|
We were good during Foster, Ellis, Barnes and Purnell days
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 66
| visibility 1
|
Legend [16720]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16758
Joined: 8/19/04
|
We were good during Foster, Ellis, Barnes and Purnell days
Dec 19, 2015, 2:15 PM
|
|
I don't buy the argument we can't be good now because we are not in an urban city. I don't buy it.
Brad, while a good coach, is not a good fit here IMO.
Let's find the next guy who has more energy. All good coaches are high energy. Brad seems too laid back.
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [79989]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23542
Joined: 8/21/06
|
And make sure that the next hire can recruit.
Dec 19, 2015, 2:17 PM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
I agree we can be good, but
Dec 19, 2015, 2:19 PM
|
|
We were good and mediocre under Foster and Ellis, good under Barnes and OP. With Brownell we've just been mediocre. .500 is the definition of such, and we should be better than that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
Shyatt is the only coach we've really been bad under***
Dec 19, 2015, 2:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
We've been good 2 years under Brownell
Dec 19, 2015, 3:18 PM
[ in reply to I agree we can be good, but ] |
|
His first year and '13-'14. We've been bad one year, and mediocre the other two years. We still don't know how tuts year will turn out, but I can see things going a number of different ways.
I realize we haven't been consistently very good under Brownell, but people constantly overstate their criticisms in here. We haven't been terrible with the exception of one year, and in fact we've had a chance at the NCAAT late in the year in the past two seasons. It's annoying to me that people ignore thus- especially the team we had in '13- in order to make Brownell's tenure look worse than it has been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Oh, also, we had more bad years under OP and Barnes than we've had under Brownell***
Dec 19, 2015, 3:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: Oh, also, we had more bad years under OP and Barnes than we've had under Brownell***
Dec 19, 2015, 5:53 PM
|
|
This 100% false.
The NCAA Tournament is a good year. NIT is ok to mediocre. Missing the post season is bad. That should be the standard for basketball in 2015.
Purnell, while building went to 3 straight NITs followed by 3 NCAAs. Last year we returned 4 starters and couldn't even make it back to the NIT. That is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
May want to check your facts again
Dec 19, 2015, 6:30 PM
|
|
It took until Purnell's fifth year to get over the .500 mark in the ACC. He had one losing record, one .500 record, and one slightly over .500 record in his first three years, which is roughly equal to what Brownell has done. The first year he made it to the NIT, Clemson was 5-11 in the ACC and .500 overall, which is arguably worse than Brownell's two .500 teams that didn't get an NIT invite.
Now, you could argue that Purnell didn't have more bad teams than Brownell has had so far, but to me, the first Purnell team is equal to Brownell's third team, and his next two teams were equal to or worse than Brownell's second team and our team last year. The '13-'14 team was as good as Purnell's last couple of teams.
Also, for the folks who say our 4th, 6th, and 7th place finishes in the ACC weren't good enough, go look at where Purnell's teams finished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: May want to check your facts again
Dec 19, 2015, 7:20 PM
|
|
Comparing the ACC now vs. then with not having to play Duke and UNC twice, just can't be done. This year we play 4 teams twice - 2 of them were picked 14th and 15th so that will prop up our record, in theory. Not playing every school twice is a huge advantage for Brownell. When Purnell was here, Wake and GT were not dumpster fires.
The problem with saying year one Purnell was as bad as Brownell year 3 is in fact that one was the first year of inheriting Shyatt's mess vs. a mess created by Brownell. Purnell built every year. Brownell has yet to build on a previous season.
Purnell took care of the OOC. Brownell has failed to do that. Purnell lost once in 7 years to instate teams (USC in his first year). Brownell is 2-4 against them and also has losses to Coastal, CofC, and Winthrop. There isn't a good program in this state. You can't afford to consistently lose to these schools. Purnell lost 2 games to mid-majors in 7 seasons. Brownell is sitting at around 12. It is evident in everyway that Purnell is insanely better than Brownell. We have yet to receive any top 25 votes in Brownell's tenure. Purnell had us ranked in year 4 (and for the entire ACC season in 2009).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
we've finished 4th, 7th, 11th, 6th, and 9th in the ACC under
Dec 19, 2015, 4:18 PM
[ in reply to We've been good 2 years under Brownell ] |
|
Brownell. The fact that anybody considers that good (with the possible exception of 4th in his first year) by any stretch is laughable and part of the problem. Our expectations are incredibly, pathetically low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
4th and 6th in the ACC actually is good
Dec 19, 2015, 5:18 PM
|
|
7th and 9th are probably mediocre. 11th is bad. So, basically, exactly what I said.
I could go further and point out that a stretch like that is better than under pretty much any coach we've had, but I agree Clemson should be better than its history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I would agree that 4th is pretty good, and maybe compared
Dec 19, 2015, 5:26 PM
|
|
to our history, 6th is good. But if we are serious about basketball, we have to stop basing how good we are on how good we've been historically. It's just a recipe for more of the same. We have to face the fact that we haven't been good under Brownell, and that there has been no measurable improvement in six years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43992]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32924
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I absolutely agree with this.
Dec 19, 2015, 5:35 PM
|
|
Brownell has done well based on the resources and support he has had. I'm all for hiring someone else if it is a really great hire that shows we are serious about basketball. But if it's more of the same in terms of our pathetic budget and poor fan support, then I'd rather stick with Brownell. We could do a lot worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
So are we supposed to pretend '13-'14 never happened?
Dec 19, 2015, 6:12 PM
[ in reply to I would agree that 4th is pretty good, and maybe compared ] |
|
Why does Brownell get no credit for that year? And any team that finishes in the top half of the ACC has had a good year, no matter what their history is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
The positives for 13-14: We finished with a 10-8 record in
Dec 19, 2015, 6:33 PM
|
|
conference, had a 23-13 overall record, and went to the NIT semi-finals. We beat one ranked team.
The negatives: We finished 6th in conference. We only beat one ranked team. We failed to make the NCAA tournament. We were unranked at the end of the year.
Overall, in my mind, that's a good year for us, given our history, and a good year for a rebuilding team to use as a springboard to bigger and better things. We did not move on to bigger and better things, however, and as a stand-alone year, finishing unranked and not making the dance is emphatically NOT a good year for any school that is serious about basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43992]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32924
Joined: 2/22/03
|
23-13 (10-8) is "not a good year for us, given our history?"
Dec 20, 2015, 8:35 PM
|
|
Seriously? Have you forgotten how poor our history in basketball is? A winning record in the ACC is a rarity for us, as is winning 20 games in a season.
Now I'm not saying that we should be thrilled with a 23-13 (10-8) season, because I have higher goals than that for Clemson basketball. But compared to our history in basketball, that's a very good season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
these ######### don't care Judge....
Dec 20, 2015, 8:55 PM
|
|
it's a losing game playing with these egos.
they smell blood in the water....
and will not be denied.
"something in these hills" does not cover these guys in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16720]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16758
Joined: 8/19/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: So are we supposed to pretend '13-'14 never happened?
Dec 20, 2015, 12:36 AM
|
|
And Brownell did more with them than OP could have or would have done.
OP did not develop or improve his players. He ran with athketes but do nkt think OP was master developer or even recruiter.
Clemson needs to be ablento spot underappreciated talent and develop it. But that athlete/player has to have the inner drive to improve. Ex. KJ McDaniels. OP may have started recruiting KJ but OP was gone by Spring 2010 right? KJ signed April 2011. I say Coach BB and staff greatly helped KJ.
Also i see jt as safe money that if KJ stayed for his SR year, then Clemson makes NCAA tourney that year.
Remember, recruitjng is more than star ratings. Hate to pile on the guy but Milton Jennings was highly rated before college.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
It's a totally BS excuse. I don't know how much Brownell's
Dec 19, 2015, 2:21 PM
|
|
personality has to do with it, but to say we can't be good in basketball because Clemson is not in a big urban area or because SC does not have good basketball talent is a big load of horse #####.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43992]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32924
Joined: 2/22/03
|
You are right, we can be good in basketball. I believe we can be great.
Dec 19, 2015, 5:25 PM
|
|
Are you willing to spend the money necessary to do that? I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2438]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1295
Joined: 6/13/11
|
7-4 At this point is no longer acceptable to me.
Dec 20, 2015, 8:32 PM
[ in reply to It's a totally BS excuse. I don't know how much Brownell's ] |
|
I have been a Brownell defender, but there is a lack of "focus" for at least one 10 minute stretch every time we play a quality opponent. We just aren't good enough for that to happen.
There is a lack of enthusiasm surrounding the program now. Sitting in that arena getting out-supported by our rivals' fans was one of the most frustrating experiences I have ever endured. Before y'all think I am about to rip our fans, stop. We play a very unexciting style of basketball, and it has to produce a better winning percentage than 7-4 out of Conference for folks to come out to watch, even in downtown Greenville.
I really hoped things would improve this year with the transfers, but so far we appear worse than last year. Given that, I have no choice but to start advocating a change.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
Not being urban makes the job tougher
Dec 19, 2015, 2:29 PM
|
|
Not many quality, sustained programs not in urban settings
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I agree that it's easier in or near an urban setting like
Dec 19, 2015, 2:50 PM
|
|
NYC, Baltimore/DC, LA, etc., but it's certainly not a requirement, and not being in such an area does not necessarily prohibit basketball success. There are plenty of good HS basketball players that are not from major metro areas, and there are some that are but aren't necessarily compelled to play in one in college. I understand the challenge there, but we have to figure out ways to deal with that, and can't use it as an excuse for perpetual mediocrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4356]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 1/18/03
|
Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin, UConn, Missouri, Arizona
Dec 19, 2015, 3:29 PM
[ in reply to Not being urban makes the job tougher ] |
|
make the case that it can be done in non-urban centers. Even UNC and Kentucky, you could argue, are somewhat remote.
I think another reason that we have lagged, not unlike UGA or South Carolina, is that our premier athletes at the High School level gravitate towards football instead of basketball. SC is much more of a football state, and I think that hurts a little at the foundation
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Every one of those schools is in a MUCH bigger town than Clemson
Dec 19, 2015, 5:15 PM
|
|
Clemson is rural. All of those schools are urban, even if they're not in humongous cities (UConn might as well be in a suburb of NYC, though).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4356]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 1/18/03
|
None of those are directly in major urban areas. Small
Dec 19, 2015, 9:50 PM
|
|
cities? Yes, but if urban, then redneck urban, and for the most part, their traditions were established when they were much more like Clemson. UCONN is land grant on farmland. Tucson grew from U of A. Same with Madison and Lexington in large part.
The point is, Clemson is much more like these programs I named than what you infer, and those towns were/are much more like Clemson than you are acknowledging.
UCLA, Georgetown, Houston, St. John's, Cincinnati, Duke, Louisville, etc are urban. Chapel Hill is no more urban than Clemson in and of itself. Clemson has ready access to Greenville and Atlanta, which doesn't get much more urban.
Point is, it shouldn't matter... Many have done it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
Clemson is like Kansas HOW in basketball???!!
Dec 19, 2015, 10:01 PM
|
|
Kansas is one of the top programs of all time for Chrissakes!
UConn is in the Northeast which is a traditional area for tremendous recruiting - simply head and shoulders above South Carolina. And they are ESPN's "home school" essentially.
This discussion simply shows how little the typical Clemson fan knows about the history of college basketball and how certain programs have built a Brand over time that schools like Clemson have an incredibly hard time fighting against.
These schools have instant recognition with kids where Clemson's program is no more recognizable than College of Charleston or Wake Forest.
Heck, even Wake Forest has been to the Final Four - Clemson has only been to the Final Eight once! I dunno - maybe you think that's Brownell's fault too!
You people are absolute numbskulls if you think Clemson is going to do much better than Brad Brownell under current circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4356]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 1/18/03
|
Check your comprehension. Clemson being rural is no
Dec 19, 2015, 11:31 PM
|
|
excuse for our lack of success is the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
check your history
Dec 20, 2015, 8:46 AM
|
|
Kansas became a great basketball program at a time when urban areas did not dominate the sport as they have over the last 60 years and obviously prior to media such as ESPN emphasizing BRAND-name programs as they do now.
Being urban MAY be important, yes, but it's not the end-all-be-all.
Kansas is an outlier to that particular demographic, yes, but ONLY because of its incredible HISTORY.
Clemson has no such history....
On to the next comparison Einstein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Yoir post isn't even close to true
Dec 20, 2015, 12:26 AM
[ in reply to None of those are directly in major urban areas. Small ] |
|
It makes me wonder if you know anything about the places you mentioned. The only thing place like Madison and Tucson have in common with Clemson is that there's a state university in town.
Urban does not mean a a city in the top 10 in the country in population, which is what you seem to think it means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4356]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 1/18/03
|
None of those I mentioned as non-urban are in the top 50
Dec 20, 2015, 7:38 AM
|
|
MSA in the country. I don't think you know what urban means.
I've been to nearly all of these areas. You're trying to tell me that Tucson and Madison are more like Memphis or Pittsburg or Cincinnati than they are like Clemson? Not accurate. They are still college towns with some urban elements, but they are not urban.
