|
Replies: 51
| visibility 1
|
All-In [27266]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10083
Joined: 2/14/13
|
For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64!
4
Mar 12, 2023, 3:37 PM
|
|
64!
Absolutely zero reason Clemson can’t be one of those 64 teams every year.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Great, so to consistently expect that
2
Mar 12, 2023, 3:39 PM
|
|
we need to be one of the best 35 teams. That accounts for the automatic bids.
Let’s start by being in the top 35 in program funding, attendance, and recruiting.
FYI, we are nowhere close to top 35 in funding or attendance.
Only then is it reasonable to expect to be a top 35 team every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27266]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10083
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: Great, so to consistently expect that
2
Mar 12, 2023, 3:47 PM
|
|
Nope if you stay in the top 64 every year, the rest will work out, meaning if you are consistently finishing top 64, you will make the tournament more years than you won’t. But good try, and congratulations on fixing your butthurt. It doesn’t seem so bad anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Yes, being in the top 64 doesn’t come close to guaranteeing a spot
Mar 12, 2023, 3:55 PM
|
|
in the NCAA Tournament.
That’s because a significant portion of the teams who make it are automatic qualifiers who aren’t one of the best 64 teams.
To guarantee an at-large bid, you need to be in the top 35 or so.
For us to reasonably expect that every year, we need to support the program accordingly.
Otherwise, you are just as unreasonable as a Duke football fan expecting to be in a New Year’s six bowl every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27266]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10083
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: Yes, being in the top 64 doesn’t come close to guaranteeing a spot
Mar 12, 2023, 4:00 PM
|
|
So your saying all the conference winners that get automatic qualifiers are NOT top 64 teams? Is that what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17751]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16649
Joined: 9/1/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Yes, being in the top 64 doesn’t come close to guaranteeing a spot
Mar 12, 2023, 4:52 PM
|
|
On the flip side at least 10 of the AQs are in the top 35 - so no, you don’t need to be in the top 35 to get an at large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9165]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2/23/23
|
Re: Yes, being in the top 64 doesn’t come close to guaranteeing a spot
Mar 12, 2023, 11:30 PM
|
|
I haven’t looked it up myself, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen multiple post we average around 75 the last 5 out so years…. Top 64 would be a move on the right direction and yield better results than the last 13 years one would imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22447]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11500
Joined: 10/12/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Of course that isn’t what I’m saying, but you know that.
Mar 12, 2023, 9:32 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yes, being in the top 64 doesn’t come close to guaranteeing a spot ] |
|
What I’m saying is that to be guaranteed to make it in as an at-large team, you really need to be in the top 35 or so. When you start to get in the 40s, you are cutting it close and probably need help from other bubble teams to get in.
Your posts make it sound like all one has to do is be in the top 64, and that isn’t the case at all. But I know why you and others say that, because it gives the illusion that we are awful and you think it bolsters your stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: Of course that isn’t what I’m saying, but you know that.
1
Mar 12, 2023, 10:46 PM
|
|
I usually am in complete disagreement with JK. But in this case, he and I are on the exact same page. I've posted this exact same argument before.
There are 68 teams that get invited to play. 32 are AQs--conference tournament winners. Leaves 36 at-large bids. It is usually true that a goodly number of the AQs are ALSO ranked in the top 68 teams, but not always. Upsets happen in conference tournaments every year, and a lot of the AQs are from small-school conferences that will not usually be highly ranked despite winning their conference.
If you're in the top 36 and not an AQ, it's virtually certain that you will be in the NCCAT. If you're in the top 40 to 60, your chances diminish the further down that list you are. Outside the top 60? Probably not gonna happen. And every lower ranked team that snags their conference's AQ lowers the chances of those teams in that 40-60 or so range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1998]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2867
Joined: 2/10/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39614
Joined: 11/12/04
|
So, all the at-large teams that get in are in the Top 35 of
1
Mar 12, 2023, 3:48 PM
[ in reply to Great, so to consistently expect that ] |
|
funding or attendance. Interesting.
If not, could it be maybe their coaching that somehow, someway, gets them to apparently overachieve and attain the impossible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6280]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 12978
Joined: 4/21/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39614
Joined: 11/12/04
|
We aren’t even top 35 in the ACC.***
3
Mar 12, 2023, 3:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27266]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10083
Joined: 2/14/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Not close to top 35, as I said.
1
Mar 12, 2023, 3:56 PM
|
|
Keep being unreasonable in your expectations though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27266]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10083
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: Not close to top 35, as I said.
