Noel Johnson's Dad Leaves Clemson

Well this bites. First I am a fan of Noel Johnson as a basketball player (well as a player on this particular Clemson team). He couldn't play a lick of D or penetrate that well but he wasn't named Tanner and he has the height and ability to shoot the ball.

He didn't start the season and looked awful on the court until the past couple of games when he went from that guy on your pick up team who takes all the shots and thinks he's the man (but you were probably better off without him) to lukewarm milk. Donte Hill and now Sing Noel are gone. 9 players remain. With Booker and Grant not being able to stay on the floor we are going to be seeing a lot more Tanner, Jennings, and the frosh Stanton as well as *gasp* Narcisse and Bobo. I would gladly have TO (Terrance, Terrance) back, my goodness.

My goodness. So exploring all of our options I have a solution. DMac...He plays his senior year for the bball team and he lights it up. Won't happen because he will be trying to get ready for the draft. But it would be awesome...

Nuke--not happening and we really need wings not point guards anyway. Vic Beasley is an interesting option that could be explored.

We should also look into one of those early enrollment things--didn't Dawkins do that for Duke?? Get a kid after January? It would at least help with practice, redshirt and learn the system. We will certainly be needing a ton of help next year.

I think 8-8 in the ACC is looking more and more like a mountain to climb than an achievable goal. Tanner, please learn to shoot a 3. Jennings, rebound like a man (and shoot 3's). Booker--relearn those post moves you showed last year then forgot because Purnell put regression juice in all his new players diets. Do you remember how as a Freshman Stitt was like an 80% FT shooter?? Oh and everyone learn the motion offense.

Quick Reminder: Brad Brownell Not Really Much of an X's/O's Guy on Offense

I'm not sure where the rumor started. I just remember reading it in the blogs somewhere, and then suddenly it everyone seemed to accept it as the gospel truth. Seriously, its almost like this idea was planted by the front office and bam! pretty soon everyone is a stenographer.

In an effort to inject some data into the assessment of Brownell's hiring, I took a quick look at the statistical profiles of his past squads (this was back when I had the time for this sort of thing...) No doubt he's led some great defenses, but on offense his team finished in the top 3 in his conference only once--last year (#3!!). Other than that, his offenses have hovered right around average in both the Colonial and Horizon Leagues. Not exactly the dominant mark of a young coaching wizard. In fact, Brownell's overall statistical team profiles eerily resemble the not-so-dearly departed Oliver Purnell, despite using starkly different strategies to construct stingy defenses and middling offenses.

The Michigan game is disheartening, but it reinforces my early views that we are on a rocky road this season with our best hopes likely lying in an 8-8 ACC season. I believe we have latent offensive talent on this team, but without a coaching staff capable of scheming to fit or develop the talent we are in for a long season of crappy offensive displays. Kind of like the last several years, but less frantic. Much, much less frantic. Glacial.

Clemben Addition: This is the perfect game to shut up Tanner Smith enthusiasts. 1-7 and 0-5 from 3 pt. land. 4 fouls and beat to the basket on multiple occasions (not that anyone was rotating on defense so its not all his fault). We really need Noel Johnson to step up and take half of Tanner's minutes or ACC play will get ugly. Lucky for us Wake and GT stink. Miami, Virginia Tech and FSU are underachieving. Roy Williams has Harrison Barnes and can't right the ship (I love that Barnes was picked as a preaseason All-American??, would have been a top draft pick in NBA but is struggling in college). Maryland and NC State I don't know enough about but are beatable and only Virginia seems to have improved much since last year. Yes, Duke is back to being unstoppable but our schedule is favorable.

This loss to Michigan at home on national TV really does sting though. We have to hope that Michigan continues to improve in the Big Ten. We really need to win our next two games to stay in the NCAA hunt if we go 8-8 in ACC play. Losing to South Carolina in the 3 major sports this year is unacceptable Barker. Don't let the door hit you on the way out Terry Don. How about we get an athletic director with a normal name for a change? That would mean Billy D'Andrea would be disqualified. Hooray!

One thing to remember is that expanded brackets (which I absolutely abhor--64 was a great number) might really benefit us this year. Still unless this team improves fundamentally, its going to be a long year. Glacial sounds about right.

Western Carolina Review

Well its Basketball season already. Surprise, surprise I'm actually excited for this season. I want to see if this team will actually learn how to run some offense and pass the ball into the post. I thought the world of Purnell after Shyatt but thought we did less with more last season. I was personally looking for the Sweet 16 last year with the incoming recruits.

So this season I just want to make the tourney and go 8-8 in conference play. Kenpom currently has us at 9-7, which I think is possible for this team, and 28th overall, a little high for now but not entirely removed from the realm of possibility.

For all you stupid pundits Kenpom has the ACC dominating the BIG 10 and BIG 12. Just because sports people (I refuse to use the word journalists) come from the Big 10 doesn't mean they should let their bias show so obviously. Oh and putting the word BIG in front of your conference doesn't make it better--just silly(especially when the numbers don't add up anymore). Can't wait for the Big Ten versus ACC this year. At least in Basketball we have something like this that can shut down pundits for a little while.

Oh yeah so the game...

I keep hearing that Bobo won't/can't contribute. I don't agree and I love that the staff is committed to getting some production from him. Purnell was always clueless with big men--I think Devin Booker regressed last year. Bobo can get opposing teams big men into foul trouble, he can manufacture some points against smaller teams like VTech or Miami, and that is worth the investment. Think of Duke last year and Zoubek.

Jennings looked like he might be able to contribute and Booker looked great, lots of putbacks etc. Brownell looked to be mixing and matching and had his guys ready to play. He passes the initial smell test, unlike Wake Forest and their loss to STETSON!! hahaha.

On the not so positive side we lack depth in the backcourt. With Stitt in bad foul trouble (his play wasn't just bad, it was absent) and Young with an injured thigh bruise, we had to turn to Cory Stanton and even Anderson. That is fine in non-conf but scary for ACC play if Stitt or Young go down with an injury. Stitt seemed to be playing more of the 2 which he didn't seem to particularly care for but with a Brownell's offense it shouldn't matter. Noel Johnson has to be a big part of our offense if we are going to have success this year. He needs to be a consistent 3 pt. threat and really struggled last night. I am also worried about our ability to defend the three with such small guards on the floor.

