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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

Crap at the Half

Well this half is another microcosm for why we can't achieve that elusive elite or even top 25 status this year. NO 3 point shooting. Potter has been so wide open and just bricking--not even close. Tanner shot an airball. Young has had some poor shot selection. Booker has become unable to drive and score with his back to the basket. How many turnovers can we have??

Another pathetic offensive output. 21 points?? We are playing good D but still have an occasional breakdown where someone isn't rotating. The real problem is we can't get out and run. No forced turnovers means ugly offensive sets. Purnell needs to hire a young offensive mind who can recruit. Lastly FT shooting has once again become an eyesore--Booker are you kidding 1-6??. Maybe a loss wouldn't be that bad because at least we would have some time to work on the fundamentals again. Guys look confused, Booker throwing it away--not an appealing combination. My only suggestion is to get Stitt driving more but he is so loose with the ball and always liable to turn it over that I wouldn't rely on it.

What really concerns me is that we have no recruits of any note coming in aside from Marcus Thorton. These guys really need to develop in the offseason for Clemson to remain relevant...

Georgia Tech Recap 2

Clemson 91, Georgia Tech 80

Congratulations to Oliver Purnell and his staff for securing a third consecutive NCAA birth. I can't imagine this season went as planned, but through several shrewd coaching adjustments and incremental player improvement we have gotten gradually better, and just in the nick of time. I questioned whether we were really a better offensive team after running off three straight wins at home in February, but decent-to-strong performances against good defenses like Maryland, GT, and yes, even FSU have me convinced that execution (if not necessarily gameplan) has improved at least slightly. Also, give credit to the conditioning of Clemson. We've heard about Clemson's superior conditioning over the years, but I've been largely unconvinced. But last night, despite working on a day's fewer rest and playing a third game in seven days, we actually looked less tired than GT during key stretched in the second half. If this carries over to the ACC Tournament it could serve as a significant advantage.

Now, time to rain a little on everyone's parade. Not to belittle great performances on Senior Night by Trevor Booker and David Potter, but I would be careful to read Clemson's performance as a true indicator of their current ability. While GT is a solid defensive team and anytime you put 91 points on an ACC team its reason to celebrate, GT didn't bring their 'A' defensive game last night. I haven't seen that many good three-point looks since maybe the Presbyterian game. We also didn't look sharp on defense, giving up way too many good looks after penetration that was coming way to easy for GT. To their credit, GT also knocked down tough shots all night long. The first half was a nightmare on the boards for Clemson, but one of the reasons we pulled away in the second half was because we turned the tables, closing down the offensive rebounds for GT while picking up a few of our own. We've got to do a better job against Wake Forest.

I'll wait until tonight's games are over before commenting on our chances for an ACC Tournament first-round bye, but in tonight's games I'll be rooting for NC State and Wake Forest.

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.

More on "Collapses"; FSU Preview 2

Following up on yesterday's post wherein I tried to counter some of the prevailing wisdom out there in TigerLand, I decided to look at how many times Clemson has blown a "significant" lead this year, and compare that to the number of times they have overcome a "significant" lead. I set the threshold at 10 points. That's a completely arbitrary number, it would be better to look at total points scored and have some kind of sliding scale where less than 10 points might be significant in a low-scoring game and more than 10 points would be significant in a higher-scoring game. But I haven't got that kind of time right now and 10 points is useful as a quick proxy. I might have missed a game or two (let me know if you find one), but as you'll see, it doesn't matter much:

Number of games Clemson has led by 10 or more points and lost this season: 2 (Illinois, Maryland)

Number of games Clemson has trailed by 10 or more points and won this season: 1 (Butler)

Yep, that's a whole lot of collapsin' by the Tigers right there. Like I said yesterday, I'm not sure where this notion comes from, but there's no basis for it in the numbers. Looking back over the game logs, I was actually pretty surprised at how infrequently we've played games where there were a lot of lead changes--the times we've lost this year we've typically trailed throughout and the times we've won we've led more or less from start to finish. Of course, there are occasionally runs by the opposing team to make things closer, but that happens to every team in college basketball.

Now to the preview:

Clemson vs. Florida State, 02/28, 5:30, Donald L. Tucker Center

No one needs to be told how important this game is to the Tigers. I've become more and more convinced that Clemson is going to struggle mightily against Georgia Tech on Tuesday because 1) GT is, at this point, a seriously underrated team that's played a conference schedule with the same degree of difficulty as Clemson and 2) Clemson will be coming off a 2 days rest vs. three days for GT. As laughable as this might have sounded just a few weeks ago, Clemson's easiest path to 9 wins might be to win at both FSU and Wake Forest. Translation: we have our work cut out for us.

