience at Johnson Hagood Stadium

In concert with this discussion: another post with a link to a spreadsheet with attendance information for the last 50 years at Johnson Hagood Stadium, with a brief explanation.

The atmosphere at Johnson Hagood Stadium has been a hot topic among Bulldog supporters for quite a while. It has moved to the forefront of alumni discussion/interest in the last two weeks. This is due mostly to an alumni-organized campaign, one with a goal of having the seating for the corps of cadets moved back to the west stands.

I decided to write “moved back” instead of “returned” in the above paragraph because, historically, the cadets have not always sat on that side. However, it is true that the corps has occupied the west stands for almost the entirety of the “new” Johnson Hagood Stadium (since 1948), up until the modern renovations to the facility were completed in 2008.

To be honest, I am not really on board with the campaign, though I respect those who are. I’m not going to lead the opposition, assuming there actually is an opposition.

However, my contention has always been that the issues related to corps interest and participation have very little to do with where they are seated, and everything to do with A) the general lack of enthusiasm for team sports in the corps as a whole; and B) the overall stadium experience. Neither of those issues can be addressed by moving the cadets from one side of the stadium to the other.

Regarding the sporting interests of the cadets, I wrote this several years ago, and I think it still applies:

What I believe…is that by and large graduates of The Citadel are significantly less likely to be natural supporters of the school’s athletic teams than, say, alums of larger state schools.

Not only are there more students at larger schools, but a higher percentage of those students grow up rooting for that particular school.  Quite a few of them actually choose to go to a school based on their lifelong support of its athletic teams.  Those students eventually graduate, and so there is a fairly sizable base of true-blue fans just from that group.

Nobody who is not on athletic scholarship chooses to go to The Citadel because of its varsity sports teams.  Because of this, I think that a smaller percentage of its students are destined to become lifelong devoted fans of college football, hoops, etc.  That’s true of most small schools, of course.

(I believe The Citadel has fewer sports fans among its students than even among other small schools, however — at least, that was my impression when I was in school.  That also applied to things tangentially related to sports.  Was there buzz on campus for Bull Durham or Hoosiers?  No.  Full Metal Jacket, yes, a thousand times yes.)

That makes the fact the athletic teams are supported as well as they are by the alumni all the more remarkable.  I think it has a lot to do with the natural camaraderie built up by four years in the corps of cadets.

Alums come back for the games, but they really come back to see each other, or just to be part of the experience that is The Citadel again, even for just a Saturday afternoon.  It’s a nice vibe, complete with the justly-celebrated tailgating scene (which may be too good a scene when it comes to trying to increase attendance inside the stadium).

That was true in 2009, and I believe it’s still true in 2014.

Personally, I wonder if a better idea might be to spread the cadets out a bit in the east stands, maybe seating them between the 30s, but not that high up in the seats (but not so low they don’t have a good view of the action). I could see arguments against that, to be sure.

However, what I really want to discuss is the stadium experience at Johnson Hagood Stadium, which I think needs serious improvement. Now, a lot of people would argue that the corps of cadets is the essential part of that experience.

I would completely agree, and that’s the problem right now with football games at The Citadel. The focus is not on the corps. Instead it’s on…the videoboard.

I’m glad we have a videoboard. I’m sure it’s great for recruiting. I’m also sure that it’s driven me (and many other fans) crazy over the last few years.

By “videoboard”, incidentally, I’m referring not only to the board itself, but the accompanying sound system and its musical cues (some of which aren’t very musical).

The overuse of the videoboard has led to the following:

- The band rarely gets to play during the game, because of restrictions designed to maximize advertising opportunities. This has to change.

I can see somebody ready to say “gotta pay the bills”. Okay, but then explain why the band has to sit on its hands while the sound system plays a wide variety of pop and hip-hop music. There isn’t any advertising going on then.

In what should be a bucolic small-college football setting, made unique by the presence of the corps of cadets, Johnson Hagood Stadium has instead been turned into a would-be outdoor NBA arena circa 1995.

It doesn’t work. It turns people off. Not all of those people it turns off are old, by the way.

There are times when a musical choice can liven up the crowd and/or corps. In 2012, playing “Gangnam Style” once during the game was a solid option. In 2013, not so much.

In no year would playing “Come On Eileen” by Dexy’s Midnight Runners be a solid option, but at one point that tune (I’m using the word “tune” loosely here) was unleashed on unsuspecting fans last season. Why couldn’t the band play during that time period? Heck, if somebody really wanted to listen to that song so badly, why not let the band play it?

As a result, we have situations in which the opposing school’s pep band shows up and plays more (a lot more, actually) during the game than our band, because the opposing band doesn’t have any restrictions on when it can play. It’s ridiculous.

Possibly the classic example of sound system overkill came during last year’s game against Furman. The freshmen cadets lined up in the ‘Block C’ formation, and began a “C-I-T-A-D-E-L” chant…only to be completely drowned out by the loudspeaker, as someone decided that was the ideal time to play an offering from the 1980s glam-rock band Poison.

Speaking of the “C-I-T-A-D-E-L” chant, occasionally the sound system will play a taped version of it, apparently in an effort to have it catch on with the crowd. It doesn’t really work that way; at The Citadel, that particular chant has to be organic in its origination.

Also, I am not certain the chant in that form should be played over the speaker system anyway, as canned crowd noise could be construed as an “artificial noisemaker”, which is not allowed in the Southern Conference.

A few other points about the videoboard:

- I think the spots featuring John Rosa and Larry Leckonby are run too close to the actual kickoff time. They probably need to be pushed back about ten minutes or so.

- The “come on, let’s go” clip featuring defensive players needs to be either reworked or junked. It doesn’t do anything to excite the fans; in truth, it’s more mocked than anything else. One problem is that it’s the go-to clip far too often.

- If we’re going to show things on the videoboard, why not more 15-second vignettes highlighting the personal sides (and personalities) of individual players? And not just from the football team. It’s the ideal time to promote our other sports.

It doesn’t have to feature athletes, either. The most well received spot on the videoboard that I remember was a message from astronaut Randy Bresnik.

(As Bresnik was in the regimental band as a cadet, I’ll bet he thinks the band should play more too.)

- I don’t really mind the sponsored red zone and first down tags. I’m mildly surprised Avis doesn’t sponsor second down, though.

- The “air raid siren” that plays when The Citadel’s defense forces a third down attempt seems to usually result in a first down for the opponent. It does cause permanent hearing loss for those in attendance, however, so you can’t say it doesn’t have any effect at all.

