Outclassed? You don't understand the meaning of the word!!

I've been harping on his record in close games recently once the numbers were looked into. It always felt like we were on the wrong side of those with him, but often that's just warped perspective due to being let down. The numbers bear that out though. But here's the kicker.

At UNC-W and Wright State, when he was compiling impressive records and getting those teams to the NCAA tournament, he was 33-18 in one-score games, a whopping 64.7 win %. That's up there in Tony Bennett territory. His overall winning % over those seasons at those gigs? 66.3%.

At Clemson, versus ACC-caliber coaching, he is 26-48 in one-score games (nearly 20% of his games), a really depressing 35.1% clip. This is a sample size of 12 years, his entire tenure here. His 1-6 record in those this season brought it down a notch to where it stands today.

Now for the crazy. Unlike most of the other coaches in the ACC, where this measure is fairly consistent with their overall records (used a five-year look / sample), usually trailing a bit of course because a one-score game really shows that either team is capable at that point of a win, Brownell sports a 56.8 overall winning % but trails over 20 % points behind in these. Only four current coaches were under .500 in this category, and none of their numbers are worse than Brad's Clemson career % (exception is BC's Earl Grant who is 1-2 in one season - two guesses who the 1 was against and the 2nd guess doesn't count).

This isn't a recruiting issue. It's not a support issue. It's not a funding issue. It is, however, a mano a mano coaching issue. Brad gets owned in close games by literally everyone in this league. He did early in his career, and he does now twelve years into his career.

His overall winning % doesn't stink. It's actually 6th in the ACC on average over the past five years - not bad, right? Wow! Historic! In two-score games (4-6 points, so close games), he is also at a paltry 40% number (26-39). All the rest? Those that don't come down to an end game, where we're either winning or losing by 7 or more and the game is roughly over before the nitty gritty finish? A 67.8 win percentage.

We have totally been Peter Principled here with Brad Brownell. He was promoted out of the Horizon League beyond his skill level, based on the results (which I hate, I really wanted him to succeed here when he was hired, and since, without question - this is Clemson after all), and essentially we are now stuck with an overmatched coach who we can't seem to move out of his position, because overall the numbers are okay enough, historically speaking, it will cost us an extra year's worth of salary to accomplish, and he's a good guy.

I have no clue how one fixes that. ACC coaches come and go, yet Brad performs how Brad performs just the same.

wbl out.

Message was edited by: wildblulou®

FutureDoc

110%er [6825]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 6350

Joined: 7/20/18

Re: Outclassed? You don't understand the meaning of the word!!

Mar 15, 2022, 1:26 PM

Basketball isn't the redheaded step child, it is someone else's stepchild.

In basketball, "tight games" are not how you win unless you are doing the UVA method and even then the scores might be tighter but because the points per possession are different, it might be several/many possessions difference same as a 20 gap. I don't see winning tight games as a good thing, it is more of a liability. If football is a game of inches measured in yards, basketball is a game of runs measured in baskets. That is why you are seeing less close games overall (modern trend). Our issue, which has always been the case, is that our talent level just can never bury the elite talent. Have have been able to do that without getting a bit dirty. Heck looking at the Kevin Keatts record, yeah, that is the case of better talent not playing up to their capacity. Those late game wins/losses are often just an expression of 1v1 talent on one play. Not a guarantee to win but a better change. Coaching keeps a game close and when you lack the resources, keeping it close for a chance is better than being run out.

Accepting less? Disagree. Resources are limited. Finite. Supporting Mens Track & XCountry to get it back was a kick to the basketball team. That money has to come from somewhere and it isn't going to come out of Dabo's budget. It isn't coming out of Noonan's budget. Not likely from baseballl or golf. Basketball is a donor sport but even then we are not reinvesting it or going beyond to change it. That is what get a lot of athletic departments in trouble. Take Maryland. They were trying to do Basketball, Football and every quasi-sport. The indebted themselves to become Rutgers South of the B10 whoopin'.

Look around the ACC, there are what, 10 to 14 other school more willing to outspend on basketball. Do you think that NC State isn't hungrier than us? Heck Wake? I mean, which school cares less about basketball than us? Sirious kwestion. Unles you are a mega 40K+ or single state school (Ohio State), you just are not going to have the resources to fight on all fronts. Heck, we have to contend with the VCUs that are larger schools in a urban area with basketball as their ONLY sport (tennis is big there too).

My thing about "accepting history" as you call it is this: Unless you are willing to leverage someone else's future (ie the football program) to accept the risk to make Basketball succeed? Would you take resources away from an arms-race sport that is competitive to prop up another? I disagree. We are improving. What, our "bad" year was 8-12 in conference. Dang, we struggled and we above .500 with a lot of injuries. That isn't the end of the world one year out of a tournament run where we were a good team and just had one bad re-direct defensive stop. We might not be dominating ACC play but we arent the shyatt doormat either.

Where is $190 million for a new basketball facility? We didn't spend half that much a few years ago. UVA did (back in 2006 in 2022 dollars). They took the risk, they had to wait for a sweet-sixteen coach with area ties to see their basketball budget cut to find the coach. The trick with spending is this - with brand equity, you don't have to spend as much to keep up. If you don't have brand equity you have to pay the tax to get there and it becomes expensive to keep up.

My goal, like in all things is to fight like heck and cause a bit of chaos. Bruise the nose of "giants". Winning isn't the measuring stick. It is a byproduct of doing other things right. Make the kids better men/women, show effort & hustle, and fight like heck. Winning comes afterwards and is hard nor is it guaranteed. Do all sports matter. Sure. So some matter more? Yup.

Just like back in the 80s and 90. I always get my ACC tix (save when it is in NYC/FLA) but I only get them for the first day. If we win I know another fan base will be selling for the cheap.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up