Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 29
| visibility 3,464

Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 23, 2021, 2:12 AM

I am frustrated at Clemson basketball. As I posted earlier this week, Brad Brownell has taken the joy out of watching them play. I no longer feel he is the right man for the job. I know a lot of people on here agree with me, but others don't. A lot of their points why puzzle me though or are bad justifications.

One thing that angers me too is to say that if I am wanting a new coach, I do not support the team. That is quite the contrary. I have our student athletes back 100% and I want to see them succeed in the best ways possible. I would never EVER root against us just to justify getting rid of the person in charge. That is nonsense to me. I want us to win. The reason I do not like the coach is because he is not doing that.

Another thing is when people say we are a football school. What the heck does that mean? Why does that mean we cannot win in basketball? Why does winning in football give people a defeatist attitude towards another sport? It makes no sense to me? Yeah, we are really good in football, so what? Lets win in basketball too. Just seems like a lazy excuse to justify mediocrity.

Speaking of mediocrity, that's what the history of Clemson basketball has been, sometimes not even that good. We all know it, we're not proud of it, but we know it. So with that being said, why to make Brownell look good, do we try to compare him to his predecessors? You mean to tell me because he is one of the winningest coaches at a school that has struggled to win, that means we should hang on to his mediocrity? That because we hardly ever made a tourney in our past that means we should reward him because he did it a couple times? What sense does this make? If you were to honestly judge his resume without knowing the name or school, but just knowing he coached a major conference school, would you think he should still have a job?

Another thing never taken into consideration when discussing Clemson basketball is the deluting of the conference in recent years. In the vast majority of Clemson basketball, there were fewer schools in the conference and a lot were in the midst of dominant runs. We played each of those schools twice a year. That created a lot of losses for us! In recent memory that dominance has faded. How scary is Wake and NC State these days? Where did Maryland go? What about the past decade of GT? UNC has had their ups and downs and Duke didn't even make the tourney this year. Plus we hardly play anyone twice a year anymore. This should all benefit us! Under Brownell it hasn't. Yet most people chalk it up to Clemson and their history and act like Brownell has won better than others like he was playing under the same set of circumstances. The reality is that he wasn't and he has actually under achieved.

I look at what Virginia has done recently. Florida St has made great strides. Even a struggling GT program managed to win the ACC this year. This conference to me looks ripe for the picking. I say screw the naysayers, Clemson should be able to have a dog in this fight!

Now I don't have any delusions about how could we should be. I feel like we can have a program that should be able to contend for a NCAA berth every year and be able to make a little noise now and again. I think we should should be able to finish in the top half (like 5-7) each year and contend for a title every once in a while. I don't think that is an expectation that is far fetched.

The problem is that I have seen a coach that in over a decade of coaching has not been able to achieve that. In his most recent season, we had a year in which most Brownell backers claimed this was his best team to date, had his best veteran player in Simms ready to lead us on a run. A year were Duke AND UNC were down. A year when GT was able to win the ACC. A year when nobody in the ACC was dominant. What did he do with this year? He finished 7-7 down the stretch and mustered a bad loss in the ACC and NCAA tournaments.

Folks, the reality of the situation is that a change needs to be made. Brad Brownell is a grown man who is getting paid rather handsomely to produce something that he has failed to do. If you want to keep making excuses for the man you can, but all you are doing is hurting the program!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 23, 2021, 7:13 AM

Your vent is someone long ,but a very realistic take .
I don't know if Brad is the only cause, but he is the Head Coach .Point in case that while Brad is a good X and O guy does he have capable assistant's ?Do you think Dabo would be as good as he is without the assistant coaches he has. Dabo is "a manager" who lets his coaches coach. Maybe Brad needs to take a lesson there.
Another thing is the talent level; These student athletes are good athletes, but are they good "basketball talent". Zion Williams aside, when was the last "All-American" type player recruited by Clemson? If memory serves me correctly Milton Jennings was the last and that was in 2009,21 years ago
Are you saying we can't recruit "basketball" players.
I don't know what the problem(s) are. For instance I sometimes wonder if we are the only school in all of basketball that game in, game out seem to have these 3-5 minute scoring droughts like we had the other night against Rutgers(a 13-2 run over 3 minutes in the 2nd half) or even get outrebounded 41-32 against that same team, some of those rebounds leading to second chance points for the Scarlet Knights. Where was our defense ? With the exception of Simms we were totally outmuscled on both ends of the court. So maybe we need a new strength and conditioning coach.
Just a few more thoughts for your vent.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Milton Jennings was 41 years ago.