Tanner Smith 1-6 from the FT line?? Tigers can't afford to shoot below 65% from the line this year. My same criticism of Smith remains--a great glue guy but his junk ball play won't stand up in ACC play, especially without the intentional chaos of Purnell's system. This scares me. Grant seems about the same as last year.

Now this is all after one game so feel free to laugh at these observations. Western Carolina was an above average team last year and Wofford will actual be a test next week. We will know more about the team after Wofford. Good start, hope Brownell and crew can help this offense.

Quick Clemson NCAA Post-Mortem

There's an old adage that teams that like to press don't like to be pressed. Yesterday afternoon we observed a more fundamental truism: teams that turn the ball over too much don't like to be pressed. It was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that Clemson was almost certain to lose to Missouri. Both teams rely primarily on their defensive ability to force turnovers to drive their offensive output, and the Mizzou Tigers simply don't turn the ball over. Yeah, there was a chance our press might cause them problems, but you aren't a top five team at avoiding turnovers for nothing. The advantage was all Missouri going in and they burned us time and time again as we made stupid decisions with the ball. We kept it close with ridiculous, unsustainable 3-point shooting in the first half but when we regressed to the mean in the second half the game was as good as done (felt like the second Maryland game in that respect). Also, if you don't understand the concept of regression to the mean, read this. Its related to baseball but the idea is the same--if the team has a certain "true" level of performance, then given enough time the team will revert to that level regardless of how well they perform over smaller stretches of time. We went 8-11 from 3-point land in the first half, there was no way we were going 16-22 for the game.

I know everyone is down on the players for not playing hard the last ten minutes of the game, but I think there's a reason. Seems to me they new their margin for error was small--they had to keep things even for 40 minutes to try and pull it out at the end because they wouldn't be able to force turnovers or get enough stops in the halfcourt to spark a run (to say nothing of our complete lack of a four-minute offense). Once they were in a hole, they knew they were beaten. Sure, it's not a good reason for not playing hard and it reflects extremely poorly on the coaching staff for their inability to motivate/prepare the team mentally, but there it is.

I've been yelling it as loud as I can from this tiny blog pulpit: turnovers are killing us. This is the worst year for Clemson at turning the ball over since the first season Purnell took over, and it's not even close. There's been a ton of talk around the blogosphere about the lack of an offensive plan for the Tigers and their inability to even execute simple fundamentals. This is undoubtedly true; I won't argue this point. Purnell and his (newly-hired?) assistants need to take a long look at the tapes this offseason to figure out how to improve the halfcourt set. But I would argue that we have an even more fundamental problem: empty possessions from turnover after turnover. Often, we don't even get a chance to setup the halfcourt 'cause Stitt is dribbling the ball off his leg. This is also a more fundamental problem because it isn't going away next season with Stitt as our de facto team leader and ball-handler.

Next season has all of the makings of a bad year for the Tigers, outlined by ClemBen in the post below. We've got a turnover prone "senior leader" point guard blocking and taking playing time from a better player one year his junior (don't even get me started--the last few games of the season should have sealed in everyone's mind that Young is the better player than Stitt now), a lack of an strong inside presence capable of creating a shot, and a guy starting at the two position that would be fighting for playing time at the back end of the bench for a middling SEC team (how many times was Tanner Smith burned off the ball on the perimeter leading to easy points? I give him credit for decent defensive fundamentals, but when he's matched against someone quick and fluid, he's toast). Most of our problems are related to the most fundamental aspects of the game; for example, perimeter players gotta be stronger with the ball and make crisper passes to right part of the player receiving the ball while inside guys need to improve footwork in the post. It's easy to tell Clemson to go out and make up a few nice offensive sets and practice them 1000 times, but we won't get to .500 in the ACC next season without first improving the fundamentals on offense and bringing our turnover count down to a reasonable range.

ACC Tournament: NC State vs. Clemson Recap

Needed a couple of days to calm down after that lost, hence the lack of a post. Probably the worst all-around performance for the Tigers since the Boston College game, except this time the offense was wretched throughout the entire game instead of the defense. A few bullet points, then we'll shift focus to Clemson's upcoming first-round exit:

• It was interesting, I thought Clemson came out and played with the requisite energy but they just weren't there mentally. No excuse for that many mistakes.
• The first half they couldn't even get set in the offense 'cause they kept giving the ball to NC State on stupid passes. Poor spacing was partly to blame; later it escalated as everyone started getting frustrated with their own bad play.
• As bad as the offense played in the first half, I thought the halfcourt defense was pretty solid. NC State made a series of ridiculously difficult shots despite good defense in the first half. Without that, Clemson could very well have been leading at halftime. Of course, the defense played worse in the second half which was partially offset by Clemson tamping down the inexplicable turnovers.
• T. Booker made a lot of crucial mistakes and the FT shooting performance was inexcusable. A fitting end to a dreadful career of ACC Tourney games.
• The clock management was inexcusable down the stretch. We've commented on the Tigers' inability to play with any urgency as the clock is winding down. This is squarely on the coaching staff. They have to have a set of understood plays they can execute with one hand tied behind their collective back when we're behind by 3 with 2:00 minutes to go.
• I would have liked to see Purnell employ the foul 'em with 4:00 minutes to go strategy that worked well at FSU. NC State isn't a great foul shooting team and while we weren't exactly knocking the threes down, we had a chance to shoot down NC State from behind with their league-average FG% defense.
• Tanner Smith. I hope he does nothing but practice a freakin' jump shot in the offseason, because he can't drive to the hoop and he can't hit the three. He's had his moments this season on defense (particularly in the halfcourt) but it's barely enough to justify a roster spot next season, much less his starter status.

That's enough, before I say something I'll regret. But hey, it's Selection Sunday, and Clemson's name is going to be called. Things could be much worse. Might as well ask, even though there's not much time left: which #1/#2 seed would you rather be grouped with? My vote is for Kentucky: they're (slightly) overrated largely due to playing in the dreadful SEC and if USuCk can beat them, I like our chances.

FSU Chokes, Tigers Pull One Out

I think that is the first time this year(maybe the Butler game) where I was about to give up hope and then Clemson delivered. It was the first time this year where I woke up my napping wife as I let out a yell and my fist shook when Andre Young hit that three after the steal.

Ok this was one ugly game. It was painful at times but a road win against FSU is everything our tournament resume needed and we hit the magic 20 win mark. A fourth straight 20 win season and 20-8 record.

