well the NET is obtuse. Does it not account for

It's simple. Quit trying to blow smoke. Too bad our journalists don't call you out. Here's why we're not in.

Still think we got robbed or jobbed. The committee does Not compare teams. They have a starting point in the Net rank. Then use a point system for the quads.

2 pts for quad 1 Win
1 pts for quad 2 Win
-1 pts for quad 3 loss
-2 pts for quad 4 loss

I compiled a list for those who care to know the truth. You can have high enough points to qualify but have a lousy schedule as was the case for Rutgers and Oklahoma St. Something like 18-15 etc. Conference w/l are Not highly regarded as the Net formula bears that out. This is how a bracketologist described it to me. He's been doing it for a decade. Has a 99% success rate. And takes the time to understand what the committee does. You let idiot talking heads that just want a story and clicks. Stupid you. But you are a good car salesman.

Before I post the list below. For those arguments of head to head. The committee does not look at that unless the teams numbers are equal. If that was the case, Iowa St would be the 3 seed and not Baylor. As Iowa St beat Baylor 3 times just as we did nc st. Here's the list with net and the last column is cumulative points.

Clemson - net 60 formula pts 5
West VA -net 25 formula pts 18
NC st -net 45 formula pts 9
UT st -net 18 formula pts 9
Pitt -net 67 formula pts 8
Nevada-net 37 formula pts 9
Az State -net 66 formula pts 12
Providence -net 56 formula pts 10
Usc -net 50 formula pts 10
Miss st -net 49 formula pts 11
Ok st- net 43 formula pts 15 * 18-15
Rutgers- net 40 formula pts 12 *19-14

BigChief2000

CU Guru [1502]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 424

Joined: 9/8/18

Re: You're desperate and uneducated

Mar 13, 2023, 5:46 PM [ in reply to You're desperate and uneducated ]

Clemgalalways® said:

Do you not agree that Coach Brownell made very valid points when he explained how those early season Tournaments are not all created equal and the League, apparently, has control over who gets to play what team and where? They also must obviously determine who gets to play what team in those conference “challenges” too. I didn’t know that. I just figured they randomly selected each year. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I understand that many people want Coach Brownell’s head, and they blame him for the misery that is Clemson Basketball. However, many of the points he raised in that press conference, to me, are very valid and any coach, him or a new one, is still going to have to deal with the reality of being the “Clemson Basketball” coach and the many hurdles associated with it. I’m not talking about the attendance or facilities thing. That comes with winning (usually, but not always). What I’m talking about is what he was talking about. Because it is Clemson, you just can’t get the opportunities to put yourself on the “map” early in the season because you are denied the opportunity by ambiguous and questionable ACC decisions. That doesn’t seem fair.

I’ve only been following Clemson basketball since 1987, and I know there are others who have been following it a lot longer than I. However, in the 36 years I’ve followed it, coaching basketball at Clemson seems to be a very tough gig. You’re at a ravenously rabid football school where basketball, historically, is just something that’s sorta done until the Orange/White Game. In addition to that, you have to compete in the greatest basketball league in the country, certainly in the last 50-60 years. I mean 2 of the 5-6 historic “blue bloods” of college basketball are charter members of the ACC, and two more other original members (Virginia and NC State) aren’t exactly historical slouches either. Also, basketball is usually king in this conference. That’s made extra tough to buck against when you’re at a school that is only slightly above .500 overall after playing basketball for over 110 years.

Another thing that’s a problem I’ve noticed with Clemson Basketball is seemingly when Clemson actually has a coach who begins to show some successful consistency, they high tail it away from Clemson for those greener pastures as soon as possible (Barnes & Purnell). Then, a new coach is hired, and he either has a bad experience and is fired (Shyatt). Or the coaches who have longevity at Clemson (Ellis and Brownell) just can’t maintain periodic stretches of success. I think this isn’t exclusively on the coaches, though. I think there’s more to the mediocre history of Clemson basketball than just a coach, and I don’t think any one coach is going to just get hired and make the the second coming of the Billy Donovan era Florida Gators (tremendous basketball success at a “football” school) in only 3-5 years, especially at a school like Clemson.

Coach Brownell has been much like Cliff Ellis in that he hasn’t ever been just positively awful, but his successes just never seem to get on the proverbial “roll.” I also think he’s had very bad luck at times. I agree with Jay Bilas in that the 2017-2018 team was a legit Final Four team had Grantham not been lost for the season against Notre Dame. He’s also had, I think, bad luck on selection Sunday in three out of the last five seasons (2018-19, 2020-21, 2022-23). All those teams were Tournament worthy teams, but in both his “bubble” seasons (2018-19, 2022-23) his teams were passed over for teams that just as easily could have been left out as well.

Considering all that, that’s why I’m willing to hang with him as long as he continues to improve, like he considerable did this year. Regardless of ACC perception or apparent quality, a .700 level winning percentage in the ACC is outstanding. At Clemson, it truly is unprecedented. Ultimately, whoever the coach might be is going to have to deal with a lot of obstacles that are apparently way beyond their control.

Before I end this treatise, I would like to ask you a sincere question. I realize that “blame the coach” is just the nature of Division I college athletics, especially when things do not go well. That comes with the territory, and I get it even if I don’t always agree with the sentiment. Heck, I’ll freely admit that a lot of times, it’s a valid, or even main point for team failure. But, usually, it isn’t the MAIN reason. Athletic failure is often a lot of factors, many being complex. That’s just the way it goes.

Anyhow, I’ve noticed a lot of vitriolic banter and attitude toward Coach Brownell. I also noticed in your comments you added some additional cutting adjectives to describe him. My question is do you really dislike Brad Brownell, the man? Has he done something egregiously immoral or awful that the majority of the fan base isn’t aware of? If he has, I would genuinely like to know. Has he done something specifically to you or your close family or friends? The reason I ask is that there seems to be more than just criticism in your comments. There seems to be anger. That may not be the case at all, and I know it is certainly challenging to effectively understand “tone” from written expression. If that isn’t the case, I apologize for implying that.

Again, these are sincere questions. It just feels like the anger toward Brownell, at least on this message board, goes beyond the whole “the coach sucks. Get rid of him.” It seems to be an angry, even hateful attitude toward him. I just don’t understand that aspect of it. Anyhow, just curious. If you don’t care to answer, I totally understand. In any event, I do hope you have a very nice, safe, and blessed evening. Go Tigers!

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

TNET: WATCH: Brad Brownell on Tigers being left out of NCAA Tournament

You're desperate and uneducated

Doesn't NET already take into account a lousy schedule?

Re: You're desperate and uneducated

Re: You're desperate and uneducated

Re: TNET: WATCH: Brad Brownell on Tigers being left out of NCAA Tournament

I'm usually very tough on Brad Brownell

Re: I'm usually very tough on Brad Brownell

But i thought we remedied that by beating a good NCSU

KJ McDaniels???

TigerBoard POTD