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...