Mar 12, 2023, 3:59 PM
|
|
Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12986
Joined: 8/4/14
|
So, just over a million more spent to put us in top 35
1
Mar 12, 2023, 4:01 PM
[ in reply to Not close to top 35, as I said. ] |
|
in spending. Do you actually think spending a million more will make a significant difference in performance? I don't think so!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27266]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10083
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: So, just over a million more spent to put us in top 35
Mar 12, 2023, 4:03 PM
|
|
If we spent it on Brad Brownell it would more than guarantee us a final four at least right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22447]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11500
Joined: 10/12/14
|
Re: So, just over a million more spent to put us in top 35
Mar 12, 2023, 6:07 PM
|
|
That is how these guys see it. They use the same “logic” when they say Dabo should never make a mistake because he is paid a high salary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
You are both being obtuse.
Mar 12, 2023, 9:34 PM
|
|
No one has said that Brad should be paid more since he received his last extension.
The PROGRAM needs more money. Don’t you wonder what our competition is spending those extra millions a year on that we aren’t? Don’t you think that might be important?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6280]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 12978
Joined: 4/21/15
|
Re: Not close to top 35, as I said.
Mar 12, 2023, 5:43 PM
[ in reply to Not close to top 35, as I said. ] |
|
I agree we do need to spend more. I also believe we should expect to win no matter the budget. I believe our boys can win games. I expect to win games. We deff need to put more money into basketball tho imo. Maybe start with paying a better coach more money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7829
Joined: 11/30/98
|
hmmm, alot of teams that spend less
Mar 12, 2023, 4:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: Great, so to consistently expect that ] |
|
than we do on that list, but has a better Tourney history than us. Not sure the $$ expense would guarantee a substantial rankings jump for CBB..... unless we just flat out buy players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13221]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9985
Joined: 5/11/99
|
Since spending and attendance are the 2 biggest factors
1
Mar 12, 2023, 4:02 PM
[ in reply to Great, so to consistently expect that ] |
|
holding us back, and nothing else.
Where do we rank in spending in the ACC and Nationally?
Where do we rank in attendance in the ACC and Nationally?
Not trying to start an argument, I'm actually interested in these two figures. And, I gather you would know where they are and could direct me to them much faster than I could find them.
Also, I'm curious if there is some anecdotal evidence that suggest when schools increased both, there was a major shift in their teams competitiveness. If possibly to exclude coaching changes that would be interesting as well as it would mute the idea, somewhat, that coaching was responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: We are in the bottom third of the ACC in both spending and attendance.
1
Mar 12, 2023, 4:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13221]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9985
Joined: 5/11/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4035]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3527
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: Great, so to consistently expect that
3
Mar 12, 2023, 4:41 PM
[ in reply to Great, so to consistently expect that ] |
|
Attendance and recruiting can be solved by new leadership of the team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46309
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Absurd - laughable. claims that our basketball shortcomings
13
13
Mar 12, 2023, 5:07 PM
[ in reply to Great, so to consistently expect that ] |
|
are largely because of our limited budget is laughable:
Look at Virginia Tech in our own conference: Slightly, insignificantly above us in spending, Yet FIVE NCAAT appearences since 2017, having played 7 NCAAT games over that span.
Look at Notre Dame, almost identical budget to ours, and they have SEVEN NCAAT appearences since 2010, having played 18 (yes EIGHTEEN) NCAAT games during that time.
Look at Missouri, who has an almost identical budget to ours ... They have SIX NCAAT appearances since 2010, having played SEVEN NCAAT games.
Look at Memphis, who is below us in basketball budget. FIVE NCAAT appearences since 2011, with a total of EIGHT NCAAT games.
Iowa has a smaller budget, yet they have SIX NCAAT appearences since 2014, having played a total of TEN games over that period.
Kansas State has a smaller budget, yet they have EIGHT NCAAT appearances since 2010 with SEVENTEEN total NCAAT games played over that time.
Seton Hall, with a smaller budget than ours, has FIVE NCAAT appearances since 2016, with a total of SIX NCAAT games played over that span.
Cincinnatti has a lower budget than ours, and they have played in NINE NCAAT's since 2010, having played in a total of 15 tournament games over that period.
Xavier has a smaller budget than ours, and they have EIGHT NCAAT appearances since 2010, having played NINETEEN tournament games during that time.
I'm all for a bigger budget and everything that entails, but lack of funding is NOT the reason for our consistent mediocrity in basketball. We can and should expect better. The right coach can make all of the difference, and if he's worth it, THEN by all means pay him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5465]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3308
Joined: 1/19/05
|
Re: Absurd - laughable. claims that our basketball shortcomings
2
Mar 12, 2023, 5:14 PM
|
|
You just became JK’s enemy with those facts there. Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46309
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I actually like JK, and don't want to be anybody's enemy.
1
Mar 12, 2023, 5:18 PM
|
|
But this bullchit is too outrageous and has to be called. Absolving Brownell from Clemson's failures under his watch because of budget is beyond absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: I actually like JK, and don't want to be anybody's enemy.