Mar 23, 2021, 7:31 AM

He’s 63 now

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Shhh quiet he’s on a roll... ?? nm


Mar 23, 2021, 10:17 AM

No I told ya

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 23, 2021, 7:38 AM [ in reply to Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists ]

Why do you people keep saying Brownell’s a good X abs O guy? His scheme on offense doesn’t work all he can do is coach players to play defense, that’s it. How many times our team come out of a time out and either turn the ball over a throw up three-pointer? yeah that’s some great thinking

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

He never has a decent set play called and that motion


Mar 23, 2021, 10:22 AM

offense grind over and over so rarely results in success. Offensively we’re a tough team to watch and recruits have to pick up on that. Btw I like Tyson but he was so out hustled and physically pushed around in terms of rebounding the entire game.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Milton Jennings Was Not...


Mar 23, 2021, 10:44 AM [ in reply to Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists ]

a real McDonald's All-American. He wasn't even a Mac's Drive-In All-American.

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You had me at “frustrated”


Mar 23, 2021, 7:34 AM

Yes

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


If “frustrated” now, it is going to be worst next year


Mar 23, 2021, 8:32 AM

I'm with you guys, this 'he is a good 'x' and 'o' coach befuddles my limited basketball knowledge. Just need to start winning at some point. Hopefully, DRad wont give him another extension for this slow moving train wreck of a basketball program.

One more thing...folks want to give him offensive and defensive 'coordinators'. That's bs, if CBB needs that then fire him and hire them.

Sick of seeing GT, FSU, win the ACCT and we keep saying 'it's too hard' to do.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Apologists simply can't/won't face the truth ...


Mar 23, 2021, 8:46 AM

Here's what you get in 11 years with Brownell:

ACC Championships: 0
Average finish in the ACC: 7th place
Top 4 finishes in conference: 1
Losing record in the ACC: 95-99
NCAA Tournament appearances: 3
Times advanced past 1st round: 1

If that's what you consider a good body of work, reason for optimism going forward, you are one sad, pathetic loser. Please seek help for you warped obsession with Brownlee.

Many claim that he had to start from scratch, from nothing. That of course, is laughable; his predecessor had built a program from ruin, in 5 years, that went to 3 consecutive NCAA tournaments - now THAT truly was a feat. Yes, that may have been the wall under that system, but he took it from zero to ninety in 5 years. Brownlee continued at that same level of success with Purnell's players in year one, then proceeded on a 6 year plunge into darkness before finally emerging with an exciting Sweet 16 run seven years later. Then, straight back to mediocrity.

Brad Brownell is a super guy. He plays by the rules and does it the right way. All of that goes a long way, it really does. At the end of the day, however, he is a basketball coach, and he has a body of work, actual numbers and achievments upon which he must be judged, and those facts are not very impressive during his time at Clemson. That is a fact, and it is a fact that his worshippers simply won't or can't face ... it's really like a weird mental illness, and I've never seen anything like it.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


^^^you speaketh the truthfulness^^^


Mar 23, 2021, 8:58 AM

The writing is on the walls.

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Apologists simply can't/won't face the truth ...


Mar 23, 2021, 1:38 PM [ in reply to Apologists simply can't/won't face the truth ... ]

You are what you record says you are

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 23, 2021, 9:32 AM

I think we have to ask the question, “why has Clemson basketball been mediocre to bad its entire existence”. There have been a few exceptions, but our history is bad. Why is that?

I think it’s pretty obvious. Our basketball program gets limited funding especially compared to football. Our facilities up until the renovation were the worst in our conference, and if you
Look at our history or tradition it’s bad. Every coach that has had “success” at Clemson has left the minute another school came knocking. Rick Barnes went to the tourney 2 times in 4 years and he left for Texas. Purnell went to the tourney his last 3 years where he lost in the first round each time and then he left for DePaul.

Another thing to think about is how did our football team improve so much in he last 10 years. The answer is we hit the jackpot on a hire. We hired a WR coach with no head coaching experience (most people on t-net were pissed). The chances of us hiring a Dabo for Clemson basketball is slim to none. Another reason is that we improved our facilities to the point that they are top 5 in the nation. That makes a huge difference.