I don't have a lot to add to the last FSU preview. The short version: our defense matches up well with their offense because they feature one of the worst turnover rates in the entire country (not just the ACC) while we run out one of the best turnover-causing defenses in the country. On the other hand, FSU's defense is better than our offense, right now ranking #1 against the inside shot and #8 in the country in effective FG% against. Their weakness, however, is defending the three, in which they are markedly below ACC-average. Teams that have beaten them this year, including us, have made lots of three-pointers. FSU also struggles to keep other teams off the offensive glass, which, given their height, is kind of baffling.

This is a game where I would absolutely expect the Tigers to run the press all evening long. Don't give FSU any breathing room, because every possession is a turnover waiting to happen. One possible complication is whether Oliver Purnell wants to try and hold back some to ensure we have any energy on Tuesday night against a GT team that also frequently turns the ball over. Unless we're down by an absolutely unwinnable margin, I wouldn't recommend it, because this is the kind of game that could turn in our favor quickly even if we are trailing by double digits at some point. Against GT you just hope that Senior Night provides enough adrenaline to fuel our insanely energy-expensive defensive pressure.

I would look for FSU to try and limit Clemson's three point looks by leaving Alabi 1-on-1 against Booker. I was really surprised that FSU continually collapsed on Booker when he got the ball in game 1 at Littlejohn considering how Alabi manhandled Booker by his lonesome last year. I think that was a real key for Clemson, they got a lot of good three-point looks I wasn't counting on going into the game with the inside-out play of Booker. As far as adjustments go, this seems like a no-brainer for FSU to at least try at the beginning of the game.

If Clemson can shoot the three ball at a roughly a 35-40% clip, get a few easy putbacks from Booker/Grant, and force the expected amount turnovers, they can win the game. If not, its going to be a slog. GO TIGERS!!

On the Clemson "Collapse" Meme

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, it's just something I've noticed that seems to dominate every discussion board, comment thread, or blogpost, or newspaper article about a Clemson basketball game, regardless of the situation. Every time Clemson blows a lead, every time another team makes a run, even every time Clemson manages to build a lead, people either reflexively label it a "collapse" or they start talking about the coming collapse. To me, a "collapse" implies a series of inexplicable events wherein a big lead evaporates while the team looks on wide-eyed in disbelief. Like the Illinois game earlier this year. That was undoubtedly a "collapse".

But this past Maryland game was completely different, and in the name of reasoned analysis I think it's important to distinguish between collapses and non-collapses. We lost to a better team. We did a great job coming out and taking advantage of a what, in retrospect, was a bad opening strategy for Gary Williams as he tried to slow us down with some pressure defense similar to what other teams had been doing early in the year against us. But we turned the tables by attacking the press without turning the ball over (too many times, at least) and getting good looks at the other end underneath and from long range. But once Gary Williams called off the press, we struggled in the half-court set to get good looks. Meanwhile, we struggled to get any stops on defense throughout the entire game, even when we were leading by 15 points. The only time Maryland didn't score is when they stopped themselves by throwing the ball away or missing a layup. There was no way to watch that game and not realize with five minutes left in the first half that Maryland was going to close the gap, not for reasons inexplicable but because they made a adjustment to their strategy that played to their strengths and our weaknesses. The rest of the game was like watching a rising tide against the banks of that 15-point Clemson lead. Maryland overcoming the Tigers was inevitable unless a) we made some miraculous adjustment of our own, or b) the 15 point lead could somehow hold up through a series of stupid Maryland mistakes. Since Maryland doesn't make mistakes and Purnell isn't known for in-game adjustment, you could call the game for Maryland with Clemson leading by 12 with five minutes left in the half.

Moreover, and I hate to break it to people here, but a 15-point lead in a game with 167 total points ain't that much of lead, particularly when the lead comes at the 12/13 minute mark in the first half. If the final score ends up 65-60, then maybe its something of a lead. But we were on a near NBA pace in 40 minutes of basketball. That's too many points and too much time remaining to consider 15 points any kind of definitive lead--its completely within the realm of expected score deviation for two teams given the final result.

We were beaten by a better team that matches up particularly well with us in their home arena. Just because they essentially spotted us a fifteen point lead doesn't mean we collapsed. I, for one, am unconvinced that we are prone to collapse more than any other given team. For every Illinois game there are dozens of games when Clemson has held a 12+ point lead (Virginia, Miami, and Florida State are three games just in the last two weeks) and every team across college basketball inexplicably loses games from season to season. Maybe its the lack of outstanding successes punctuated by occasional heartbreaking losses, but for whatever reason the myth of the Clemson collapse has just lodged itself in the collective psyche of the Clemson basketball fanbase. I'm just trying to say that while some blown leads are collapses, others are a result of fundamental roster or coaching problems.

