Where the Problems might lie: DE Edition

Every year I like to think about problem areas we are not focusing on and try to predict where potential breakdowns might exist on the team. Last year I think the area we were weakest at but no one was talking about was the Safety position, which culminated with our spanking by WV.

So where could it be this year? We know that the offensive line will be a question mark especially depth along the offensive line. So that isn't very interesting. Timothy Gifford seems to be stepping up potentially in the RT spot and as I predicted Thomas has moved to LT because you can't start two freshman tackles and not be really worried. Right now we need Kalon Davis and a tackle to step up but we really lack any proven quality depth. Remember last year we had two back-ups in Cloy and Smith who had played a lot of quality snaps in their careers. Can Norton step up? He has been less than stellar as a back-up center so far. Will guys get into shape?

What are we overlooking? I was going to write this last week but Coach Venables beat me to the punch (which is really encouraging because I think he has made some great personnel and coaching decisions already), by saying that the DE's need to improve. Last year we were not playing at the same level as in the past with the departure of Bowers to the NFL. Branch did a great job and was at times dominant but was not as strong against the run. Goodman was not very good. He didn't set the edge with any authority and had virtually no pass rush. A Batson victim, he has gotten to big and lost some of his speed and agility while at Clemson. As a Sophomore he was one of the first flying down the field making tackles on special teams. Now as the only returning starter he has a lot to prove.

Corey Crawford is going to start on his other side. In a back-up role Crawford did fine last year, especially as a true freshman but he needs to take the proverbial next step and has yet to show he is an every down kind of player. Our back-ups haven't really played yet. Very little competition to push the top guys. Vic Beasley is an athletic specimen who was on the offensive side of the ball his red-shirt year and was on the DE depth chart last year. He still has to learn to play the position. The reports say he is fine athletically and is developing technique but needs to get the defensive mentality. This is understandable since he never grew up playing the position. Byers and Dodd are are a red-shirt frosh and a true freshman. They need time to develop into back-ups.

What is the theme here? Lack of depth and susceptibility to injury. DE recruiting (and DLine) needs to be a serious priority in this cycle. It should have been more of a priority last cycle. I think we are looking good with TE's and WR's...We are bringing in Shaq Lawson and Martin Aiken this year who will be fine players but will need a year or two. We will probably end up burning one of their redshirts to provide depth. We need a top flight 4* recruit badly. Its the first time in probably 8 years we will not have a borderline 4/5 star DE on campus. Sapp, Bowers, and Goodman were all in this area with Merling, Branch, Gaines Adams, and others being low rated recruits who got drafted in the 1st/2nd rounds.

Other potential pitfall areas we aren't thinking about:

• Punter: Benton has positive reviews so far with Pinion a quality recruit to back-up
• Safety: Can Hall recover from the injury to return to at least his Soph year productivity, will Meeks learn how to take better angles. Do we have any depth after wasting Robert Smith's redshirt?
• CB: How much does the departure of Sensabaugh hurt our secondary. He was an every down player. Breeland was decent last year but Robinson took a step back. Blanks training at the Nickel is a big positive because Brewer statistically last year was picked on and below average. The Football Scientist uses Yards Per Attempt as a metric and according to YPA Brewer gave up 10.3 YPA which is horrid. Jenkins improved last year but it will be interesting to see how the types of players Venables uses in his scheme. More SAM backer with Lateek or a smaller Nickel back like Jenkins.

 A quick note on Venables: I love the move of Hawkins to WILL! Seems like Steele was worried about playing favorites or guys transferring because this should have been done long ago. Hawkins was never suited to play MLB and hopefully will benefit from the change. Anthony will be the most important player on defense this year. As he goes I think our defense goes. Not having a stellar line will put more pressure on our LB play. I love hearing Lateek Townsend's name being put in the mix. He is the kind of athlete that needs to see the field and it is positive to hear Justin Parker's career could still have some legs.

I like Venables decision to stick Blanks in the Nickel spot. If he can lock that spot down and perform well he gives us the flexibility to adjust to any offensive scheme. It is encouraging to hear the interior DLine coming along but I am always worried that it is more about our poor OLine play than DLine talent. Gotta love spring ball!