Clemson has recently invested in our basketball program. We renovated our facilities to at least bring them to the middle of the pack in our conference. In the 4 years since the Renovations we have been to the tourney twice with a sweet 16 appearance. Recruiting has also picked up and those recruits are starting to become upper class men. Its funny that people praise Rick Barnes, but when brownell has a better stretch in the last 4 years he gets no credit.

2 things can be true at once. There is a lot to be frustrated about since brownell has been here. . Since the facilities have upgraded there has been a marked level of improvement in recruiting and on court play. And we have guys coming back that should make the tourney next year.

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 24, 2021, 4:47 PM

Our basketball program (as of 2018) spends $2.5 million less than Gonzaga ($8.8 to $6.3) but grosses only $1 million less ($12.1 to $11.1). Money is not the primary problem.

Edit - Mark Few makes less money than Brownell. Wrap your head around that.

And do you really still stand by “we should make the tourney next year” as there is a player exodus and an already poor recruiting class falls even further?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Jstone D329 - “ It’s ok to want a coaching change”
Brownell @Clemson: 8 seasons ranked 50th or worse by Sports Reference’s SRS
1-29: Brad Brownell road record against ranked ACC opponents
142, 161, 294, 307, 293, 166, 225, 180, 260, 164, 141, 72, 68 - assist rankings amongst all D1 programs during Brownell's tenure


If you don't like it, go back to bitching about football


Mar 23, 2021, 10:43 AM

I'm frustrated too. Been following Clemson basketball since 1970. But I'm not going to quit on a guy who has built a solid program and had a lot to do with rebuilding Littlejohn by doing a lot of fund raising. Brad Brownell is Clemson's basketball coach and is not going anywhere. In a Kung Flu year with two pauses, he led the team to a solid season and an NCAA berth. Clemson went years without going to the NCAA Tournament. Clemson went years without winning a road game in the ACC. We don't need Clemson basketball "fans" constantly running down the program and trying to set dumpster fires. I suggest you get on board or go back to following football recruiting. The negative posts on this board and trying to justify firing a coach who has averaged 18 wins a year at Clemson is embarrassing. Y'all should be supporting BB instead of trying to run him out of town.

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is the exact kind of post that gets me


Mar 23, 2021, 3:35 PM

I'm a person that most people consider a glass half full guy. I'm the Clemson guy my friends call to walk them off the ledge when they feel things are going bad. I try to preach patience and to wait for a season to play out before judging. I dare you to find a bunch of "negative" posts that I have made in 20 years. I think my pulse can help you out with that.

So I list reasons why I'm not happy and why I feel a change needs to be made and when someone who doesn't agree with me tries to respond, they don't make counter points to what I say, they make it sound like I am a troll and am trying to stir up problems.

Newsflash, Clemson doesn't have a solid program. In a year where this was supposed to be his best team, I wouldn't dare call this a solid season. The fact is we regressed from Purnell to Brownell.

Brownell has been given more time than anyone has been given with his performance. We've stuck by him 11 years. He has been given plenty of time to take advantage of a weakened conference. Instead we've watched FSU, GT, UVA, and VT pass us by. Don't tell me we can't compete with them.

Facts are that if anyone is doing damage to the program it's Brownell. He has divided the fan base. He has killed interest in the program. He has failed to take us to the next level. The only accomplishments he has are ones of longevity and not of success. Maybe some should stop taken offense to "negativity" and realize that maybe there is a justified reason for it.

I want positive things for this program and school and that starts with a change at the top!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Diluting ... tired of the


Mar 23, 2021, 11:53 AM

diluge of mispellings !

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 24, 2021, 4:39 PM

he just alienated a four star freshman who is transferring. None of the three this year played much which is a mistake. You get your best class in 11 years and have them mainly sit on the bench.
More talent than most of the other guys. I have said for four years its time for a change. We had the chance and then extended him.

Not much coming in next year. Pastner at G Tech won an ACC championship in five years. Now has a top 15 class coming in. He just passed us because they made a change after Gregory did nothing in five years.

Lets make the change.

Mike Drop

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You Are Correct. We Don't Agree With You.***


Mar 24, 2021, 5:59 PM



2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Well at least thanks for illustrating how the ones who don't


Mar 24, 2021, 11:16 PM

agree with me have no good justifications why!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 25, 2021, 11:34 AM

Ok, I am going to take this a bit at a time....

