|
Replies: 15
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5473]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3312
Joined: 1/19/05
|
Some would say his record in close games is poor but
Feb 9, 2020, 10:16 PM
|
|
others would say that it wouldn’t be close it he weren’t coaching well. It could be that he is doing the best he can. But it could be argued that his best is not good enough.
|
|
|
|
 |
Commissioner [919]
TigerPulse: 43%
Posts: 2275
Joined: 3/19/09
|
Re: Some would say his record in close games is poor but
Feb 9, 2020, 10:18 PM
|
|
Close games always even out in the end. You win some you should have lost and you lose some tht were there for the taking.
Unless you are USC football then........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [327]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 756
Joined: 2/6/01
|
Re: Some would say his record in close games is poor but
Feb 9, 2020, 10:47 PM
|
|
Do me a favor then. Compare Brad’s win percentage in close games with Dabo’s win percentage
Dabo’s teams win the close game and Brad does not. That is all about coaching
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44000]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32933
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I bet Dabo’s winning percentage in close games would be a lot worse
Feb 9, 2020, 11:28 PM
|
|
if he didn’t coach at a football school with one of the best football histories in the conference, with the best facilities in the nation, an administration that gives him everything he wants, and some of the best fans in the nation. All of these advantages make his job of recruiting the best talent much easier.
It is ludicrous that you even tried to equate the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
yes Dabo had it all handed to him...
Feb 9, 2020, 11:36 PM
|
|
practically born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
I mean if you can't win 10 or 11 games a year every year coaching Clemson football...it's easy
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44000]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32933
Joined: 2/22/03
|
No, but he has a heck of a lot easier job than Brownell does.
Feb 9, 2020, 11:39 PM
|
|
There is no comparison between the two jobs. One has a lot of built-in advantages, and the other has a lot of built-in disadvantages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
more excuses
Feb 9, 2020, 11:49 PM
|
|
only
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56821]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39634
Joined: 11/12/04
|
Re: more excuses
Feb 10, 2020, 1:51 AM
|
|
The obvious difference was that Dabo prepared for years and knew what to do when given the chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: more excuses
Feb 10, 2020, 8:59 AM
[ in reply to more excuses ] |
|
BS Franc, all BS. If you think Clemson has the investment and resources to be a 20+ win NCAA basketball program, well you have lost your mind.
Wake Forest FOOTBALL has a better history at winning program/coach than Clemson Basketball. Let that sink in. If you disagree, then you have not been following Clemson basketball... well ever. Still, I am very proud being a Clemson Basketball supporter. I prefer basketball to football, attend far more basketball than football games even when accounting for number of games in a season. But, if you asked me to cut money from the football program to invest into basketball, I say you have lost your mind.
We have been the absolute WORST in basketball for a very long time. So much so we did not even bother hiring a full-time basketball coach until Pete's Dad. Before then, basketball was just something that an assistant football coach did to pad his income. Was it a bad decision? Ehhh, it was the smart decision for Clemson to invest in 1-3 programs (Football, Soccer, Baseball/Golf) rather than spread it around. To survive as a small school, you have to pick your sport. We picked football and it worked.
Now, what are we doing in basketball... building a reputation as a mid-level team. You know, that ain't bad because we WERE the absolute dead-last team. We are doing the long grind to build our selves up. There isn't a honest "overnight" change we can do without inviting the NCAA down on us and I do not want them anywhere near the football program even if it is about basketball. Still basketball is getting better.
And don't be a plebe and tell me about the basketball renovation. Those are mediocre at best. We spent 1/2 the amount that UVA did 15 years ago. Better than bottom rung but not a "winning" investment yet.
Say what you will, Brad is OVERPERFORMING. We should be 2 wins max right now in league play. He has stolen some games, made it fun at times. And in my eyes, earned a 59 year contract. Still, during Brad's tenure, it has become harder to be a mid-level P5+BE conference team. The rise of the mid-majors has nixed the Rick-Barnes 7-9 teams from the tourney. So Brad is doing more with less and less NCAA positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
So once again, accept mediocrity and like it
Feb 10, 2020, 9:30 AM
|
|
there simply is no chance we ever have sustained success in basketball.
Reminder, Clemson football tradition was non-existent from the Ford departure to year 3 of Dabo. We should have just accepted that as our ceiling
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: So once again, accept mediocrity and like it
Feb 10, 2020, 10:25 AM
|
|
Can we have sustained success in basketball? Yes. Can we have it with the commitment we have shown in the past 30 (or 108) years years? No - not at the level of some folks expectations. I do not want us to be akin to NC State.... NCAA issues, high turnover, similar end-of-season results. We can do it the right way with a gritty, self-made rise or we can do it the Adidas way.