Let's Dance

Oh yeah. Who thought that at the beginning of the season we would be in the semis of the ACC tourney, playing our best basketball and pretty much a lock for the NCAA tourney. Now the only question is whether or not we get the Bye game. (I really hate the play-in 12 seed game, so dumb especially for everyone who loves to fill out brackets--at least this expansion should shut up further expansion talk for awhile) (Sorry, have to continue rant--what would 96 teams mean?? South Carolina would be on the bubble, teams at or below .500 would be in consideration, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how stupid the NCAA can be, Jim Sweatervest and THE Ohio State rule breakers deserve some serious punishment. You know that the NCAA let them off easy and had a wink/nod situation where they allowed Pryor to play in that BCS game. Now they better come down hard)

So we won. When Stitt is on we can match-up against some of the best teams in the country. I am so impressed with how he has matured as a player in the past month. Well not emotionally but as a player. He hits threes, drives to the basket with authority, finishes plays, has become an elite defender, rebounds well for a guard, has that fire and leadership this team needed. I am so glad Trapani is gone. He is a match-up nightmare for us.

The key to this team is that players have developed roles. I feel like everyone knows more or less where they fit into the scheme, so players play within the system and themselves. I don't see ill advised drives from Tanner Smith--I see him hustling, playing good D, passing the ball well and knocking down the occasional outside shot. Jerai knows he can knock down a mid-range jumper. The ball goes inside-out more often than ever before.

The team is gaining confidence in itself at the right time. This season has been a huge success and I think this is the time as fans that we sit back and enjoy. I know we want to win championships but it is not very often that we can say that our basketball team has overachieved. Jay Bilas should eat a big pile of crow(he had us dead last). TDP did something right (although he tried to do something wrong before stumbling into the right decision) and I think Brownell is fantastic. Lets hope we can win a few recruiting battles from this but for now I am all smiles.

If we lose to UNC, it won't matter. All I want is a first round victory in the big dance and my wishlist for this season is fulfilled. Thank you seniors! Go Tigers!

The Brad Brownell Era: Musings and Ramblings

After beating Miami today and smartly calling for the foul with three seconds left I am left to ponder on the Brad Brownell era thus far. Let me start by saying that I really hope we find a way to squeeze into the tourney. I think Brownell, in a strange way, deserves it. Now I am certainly wearing those orange tinted sunglasses and after the NC State loss it is still far away but I want Brownell to keep the momentum of the program.

I want fans to remain engaged. When we hit that three game skid, you could feel the fan-base's collective legs wobble. But Brownell stuck to his gameplan and has made this team look decent. We really do play great half court defense. Seriously, I don't think we remember how poor we were in the half court anything. Our offense was ridiculous and our defense was not pretty at all. I went back and watched some of last years footage and without Trevor Booker we wouldn't have won half of those games. I still would have liked to see a bit more press this year but we certainly would have regressed as a team if Purnell had stayed.

Now looking ahead I am not sure what you do without Grant and Stitt. I have always liked Grant as a player and thought Purnell didn't spend enough time trying to develop him. He has a sweet 20 footer that just keeps getting better and better. The man has some post moves and blocks shots at an amazing rate. Stitt is our only real penetrating threat and will be missed next year.

However, I point this out because Brownell can develop talent. Bobo will play 15 minutes a game next year, I am convinced. Tanner Smith is playing more within himself and the turnovers have finally been cut down. We can even pass the ball into the post!! Milton has started to rebound and hopefully has turned the corner.

We have a chance against Duke--not a good one but a chance nonetheless. We still suck on the road but we do play some good D--you have to admit. Going into the season I thought our downfall would be defending the three with our sub 6' 2 guards. Hello long armed Mr. Narcisse off the bench. The point is that Brownell is not afraid to play the hand he has been dealt and play it with confidence. He has, at times, turned a crummy two pair into a winning hand. With all the defections and even an injury to a starter, Brownell has done an admirable coaching job.

I want him to get more quality pieces. I want our recruiting to not cripple his ability to keep us in the tourney hunt each year. The best part about this year is thanks to the additional three teams, we can still hope. We beat Duke and we are squarely on the bubble. If we go 9-7 in the ACC and 20-10 overall, we need to win two (probably three) games in the tourney and cross those fingers.

Can't wait to take it to Wake. And thank our lucky stars that our hire didn't put us back 3-4 years. Rick Stansbury anyone?? No takers?? Really?

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.

Emerson says Holloway Denied Clemson Transfer

I hate to send people to his twitter feed but Seth Emerson had it first. Holloway has been denied a transfer to the Coots and Clemson. A kid from Alabama, who is a senior just went to UNC--give me a break Ole Miss. Holloway, get a lawyer and appeal it to the NCAA and they will fold. Its not right and it won't stand up in court.

This was really the reason why we couldn't hold Marcus Thornton to his LOI because if kids take it to court they win hands down. Any lawyers out there want to volunteer? Its a slam dunk case (awful pun intended)...