While I’m concentrating on the videoboard in this post, there are other gameday issues that need to be resolved. Just to name a couple:

- The lack of cheerleaders is unacceptable. Here are my suggestions:

1) In order to alleviate some of the reported problems the corps has had with regards to the squad, don’t let freshmen be cheerleaders.

2) I would open up tryouts for cheerleaders to female College of Charleston students. I don’t think that is unreasonable or politically incorrect.

CofC doesn’t have a football team, and here is an opportunity for The Citadel to add to its fan base. I would compare it to the Stray Dog Society in this respect.

Obviously any upperclass female cadet interested in cheerleading should be given every opportunity to make the squad. Right now, though, we have to face reality. There just aren’t that many female cadets at The Citadel; additionally, the subsets of “women attending a military college” and “women who love cheerleading” probably don’t intersect on a regular basis.

- This is not something I really lose sleep over, but the administration might be surprised to learn how many people are upset the concession stands don’t provide cups/ice any more. If it’s feasible, bring back the plastic cups.

- If we have issues with cadets not behaving properly during games (and by this I mean lounging/sleeping/etc.), then maybe there should be some “enforcers”. Back in ancient times, there was never a shortage of junior rankholders more than willing to assume such a role.

It doesn’t really matter what side of the stadium holds the corps, from that perspective. Maybe the folks at Jenkins Hall need to make it a point of emphasis (though I am generally not in the business of telling them how to do their jobs).

- I’ve read the SoCon regulations regarding student/visitor seating. Here’s a link:

Regulations

As for the theory that the corps has to sit on the “home side” because to do otherwise would be against conference rules, it doesn’t really hold up once you actually read the relevant sections. I liked how SoCon senior associate commissioner Geoff Cabe thought it might be in the “spirit” of the rules for the cadets to be relocated to the west stands, though.

Ah, the SoCon, always looking out for The Citadel. That’s why there are so many representatives of The Citadel in the league’s Hall of Fame.

- One thing about the corps that does need to be managed better is the number of cadets who aren’t in the stands. I think this was a bigger problem four or five years ago than it was in 2013, but it’s best to remain vigilant.

Last year at the Appalachian State game, a friend of mine and I counted the number of cadets in several rifle companies as they marched into the stadium. There were about 65-70 cadets in each company, which is clearly not as many as you would expect. Some of the missing did wind up in the stadium, but not all of them did.

Occasionally you do hear reports of random cadets who are in the area but not in the stadium. Very few things annoy alums more, and with good reason.

- Also in the area but not in the stadium (or at least, not in their seats): far too many people in the PSL sections. I’m not sure how much “connection” there would be with a corps move to the west stands if those seats aren’t filled anyway.

Ultimately, there is only one thing that will probably lead to all those seats being occupied by kickoff. The team has to start winning again.

Winning more games is also the magic elixir that will solve most of the issues related to the stadium atmosphere. However, to maximize the fun of a gameday at Johnson Hagood Stadium, the emphasis on the videoboard has to be reduced.

The spotlight for home football games should always shine on the cadets — those on the field, and those in the stands.

Attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium: a 50-year review

Related: a discussion of the gameday atmosphere at Johnson Hagood Stadium

This post is mainly for use in linking to a spreadsheet I’ve put together that lists attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium over the past 50 years, from 1964 to 2013. You can access the spreadsheet at this link:

Attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium, 1964-2013

As always, I appreciate the availability of these numbers, which can be credited to the staff of The Citadel’s Sports Information Department.

The spreadsheet lists year-by-year total and average game attendance, and the win/loss record for the team in each given season. There is also a category ranking the years by average attendance.

Other columns refer to the program’s winning percentage over a two-year, three-year, five-year, and ten-year period, with the “current” season being the final year in each category. For example, the three-year winning percentage for 1992 is made up of the 1990, 1991, and 1992 seasons.

I did this mainly to see what, if any, impact on attendance constant winning (or losing) has on long-term attendance trends. I would be hesitant to draw ironclad conclusions about the data, for the following reasons:

- The four directors of athletics over this time period (Eddie Teague, Walt Nadzak, Les Robinson, and Larry Leckonby) may have counted attendance in different ways.

- Because The Citadel’s football fortunes have declined markedly over the better part of two decades, it’s hard to determine exactly what attendance “should” be. The fourteen lowest ‘ten-year winning periods’ out of the fifty-year sample are the last fourteen years (which will be evident upon examination of that category on the spreadsheet).

- The stadium renovation undoubtedly affected attendance. Not all the fans came back.

If the data tells a story, it may be that a good season has more of an impact on walk-up sales than it does for increased season ticket sales for the following year, which might be surprising. However, the correlation is not particularly strong either way.

It would really help attendance if The Citadel could reel off a string of winning seasons, of course. Maybe just as importantly, The Citadel can’t have a repeat on the field of the last decade-and-a-half. One winning campaign every seven years or so won’t cut it.

McAlister Musings: Forget about being close, just win

Statistics are through January 13, 2014

- The Citadel’s record: 4-14, 0-3 SoCon
- SoCon rank in offensive efficiency (through three games): 3rd
- SoCon rank in defensive efficiency (through three games): last
- SoCon rank in free throw shooting (through three games): last
- SoCon rank in 3-point shooting percentage (through three games) 1st

Yes, the offensive statistics through three league games aren’t bad at all. The Citadel has shot the ball well in its last three games, and fared well on the offensive glass. The Bulldogs also committed fewer turnovers in those three games (though still too many).

However, The Citadel still managed to lose all three of those games, blowing double-digit second-half leads in two of them. For a team that desperately needs a win (or two, or three, or four), it was rather dispiriting.

In those two losses (at home against Chattanooga and on the road versus Wofford), the Bulldogs basically let one player on each team dominate them inside and on the boards. Both UTC’s Z. Mason and Wofford’s Lee Skinner had what amounted to career nights against The Citadel, combining for 17 offensive rebounds and 19 made 2-point field goals (on 31 attempts).

Because of that, the Bulldogs are currently last in league play in defensive rebounding percentage. The Citadel is also last in the SoCon in forcing turnovers. The Bulldogs have given their opponents so many “extra” chances to score that even solid perimeter defending hasn’t been enough.

In the “bad luck” category: The Citadel has done a good job keeping its SoCon opponents off the foul line (ranking 4th in the league in that category). However, those opponents are shooting 77.1% from the charity stripe, the highest percentage against any team in the league.