Maryland Recap 2

Maryland 88, Clemson 79

NCAA Basketball

I'm going to disagree a little with ClemBen here. I think we can say with some certainty now that Maryland is a good team. Not final-four caliber, but the sweet sixteen isn't a stretch this year for Gary Williams & Co. I think as a Clemson fan the game went about as well as you could hope for. We were aggressive in the beginning, particularly on offense. Gary Williams came out pressing us, probably hoping to slow our offense down like in the first meeting. I was impressed, Clemson showed a real ability to attack Maryland's pressure, getting down the court and finding open shots. With Maryland unable to get set in their defense, they were even worse than normal defending the offensive glass, leading to quite a few easy points. When Gary Williams dialed down the pressure and started setting his team back in the halfcourt, we stopped getting the open three-point looks. With Jerai Grant only playing 9 minutes, Trevor Booker looked really tired in the second half and wasn't able to fight for position on the blocks. Those two factors really combined to stunt the offense in the second half, and it slowly slipped away from Clemson. I really think Jerai Grant's fifth foul with about 11:00 minutes left was the death knell. Without an extra body to fight for the offensive rebounds and spell T. Booker, we were in deep trouble even if we were still clinging to a lead at the time.

On the other side of the ball, Maryland's offense really just overwhelmed us. If they hadn't missed so many point-blank shots in the first half they might have hung a hundred on us. Thinking back to the second half, it's hard to remember us getting any stops at all. I can remember Maryland throwing the ball away a couple of times, but we could not stop the sets Gary Williams was throwing at us. They had a great designed play where Vasquez gave the ball up at the three point line to Tucker who was running a curling around to shed his defender, and knowing that Smith would turn his back and follow Vasquez under the hoop, Tucker ran right behind Smith using him as shield to get three feet from the hoop. That's what you get from watching the tapes.

My only critique of Clemson's play is to wonder why we didn't abandon the press earlier in the first half--Maryland was really shredding the pressure from the opening tip. I can appreciate Purnell's desire to be aggressive and create some opportunities in a game we didn't have much of a chance to win, but I would have preferred to see Clemson concentrate on the half court after we built that big lead. That would have at least forced Maryland to fight for some of its points instead of allowing them to pretty effortlessly whittle down the lead in the waning minutes of the first half.

Now the pressure shifts back on us to win two of the last three. I wouldn't take this game as an indication of how we will perform the rest of the way; as I discussed in the preview Maryland really poses some matchup difficulties for us. They defend the shot well and don't turn the ball over, two traits that have bothered us a lot this season. We still have the ability to get into the NCAA tournament. Let's see if the team can bounce back in Tallahassee.

Maryland Preview

Clemson vs. Maryland, 02/24, 9:00pm, Comcast Center

A couple of days ago I outlined Clemson's needs approaching the final four games of the season. They probably need two wins to be absolutely sure of an NCAA tournament bid that will likely land them, assuming a single win in the ACC tournament, a 7 seed in the tournament. As an aside, most "bracketologists" I've seen are putting six ACC teams in the tournament, but only Duke is ranked higher than 6. It's absurd.

Perhaps no team is getting burned as badly by bracket gurus than Maryland. On paper, I see this as a 3/4 team right now. Not much room to improve nor much of a threat to reach the elite eight, but still a lot better than the present perception. On the other hand, Clemson fans can be forgiven for doubting my assessment given Maryland's absolutely pathetic performance at Littlejohn a scant 3 1/2 weeks ago. Normally I would try to point out the kind of adjustments I would expect the two teams to make based on their first meeting, but since both teams played well beneath their abilities I have a feeling both coaches will more or less throw the tape in the garbage and draw a plan for this game based on an updated version of the first game.

In other words, I feel the same way I did before the last game--Maryland is a good team that poses matchup problems for us. In addition, it's going to be difficult to go into one of the more hostile environments in the league in front of re-energized fanbase and pull off the upset. Maryland is a team with a balanced offensive approach. They particularly excel at shooting the three and not turning the ball over. There only weakness is an inability to get to the line, but when they do get there they shoot at a 71% clip. Their defense, while not among the ACC elites, is still ranked 25th in the country by Kenpom.com. Most of their strength on defense is derived from holding opponents to a 40% 2-point FG%. Clemson can score points against Maryland by doing two things: 1) knock down some three pointers (Maryland is about league-average in defending the three) and 2) crashing the offensive boards. I talked about this before the last game, but Gary Williams has never been too concerned with giving up the occasional offensive rebound. Jerai Grant, we'll need you tonight.

