Clemson - Where do they go from here?

[gw67]

Clemson is currently in 3rd place at 5-2 and they, arguably, have the easiest schedule remaining among the contenders. They don’t play either Duke or UNC and they play Wake once. They play Virginia twice, Florida State twice, Georgia Tech (away), Maryland, Virginia Tech, BC (away) and Wake (away). Pomeroy favors them in all but the Wake game. This is an opportunity for Purnell and his team to see if they can hang with the big boys of the conference and defeat the teams they should defeat. One of the great things about the ACC is that Clemson will be either challenged by others trying to make a statement for the NCAAT selection (BC, Virginia Tech, Florida State) or the bottom teams who just want a win against a top team. I will be surprised if the Tigers win more than 6 of their remaining 9 games. I expect them to finish at 11-5 or 10-6.

gw67

[RelativeWays]

Clemson's worst enemy has always been themselves. If they can play at a consistent level of heart, energy and intelligence, to paraphrase Michael Stipe, its crazy what they could've had. Wednesday nights victory won't be their first potential ACC statement game, they've had others. If the can maintain for the rest of the season then they can be really scary, instead of paper tigers.

[whereinthehellami]

Va Tech put on a clinic on how to beat the press the game before Duke played Clemson. I also think a team that zones Clemson (with an emphasis on Oglesby) can put the Tigers in a cage.

[dyedwab]

of a major breakthrough season for a couple of years now and this squad may have a shot to put it together.

They have a veteran team that has bought into Purnell's system, and they played higher level schedule before the ACC season than has been Clemson's habit. They needed to wrap their head around the idea of being able to play with the big boys....and nothing goes further in building confidence then a blowout win over one of them.

I wish they hadn't crushed us, but I like this Clemson team. I hope they build on this success, rather than have a letdown, like so many up and coming teams do after signature wins like this.

[alteran]

I will be surprised if the Tigers win more than 6 of their remaining 9 games. I expect them to finish at 11-5 or 10-6.

gw67

I think you nailed the over/under. Clemson probably isn't as good as we made them look the other night, but I'd be willing to bet on 7 out of 9 at 50/50 odds-- one expected loss, and one goof. Two goofs wouldn't shock me, obviously, which hits your scenario dead on.

[greybeard]

No one has mentioned an innovaction that Purnell implemented that might well revolutionize college team sports, not just basketball for years to come. While Purnell is a terrific leader and coach, at least in my opinion, and has shown himself to be that for years, we were introduced during the broadcast to an addition to his staff that made the pregame address to the team and spoke to them in huddles during time outs. Yeap, South Carolina's basketball team has its very own, very high end sports pyschologist working with the players on an ongoing and regular basis.

This, to me, is both startling and a little scary.

South Carolina is vulnerable because Booker is. The rest of their guys are good, but unless that pyschologist is also a magician, I think that those guys can perhaps play with anybody on any given night, but I do not know that any given night happens often enough. If Booker has to guard somebody, you really make him guard somebody, we're talking concentration now, and the game is close, I think the pychologist's effectiveness diminishes.

That said, can they play with the big boys? On any given night, absolutely. To really make an impact in March, that's what makes the games fun. I certainly wouldn't be ruling it out. But, a sports pyschologist, please, Oliver, lose the guy!

[CDu]

No one has mentioned an innovaction that Purnell implemented that might well revolutionize college team sports, not just basketball for years to come. While Purnell is a terrific leader and coach, at least in my opinion, and has shown himself to be that for years, we were introduced during the broadcast to an addition to his staff that made the pregame address to the team and spoke to them in huddles during time outs. Yeap, South Carolina's basketball team has its very own, very high end sports pyschologist working with the players on an ongoing and regular basis.

This, to me, is both startling and a little scary.

South Carolina is vulnerable because Booker is. The rest of their guys are good, but unless that pyschologist is also a magician, I think that those guys can perhaps play with anybody on any given night, but I do not know that any given night happens often enough. If Booker has to guard somebody, you really make him guard somebody, we're talking concentration now, and the game is close, I think the pychologist's effectiveness diminishes.

That said, can they play with the big boys? On any given night, absolutely. To really make an impact in March, that's what makes the games fun. I certainly wouldn't be ruling it out. But, a sports pyschologist, please, Oliver, lose the guy!

Are you just trying to make a joke about the real U of South Carolina by referring to Clemson by the name South Carolina?

[weezie]

With some kharma, the clemmies might just go to Cville and lose! You never know in the ACC..and the 'hoos rookie of the year might have a night for the ages!

[Tim1515]

I don't think it should be understated that Clemson, just like Virginia and Wake...had extra time off before playing Duke (at which point they got to scout Duke play another ACC team).

Some people might not this this is a big deal...but IMO it's huge. ACC play doesn't give teams much time to focus on the next opponent...especially not the players. If you don't think Clemson players watched Duke play Virginia with an idea of who they were going to guard and how to guard them...you're kidding yourself.

Clemson got incredibly up for Duke...i could definitely see a let down like with what Wake did...Georgetown...etc etc this year.