In the “not bad luck” category: The Bulldogs picked a bad time to go into a free throw shooting slump. No team has shot worse from the foul line than the Bulldogs in league action.

This comes after The Citadel did a fine job shooting free throws during the non-conference slate. However, the Bulldogs have not gone to the foul line enough all season as it is.

The Citadel is shooting slightly less than one free throw attempt for every field goal try (33%). The national average for FTA/FGA is 41%.

Of course, three games don’t reflect the entirety of the season, and the Bulldogs struggled mightily out of conference. The Citadel has as many losses to non-D1s as it does victories over D-1s, having lost to West Alabama and beaten Presbyterian.

For the season, The Citadel is in the bottom 50 nationally in offensive turnover rate, FTA/FGA, two-point field goal percentage, steals rate (offense), defensive rebounding percentage, steals rate (defense), and defensive turnover rate. Thanks to all those issues, the Bulldogs also rank in the bottom 50 in both offensive and defensive efficiency.

In the Kenpom ratings, The Citadel is currently ranked 339th out of 351 Division I teams.

On the plus side, The Citadel has done a good job beyond the arc, both on offense and defense.

The Bulldogs’ tendency to throw the ball away on a semi-regular basis has been a problem for the past three seasons, as has the defensive issues. I will say that the defending has improved this season, at least on opponents’ initial shots. However, the inability to control the defensive glass has crushed The Citadel.

On his postgame radio show after the loss to Wofford, Chuck Driesell said of his team that “we’re getting close”.

With all due respect to Driesell, I don’t think he can say that. Not right now, anyway.

The goal for this season can’t be to have a record like last year (8-22) or the year before (6-24). This isn’t about trying to eke out a couple of victories or break a losing streak.

Getting close, in the context of this season, is putting together consecutive wins, and building on that — winning four out of six, seven out of ten, etc. Falling short in SoCon games isn’t getting the program to where it needs to be.

Because make no mistake, the Southern Conference is not good this year. It wasn’t very good last year either, but in 2013-14 the league has been dreadful.

There is no reason The Citadel can’t win a bunch of SoCon games, and the next couple of weeks will present the Bulldogs multiple opportunities to bounce back from their bad start in conference play.

On Thursday, The Citadel travels to Greensboro to face the Spartans. UNCG isn’t that bad, relative to the rest of the league, but this is a chance for the Bulldogs to win a road game.

UNCG actually has a turnover rate that is worse than The Citadel’s. Now, the Bulldogs haven’t proven capable of forcing many TOs all season, but this will be one game in which they have a shot at improving on that statistical category. If they can do so, they can win the game.

On Saturday, The Citadel hosts Furman, and then plays Appalachian State at McAlister Field House the following Thursday. I think the Bulldogs should win both contests. Not “can win”, but “should win”. Furman isn’t any better than The Citadel, and Appalachian State has arguably been worse so far this season.

In other words, the Bulldogs ought to win at least two of their next three games. If they don’t, it will be a disappointment.

After the loss to Elon, the sixth straight for the Bulldogs, Chuck Driesell had this to say:

You look at the stats and you think we could have won this game. But we were playing a good team on their home court. We kept our composure, but a couple of breaks didn’t go our way. But more guys are stepping up; everybody’s starting to come around.

I hope so. There would be nothing better than some positive news from the hardwood. Good basketball makes for a shorter winter.

Otherwise, Punxsutawney Phil will see his shadow at McAlister Field House once again.

Secret memo to Mike Houston, The Citadel’s new football coach

NOTE: TOP SECRET. DISTRIBUTE MEMO ON NEED-TO-KNOW BASIS ONLY.

To: Mike Houston

From: A concerned alum

Re: Football at The Citadel

Hello there, coach. Congratulations on being named head football coach at The Citadel. I trust you and your family will enjoy Charleston.

Now, there are some important things you need to know in order to succeed in your new position. That’s why this memo is a big secret. We want to make sure our enemies don’t have a firm grasp on your plan of attack, which is going to be aggressive, with a lot of energy.

Let’s get right to the discussion.

- Some of our alums were impressed with your youthful enthusiasm at the Thursday press conference. There were multiple queries asking if you were, in fact, the youngest coach in program history.

Of course, Coach Houston, you’re not. Most of The Citadel’s coaches were actually younger than you when they were hired, even though you’re only 42. All but five, in fact.

However, four of those five older coaches are the most recent hires at The Citadel (Powers/Johnson/Zernhelt/Higgins). Given that recent trend, it’s not surprising that people think you’re really young for the job.

As an aside, you might be interested to know that The Citadel’s first two head football coaches were both only 22 years old when they got the job. One of them, Syd Smith, later played major league baseball.

I don’t think you’re a candidate for MLB when your coaching career is over, but perhaps you can emulate The Citadel’s second coach, Ralph Foster, in wearing a snazzy hat. If not, perhaps your offensive coordinator could wear it. He definitely needs an upgrade in the headgear department.

- Speaking of that offensive coordinator, I was glad to see you’re bringing Brent Thompson on board. It would have been tough for The Citadel to announce it wanted to hire a coach who ran the option, then hire a defensive-oriented coach whose option-running OC didn’t come along with him.

I’ve heard good things about Thompson (and your offensive line coach, Ron Boyd). Thompson’s explanation of the origination of his triple option offense was interesting:

I’ve probably taken the most from Navy and Georgia Southern. And I’ve worked with  coaches at Army and with Ashley Ingram at Navy, so I steal some things from there. And I try to gather as much film on Georgia Southern as [I] can.

Ingram, of course, was one of the three finalists for the job that you eventually got.

Having said that, you should know that a few alums are a little worried about your staff. Not only have you never coached at the D-1 level, the same is true for all of the assistants you’re bringing along from Lenoir-Rhyne (with the notable exception of Thompson).

Of course, you haven’t finalized your staff yet, and there are some positive rumors about potential assistants still to be added. Fans will be waiting on those hires with considerable interest (you may have noticed, they’re interested in just about everything related to the football program).

- There is a little bit of angst that surrounds the football program. You will probably pick up on this sooner rather than later. As to why it exists, it’s simple: The Citadel has not had consecutive winning seasons on the gridiron since the 1991-92 campaigns, the longest such stretch in school history.

There are a lot of alums who are ready to win again. Some of them can be a bit melodramatic about this. “I want one more SoCon title before I die,” they’ll proclaim.

- I was glad to hear you talk about the importance of retention. Among other things, you told the assembled media on Thursday that you want to field “older teams…guys who have been with us for three or four years.”

