CLASS OF 2019 RANKINGS: Rivals250 | State | Position | Team

CLASS OF 2020 RANKINGS: Rivals250 | State | Position

MORE TAKE TWO: Does Justin Fields make Ohio State a title contender?

Take Two returns with another offering tackling a relevant topic in the college football landscape. Rivals.com National Recruiting Analyst Adam Gorney lays out the situation and then receives takes from National Recruiting Director Mike Farrell and an expert from the Rivals.com network of team sites.

RELATED: ACC superlatives from 2019 cycle | ACC winners and losers

Clemson has emerged as a national powerhouse, winning two national championships in the last four years and playing in three title games. The Tigers throttled Alabama, 44-16, last month to take the title and establish itself as one of the best programs nationally without question.

During this run, though, Clemson has had only one top-five recruiting class and it came in 2015 when the Tigers signed five-star receiver Deon Cain, five-star athlete Ray-Ray McCloud and five-star defensive tackle Christian Wilkins, who played a huge role in Clemson’s success this past season.

The other finishes for Clemson in the last handful of years following that No. 4 finish in 2015: sixth in 2016, No. 22 in 2017, eighth in 2018 and with signing day only a week or so in the rear-view mirror, the Tigers boasted the No. 9 class led by five-star receiver Joe Ngata and five-star defensive back Andrew Booth.

Dabo Swinney routinely has Clemson high in the team recruiting rankings but not as high as Alabama, Georgia and some others in recent years.

Are Clemson’s signees not getting the respect they deserve in the rankings, does smaller class size play a factor or does Swinney and his staff look for a particular player regardless of ranking and fit them into his system so they can thrive?

“There’s a distinction to be made that is often overlooked: Recruiting rankings don’t equate to team success; but the data shows you need to recruit well to give yourself the chance to win titles. Clemson’s triumphs don’t mean its recruits were underrated. It magnifies the value of being able to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

“Oh, they have some stars, and those stars have mattered. They’ve also evaluated them well; many of their biggest names saw their stature rise after Clemson escalated pursuit. But there were key contributors to this last national title who warranted their three- or two-star billing, too, and who probably wouldn’t be viewed in the same context if put on another roster.

“Swinney’s formula has manifested a sum greater than the individual parts. They strategically play most of the roster during relevant game action for developmental purposes, often to the sacrifice of style points. Clemson also places a premium in recruiting players who fit its mindset and are willing to invest in them. You can get four-star production from a three-star player when he’s a worker surrounded by talent, and you’re more likely to get the best from a highly-ranked recruit when he’s got favorable supporting influences.

“The bottom line is Clemson has shown to be exceedingly efficient in managing and maximizing its roster.”

“They take smaller classes than a lot of the teams that were ranked ahead of them in some cases and again we count only the top 20. If you take 21 or 22 versus 27 you have less room for error when it comes to ranking your top-20 guys.

“It’s indicative of smaller classes. It’s indicative of a lot of talent, a lot of quality vs. quantity. I’m not saying they’re underrated classes because top-10 is always good. It’s one of those things that they’re not taking as many kids as some other programs have during that stretch and sometimes their 19th or 20th guy will keep them eighth in the country instead of second or third.”