At this point in the history program, our investments have been basically dead last in the ACC. We are getting better but hey, we are not dead last in the ACC anymore. So being mediocre has been an accomplishment. Do I want better, YES!... but I am not about to take resources away from programs with better ROI. Right now, I am not worried about our ceiling, I am worried about raising our foundation. The basketball realm has transitioned to something that would make it a LOT harder for programs like us and thus building a better foundation, a mediocre one, is a major improvement for sustained success. Right now our Admin has show longevity and patience so hopefully when we have the transcendent coach, they stick around.
As for your argument with football: It is completely ignore 100 years of fairly successful (and innovative) tradition because we had 20 or so years in the woods? Danny had more success in 9 years than the Basketball program has had in 108. We invested in football from the beginning, reinvested, innovated, and double down. We did not and have not invested in basketball. We got rid of Bowden, not because he was 7-5... it was because we re-upped our investment (facilities etc) and did not get an additional return. We were normally in the top 3 of football spending in the ACC and expected a top level finish. However in basketball, we have been 14 of 15 and expect what a top 5 finish? I bet the bottom 2-3 teams in the ACC football standings are happy with a 7-5 finish. Being out of the basement is a good thing (ask Wake Duke or UVA folks).
We are just starting to move the needle upwards and I am curious to see what Brad can get done with some support that is at least better than a medium sized high school. Is he the transcendent coach? Looks to be no but he is likely better than anyone else on the market at this time as I do not want ANY blemished former star like coach (Pearl, etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [223]
TigerPulse: 60%
Posts: 97
Joined: 9/5/11
|
Re: No, but he has a heck of a lot easier job than Brownell does.
Feb 10, 2020, 9:56 AM
[ in reply to No, but he has a heck of a lot easier job than Brownell does. ] |
|
It seems that you are basically saying that Clemson will never (NEVER) succeed in basketball because comparatively it doesn't claim the advantages associated with the football program. But history shows that we have in fact enjoyed more success under prior coaches than we presently experience, and if I'm not mistaken, those were during times that the ACC was more dominant than it is now.
I believe that we all want the same thing, namely more success than failure. And I think most would agree that Brownell is a fine person and great guy, but then so were Hatfield, West and Bowden. Unless you truly believe that we will never be better because of the disadvantage of being a football school. But why not use a similar paradigm as Dabo when he broke the mold by saying we could have a high powered spread offense AND a stifling defense, i.e., it can be BOTH, not just one. So why can't we have BOTH successful football and basketball programs? And if so, what would it take to get there? Another Rick Barnes, only with a sense of loyalty such as Dabo, somebody who wants to be at Clemson for the long haul. I'm not saying I have the answer, but I believe that the right leadership group should be able to achieve a measure of success far better than mediocrity. If we don't reach for the stars we can't possibly achieve a high level of success. We've seen from our football leadership what can happen if you reach and believe! But leadership is key. And although I have great respect for Brad Brownell as a man, I think we are "throwing good money at bad" at this point. It's time for a change IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10822]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9006
Joined: 12/8/02
|
Dabo did build it from a bad place. He went out and
Feb 10, 2020, 1:20 AM
[ in reply to I bet Dabo’s winning percentage in close games would be a lot worse ] |
|
Recruited top talent and built a winning culture. We were not special at all under
Bowden. We had good attendance that’s about it.
I really hope we see the injection of talent we need next year. I fear recruiting will be Brads downfall if we don’t
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Dabo did build it from a bad place. He went out and
Feb 10, 2020, 10:34 AM
|
|
Actually, a lot of the re-investment in facilities etc happened under Bowden's tenure. We lagged far behind other programs in 1999. Bowden did a great job getting the resources moving again. Unfortunately for Bowden, they were coming online at or before the Dabo experiment and he just wasn't winning. We were never far from being the top spending program (normally in with FSU/VT sometimes UNC), we had the fan support, the favorable environment... we were just missing the HC. Dabo had about as fertile of a ground as you could have for a new young coach. Actually, we might have been the only school that would have shown him as much patience as during those dark games in Nov 09-13
Dabo was the last and perfect piece at the absolute perfect moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3612]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 3790
Joined: 1/21/16
|
Re: Some would say his record in close games is poor but
Feb 9, 2020, 11:39 PM
[ in reply to Re: Some would say his record in close games is poor but ] |
|
Good point, but remember when....
A few years ago Mus's Chickens won 9 games. Fans were ecstatic at the job he was doing. One of the sportswriters on SportsTalk pointed out that they were 6-0 in close games, so on balance they were really a 6-6 team that either got lucky or finished well; either way, he predicted that their record in close games would reverse itself and balance out within 2 years.
He was right. Now all those Gamecock fans that thought they really had a 9-win quality team are mad because they now get embarrassed about NOT winning close games. The reality is that their program isn't much different from 9-4 to 4-8. It's all about the noise the fans make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27297]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10091
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: Some would say his record in close games is poor but
Feb 10, 2020, 8:39 AM
|
|
4-8 huh? thats a little optimistic dont you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 15
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