The reference to “older teams” (and the redshirting subtext) made me think of Jim Grobe and how he approached his recruiting/scholarship management at Wake Forest. Grobe won an ACC title at Wake Forest with that philosophy.

Your response to a question about transfers was excellent. “The institution does not lend itself to a lot of transfers,” you said. Indeed, it doesn’t.

- I can appreciate your comments that recruiting at Lenoir-Rhyne is not completely dissimilar to recruiting at The Citadel. However, a word of warning. Making comparisons to The Citadel can be tricky. Very tricky.

That’s why it’s important you get up to speed as quickly as possible about the institution that is now your employer. Learn as much about The Citadel as you possibly can. It’s not quite the same as the service academies, or small private schools, or anything else for that matter.

This statement you made was a good start:

You’ve got to understand exactly what The Citadel is. I’m excited about embracing the core values of The Citadel and recruiting student-athletes [who] fit the institution.

At The Citadel, you have to recruit prospective cadets who can play football. That’s the only way you can go about it. Recruiting from a football-first perspective is problematic, if not impossible.

- To be honest, coach, there is no way you are ever going to understand everything about the military college — and that’s okay. I don’t have a full grasp on the place myself, and I’m an old goat who graduated from the school.

You mentioned that a good friend of yours played football at The Citadel when Charlie Taaffe was the coach. People like that can help you start figuring things out. Talk to them early and often.

Also try to make a point of reaching out to younger alums, including former football players. I suspect you were going to do that anyway, but it’s critical to build some bridges in that area.

- The military component of the school is kind of important. It is, after all, a military college.

The key thing for you to remember is this: work with the system, not against it. Coaches who learn this, and who emphasize to their players the importance of conforming and being part of the system, tend to be successful. Coaches who fight the system every step of the way are never successful.

- It’s important to develop a positive relationship with the corps of cadets. An active and engaged corps can be a tremendous weapon for you on football Saturdays. Be sure to make a “stump speech” at the mess hall on a regular basis.

However, ultimately you aren’t responsible for the activities of the general student body. For the most part, when it comes to corps issues, let others sweat the details, at least in your first year.

- Coach Houston, we need to talk about the uniforms…

The Citadel has a contract with adidas which began last season. You might be surprised to know that before a home game against Furman, the team had to change jerseys because the SoCon officiating crew deemed them illegal.

That’s the kind of thing that might drive a coach crazy. Instead of concentrating on game preparation, the team got mired in Unigate.

Then there is the constantly revolving door of helmet logos. After a rare bout of consistency in this department, for unexplained reasons The Citadel changed its helmet design yet again for the season finale at Clemson.

Coach, I’m sure you would be puzzled at the team debuting a new design at the end of the year — and in a road game to boot. It made no sense.

However, it was just the latest in The Citadel’s tortured football uniform history. More than four years after I first wrote about it, there has been no effort to develop a standard. For a school as beholden to tradition as The Citadel, this is amazing (and infuriating).

Now, you may not be able to stop the latest helmet tweak, but you can probably make sure the jerseys feature the appropriate colors of light blue and white. Navy blue should not be a predominant color. Neither should red, or silver, or gray.

There is one other very important thing you need to fix.

Make sure the correct name of the school is on the jersey. Tell the administration you won’t lead the team out on to the field unless “THE CITADEL” is on the front of the jerseys (not “Citadel”). I can’t emphasize how critical this is to your future success.

Imagine if, during your playing career at Mars Hill, you had to wear jerseys that only read “Mars” across the front. You would be disappointed, because it wouldn’t be the name of your school (though the association with Otis Sistrunk’s alma mater might have amused a few people).

If you put the “The” back on the jerseys, coach, you will go a long way to satisfying the alumni sports blogger demographic. I know you want to keep that faction happy.

Congrats again on your appointment, Coach Houston. In your remarks to the press, it became apparent the job at The Citadel was one that had been of interest to you even before this year.

You clearly wanted the position, and think you can be successful in this role. I enjoyed watching the press conference (and subsequent interviews) and seeing your intensity, passion, and confidence.

The Citadel is a very unusual place, often difficult, occasionally intimidating, and at times frustrating. It’s also a very special place, one that engenders uncommon loyalty.

Embrace the challenge. We’re with you all the way.

A few quick thoughts on The Citadel’s search for a new head football coach

Maybe I should have waited to post my review of The Citadel’s 2013 football season. Less than 24 hours after I posted it, Kevin Higgins resigned as head coach.

After all, timing is everything…

The difference between the opportunity at Wake Forest and the one two years ago was a matter of timing, Higgins said…

…Larry Leckonby last week offered Higgins an extension through the 2015 season, but that was not enough to sway him from taking the Wake Forest job.

“It was a little bit of a surprise,” Leckonby said of Higgins’ decision. “We talked last week about his future here, about a contract extension. We met (Monday morning) and I gave it one last try to see if we could keep him here. We wish him all the best and look for success out of Wake Forest in the ACC.”

To be honest, I think there is just a hint of Kabuki theater about the whole “offered an extension he didn’t accept” thing, but I could be wrong about that. It doesn’t really matter, though. The bottom line is that Kevin Higgins is leaving, and The Citadel has to find a suitable replacement.

Larry Leckonby had this to say:

My phones have been inundated with folks who are interested or have someone they think is interested in the job. I think it’s the flip side of the situation nine years ago. We’re going to have to turn folks away.

That sentiment was echoed in a tweet sent out by Scott Roussel, operator of FootballScoop.com:

So, so many guys reaching out about the Citadel job. Great location. No idea what direction they go; but plenty of quality interest.

It is undoubtedly true that the job at The Citadel is more attractive now than it was nine years ago, when Higgins accepted the position. That is to his credit.

However, any candidates out there interested in the job because of the “great location” better know that being head football coach at The Citadel isn’t a retirement gig. Lowering one’s golf handicap is not a primary or secondary goal.

When asked if he would hire a triple-option coach, Leckonby said that he would “make that determination in the next couple of days and go from there.”

I hope he decides not to limit candidates to those who would employ an option offense. I say that despite being someone who believes that running some form of the “triple option” is probably the way to go for a school like The Citadel.

However, I don’t want to see the pool of candidates substantially reduced by a restriction like that. There may be someone interested in the position who might have other ideas about on-field concepts that could work at The Citadel, and the school should listen.

Offensive philosophy is just one of many issues on the table for the job at the military college. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be a consideration. It definitely should be.