As far as BB excitement - fair enough - BB pushes a high-IQ, efficient style that is not normally picked up easily for the casual basketball observer. He does not have a basic "gimmick" like OP's press that people can point to easily. Rather, defensively we are rather layered -if boring.

There is a reason why we were 8-6 vs tourneyment bound teams and 5-2 against those that weren't Tourney teams and 7-2 (mostly at home) against non-tourney teams. Plus most of VT's toughest game on the road vs Tourney teams were cancelled.

We are a football school mostly because the investment in football takes a priority over basketball. For our first 50 or so years of Basketball, the coaching position was given was given to an assistant football coach to pad his salary. Think about that, we had multiple football coaches on the payroll before we even hire one full BB coach (Press). Even then if you had 10 mil to give to a football coach or a basketball coach, where would you invest the money?

For the let's win at every sport crowd, all athletic budgets are "zero sum" scenarios. You can't give more to one without a cut to somewhere else.

I wish Clemson basketball was a history of "mediocrity" - unfortunately it is dead last in conference. Mostly because of a complete lack of emphasis and investment. Part of why Rick Barnes is both loved is because he might have been the first to "stand up" for Clemson basketball... but we had been playing for 80 years.

The conference is not diluted. Actually, it has strengthened because it went from 8 programs outspending us to 14 programs out spending us. You went from 2.5 program able to field a NC contender to having about 5. It is kinda a myth that the pre-expansion ACC has 5-6 team all ranked in the top 20... realistically it was only 2 i the 70s, 3 in the 80s/90s, 2 in the late 90s/00s. There were a LOT of down years too.

What happened to Wake, GT (maryland) etc. Well, the mid-majors. So the blue-bloods will get their all american talent. But that 2nd level talent is now being sucked away. Bing a non-power in a major conference is now HARDER as Clemson is now competing with the likes of VCU for that non-blue blood talent. That is why you are seeing all the non-major schools being included in the tourney & winning more. That not-quite-All American talent would rather go win the A10 or WAC that go 10-6 in the ACC. Thus while the ACC is both more top-heavy from the bigger programs, the middle/bottom is falling apart. For example, NC State, Villinova or even Clemson used to be the Cinderella "alternative" teams toi the major power- not so anymore. The Greg Buckners are going to other non-power conference rather than schools like Clemson, Wake, etc.

Maryland is actually your prime example that you can't win at every sport. They basically paid everything and them some to both major revenue sports AND non-revenue sports. They bankrupted themselves when these big paychecks didn't pan out. That is why they jumped to the B10. They bankrupted themselves, did not want to cut anything, and the B10 came in and front-loaded their allotment to dig them out. It wasn't that the ACC was not producing enough (it was) but you can fire a loved coach, spend BIG money on Edsall, fire him, and then push for post-Williams era, up funding for gynastics etc. There is a reason why we are cutting sports because we are all-in for football and it paid off. As a small school relatively, we are the example of putting ALL of our money where our football mouth is.

As for Virginia - They invested in Basketball by the tune of 130 million in 2005. Or about $170 Million in todays money. We just spent 70 million on basketball upgrades. UVA has one of the best facilities in the county. Period. Then UVA got luck with Bennett. Why? Washington State, after going to the Sweet Sixteen decided to CUT basketball funding - especially and all the way down to recruiting travel funds. WSU basically would have ended Bennetts career. Even then Bennett was not keen on leaving but his Wife is from North Carolina so if you have a Missus, being close to their family is a big reason for him accepting UVA. If his wife was from texas or Minnesota, UVA would not have bennett.

As for GT, be patient. Even Hewitt had a good year at GT. Sustained success is going to be more important. If you find a very good coach, KEEP HIM. Hamilton at FSU took 6 years to even get to the dance and he even had facility upgrades available when he started. He did not have much of a construction site 5 year into his FSU career. Even then, he had his own dips after about 5 trips dancing. If you find a VERY GOOD coach, you keep them. Otherwise you could be in an issue as far as Wake. Wake had a very good coach in Dino Gaudio. They fired him after a late season collapse and NCAA tourney loss. Where has their program been? Your point about firing a NCAA coach shoudl be noted as Wake has not been .500 save once since that decision.

