Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
I often hear about how Clemson BBall has a terrible history
Mar 9, 2017, 2:39 PM
|
|
so we shouldn't have such high expectations.
Say what you want about Clemson's basketball history overall, but since 1978, Clemson basketball has been pretty successful overall. In that span, Clemson has been to the NCAA Tournament 10 times and the NIT another 14 times. Keep in mind, the NCAA Tournament didn't expand to 64 teams until 1985, so some of those NIT appearances were actually somewhat impressive. So that's 24 postseason appearances in the past 39 years. In addition, in 1989-90, we were 24-8 and ranked 17th in the final AP poll, but we were ineligible for postseason play that year. Breaking it down by coach since 1978-79:
Bill Foster: 6 seasons, 1 NCAA Tournament, 3 NIT
Cliff Ellis: 10 Seasons, 2 NCAA Tournaments, 5 NIT, and 1 ineligible season where we finished 17th nationally.
Rick Barnes: 4 Seasons, 3 NCAA Tournaments, 1 NIT
Larry Shyatt: 5 Seasons, 1 NIT
Oliver Purnell: 7 Seasons, 3 NCAA Tournament, 3 NIT
Brad Brownell: 7 Seasons, 1 NCAA Tournament, 1 NIT, and possibly 1 more NIT
Brad Brownell has as many non-postseason seasons (4) in his first 7 seasons as Ellis, Barnes, and Purnell did in a combined 21 seasons. And that's even counting Ellis's season where they finished 17th but were ineligible.
Aside from the Shyatt years, the Brownell era is by far the least successful in recent Clemson bball history. I just don't understand why we're sticking with Brownell. All I see from the program is consistent under achievement (see basically every non-conference start prior to this year), questionable roster management, and a tendency to choke in the biggest moments (see multiple games this year, the Pitt game that would have probably clinched an NCAA Tournament berth in 13-14, and Brownell's overall 24-47 record in games decided by 5 points or less at Clemson).
The obvious answer to why we're sticking with Brownell is the $3.5 million buyout. And for me, that's the biggest demerit for Radakovich. Why is that buyout there in the first place? Brownell hadn't done that much in the first place. Even in his first season when he made the NCAA Tournament, it was as a 12-seed that had to play a play-in game. If you recall, that was a bit of a disappointment as compared to what Purnell had given us the previous three seasons.
I'm completely baffled by this loyalty to Brownell. I think Radakovich is doing a great job overall, as nearly every other Clemson sports program is flourishing, but I just feel that it's time to try something else here.
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10402]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 17413
Joined: 8/9/10
|
Re: I often hear about how Clemson BBall has a terrible history
Mar 9, 2017, 2:41 PM
|
|
And if you take out the last 6 years it even looks better. We have had some good teams and players here. Rick Barnes and OP proved you could win at CLEMSON.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [943]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10/2/03
|
Re: I often hear about how Clemson BBall has a terrible history
Mar 10, 2017, 12:29 PM
|
|
You can win here but need to consider that during Barnes/Purnell's time here....not sure they really had to deal with the expanded ACC and teams like Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville.....those aren't exactly slack teams.
Though I do agree that there's not much improvement and a change is needed. Just don't expect it this season - he'll get 1 more year. Clemson isn't likely to be a top 5-7 team in ACC but we should def be somewhere in middle and not 12th.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25008]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32316
Joined: 2/15/09
|
great post
Mar 9, 2017, 3:31 PM
|
|
Several major conference teams have worse basketball histories that is.
Oregon state, Arizona state, Colorado, Texas tech, Texas A&M, auburn, ole miss, penn state, northwestern etc
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17289
Joined: 8/18/05
|
Don't forget the coots***
Mar 10, 2017, 12:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [648]
TigerPulse: 49%
Posts: 2764
Joined: 3/6/17
|
Re: I often hear about how Clemson BBall has a terrible history
Mar 9, 2017, 3:33 PM
|
|
So true! What is Drad thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Coot******
Mar 9, 2017, 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
I love how you completely gloss over the WHY
Mar 9, 2017, 4:13 PM
|
|
we were ineligible in 1989....
smh
Honestly, I wish DRad would hire the dirtiest Head Coach he can find
let him go to 3 straight NCAA's
then spend the next 3 on probation.
Wouldn't you guys be happy then?
BTW - please tell me how you compare the ACC that Brownell competes against
as anything remotely like the ACC that Ellis and Barnes coached in.
I keep asking the question:
if it's just money, fans, and administrative "want-to",
then why isn't USuCk playing for the SEC crown every year?