However, if it turns out the best candidate happens to prefer running out of the I-formation or something, then The Citadel should hire him anyway.

Leckonby said he will use an “advisory committee” but will handle “most” of the task of hiring a new coach himself. He expects to present a group of finalists and a recommendation to school president Lt. Gen. John Rosa.

For some, the process of making the hire is perhaps almost as important as the hire itself. It is open to question whether or not Rosa will simply “rubber stamp” Larry Leckonby’s recommendation, or if the school president will be more involved in making the final decision. That is something to watch.

I’ll be a little curious to see if the advisory committee is a somewhat formal group, with a listed set of members, or if Leckonby will simply run things by some trusted friends/colleagues. It’s also possible that some members of the committee will be tasked with what Leckonby referred to Monday as “cultivating” candidates.

“The first three people I talked to today, all of whom I respect, said the same thing: Make sure you don’t move too fast,” Leckonby said. “Don’t rush forward to get a coach because of recruiting; make sure you get the right fit for The Citadel.

“So I don’t think we’ll set a time frame on it. But at the same time, you don’t want to lose a full recruiting year because of it.”

Fair enough. I agree that getting the right coach is more important than one recruiting year. That recruiting year is important, though.

The next few weeks are going to be fascinating. They will also be very important to the future of The Citadel’s football program, and for the department of athletics as a whole.

Leckonby said on Monday that he would handle most of the heavy lifting himself, “for better or worse”. It has to be for the better, Mr. Leckonby. It has to be for the better…

A brief review of The Citadel’s 2013 football season

Edit: less than 24 hours after I posted this, Kevin Higgins resigned as head coach of The Citadel to take an assistant coaching position at Wake Forest. Obviously that makes part of the review a bit dated, but I’m leaving the post unchanged from when it went up. 

In my preview of The Citadel’s 2013 football campaign, I wrote the following:

…this could be a season of what-ifs rather than the big-win campaign that is the hope for Bulldog supporters. As always when it comes to the gridiron, the margin for error at The Citadel is small. To illustrate this, think of the task the team faces this year from what might be called the most negative point of view:

- The Citadel will play four opponents that are either FBS or transitioning to FBS (and thus will have more scholarship players). Three of those games will be on the road.

- The Citadel will play two other opponents that defeated the Bulldogs last season by a combined score of 66-17. Both of those teams return most of their key players.

- One opponent hasn’t lost to the Bulldogs during Kevin Higgins’ tenure as head coach of The Citadel, while another has beaten The Citadel four times in the last five meetings.

- Of the remaining four opponents, last season The Citadel trailed one of them midway through the third quarter; was in a one-point game late in the third quarter to another; barely held off a late rally from a third; and was tied at halftime with the fourth.

I guess I could say I told you so, except I really can’t. I thought the Bulldogs would be a little better than they were, despite the seemingly difficult schedule. I was hoping that The Citadel would contend for the league title and/or a playoff berth.

That didn’t happen. It didn’t come close to happening, either.

The Bulldogs’ disappointing season was all the more frustrating by the way the season played out in the Southern Conference. The league wasn’t nearly as good as expected.

Appalachian State proved to be eminently beatable, and Georgia Southern was certainly no well-oiled machine. Wofford finished 5-6.

It was all there for The Citadel, ready for the taking…and the Bulldogs finished with a losing record.

Entering 2013 there were concerns about the defense, particularly the D’s ability to stop the run. How did the defense fare?

Comparing 2012 and 2013 (league contests only, per game average):

2012 points allowed: 26.75
2013 points allowed: 23.25

2012 total yards allowed: 395
2013 total yards allowed: 362.38

2012 rush yards allowed: 237.13
2013 rush yards allowed: 178.75

2012 pass yards allowed: 157.88
2013 pass yards allowed: 183.63

These numbers show some improvement from 2012 to 2013, which might surprise a few people. On a per-play basis, the defense improved from 5.75 yards per play (2012) to 5.47 (2013), though the yards allowed per pass attempt increased (from 6.5 in 2012 to 7.2 in 2013).

The Citadel forced twelve turnovers in league play this season, similar to 2012 (eleven). The Bulldogs recovered five fumbles in 2013, which matched 2012′s total.

The defense was credited with 28 passes defensed in eight conference games in 2013. Exactly 25% of those (seven) resulted in interceptions. That is slightly above the national average for defensed passes; basically, the Bulldogs intercepted one more pass in league play than would have been expected. That isn’t insignificant, especially if you think of the “extra” pick as, say, Mitchell Jeter’s grab in the Appalachian State game.

In all, The Citadel had breakups/interceptions on 13.7% of opponents’ passes in 2013 SoCon action. That was a slight improvement on 2012 (12.4%).

Ideally, the Bulldogs would have a higher percentage of passes defensed than 13.7%, though to be honest I suspect the benchmark for excellence in this area varies depending on defensive concepts. For example, Tulane tied for the national lead in FBS this past season in passes defended, with 84 in 12 games. The Green Wave had a breakup/pick rate of 20.7%.

However, Michigan State’s defense was arguably the most highly regarded in the entire country this year, and the Spartans’ PD rate was 14.4%. That didn’t stop MSU’s Darqueze Dennard from winning the Jim Thorpe Award as the nation’s best defensive back.

- Incidentally, Dennard was a “two-star” recruit from Dry Branch, Georgia.

The comparative per-game statistics in league play for The Citadel’s offense aren’t as positive.

2012 points: 29.75
2013 points: 24.25

2012 total yards: 382.5
2013 total yards: 350.25

2012 rush yards: 299.5
2013 rush yards: 256.63

2012 pass yards: 83.0
2013 pass yards: 93.63

The Bulldogs averaged just over six yards per play in 2012, but that number fell to 5.4 y/p in 2013. Rushing yards per play declined from 5.8 to 5.1.

While The Citadel’s passing yardage increased by over ten yards per SoCon game, that was due to an increased number of attempts (more than three per contest). The Bulldogs’ yards per pass attempt actually declined, from 7.2 (2012) to 6.4 (2013).

The Citadel threw the ball on 18.3% of its 2012 plays. That percentage increased to 22.6% in 2013.

It won’t surprise anyone reading this that in terms of total offense, The Citadel’s numbers were worse at the start of the conference season than at the end. The Bulldogs struggled out of the gate, averaging 314 yards per contest in their first three SoCon games, but by the end of the campaign seemed to have mostly put things together (404 yards per contest in the three final conference matchups).

The spring practice/preseason concentration on diversifying the offense backfired. It’s as simple as that.