[greybeard]

Are you just trying to make a joke about the real U of South Carolina by referring to Clemson by the name South Carolina?

I take it that you didn't find the information about Pernell's using a sports pyschologist to help coach up his troups either startling or a bit scary. Cool.

And, well, I also take it that you didn't think that Booker's performance on the offensive end and blocking shots was not impacted by the reality that he was not forced to actually guard anyone. You really think that Booker is all that, can do what he did the other night whenever he wants. Dramatically cool.

And, you must think that a sports pyschologist should become a "must have" for every college sports team that wants to compete in the 2As and that the one Pernell has attached to his club who made his first appearance in a game the other night will continue to help produce the magic of animating a so-so bunch of other players (as compared to the universe of college players these days that is no slur) to play great as a team consistently. Far out, dude.

I hope I've answered your question?

[CDu]

I take it that you didn't find the information about Pernell's using a sports pyschologist to help coach up his troups either startling or a bit scary. Cool.

And, well, I also take it that you didn't think that Booker's performance on the offensive end and blocking shots was not impacted by the reality that he was not forced to actually guard anyone. You really think that Booker is all that, can do what he did the other night whenever he wants. Dramatically cool.

And, you must think that a sports pyschologist should become a "must have" for every college sports team that wants to compete in the 2As and that the one Pernell has attached to his club who made his first appearance in a game the other night will continue to help produce the magic of animating a so-so bunch of other players (as compared to the universe of college players these days that is no slur) to play great as a team consistently. Far out, dude.

I hope I've answered your question?

You actually didn't answer my question at all, but thanks for the rambling. I didn't really disagree all that much with the main point of your post, that for Clemson to be great Booker needs to bring it every night. My question was, quite simply, why did you repeatedly refer to Clemson as South Carolina? It was an honest question. I'm really not sure why you went on a big tangent and specifically didn't answer my question. A simple one or two sentence answer including "yes it was a joke" or "oops, I meant to say Clemson" would have done the trick.

[greybeard]

You actually didn't answer my question at all, but thanks for the rambling. I didn't really disagree all that much with the main point of your post, that for Clemson to be great Booker needs to bring it every night. My question was, quite simply, why did you repeatedly refer to Clemson as South Carolina? It was an honest question. I'm really not sure why you went on a big tangent and specifically didn't answer my question. A simple one or two sentence answer including "yes it was a joke" or "oops, I meant to say Clemson" would have done the trick.

It did not seem to me that the question was presented in good faith. I was caught off guard by the focus of your question and the tone I heard in it. The name of the school seems to me to be irrelevant, as compared to the substance of what I said. My answer I trust made that point clear. Sorry to have misunderstood your intent; thanks for sharing your thoughts, albeit belatedly, about the substance of what I said.

BTW, my point about Booker was that he really did not have anyone to guard and that let him loose: if that does not happen, I do not think that there is reason to believe that he will perform at the level we saw against Duke.

In addition, perhaps if you were less concerned about giving me a hard time, you would have recognized that the main point of the post was the one I began and ended with--namely, Purnell's use of a sports shrink to help him coach on a regular basis and even in a game. That to me was and remains noteworthy. Be interesting to see if he uses him in other games, or just home games, or just big ones, don't you think?

[CDu]

It did not seem to me that the question was presented in good faith. I was caught off guard by the focus of your question and the tone I heard in it. The name of the school seems to me to be irrelevant, as compared to the substance of what I said. My answer I trust made that point clear. Sorry to have misunderstood your intent; thanks for sharing your thoughts, albeit belatedly, about the substance of what I said.

BTW, my point about Booker was that he really did not have anyone to guard and that let him loose: if that does not happen, I do not think that there is reason to believe that he will perform at the level we saw against Duke.

In addition, perhaps if you were less concerned about giving me a hard time, you would have recognized that the main point of the post was the one I began and ended with--namely, Purnell's use of a sports shrink to help him coach on a regular basis and even in a game. That to me was and remains noteworthy. Be interesting to see if he uses him in other games, or just home games, or just big ones, don't you think?

I'm sorry that you completely misunderstood my intent, but why od you continue to refuse to actually answer my question? I wasn't giving you a hard time. The fact that you continue to say that suggests you continue to misread my post. It was a legitimate and honest question as I was (and still am) confused about that. You are being ultrasensitive. The substance wasn't that controversial, and I didn't have a strong feeling about it one way or the other. Sheesh.

I was (and still am) honestly confused by the South Carolina thing, and honestly was curious about why you did it. If it was a simple mistake, then a simple "oops" would have saved you lots of energy and me lots of time talking about something I'm not that motivated about. If there was a backstory joke about it, I was interested. But, perhaps if I continue to chat about your topic, you'll answer my question? I'll try.

If the sports psychologist works for them, I think there's nothing wrong with continuing to use him. The team does appear to have confidence issues (as evidenced by folding to UNC last year late in both games). It's not the first time a team has hired a sports psychologist and it won't be the last. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a thing as a sports psychologist. If it doesn't prove effective, they'll probably let him go. I suspect Purnell has a better feel for their needs than we do.