The good news is that because we are clearly the underdog tonight, there's not a whole lot on the line for Clemson. We have to get a road win at some point, but we'll have better chances later on at both FSU and Wake Forest. I expect Purnell to instruct his players to be a little more aggressive in the early going, overplay on defense by trying to jump passes in the half-court while trying to get Tanner Smith to knock Vasquez off his game again. On offense, we might see a barrage of early three pointers if we're getting even semi-open looks. If we create a few breaks, it could keep us in the game going into the final five minutes. If we don't we'll be down 15 points in a game we were supposed to lose and the freshmen will get some valuable playing time. Either way, GO TIGERS!!!!!

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 Preview

Miami vs. Clemson, 2/13, 12:00pm, Littlejohn

Stop me if you've heard this before, but Miami is struggling to live up to expectations. They got off to a good start with victories over Minnesota and Wake Forest en route to a 15-1 record, but ACC play has exposed their mostly soft early schedule. Outside of the those two teams, the next highest rated team they played according to Kenpom was USuCk, with the #189-ranked Florida Atlantic as the next strongest team.

I think Miami expected more from their offense this season, which has ended up really in the middle of the ACC pack. They still shoot the ball reasonably well, equally dangerous from inside and outside. They have three legitimate three-point threats in James Dews, Adrian Thomas, and Malcolm Grant. They are also good on the offensive glass; good shooting + good offensive rebounding is normally a pretty potent combination for an offense. However, they have struggled mightily in two areas offense this season: FT shooting and turnovers. The gameplan on defense practically writes itself for the Tigers, pressure defense early and often and put Dwayne Collins (Miami's primary inside force this season) on the line whenever he gets the ball inside for a shot. Collins has shot by far the most FTs for Miami but sports a miserable 53.1% mark.

On top of their offensive struggles, Miami's defense has arguably taken a step down from last season. While they have been decent at limiting opposing team's FG percentage, they haven't been able to come up with much in the way of turnovers and have also sent opposing teams to the line at a pretty high rate relative to other ACC teams. They have been better at stopping the three than the two, which I expect will lead to a greater emphasis on the inside game for the Booker brothers on Saturday. Miami does have an inside presence and manages to block quite a few shots, but at the same time they struggle at bit controlling the offensive glass. This will hopefully lead to some easy putbacks for the Tigers, even if they are (as usual) having trouble shooting from point-blank range. And hey, we might see yet another "breakout game" from Jerai Grant.

All in all, this is a pretty good matchup for Clemson and we should really expect a margin of victory of around 7-12 points. But I have a bad feeling about this game. Its a short turnaround for a noon game on a Saturday. I don't expect to see a lot of energy from Clemson tomorrow in Littlejohn, with or without a decent student turnout. Purnell played his regulars hard on Wednesday night, likely a tacit admission of how much was at stake against FSU and how we should be able to win against Miami even if we're a little winded. Let's hope Trevor Booker is back to 100%, Demontez Stitt starts to approach 100%, and the coaching staff is willing to stick with Devin Booker, who should have about the freshest legs on the court. 'Cause I suspect we're going to have to press Miami all game long to keep them from mounting a comeback. GO TIGERS!!

Virginia Tech Recap Part 2: Quick Thoughts on the Game

Virginia Tech 70, Clemson 59

I was actually pretty happy with the gameplan that Oliver Purnell assembled for Saturday. Clemson came out and used the press sparingly, a wise move since the Hokies protect the ball well and have historically shredded our press for easy points. Instead, we focused on playing aggressive half-court defense, trying to force the Hokies to beat us with their awful field goal percentage. On offense, we still looked pretty terrible but at least we looked for the three point shot early to try and soften up the inside for Booker. The main problem was that Oliver Purnell rightfully assumed the officiating would be the same that it's been all season, and Clemson would be able to throw some weight around inside the arc. Instead, we got the tightest-called game in recent memory and Clemson was essentially out of fouls to give on the inside by the ten minute mark. Coincidentally enough, that's about the point that VT started seizing control of the game as Clemson was forced to play tentatively underneath. Take a 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.)

