|
Replies: 33
| visibility 1,401
|
110%er [5683]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2714
Joined: 2/10/22
|
"We're a football school, not a basketball school..."
8
8
Feb 5, 2024, 1:21 PM
|
|
For those who still use that sorry excuse (looking at you JK and Mountaineers), take a look at Alabama, who is known as a football school. From 2006-2018, they only made 2 NCAA tourney appearances, both second round exits, and kept coaches around a lot longer than they should have. Once they fired Avery Johnson after 4 painful years, they hired Nate Oats, who has taken them to NCAA tourneys 3/5 years as a 2, 6, and 1 seed. Bama is currently leading the SEC, and is currently #16 in the top 25. What I'm saying is that if we get rid of Brad and his mediocre standards and find a good hire, we could have similar basketball results as Bama, who has also been historically known as a football school.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [44059]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32971
Joined: 2/22/03
|
You don't get it.
3
Feb 5, 2024, 1:43 PM
|
|
Alabama is a great example of a football school that has had recent basketball success. Do you know what they spend on their basketball program on a yearly basis?
Based on data from the U.S. Department of Education, which keeps statistics such as this, Alabama spends $10,900, 723 each year on men's basketball.
Conversely, we spend $8,035,346.
We spend approximately $3 million LESS per year on men's basketball than Alabama does.
That additional support for their program matters. But I don't expect you to acknowledge that it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [294]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/18/23
|
How did the team that spends less win
3
Feb 5, 2024, 1:50 PM
|
|
the head to head matchup?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2000]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 2/10/02
|
This argument is just stupid. Win more and the budget increases. Not
4
Feb 5, 2024, 1:51 PM
|
|
the other way around. ###
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2000]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 2/10/02
|
I meant Fudge Packer's argument***
1
Feb 5, 2024, 1:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16264]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12789
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Re: This argument is just stupid. Win more and the budget increases. Not
5
5
Feb 5, 2024, 2:10 PM
[ in reply to This argument is just stupid. Win more and the budget increases. Not ] |
|
We weren't winning when we spent $65 Million on Littlejohn enhancements to help Bradsketball do better. He has averaged 1.67 additional wins per season since so roughly $2 Million / extra win there. Throwing money at a problem only works if you have competent leadership putting it to work correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44059]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32971
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Because anything can happen in one game.
2
Feb 6, 2024, 11:47 AM
[ in reply to How did the team that spends less win ] |
|
This is why upsets happen all the time in college basketball. One player can get hot, or one team can get cold, and the lesser team wins.
Spending more money doesn't insulate a program from losing a game it shouldn't.
The issue we have at Clemson is a lack of sustained success. Most of our successful coaches have had a season with an NCAA Tournament run (Barnes had one, Brownell had one). That's great, but that success couldn't be sustained, and that's where funding becomes important.
Without great funding, it's hard to keep good coaches, sustain good recruiting classes, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2000]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 2/10/02
|
So, you're saying give a new head coach $3 mil per year more and
3
Feb 5, 2024, 1:50 PM
[ in reply to You don't get it. ] |
|
the results will be better?
Or are you saying give this staff $3 mil more and we will be a tourney team every year?
Or where should the money be spent to get a better result?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57252]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39729
Joined: 11/12/04
|
She's saying fire Brad and hire a $6million coach.
4
Feb 5, 2024, 2:00 PM
|
|
Then we will have success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3810
Joined: 8/6/13
|
Re: So, you're saying give a new head coach $3 mil per year more and
2
Feb 5, 2024, 2:23 PM
[ in reply to So, you're saying give a new head coach $3 mil per year more and ] |
|
He’s saying he loves BB and will use any excuse show why we should be happy to have him. We should be happy with making the tournament once out of every 5 years because we don’t spend with the big boys.
Reality is if we were to start winning then the money starts to poor in. It’s not the other way around. Look at the money spent for Dabo once he started winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44059]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32971
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Who are you referring to?!?
