Building the case for Clemson

[Klemnop]

Before I get started I want to take full responsibility for the implosion of the remainder of Clemson's season that will be caused as a result of this thread. I know the inevitable end result of my actions...and yet I can't help myself.

That said, where - FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY - is the mention of Clemson in the NCAAT discussion? Seriously, what the hell?

loran16's ACC Efficiency Rankings really got me thinking about this - along with (my perceived) slights by every local/national media outlet.

Starting with ACC Efficiency: Clemson is 3rd overall without qualifier. CLEARLY 3rd overall with non-Wake factor. CLEARLY #1 when looking at home court performance..and havinvg played 5 of 9 thus far in the schedule on the road. No disrespect to loran16...but you'd think those results would have merited at least some head-scratching within the thread? But, like just about eveyone else, Clemson's actual results seemed to be dismissed in favor of the perception that they're not meaningful.

How about Pomeroy? Pomeroy sees Clemson as the 4th best team in the ACC (#30) sandwiched between Maryland's 21 and VaTech's 32. FSU - everyone's trendy pick last week for 2nd place contender is #44...and has an 18 point loss to Clemson on their resume. Pomeroy projects Clemson to finish 10-6 - and one of the losses is essentially a coinflip at Littlejohn vs. UNC. Yet even Pomeroy can't bring himself to give Clemson the benefit of the doubt, forecasting a 9-7 finish in spite of the individual game projections.

RPI shows Clemson (depending on whose RPI you use) anywhere from 60-70. OK, OK. Guilty. Weak non-conference schedule without anything remotely resembling a signature victory. But, dadgummit, is RPI the ONLY measure we're going to use in this evaluation? (I'll be back to this thought a bit later...)

Lunardi's most recent Bracketology from this afternoon includes the following "Last Four In":
MoState, WASU, Baylor, Richmond

MoState?!?! Checks in as Pomeroy #80. One win over a Pomeroy Top 100 (Witchita State.) Losses to FOUR teams in the Pomery +100. FOUR! Why are we impressed? Seriously? Because RPI has them at 48? because we're obligetd to take mid-major teams now just as an arbitrary measure?

WASU? Pomeroy #41. Good home W vs. #13 UW. Good Neutral court W vs. #50 Baylor. #68 RPI. Project to finish 10-8 in 5th rated PAC10.

Baylor? Pomeroy #50. RPI #78. Project to finish 8-8, 19-11. ONE W over a Pomeroy Top 50 team (@ aTm last Saturday in OT.)

Richmond? Pomeroy #53. RPI #75. Awesome W against Purdue on a neutral court. Not a single other W vs. a Pomeroy Top 50 team. BAD losses to #84 Bucknell and #127(!) Rhode Island at home. Loss to GaTech on a NEUTRAL court (Clemson swept Tech with two double digit victories.)

BC, by the way, is firmly in the field in the forecast. BC?!?!?! Pomeroy #75. RPI #43. Projects to 8-8, 18-12. (8-8 vs. Clemson's 9-7/10-6.?!?!?!) BAD home losses to Harvard, Yale and Rhode Island (why isn't Rhode Island on the bubble?) One very good road W @Maryland. Neutral court W over aTm.

Then there's Clemson. Pomeroy #30. RPI #72. Worst losses are @ arch rival South Carolina (Pomeroy #106) and @UVa (#127). ONE W over a Pomeroy Top 50 team (vs. FSU.) Road Ws @College of Charleston (Pomeroy 79) and GaTech (Pomeroy 81.) Neutal W over Seton Hall (Pomeroy 64.) Not that impressive, right? Well, actually it seems pretty damn competitive with the resumes of the other "bubble" teams doesn't it? Doesn't it? Or is it just me? Shouldn't Clemson at least be in the conversation?

Or how about this: Clemson has zero double digit losses. Four of their seven losses are by 5 points or less. Three are by 2 or less. (If you're wondering they have only one "close" Win, OT, neutral court, vs. Seton Hall...otherwise they are winning comfortably.)

Or how about this: Clemson took its exams immediately following the 3rd loss in a 3 game losing streak (vs. Michigan, @SC, @FSU.) Leading up to that game Demontez Stitt was hobbled and waiting to have his knee scoped during the exam break. After the exam break - and with a fully healthy Stitt - Clemson is 11-3 with all three losses on the road, two of them by TWO points (@UMd and @UVa) and the 3rd @UNC. All three games were within TWO points within the last two minutes of the game and Clemson actually had possession of the ball with a chance to win as time expired in 2 of the 3.