Clemson's back was finally broken by the possession where we had three good looks at the basket to trim the lead to four but ended up instead fouling Delaney (surprise, surprise) after VT managed to tip the ball out to midcourt. Delaney promptly sank two more free throws, effectively a four point swing that stretched the VT lead to 8 with 3:39 to go. This set up the three point shot on the next possession that lifted VT's win probability over 30%. Clemson didn't look the same again and VT never looked back. If Potter goes up and dunks one of those shots instead of flailing away from the basket and missing a three foot fadeaway maybe I'm talking about a much different result.

Anyways, I'm finding it hard to fault the coaching staff here, unless the refs decided to call a tighter game because of all the talk about "physical play", which I commented on in part one of the recap below. They came out with a good gameplan which kept them in the game up until the point the referees, really an unforeseeable factor, whistled away any chance of victory.

I'm not ready to declare Clemson's NCAA candidacy dead. They still have time to turn it around but two things are clear now: 1) we have to win all four remaining home games (literally a tall task with FSU and GT yet to come to Littlejohn) and 2) there's probably no road game left on the schedule that will be easier than the trip we just made to Blacksburg. Given our relatively weak tournament resume, we really need to steal one of the final three road games to ensure a winning record in the ACC and an invite. I've been lobbying hard all season that the back half of our schedule is just as hard, if not harder than the front half because we struggled so badly last year against teams that share a general profile like FSU, GT, and Wake Forest. Our first game against GT this season was encouraging enough to give me some hope. But if we get shoved around by FSU and lose by five, its time to start the NIT countdown.

Virginia Tech Recap Part 1: Purnell and Physical Play

I'll do a more standard look at the game hopefully tomorrow, but first I want to talk about something that's been bothering me since about halftime.

I know I'm late to the party when talking about this article that appeared in the State--it's about a week old now. When I first read it I was bothered but couldn't quite put my finger on why. While I was watching the VT game, however, it all kind of crystallized.

First of all, let's be clear that the article's lede oversells Purnell's comments. If you read what Purnell says, he very cautiously tiptoes around the lack of tightly-called games this season in ACC play. But from the given quotes I'm still compelled to agree with Travis Sawchik's interpretation of Purnell's frame of mind: Clemson would do better if the games were called more tightly.

This is absolute hogwash. Clemson benefits very, very strongly from physical play for two reasons: first, their defense under Purnell has relied on being able to aggressively defend the ball-handler in the press in order to force turnovers. I talked about it a few days ago but this team, even more than previous years under Purnell, forces turnovers to get stops. They are decent at defending the shot in the halfcourt, but where they shine relative to other teams in the NCAA is their ability to pressure the ball, force mistakes, and end possessions. Second, on offense Clemson does an extremely poor job for an ACC team at getting to the line (only FSU and Boston College perform about as badly), and its been that way for about five years now. This probably has something to do with the fact we have historically shot so poorly from the free throw line, but irregardless a tighter-called game stands to substantially benefit the opposing team by sending them to the line a disproportionately larger amount of times than Clemson.

As I watched Virginia Tech step to the line 46 times, I realized why Purnell's comments were so off-putting in the first place. Let's be clear, it was absolutely pathetic and ridiculous to see VT get such a lopsided number of calls. If I was some kind of an irresponsible blogger, I might suggest that the refs were providing some payback for Purnell's comments last week. But the real problem is this: Clemson players suck at drawing fouls. Think back to yesterday afternoon, on almost every play when the Virginia Tech player got a call, he was leaning towards the basket or at least twisting his body towards the hoop. Contrast that with Trevor Booker or (shudder) David Potter, who were constantly falling away from the hoop even when they managed to get in close. Clemson doesn't pick up fouls because that's either not how the coaching staff wants them to play (doubtful) or they just haven't been properly coached.

So its extremely disturbing to hear Purnell say something like the sport would benefit from less physical play. Depending on your personal feelings about the game of basketball, this might be true. But its impossible to argue that this would put the Tigers in a better position to win a basketball game. And as the head coach of the Tigers, it therefore doesn't make any sense for Purnell to say it. This leaves me with two explanations: 1) Purnell said something off the cuff that a sportswriter picked up and ran with, forcing it into the pre-existing narrative he had planned for his next story or 2) Purnell honestly thinks the Tigers have a better chance of winning when the game is tightly-called. If this is true, Oliver Purnell has completely lost touch with the composition of his team and fails to understand the impact his statements could have on the game strategy he implements.

I want to believe #1, but this is a coach who tightly controls his relation to the media, even to the point of embracing newmedia like Twitter to help control the narrative on his team (think back to Booker's injury first showing up on Twitter) without subjecting it any media filters. I'm still inclined to believe #1, but the fact that I'm even contemplating #2 seriously scares me. I'd love to hear any competing explanations...