I respectfully disagree. I got a relative on the '89 Irish team. He was a walk-on. I got a relative in the Clemson Hall of Fame for being a dominant defensive lineman.
Guess who the family takes more pride in?
Clemson vs. Notre Dame is not a discussion on any meaningful metric. Never will be. Clemson has more in common with North Dakota State in value than Notre Dame. It's a small ag school.
If the kid wants to do crop science, or live in the Carolinas for the rest of his life...then it's a fine choice. Otherwise, it's not hard.
This is mostly about the relative strength of tradition at the two schools, and we definitely have a big advantage over Clemson (and most other schools) on that front. The Tigers are very
nouveau riche, so if that's something the Shipleys care about, we should emphasize it.
My post was addressing those who wanted to underline the "40-year decision" thing. That's most effective when we're competing against schools with poor Football ROI. The salary figures for Clemson grads compare pretty favorably to ours, so it's just not the tactic I would take here.
Is that ROI based on the presumed invest of a student or scholarship athlete?
Scholarship athletes. Same methodology I used
here: (1) take the
Payscale ROI data; (2) back out the discounts for tuition, general graduation rate, etc.; and (3) then discount that raw figure by the relevant
GSR. Clemson's GSR for Caucasian football players is actually higher than ours right now.