Not coincidentally the semester exam break gave Brad Brownell a chance to focus some much needed energy on installing some offensive principles.

So, riddle me this: Why no mention of Clemson in the conversation? I'm not arguing that they should be firmly in the field or anything. But they've got to at least be in the conversation. Unfortunately I fear that in recent years the Selection Committee has been more and more shaped by the conversation of the pundits and the pressure to insert or exclude teams based national perception.

Winning cures all ills. RPI improves. Conference standing becomes more clear. head-to-head match-ups help define who you are. Finishing strong counts for something. But I just don't get why Clemson isn't being talked about when these other teams are getting prime time.

For those of you that like to wager, go haead and make massive bets on BC for Tuesday night. I've applied the jinx. It's out there. Oh well.

Klem

[Duke: A Dynasty]

0_o uhhh... wow..

I see your point an I am in agreement. And now the losses will start stacking up for them.. good job

[devildeac]

Before I get started I want to take full responsibility for the implosion of the remainder of Clemson's season that will be caused as a result of this thread. I know the inevitable end result of my actions...and yet I can't help myself.

That said, where - FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY - is the mention of Clemson in the NCAAT discussion? Seriously, what the hell?

loran16's ACC Efficiency Rankings really got me thinking about this - along with (my perceived) slights by every local/national media outlet.

Starting with ACC Efficiency: Clemson is 3rd overall without qualifier. CLEARLY 3rd overall with non-Wake factor. CLEARLY #1 when looking at home court performance..and havinvg played 5 of 9 thus far in the schedule on the road. No disrespect to loran16...but you'd think those results would have merited at least some head-scratching within the thread? But, like just about eveyone else, Clemson's actual results seemed to be dismissed in favor of the perception that they're not meaningful.

How about Pomeroy? Pomeroy sees Clemson as the 4th best team in the ACC (#30) sandwiched between Maryland's 21 and VaTech's 32. FSU - everyone's trendy pick last week for 2nd place contender is #44...and has an 18 point loss to Clemson on their resume. Pomeroy projects Clemson to finish 10-6 - and one of the losses is essentially a coinflip at Littlejohn vs. UNC. Yet even Pomeroy can't bring himself to give Clemson the benefit of the doubt, forecasting a 9-7 finish in spite of the individual game projections.

RPI shows Clemson (depending on whose RPI you use) anywhere from 60-70. OK, OK. Guilty. Weak non-conference schedule without anything remotely resembling a signature victory. But, dadgummit, is RPI the ONLY measure we're going to use in this evaluation? (I'll be back to this thought a bit later...)

Lunardi's most recent Bracketology from this afternoon includes the following "Last Four In":
MoState, WASU, Baylor, Richmond

MoState?!?! Checks in as Pomeroy #80. One win over a Pomeroy Top 100 (Witchita State.) Losses to FOUR teams in the Pomery +100. FOUR! Why are we impressed? Seriously? Because RPI has them at 48? because we're obligetd to take mid-major teams now just as an arbitrary measure?

WASU? Pomeroy #41. Good home W vs. #13 UW. Good Neutral court W vs. #50 Baylor. #68 RPI. Project to finish 10-8 in 5th rated PAC10.

Baylor? Pomeroy #50. RPI #78. Project to finish 8-8, 19-11. ONE W over a Pomeroy Top 50 team (@ aTm last Saturday in OT.)

Richmond? Pomeroy #53. RPI #75. Awesome W against Purdue on a neutral court. Not a single other W vs. a Pomeroy Top 50 team. BAD losses to #84 Bucknell and #127(!) Rhode Island at home. Loss to GaTech on a NEUTRAL court (Clemson swept Tech with two double digit victories.)

BC, by the way, is firmly in the field in the forecast. BC?!?!?! Pomeroy #75. RPI #43. Projects to 8-8, 18-12. (8-8 vs. Clemson's 9-7/10-6.?!?!?!) BAD home losses to Harvard, Yale and Rhode Island (why isn't Rhode Island on the bubble?) One very good road W @Maryland. Neutral court W over aTm.

