Overall I think we got so royally hosed last year that this schedule is eminently more reasonable. One thing to remember from last season is that we were a horrible road
team (other than playing VTech). The home crowd really made a
difference I think against Auburn, FSU and Wake where if we aren't at
home I don't think we come back. We were not great when playing
Maryland, USC, NC State, and WV away from home.
So I am most interested in how we play on the road this year. How do we
play in a dome against Auburn (is that effectively an away game?)? FSU
seems tough but we did play well the last time at Doak losing on the
most ridiculous FG I have ever personally seen, but the D-line was stout
then too. BC shouldn't be a problem but new coordinators (and losing in
Chestnut before when we shouldn't have) always leaves me more cautiously optimistic than confident. We are at Wake with a 4 day turnaround on a Thurs. which should feel like a home game (and I hope we really make a push to fill that stadium with orange this year especially) but Wake has always been pesky. Not sure what to make of their team this year either.
*On an important side note, the admin has now agreed to Thursday night games?? I hope an intrepid reporter finds out if this is Dabo's doing or not. If that is true he is really becoming able to lobby the admin which I think is an overall good thing. I've never been a huge fan of Thurs night games but the excuse of it putting too much strain on students always sounded a little contrived. I do like the idea of the admin being pushed further to support athletics however.
So Wake will be tough but they have the same schedule as us with a 4 day turnaround, which is very fair. This is one I will expect to win but will be on pins and needles. I still remember needing the heroics of the late, great Gaines Adams to pull out a win on a blocked kick return, so I am not comfortable up there. Then we get Duke on the road which should be a win and is a great team to have to play on the road. However it took an insane comeback to beat an equally pathetic, if not more pathetic Maryland team last year. Then we end the season with three at home.
Our OOC schedule is nice this year with GT and VT at home and Duke on the road. Next year our OOC schedule should get even easier with VT coming off and adding Syracuse for an SEC team (but I am still hoping we get 8 conference games and lose GT as a natural rival just bc I hate the team needing to prep for the triple option every year and PJ is so smug when he wins). If we could do last years schedule then we can certainly do this years. I like that NC State is later in the year, so as to remind us of how we got complacent towards the end of last year. If we get through Auburn and FSU and can take care of home games and lesser opponents on the road then the season could be pretty special...
If only we had an O-line...and hopefully a D-line, we just might be able to run the table...
(and so it begins...)
Showing posts with label Virginia Tech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Virginia Tech. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Beamer Ball Exposed, Coach Gives Game To Michigan
Way to go Frank. Sure, everyone thought Coale made the catch but Beamer was such a stupid coach during this game. The dumb fake punt
(which led to the field goal for Michigan but also lost them a timeout to manage the clock at the end) and then going all
conservative at the end before regulation. Not to mention going for that 4th down in the first half and not taking the points. At least everyone knows that VT belonged in the bowl and probably should have won. They certainly weren't outplayed by Michigan.
How does a replay official make that kind of call?? You have conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field and change the outcome of the game? If the booth had been consistent all night with their calls then I wouldn't have a problem with it but at least two of their 'catches' were with much less 'conclusive' video evidence. If I am being honest I thought one angle looked incomplete but another angle where the left elbow comes down looks like a catch. I think if you can find a catch and it was called a catch then you can't overturn it. Sucks for the Hokies. What in the world possessed Wilson to backpedal 30 yards?? Logan Thomas looks like a great QB and I think its awesome that we beat them twice (then I remember that Mike O'Cain is calling the offensive plays). Bud Foster must give a horrible interview because his defense is amazing and if he wants to be a head coach he should be one.
Final note: The Man of Steele to Tennessee?? There recruits are evaporating as we speak (or transferring) and the ship is burning. We have oodles of talent and consensus 5* Linebackers, chance to repeat as ACC Champs, outside Natl Champs contenders? I'm not too worried. As I have said before I like Coach Steele, although the defense took a step back this year, and this continuity will help the team next year. The offense needed a change and that worked out well but I love the defensive staff and want to keep our current recruits in place. What I think this becomes is leverage for Steele to get a raise. This might become tricky if we are done with coaching raises after Morris gets 1.3 million. If I'm the defensive guy I wouldn't be thrilled about that since I'm sure Clemson has never appeared to have such deep pockets before. The only way I see Steele leaving is if things go south in that negotiation over contracts.
You must remember the story of DeAndre McDaniel coming to Steele's office to find out if the rumors about Steele leaving were true and helping to convince the coach to stay. Steele likes Tennessee and may want a change of scenery after the negativity this year--its a possibility. He has never been much for staying in the same place for too many years.
How does a replay official make that kind of call?? You have conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field and change the outcome of the game? If the booth had been consistent all night with their calls then I wouldn't have a problem with it but at least two of their 'catches' were with much less 'conclusive' video evidence. If I am being honest I thought one angle looked incomplete but another angle where the left elbow comes down looks like a catch. I think if you can find a catch and it was called a catch then you can't overturn it. Sucks for the Hokies. What in the world possessed Wilson to backpedal 30 yards?? Logan Thomas looks like a great QB and I think its awesome that we beat them twice (then I remember that Mike O'Cain is calling the offensive plays). Bud Foster must give a horrible interview because his defense is amazing and if he wants to be a head coach he should be one.
Final note: The Man of Steele to Tennessee?? There recruits are evaporating as we speak (or transferring) and the ship is burning. We have oodles of talent and consensus 5* Linebackers, chance to repeat as ACC Champs, outside Natl Champs contenders? I'm not too worried. As I have said before I like Coach Steele, although the defense took a step back this year, and this continuity will help the team next year. The offense needed a change and that worked out well but I love the defensive staff and want to keep our current recruits in place. What I think this becomes is leverage for Steele to get a raise. This might become tricky if we are done with coaching raises after Morris gets 1.3 million. If I'm the defensive guy I wouldn't be thrilled about that since I'm sure Clemson has never appeared to have such deep pockets before. The only way I see Steele leaving is if things go south in that negotiation over contracts.