Let Murphy Holloway Come To Clemson

This is seriously outrageous. Ole Miss has decided to deny Murphy Holloway from transferring to Clemson. Of course they have every right to not allow him to transfer to another in conference, SEC school but there is no merit in denying him his ability to transfer to be closer to home. Did Duke reject the transfer to Memphis? Will Roy deny the transfer of the Wear brothers(which makes NC's frontline look even thinner next year) to a non-ACC school?

This is just some petty, weak sauce from Ole Miss but they aren't entirely to blame. I think we should send some serious disgruntled letters to the State to perhaps rein in Korncoot a little. His poor journalism is partly the reason we are in this predicament. He said the transfer was "a done deal", so much so that it was even picked up by ESPN. The fact that ESPN took Korncoot's story is laughable and a poor reflection on their own level of journalistic integrity. It's like quoting me for crying out loud.

In summary, Holloway better be released to Clemson after his appeal. Its juvenile and I am sick of Clemson always getting the short end of these sticks. Did we man up and release Marcus Thornton?? Yes, and this isn't even in that same league--Ole Miss, do the right thing.

Brownell: Purnell Hiring Redux?

Haven't dropped in on the blog much lately and in the process largely missed the hoopla surrounding Terry Don Phillips' 7-day rejection tour. In the end, however, out of all the names giving TDP's overtures serious consideration, Brad Brownell is probably the best we could have gotten. My sense is this reasonably good pick had more to do with luck than due diligence on TDP's part given the other names that were being floated around. On the other hand, the similarities between the Brownell hiring and the Purnell hiring can't be readily dismissed.

What did TDP see in Brownell? My general feeling for a program on Clemson's level is the hungry mid-major coach makes a better pick than the a relatively big name coach with a history of fringey success looking for another venue (think Tubby Smith, Al Skinner, Herb Sendak). The reasoning is simple--for a program that's still trying to build a basketball reputation in an elite conference, its better to get someone who will give you an immediate strategic advantage over the other coaches. This gives the program a chance for immediate expanded media exposure and gives the coach at least a couple of years of being automatically competitive in conference games as teams are forced to adjust. All of this increases recruiting capabilities and fan interest. A name coach might result in an automatic increase in the recruiting profile of a school, but impact is short-lived if the coach offers nothing new to the conference strategy-wise and is fighting to consistently reach .500. The big drawback, of course, is if the coach sees lots of success, he will likely jump to a bigger program in around five years or so. Its not necessarily a way to build a permanent reputation for basketball excellence, but on the other hand I think it can be argued that the days of building a powerhouse from the ground up, except in exceedingly rare circumstances, are all but over.

At any rate, my sense is this probably aligns somewhat with TDP's reasoning as it is consistent with both men's basketball coach hirings. Purnell was cut from the same mold, a coach with an atypical strategy bringing Clemson that helped us be competitive immediately in the ACC (well, at least relative to what Clemson is largely accustomed to...), energized the fanbase, increased media exposure, and ultimately raised our recruiting profile in the area.

So what does Brownell bring to the table strategy-wise? I only have time right now to look at some general properties from Kenpom:



All the rankings are positions within the Brownell's previous conferences. When looking at Clemson I have just used Division I rankings since Clemson should perform on a level similar to the other top 80 or so teams in "elite" conferences, but I think this approach is a bit more fair for looking at midmajor type teams as it puts coaches and teams on relatively the same footing as far as talent goes. The chart plots both offensive and defensive efficiencies and we can definitely see Brownell is a defensive-minded coach. But what I want to draw attention to is the tempo line in yellow. In the seven years for which data is available, Brownell's teams have rated dead last in adjusted tempo (meaning his teams play at a snail's pace) in five of the years. In 2006, he was 10 out of 12 in the newly-expanded Colonial League and in the 2007 he was coaching a bunch of players for the first time at Wright State. This style will undoubtedly contrast starkly with other styles in the ACC, although the Virginia Cavs notably slowed down a lot in Tony Bennett's first season.

Butler showed this year in the NCAA tournament that possession-centric basketball can be successful employed as a disruptive strategy against top programs, even if you need to keep the Maalox close at hand 'cause of all the nailbiting games. My initial impression is that the first year transitioning over to Brownell's system could be difficult for the Tigers: one key element absolutely required by this style of attack is discipline on offense. Brownell will have fits implementing this style of basketball with guards turning the ball over every third to fourth possession.