The Citadel’s offense suffered a dropoff in “red zone” efficiency in 2013. When The Bulldogs advanced inside the opponents’ 20-yard line in 2012, they scored a touchdown 69% of the time. This past season, The Citadel scored TDs on only 60% of its trips inside the 20.

(Note: red zone numbers are for all games, not just Southern Conference matchups. All the other statistics I’ve mentioned above are for league games only.)

I think if the offense had performed at its 2012 levels in 2013, the Bulldogs would have finished no worse than 6-6 and probably should have been 7-5 (and maybe even 8-4). However, instead of finishing 5-3 in SoCon play (as it did in 2012), The Citadel was 4-4. That doesn’t even account for the embarrassing loss to Charleston Southern in the season opener.

The game against the Buccaneers probably didn’t help the Bulldogs’ confidence for the start of the league campaign, and so after five games The Citadel was 1-4 and the hopes and aspirations for 2013 were just about kaput. Breaking down the remaining seven games, the Bulldogs essentially performed up to preseason expectations (2-2 against App/GSU/UTC/Sam, wins over Elon and VMI, a loss to Clemson).

It was that early-season boondoggle that did in the Bulldogs. Furman played very well over the second half of 2013, but wasn’t nearly as good when the season began. The Citadel should have won that game, particularly given the Paladins’ QB issues at the time.

Against Wofford, the Bulldogs didn’t score an offensive touchdown. We all know what happened against Charleston Southern.

When Phil Kornblut asked Kevin Higgins to describe the season (prior to the game against Clemson), the coach was candid:

It was disappointing, for sure. We had much higher expectations than that. We played a lot of close football games throughout the season, [but] that’s not an excuse. We were hoping to finish a couple of those games off, but didn’t…the one positive was our guys kept fighting [and] never gave up.

Higgins is expected to still be the coach next season, and I’m okay with that. However, there are some Bulldog supporters who think a change should have been made, and I don’t think it’s ridiculous to feel that way.

There is a lot of frustration in the fan base with the struggles of the football program over the last two decades, and Kevin Higgins has now been the coach for nine seasons. He took over a program that could be reasonably described as unstable. That should be kept in mind when evaluating his time at the school. However, some aspects of his record are, well, not so good:

- He has only had a winning record twice in nine campaigns
- He has not defeated Wofford in nine seasons
- His record against Furman is 3-6
- His two losses to Charleston Southern rank among the worst in school history

That said, there are some things Higgins can’t control.

It’s not his fault the band isn’t allowed to play more often. Higgins isn’t responsible for the maddening videoboard/loudspeaker/music choices. He’s not the reason The Citadel’s video streaming setup never seems to work. He didn’t make the ludicrous (and potentially damaging) decision to play a road game at Charleston Southern next year.

I mention those things (among other issues) only because sometimes the team’s performance gets lumped in with all the other stuff that people complain about when it comes to the football program and the department of athletics in general. There is a fair amount of unease among The Citadel’s faithful fans, but a lot of it is not related to actual gridiron activity.

I am not certain what Higgins’ contract status is; there seems to be some confusion on that subject. Normally I am not a fan of retaining a coach who has just one remaining year on his contract, but I am willing to make an exception in this case (and again, I’m not sure he’s got only one year left anyway).

One reason I am amenable to giving Higgins a little more rope is that next year will be transitory in many respects, particularly with regards to the Southern Conference itself. I’m more than a little curious to see how things “play out” with the change in league membership.

Another factor is something Higgins mentioned to Phil Kornblut. This year’s team really did keep fighting. It certainly didn’t quit. I’ve said this before, but that is to the players’ credit, and it’s also a positive when discussing the coaching staff. Higgins didn’t “lose” the team in circumstances which were possibly conducive to doing just that. That’s a mark in his favor.

Next year’s slate is going to be a difficult one. It will probably be tougher than this year’s was supposed to be.

I’ll be ready for spring football, though. I may be already…

Game review, 2013: Clemson

Links of interest:

School release

Box score

I don’t really have a lot to say about this game. Just a few comments:

- I was disappointed in the Bulldogs’ play in the first half. Ben Dupree said after the game that the team had “started slow”, and the team did appear a bit sluggish.

Beyond that, I wondered about the lack of creativity in the playcalling. Everyone expected to see some different things from the offense in this game — unusual formations, trick plays, etc. Yet for the most part it was basic football, and basic football that went nowhere.

On The Citadel’s second offensive possession of the game, the Bulldogs faced a fourth-and-five from the Clemson 48. The call? A punt. Why not go for it there, or try a fake punt?

Clemson needed less than two minutes to score after the kick. That wasn’t particularly surprising. On Saturday, field position wasn’t nearly as important as possession. (Actually, that’s true for a lot of games.)

- I was puzzled by the decision to kick the second field goal. 52-3 or 52-6, what’s the difference? The game was almost over, and fourth-and-nine from the Clemson 12, while not the likeliest of conversion attempts in terms of being successful, represented the Bulldogs’ best (and final) chance to score a touchdown.

- Dabo Swinney’s decision to finally take Tajh Boyd out of the game almost came one play too late.

- The team broke out yet another helmet design for this game. I’m not sure why you would use the season finale (and a road game) to introduce a new helmet logo, but at this point I’m used to the ever-changing uniforms. The only thing that seems to be a constant is getting the name of the school wrong on the jersey.

- I appreciated Clemson’s all-out effort for its Military Appreciation Day, which included one of my classmates reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (via a taped segment on the videoboard). Perhaps I could have done without the Clemson band ending its halftime show with a Toby Keith number, but that’s a minor quibble.

- Also excellent: the performance of the Summerall Guards. Great job. After the first half, something positive was sorely needed. The Guards came through in style.

- I sat in the end zone section on Saturday. At one point a stream of celebrities walked right by me up the stairs, including Andy Solomon, Jeff Hartsell, John Rosa, and Spike. The only one to give me a high-five as he walked by was Spike. The others made their way to seats reserved for the elite patrons.

- Speaking of Spike, he was doing work throughout the game. He must have posed for several hundred pictures while wandering all over the field, making friends wherever he went. I would give him the nod as the Bulldogs’ game MVP.

My thoughts on the season as a whole, and the future, will come later. For now, I just want to say thank you to the seniors. Now finish the job and get that diploma (unless you’re a fifth-year graduate student, of course).

Below are a few pictures. I didn’t take as many on Saturday as I usually do, in part because my location was not really conducive to in-game photos.