Then there's Clemson. Pomeroy #30. RPI #72. Worst losses are @ arch rival South Carolina (Pomeroy #106) and @UVa (#127). ONE W over a Pomeroy Top 50 team (vs. FSU.) Road Ws @College of Charleston (Pomeroy 79) and GaTech (Pomeroy 81.) Neutal W over Seton Hall (Pomeroy 64.) Not that impressive, right? Well, actually it seems pretty damn competitive with the resumes of the other "bubble" teams doesn't it? Doesn't it? Or is it just me? Shouldn't Clemson at least be in the conversation?

Or how about this: Clemson has zero double digit losses. Four of their seven losses are by 5 points or less. Three are by 2 or less. (If you're wondering they have only one "close" Win, OT, neutral court, vs. Seton Hall...otherwise they are winning comfortably.)

Or how about this: Clemson took its exams immediately following the 3rd loss in a 3 game losing streak (vs. Michigan, @SC, @FSU.) Leading up to that game Demontez Stitt was hobbled and waiting to have his knee scoped during the exam break. After the exam break - and with a fully healthy Stitt - Clemson is 11-3 with all three losses on the road, two of them by TWO points (@UMd and @UVa) and the 3rd @UNC. All three games were within TWO points within the last two minutes of the game and Clemson actually had possession of the ball with a chance to win as time expired in 2 of the 3.

Not coincidentally the semester exam break gave Brad Brownell a chance to focus some much needed energy on installing some offensive principles.

So, riddle me this: Why no mention of Clemson in the conversation? I'm not arguing that they should be firmly in the field or anything. But they've got to at least be in the conversation. Unfortunately I fear that in recent years the Selection Committee has been more and more shaped by the conversation of the pundits and the pressure to insert or exclude teams based national perception.

Winning cures all ills. RPI improves. Conference standing becomes more clear. head-to-head match-ups help define who you are. Finishing strong counts for something. But I just don't get why Clemson isn't being talked about when these other teams are getting prime time.

For those of you that like to wager, go haead and make massive bets on BC for Tuesday night. I've applied the jinx. It's out there. Oh well.

Klem

Excellent analysis, Klem. Or should it be Clem? After all, doesn't the cheer start with: C-L-E-M...

Now, start winning in chappaheeya...

[rasputin]

Excellent analysis, Klem. Or should it be Clem? After all, doesn't the cheer start with: C-L-E-M...

Now, start winning in chappaheeya...

K (pause) L (pause) E (pause) M (pause) N (pause) O (pause, pause, pause) P!

[loran16]

Clemson has been amazing at home. The problem is that the committee and the rankings and the bracketologists all consider of key importance one's road wins.

Boston College for example, has a road win at Maryland to add to its neutral court win over Texas A&M.

Clemson meanwhile has 2 road wins: GT and C of C. Neither of those are good wins. And these guys hold it against a team like Clemson...until you prove you can win on the road against some form of opposition, you're not considered a real contender.

The efficiency statistics and pomeroy (based upon the same thing) agree with you that Clemson is better than people think. But there is a bias toward road wins...and right now that's biting Clemson.

EDIT: FWIW, I'm pretty sure week 2 when Clemson was on the top I mentioned that they were better than people thought, and I've been saying that in the other ACC games thread for a while. So, I'm with you here.

[hurleyfor3]

So, riddle me this: Why no mention of Clemson in the conversation? I'm not arguing that they should be firmly in the field or anything. But they've got to at least be in the conversation. Unfortunately I fear that in recent years the Selection Committee has been more and more shaped by the conversation of the pundits and the pressure to insert or exclude teams based national perception.

Winning cures all ills. RPI improves. Conference standing becomes more clear. head-to-head match-ups help define who you are. Finishing strong counts for something. But I just don't get why Clemson isn't being talked about when these other teams are getting prime time.

I think Clemson has to build the case for Clemson.

I believe the ACC will definitely get four bids, probably get five, and very possibly get six. A 10-6 record should do the trick, especially if the wins come against other ACC teams that finish near the top. But between unc and State/Wake no one has differentiated itself. So go out there and win some games!

[gumbomoop]

Clemson can do themselves [not to mention Duke] a lot of good this week. They have BC in Littlejohn on Tuesday, then an extra day of rest before their revenge game against UNC, also Littlejohn, Sat aft. Should they win [well, yes, they should] tomorrow eve, and should the Heels lose [ditto] Wed eve, then the Tigers have an opportunity to get a big win on Sat.