From briefly looking at the parallels in the Brownell/Purnell hirings, I think the hiring of Brownell likely signals a continuation of recent history. We're looking at a guy who can bring a disruptive strategy to the ACC and win some games, but disciplined and well-coached teams capable of exploiting weaknesses in the scheme will beat us regularly. To be sure, Brownell has the advantage of inheriting a much more skilled group of players than Purnell did, but he is still tasked with making them fit into his system and I'm not convinced our players are particularly well-suited for this transition. I'll delve deeper into the statistics to try and address this last point in some coming blogposts, but right now I'd say best case scenario we continue in the coming years as a slightly above average team in the ACC. Could be worse, but I think everyone was hoping for something better.

And yeah, looking at that chart, if you liked Purnell's middling offensive squads, you've got a lot to look forward to with Brownell! I'm not exactly sure where the reputation for being a good X/O coach comes from, but it ain't showing up in the statistical offensive profiles...

Don't Beat Those Who Like To See Duke Beaten

I hope nothing like this ever comes to Clemson. No fan deserves or (human being for that matter) deserves to be beaten while in the defenseless fetal position. Cops deserve the respect they are owed but these bad apples reflect poorly on the entire law enforcement profession. This makes my blood boil because if Clemson had beaten Duke I would have been skipping in the street. Shoot if I was there I would have too...who wouldn't be happy seeing Singler lose(even to Greivis)??

Looks like Brad Brownell

I was going to do a multi-part series on TDP's train wreck of a search committee but I ended up in the ER over the weekend, complete with Desmondesque cat scan (Lost reference), but as I came to today it seems that Jeff Capel and Scott Drew turned down offers to be the next coach as well as Mississippi State coach Stansbury. Not getting a sniff from Capel and Drew really sucks--I don't think Capel is that great an X's and O's coach but would have been a high profile coach to salvage the wreckage and Drew would have been a great hire to me. I think a lot of the negativity surrounding him is sour grapes and his hiring of some AAU summer league people to staff positions but whatever--he turned us down.

I think hiring Stansbury would have been a step backwards. He can recruit pretty well but has had above average teams in the SEC and not been able to deliver down the stretch. The teams he has coached have been loaded with talent at times but I just don't see him doing much better in the ACC and taking us to the next level.

Other coaches interviewed were Jacksonville's Cliff Warren who is a Paul Hewitt protege. I think I'll pass, he has built a respectable program there after five years but sorry maybe after the jump to a mid-major or more sustained winning. Same goes for the Wofford coach Mike Young who I have great respect for but don't think has shown enough to merit a jump to the ACC just yet. His teams play hard and are well coached (Wofford also doesn't support the bball program nearly as much as it should) but it has taken awhile for him to build to this level. I would not feel confident with him taking the reigns.

Blaine Taylor is an interesting candidate to me. I like the way his ODU teams play, good enough to make it to the second round of the tournament this year, and this is the second program he has achieved success with--doing it first at Montana where he took two teams to the NCAA's. He has had some post-season success--taking his 2006 squad to the NIT semifinals and was an assistant coach for Stew Morrill in the early 90's and then Mike Montgomery from 98'-01'. Am I convinced he could lead this team to the promised land? My main question is his ability to recruit in the south and land top prospects. I think that this hire is the biggest wildcard on the table.

Herb Sendek shut us down. I would have liked to have seen us interview the Xavier coach and probably the Western Kentucky coach but other than Drew from Baylor I really don't see a coach I am thrilled about.

All that said it shouldn't matter because by all accounts and people I have talked to Terry Don is going to land Brad Brownell as his big fish. So lets take a bit closer look. He has posted twenty plus win seasons all four of his years at Wright State but only made the dance in the first year. He coaches in the Horizon league, a highly competitive mid-major that has as its main competition Butler. Most people say apart from Brad Stevens he is the best coaching talent in the league. He has done a good job with two smaller programs, first UNC-Wilmington and then with Wright State. Interesting bit of trivia, Brownell was an assistant under Jerry Wainwright who left UNC-W to go to Richmond and then to DePaul where he was fired this year. You know the rest of the story.

Oh just saw Shakin has a much better write up of this whole thing than me so check it out here. Knowing that Brad Stevens was a pipe dream I think that Brownell is the best name we have so far. I want to see him lock down Marcus Thornton and keep Booker and Johnson on the team. Johnson would flourish in Brownell's offense and hopefully he can teach the team to set some screens and shoot the ball. No more of this needing to recruit better shooters--at the very least I want a guy who can teach. I will miss the pressure D and the full court approach but this year the system looked worn out so maybe we won't miss it much. I do, however, want to win next year--so whatever it takes TDP. If you make a bad hire I want your resignation...

Thornton Considering Leaving

This is the one thing I just really didn't want to have happen. Marcus Thornton, Mr. Georgia Basketball, is considering asking for a release from his letter of intent. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal but he is the only recruit we have coming in this year and he blossomed as a senior. He would be snatched up by pretty much anyone at this point.

He has the athleticism we need and really would have been good in Purnell's system. I say we sit on it until the new coach is at least signed and if I was the administration I would want to keep him locked in and make him transfer. I know that is a really crummy thing to do but recruiting is done and he is our only recruit...I probably wouldn't be able to do it but I would sure want to.

I think I would be more upset to lose Thornton than I was hearing that Purnell was leaving. At just a hair under 6'8", Marcus Thornton is the power forward/athletic slashing three we need for our offense...

OP Is Gone

**Update by TigerMax below**

Umm...OP just left us to go to DePaul. I wouldn't feel so nervous if I had any faith in TDP to perform a decent search and hire the best coach out there. I am really interested to see what level of talent we can pull...

I'm really worried that Purnell saw the writing on the wall and knew that this team wasn't going to get much better. He certainly won't be taking any recruits with him so that's a bonus...

Its really late but this is shaping up to be the most pivotal decision in Clemson basketball that will shape the coming five years at least. Lets see if we can make the tourney now!! How about we hire Shaka back?? A certain Butler coach?? Just an early thought...

UPDATE: I'm pretty surprised. I had thought Purnell was committed to Clemson for more or less the long haul at this point in his career. And despite the basketball history at DePaul, their recent run of abject suckiness makes this a basically a lateral career move. This does, however, make sense in light of Purnell's coaching history. He style of coaching is basically that of a disruptor: he introduces a scheme (pressure defense) that forces you to adjust. It's great for building a program from the ground up because no one sees it coming. You can draw parallels to the concept of disruptive technology in the business world, basically the introduction of a novel business strategy that upsets the current order. As competitors adjust, however, the advantage fades. A classic example was the introduction of reliable Toyota/other Japanese cars in the 80s to the automotive industry. Only now are American companies like Ford starting to catch up in reputation.

In basketball, though, it's a little easier to respond. Coaches adjust their strategies to adapt and then they start exploiting the weaknesses in your scheme. They also start taking elements of your scheme, ultimately lessening it's impact around the league as everyone sees more and more of the same thing. That's last year for Clemson--we saw a lot of teams that have almost learned how to almost completely blunt the advantage that was inherent in Clemson's pressure defense. At the same time, Purnell really failed to improve the team in other areas. I was hopeful that with the ability to recruit better offensive skill players at Clemson he might "settle down" as a coach and learn to adjust his scheme to accommodate different talents. That obviously didn't happen and if it didn't happen last season it's arguable that it ever would have happened.

So Purnell is off to ply his scheme elsewhere for a few seasons. He'll probably eventually manage to take DePaul to the tournament, but I suspect he'll fade pretty quickly from basketball memory if he doesn't make some fairly drastic changes. Some unsolicited advice: take a page from Mike Anderson and recruit kids that won't turn the ball over every third possession.

Onto the brave new future for Clemson. Like any member of the Clemson faithful, I've got my doubts about TDP. And no, I can't see Brad Stevens coming here. As much as I like Stevens or any kind of coach that takes stats and schemes seriously, it'll take way more money to pry him away from Indiana than Clemson will fork over (on the other hand, maybe he'd like another shot at Coach K). If TDP surprises everyone and manages an encouraging hire, it'll be interesting to see what a decent offensive coach can do with the current team (assuming everyone stays on...). I think there's quite a lot of talent, but it will require an impressive coaching approach to get us past .500 next year.

And please please please please TDP, as a die-hard Clemson basketball fan: whatever you do, no retreads.

Thoughts on the Tourney: Let the Midmajor Backlash Begin!

I'm hitting a rough patch at work right now, so I've got little to no time. Quick thoughts on the tourney, though:

