|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5513]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 6991
Joined: 4/6/10
|
BB may be great at Xs and Os
Mar 4, 2015, 12:19 AM
|
|
But Ws and Ls are all that matters, and hes not getting the job done. MEDIOCRE
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [44044]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32956
Joined: 2/22/03
|
He has the best ACC winning percentage in Clemson basketball history.
Mar 4, 2015, 12:48 AM
|
|
I know you don't like him, but facts are facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Completely different ACC and college bball landscape now...
Mar 4, 2015, 1:02 AM
|
|
.500 in the conference used to mean you were a lock for the NCAA Tournament
Now .500 in the conference means you might not even make the NIT, and in 2011, it meant we had an RPI of 150.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 25005
Joined: 6/24/99
|
thats correct....and yet, in another post YOU cite
Mar 4, 2015, 7:17 AM
|
|
the records of past Clemson coaches in a very lame attempt to criticize Coach Brownell......so which is it?? Should the performances of previous Clemson basketball coaches be used as gauge or not??? The ACC has changed considerably.
Look familiar?:
"It's also interesting to note that if we don't make the postseason that will be 3 times in Brownell's 5 seasons. That's the same number of times that Ellis, Barnes, and Purnell missed the postseason combined in their collective 21 seasons as CU's head basketball coach."
Message was edited by: tigrjm76®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
The ACC has changed considerably...
Mar 4, 2015, 10:34 AM
|
|
We've added Miami, BC, VT, Pitt, Syracuse, ND, and this year Louisville. While some of those teams are sometimes good, none of them are consistently as good as UNC or Duke, who we now only play once a year usually.
The ACC is watered down...so no, conference records aren't the same as they were in the past.
The NIT and NCAA Tournaments, the measure of success that I mentioned, are still mainly predicated on RPI and the number of quality wins. Nothing has changed in the RPI formula or what it takes to get into the postseason tournaments. The fact is we're winning more conference games, but our RPI is consistently worse under Brownell because not as many conference wins are "quality wins" any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3782
Joined: 8/8/09
|
Re: BB may be great at Xs and Os
Mar 4, 2015, 1:17 AM
|
|
Look at the talent on the floor and what he's managed to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1395]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 2332
Joined: 11/4/04
|
Re: BB may be great at Xs and Os
Mar 4, 2015, 8:19 AM
|
|
And he is ENTIRELY responsible for the lack of it. He just needs better players, he does great with what he has, blah blah blah. Those are all his recruits! That is his recruited talent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5513]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 6991
Joined: 4/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3782
Joined: 8/8/09
|
Re: Uh hes the one that recruited them
Mar 4, 2015, 1:08 PM
|
|
And he did the best he could with our facilities. I don't see your point
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: Uh hes the one that recruited them
Mar 4, 2015, 10:50 PM
|
|
Elite coaches win before they have the facilities. What did Duke have when coach K arrived? What did UNLV have when Tark arrived?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1099]
TigerPulse: 53%
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10/15/13
|
Re: BB may be great at Xs and Os
Mar 4, 2015, 1:17 AM
|
|
Is there a horse in Alabama that's still alive?I will give you credit, you when you beat one you beat the hell out of it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6620
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: BB may be great at Xs and coach
Mar 4, 2015, 1:23 AM
|
|
I don't think he is very good, his style of basketball isn't how the game is meant to be played. It's almost unwatchable and very boring. The way I see what will need to be done in a few years, should be done right away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7922
Joined: 5/27/08
|
Re: BB may be great at Xs and coach
Mar 4, 2015, 7:20 AM
|
|
Basketball isn't meant to be played with good fundamentals and defense?
Don't tell Kentucky or UVA that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6620
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: BB may be great at Xs and coach
Mar 4, 2015, 8:42 AM
|
|
Kentucky pushes the ball and will run. UVA won't make the final 8. The style play that clemson plays is boring and not how the game was meant to be played. If enjoy it that's fine, I can't wait and hope when clemson replaces Brownell in the next two years we get a coach who plays a different style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7922
Joined: 5/27/08
|
Re: BB may be great at Xs and coach
Mar 4, 2015, 8:59 AM
|
|
Kentucky is also ridiculously deep and scary talented. But when it comes right down to it, they're fundamentally sound and play fantastic defense. Something Brownell is trying to establish, and is doing so pretty successfully for the most part.
We'll agree to disagree about UVA. They're built to go on an NCAA run, especially with Justin Anderson returning soon. UVA is the model Clemson should be looking to for success, as they're extremely similar in style. UVA just finds ways to score better than Clemson.