You must remember the story of DeAndre McDaniel coming to Steele's office to find out if the rumors about Steele leaving were true and helping to convince the coach to stay. Steele likes Tennessee and may want a change of scenery after the negativity this year--its a possibility. He has never been much for staying in the same place for too many years.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Good Stuff from the Sangin Cowboys
Their Hokie walk thing is pretty lame. I love how they say we took them out back behind the woodshed...this is probably the funniest piece of college football humor I have ever seen in relation to Virginia Tech. Ok, its the only thing I've ever seen but I like it! I actually really appreciated the fan/tailgating perspective. Cows and barns!
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Chad Morris Must Stay
So what is the difference in this team compared to last years team some have asked. The difference in the team this year is simple and it is all Chad Morris. Dabo is not an
offensive coordinator or a good enough offensive mind to design and call
the plays like Morris. Dabo is a great team leader, recruiter, and
motivator for the fan base. He also gives a mean interview...
The problem is that Dabo wears thin if you are not winning. When you are not winning your faults are on display and become severely enlarged. That is the microscope the head coach lives under. No one can replace Morris, if he leaves then it is like Brad Scott calling plays for RichRod. Eventually it just isn't up to par. Who on the staff would you feel comfortable with duplicating Morris's performance up until this point. Pony up whatever money you can Clemson powers that be. Chad has a daughter starting at Daniel High School and he has said he will stay at least until she graduates. Lets make that kind gesture of a father to a daughter a reality.
If we still had Napier this year, what would be our record? Sure we have Watkins but we would have the same inconsistent play at WR where even Dwayne Allen is dropping passes and no one knows how to block. Boyd out of shape, with bad footwork, and no ownership of the team. A team without an identity. I give all the credit in the world to Dabo for making the call to switch to Chad Morris. (Napier is still a good coach, great recruiter, who just had no business being an offensive coordinator) Without him we become a very average team and no amount of speeches or chest bumps can replace attention to detail, true accountability, and an infectious work ethic that was previously lacking with this team.
We were on par in terms of toughness with Virginia Tech--an amazing feat for this team.
Somebody make a shirt with a slogan about how Chad Morris must stay. In Chad We Trust (probably too strong and questions dabo's leadership) or More Morris Please. Yeah, I am struggling to come up with something. Help, please?
The problem is that Dabo wears thin if you are not winning. When you are not winning your faults are on display and become severely enlarged. That is the microscope the head coach lives under. No one can replace Morris, if he leaves then it is like Brad Scott calling plays for RichRod. Eventually it just isn't up to par. Who on the staff would you feel comfortable with duplicating Morris's performance up until this point. Pony up whatever money you can Clemson powers that be. Chad has a daughter starting at Daniel High School and he has said he will stay at least until she graduates. Lets make that kind gesture of a father to a daughter a reality.
If we still had Napier this year, what would be our record? Sure we have Watkins but we would have the same inconsistent play at WR where even Dwayne Allen is dropping passes and no one knows how to block. Boyd out of shape, with bad footwork, and no ownership of the team. A team without an identity. I give all the credit in the world to Dabo for making the call to switch to Chad Morris. (Napier is still a good coach, great recruiter, who just had no business being an offensive coordinator) Without him we become a very average team and no amount of speeches or chest bumps can replace attention to detail, true accountability, and an infectious work ethic that was previously lacking with this team.
We were on par in terms of toughness with Virginia Tech--an amazing feat for this team.
Somebody make a shirt with a slogan about how Chad Morris must stay. In Chad We Trust (probably too strong and questions dabo's leadership) or More Morris Please. Yeah, I am struggling to come up with something. Help, please?
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Making Sense of Selection Sunday
The highlights:
- 5 teams with 14 losses get in(only 6 teams with 14 losses let in from 1985-2010)
- Colorado and Virginia Tech snubbed
- UAB and VCU in the tournament
- Georgia a 10 seed??
- ACC is the most disrespected of the major conferences
I think that about covers it. There were 30 at-larges for power conferences and 7 for mid-majors. At first I was really upset that Clemson was in the play-in game and as the 12 seed. But then I realized we were probably the last team in. Which means that if Dayton or possibly even UTEP win their conferences then we are on the chopping block. How did USC in the pathetic Pac 10 jump us??
That means that the ACC got a 1 seed, a 2 seed, a 10 seed and a play-in. Practically 3 teams were put in. We made it in because we beat BC and VT in the head to head or we would have been out. Had we not beaten BC we would have been out. We need to win the ACC/Big Ten challenge and quit losing by one game so that we can wag that in people's faces--7 teams for the Big Ten?? Two of them with 14!!!!!!!!!!!! losses. Wow. Getting to the semi's in the ACC meant nothing this year. You do remember that the reigning national champs came from our conference right??
Here is my rational behind the snubs. The committee used the extra seeds as a chance to reward mid majors. That is partly why the push was made for expansion and so they were set on delivering. It would have been 32 majors and 5 mid-majors. However, if you are going to put Kansas State as a 5 seed and then not include a team that beat them 3 times then you are being stupid or stubborn. Now I am not saying Colorado doesn't have its flaws but VCU lost 6 Colonial division games and UAB was ousted from its conference tourney by East Carolina.