Mid Blog Pro OP Rant

For all you OP haters out there, ponder this set of simple stats. Before OP took over, by my count, Clemson had only 7 twenty win seasons(it was possible to get to 20 wins consistently starting in about 1953 with 26 total regular season games, 28 started in 1974). So only 7 times before Ollie did Clemson achieve that goal. Now we have done it 4 straight times. Twice in the 70's, 3 times in the 80's, only twice in the 90's and now four times all with Purnell. Barnes is the only coach who took us to three straight tourneys, something hopefully Oliver will duplicate with this season.

We get frustrated with OP from time to time with lack of offensive sets, poor ft shooting, and an over reliance on the press from time to time but people don't mimic Gamecock fans and start thinking that we have arrived in bball. We aren't going to fire OP and bring in some power coach. Littlejohn and the general bball facilities need an upgrade and we don't have the recruiting budget of some schools. We are under .500 lifetime as a program for crying out loud. Let us just enjoy OP and win a game in the NCAA tourney!!

Speaking of making the tourney we are now 2-5 on the road which isn't good but its a lot better than the eyesore that was 1-5. We have no other major flaws in the resume and 8-6 in the conference isn't bad. I think if we split the next two we should be in. But that is still very debatable and dependent on other teams--what is really interesting is playing for the tournament bye. To have a shot at the ACC Champs you must have the first round bye and now FSU, Wake, VT, and Clemson are all even at 8-6. Duke and Maryland have all but wrapped up the first two slots.

We own the tiebreaker over FSU so our only game against Wake is all the more important since we lost to VT. TigerMax will have a more in-depth breakdown. But the way it is looking if we beat Wake we have a bye. FSU and Wake play on Wed. March 3rd.

Quick game notes--Tanner Smith continues to struggle but hit his first big shot of the season. Stitt had an ugly game and got frustrated with about six minutes to go, started turning the ball over left and right. We played good D and got some nice steals in key situations (obviously when down by one) but where we really struggled was getting the ball into the post when they were fronting Booker. Our offense consistently gets pushed off the ball and can't get into any rhythm so we end up making bad passes and taking bad shots bc we are always forced late into the 35 second count. We need a few different sets to mix it up and keep the D on their toes. Teams that pressure the ball well like Duke give us nightmares because we don't play strong enough with the ball.

Stitt needs to work on this the most. He couldn't drive at all today against not only the height but the ball pressure of FSU. Anyway, the season was slipping away but we held on and grasped a win out of the jaws of defeat. It was poetic to see their 81% FT shooter giant Alabi miss one and then watch Booker stroke 4 straight. Stitt also had two clutch FT's. Awesome win and maybe this is the momentum we need. We can beat Wake--it's Dino and besides they are overrated...

Update: Here is a video of FSU Coach Hamilton after the game, if you watch to the very end he gives this blank stare and little laugh. Must be a tough loss to stomach, glad to be on the winning end tonight.

Moving Right Along: Post game Virginia

This was a great win for us. We easily handled a much improved Virginia Cavaliers team and beat them by a large margin--no playing down to our competition. I like Bennett as a coach and think Virginia will be a formidable foe in the near future, they were just gassed for this game and didn't expect TBooker and JGrant to have 14 and 18 points respectively. We dominated inside and got some great minutes from Milton Jennings (thank you!!). Purnell is starting to use the freshman more and more which really bodes well for next season, Noel Johnson continues to struggle however which is disappointing. I was also really disappointed with some bonehead turnovers in this game, many of which involved Tanner and some from Stitt. Its those unforced turnovers that kill us against better teams.

If our inside guys can keep playing at a high level, Booker had some sweet pure post moves today, and we knock down 35% from three point range--we can hang with anyone in the country. I think that the week long break was really helpful--we had fresher legs and we need it for these upcoming road games. Looking back at our predictions early on--9-7 is still within our grasp as well as making it to the tourney and winning at least one game. That would be an improvement from last year. What we really need is to peak at the right time--that means the time to finally gel as a team has come. Milt is showing life, the inside game is solid, we play pretty good D, the FT shooting has improved--all key things to continue on the road. What we need to see a little more improvement on to push us into that upper echelon is decreased turnovers, better 3pt shooting, and toughness on the road.

Right now I think we can go 9-7, win one game in the ACC and NCAA tournaments. Lets make it happen Tigers!!

Miami Recap

Clemson 74, Miami 66

I thought the intensity was there, which was probably my biggest concern given the weather conditions dampening attendance, the win over FSU, the two-and-a-half day turnaround, desperation from Miami, and did I mention there was snow on the ground? I guess we have to give credit to the coaching staff, 'cause we need something to blame when the team comes out and inexplicably plays flat. To the chart:

NCAA Basketball

The game was close throughout, even though I felt strangely confident that Clemson was going to win. Despite some (jarring) lapses, they just seemed to have the advantage on both sides of the court, particularly having a better defense. I don't need to tell you that the best team doesn't always win a college basketball game, but for some reason I wasn't worried even when Miami fought back to tie the game at 40/43 or when they trimmed the lead to 67-63 with 47 seconds remaining.

I don't usually show the following kind of chart, because it's usually not that informative when viewed in the context of a single game, but it really tells the story of yesterday's game:

NCAA Basketball

(I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)

This plots the "four factors", which have been established as the statistics that contribute most strongly to determining victory. Clemson has the slight edge in offensive rebounding and turnovers, while Miami has a small edge in FG% (remember, this is effective FG%, which gives extra weight to making a three point shot relative to a two point shot. It also perfectly demonstrates why focusing on simple FG% is misleading, because while Miami has a more decisive 52%-45% advantage for simple FG%, the advantage shrinks to 59%-57% when you account for Clemson's extra two three-point shots on three extra attempts) (as a side note, it turns out both teams shot the ball pretty well yesterday). The real story is in the final column, where Clemson absolutely killed Miami in FT rate. Even though FT rate is the least important of the four factors, when you see one bar favoring a team by that much, its a good bet they've put themselves in a position to win. I went back and checked the same chart from the Virginia Tech game and it's actually really similar. The advantages for the first three bars are narrow and divided between the teams, but VT has an astounding advantage in FT rate.