2013 Football, Game 12: The Citadel vs. Clemson

The Citadel at Clemson, to be played in Clemson, South Carolina, at Memorial Stadium/Frank Howard Field, with kickoff at noon ET on Saturday, November 23. The game will be streamed on ESPN3.com, with play-by-play from Jim Barbar, analysis by John Bunting, and reporting from the sidelines by Angela Mallen.

The game can be heard on radio via the thirteen affiliates of The Citadel Sports Network. Danny Reed (the “Voice of the Bulldogs”) will call the action alongside analyst Josh Baker, with Lee Glaze roaming the sidelines.

WQNT-1450 AM [audio link], originating in Charleston, will be the flagship station for the network; the station will have a two-hour pregame show. It is also possible to listen to the game via a smartphone, using a TuneIn Radio application.

Links of interest:

The Citadel game notes

Clemson game notes

SoCon weekly release

ACC weekly release

The Kevin Higgins Show

Kevin Higgins on the SoCon media teleconference

ACC teleconference (Dabo Swinney is the first coach on the line); here is the transcript

Dabo Swinney press conference — Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Brent Venables talks defense  – Part 1, Part 2

Clemson’s players are not believed to be aliens

Apparently really fast 6’5″, 200 lb. receivers are uncommon

It’s a big game for the Tigers, so despite injury Tajh Boyd will play

Gerald Dixon talks about Dabo Swinney

An in-depth review of Clemson’s game against Georgia Tech, play-by-play

Saturday will be Military Appreciation Day at Clemson, and the school (as usual) is going to put on quite a show. The festivities will feature a halftime performance by the Summerall Guards.

It will also be a “Purple Out”, with fans encouraged to wear purple for the game. From above, the stadium is going to look like a giant bruise.

One note on the “Purple Out”: students will be wearing purple t-shirts (and trying to stay warm). However, the original t-shirt design won’t be used:

All full-time Clemson students attending the game will receive a free Purple Out T-shirt, but it won’t include a Purple Heart symbol as originally planned. That design, chosen from more than 30 student submissions in a campuswide contest, didn’t meet licensing guidelines of the U.S. Army. Proceeds from sales of the redesigned shirt will still benefit campus ROTC units and the Student Veterans Association.

I’m not sure which team Clemson is playing next week, but Dabo Swinney was asked during his on-campus press conference if the Tigers had time to “peek ahead” to that game. Swinney was fairly emphatic:

We don’t have time to peek ahead…regardless of who we play…the objective is the win the football game…I can remember in 1992 I was a senior at Alabama and The Citadel beat Arkansas.

The reason I remember that is because [Alabama] played Arkansas the next week…it was chaos in Arkansas, and we went to Little Rock to play them…I will never forget that.

I didn’t even know who The Citadel was in 1992. Probably, literally the first time I had heard of The Citadel was because they beat Arkansas…

You better be ready each and every week…’cause if you’re not…you get beat. I don’t care who you play, what sport it is, what level it is, how much of a discrepancy it is, you get beat.

Incidentally, Swinney’s memory wasn’t perfect. Alabama actually played Arkansas two weeks after the Razorbacks lost to The Citadel. It was the first time Arkansas had returned to play a game in The Natural State after the dismissal of Jack Crowe, however.

Arkansas actually played at South Carolina the week after losing to the Bulldogs. Joe Kines led the Hogs to a 45-7 shellacking of the Gamecocks. (Dabo and his Crimson Tide beat Arkansas 38-11 the following Saturday.)

The Citadel has defeated Clemson on the gridiron in no fewer than five South Carolina towns. It’s possible no other opponent has lost to the Bulldogs at so many different locations.

The military college has wins over Clemson in Clemson (when the town was called “Calhoun”), Charleston (at the original Johnson Hagood Stadium), Anderson, Orangeburg, and Florence.

This Saturday, look for the Bulldogs to use a similar strategy to that employed in The Citadel’s 1931 victory over the Tigers in Florence:

The Citadel Bulldogs arose here today, whipped out a finely-timed, incisive and unanticipated running attack, to win their annual game with Clemson at the Pee Dee Fair, 6-0. In no previous game this season had the Cadets shown such power, speed, and brilliant elusiveness in advancing the ball…

A good, big bunch of men these Tigers were, too, but they were so much putty in the hands of a Citadel team that had a great day…

Local hero Edwin McIntosh scored the game-winning TD for the Bulldogs that afternoon. Another offensive star was “‘Leaping Larkin’ Jennings, the Columbia Comet”.

The defensive player most responsible for keeping the Tigers out of the end zone was “man-mountain, gargantuan” Delmar Rivers, also known as “Big Boy”.

Other tidbits about that game:

- The Citadel kicked off to start both halves.

- Despite that, Clemson only ran 46 offensive plays during the game, a statistic which would undoubtedly horrify Chad Morris. The lack of offensive snaps was partly due to the Tigers’ tendency to “quick kick” whenever possible. Clemson punted on third down six times, punted on second down three times, and punted on first down (?!) once.

- Clemson only picked up three first downs during the game (well, sure, with all that punting), not getting its initial first down until the fourth quarter.

- At one point during the contest, the Tigers threw incomplete passes on consecutive plays. By rule, that resulted in a five-yard penalty.

- The News and Courier reported that both team captains were redheads.

- Attendance: 4000.

***Brief subject change before going back to football***

Clemson last played a football game at The Citadel in 1953, which shouldn’t be a shock to anybody. What may come as a surprise, though, is that the Tiger baseball team has not played The Citadel in Charleston during this century either.

In fact, Clemson and The Citadel have not met on a Low Country diamond since 1990, when the teams were coached by Bill Wilhelm and Chal Port. That game was played at College Park.

Now, you wouldn’t necessarily expect the two schools to play each other every year, as they are basically at opposite ends of the state.  That’s not true for the University of South Carolina, of course, and thus the Gamecocks and Bulldogs naturally meet more often.

However, South Carolina doesn’t just play The Citadel once in a while; the two schools play each other home-and-home every year. Meanwhile, Clemson…doesn’t. The last regular-season meeting of any kind between the Tigers and Bulldogs came back in 2004, at Clemson.

I think this is something that needs to be addressed, particularly because Clemson isn’t averse to playing in Charleston. The Tigers played at College of Charleston in 2008, for example.

It is facing the Bulldogs on The Citadel’s home turf that seems to have become an issue for the Tigers in recent years.