• I don't get all the mid-major love. Yeah, they've had a good tourney, landing 4-5 teams in the sweet sixteen, depending on your opinion of the A-10 conference (my opinion: Xavier is a "major" team playing in a midmajor conference). But 3 of the teams caught pretty big breaks on their way. Butler topped two weak midmajor teams (barely, I might add). Cornell drew two teams that were practically duplicates of each other, and happened to match up extremely well against that particular team profile. St. Mary's, the absolutely inexplicable sweet 16 entrant, beat a decent Richmond team and then a Villanova team that collapsed on itself about two weeks earlier (which nearly dropped a game to Robert Morris in the first round). Northern Iowa is the only team I would really call a "surprise", beating a decent UNLV team before shocking a lethargic Kansas squad. In the round of 16, St. Mary's and Cornell were absolutely crushed while Northern Iowa was nipped by an injury-laden Michigan State team. Even Butler, the midmajor darling, beat an injured Syracuse team lacking an inside presence that couldn't hit a three to save their lives before beating Kansas State team in the closing minutes, a Wildcat team that was coming off one day's rest after a 50 minute sprint against Xavier.
• So, in summary, a bunch of midmajors caught a bunch of breaks to advance deeper than expected. It's pretty simple reasoning, but that hasn't stopped the sportsmedia from ginning up the old "midmajors deserve more tournament births" meme. This has happened every few years for the past 15 years or so, just think back to 2006 when 3 midmajors (George Mason, Wichita St., and Bradley) made the sweet sixteen and the same story was plastered over newspapers across the country (of course, this time it's plastered on big-media hosted blogs, but I digress...).
• I realize that everyone loves a good underdog and in principle, I'm in favor of including as many deserving midmajors as possible. Thing is, the committee actually did a pretty good job of including midmajors this year. Yes, Florida and Minnesota were extremely weak teams, but can you name any midmajors that were more deserving? I can think of one, maybe: Dayton. That's it. The committee whiffs on one team while including UTEP, St. Mary's, San Diego St., Utah St., and Richmond. Not a bad job if you ask me, and I'm ignoring possibly more deserving teams from major conferences. As much as I slagged them, Virginia Tech had a good argument for getting in, probably better than Florida/Minnesota/St. Mary's/Richmond.
• I've read an article or two about the proposed 96-team tournament. A lot of the waffling from conference officials seems to revolve around whether the extra slots would go to midmajor teams or middle-tier major conference teams. My retort: who cares? Any of those teams might be capable of stringing a couple of wins together every couple of years, but none of them will be very good.
• The best argument I've read in favor of an expanded tournament is that it would allow for both regular season and conference tournament champions to play in the big dance. This is a pretty big deal for lower-rung conferences where a dominant team during the season can be suddenly left out 'cause they played one poor game in the conference tourney. Problem with this argument is Ken Pomeroy crunched the numbers, and it turns out that the conference tournament does a pretty good job of selecting the best team, with the added bonus of providing a good means of selecting a team when several are bunched together at the top of the standings.
• Back to the Final Four. Let's be clear, I like Butler: they play excellent fundamentals, they have a stats-oriented coach, and they have a lot of great individual stories. And I'll probably end up rooting for them when all is said and done. But, lost among all the Butler-love, they aren't really one of the best teams in the country and it's not particularly close. They are riding an incredible string of breaks and close victories. And they catch yet another break by drawing Michigan State in the semi-finals, another good but not top-shelf team (to be clear, an injury-free MSU team is probably a top-shelf team) that is riding their own streak of close victories and relatively easy opponents to the final four (when the best team you've played in four games is Maryland, yeah...Tom Izzo is a genius if you put stock into a superpower that forces higher seeds to lose right before you play them). Now, this is what is great about the tournament; catch a few breaks, seize a few opportunities and you find yourself playing in the Final Four. But let's not get caught up in the hype, this does not herald Butler's rise to the upper echelons of college basketball. They obviously appear to be in better shape long-term than say George Mason was in 2006, but let's not get carried away and expect them to duplicate this feat anytime soon.
• Finally, Butler's run is a painful reminder of Clemson's 2007 tourney draw. Uggh...think about the draw we could have had: #12 seed Villanova, #13 seed Siena, #1 Kansas, and #10 Davidson. Yeah, we probably get past Kansas 1 out of 10 times or something, but 3 out of 4 games against double-digit seeds to get to the final four? Can we travel back in time and pull the press after the first 10 minutes of the Villanova game?

Coming Soon

So we have been largely quiet here on the blog since our early exit from the tourney. Its just depressing to lose in the tourney like that and I've just wanted to keep my digital mouth shut for a week or so. But fear not, we are in the works to improve some things around here and will get you up to date on all the latest Spring storylines, baseball news, and recruiting as we roll out some new twists and content. So yeah, stay tuned or something like that...

In sad news Al Skinner was fired at BC. Its always sad to see a bad coach and easy wins leave the conference(but hey we somehow lost to them this year!!).

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.

Clemson Fails Again

Well that was a crap way to end the season, a season I consider a horrible disappointment. We should win the first game in the tourney, and we should get a bye in the ACC tourney. Those are what the standards should be if we are going to be a legit team.

After the way Booker almost won last year's game against Michigan single-handedly I had big expectations but in this game Booker looked sluggish and almost chunky. Lethargic is the word I kept thinking of. His inside game turned into a sissy pout fest when he wasn't getting any calls. And he was getting fouled, make no mistake about it but the whole tourney they have let it be a physical game. OP should have prepared the team better for this game. At the 8 minute mark the guys were self destructing and going into blame mode rather than giving their all.