As for Booker, I don't think it's all about not having to defend that made him have a big night. He put up 21 and 13 against Va Tech while having to guard Jeff Allen in the game prior, and 23 and 6 with 6 blocks against NC St's big men. The guy has plenty of talent. There are several factors that helped, including who is guarding him (Thomas wasn't strong enough, Zoubek lacks the lateral quickness and probably the strength as well, Singler was in foul trouble and probably under the weather), how well his team is playing defense in the press (creates easy dunks which get him going), how well the team gets him the ball (Clemson can struggle in the half court sometimes), and how confident and fired up he is.

Anyway, now that I've (hopefully) met your requirement of discussing your thoughts with you, could you be polite enough to answer my simple question? Seriously, it shouldn't be this difficult. I'm kind of annoyed that you are continuing to refuse to answer my question simply because you misinterpreted the intent of my first post.

[greybeard]

I'm sorry that you completely misunderstood my intent, but why od you continue to refuse to actually answer my question? I wasn't giving you a hard time. The fact that you continue to say that suggests you continue to misread my post. It was a legitimate and honest question as I was (and still am) confused about that. You are being ultrasensitive. The substance wasn't that controversial, and I didn't have a strong feeling about it one way or the other. Sheesh.

I was (and still am) honestly confused by the South Carolina thing, and honestly was curious about why you did it. If it was a simple mistake, then a simple "oops" would have saved you lots of energy and me lots of time talking about something I'm not that motivated about. If there was a backstory joke about it, I was interested. But, perhaps if I continue to chat about your topic, you'll answer my question? I'll try.

If the sports psychologist works for them, I think there's nothing wrong with continuing to use him. The team does appear to have confidence issues (as evidenced by folding to UNC last year late in both games). It's not the first time a team has hired a sports psychologist and it won't be the last. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a thing as a sports psychologist. If it doesn't prove effective, they'll probably let him go. I suspect Purnell has a better feel for their needs than we do.

As for Booker, I don't think it's all about not having to defend that made him have a big night. He put up 21 and 13 against Va Tech while having to guard Jeff Allen in the game prior, and 23 and 6 with 6 blocks against NC St's big men. The guy has plenty of talent. There are several factors that helped, including who is guarding him (Thomas wasn't strong enough, Zoubek lacks the lateral quickness and probably the strength as well, Singler was in foul trouble and probably under the weather), how well his team is playing defense in the press (creates easy dunks which get him going), how well the team gets him the ball (Clemson can struggle in the half court sometimes), and how confident and fired up he is.

Anyway, now that I've (hopefully) met your requirement of discussing your thoughts with you, could you be polite enough to answer my simple question? Seriously, it shouldn't be this difficult. I'm kind of annoyed that you are continuing to refuse to answer my question simply because you misinterpreted the intent of my first post.

Oops.

[CDu]

Oops.

Ah, I guess my curiosity was reaching too deep on this one then. I had concocted some joke about the Clemson/SC rivalry in my head. Thanks for answering, though. Now we can perhaps put this series of miscommunications to bed.

[snowdenscold]

I take it that you didn't find the information about Pernell's using a sports pyschologist to help coach up his troups either startling or a bit scary. Cool.

And, well, I also take it that you didn't think that Booker's performance on the offensive end and blocking shots was not impacted by the reality that he was not forced to actually guard anyone. You really think that Booker is all that, can do what he did the other night whenever he wants. Dramatically cool.

And, you must think that a sports pyschologist should become a "must have" for every college sports team that wants to compete in the 2As and that the one Pernell has attached to his club who made his first appearance in a game the other night will continue to help produce the magic of animating a so-so bunch of other players (as compared to the universe of college players these days that is no slur) to play great as a team consistently. Far out, dude.

I hope I've answered your question?

I had a similar question as CDu's and didn't think this response made any sense in light of it.

[Vincetaylor]

Clemson should be commended for a great season and winning the regular season would be great for them. However, the fact that they only play Duke and UNC once each definitely would take away from the significance of that accomplishment. Winning the regular season isn't what it used to be because the teams play different schedules and some teams definitely have easier schedules than others.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

We purposely bombed the game at Clemson to make teams think that is how they should play against us to win. Its all a part of a bigger scheme that will ultimately lead team to our success in March as teams think pressing us is the only way to go.

All those turn overs we had were carefully planned and drawn out.

[Zeb]

Lighten up and learn to admit you're wrong.

[xenic]

Lighten up and learn to admit you're wrong.


Good to see that some things never change around here.... makes me feel like I'm not really missing anything by not being a regular.

[merry]

Clemson just blew a huge second half lead and lost at home to FSU.

[alteran]

Clemson just blew a huge second half lead and lost at home to FSU.

Classic.

[WojoSay?]

Clemson just blew a huge second half lead and lost at home to FSU.

Clemson w/ 3 ACC losses is a good thing!