So back to Brownell - BB is getting paid well, but the program still ranks about 13th in investments. It isnt just about paying Brad, but also the other salaries and support. Brad has taken a 13th level investment and made us into a top 1/3 program. Without Adidas/FBI or NCAA attention. Look at ROI. He is winning MORE than he should.

Finally, Compare us to NC State - a program that is rabid to win. They spend and spend, got unhappy at Herb because he would "only" finish 2nd in the tourney, be in the Sweet-Sixteen and they canned him. They went through Gottfried, Lowe, and now have Keatts. For once, we are better coached, a more stable program and are succeeding where they are failing with better talent.

Looping back to "being a football school" - finally we are building the foundation FOR basketball. Not a gimmick (OP) not crooked (Ellis) - rather being a "respectable" option for basketball in an environment that the "tide is against us" with mid-majors. We are currently having one of our BEST set of seasons in our history, trending upward and we are doing it without bankrupting or bring NCAA attention to the football program. AThat is the point of oure bb program, don't f with football.

This is why we are a football school, folks want to nuke the program without knowing the environment. It would be like the folks calling to have Dabo fired in 12/13 after 10+ win season. It is all about laying the groundwork. Dabo had a top 2/3 ACC investment in the football program to build upon and really Tommy built most of that investment.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists


Mar 25, 2021, 11:40 AM

Well done!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Can you elaborate just a bit

1

Mar 25, 2021, 11:46 AM [ in reply to Re: Venting about Clemson basketball and the apologists ]

on how not fouling at the end of the Rutgers game was high IQ?

Thanks.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Can you elaborate just a bit


Mar 25, 2021, 12:58 PM

Easy, since under about 3:30 of play neither team scored. Sending them to the FT line at a 2pt game would have likely required us to score three. Rutgers was shooting under 40% off the top of my head. There was a 60%+ chance that we could hold them to 0 points on that last possession. Even if they waste all of the shotclock, we would have 6+ seconds. Defending a layup or a 3 is a lot harder than just a 3pt. Ask GT.

Not fouling would give you a higher % chance as well as more potential options.

If you fouled, you would have a 25% chance they would only score 1 point OR a about a 56% chance they would score 2 points. I think they were 1 and 1 then. So that would have been

I mean Simms ALMOST had it but they got the lucky deflection lading to the layup ... just luck there but good on the Rutgers kid for following the ball.

Thus if you know your stats, a foul would reduce our chances to 0-25% defensively and then force a guarded 3. So say 25% * 35% = 9% chance at a win. Best case. More likely they would have over a 55% to end the game outright vs only 40%

If you guard, for a 0 point possession, get the ball back it would be 60% * 35% or at least a 21% chance to tie/win.

Which would you pick.

People assume that fouling is always the answer late in games but often a set d.

However, we are just overlooking a few missed layups etc that would have given us the game. You can have a good game, play hard and come up short sometimes. That is basketball....

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Weren’t we getting killed on the boards?

1

Mar 25, 2021, 1:05 PM

With that considered...if they were shooting around 40% from the field, I don’t believe that made our chances of stopping them and getting the ball back 60%.
You need to dig a little deeper into stats and probabilities.

Rutgers was a terrible free throw shooting team...and our chances were better at rebounding a missed free throw since, by rule, we would have inside position.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Weren’t we getting killed on the boards?


Mar 25, 2021, 2:24 PM

Sure, the team FT is down, but not they players they had on the court. Their two bigmen are the 50% FT shooters but they were benched. They were small, good hands for their final poss. So fouling would have had a court filled with 75%+ shooters. As a result, their interior rebounding was gone. Thus I would not count on any major opportunity as their best offensive rebounding was basically benched and positioned outside the paint.

Offensive rebounding, they were only +3 on us. Considering they jacked 30 3 attempts, the long rebounds are easier for the offense to nab. Since they had more turnovers, their defensive rebounds were slightly higher than us as well as their shooting %. You can point to rebounds as a stat line but unless you are aware that with rebounds are dependent on how many shot the opposing team takes, turnovers, our rebounding numbers are going to be naturally lower (basically few opportunities).