So I guess in a way Clemson got one back from the refs. The game would have been a lot closer without the 31-17 advantage in FT attempts, not to mention Clemson unexpectedly sinking 25 of their attempts. At the same time, this is latest in a series of decent to above-average performances from the line for Clemson. A lot of this is driven by T. Booker finding his shot, picking up some of the slack he let was responsible for by missing so many shots from the stripe at the beginning of the season. In addition, I like seeing this result because it makes sense: Clemson had an advantage underneath, so they attacked inside and ended up picking up a lot of fouls and subsequent points from the line.

This won't happen in every game because the inside advantage won't be there. But it's good to see Clemson conscientiously playing to the weaknesses of their opponents. One more win next Saturday against Virginia and Clemson will be back playing in a position of strength at least for one game, trying to steal an upset on the road at Maryland.

**One quick note: it was good to see Tanner Smith playing after what looked like a potentially serious injury in the first half. We don't hide our contempt for Tanner Smith much on this blog, but at the same time we probably don't give him enough credit for his improvement in defense. I think at this point the gap in performance on defense between him and a freshmen like Johnson or Hill is large enough to more than negate any difference in offensive performance. Moreover, Smith at the very least provides some decent-quality depth, something the team is not exactly brimming with right now. None of this may be true by next season, but for now Clemson couldn't really afford an injury to Tanner Smith.

State of Clemson Basketball: 2010 mid-ACC update

With National Signing Day out of the way and Clemson basketball in the middle of a 6 day break, its a good time to reflect on the team's performance halfway through ACC play. Again, the point of these posts is just to try and discern any interesting statistical trends, taking advantage of the statistics over at Kenpom.com.

I don't think it's any secret that Clemson is underperforming this season. The obvious culprit is the offense, which has struggled in just about every imaginable way to put points on the board. The statistics agree with this sentiment pretty strongly. First I'm going to show charts that are slightly different from previous charts I've shown, these track differences in offensive/defensive efficiencies across the last two years:


I don't have the data from midseason 2009, so that point is interpolated by averaging the bookending points. Clearly, we are struggling on offense this year. But what's I really find interesting is the relationship between offense and defense over the past two years. In 2009, the defense steadily declined while the offense steadily improved. This year, the defense has steadily improved while the offense has steadily declined. Last year, the defense fell apart largely because Clemson became too predictable in their pressure defense over the course of a game, allowing teams to routinely break the press and score. Often teams weren't settling for a drive to the basket, either, but were looking for (and making) wide-open threes. This year, Purnell came out with a clear plan to counter the defensive struggles of last year by mixing up pressure looks not just during blocks of possessions but even from individual possession to individual possession. The results have been fantastic and are clearly evident from the forced turnover rates--Clemson's defense ranks 4th in the country in opposition turnovers and 5th in steals. Make no mistake, rate of forced turnovers is driving the defense--our effective FG% defense is a respectable 50th in the country, but that lags well behind the other strong defenses in the ACC.

On the other hand, I imagine Oliver Purnell was not counting on the complete implosion of the offense. I'm not showing the overall efficiency data relative to recent years, but we are currently as bad as we've been since 2006. Let's look at the four factors the offense to try and get some answers:

It looks all four factors have gotten slightly worse across the board. I would wager the fluctuations in FT attempts/FG attempts and offensive rebounding percentage are little more than noise and not much to be concerned about. However, the turnover% and FG% (the two most important factors), while up only slightly, still look troublesome. Here are the component offensive factors:

Now we see something emerge. Our drop in effective FG% appears to be directly related to our struggles from behind the arc since the start of ACC play. Also, our rate of having the ball stolen has gone up slightly, although I doubt that alone explains the increase in turnovers. The other factors don't worry me too much, and unbelievably our FT% has actually gotten better since the start of ACC play (must be that flukish 18-20 UNC performance).

I think our offensive troubles since the start of ACC play can be traced primarily to 3-point problems and to a lesser extent, an increase in both forced and unforced turnovers. I've been pretty adamant since the start of the year that our three-point shooting would be fine, but I can't ignore the data any longer--we need more threes to start falling. I didn't anticipate Young's struggles. He's not missing shots, but he's having a hard time getting open looks against the taller ACC competition. Potter has regressed substantially, and while Johnson hasn't been a disaster as a freshman (35%), I was hoping (probably too much) for more. Stitt has improved from around a 30% shooter in his first two years to 35% this year, but his injury has left him out or hobbled through most of ACC play. Tanner Smith has been a catastrophe, shooting below 30% now on just 61 shots. All of this adds up to a markedly below-average three-point shooting team for the ACC.

Meanwhile, on the turnover front, while Stitt has actually marginally improved a couple of percentage points, overall he still sports an ugly turnover rate of 23.1 (meaning he turns the ball over 23.1% of the time he is involved in a possession). This gain has been offset, however, by Young's increase from 16.9 a year ago to 21.9 this year. With our two primary ball-handlers giving the ball back in one out of five personal possessions, Clemson's having a tough time just letting plays develop long enough to get looks at the basket.

There's not much I can see Clemson doing to improve their problems behind the arc. Minor tweaking is probably all Purnell has at his disposal now, something along the lines of 1) letting Johnson shoot as much as possible hoping he develops into a more reliable shot by the end of the season, 2) relegating Tanner Smith to defensive specialist, and 3) figuring out ways of ensuring Andre Young is open at least a few times a game. The turnover problems are even worse. While I believe Andre Young's true turnover rate lies closer to 16.9 than 21.9, he's done little since Stitt's injury to support this. Its a difficult problem to solve midseason.

The most frustrating aspect of these offensive struggles is that we could be better now with a little more emphasis on fundamentals. We have the shooting skills to be better than 64.2% from the line. While our 2P FG% is keeping us afloat, everyone knows from watching the games that we could be even better. And of course, if we could just stop dribbling the ball off our legs, we'd cut a good 5% off our turnover rate. All of these little things would add up to at least a respectable ACC-level offense.

You would think Purnell might turn his attention to these offensive fundamentals. However, watching the team (particularly since Stitt went down) and listening to Purnell's recent statements to the media, its pretty clear Purnell has gone in the opposite direction: he's looking to further improve the defense. I think this also explains the increase in defensive efficiency since the start of ACC play (second chart above).

If true, it's an interesting gambit and I actually kind of like it. The key selling point for me is Stitt's injury. While Young has filled in reasonably well in his absence, without Stitt we almost entirely lose the ability to penetrate on offense. Given Stitt's poor all around play after returning from injury last year, its difficult to count on him being the same player when he finally does return. With that in mind, if our half-court offense is going to essentially consist of Trevor Booker underneath and Grant cleaning up on misses, we might as well focus on defense to keep the other team's points down and try to score some easy points off turnovers.