2
Mar 12, 2023, 5:20 PM
|
|
He mostly just makes sh*t up knowing his followers will parrot it endlessly and ignores anyone that posts proof to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46309
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Clearly, he's either delusional or trolling when it comes to
1
Mar 12, 2023, 5:23 PM
|
|
Brownell. It was funny for a while, but he's worn it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1321]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2316
Joined: 10/5/00
|
I think he is Brownell…***
1
Mar 12, 2023, 5:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43989]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32916
Joined: 2/22/03
|
No one is saying that it is all about spending.
Mar 12, 2023, 9:42 PM
[ in reply to Absurd - laughable. claims that our basketball shortcomings ] |
|
But it has clearly been demonstrated that programs that spend more, win more. Are there exceptions? Sure, but why not do all we can to give ourselves the best chance at success? Expecting a coach to work miracles against all odds is a horrible way to get there.
Spending is obviously not the only factor, but it’s super important. So is having a great home court advantage. So is coaching. So is recruiting. It’s all important, especially at a place like Clemson that hasn’t historically had much basketball success and has earned a reputation for not caring about basketball.
It’s up to Brad and his staff to recruit and coach well. But it’s up to Clemson to fund the program at a level commensurate with the success we want to have. If we want to be a fixture in the NCAA Tournament and have postseason success, at Clemson, in the ACC, we need to spend more on the program and support it better.
Some of you who are expecting incredible success while continuing to go cheap on basketball are like people who expect to lose weight by continuing to eat crappy food and lie on the couch. Just wanting it to happen isn’t enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58367]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46309
Joined: 4/23/00
|
The point is, a lot of schools with similar or lower
3
Mar 12, 2023, 11:15 PM
|
|
spending on basketball are more succesful than we are under Brownell. That means it's not, as a matter of cold hard fact, unreasonable for us to expect more just as things are. We know this for a fact - we can be better with our current financial structure, spending, and budget. It's not up for debate. I respect your obssessive dedication to Brownell above all else, but you are demonstrably wrong about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1418]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1619
Joined: 11/21/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [519]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 579
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8047]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6805
Joined: 10/16/09
|
Re: For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64!
Mar 12, 2023, 3:44 PM
|
|
Actually 68 if you count the “play in games”. But are they really play in games or just another component of the tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39614
Joined: 11/12/04
|
Brad and his Bois would definitely count it as “in”
1
Mar 12, 2023, 3:52 PM
|
|
even if they lose it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4308
Joined: 8/30/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2846]
TigerPulse: 65%
Posts: 2569
Joined: 6/9/00
|
If you are one of the 68
1
Mar 12, 2023, 5:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64! ] |
|
You are in the tournament. Period. I wish you people would value our basketball program sometime instead of always trying to devalue our basketball program. We get it. No matter what Brownell does, you are going to complain, whine, moan, etc., etc. He was at Mac's Drive In and didn't order a grilled cheeseburger and milk shake. FIRE HIM IMMEDIATELY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67659]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115405
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64!
Mar 12, 2023, 4:03 PM
|
|
It is a perfect number. Them adding that play in junk is ridiculous and unnecessary. It is a dumb concept regardless of how today plays out
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2987]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 2499
Joined: 1/23/10
|
Re: For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64!
Mar 12, 2023, 4:09 PM
|
|
Uhm, isnt it a plus 4 from your score?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7929]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10405
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64!
2
Mar 12, 2023, 5:01 PM
|
|
64!
Absolutely zero reason Clemson can’t be one of those 64 teams every year.
Obviously there is a reason as we have never made it every year. In fact, is there any program who has made it every year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27363]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31820
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64!
Mar 12, 2023, 5:44 PM
|
|
Rarely is there a cinch win playing within the league. League games are ALWAYS tough. Out of conference wins are vital to having a good standing. Pre season tournaments wins are very big …. If you are playing strong teams! Playing Taxidermy Tech gets you NOTHING!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7929]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10405
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: For those that don’t know 64 teams make it to the NCAAT. 64!
1
Mar 12, 2023, 5:45 PM
|
|
Actually it’s 68 but whose counting
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5082]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5133
Joined: 11/9/09
|
I agree - they do call it a Play IN Game - win and then in.***
Mar 12, 2023, 6:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5082]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5133
Joined: 11/9/09
|
Heck they even play in a different city and arena than the
Mar 12, 2023, 6:07 PM
|
|
First/Second round host sites
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: Heck they even play in a different city and arena than the
Mar 12, 2023, 10:55 PM
|
|
Actually, they are not called "play-in" games anymore. They never were "play-in" games.
The First Four are in the tournament. The other 64 teams get a bye directly to the Round of 64.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64946]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33158
Joined: 12/3/03
|
Technically not true. Those Last Four In have the same
Mar 12, 2023, 8:24 PM
|
|
opportunity in front of them that the other 64 do. SURVIVE AND ADVANCE. That is what March Madness is all about. So, you can call it a Play-In game, but EVERY game from here on out is a Play-In game, lose and you are GONE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 51
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/72051093/1239763734.0.jpg)