Not even close to accurate. Many Capitol cities are small markets. That is not a correlation with urban either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4550]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4421
Joined: 7/14/03
|
Elden Campbell came to CU from LA
Dec 20, 2015, 8:05 AM
|
|
I'm shocked at how well he flourished here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4356]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 1/18/03
|
Epidummy, I said Louisville is urban. Buh bye.***
Dec 20, 2015, 1:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
yep, u r right... you also called UNC and Kentucky "remote"
Dec 20, 2015, 8:53 PM
|
|
as in "somewhat remote".
Simply woeful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5535
Joined: 12/26/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
Kentucky is in Lexington - the biggest city in Ky by far
Dec 19, 2015, 10:04 PM
[ in reply to Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin, UConn, Missouri, Arizona ] |
|
UNC is 25 miles from a city of almost 800,000 and then Durham (100k+) is even closer.
You people have no idea what you're talking about.
Fire the "fans"! Please!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4356]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 1/18/03
|
Louisville is nearly 4x Lexington. Get it right.***
Dec 19, 2015, 11:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
The overall point is correct, even if the execution was a little off***
Dec 20, 2015, 12:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
you are correct, almost: Louisville is bigger than Lexington
Dec 20, 2015, 9:01 AM
[ in reply to Louisville is nearly 4x Lexington. Get it right.*** ] |
|
according to May 2015 numbers, Louisville is the 30th largest city in America and Lexington is 61st. Louisville outdistances Lexington by 613k to 310k according to estimates by the Census Bureau - 2X, not 4X.
But come again as to how the 61st largest city in America with 311k in population should be considered "rural" like Clemson?
By the way, there are 9 North Carolina cities on the Top 300 list including (laughing at this point) Cary, High Point, Greensboro, and FayetteNam.
Greenville, SC is not on the Top 300 list at all, being also eclipsed in this State by Columbia, Charleston, and, ta da, North Charleston.
You simply do not know what you are talking about - but I will give you Louisville over Lexington, if you need something...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4356]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2868
Joined: 1/18/03
|
u r dum***
Dec 20, 2015, 1:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
u r an arsehole - proud?***
Dec 20, 2015, 8:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16720]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16758
Joined: 8/19/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
oh come on, that count includes Spartanburg and Anderson
Dec 20, 2015, 9:12 AM
|
|
that's hardly an "urban city". Greenville proper only has 62k in population. You're talking MSA, not city.
What do you want to do, stretch the area until it includes Atlanta and say that Clemson is in "Atlanta's MSA"?
seriously, that's pitiful....
let the facts make the argument, not your preconceived perceptions....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43992]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32924
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Wisconsin, Arizona, Kentucky, and UNC are in urban areas.
Dec 20, 2015, 8:37 PM
[ in reply to Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin, UConn, Missouri, Arizona ] |
|
Clemson is considered suburban these days, not rural. But it's still a far cry from being in an urban area like the above schools.
The only schools on your list which are decidedly non-urban are Kansas and UConn. And they have super strong basketball histories that are light years ahead of ours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6351
Joined: 9/21/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Both are in good sized cities
Dec 19, 2015, 6:32 PM
|
|
Ks State is the best example of a rural school doing well in bball I can think of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
Iowa St, WVU, OU maybe. I'm sure all are bigger than Clemson
Dec 19, 2015, 7:05 PM
|
|
however. There are few college towns as small or isolated as Clemson is. It hurts when recruiting a primarily urban sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Circumstances dictated the successes prior to Brownell ...
Dec 19, 2015, 2:55 PM
|
|
Bill Foster inherited a bunch of great players from those Tates Locke cheated to get for us. Foster was a fine coach, but honestly, the players on campus when he got here were pretty talented and even though we were on probation, he still maximized what we had to build on which included Stan Rome, Tree Rollins and Colon Abraham. His 1980 squad was the most successful in Tiger history, but there was no follow-up consistency and mediocre seasons caused Foster to be let go.
Cliff Ellis had a plan that included building teams gradually for 2-3 years before peaking as seniors and then necessarily reverting back to the starting point again for another 2-3 year re-build. He did a great job all things considered, but we had to rely on a lot of JUCOs to fill in gaps. When he brought in guys like Chris Whitney to compliment under-the-radar big guys like Dale Davis and Elden Campbell, he won our only ACC regular seasons title. The next year it was time to re-build once again. Ellis's tenure was pretty much a roller coaster ride that grew tiresome for fans and the administration.
Barnes was the best basketball coach we ever had. He also had a plan for success at Clemson which included implementing using limited talent in a rough and tumble style of play that was very effective in the beginning, but was soon neutralized by officiating to the point that it couldn't be sustained. Barnes saw the writing on the wall and bolted for Texas before the deficiencies of his plan were totally revealed.
Purnell also used unorthodox methods to build success on sheer athleticism that allowed him to get a lot of mileage out of players with marginal basketball skills. The high octane offense and run until you drop defense worked well for a while, but other coaches caught on and the sheer talent possessed by the upper echelon of the ACC and the teams we met in the NCAAs exposed those teams for what they were.
All this said ... there are many fans (myself included) that find ourselves longing for the day when our coaching staff was able to scheme around a lack of talent some years and to get lucky in recruiting by finding a Horace Grant or Dale Davis and blending them with a Billy Williams or a Chris Whitney to produce that one magical season every three or four years..
Right now it's not happening ... and the poor to mediocre results have Tiger fans ready to make another change in coaching to see if the grass can be greener on the other side of the proverbial fence.
Brad Brownell is struggling, but he's our coach for this year and next. That's pretty much a given. We may or may not see the type of improvement on the court that we want and expect, but we're getting big improvements in the type of facilities that it takes to attract not only better players, but if need be, to attract better coaches.
If Brownell doesn't turn it around by the end of next season, then the AD will have demonstrated the financial commitment to the program that's been lacking over the years and the next coach will begin with a stronger base of support to work with than Clemson has ever had before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
He gets through next year unless
Dec 19, 2015, 3:15 PM
|
|
we really fall apart this year. That happens, all bets are off
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I think the main reason for the lack of basketball success
Dec 19, 2015, 3:15 PM
[ in reply to Circumstances dictated the successes prior to Brownell ... ] |
|
at Clemson, at least in the last 30 years or so, is that there was no winning tradition established in the previous 30-40 years upon which to build. Pre 1970, basketball was even more of an urban sport than it is today (much more so), and Clemson was even more rural. It really was more difficult to get good players in here, for that reason, in those days, and difficult to establish any tradition.
That, in my opinion, is a legacy that haunts us to this day, and is the main reason we don't get serious looks from top recruits, and why we struggle to compete.
The thing is, it doesn't have to be that way permanently. We have to start somewhere, and build that tradition. Clemson has PLENTY to offer young athletes, and yes, even basketball players. It's a great place to spend 4-5 years, and with the right players, can compete at the very highest level. Will we ever be able to recruit head-to-head with UNC and Dook and Syracuse, etc.? Probably not, not in my lifetime at least, but we are certainly capable of attracting better talent than we ever have, we just have to sell Clemson better to these recruits. A dynamic coach and new facilities are key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/18/05
|
I agree with that. College basketball is a coaches sport
Dec 19, 2015, 3:20 PM
|
|
The coach drives the program. Finding that coach, then keeping him at Clemson, is the biggest obstacle we've had and will continue to have. In basketball, a destination job has a destination coach. Even at the lower levels
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Agreed, and getting and keeping such a coach requires
Dec 19, 2015, 4:00 PM
|
|
a level of commitment from the university that we've probably never seen, but are capable of making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Frank Howard in his dual role of AD and Head Football Coach
Dec 19, 2015, 7:31 PM
[ in reply to I think the main reason for the lack of basketball success ] |
|
was not particularly interested in advancing basketball at Clemson. I wouldn't go so far as to say he sabotaged hoops at Clemson, but he certainly was guilty of benign neglect.
Press Maravich was a pretty solid, nationally respected basketball mind who knew what he was doing. He needed greater financial support and better facilities back in the early days of the ACC when things could have been evened out with the UNCs, Dukes, and Marylands, etc. but, Press was basically forced to leave to take the assistant's job at NC State working for Everett Case because Howard wouldn't give him any more money and didn't see the need for any better facility than Fike.
Building the cut rate structure that was Littlejohn coupled with our pitiful attempt in 1970 to do too much, way too late in "recruiting" with Tates Locke, landing us on three years NCAA probation pretty much sealed our fate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
well thought out & well said; yet.....
Dec 19, 2015, 5:58 PM
[ in reply to Circumstances dictated the successes prior to Brownell ... ] |
|
failed to highlight one thing -
after all those noted "successes", there's still only 1 regular season ACC championship AND 0 ACC Tournament titles.
Those people who day Clemson can be "great" at basketball are smelling fumes from the exhaust pipe,
and those that are whining away at "why can't it be us" simply don't want to recognize the enormity of competition in NCAA basketball. EVERY program wants to do better and many of those schools have real advantages over Clemson, being in an urban city being only one possible one.
So it'll never happen, whether we keep or fire Brownell;
UNLESS someone creates a BRAND for Clemson basketball that will sell against the other programs we compete against (not just in the ACC).
Cabo created a BRAND for the Football program and now it is reading the benefits - #1 QB's from Indiana and #1 DT's from Connecticut want to come here, and do!
Brownell needs to define and implement the same sort of BRAND that will distinguish his program from the rest if he wants to "take that next step".
Quite frankly, given what's on the court right now, I'd say he's one 4-5* away from being really good.... don't know of he'll ever get it though,
and with the incessant whining of the fans, I'd suggest the temperature around the program ain't helping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
There are a couple of four star players already on the team
Dec 19, 2015, 6:15 PM
|
|
The other thing that annoys me is that in addition to people ignoring our recent success, they also ignore that recruiting has gotten better and that we've picked up some quality transfers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
agree - which is why I call out the wussies on here....
Dec 19, 2015, 6:29 PM
|
|
all they want to do is gripe, beatch and moan.
This team can be good - better than it knows it can be. Heck it fell behind by 20 in the 1st half the other night, was behind by 18 at the half, and still had a half-dozen or more opportunities to cut the lead to 2 in the last 10 minutes of the game. They literally played toe to toe with USuCk after that 24-1 run.
I think one problem is that this team does not know how good it can be - they seem to play with a lack of confidence int he first half the other night and then simply got too pissed off to let it get worse.
That's why I say they're a 5* away from being really good. 5*'s bring confidence - they think they should be the best player on the court even when they're straight out of high school.
The need to stop playing scared to lose and simply let it go, end to end, from the moment of the tip-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6351
Joined: 9/21/04
|
lol
Dec 19, 2015, 6:32 PM
|
|
Nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
you somehow argue with the fact they cam back from 20?
Dec 19, 2015, 6:40 PM
|
|
what an arsehole....
go be a Coot, pumpkin...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [193]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 275
Joined: 10/21/13
|
Re: well thought out & well said; yet.....
Dec 19, 2015, 10:17 PM
[ in reply to well thought out & well said; yet..... ] |
|
Spot on. Goose egg for ACC championships. I contend that our high water mark in basketball came in the 1976 ACC tournament final seconds before Tree Rollins missed a dunk in the final seconds of the game. UNC got the rebound, went down court and scored and won. A "brand" team by the way that we have never beaten on their home court. I don't know the reason why we choke in big basketball games, but I don't think it has to do with not being urban. My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [193]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 275
Joined: 10/21/13
|
Re: well thought out & well said; yet.....
Dec 19, 2015, 11:06 PM
|
|
Sorry everyone. It was the 1975 tournament semifinal. That's what happens when you rely on memory. Geez, I can't even remember my meds without one of those day by day pill boxes. But anyway, the point is the same. It is a choke factor from what I have observed that seems to follow our BB program over decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1404]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1919
Joined: 4/19/05
|
Re: Circumstances dictated the successes prior to Brownell ...
Dec 20, 2015, 12:20 AM
[ in reply to Circumstances dictated the successes prior to Brownell ... ] |
|
The most reasoned and accurate post of Clemson basketball that I have read. Thanks.
What I do not like reading, not from mind you, are the fans who state...
"No reason Clemson should be _______"
"OP left plenty of talent."
"We should be getting better players."= of course and everyone wants better players. Even Dabo.
Clemson has had no history of sustained or consistent success. Could Coach BB build it? Perhaps.
We will see over next 18 months.
But I feel the talent level in terms of basketball skillsets is improving via the players brought in under Coach BB.
My biggest concern is why so many transfers? What is causing this?
That may be more telling in terms of how Coach BB relates and connects with players and recruits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17522]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14120
Joined: 10/24/10
|
Wichita St does well despite lows in 20/30's 5 mos per year***
Dec 20, 2015, 12:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
Wichita St does not have the entrance requirements that
Dec 20, 2015, 9:03 AM
|
|
Clemson has, nor the competition from the ACC.
Why do you think Gregg Marshall went there?
In some ways it's incredibly easier to be a mid-major coach than it is a Div 1 coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 66
| visibility 1
|
|
|
|
50