[gofurman]

Clemson can do themselves [not to mention Duke] a lot of good this week. They have BC in Littlejohn on Tuesday, then an extra day of rest before their revenge game against UNC, also Littlejohn, Sat aft. Should they win [well, yes, they should] tomorrow eve, and should the Heels lose [ditto] Wed eve, then the Tigers have an opportunity to get a big win on Sat.

Klem - I was thinking the same thing tonight (far less detail).. I looked at ACC standings and overall and wondered how come CU is gettin' no love?

Beat BC and UNC and I can just 'about guarantee you will be in the talks and deserve it - that would be 7-4 ACC and 18-7 overall. No one can talk about an ACC team like that and not include them as a highly likely tourney team. 18-7 with a win over UNC would put you in the real discussion.

Please, please beat the tarheels

fwiw, clemson is far far better at home than on the road. Yet they show they are a good team bc on the road they lose close (2 pts to Maryland and UVA) and they kill people at home. The worthless average of those home and away means clemson is probably 5-10 pts better than most of the acc on a neutral court. Also, Clemson is learning a new system w Brownell and so that should be accounted for at least some...

And per that system, they seem to be improving - getting their first road win the other day

[tieguy]

The problem, Klem, is that you're basing most of your argument on a ratings system that is based on sane, modern analysis. And quite demonstrably the committee looks mostly at RPI. So unless you power through and get some "signature wins" you won't be in the discussion. You've changed my mind, but you're not going to change the NCAA's mind until the NCAA wises up to modern statistical analysis, and that isn't happening this year. (We could start a betting pool: which happens first, the NCAA ditches or modernizes the RPI; or Clemson wins in CH? My money is probably on the NCAA, but not by much...)

~tieguy

[gw67]

Sorry,

I scewed up and posted the following in another thread.

Originally Posted by gw67
I came away from yesterday's game against the Terps impressed by the Clemson team and their new coach, Brownell. They hung with Maryland to the very end although the Terps were playing much better than they did against VT. Brownell had his team well prepared and he seemed to make several good moves to keep his team from being blown out in the first half as the Terps were uncharacteristically hot from behind the three-point line. He then kept them close late in the second half and would have won the game if the Terps, again uncharacteristically, hadn't made some foul shots at the end. There are a lot of things to like about Clemson besides their coach. Their three person big man rotation of Grant, Booker and Jennings may be the best in the ACC, IMO. They attack the boards, play defense and each can step out and hit a jumper. Their backcourt of Stitt and Young is underrated. Both are good outside shooters, passers and ballhandlers, and Stitt can take it to the basket. Smith didn't play yesterday and Narcisse stepped in. Smith is a nice wing player who helps in a number of areas and is an above average defensive player. It appears that the Tigers are a little weak off the bench in the backcourt so Stitt and Young play a bunch of minutes.

One thing that I liked seeing in yesterday's game, as compared to the game against VT, was the good sportsmanship demonstrated by both teams. On at least four occasions, there were strong fouls or physical play underneath the basket and in all instances the youngsters involved helped one another off the floor and either shook hands or gave a pat to the back or shoulder. Purnell installed good fundamentals and a good attitude with his teams and Brownell seems to be carrying on with this approach.

Klem,

Following the Maryland game earlier this season, I gave the Tigers some love (see above). This year's team is not your Dad's Clemson team. They shoot well from the field and foul line, share the ball and their big men are effective but a little less physical than in the past (I still recall when Chris Hobbs got upset, picked up Tahj Holden and tried to plant him in the floor with a move the pro wrestlers would be proud of.) IMO, they are a better all around team than BC, which is sort of a one-trick pony, and I expect them to win tonight at home.

gw67

[gumbomoop]

It's true Clemson gets no respect so far. Eamonn Brennan doesn't include them among his ACC bubble-teams. [Brennan also has Duke at 7-1...]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch

Also true, as a couple of us have noted in this thread, that that can all change with 2 home wins this week: tonight v. BC, Sat v. UNC.

Close to make or break week for Tigers? Must beat BC. Badly need - for lots of reasons - to beat Heels.

[silverbax]

Win on the road, and then start complaining about the tournament. The reality is that by mid February, the majority of Clemson fans are already looking forward to football season.

[Klemnop]

Win on the road, and then start complaining about the tournament. The reality is that by mid February, the majority of Clemson fans are already looking forward to football season.

I'm not complaining about the Tournament Selection. Clemson's resume will be what it is come the second weekend in March.