The committee had a mission and they fulfilled it. The last major takeaway is for anyone who wants to expand anything. Whenever you have a cut-line and whenever someone is left out there will be controversy and moaning and groaning. Its inherent to selection. This is the stupid argument made in football. If we only have an 8 team play-off then teams will be left out--well duh. And if you have a 64 team tourney then people will complain and a 68 and even a 96. (In football it is better to give eight teams a chance over just two, however)
Don't think that expansion somehow solves these kinds of problems. Go back to a 64 team tourney. How fair is it to play in Dayton and then fly to the next spot for the first game?? I thought we were having all the silly 16 seeds play each other so that first round game against the 1 seed might mean something. Oh well, Clemson will play UAB and have to break the press--something we don't do horribly well. At least this way we can win one game in the tourney!
West Virginia here we come!! (11 Big East teams...ugh)
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
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.
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.
Monday, 15 March 2010
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:
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'tFirst 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.
get a bid".
Sunday, 14 March 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
ACC Tourney Byes, on the Line Today
Haven't written anything since last Wednesday, but the ACC tournament picture is a lot clearer now. If FSU loses today (regardless of what VT does) we can punch our ACC first round bye without hitting the floor on Sunday. Unfortunately, I fully expect FSU to grab a road win at Miami. I think UNC's dramatic single-season fall (as an aside, why didn't anyone see this coming? Everyone just expected the freshmen to fill in and play like the UNC freshmen we're accustomed to seeing?) is the only reason why people aren't talking about Miami failing to live up to expectations once again.
The argument for an FSU win is that it will motivate Clemson to get out on the floor and beat Wake Forest, which will help our NCAA seeding (really quickly: 8/9 right now, 7/8 with a win). I can see the rationale for this; there's certainly a non-zero chance that Clemson suffers a letdown and gets handed a beatdown on Senior Night in Winston-Salem in the event of an FSU loss (Wake's not a bad team, after all...) On the other hand, to paraphrase wise man, "De-fault" are the two sweetest words in the English language. I won't be losing any sleep tonight worrying about a letdown if FSU falters in Miami.
On that note, for one day only, let's go 'Canes!
The argument for an FSU win is that it will motivate Clemson to get out on the floor and beat Wake Forest, which will help our NCAA seeding (really quickly: 8/9 right now, 7/8 with a win). I can see the rationale for this; there's certainly a non-zero chance that Clemson suffers a letdown and gets handed a beatdown on Senior Night in Winston-Salem in the event of an FSU loss (Wake's not a bad team, after all...) On the other hand, to paraphrase wise man, "De-fault" are the two sweetest words in the English language. I won't be losing any sleep tonight worrying about a letdown if FSU falters in Miami.
On that note, for one day only, let's go 'Canes!
Monday, 1 March 2010
FSU Recap 2
Clemson 53, Florida St. 50
I said at the end of the preview that if we didn't make our three-point shots, couldn't force turnovers at a reasonable clip, and couldn't get offensive rebounds we'd be in for a slog. If anyone was confused about the definition of a "slog", that was not only a prototypical slog, it was something close to the paragon of a slog. Check out the rate of scoring (or lack thereof) in the chart:
And we managed to win. I'm still not sure how. It's strange, but I didn't think the defense was anything special. They were solid, but not spectacular. A lot of times FSU looked as lost running their halfcourt offense as we did, they missed makeable shots, and a lot of their turnovers were of the unforced variety. No, I think the game was somehow won on the offensive side of the ball. I don't often applaud individual efforts, mainly 'cause the college game ain't the same as the NBA game, but tonight I'll give big helpings of credit to Trevor Booker for finding ways to get close to the basket and to Andre Young for finding ways to get open at key points in the game (and draining a halfcourt jumper). It's particularly impressive because FSU stuck to more or less the same strategy as game 1, collapsing on Trevor Booker. In this game they seemed to be rolling over a man from the basket side to double team instead of collapsing in on Booker from the three-point line. This lessened the number of good looks we got around the perimeter. Normally Booker is still good at finding the open man in those situations, but against FSU's inside height he fired quite a few errant passes, particularly in the early going. But he settled down and ended played one of the best offensive games of his career against one of the better defenses in the country.
This win also opens the door to a first-round ACC bye, something no one in their right mind was talking about a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news here ClemBen, Clemson basically still needs to win both of their remaining games or hope for a bunch of other things to happen if they split their final two games. FSU has the upper hand right now with the easiest schedule by far of the five teams vying for the last two spots. If they were to win out, they would finish 10-6 and leave four teams vying for one slot.
The way I see it now, barring any strange upsets (like VT losing at home to NC State or something), if we win both of the final two games we grab the three seed (if VT loses to GT) or the four seed (if VT beats GT). If we finish 9-7, I only see two longshot scenarios. If we beat GT instead of WF, we also need FSU to beat WF and lose to Miami and GT to beat VT. That would give us the four seed. If we beat WF instead of GT, we need WF to beat FSU, FSU to beat Miami, and VT to beat GT. That would also give us the four seed.
There's probably a few other wild scenarios in there, but those are the most realistic I'm seeing right now. Simply put, Clemson still needs to win out. Lots of strange things could still happen, but the losses to VT and GT coupled with FSU's likely 10-6 finish put us in a relatively weak position because our two victories over FSU don't mean anything in any tie-breakers if they finish above us.
Lastly, it's time to update the list from the beginning of yesterday's post:
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: 2 (Butler, FSU)
I don't know if a team that can rally as often as "collapse" can really be labeled as a team prone to the collapse, but just so everyone is on the same page with the numbers...
GO TIGERS!!
I said at the end of the preview that if we didn't make our three-point shots, couldn't force turnovers at a reasonable clip, and couldn't get offensive rebounds we'd be in for a slog. If anyone was confused about the definition of a "slog", that was not only a prototypical slog, it was something close to the paragon of a slog. Check out the rate of scoring (or lack thereof) in the chart:
And we managed to win. I'm still not sure how. It's strange, but I didn't think the defense was anything special. They were solid, but not spectacular. A lot of times FSU looked as lost running their halfcourt offense as we did, they missed makeable shots, and a lot of their turnovers were of the unforced variety. No, I think the game was somehow won on the offensive side of the ball. I don't often applaud individual efforts, mainly 'cause the college game ain't the same as the NBA game, but tonight I'll give big helpings of credit to Trevor Booker for finding ways to get close to the basket and to Andre Young for finding ways to get open at key points in the game (and draining a halfcourt jumper). It's particularly impressive because FSU stuck to more or less the same strategy as game 1, collapsing on Trevor Booker. In this game they seemed to be rolling over a man from the basket side to double team instead of collapsing in on Booker from the three-point line. This lessened the number of good looks we got around the perimeter. Normally Booker is still good at finding the open man in those situations, but against FSU's inside height he fired quite a few errant passes, particularly in the early going. But he settled down and ended played one of the best offensive games of his career against one of the better defenses in the country.
This win also opens the door to a first-round ACC bye, something no one in their right mind was talking about a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news here ClemBen, Clemson basically still needs to win both of their remaining games or hope for a bunch of other things to happen if they split their final two games. FSU has the upper hand right now with the easiest schedule by far of the five teams vying for the last two spots. If they were to win out, they would finish 10-6 and leave four teams vying for one slot.
The way I see it now, barring any strange upsets (like VT losing at home to NC State or something), if we win both of the final two games we grab the three seed (if VT loses to GT) or the four seed (if VT beats GT). If we finish 9-7, I only see two longshot scenarios. If we beat GT instead of WF, we also need FSU to beat WF and lose to Miami and GT to beat VT. That would give us the four seed. If we beat WF instead of GT, we need WF to beat FSU, FSU to beat Miami, and VT to beat GT. That would also give us the four seed.
There's probably a few other wild scenarios in there, but those are the most realistic I'm seeing right now. Simply put, Clemson still needs to win out. Lots of strange things could still happen, but the losses to VT and GT coupled with FSU's likely 10-6 finish put us in a relatively weak position because our two victories over FSU don't mean anything in any tie-breakers if they finish above us.
Lastly, it's time to update the list from the beginning of yesterday's post:
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: 2 (Butler, FSU)
I don't know if a team that can rally as often as "collapse" can really be labeled as a team prone to the collapse, but just so everyone is on the same page with the numbers...
GO TIGERS!!
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
A Short Rant About Virginia Tech's Soft, Soft, Soft Schedule
I was browsing through Kenpom stats today when I noticed that the Hokies have a pitiful strength of schedule, ranking 91 for dead last in the ACC. Only Miami offers any competition, clocking in at 82. Virginia is next at 52 with the rest of the ACC teams cracking the top 40. NC State is at 39, Clemson is at 38.
I figured the disparity resulted from a weak non-conference schedule. Sure enough, VT ranks 327 in non-conference strength of schedule (out of 347 total teams). Truth be told, though, Clemson only ranks 249 this season and other ACC teams haven't exactly fielded a killer non-conference slate.
Then I looked at VT's in-conference schedule. Here's the list of teams they have played or will play twice this season:
NC State
North Carolina
Miami
Boston College
Virginia
You know what else that's a list of? Yeah, its the five worst teams according to the current standings of ACC teams, listed with the worst team first. These teams have combined for an astonishingly bad 18-42 record in conference play. VT has gone 6-2 in games against those teams so far. All hail the mighty Hokies and their sparkling 8-4 record!
Just for comparison, here's the list of teams Clemson is playing twice this season:
Duke
Maryland
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Boston College
All you would have to do is replace BC with Wake Forest and you'd have the exact inverse of VT's schedule.
Look, I understand that VT doesn't set the schedule and even if they did, there's no way anyone would have predicted the way the ACC would play out this season. But what I don't get is all the love VT is getting from everyone this year. They're still a fringe NCAA tournament-caliber team. I want another crack at them in the ACC tournament.
I figured the disparity resulted from a weak non-conference schedule. Sure enough, VT ranks 327 in non-conference strength of schedule (out of 347 total teams). Truth be told, though, Clemson only ranks 249 this season and other ACC teams haven't exactly fielded a killer non-conference slate.
Then I looked at VT's in-conference schedule. Here's the list of teams they have played or will play twice this season:
NC State
North Carolina
Miami
Boston College
Virginia
You know what else that's a list of? Yeah, its the five worst teams according to the current standings of ACC teams, listed with the worst team first. These teams have combined for an astonishingly bad 18-42 record in conference play. VT has gone 6-2 in games against those teams so far. All hail the mighty Hokies and their sparkling 8-4 record!
Just for comparison, here's the list of teams Clemson is playing twice this season:
Duke
Maryland
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Boston College
All you would have to do is replace BC with Wake Forest and you'd have the exact inverse of VT's schedule.
Look, I understand that VT doesn't set the schedule and even if they did, there's no way anyone would have predicted the way the ACC would play out this season. But what I don't get is all the love VT is getting from everyone this year. They're still a fringe NCAA tournament-caliber team. I want another crack at them in the ACC tournament.
Monday, 8 February 2010
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:(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.
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:(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.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
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...
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...
Saturday, 6 February 2010
VT at the Half: The Delaney Flop Show
What a mixed bag at the half. First, Malcolm Delaney is like Reggie Miller. No FG's in the first half but 14-16 from the FT line. They are giving him every single little tick or tack foul. Which would be fine but Stitt gets hacked going to the basket and nothing, or breaking the double team and nothing. We played well defensively in the first ten minutes, really well in fact, and I liked what a few of our bench players did when they came in. We got a little tired but were blocking a ton of shots in the beginning--that's a motivated Booker. Jennings is having his best game to date. Young needs to knock down a three. Tanner made one and then clanked a couple, and Potter made his first and then took some poor shots.
When we commit to passing the ball to Booker, good things happen(except when he goes to the line). I think it helps us when they double team him. We are on the road and should be winning so it is disappointing to be down by 2 but every time Delaney goes to the line its 2 free ones. Take notes tigers, Jennings, Stitt--you can't miss the front end of the one and one. Stitt looks ok but not 100% on defense I would like to see him not re-injure himself and set himself back but this is a critical game to win, on the road for Selection Sunday. We should let more students in too!! So much better crowd that way...
When we commit to passing the ball to Booker, good things happen(except when he goes to the line). I think it helps us when they double team him. We are on the road and should be winning so it is disappointing to be down by 2 but every time Delaney goes to the line its 2 free ones. Take notes tigers, Jennings, Stitt--you can't miss the front end of the one and one. Stitt looks ok but not 100% on defense I would like to see him not re-injure himself and set himself back but this is a critical game to win, on the road for Selection Sunday. We should let more students in too!! So much better crowd that way...
Friday, 5 February 2010
Virginia Tech Preview
Clemson vs. Virginia Tech, 02/06, 4:00pm, Cassell Coliseum
Sorry for the lack of comment on National Signing Day, definitely not my area of expertise, however. I know ClemBen had an opinion or two, but it looks like he's fallen off the grid again. My relatively uninformed perspective is that we did a good job overcoming a shaky start to the recruiting season, at least in part validating one of the primary reasons Swinney was hired.
Anyways, back to the basketball season. This time last season, VT was just kicking off a disastrous second half ACC schedule, which saw the team revert to 2006 form after two straight years of being fringe NCAA tourney contenders. The main culprit for their collapse last year was the absence of defense, specifically the complete inability to force any turnovers. This year, however, the Hokies appear to have transformed the defense, reaching back to the lofty heights achieved in 2007/2008. And yes, they are once again fringe-NCAA contenders. I actually like this this year's VT defense better than the 2007-2008 versions, its more balanced. They don't do anything particularly well, but they don't have any exploitable weaknesses, either. They do tend to send teams to the line a little too often, but if anything this should help them against Clemson.
The good news about this balance is that VT doesn't excel at limiting the opposing team's FG%, which seems to be something we have really struggled with this year. They aren't bad at defending the shot (and notably, they are about as good outside as inside), but this isn't like playing Duke. Unfortunately, they are also reasonably good at inducing turnovers, which is bad news for Clemson. I would caution that while VT is getting turnovers, they aren't getting too many steals. This could indicate that they've been getting a little lucky and will see some regression as the season goes along. Frankly, given VT's track record of not forcing many turnovers, I would weight this possiblity rather heavily. Also bad news for Clemson: VT can keep opposing teams off the offensive glass. Look for Jerai Grant to vanish again after two consecutive "breakout" games.
So why isn't VT a shoe-in for the NCAA tournament? Well, that's the good news for the Tigers--on offense, VT is a markedly below average ACC team. They have Malcolm Delaney and, well...that's about it. They simply cannot shoot the ball and have a worse three-point percentage than Clemson. The bad news for Clemson, though, is VT doesn't like to turn the ball over and also pounds the offensive glass, two factors that will work strongly against our defense.
Before I really sat down to think about this game, I like Clemson's chances quite a bit. I was anticipating a Maryland-like game where both defenses try their hardest to keep the other offense from finding a rhythmn and we end up with a close, low-scoring affair. But now I am much less confident of Clemson's chances. We just don't match up well with the Hokies, particularly their strength in offensive rebounding. Additionally, we won't have any stupid turnovers from VT to help bail us out of the times we lose possession after throwing the ball away. In order to win, I think Clemson will need to slacken the press and concentrate on shutting down their offense in the half-court. We have the capacity to limit their point total by playing hard in the half-court. In fact, we've often gotten into trouble against VT because we play the press for too long. Let's see how Purnell plays this, but if VT is scoring early and often after breaking the press Clemson will find itself in quite the early hole and without the proper offensive tools to find a way back into the game.
Sorry for the lack of comment on National Signing Day, definitely not my area of expertise, however. I know ClemBen had an opinion or two, but it looks like he's fallen off the grid again. My relatively uninformed perspective is that we did a good job overcoming a shaky start to the recruiting season, at least in part validating one of the primary reasons Swinney was hired.
Anyways, back to the basketball season. This time last season, VT was just kicking off a disastrous second half ACC schedule, which saw the team revert to 2006 form after two straight years of being fringe NCAA tourney contenders. The main culprit for their collapse last year was the absence of defense, specifically the complete inability to force any turnovers. This year, however, the Hokies appear to have transformed the defense, reaching back to the lofty heights achieved in 2007/2008. And yes, they are once again fringe-NCAA contenders. I actually like this this year's VT defense better than the 2007-2008 versions, its more balanced. They don't do anything particularly well, but they don't have any exploitable weaknesses, either. They do tend to send teams to the line a little too often, but if anything this should help them against Clemson.
The good news about this balance is that VT doesn't excel at limiting the opposing team's FG%, which seems to be something we have really struggled with this year. They aren't bad at defending the shot (and notably, they are about as good outside as inside), but this isn't like playing Duke. Unfortunately, they are also reasonably good at inducing turnovers, which is bad news for Clemson. I would caution that while VT is getting turnovers, they aren't getting too many steals. This could indicate that they've been getting a little lucky and will see some regression as the season goes along. Frankly, given VT's track record of not forcing many turnovers, I would weight this possiblity rather heavily. Also bad news for Clemson: VT can keep opposing teams off the offensive glass. Look for Jerai Grant to vanish again after two consecutive "breakout" games.
So why isn't VT a shoe-in for the NCAA tournament? Well, that's the good news for the Tigers--on offense, VT is a markedly below average ACC team. They have Malcolm Delaney and, well...that's about it. They simply cannot shoot the ball and have a worse three-point percentage than Clemson. The bad news for Clemson, though, is VT doesn't like to turn the ball over and also pounds the offensive glass, two factors that will work strongly against our defense.
Before I really sat down to think about this game, I like Clemson's chances quite a bit. I was anticipating a Maryland-like game where both defenses try their hardest to keep the other offense from finding a rhythmn and we end up with a close, low-scoring affair. But now I am much less confident of Clemson's chances. We just don't match up well with the Hokies, particularly their strength in offensive rebounding. Additionally, we won't have any stupid turnovers from VT to help bail us out of the times we lose possession after throwing the ball away. In order to win, I think Clemson will need to slacken the press and concentrate on shutting down their offense in the half-court. We have the capacity to limit their point total by playing hard in the half-court. In fact, we've often gotten into trouble against VT because we play the press for too long. Let's see how Purnell plays this, but if VT is scoring early and often after breaking the press Clemson will find itself in quite the early hole and without the proper offensive tools to find a way back into the game.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Good Vibrations: For All Those Who Still Want To Believe
I havent been able to shake the utter disappointment from the Maryland game but I have found quiet hope and seen a glimmer of redemption in the simple fact that the Atlantic division is just awful this year. VT, GT, and Miami are superior teams right now--well lets hope GT is, and Virginia and Duke will beat someone in the Atlantic. So the point is that the winner of the Atlantic will assuredly have 2 losses but will more likely have three or four. So its going to be crowded and its going to come down to head to head records. Lets project two games into the future, shall we...
BC is the current front-runner--wait, the same BC we held to 50 yrds of offense and beat?? This is good for us bc BC plays/loses to VT this week and then plays NC State the next which is a toss-up. They will have at least two losses then, one of them to us!! We probably want State to win, bc the BC schedule then becomes the easiest of the remaining teams. NC the only remaining really tough game. So BC may have a 5-3 record in the conference 4-4 not out of the question.
Next threat is NC State--Tom O'Brien what is going on? They are 0-1 but a better team than they showed against Wake, probably the most dangerous team in terms of talent and coaching but lucky for us they have a tough schedule remaining--the play Duke this week and then BC the next but also have VT and NC. It would really help us if NC steps it up and can beat the majority of the Atlantic teams they play. I can easily see them being 5-3 or 4-4. Clemson needs to hold the tie breaker though.
Wake is very unpredictable. It seems to depend on the mood of Riley Skinner so I'm having a tough time placing them. They are 1-1 in conference and will play Maryland before playing us. If they beat Maryland we have to beat them but they do play Miami and GT which seem like two losses and an FSU team playing for Bowdens life so I think the losses will be there 5-3, 4-4.
Maryland is scary to me. They suck and we shouldnt have lost to them, but they have the weakest schedule in the division playing Duke and Virginia and then VT. Most teams are going to go 1-2 OOC but Maryland could go 2-1. We dont have the tie breaker so it feels more comfortable if they go 4-4, 5-3 spells doom. They play Wake and then Virginia so they could be 2-1 or 3-0 after next week.
Who would have thought we would be talking about FSU as the gutter dwellers of the pathetic Atlantic division. Things look even worse playing GT and at NC in the next two weeks. I dont think the 0-2 Noles are that bad a team but that loss to BC is mindbottling (thank you Will Ferrell), and I cant see them recovering to finish on top.
So there you have it. It looks like everyone is headed for 4-4 seasons. If Clemson can beat Wake, State, and FSU it can stand to lose to Miami and still come out on top. Unless Maryland gets crazy...
There is still hope Tiger fans and at least the defense is good. Can anyone imagine the absolute catastrophe this season would have been without CJ?? I mean its ugly enough already...
BC is the current front-runner--wait, the same BC we held to 50 yrds of offense and beat?? This is good for us bc BC plays/loses to VT this week and then plays NC State the next which is a toss-up. They will have at least two losses then, one of them to us!! We probably want State to win, bc the BC schedule then becomes the easiest of the remaining teams. NC the only remaining really tough game. So BC may have a 5-3 record in the conference 4-4 not out of the question.
Next threat is NC State--Tom O'Brien what is going on? They are 0-1 but a better team than they showed against Wake, probably the most dangerous team in terms of talent and coaching but lucky for us they have a tough schedule remaining--the play Duke this week and then BC the next but also have VT and NC. It would really help us if NC steps it up and can beat the majority of the Atlantic teams they play. I can easily see them being 5-3 or 4-4. Clemson needs to hold the tie breaker though.
Wake is very unpredictable. It seems to depend on the mood of Riley Skinner so I'm having a tough time placing them. They are 1-1 in conference and will play Maryland before playing us. If they beat Maryland we have to beat them but they do play Miami and GT which seem like two losses and an FSU team playing for Bowdens life so I think the losses will be there 5-3, 4-4.
Maryland is scary to me. They suck and we shouldnt have lost to them, but they have the weakest schedule in the division playing Duke and Virginia and then VT. Most teams are going to go 1-2 OOC but Maryland could go 2-1. We dont have the tie breaker so it feels more comfortable if they go 4-4, 5-3 spells doom. They play Wake and then Virginia so they could be 2-1 or 3-0 after next week.
Who would have thought we would be talking about FSU as the gutter dwellers of the pathetic Atlantic division. Things look even worse playing GT and at NC in the next two weeks. I dont think the 0-2 Noles are that bad a team but that loss to BC is mindbottling (thank you Will Ferrell), and I cant see them recovering to finish on top.
So there you have it. It looks like everyone is headed for 4-4 seasons. If Clemson can beat Wake, State, and FSU it can stand to lose to Miami and still come out on top. Unless Maryland gets crazy...
There is still hope Tiger fans and at least the defense is good. Can anyone imagine the absolute catastrophe this season would have been without CJ?? I mean its ugly enough already...
Monday, 7 September 2009
GT will make or break season
So it seems that after the first week its official--the ACC sucks again this year. I still say we are better than the Big Ten and rank third on the pecking order top to bottom but we are still in a down period for sure. This means that the two biggest games of the season are this Thursday and when we take on FSU.
If we can somehow get by Tech, which is not completely outside the realm of possibility, then the season looks not only doable but possibly magical. Yes my orange spectacles are on but just indulge me if you will. Our division looks bad--NC State wasnt special, Maryland got manhandled, Wake is down, and BC still doesnt have a QB. We will see how good FSU is tonight--it would be big if Miami gets the win. So really it comes down to who you play in the other division. GT will be good but I would rather play them than VT, and Virginia looked awful. We dont get to play another pathetic Duke team but we should get a pretty beat up Miami team.
My point is that with teams under-performing there will be parity and middling records. A win against GT puts us in the drivers seat and would create the buzz and momentum needed to build to a big enough let down (a Bowdenesque loss to an inferior team) to call it a true Clemson season. Yeah a loss wont break the season but it will send everyone back down to earth, a place we know all too well...
All I'm saying is that the crummy ACC could be all Dabo and company need this year, hopefully GT's young line isnt up to the task.
If we can somehow get by Tech, which is not completely outside the realm of possibility, then the season looks not only doable but possibly magical. Yes my orange spectacles are on but just indulge me if you will. Our division looks bad--NC State wasnt special, Maryland got manhandled, Wake is down, and BC still doesnt have a QB. We will see how good FSU is tonight--it would be big if Miami gets the win. So really it comes down to who you play in the other division. GT will be good but I would rather play them than VT, and Virginia looked awful. We dont get to play another pathetic Duke team but we should get a pretty beat up Miami team.
My point is that with teams under-performing there will be parity and middling records. A win against GT puts us in the drivers seat and would create the buzz and momentum needed to build to a big enough let down (a Bowdenesque loss to an inferior team) to call it a true Clemson season. Yeah a loss wont break the season but it will send everyone back down to earth, a place we know all too well...
All I'm saying is that the crummy ACC could be all Dabo and company need this year, hopefully GT's young line isnt up to the task.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Bad News For Clemson and ACC
Well you never like to see a kid get hurt but the injury to RB Darren Evans of Virginia Tech is not only bad for the ACC but its bad for Clemson as well. Let me explain...VT is not on Clemson's schedule this year but does play NC State, Maryland, and BC from the Atlantic division. You may not think its that big a deal but when the division has been decided by one or two games it makes a difference. While none of those teams are FSU, it doesnt help our chances to have a weaker VT. This year we want a strong NC, Duke, and VT--every little bit helps.
Also the ACC really cant afford to be blown out again by Alabama. I am so sick of hearing how bad we were last year but another blow-out and the ACC goes down another notch and that cant be good for lucrative TV dreams. The ACC needs a momentum year badly where 'big mo' is finally returned. All is not lost however bc the back-up RBs are supposed to be pretty good, we shall see...
Also the ACC really cant afford to be blown out again by Alabama. I am so sick of hearing how bad we were last year but another blow-out and the ACC goes down another notch and that cant be good for lucrative TV dreams. The ACC needs a momentum year badly where 'big mo' is finally returned. All is not lost however bc the back-up RBs are supposed to be pretty good, we shall see...
Friday, 6 March 2009
CLEMBENTIGERMAX POWER RANKINGS: TEAMS
First a word of preface--yes its a little late in the season but we've been meaning to do this for awhile. These arent the actual standings but how good the teams are doing currently and RPI rankings, SOS, my opinion, etc.
TEAM RANKINGS
- North Carolina-Although not the unbeatable juggernaut they were at the beginning of the season-the core of Ellington, Hans, and Lawson is formidable-especially with Lawson more motivated to pick up his game as the end of the season looms.
- Duke-No I dont want Duke to be this high but I cant justify putting FSU or Wake ahead of them. Somehow Coach K has been able to right the ship. Clemson exposed their lack of athleticism but that Coach K can still coach and, unfortunately, still star in credit card commercials. I still think there are too many white players, especially ones named Paulus, to have a chance at a deep NCAA run. Second round defeat sounds about right.
- Florida State-After their solid defeat of Clemson I want to put them as number two but just cant do it after loosing to Duke. They are slightly ahead of an uneven Wake team and despite the loss are clicking down the stretch at the right time.
- Wake Forest-Perhaps the most lottery talent on one team in the country. At times they are absolutely dominant but at other times cant figure out how to share the ball and play without passion. Too much selfish play. Granted they beat on FSU the first and only time they will play but losses to GT, NC State and a poor showing at Virginia and Maryland give me cause for concern.
- Clemson-My Tigers just cant seem to get the ball in to T-Book. This team has been overachieving all year and has had a rocky week but its been a great ride. Still capable of beating any team in the league and perhaps the country when they are on. OP can flat out coach and hopefully makes the right adjustments down the stretch.
- Boston College-Rice is the heart and soul of this team but they can lack consistency as evidenced by their loss to NC State. Must win against BC to secure NCAA bid and must find some scoring help to ease the burden on Rice. Its funny how a lot of these teams primary colors are the same...
- Virginia Tech-This season has been a disappointing one for me and I'm sure for Hokies fans. After being shut out of the NCAA's last year and coach Greenberg wailing and moaning about it I think its safe to assume we will be hearing more of it. Bad ref work cost them at Duke and maybe even NC but they have to beat FSU and win some games in ACC tourney or its NIT city. Still this is a more talented team than their record indicates.
- Maryland-Gary Williams should be commended for the job he has done with this team. Watching them almost beat a superior Wake squad is why I love college bball over the nba anyday. David 'churchballer' Neal and the Grevis man a team that is as much about heart as it is about skill.
- Miami-Welcome to Miami, home of the most disappointing team in the ACC. Projected by some to finish third, with the loss to GT I think we can say that barring a massive run deep into the ACC tourney they have punched their NIT ticket. McClinton is still amazing and can still take over a game but this team just cant find any semblance of consistency.
- NC State-Someone needs to give Coach Lowe a clue. He is the most awful coach in the ACC and his teams reflect it. State has picked it up here at the end of the year, beating BC and will give Miami a hard rub but its hard seeing how this team is going to rise out of mediocrity with Lowe at the helm.
- Georgia Tech-I'm not sure I've ever seen a team do so little with so much talent. Paul Hewitt has been giving the aforementioned Coach Lowe a run for his money as the worst coach in the ACC this year. This team has the talent and potential but cant put it together and if it were not for the stellar recruiting class coming to GT, I would think that Hewitt's days would be numbered, regardless he is on a short leash heading into next year.
- Virginia-The fact that Virginia is on the bottom of this list speaks to the relative strength of the ACC, top to bottom-perhaps the best conference in the country. This team is all about Landesberg, Chad Ford even has him going in the first round if he declares, but not much is surrounding him. If he goes the team is done for next year and I dont see Coach Leitao weathering the storm for much longer. There is some young talent here but it still needs a lot of developing.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
VIRGINIA TECH RECAP
Virginia Tech 80, Clemson 77
Uggh, that was miserable. Of the four must-win games I listed last week, the order of concern I felt about each game was approximately as follows:
1) @Georgia Tech
2) Maryland
|
|
|
big gap
|
|
|
3) Virginia Tech
4) Virginia
I really thought we were on our way to 10 wins after beating GT. Now we have to steal one against FSU or WF on the road, and I really think that's a tall order. We're probably looking at a 9-7 conference record and a 5 or 6 seed in the ACC tourney. I still hold out some hope Clemson can prove me wrong at FSU, but yeah...
So how did they lose the game? I think there were two factors at play. First and foremost, Clemson played a lax game--sloppy ball handling, lazy passes. If you give a bad defensive/good offensive team a bunch of unforced turnovers, its going to make their chances of victory exponentially better (okay not exponentially better, but you get the picture). They also looked tired--I was left wondering if they had hit a wall tonight, they just weren't getting back quickly or running the floor the way like they have at earlier points in the season.
The second factor was the officiating. To be clear, its not the calls going one way or the other, I thought the refs were pretty consistent throughout the game. It was the style of officiating. The refs seemed to call any contact a foul almost the entire night. This of course is a massive disadvantage for Clemson, body contact and slaps at the ball are essential to an effective press, and the refs were having none of it last night. It had the effect of rendered the full-court press pretty much useless. That being said, Clemson has to recognize this and adjust their game plan. I think they stuck to the full-court press way too long, even if they were running a few variants. The halfcourt traps late in the game I thought were fairly effective, it would have been nice to see them earlier.
I've been kind to Clemson during their losses this season, even defending the Virginia loss to some extent. But for last night's performance, they really have no one to blame but themselves. And it could prove extremely costly.
Oh, and Hubert Davis: worst commentary of the year.
Uggh, that was miserable. Of the four must-win games I listed last week, the order of concern I felt about each game was approximately as follows:
1) @Georgia Tech
2) Maryland
|
|
|
big gap
|
|
|
3) Virginia Tech
4) Virginia
I really thought we were on our way to 10 wins after beating GT. Now we have to steal one against FSU or WF on the road, and I really think that's a tall order. We're probably looking at a 9-7 conference record and a 5 or 6 seed in the ACC tourney. I still hold out some hope Clemson can prove me wrong at FSU, but yeah...
So how did they lose the game? I think there were two factors at play. First and foremost, Clemson played a lax game--sloppy ball handling, lazy passes. If you give a bad defensive/good offensive team a bunch of unforced turnovers, its going to make their chances of victory exponentially better (okay not exponentially better, but you get the picture). They also looked tired--I was left wondering if they had hit a wall tonight, they just weren't getting back quickly or running the floor the way like they have at earlier points in the season.
The second factor was the officiating. To be clear, its not the calls going one way or the other, I thought the refs were pretty consistent throughout the game. It was the style of officiating. The refs seemed to call any contact a foul almost the entire night. This of course is a massive disadvantage for Clemson, body contact and slaps at the ball are essential to an effective press, and the refs were having none of it last night. It had the effect of rendered the full-court press pretty much useless. That being said, Clemson has to recognize this and adjust their game plan. I think they stuck to the full-court press way too long, even if they were running a few variants. The halfcourt traps late in the game I thought were fairly effective, it would have been nice to see them earlier.
I've been kind to Clemson during their losses this season, even defending the Virginia loss to some extent. But for last night's performance, they really have no one to blame but themselves. And it could prove extremely costly.
Oh, and Hubert Davis: worst commentary of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)