Whoever invented the “next man up” philosophy should have copyrighted the phrase. It’s among the most popular buzzwords in sports today.

Regardless of sport, teams wear it like a badge of honor. It’s the attitude that the show must go on, even if major players go down for a variety of reasons.

“Next man up” is the embodiment of several core virtues essential on exceptional teams—perseverance, fortitude, camaraderie, teamwork. There aren’t any negatives associated with the designation whatsoever. It’s a wholly honorable moniker for a team to carry.

That’s the reason so many teams willingly go to “next man up” when asked to respond to attrition on a roster. Indeed, the pinnacle programs in both the college and professional sports ranks right now are seen by the masses as “next man up” programs.

The New England Patriots have it. The San Francisco Giants have it. Even Ohio State won a national title last season after two quarterbacks were lost for the season. It was the epitome of “next man up” at the collegiate level.

There are two ways for a coaching staff to set up a system like this: lying to players and telling them they can do things they cannot, or piling up layers of quality players all over the depth chart. Luckily for Clemson, Dabo Swinney has chosen the latter strategy.

Swinney has successfully built a program filled with talented pieces that can be substituted in and out at will. All offseason, the Tigers have pledged to tap into the “next man up” philosophy to handle critical losses.

Starting kicker gets suspended? Next man up.

Starting left tackle leaves in June for the NFL? Next man up.

Starting nickel back tears a knee ligament? Next man up.

Contributor at linebacker gives up football in the middle of camp? Next man up.

Now, the news about D.J. Reader’s temporary absence has the same sentiments coming to the forefront, and understandably so. After all, it’s worked in the past, and the roster is so chocked full of talent that it might continue to do so.

However, this recent departure—Clemson will begin the season without its top four defensive tackles and top two defensive ends from a year ago—begs a far different question: Is there a limit to “next man up”?

Could Clemson reach a point where there truly isn’t another man to rise up into a major role? Is the Reader loss—just the latest footnote in an offseason rife with ill-timed attrition—the breaking point for a strategy that has begat champions across the sporting world?

The Tigers have some options, but not many. Stud freshman Christian Wilkins is still there. Carlos Watkins and Scott Pagano are still there, along with Roderick Byers. Those aren’t slouches.

However, isn’t there a limit to how far an 85-man scholarship roster can be stretched? Are some losses so severe—Reader was one of the unquestioned leaders of this defense—that the depth chart can’t support the weight of the loss? Are some players so foundational they can’t be replaced, even when an apparatus is set up to do just that?

I don’t know if this is one of those losses or not. I believe in the “next man up” philosophy, obviously, because it works, but I also think there are only a certain amount of “next man up” kinds of losses a team can take before the overall product is affected.

In an offseason that has seen Clemson coaches go to the well again and again to tap into the reserves, an expectant fan base needs to hope there are a few more mulligans available, because the season hasn’t started yet and the losses are already piling up.

God Bless!

WQ