Speaking of that home turf, Clemson has actually played at Riley Park. In 2012, South Carolina and Clemson met in a game that was relentlessly hyped by sports columnist Gene Sapakoff of The Post and Courier, who apparently believed the matchup was the most important development in the history of western civilization and would be attended by hundreds of thousands of dignitaries from around the globe.

Sapakoff was highly upset at the game’s actual attendance (5,851), and was unable to accept the fact that despite the nonstop promotion (much of it by himself), the game drew about the same number of people who would attend a typical game between The Citadel and South Carolina at Riley Park. Indeed, last year’s game in Charleston between the Gamecocks and Bulldogs, played on a Tuesday night with no hype whatsoever, had an attendance of 5,838.

That said, having a crowd of 5,000+ for a regular-season college baseball game is very impressive, and not surprisingly the folks who run the Charleston Riverdogs wouldn’t mind seeing the Gamecocks and Tigers get together again at Riley Park in the near future. In a newspaper article from two years ago, the year 2015 was suggested.

However, I don’t think that game should be played. Not in 2015, anyway.

That’s because I believe the next game Clemson plays at Riley Park needs to be against the local college team that calls the stadium home. The Tigers should play The Citadel there first.

I am aware of a few reasons why Clemson and The Citadel have not met in recent years. I don’t care. People can put aside their differences, if only for one night.

Imagine how many people might attend a game at Riley Park between Clemson and The Citadel if the local media promoted it as heavily as Clemson-South Carolina 2012. That’s part of what this is about, at least to me.

I want The Citadel to receive that kind of positive attention, instead of being ignored while various entities start panting heavily at the mere sight of schools from other parts of the state.

Bringing this back to football, but in a similar vein, I find it a bit tiresome that a writer for a local newspaper (Aaron Brenner, the Clemson beat writer for The Post and Courier) has written multiple times that a local team is a “tune-up” for an opponent. It is particularly annoying that he first characterized the game as such before the season even started.

Look, I’m a realist here, but it wouldn’t hurt to show a touch more respect for a school located in your paper’s immediate area. When I first broached the subject with Brenner, back in August, I was immediately informed that Clemson had beaten The Citadel 15 straight times, and mostly by significant margins. (Tell me something I don’t know.)

Of course, I’m guessing Clemson fans wouldn’t think the 1931 loss to The Citadel is going to have any impact on Saturday’s game, and they would be correct. However, I would suggest that those 15 losses he mentioned won’t have any impact either. Do you think the 1976 game matters to the players of 2013? What about 1954? Or 1986? No, no, and no.

The real issue, I think, is that he isn’t covering Clemson from the Charleston perspective. Rather, he’s writing about the Tigers for the Charleston newspaper. There is a difference.

That’s not really the fault of Brenner, to be fair. He is doing what his employer wants him to do. You may not think there is any fault to be found at all, and I can understand that point of view.

Generally during one of my previews I start discussing a team’s statistics in relation to a comparison with those of The Citadel, but it’s pointless to do that this week since Clemson is an FBS squad. Instead, I’m just going to mention some of Clemson’s numbers. A few of them are scary.

- Clemson is averaging 41.3 points per game, 11th best nationally. The Tigers actually have a higher scoring average on the road, “only” scoring 39.8 points per game at Memorial Stadium.

- CU is ninth nationally in total offense, passing offense, and turnover margin.

- Clemson isn’t quite as dominant in a few offensive categories, ranking 50th in the nation in offensive 3rd-down conversion rate and 43rd nationally in offensive red zone TD%.

- The Tigers have had seven plays from scrimmage this season of 60+ yards, tied for third-most in FBS.

- Of course, Clemson’s raw offensive numbers are skewed by the hurry-up-no-I-mean-really-hurry-up style of offensive coordinator Chad Morris. The Tigers are averaging 82.9 plays per game on offense, fifth-most nationally. In terms of yards per play, Clemson is 32nd in FBS with a 6.18 average (Baylor leads the nation, averaging a staggering 8.5 yards per play).

- Clemson’s defensive third down conversion rate of 30.25% is 6th-best nationally. This may be the statistic that best demonstrates the influence of second-year defensive coordinator Brent Venables. In his first year at Clemson, the Tigers were 24th in FBS in this category, a substantial improvement over the 2011 season (when they were 72nd).

- Clemson’s defensive numbers are affected by its offensive style, and look better in context than in raw totals. Tiger opponents are averaging 5.25 yards per play, 42nd nationally. Getting off the field by stopping teams on third down has helped Clemson in that department (The Tigers were slightly above 5.6 y/p in both 2012 and 2011).

- On defense, the Tigers are allowing a red zone TD rate of 62.5%, which is only 69th in FBS. Venables is probably disappointed with that particular statistic.

- Clemson’s punting and kick coverage/return statistics are, in general, indifferent.

As for Clemson’s players, it’s simple: the Tigers have playmakers all over the field, particularly on offense.

Tajh Boyd has been a wonderful quarterback for Clemson. He has occasionally been labeled as a “doesn’t play well in big games” type, but anyone who believes that did not see his magnificent bowl-game performance against LSU last year.

Sammy Watkins is ridiculously good. Dabo Swinney said during his press conference this week that he thinks Watkins is the best wide receiver in the country, and you could certainly make that argument. I have no idea how the Bulldogs are going to cover him, but then almost every other team in the country would have the same problem.

It says something about Clemson’s talent level that Watkins may not even be the most difficult matchup for The Citadel on Saturday. Another wideout, Martavis Bryant, could pose even more problems.

The Tigers’ running game is keyed by the excellent Rod McDowell (who overcame a clubfoot as a child). McDowell runs behind a starting offensive line that averages 6’4″, 298 lbs.

Clemson defensive end Vic Beasley has 17 tackles for loss, fourth nationally. Ten of those TFLs are sacks. The other three starters on the Tigers’ d-line weigh more on average than The Citadel’s offensive linemen.

The Tigers have intercepted at least one pass in 13 straight games, the longest such streak in the country. Eight different players have at least one pick.

Linebackers Stephone Anthony and Spencer Shuey are 1-2 on the team in tackles.

Saturday’s game is officially a sellout, and that crowd will include a fair number of fans wearing blue and white. There will be multiple tailgating events on site for Bulldog fans, who usually know how to have a good time.

I trust the same can be said for the players. The game against Clemson should be fun.

It will be very challenging, to be sure. However, there is no pressure on the Bulldogs, and I think that will be reflected in their play.

One game is left this season. I hope it’s a memorable one for The Citadel, and in a good way.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 612 other followers