Back to the 60% opportunity aspect - they were sub 40% thus 60% from a miss. Now, there is also a chance they never take a shot (turnover). They turned it over 14 times, they had 13 offensive rebounds. Thus to completely no take a shot is basically null when compared to a second attempt. 14 time no shot, 13 time s a second shot, Still 1:1 AT SUB 40% SHOOTING.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Fair enough. I appreciate your effort and your points.

1

Mar 25, 2021, 2:43 PM

But there is one bottom line that is not up for debate.
The strategy we tried did not work...again.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Fair enough. I appreciate your effort and your points.


Mar 25, 2021, 4:45 PM

Fair enough but who would have thought Simms would miss that layup. We just went cold at the end (they kinda did too but mad their layup (where we were heating up just 30 seconds prior).

We were not beat strategically or by scheme, we were not beaten by hustle/motivation, we were not beaten by talent, we just did not make the shots late. That is basketball. You can make the right decisions, moves, everything and still falter. You best player can simply just miss a high % shot, get a very questionable traveling call, or deflect a pass right into another player for a layup.

We went 16-8, danced, and beat 8 tourney level teams. Yup we were 8-6 vs top teams, 8-2 vs non dancing teams. That is extremely good. The strategy works. Just need to keep building. Keep up the hustle.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Fair enough. I appreciate your effort and your points.


Mar 25, 2021, 4:55 PM

FutureDoc said:

Fair enough but who would have thought Simms would miss that layup. We just went cold at the end (they kinda did too but mad their layup (where we were heating up just 30 seconds prior).

We were not beat strategically or by scheme, we were not beaten by hustle/motivation, we were not beaten by talent, we just did not make the shots late. That is basketball. You can make the right decisions, moves, everything and still falter. You best player can simply just miss a high % shot, get a very questionable traveling call, or deflect a pass right into another player for a layup.

We went 16-8, danced, and beat 8 tourney level teams. Yup we were 8-6 vs top teams, 8-2 vs non dancing teams. That is extremely good. The strategy works. Just need to keep building. Keep up the hustle.



Good overall opinions, but what happens in your opinion if let’s say Brad doesn’t get back to the NCAAT in the next two seasons? Not saying he won’t, but for arguments sake that will be three appearances in 13 seasons. When would we eventually pull the plug?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Fair enough. I appreciate your effort and your points.


Mar 26, 2021, 8:51 AM

I say that depends.

IS it like the 13/14 season where we were 20+ wins, 10+ wins and finished 6th in conference? Or is like 18/19 when we were 20-14 and 9-9 or is it when we are sub 15 wins and 6-12 in conference?

I will give you the best example of when I think it is right to move on. I was at our home loss to Yale two year ago now. We were out hustled, out schemed, out played by a very, very good but less talented team. When I see that as a pattern emerging, and the boys quit we move on. Heck I say so furious about that loss I was on the Brownell being out crew. But hey, the turnarouns on that season might be BB's best coaching job to day. That team should have finished with maybe 8 or 9 wins total, not be 9-11 ( was 5-4 OOC with wins only over minor programs). Odd season.

And since we are a football school, lets use the Tommy Bowden example. He wasn't frustrating because he could not win or what meh, but he could not win even against lesser talent. At time, if the team got gut-punched, the whole team would shut down and quit - even against Wake. If the season went sideways, well 6-6 here we come and Tommy had the resources to win it all. Brad is quite different. While I have seen really bad games (like Yale) I have not seen his kids quit. For me, that is the sign of a good coach. He is winning more with less resources and laying the foundation. However, if he starts slipping, seeing his boys quit after a bad spell, and stop dropping to lesser opponents then we move on.

My *fear* or at least dilemma is the Dino Gaudio (Wake Forest) issue. They fired him for dancing and not winning enough in the post season. He had 3 straight NCAA finishes although they kinda muffed in the end sometimes. They got rid of a very good coach because they wanted a great one. Since then, Wake's best finish has been 19-14 and I don't think they have really done anything much more than 13 wins. I don't want to go back to a post-Shayatt level need for a rebuild so we better have a Nate Oats (my recommendation after the yale loss) fireburner ready. Winning at Clemson is the toughest gig for ACC basketball as far as programs. The hardest. We have a coach that can win, can dance, can beat UNC at home. What is wrong with that? Until he proves that he is a steady 12-15 win coach, then am with him.

His boys don't quit. That is the #1 requirement for a Clemson team.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 29
| visibility 3,464
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic