I've been meaning to post some Clemson basketball recruiting nuggets and thoughts since the season concluded.
The beginning of the NCAA Tournament has further incited message board debate on the direction of the Tigers' program, so here goes.
Up front disclosure, I like Brad Brownell. Not sure I have ever met anyone who has engaged him that doesn't. He's genuine, direct, candid, insightful. College coaches respect him greatly. He pushes kids hard and is really demanding, but does so in a personable way. Based on my experiences with coaches of many sports, I appreciate his style and think he matches the dynamic for what most of you would deem the desired fit for Clemson's personality.
Objectively speaking, it's not my job to conclude whether he is the "right guy" for Clemson or whether a coach should be hired or fired. And that's not something I've ever felt comfortable doing anyhow because how many among us really feel like outsiders know whether we're doing a good job or not amid unseen circumstances.
Poster jmh9713 asked last night how Clemson managed to beat Arkansas and LSU, both tourney teams. I concurred with clemsontyger04's response that 1) Clemson wasn't as bad as people are thinking, and 2) Brownell out-coached those opponents.
Jmh9713 then asked me to elaborate, wondering whether Brownell had then been out-coached by the inferior opponents Clemson lost to as well? Fair question, absolutely.
Coaching performances are measured in our world by wins and losses. It's the most important metric and the most obvious one. If I were a fan of a team, that would be the bottom line, too.
But other factors have to be weighed, IMO. An athletic director has other variables to consider. And to go all Nick Saban here, I believe you have to look at the balance for what someone does well, what they don't and why for both.
So much has to do with your definition of what constitutes a good coach.
The Mark Gottfried example was brought up. Gottfried has a rep in coaching circles for doing less with more. Brownell has a rep for doing more with less.
So when Clemson has experienced a good bit of success against N.C. State when State is widely viewed as owning superior talent, we are charged with assessing why. Strategy, game management, organization, discipline, Xs and Os all can play a role. Many of those are what his peers feel Brownell does well.
It's a matter of taste, though, really. You could actually probably make an argument sometimes that playing with less structure and discipline is a wise strategic move for any number of reasons. We credit coaches who have control when maybe just accumulating talent and letting it do its thing reaps equal benefit.
It comes down to the eyeball test. What do you think Brownell would do with, say, LSU's roster? Would Gottfried be in the NCAAs annually with Clemson's roster? I like Mike Young a whole lot, tracing to days I dealt with him when I was at the Spartanburg newspaper. But what distinguishes him from Brownell, who had comparable teams in his mid-major days? Watch a Virginia game and tell me what differentiates his teams from Clemson's … other than talent.
Which gets the crux of the debate. What constitutes a reasonable expectation for Clemson basketball success, and can Brownell & staff consistently recruit to the level to achieve, sustain and even build on that?
Clemson's close to the season is rightfully viewed as a disappointment. But success is relative to expectation, and I think you could argue whether expectations were reasonable. Of those seven losses down the stretch, four were to NCAA tourney teams, and a fifth to bubble team Miami. Was Clemson better than FSU? Not really, and the Seminoles always give them match-up problems.
Clemson would have been the No. 9 seed in the ACC tournament if not for Syracuse's absence. Look at the top eight teams in the league and tell me that Clemson is necessarily underachieving. Is Pitt's Jamie Dixon on the hot seat? Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and even FSU have reason to believe they should have a better basketball program than Clemson, too.
The Tigers were a mediocre, middle-of-the-pack team - which was quite an accomplishment to be squeezed from that backcourt.
Of course, the head coach is accountable for recruiting and roster management, too, and that is where I believe it's fair to scrutinize the standard being higher.
Brownell's quote about putting more value on shooting in recruiting took a life of its own earlier this month. While it had merit, I also don't think this concept was some revelation to the coaching staff. He had shooters at his previous stops and targeted shooters here. That's why Patrick Rooks and Devin Coleman were brought in.
I also think there's an element of growing comfortable with recruiting at the high-major level, whether you're talking about football or basketball. You have to recruit an upgraded caliber of prospect when one's career advances, and I choose to believe this is what Brownell was referring to with his shooter comments. There is a certain level of athleticism, size and strength that separates an ACC roster from a SoCon roster, for example, and is needed over the long haul of a season (but isn't as evident in a single match-up, which is why there are so many early round upsets but so few Final Four mid-major Cinderellas).
Coaches are conditioned to feel they can develop players and improve skills. That's part of the job description. So I feel what Brownell is referencing is the impulse to make sure you're recruiting a certain standard of athlete before checking off the box whether he can shoot. Which I can understand - if you take one-dimensional guys (we can use Ibby Djambo as an example) and their shot doesn't fall, they give you nothing. Defense at least gives you a chance, and you can generate offense through activity and skill development.
The part that bears improvement is finding the right backcourt fits for his style of play - and being able to land them. Two separate issues.
Go through the ACC and almost all of the good teams have two perimeter players in the lineup who can facilitate offense and create scoring opportunities for others. Clemson didn't have one.
They know this. Avry Holmes was brought in as a means to start addressing the shortcoming, followed by the signing of Ty Hudson. I believe Clemson will look to add a fifth-year senior from the transfer market, and regardless of his slotted position, here's believing the priority will be another wing/guard who can create and thus make others around him better.
To take the next step, Clemson needed to start beating other comparable programs for talent. If you scan the veterans on the roster or those who had recently departed, the Tigers hadn't won many notable battles.
Again, another example of doing more with less - there being less amounting to the hurdle.
Scoring Donte Grantham and Hudson appears to indicate they are headed in the right direction.
The rash of transfers has been pointed to as a possible cause for this year's malignant offense. But I don't really buy that. T.J. Sapp averaged 12.4 points at Murray State. As awful a season as he had, Demarcus Harrison averaged 7.9 against consistently stronger competition. Coleman and Bernard Sullivan rode their respective benches.
Clemson has gone hard after guys like Malcolm Brogdon, Jawun Evans, A.J. Davis, Marcus Sheffield and Kenny Gaines. But when they've missed - second-place finishes that Brownell's successful predecessor grew all too familiar with and frustrated by, too - Brownell got caught for awhile in a cycle of having to settle for filler or reaches.
Facilities upgrades are needed and should help, but I would be cautious about overstating their significance. I feel they will more so negate Clemson's disadvantages than become an advantage. I'm skeptical the Tigers suddenly recruit on Virginia's level because of facilities alone; but it should keep prospects from discounting the program because basketball is such an apparent afterthought.
Clemson basketball is not an easy sell. What makes Clemson football, SEC football, Tobacco Road basketball what they are? The passion of the fan base, and thus the resources and luxuries afforded from that interest. There's a trickle-down effect. Clemson basketball has to start with the consistent winning, and that's a challenging road to hoe.
Oliver Purnell's greatest asset was that he made Clemson's style of play entertaining -- and if you can't be good, you'd better be interesting. They were fun and dramatic.
Just my two cents and 2,000 words, haha. But Brownell had an impossible act to follow. I'm not so sure Purnell thought odds were great they could sustain their run, but I am sure it didn't sit well that a string of NCAA Tournament appearances weren't viewed by many as good enough any longer.
I think the lesson that should have been learned the first time around is, be careful about letting expectations exceed reason.
This post was edited on 3/20 4:49 PM by Paul Strelow
The beginning of the NCAA Tournament has further incited message board debate on the direction of the Tigers' program, so here goes.
Up front disclosure, I like Brad Brownell. Not sure I have ever met anyone who has engaged him that doesn't. He's genuine, direct, candid, insightful. College coaches respect him greatly. He pushes kids hard and is really demanding, but does so in a personable way. Based on my experiences with coaches of many sports, I appreciate his style and think he matches the dynamic for what most of you would deem the desired fit for Clemson's personality.
Objectively speaking, it's not my job to conclude whether he is the "right guy" for Clemson or whether a coach should be hired or fired. And that's not something I've ever felt comfortable doing anyhow because how many among us really feel like outsiders know whether we're doing a good job or not amid unseen circumstances.
Poster jmh9713 asked last night how Clemson managed to beat Arkansas and LSU, both tourney teams. I concurred with clemsontyger04's response that 1) Clemson wasn't as bad as people are thinking, and 2) Brownell out-coached those opponents.
Jmh9713 then asked me to elaborate, wondering whether Brownell had then been out-coached by the inferior opponents Clemson lost to as well? Fair question, absolutely.
Coaching performances are measured in our world by wins and losses. It's the most important metric and the most obvious one. If I were a fan of a team, that would be the bottom line, too.
But other factors have to be weighed, IMO. An athletic director has other variables to consider. And to go all Nick Saban here, I believe you have to look at the balance for what someone does well, what they don't and why for both.
So much has to do with your definition of what constitutes a good coach.
The Mark Gottfried example was brought up. Gottfried has a rep in coaching circles for doing less with more. Brownell has a rep for doing more with less.
So when Clemson has experienced a good bit of success against N.C. State when State is widely viewed as owning superior talent, we are charged with assessing why. Strategy, game management, organization, discipline, Xs and Os all can play a role. Many of those are what his peers feel Brownell does well.
It's a matter of taste, though, really. You could actually probably make an argument sometimes that playing with less structure and discipline is a wise strategic move for any number of reasons. We credit coaches who have control when maybe just accumulating talent and letting it do its thing reaps equal benefit.
It comes down to the eyeball test. What do you think Brownell would do with, say, LSU's roster? Would Gottfried be in the NCAAs annually with Clemson's roster? I like Mike Young a whole lot, tracing to days I dealt with him when I was at the Spartanburg newspaper. But what distinguishes him from Brownell, who had comparable teams in his mid-major days? Watch a Virginia game and tell me what differentiates his teams from Clemson's … other than talent.
Which gets the crux of the debate. What constitutes a reasonable expectation for Clemson basketball success, and can Brownell & staff consistently recruit to the level to achieve, sustain and even build on that?
Clemson's close to the season is rightfully viewed as a disappointment. But success is relative to expectation, and I think you could argue whether expectations were reasonable. Of those seven losses down the stretch, four were to NCAA tourney teams, and a fifth to bubble team Miami. Was Clemson better than FSU? Not really, and the Seminoles always give them match-up problems.
Clemson would have been the No. 9 seed in the ACC tournament if not for Syracuse's absence. Look at the top eight teams in the league and tell me that Clemson is necessarily underachieving. Is Pitt's Jamie Dixon on the hot seat? Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and even FSU have reason to believe they should have a better basketball program than Clemson, too.
The Tigers were a mediocre, middle-of-the-pack team - which was quite an accomplishment to be squeezed from that backcourt.
Of course, the head coach is accountable for recruiting and roster management, too, and that is where I believe it's fair to scrutinize the standard being higher.
Brownell's quote about putting more value on shooting in recruiting took a life of its own earlier this month. While it had merit, I also don't think this concept was some revelation to the coaching staff. He had shooters at his previous stops and targeted shooters here. That's why Patrick Rooks and Devin Coleman were brought in.
I also think there's an element of growing comfortable with recruiting at the high-major level, whether you're talking about football or basketball. You have to recruit an upgraded caliber of prospect when one's career advances, and I choose to believe this is what Brownell was referring to with his shooter comments. There is a certain level of athleticism, size and strength that separates an ACC roster from a SoCon roster, for example, and is needed over the long haul of a season (but isn't as evident in a single match-up, which is why there are so many early round upsets but so few Final Four mid-major Cinderellas).
Coaches are conditioned to feel they can develop players and improve skills. That's part of the job description. So I feel what Brownell is referencing is the impulse to make sure you're recruiting a certain standard of athlete before checking off the box whether he can shoot. Which I can understand - if you take one-dimensional guys (we can use Ibby Djambo as an example) and their shot doesn't fall, they give you nothing. Defense at least gives you a chance, and you can generate offense through activity and skill development.
The part that bears improvement is finding the right backcourt fits for his style of play - and being able to land them. Two separate issues.
Go through the ACC and almost all of the good teams have two perimeter players in the lineup who can facilitate offense and create scoring opportunities for others. Clemson didn't have one.
They know this. Avry Holmes was brought in as a means to start addressing the shortcoming, followed by the signing of Ty Hudson. I believe Clemson will look to add a fifth-year senior from the transfer market, and regardless of his slotted position, here's believing the priority will be another wing/guard who can create and thus make others around him better.
To take the next step, Clemson needed to start beating other comparable programs for talent. If you scan the veterans on the roster or those who had recently departed, the Tigers hadn't won many notable battles.
Again, another example of doing more with less - there being less amounting to the hurdle.
Scoring Donte Grantham and Hudson appears to indicate they are headed in the right direction.
The rash of transfers has been pointed to as a possible cause for this year's malignant offense. But I don't really buy that. T.J. Sapp averaged 12.4 points at Murray State. As awful a season as he had, Demarcus Harrison averaged 7.9 against consistently stronger competition. Coleman and Bernard Sullivan rode their respective benches.
Clemson has gone hard after guys like Malcolm Brogdon, Jawun Evans, A.J. Davis, Marcus Sheffield and Kenny Gaines. But when they've missed - second-place finishes that Brownell's successful predecessor grew all too familiar with and frustrated by, too - Brownell got caught for awhile in a cycle of having to settle for filler or reaches.
Facilities upgrades are needed and should help, but I would be cautious about overstating their significance. I feel they will more so negate Clemson's disadvantages than become an advantage. I'm skeptical the Tigers suddenly recruit on Virginia's level because of facilities alone; but it should keep prospects from discounting the program because basketball is such an apparent afterthought.
Clemson basketball is not an easy sell. What makes Clemson football, SEC football, Tobacco Road basketball what they are? The passion of the fan base, and thus the resources and luxuries afforded from that interest. There's a trickle-down effect. Clemson basketball has to start with the consistent winning, and that's a challenging road to hoe.
Oliver Purnell's greatest asset was that he made Clemson's style of play entertaining -- and if you can't be good, you'd better be interesting. They were fun and dramatic.
Just my two cents and 2,000 words, haha. But Brownell had an impossible act to follow. I'm not so sure Purnell thought odds were great they could sustain their run, but I am sure it didn't sit well that a string of NCAA Tournament appearances weren't viewed by many as good enough any longer.
I think the lesson that should have been learned the first time around is, be careful about letting expectations exceed reason.
This post was edited on 3/20 4:49 PM by Paul Strelow