1
Feb 6, 2024, 11:54 AM
|
|
I'm NOT happy with our current level of success. I believe we should be a fixture in the NCAA Tournament. I believe we can compete for and win ACC championships and make deep NCAA Tournament runs.
I just disagree with many of you that Brownell is the problem. He's not the problem. He's a good coach who some of you expect to work miracles. You seem to have no idea what a tough job he has.
Since you brought up football, Dabo didn't win crap until he had more funding for better facilities, to hire better assistant coaches, etc. I know it makes your story sound sweet, unknown Dabo taking little 'ol Clemson to new heights by scraping a few quarters together, but it didn't happen that way. Dabo did a great job building our program to elite status, but he had plenty of help - including a huge buy in from our administration and fans. He wasn't asked to "prove himself" before he got that strong support.
I don't understand this ridiculous logic that we should deprive our coaches of resources until they "prove themselves." It's a poverty mentality and it has to stop. Why not give them every possible advantage in an attempt to best set them up for success?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5483]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3317
Joined: 1/19/05
|
Re: Who are you referring to?!?
Feb 6, 2024, 12:21 PM
|
|
We could pay Brad 3mm more and nothing would change. He is a mediocre coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5683]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2714
Joined: 2/10/22
|
Hubert Davis is getting paid less than Brad and look at how hes doing***
5
5
Feb 5, 2024, 2:06 PM
[ in reply to You don't get it. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30841]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34504
Joined: 6/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44059]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32971
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2000]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 2/10/02
|
How about compare cost per win over 14 years?***
1
Feb 5, 2024, 3:08 PM
[ in reply to You don't get it. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1016]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 927
Joined: 6/17/06
|
Re: You don't get it.
1
Feb 5, 2024, 3:31 PM
[ in reply to You don't get it. ] |
|
What's the statistics on Football spending for Alabama vs Clemson for the years that we played/beat in the NC game. I don't know, just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11487]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 13643
Joined: 10/27/04
|
Re: You don't get it.
1
Feb 5, 2024, 5:34 PM
[ in reply to You don't get it. ] |
|
Alabama is a great example of a football school that has had recent basketball success. Do you know what they spend on their basketball program on a yearly basis?
Based on data from the U.S. Department of Education, which keeps statistics such as this, Alabama spends $10,900, 723 each year on men's basketball.
Conversely, we spend $8,035,346.
We spend approximately $3 million LESS per year on men's basketball than Alabama does.
That additional support for their program matters. But I don't expect you to acknowledge that it does.
Keep avoiding Viztiz's link, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44059]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32971
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I don't see viztiz's posts and don't know what link you're talking about.
1
Feb 6, 2024, 12:05 PM
|
|
I have repeatedly posted a link to the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics database, which is easily searchable. This is the most reliable data we have when it comes to what schools spend on various sports programs.
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/
It's amazing how many of you try to discredit the actual data. The fact is that Clemson basketball is at a funding disadvantage relative to peer programs. Choosing not to believe that reality doesn't change it.
Others try to downplay the importance of funding by using a lame example of a team that spends less than us beating us in a game, or a team that spends less than us having a better season. Look, spending more money doesn't eliminate the chance that we could lose a game. Upsets happen regularly in college basketball. But spending more money does give a program a better chance at having the kind of consistent success we want to have. Why wouldn't we want to give our program the best chance at success, rather than expecting it to overcome funding obstacles that many of our competitors don't have?
Either you care about the program or you don't. If you don't want to fund it better, don't expect to have high level success. It's pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2606]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 636
Joined: 9/18/17
|
Re: You don't get it.
Feb 6, 2024, 11:33 AM
[ in reply to You don't get it. ] |
|
Hi everyone. I’ve been following Tigernet for years for the great information and discussion, but I’ve never posted that I can remember. I’m a 1975 Clemson graduate and past resident of the tin cans. I love all Clemson sports including basketball.