I'm more interested to know why nobody in the regional/national media is talking about Clemson in the way-too-early Bubble discussion. As noted in the original post, it's not as if the current resumes of the teams being discussed is significantly better/different than Clemson's. And in a couple of cases the projections for how those teams will finish is significantly worse.

Clemson 65 @ GaTech 56 from THREE days ago says, "Hi". Which only serves to prove my point. The conversation seems to be entirely predicated on perception with little interest in reality.

[loran16]

I'm not complaining about the Tournament Selection. Clemson's resume will be what it is come the second weekend in March.

I'm more interested to know why nobody in the regional/national media is talking about Clemson in the way-too-early Bubble discussion. As noted in the original post, it's not as if the current resumes of the teams being discussed is significantly better/different than Clemson's. And in a couple of cases the projections for how those teams will finish is significantly worse.

Clemson 65 @ GaTech 56 from THREE days ago says, "Hi". Which only serves to prove my point. The conversation seems to be entirely predicated on perception with little interest in reality.

It was good that Clemson got a road win. But despite Carolina's loss, GT is NOT a good road win.

[Klemnop]

It's true Clemson gets no respect so far. Eamonn Brennan doesn't include them among his ACC bubble-teams. [Brennan also has Duke at 7-1...]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch

Also true, as a couple of us have noted in this thread, that that can all change with 2 home wins this week: tonight v. BC, Sat v. UNC.

Close to make or break week for Tigers? Must beat BC. Badly need - for lots of reasons - to beat Heels.

Whew! Clemson runs out to a large 2nd half lead and then lets BC slide back in before holding them at arm's length to close it out. Not an impressive win, IMO, but an important win.

That should effectively end any of this nonsense in ESPN Bracketology about BC being in the field and Clemson not even being in the discussion.

Huge, massive game vs. UNC on Saturday for Clemson. Last realistic shot for a signature win that would get everyone's attention. I know it's not what Duke fans want but I'll be pulling for 3OT in tomorrow night's game. And I wouldn't mind a UNC win for the chance at a massive let-down/trap game scenario to follow.

[devildeac]

Whew! Clemson runs out to a large 2nd half lead and then lets BC slide back in before holding them at arm's length to close it out. Not an impressive win, IMO, but an important win.

That should effectively end any of this nonsense in ESPN Bracketology about BC being in the field and Clemson not even being in the discussion.

Huge, massive game vs. UNC on Saturday for Clemson. Last realistic shot for a signature win that would get everyone's attention. I know it's not what Duke fans want but I'll be pulling for 3OT in tomorrow night's game. And I wouldn't mind a UNC win for the chance at a massive let-down/trap game scenario to follow.

"And I wouldn't mind a unc win..."

Sorry, Klem, ya just lost my share of the bail money with a statement like that.

(not that I'll ever have anything to worry about in my lifetime anyway)

[gumbomoop]

Huge, massive game vs. UNC on Saturday for Clemson. Last realistic shot for a signature win that would get everyone's attention. I know it's not what Duke fans want but I'll be pulling for 3OT in tomorrow night's game. And I wouldn't mind a UNC win for the chance at a massive let-down/trap game scenario to follow.

I don't think Clemson needs UNC to go 3 OTs. The Tigers already have the extra day's rest, and the Heels will be in an intense game even without the OTs.

Seems better for Clemson if Duke deflates UNC's momentum, which would sow some doubts to replace the Heels' current [over?]confidence.

But no matter what happens tonight, Tigers have their chance to win Sat aft.

[77devil]

Huge, massive game vs. UNC on Saturday for Clemson. Last realistic shot for a signature win that would get everyone's attention. I know it's not what Duke fans want but I'll be pulling for 3OT in tomorrow night's game. And I wouldn't mind a UNC win for the chance at a massive let-down/trap game scenario to follow.

Beat UNC on Saturday and Clemson should enter the tournament conversation.

[gumbomoop]

Although not quite a must win, Clemson does very badly need to whip the Heels this aft. Win today, and Clemson could certainly get to 10-6. If they lose, however, they could end up 8-8 and miss out.

I'll be interested to see whether Booker, Jennings, and even Narcisse are inspired enough by the home crowd to help the admirable Jerai Grant, who's played well enough to merit consideration for 2d team All-ACC.

Clemson has the extra day of rest and prep.

[devildeac]

Game on, Tigers. Are you ready to play, win and put yourselves on the ncaa ticket or roll over and slink away into the middle of the conference again?