Basketball starts with the fundamentals, something the OP teams severely lacked. It's not the style of play that's the problem, rather the lack of playmakers at this point in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5972]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3941
Joined: 1/10/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
I think his style of basketball is exactly how the game is
Mar 4, 2015, 9:14 AM
[ in reply to Re: BB may be great at Xs and coach ] |
|
meant to be played. Unfortunately he hasn't been able to bring in the talent to make it work. I also think it is yet to be determined whether he can actually execute his style of basketball. I have watched UVA play a lot and the execution is perfect. They run a lot of sets to get mismatches and it leads to open shots at the rim. CBB's teams seem unable to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7922
Joined: 5/27/08
|
^^This, mostly
Mar 4, 2015, 9:29 AM
|
|
UVA should be the model for Clemson. We just need the talent level to take a step up. I think it will with next year's squad. Not that I think Clemson will win the ACC and be a #1 seed, but I think you see significant progress.
I've seen us get plenty of open shots off of sets. That's where I disagree with you. We just seem unable to convert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
yes, North Alabamie, your post is MEDIOCRE..
Mar 4, 2015, 7:45 AM
|
|
your thought process is MEDIOCRE...
your understanding of Clemson's basketball history is MEDIOCRE...
your knowledge of what it takes to build a program (not a team) is MEDIOCRE...
your grasp of the importance of the losses of KJ McDaniels and Brice Johnson is MEDIOCRE...
your failure to understand the plight of high school basketball in the State of South Carolina is MEDIOCRE...
your failure to adequately and dispassionately assess Brad Brownell is MEDIOCRE....
your incessant whining is MED.... well.... just truly pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1929]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 2510
Joined: 8/30/14
|
Re: yes, North Alabamie, your post is MEDIOCRE..
Mar 4, 2015, 8:36 AM
|
|
Anyone that ISN'T questioning EVERYTHING about this mediocre program is a huge reason this team is so terrible! I am so tired of the CBB apologist pointing out every excuse as to why, why, why?? We need to wake up and expect more!!! Those people that don't give Jack Leggett the same benefit of the doubt and that made Chad Morris the brunt of a lot of vicious criticism need to ask themselves why not CBB? Do they feel Clemson doesn't deserve any better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
it isn't our expectations that are the problem with the team
Mar 4, 2015, 10:04 AM
|
|
In fact, in my view, fan's "expectations" often hurt the program.
Clemson's problem in basketball is purely and simply BRAND. In an age where the media exposure is everything, we have not yet turned the Brand for the long term. Go back to 1979 - with the advent of ESPN and the Magic/Bird era - we simply did not have any traction at all in basketball as a program that wasn't specifically related to being in the ACC. Little has changed over time that has been consistent, and I would argue that the short tenures of Rick Barnes and Oliver Purnell hurt the program more than it helped the program simply because there wasn't consistency in the BRAND.
If you want to understand how much Brand means in College Basketball, simply ask yourself how Kentucky can re-tool year after year. Seriously: what's the draw to Lexington? Media center? No. Good basketball conference? No. Facilities? Hail no (as Rupp Arena has been there forever). Geographical environment that attracts kids (a la Southern Cal, FSU, Georgetown). Hail no. Educational opportunities (a la Duke). Hail no.
Yet each year the Wildcats spit out 2-3 draft picks and pick up 3-4 McDonald's AA's if not more.
BRAND; nothing more.
Changing a coach hurts the Brand - staying the course with a winner at the helm is the only way to change the Brand over the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
did you just compare Clemson bball to the Magic/Bird era?
Mar 4, 2015, 10:20 AM
|
|
#####?
And UK turns out players b/c of Calipari. They didn't get them when Gillespie was there, so that shoots down that theory.
Nice try though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
seriously York, you have a reading problem - you can't...
Mar 4, 2015, 7:00 PM
|
|
I suggested that when the media age boom occurred in College Basketball starting in the late 70's, Clemson's profile was low at the time, and remains low. In large part you'll find that is what has happened to most schools - their profiles remain the same as they were then. The haves got richer, the have nots continue to scramble for the left-overs.
As to Kentucky, they've won NCAA championships in the 40's, 50's, 70's, 90's, and recently in 2012. I don't think Calipari coached them in the 70's or the 90's. I am certain that you are right that Calipari's profile has something to do with their success, but then again Pitino did quite well there too. So did Hall and Rupp. In fact more coaches there have won Championships than not - seemingly only Gillespie and Eddie Sutton couldn't do it, underscoring how bad they were. In addition to their 8 titles, they've been runner-up 5 times, and to the Final Four another four times. Finally, Kentucky is the all-time leader in college basketball wins - having separated themselves from the UNC Cheats several years ago.
If you don't think that's BRAND, then I hope you're not in sales or marketing, cause it's gonna be a short career bucko.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: yes, North Alabamie, your post is MEDIOCRE..
Mar 4, 2015, 10:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: yes, North Alabamie, your post is MEDIOCRE.. ] |
|
The ACC has football schools and Basketball schools. Us and FSU are the football schools. Duke and UNC are the basketball schools. Duke and UNC suck in football and Us and FSU suck in basketball. Thats just the way it is. Probably will not change any time soon. When the basketball program begins generating the money the football program generates, it will be given the priority the football program is given. That will probably never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30820]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34493
Joined: 6/22/03
|
w and l ARE not all that matter.***
Mar 4, 2015, 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