We should have won, here are my thoughts on why and what to think about going forward.

• Len Elmore was finally right about something, Tanner Smith is not athletic enough--he can't shoot the three and he turns the ball over a whole lot. He should not be a major part of the strategy moving forward. Even his defense was suspect in this game.
• Potter always sucked. Glad he is gone.
• Booker started the year trying to become an NBA player and ended up forgetting how to play college ball.
  
• The freshman class disappointed me. Johnson has shown flashes, along with Booker but its going to take awhile. Milt was a big disappointment, not ready for the physicality of the college game.
• Stitt is still prone to turning the ball over, dribbles loosely (no handles), and no one can pass into the post.
• Booker Jr. was a better post player at the beginning of the season--OP can't teach offense.
• In the game our offense consisted of standing around. We didn't even try to screen or run any sets. The inbounds plays consisted of throwing it to the corner so that the player could get trapped. We need a complete overhaul on our offensive philosophy.
  
• We lack toughness.
• We have one recruit coming in Marcus Thornton. We missed out on tons of recruits like Eric Smith and Jason Morris. We have no one coming in to save the team--we actually have no one coming in..

So the future looks somewhat bleak. Grant has improved but isn't a great post presence as a go to guy. Young is the lone bright spot, and I think Bobo deserves a legitimate chance to develop. What I am really frustrated about is the lack of player development on offense. We regress in a lot of areas and I want legit improvement. It seems that Shaka Smart was the offense and player development guy, as well as a recruiter. I think Purnell should shake up his staff...

Gauging Clemson's NCAA Odds on Paper

Every year, I run a simulation of the NCAA tournament based on Kenpom.com's offensive and defensive effeciency ratings. I went over the methodology in some detail last year, so I won't cover it again. I'm no professional when it comes to these things, it's just something I do every year for fun. Like last year, I'll share what the simulation says regarding Clemson's chances of advancing into each round, alongside the 2008 and 2009 tournaments. Each number represents the percentage of times that Clemson reached a given round out of a million simulations. Keep in mind, this method is based only on the stats--only a part of the story in basketball. It doesn't take into account, for example, how teams match up in terms of strengths and weaknesses. As a result, Clemson ends up with a much better chance of advancing past Missouri based on statistics alone than I think is actually warranted when looking at the actual matchups, which I touched on briefly in the last post.



Clemson's odds of reaching the last two rounds ends up closely mirroring last year, but reaching the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 is a considerably more difficult task as we are up against a much stronger slate of teams. And how about those odds in 2008? Pretty painful to ponder what could of been, given that gift of a second-round potential matchup with Vanderbilt. I haven't seen odds anywhere close to that good for a 5 seed in the last three years...

Initial Thoughts on NCAA Selection/Tourney

In an effort to pack the first round with as many unnecessary subplots as possible, the selection committee is pitting Clemson against Missouri in the "Buffalo Battle of the Full-court Presses (TM)". I think Clemson as a seven seed is a bit of a stretch, they probably fit slightly better as an 8/9 seed while Missouri is probably feeling a bit puzzled they were selected as a 10 seed, I had them pegged as closer to a 7/8 seed. In that light, Clemson vs. Missouri probably makes the most sense when viewed as the fifth 8 vs. 9 game, with West Virginia as the fifth #1 seed.

It's interesting to get a second potential shot at playing WVU. I was pretty excited at the beginning of the season about the possibility of playing them in the second round of the 76 Classic, before Texas A&M handled us pretty easily in the opener. Despite the fact that WVU doesn't turn the ball over much, I don't think that would be a terrible matchup for us. Unfortunately, though, I don't share ClemBen's optimism below about the Missouri game. Without looking too deeply at the stats or tape, my initial impressions give us about a 15% chance at winning. As everyone in TigerTown knows by now, Mike Anderson's Mizzou Tigers play the entire length of the court just like Oliver Purnell. But don't get caught up in the "two teams playing the same style of basketball" talk. While they have a lot of similarities, it ain't hard to find differences, either. The most important difference: Missouri is reasonably good at holding on to the ball whereas Clemson is reasonably bad at holding on to the ball. In a matchup of two defenses that specialize in producing turnovers, which one do you think has the upper hand? This also explains why they ended up #13 on my "Matchups of Doom" list last week. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say this matchup is actually one of the worst possible for Clemson (outside of the Richmond Spiders), because almost all of the teams above Missouri are in the 1-5 range and we weren't going to play them in the first round anyway.