There's been a lot of chatter around the blogosphere about discontent with Purnell. This puts me in a rather odd position where I feel compelled to defend Oliver Purnell; long-time readers will know we've been critical of Purnell when the situation warrants. I don't feel like this is the time. To me, the first two charts indicate that the program is not necessarily plateauing, we just haven't been able to combine excellent offense and defense at the same time since the end of 2008. Right now, we have room to grow on the offense (even in the remainder of this season) until we get closer to previous seasons. Its tough to fault Purnell for the perfect storm of 1) Booker taking small steps back in productivity both at the FT line and in 2-pt shooting, 2) the failure of Jennings and Johnson to develop into useful players, 3) Andre Young's battle with turnovers, and 4) Stitt's injury. Even with only one or two of these, the offense is good enough to win a couple of the close games we've already lost.

Purnell did a good job of adjusting to our problems in the offseason, I suspect he'll do the same in offense in the coming months, spilling into next season. I can easily see this group of players providing equally efficient offensive and defensive production, even though it is taking longer than any of us would have liked.

Boston College Recap

I'm going to do these recaps as often as possible during the ACC season, similar to what I was doing last year...

College Basketball

I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)

Now we're in trouble. When I said yesterday we were still on pace for 10-6 or 9-7, I neglected to mention that the margin for error was a lot thinner than three weeks ago. When you lose all the games you're supposed to lose, then you have to win the games you're supposed to win. Now we're looking at 8-8 and trending towards 7-9. I originally listed the road game at Maryland as a toss-up, but the way Maryland's been playing, that's looking more and more like wishful thinking.

Bullet points:

• This game was lost on lax defense in the first half. Yeah, the first half offense wasn't great either, but you can't give up 42 points to Boston College of all teams in the first half and expect to win.
• I've been semi-sorta defender of Potter in the past, but that was the latest in a string of invisible to bad performances. His defense in the first half was bad and only passable in the second half. With the drop-off to from Potter to Johnson arguably non-existent right now, there's no reason not to give Johnson the playing time. The coaching staff has to think about the long-term future of the club, and giving Johnson playing time should help ensure that he develops into more than, well, David Potter. I'm not holding my breath; Purnell has always had a veteran fetish of sorts.
• I've said it since last year: Tanner Smith should be a shooter. He's not a driver. This is clearly becoming one of the worst personnel mistakes of the Purnell era. No one's saying Smith is a gifted or natural shooter, but if he had spent the last two years working on his jump-shot (not just the 3-point shot) instead of driving the lane...wouldn't that be a nice offensive skill to have right now?
• How many times did we see Dallas Elmore pull up and nail a wide-open jump shot? That's what Tanner Smith should be doing right now instead of embarking on wild lane-drive after wild lane-drive.
• I'm really tired of hearing about how difficult ACC road games are. Give me a break. Home-court advantage gives you about a three point advantage relative to a neutral court. If you are a better team by more than three points, you should beat the other team on the road, not dig yourself into 17 point halftime deficits. Losing coaches and announcers kissing up to losing coaches like to frame ACC road games as possessing some magical property that prevents better teams from winning. I find this extremely annoying. There's a much simpler and believable explanation: lots of ACC teams are losing on the road because there's a lot of parity in the conference this year.
• This, however, was not one of those games. We should have won. This wasn't a case like last year when we lost to Virginia on what I felt was a bizarre series of bad calls and bad bounces all adding up to an improbable loss. We got beat because the other team played largely solid fundamentals and we didn't. We were lax on defense in the first half. The players and coaches are to blame for not getting ready.
• But perhaps the blame should rest more on the coaches for Tuesday's debacle. Not only was the team flat, but we were outcoached. We're seeing something pretty amazing this year in the ACC: teams are all starting to add real pressure to their defensive looks. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but the coaching staff needs to adjust. We haven't gotten killed by turning the ball over (so far) but BC and GT both used the pressure to shorten the game clock against an offense that already has problems getting open shots in the halfcourt. I know Purnell's dictum is that good defense leads to good offense, but he has to adjust. There's no excuse--he has the personnel now to implement a better half-court offense.
• Along these lines, we're starting to see the template for opposing ACC coaches against Clemson: run a halfway competent full-court pressure defense and play tight man-to-man. Has the added bonus of slowing the game down and keeping the number of times you have to break Clemson's press to a minimum.
• This goes back to the point I've been worried about since the offseason. Will Purnell try to force the more gifted offensive players he's recruiting into playing his system, or will he be flexible and creative enough to bend and adjust the system to accommodate the talents he's recruited. Remember, this is the first time in his career he's recruited players on par with other more storied programs. By this point, the verdict is all but in: Purnell has opted for the less flexible route.
• Jerai Grant always "comes out" against inferior defensive teams, Len.

There's plenty more to write, but I'll try to pick something out and be a bit more coherent later in the week. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the coaching staff better make some adjustments or we're headed back to the NIT this year. Last year when it was clear the ACC had developed an effective gameplan against Clemson, I argued that Clemson's roster construction left Purnell without any real options and no way to really adjust. This year, there's no excuse.

Georgia Tech Recap

Georgia Tech 66, Clemson 64

Devastatingly close loss. Really had an opportunity to add a win to ledger that wasn't expected. There's another way to look at this loss though: we went toe-to-toe with one of the better teams in the league on the road; a team that poses not insignificant matchup problems for us on offense. Without Demontez Stitt at 100% (although, to be fair, it looked like he was playing around 90-95% most of the time). Let's take a quick look at the chart:

NCAA Basketball

I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)

Ouch. Had the 64-62 lead with 1:25 to go. I thought we had a good game plan coming in. For the most part, we kept GT off-balance by mixing up the pressure and on offense we opened them up and got reasonably good looks by having Stitt drive the lane (Young added a couple of nice drives as well) and being able to feed the ball into the Booker brothers (Devin looked great in limited action, banging around inside against the tall GT defense and drawing fouls). We also were drawing fouls left and right inside, putting their big men into foul trouble which helped opened up the inside a little more. I realize we only put 64 points on the board, but that was with a handful of shots that should have fallen and even worse performance at the FT line than usual.

My only complaint would be the offensive plays in the last 3 possessions or so, starting with the wild drive by Tanner Smith (3-11 from the field, that's the disappearing Smith we all know from last ACC season!). I actually quite liked Stitt's decision to penetrate with the lane wide open on the last real possession; he just picked a bad time for another of his inexplicable turnovers (which, admittedly, seem to have occurred less frequently in the past few games). My only real complaint is that we didn't at least try to get the ball inside to Booker in one of the final possessions. He'd been having a lot of success drawing fouls and it felt like we had the GT big men on their heels.

Lastly, can't talk about this game without mentioning the ridiculous call at the end. I don't care if Booker made any kind of contact on Peacock's "drive", you don't call that with 3.2 seconds remaining in a game. As an official, you don't risk making a touch foul call that gift-wraps the game for one team after an evenly played first forty minutes. Officiating in basketball is not, nor should be, context-independent. Let them decide the game in an overtime period, which, incidentally, I think would have likely favored the Tigers because of GT's foul situation.

All in all, I come away from this game feeling oddly optimistic we can end up at 10-6 in the conference instead of 9-7. We played a tall team with well-above average defense on the road to a draw. Trevor Booker held his own and didn't disappear, as was common against teams with a tall inside presence last year. We were able to feed the post on occasion. We managed relatively open looks from behind the arc, and shot the ball pretty well. It gives me hope that we have more than a fighting chance in the FSU and WF games later in the season.

What in Tar Nation? Clemson Spanks UNC

UPDATED BELOW, Tigermax

After Duke everyone was going to meltdown but thats because lots of football fans dont understand how to be basketball fans necessarily. Basketball season isnt about your record so much as peaking at the right time. I mean sure you want to win the conference regular season champs and have a good seed in the tourney but its about getting your team playing at the optimum level late in the season. Its also very much about match-ups, with Duke last year we matched up well against their suspect guard play--this year we dont match up well at all. However, we do match up well against UNC and made them look silly committing around 26 turnovers. TBooker at the point of the press really helps put on the pressure. It also helps him get into his offensive mindset with a couple easy flushes that come from that position.

We looked a lot better in a lot of aspects of the game but I wanted to just highlight a couple right now. FT shooting!!! We were 18-20 from the line. Hallelujah! I'll take 90% from the line any night. Stitt scored 20 points on 8-14 attempts. We need him to play well and drive the offense. He is the only player on the team with a legit first step who can drive and if he can cut down on some of the turnovers then he will be exciting.

I dont like Potter much at all and his shot selection is mind-bottling but he had 5 steals. We need him to be a legit three point shooter. I liked Noel Johnson sticking those two threes early, really set the tone but we went cold thereafter. We missed 11 threes in the second half--dont think we made one. Smith missed some open looks but had a solid game otherwise. The three point shooting has to get better if we are going to challenge in the ACC. And I do mean challenge because Duke just got beat by a manic GTech team. We beat UNC and FSU is up and down as well. Anyone can win this, Duke should be favored but I think we can beat them at home with the Freshman not looking completely shell shocked.

This was a good learning game, wish we could still get the younglings more time in the games, but a victory to relish. Its been six years since we beat these Tar Heels and I think we could have broken the curse had we played in the Dean Dome. I am looking forward to the Duke rematch. Going away to NC State, playing a lot better than I expected, and the always dangerous GTech team are two tough challenges as well. The ACC will be a dog fight but since I hate that metaphor I'll leave you to discuss what that actually means...

-------------

Tigermax adds: Not quite as satisfying as the Duke thrashing last year, but pretty darn close. This was a case of a team with a glaring weakness (UNC's turnover problem) running smack into a team perfectly tailored to take advantage of that weakness (Clemson's pressure defense). As Clemben pointed out above, Duke really had the same problem coming into their game last year.

At the same time, I would caution against viewing this as some watershed moment for Clemson basketball. They played very well against a team they match up well against. Not to underplay the victory, it's good for all sorts of reasons (NCAA tournament resume, ACC standings, ACC tournament seeding, improved FT shooting, etc.) Also, if you put stock in this sort of thing, you can certainly argue that Clemson displayed intangibles last night that haven't been present recently. But it shouldn't really change your opinion about the basic skill level of the team. We still have fundamental flaws that can be exploited by the right team. I'll be withholding any revisions in overall team skill until we play the same way against a tall team that forces turnovers and plays outstanding defense; the general profile of teams that have given us fits in the last couple of years.

Re-emerging for a post or two

I've been working the 12-14 hour day again the past three weeks or so. I'm still lacking much of any free time, but things have calmed down a bit and I thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts here and there. It sucks to condense the last few seismic weeks in Clemson sporting into bullet points, but it also sucks I was stuck in working hell at the same time.

• I'll just go ahead and say what everyone else is thinking: we have no chance on Sunday against Kentucky. It doesn't even matter we match up fairly well against Kentucky, after this season's colossal collapse, I can't see the team showing up motivated for a semi-away game in the Gaylord's Bowl. It would take a miracle motivator; and even though that's one of the reasons why we hired Swinney, I don't see it.
• I think this season has once again exposed the fallacy of hiring based on intangibles. We can all agree that the coaching got better as the season progressed, and by and large this was a more satisfying style of play for Clemson fans to watch, but Swinney did little to alleviate the problem with the team not inexplicably showing up to play certain weeks (see Maryland, Sakerlina). 2 times this season (plus a likely third in the bowl game), including a game against a team that failed to beat another ACC team, that's not much better than a Tommy Bowden season.
• Dabo Swinney has his work cut out for him. Ultimately, an 8-6 season is acceptable given this was basically the expectation going in (with a Division title added in as a bonus). But he really could have used something more to help him ride out next year. With the talent coming off the roster in various skill positions combined with a cratering in recruitment efforts (documented by ClemBen in the previous posts), he's gonna be relying solely on his and his staff's coaching ability to somehow improve the team next season. Heaven help us. Something north of .500 next year will be an accomplishment.
• I fully believe Swinney will have three seasons to establish himself, but his final record in season 3 will be a big part of how long he lasts at Clemson. Unfortunately, as far as having the players needed to address the teams' shortcomings, things aren't looking much better for season 3 than season 2.
• On to basketball: ClemBen's been covering things just fine in my absence. I would just echo that this team can get better and should get better as the season progresses. To be honest, I think Purnell has struggled a bit to get the freshmen to fit in the system. While these are talented freshmen, they are not the kind of talent that Purnell has picked up in the past.
• There's still time for the freshmen to improve this season. Obviously we didn't see as much as we would have liked in the pre-ACC season. But Jennings and Devin Booker have looked slightly better as the season has progressed (albeit against vastly inferior opposition). Johnson needs to find his shot, its taken him way too long to get calibrated to the college game.
• Purnell is spreading the minutes around even deep into the pre-ACC season. I really hope this pays dividends at the end of the season and we don't see a drop-off in energy level as the season progresses, particularly with so many freshmen unaccustomed to the longer seasons.
• Kenpom's player ratings are out, and have been updated now through the College of Charleston game. A summary really deserves a post of its own, but just to hit some highlights:
• Tanner Smith has the second best offensive rating on the team. This highlights 2 problems, first, as ClemBen has hit on, Tanner Smith is not the team's answer on offense. He plays okay against inferior competition, but if you recall he completely disappeared in league play last year. To my eyes, he's really not much better this year. He's playing a little sharper in defense and maybe passing the ball a bit better, but he's not shooting the ball particularly well, handling the ball well, and he's completely out of control when he goes to the hoop. Second, Tanner Smith's rating highlights the problems Booker has had getting out of the blocks this season. He's been trying to expand his role by driving to the hoop and its hurting the team. He needs to get back into the blocks and concentrate on finishing plays. As ClemBen said, more solid 4/5 play, please.
• Andre Young is crushing Demontez Stitt in just about every measurable category except one: percentage of minutes played. This is disappointing, because it reinforces the image of Purnell as a coach who tends to favor veterans even when they are not the best performers. In fairness its not completely one-sided. Stitt is sitting at 68.3% minutes played while Yound is at 57.5%. As we've documented before, Stitt has his uses; he's the best option for Clemson when they need to create off the dribble, and his assist total this year is starting to reflect the fact that he's looking to pass at the rim instead of looking for the shot. But his turnover rate is right where it was last year, before ACC play even begins. I'd like to see the minute percentages between the two at least flipped by the end of the season.
• Despite the wailing about the lack of three-point shooting, we've actually been doing pretty well. Despite his recent struggles, Potter is at .478 for the season and Andre Young is the best player at .404. Great numbers all around, really, with Stitt unexpectedly logging a .353 and Noel Johnson sitting at 11-31. The only difference is the drop in the total number of shots, but I think we expected that coming in and I don't think its necessarily a bad thing. We need to work more off Booker inside. I expect Potter to regress much more as the season goes along, but hopefully Johnson or Smith pick up the slack.
• On the team level, Kenpom has Clemson ranked 6. Pay no attention, its still too early.
• FT% is back to 2007-2008 levels. Very disappointing--this team has the skill to be a better FT shooting team. The excuses I gave last year don't hold water anymore. Hopefully this is just related to the recent swoon we've seen from Trevor Booker at the line, and hopefully he rights himself soon.
• The win over Western Carolina is nice, I think they will be serious contenders for the Southern Conference title, which could add a footnote to our tourney resume come March.
• To again echo ClemBen, when someone asks me the biggest problem facing the basketball team, I don't hesitate to say "turnovers, turnovers, turnovers". Got to hang on to the ball in the halfcourt set. We are giving up way too many possessions. Switching out Young for Stitt helps, but Smith and Young need to improve as well.
• I'm not as optimistic as ClemBen on our prospects for the ACC season. I felt in order to really contend we needed a freshmen or two to quickly become significant contributors, which hasn't happened yet. Right now, I think a 10-6 ACC finish is a realistic expectation.

Merry Christmas/Happy New Year everyone. And GO TIGERS!!!!

Western Carolina Catamount Reaction: Booker Brother Bookends??

Another good performance overall, but being the critic I am and looking towards ACC play lets breakdown a few things. We are still really sloppy with the ball. Stitt had eight assists tonight but he turns it over so much. They ran a 1-4 offense set which allowed them to get some open looks. We did an alright rotating, which we are doing a lot better in--basically because the freshman have learned what to do. But I absolutely hate the Stitt, Potter, Young, Smith, Grant line-up because they cant rebound. Potter and Tanner cant rebound like forwards and Grant has always had trouble rebounding strong, he is adequate but needs Booker. Whats worse is the 16-32 FT shooting, which is very troubling. OP has always said that they need to just recruit better FT shooters and we give him a pass. Now he has all his kids and we are regressing, something needs to be done--its becoming an area of concern. Booker has regressed in a major way, 8-17 just dont cut it.

Booker looked more comfortable in the paint tonight, looking like the more dominant force he was at the end of last year. I think it was the intl play and talk of the draft that had him trying to look more like an NBA 3 than a college basketball monster at the 4 or 5. We forget that Booker played center his freshman and sophomore season almost exclusively. Ok Booker had a monster game but Devin Booker continues to impress me. He makes it so easy for guards to pass it in to him, he has been schooled on how to set himself for the entry pass and the guards are learning how to throw it in--well Potter, Stitt and sometimes Smith still need to improve but Booker Jr. is going to be big off the bench and keeps improving his defense. Right now I am calling it--the Booker Brother Bookends! Or something like that, its trademarked...any reporter must now reference this blog or your a bad journalist...haha. Bookend Bookers may be better(a play on the Bamberg bookends??). Anyway, its clear the brothers feed off of each other and I think Devin pushes TBook to play more aggressive and flashy. Lots of sweet flushes when the two were in together tonight--think they made Sportscenter...


Jennings also provided a nice spark off the bench and was really active--getting some rebounds, put backs and energy. Hopefully now he can step back and let his offense come to him some more.

So rebounding and turnovers were the big problems. Our press looked a little crisper too, Booker is really quite good at the point--that is where the press is most poignant. Noel Johnson took a small step backwards though, I'm not a fan of Potter who went 1-5. Johnson only took one shot. Lastly for all you Narcisse fans--tonight was a perfect example why he shouldnt play more than the other freshman. He comes in and gives you energy, but its risky. He turns it over way too much to be a regular offensive substitution. You cant have your prime bench players coming in and screwing up the flow of the offense. Put him in for a defensive or offensive spark that is limited to ten minutes a game as he learns how to better manage himself within the flow of the offense. Like I've said before, it can come but his ceiling is so much lower than a Jennings, Devin Booker, or even Donte Hill I think going forward. I thought Hill showed us something last game and was disappointed not to see him tonight. Bobo gain some weight! If he had any kind of big man presence he would be so dangerous...maybe next year...

Nice win Tigers, we get a week break and then a tune up for Duke with SC State which is nice. I really want us to take it to a highly ranked but suspect Duke team. Would be a nice upset that vaults us in the top 15 at least...

On Loving/Hating Tanner Smith

First off this post is not going to be popular--I know that, but I think its a good debate to have so here it is. I have a love/hate relationship with Tanner. On the message boards and in the blogs there is a general love that follows Mr. Smith. Now I dont think he is a bad player, I'm just not sold yet, and its a debate that is pivotal to the complexion, the demeanor that the team develops going forward.

So Smith is loved because:

• he hustles and gets to those loose balls
• he is the great white hype
• he is a team leader and team player
• Hitting above 80% from FT line, getting a lot of steals
  
• he is a go-to guy on offense
  

Wait what? He is a go to guy on offense? A compliment to Booker right? Here is where I have a problem--I love Tanner as a glue guy, the hustle guy that makes everything work--not as a go to guy. I also dont mind if he is a guy who helps fill in for Oglesby by hitting three point shots but that hasnt been working out lately. Potter and Smith are both struggling to be a complimentary piece but are perhaps playing out of their roles. Potter rode his early hot streak but now is taking a ton of bad shots. What Smith has become is this slasher, scorer for the team?

Let me first list my reasons for not loving (obviously this is too critical, every player has flaws, but with Smith becoming a go-to guy, I think it deserves deeper inspection)

• he makes bad passes--I counted about ten possessions in the ECU game where Smith made a bad pass that was a turnover or resulted in the other player committing a turnover. He makes some good passes--great assists but he has this tendency to revert to his Freshman mistakes and throw these stupid little passes out of the flow of the offense. One was a bullet to Young who was like two feet away, no one around, for no reason??
  
• Related to the first point, on the break he is not a great finisher. Too many times this year I have seen Tanner hustle to the ball, charge down the court and make a poor decision. He throws it away, doesnt make the best pass, and takes much more difficult shots than needed. He has trouble finishing around the basket and I think its because he lacks top end athleticism.
  
• Rebounding: Yes, he gets to loose balls and makes hustle plays but he gets caught (along with the rest of the Clemson team) flat footed trying to rebound. This is true for all the freshman, especially Jennings. We are getting beaten to rebounds and left staring at the ball because we arent elevating on to rebound. Tanner doesnt block out particularly well either, which we need from our three position.
  
• His defense is good but again he doesnt play above the rim much.
• 3-point shooting has been disappointing, only 32%--needs to be closer to 38-40 to be a legit threat deep.

I realize that this is a lot of ranting but I am worried that against superior athletic ability, Tanner will struggle and force some drives and turnovers like he did in the A&M and Illinois game, that the discrepancy between his talent and what he makes up for in hustle will be magnified. I like Tanner right now, but I love him as a glue guy. Cut down on the turnovers, improve the strength on rebounding, and finish at the basket. Thats what I am looking for heading into ACC play from Tanner. (Is the real reason why everyone likes him is cause he is white, unfulfilled basketball wish fantasies? Well I guess there is that whole thing about him being a good, selfless person too...)

Last bit of ranting, Narcisse has surprised me. When Purnell gave him that scholie I thought it was a total waste and he is not. He has some great leaping ability, long arms for the press and some tools to work on. What keeps him out of the line-up and should continue to do so is his lack of body control. Its one of those intrinsic qualities needed for basketball, a kind of body balance. Narcisse completely lacks a level of fluidity which makes his ball handling in particular but also his passing and sometimes shooting ugly. So while he can fly out of the gym, he will do things like jump way too early, give the ball away right after he has stolen it and generally spaz out from time to time.

These are kinks and growing pains that can be worked out of his game but at 6'6 he is not going to play the 4 unless he gains some serious muscle mass, and cant play the 2 bc of the poor ballhandling, shooting--so he is a 3 but lacks a great jumper or the ability to consistently create off the dribble. He is another athletic hustle guy who could try to develop into something more (to his credit you can see him trying to develop a three point shot). Its a question of whether you spend that developing time on him or someone like Milton Jennings (5* with height, a supposedly beautiful stroke that we havent seen yet and all the tools to land in the NBA) who finally had a good game in his limited minutes against ECU. Thats why I support Purnell in his choice to give Narcisse less playing time. Grant has taken a step backward in his progression, and we will need him much more than Narcisse in ACC play. Worry about why his minutes are decreasing...

More Quick Thoughts on Noel Johnson

• Wooooooooooooooo!
• Clemben is more of the recruiting guru 'round these parts, but I'm just going to say it: Best. recruiting. class. ever.
• While I stand by my earlier statement that the team was actually slightly better without TOgglesby, before the news about Johnson I had been mulling over the loss of height resulting from his departure. As we talked about ad nauseum here during the season, Clemson really struggled against tall teams, particularly with delivering entry passes into the post. The thought of losing another 5 inches with the 5'9" Andre Young (relative to the 6'2" Oglesby) on the court had me concerned to say the least, although I would argue Young has the potential to be the better passer despite his height. But with the 6'7" Johnson on board as well as the 6'4" Donte Hill, we suddenly could be causing some match-up difficulties of our own next season.
• Notice I didn't mention Tanner Smith. While I love his grit and he's got a great story, after watching him fade with the tougher competition last season I'm hoping we are now assured of a significant drop in his playing time. He just looked lost on the court after ACC play started. Now, if he finds that 3-point stroke we heard about as he was coming out of high school, that's a different story...
• Its good to hear about Johnson's shooting abilities. While I think we would have been more or less fine with some combination of Young, Smith, Potter, and Jennings taking 3s (with the occasional contribution from Booker Sr.), Johnson has the potential to again make our 3-point game something the opposing team will have to specifically plan for.
• Come to think of it, with the bulk of our talent arguably in the front court this season, why is everyone so worried about the 3-point game anyway? As long as it's around league average (a good bet in my estimation) and we can get the ball inside, I think we'll end up with a stronger offense than last year. And that's saying something for 16th best offense last year in Division I.
• Obviously, I'm still on a high after hearing the news. But there will be growing pains for this squad with so much contribution expected from the rookies. In other words, I don't think we'll get through the non-conference schedule undefeated. We'll have stupid lapses (10:1 this is related to sloppy ball-handling) that cost us games. But for once, the upside of the squad is such that we can actually expect the team to get better as the season progresses.