Answer: It's just not that easy, AND
Clemson has no competitive advantages in today's landscape of NCAA Basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17289
Joined: 8/18/05
|
The ACC of the 80's that Ellis had to compete
Mar 10, 2017, 12:27 PM
|
|
in was far and away the greatest era of ACC basketball, ever
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28416]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14071
Joined: 6/27/14
|
Re: The ACC of the 80's that Ellis had to compete
Mar 10, 2017, 12:33 PM
|
|
easily - hands down.
its amazing the actual "lack" of knowledge the "very" few defenders of bb blather about. it is painfully clear they are clueless what a hoops program should look like at a major d1 university and the actual revenue stream it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17289
Joined: 8/18/05
|
There is not one player in the ACC today
Mar 10, 2017, 12:43 PM
|
|
who remotely compares to Jordan, Sampson, Bias, Worthy or Perkins. And probably no one close to Dawkins, Price, Ferry, Daugherty, and a slew of others.
There is certainly no one at Clemson close to Grant, Davis or Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 25005
Joined: 6/24/99
|
Re: The ACC of the 80's that Ellis had to compete
Mar 10, 2017, 12:49 PM
[ in reply to The ACC of the 80's that Ellis had to compete ] |
|
Agree...IMO, the "Golden Age" of ACC basketball fan from approx 1974 to 1989....7 or 8 pretty talented teams beating each other senseless during the regular season....And THEN playing 3 games over consecutive days during tournament weekend
Message was edited by: tigrjm76®
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17289
Joined: 8/18/05
|
Agree with that era
Mar 10, 2017, 12:55 PM
|
|
you go back to '74 you're bringing in names like Thompson, McMillan, Burleson, Kupchak, Wood, Griffin, Gminski, and many more
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44054]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32967
Joined: 2/22/03
|
The entire landscape of college basketball has changed.
Mar 10, 2017, 1:09 PM
[ in reply to The ACC of the 80's that Ellis had to compete ] |
|
Two distinctly different eras makes it difficult to compare apples to apples.
There weren't "one and done" players in that era like there are today. The size and athleticism of players today is significantly higher than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, and the the speed and style of play has changed along with that.
While the ACC was certainly incredible in that era, it is arguably just as tough if not tougher now. There are very few "easy" ACC games today, and it is no easier than it was then.
I feel that Brownell's job is also tougher now in that there are way fewer easy wins in the non-conference. We padded our record in Cliff Ellis's days with super easy out-of-conference games. There are far fewer of those today. There were very few "mid-major" teams then with the talent to compete, and today we know that quality mid-major teams are abundant (Butler, Gonzaga, Virginia Commonwealth, George Mason, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17289
Joined: 8/18/05
|
Judge, it is precisely because there were no
Mar 10, 2017, 4:52 PM
|
|
one and dones then that the era we're speaking of was by far the greatest. Not only did those teams have generational talents, but they played together 3-4 years. Seeing as Clemson has never had one and dones, we were at a far greater disadvantage then. Yes, Clemson Cliff played a weak OOC. He also went to 3 NCAA's, a Sweet Sixteen, won a regular season title, 5 NIT's, and produced 6 guys who went on to play in the NBA.
He did that against guys who are among the greatest players of all time
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8009]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7959
Joined: 6/30/00
|
And back then Ellis had to play all of those great ACC
Mar 10, 2017, 1:19 PM
[ in reply to The ACC of the 80's that Ellis had to compete ] |
|
teams twice each season. This year Brownell is 0-12 against the top 9 ACC teams and he only played most of them just once.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6858]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6500
Joined: 10/7/07
|
And exactly what competitve advantage do places like
Mar 10, 2017, 1:39 PM
[ in reply to I love how you completely gloss over the WHY ] |
|
Gonzaga, Butler, Villanova, Purdue, St Marys, Whichita State, etc etc etc have? So sick and tired of the excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2533]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 4161
Joined: 10/10/08
|
Wow, all this time spent and research
Mar 10, 2017, 12:24 PM
|
|
to show we've basically placed 2nd or 3rd in a tallest-midget contest. I can definitely see how programs stay in perpetual marginality, with posts/fans like these. Glad thinkers like you didn't spearhead our rise to prominence in football.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
I'm not sure I follow.
Mar 10, 2017, 12:49 PM
|
|
All I was showing is that we've vastly underperformed even our "terrible history" under Brownell. I want to reach Final 4s and be like UNC and Duke as much as the next guy, but how does keeping Brownell do anything to elevate the program? He's proven over his 7 years to be a mediocre coach. If we ever want to win, we've got to find a coach who's a winner...like a Dabo.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22361
Joined: 4/24/04
|
With upcoming renovations and a season of home games
Mar 10, 2017, 1:27 PM
|
|
in Greenville i think it was perfectly fine to give Brownell an extension. The questionable parts were the length (6 years) and the buyout structure (3.5M, 3.0M after 3 years, and 2.5M in final 2 years). You would think that they could've negotiated a shorter contract with a lower buyout. I would love to know what went on during those negotiations.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22361
Joined: 4/24/04
|
I had the buyout numbers wrong... they are even higher.
Mar 10, 2017, 1:36 PM
|
|
5M, 3.5M after 3 years, 3M in final 2 years.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
|
|