Now I'll bring up a personal anecdote to try and support why I have a lot of doubts about our chances against Missouri. I try to avoid these 'cause personal anecdotes are too often used as blunt instruments to try and bludgeon someone into believing your point-of-view ("but I was there, I saw what it was like...", etc.), but I think the stats back me up strongly in this case. Back in 2004, I happened to be vacationing in Hawaii and got hooked up with some tickets to watch Clemson play UAB in the first round of the Rainbow Classic (speaking of which, you were there ClemBen--I can't believe you've forgotten...hahaha). Clemson was in its second year with Oliver Purnell at the helm, and UAB in its third season under Mike Anderson, fresh off a surprise NCAA sweet sixteen run. It was a fun first half to watch, lots of fast play with both teams really hitting each other with the press, getting turnovers and occasionally run-outs. The second half, however, UAB came out strong and didn't let up--completely burying Clemson. I came away from the game with one impression: UAB won because ultimately they took better care of the basketball. Looking over the stats from the past eight years, I don't see anything that dissuades me from this initial impression. Mike Anderson's teams are traditionally strong in two areas: forcing turnovers and not yielding any turnovers. For whatever reason, to the increasingly maddening perspective of the Clemson fanbase, Oliver Purnell hasn't been as concerned with the latter. Its reached unbelievable heights this season, which is by far the worst season in terms of giving away the ball since the first year Purnell took over.

So unless we suddenly decide to stop giving away our possessions for no good reason, in all likelihood Oliver Purnell and the Tigers are looking at another first round exit. There are a few other wrinkles to the matchup (most of them favoring Missouri) and I'll try to go more into detail later in the week. But right now, some other quick, initial thoughts on the Tourney:

1) The selection committee didn't do a good job selecting the seeds, at least not as good as last year's effort. Not impressed at all.
2) No Elizabeth, you are not getting any hints from the website about which teams to pick (or not pick) this year. Your "victory" from last year is still under review by the rules committee, by the way...
3) While I don't agree some of the selection committee's seeds, I really don't have any problems with the Virginia Tech decision. Let's not forget that in addition to having a crazy weak out-of-conference schedule, they also had an incredibly weak in-conference schedule. The only downside to the decision is we have to listen to Seth Greenberg's annual ESPN whine-fest. I will personally send a $25 dollar check to any reporter who poses this simple question to Seth Greenberg: given VT's recent NCAA snubs and the consistent criticism accompanying these snubs regarding a weak out-of-conference schedule, why was Temple the only non-conference team you scheduled that could reasonably be considered a preseason favorite to get into the NCAA tournament? That's the only question needed to make the whining go away.
4) From Greenberg's Twitter feed, just before the selections were announced:

"Still holding out hope! Sad day for the ACC if a 10-6 third place team doesn't
get a bid".

First of all, it says a lot about your own mindset if you have to "hold out hope" after winning 10 conference games. Second, don't cry for the ACC--we got six teams into the Tournament, including the team that finished 7-9 in conference play. This doesn't look bad for the ACC, it reflects poorly on your program and its utter inability to construct a halfway decent tournament resume.

Clemson versus Missouri

So the brackets just came out and Clemson scores a 7 seed in the East versus none other than fellow pressing team Missouri. That is a tough match-up for us although Mizzou faded towards the end of the year. Now I don't have too much of a problem with Missouri but getting West Virginia as the 2 seed is really bad news. They are easily the top second seed after winning the Big East Champs. Wish we could have drawn Villanova for some pay back. I am happy we play the 19th, Buffalo is kinda far and cold so I won't be there, which is unfortunate.

I will be happy with this season if we can win the first game. Do that and hopefully we can move on and Booker can find his rhythm. At least with Missouri we can play up tempo and not get stuck in our crummy half court but we have struggled against the press ourselves this year. I don't think we handle the press well and we certainly have turned it over way too much all season, especially in our last two games. It certainly could have been worse--I am glad to not be in an 8/9 match-up. Come on Tigers, give OP at least one NCAA tourney win...

One last thing I have been meaning to post about--How is that 'Seed of Doubt' now Ron Morris?? What a hack reporter, again nothing to back up his opinions but I would say a 7 seed is a pretty ringing endorsement of the season despite an early tourney loss. We weren't even close to being on the bubble even with Houston and Washington winning conference tournaments and UTEP and Utah State losing. Why is that you may ask Ron? Its because of RPI and SOS--statistics you should look into.

Although Virginia Tech did have the worst OOC schedule in recent memory 10-6 in the ACC is a stinging rejection. Another tough rejection for Seth Greenberg.

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.