I chose to comment here, Judge, because I’ve enjoyed reading your take on things in the past. However, I don’t think you advance your cause by attacking the football program and Dabo in particular as you have tended to do lately. I want to hear from the old Judge more.
I would concede the point that Clemson could spend more on its basketball program, but what bothers many of us is end game management by the coach. It has happened over and over, not just once, and that’s a coaching issue, not a funding issue. The situation at the end of the Virginia game should have been practiced so much that the players knew exactly what to do. I’m fine with no timeout because that choice brings certain advantages. Yet the players seemed lost as to where to be placed and what to do when the game was on the line in the final seconds.
There is so much talent on this team that I hope the coach can right the ship quickly. I want to see our Tigers make the NCAAT and go deep. Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44059]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32971
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I agree about the end of the UVA game.
1
1
Feb 6, 2024, 12:27 PM
|
|
Down one with 6-7 seconds left, we should have had something going to the basket.
The play was for Chase to look for a path to the basket, but since UVA brought two defenders toward him, he appropriately passed it to Clark. I think Clark had time to hit PJ in the paint for what would've been an easy two, but perhaps Clark didn't think he had time for that, so he shot.
We had a timeout left. I would've preferred for us to call a timeout if Chase didn't have the ability to get to the rim.
Our team doesn't play as confidently as I would like late in the game. It is Brad's job to make sure that his team is poised during crunch time, and we aren't as poised as I think we should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80502]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23620
Joined: 8/21/06
|
Notice how nobody argues that point about any successful
4
Feb 5, 2024, 1:47 PM
|
|
coaches, only the ones who are not pulling their weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: "We're a football school, not a basketball school..."
2
Feb 5, 2024, 1:51 PM
|
|
Since you put that statement in quotes called me out specifically, please point to where i have said that?
Also can you please advise why bama has been to over 20 tournaments. They have been to the sweet 16 9 times have 24 ncaa tourney wins. They have have won their conference tournament 9 times and their regular season 12 times. For comparison we have never won the acc, and have only 11 ncaa tourney wins.
Why is their history significantly better than ours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2000]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 2/10/02
|
They've had better teams***
2
Feb 5, 2024, 1:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16930]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10782
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: They've had better teams***
1
Feb 5, 2024, 2:02 PM
|
|
not to mention that, until the last expansion, the ACC was a dramatically better basketball conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21418
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: They've had better teams***
2
Feb 5, 2024, 2:46 PM
[ in reply to They've had better teams*** ] |
|
They’ve also had much better coaching, apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: They've had better teams***
1
Feb 5, 2024, 3:02 PM
|
|
So it's simply they have consistently hired better coaches and nothing else? Why do you think we have been so bad hiring coaches?
Message was edited by: Clemson mountaineers®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2000]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 2/10/02
|
Yes
2
Feb 5, 2024, 3:10 PM
|
|
Barnes and Purnell weren't bad. Shyatt and Brownell were/are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57252]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39729
Joined: 11/12/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5683]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2714
Joined: 2/10/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [90820]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 45503
Joined: 10/18/09
|
$65,000,000 to make LJs seating imprint smaller
2
Feb 5, 2024, 3:14 PM
|
|
and prettier rest rooms& locker rooms!
How’d that work?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44059]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32971
Joined: 2/22/03
|
It would've worked better if we had stuck with the original plan
1
Feb 6, 2024, 12:50 PM
|
|
which was to tear down Littlejohn and build an entirely new arena.
Unfortunately, Clemson went cheap as usual when it comes to basketball, and the project was scaled back to a mere renovation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80502]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23620
Joined: 8/21/06
|
This must be the reason that brad can't win.***
2
Feb 6, 2024, 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65620]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33292
Joined: 12/3/03
|
DammitJim, I'm a doctor, not an ice pick maker! But, I can see that you make
1
Feb 6, 2024, 12:48 PM
|
|
great points, even without an ice pick attached to them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 33
| visibility 1,401
|
|
|
50
