Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
The ACC under Barnes, Purnell, and Brownell- the numbers
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 22
| visibility 1

The ACC under Barnes, Purnell, and Brownell- the numbers


Mar 28, 2019, 1:33 PM

Rick Barnes – 1994 – 1998 (4 Seasons)
The average SOS for the ACC during Barnes tenure was 9.99. The ACC was ranked 1st in SOS 3 of this four years. The average rank of the ACC’s SOS during Barnes tenure is 1.25 During that time, we had 1 NIT and 3 NCAAT appearances

Oliver Purnell: 2003 – 2010 (7 Seasons)
The average SOS for the ACC during Purnell’s tenure was 8.33 The ACC was ranked 1st in SOS 4 times during his tenure. The average rank for the conference was 2.4 over that time. During that time, Purnell took Clemson to 3 NIT’s and 3 NCAAT’s.

Brad Brownell: 2010 – 2019 (9 Seasons)
The average SOS of the ACC during Brownell’s tenure is 7.85. The ACC has never been ranked first in SOS during Brownell’s tenure, and the average ranking over the 9 years is 3.5. During that time, Brownell has taken Clemson to 3 NIT’s and 2 NCAATs. He has missed the postseason all together 4 times.



Tell me more about how it was easier for Barnes and Purnell, and how it’s been tougher for Brownell to succeed.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I think that's more about Swofford raiding the Big East


Mar 28, 2019, 1:36 PM

and then stifling those programs once they got into the ACC.

Remember when Pitt and Cuse used to be national powers in Hoops?
That ended once they fell in line behind the baby blue flagship.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I think that's more about Swofford raiding the Big East


Mar 29, 2019, 2:13 PM

Wow. Did I just read this? Now ACC commish is intentionally stifling other programs ...

LOL. Wow.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The ACC under Barnes, Purnell, and Brownell- the numbers


Mar 28, 2019, 2:20 PM

One variable to consider. 14 ACC games vs 16 ACC games vs 18 ACC games and next year 20 ACC games. Fewer ACC games means fewer ACC road games and more home games against smaller schools. This both pumps up the win total and keeps losses down (numbers show it's hard to win ACC road games for all ACC teams).

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There's a reason that .500 in the ACC used to mean you're


Mar 28, 2019, 2:36 PM

a lock for the NCAA Tournament, and now 10-8 doesn't even mean you're a lock for the NIT (see 15-16). We used top play every team in the ACC twice, including Duke, UNC, and whatever other ACC teams were having great seasons. Now the only ACC teams we're guaranteed to play twice every year are Georgia Tech and Florida State. This year we also played NC State and Pittsburgh twice.

We got to .500 in the league even though we were 0-5 in games against teams that finished in the top-4. We were 2-3 against teams who finished 5-8th, and 7-1 in games against teams who finished 10th or worse.

Georgia Tech was the team that finished 10th and they finished they year 14-18 (6-12), 126th in the NET Ranking, and 150th in the RPI. Basically, 7 of our 9 conference wins were against really, really bad basketball teams.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Edit: Syracuse and Pitt twice


Mar 28, 2019, 2:38 PM

not NC State

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Our NET and the end of this year was 34.


Mar 28, 2019, 2:39 PM [ in reply to There's a reason that .500 in the ACC used to mean you're ]

If our ACC strength of schedule was so bad, how was our NET so good?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"All those 'Fire Brownell' guys can kiss it." -Joseph Girard III

"Everybody needs to know that Coach Brownell is arguably the best coach to come through Clemson." -PJ Hall


our SOS in the ACC was not very good... which equates to


Mar 28, 2019, 2:44 PM

9 wins

All you have to do is look at who we beat in conference. Our NET was higher b/c of all the upper tier teams we played. NET is a metric that includes multiple things.

It clearly wasn't good enough

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Our NET and the end of this year was 34.


Mar 28, 2019, 4:08 PM [ in reply to Our NET and the end of this year was 34. ]


If our ACC strength of schedule was so bad, how was our NET so good?


Because it’s a brand new metric that obviously wasn’t deemed very useful by the very organization that created it - hence our exclusion from the tournament.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Jstone D329 - “ It’s ok to want a coaching change”
Brownell @Clemson: 8 seasons ranked 50th or worse by Sports Reference’s SRS
1-29: Brad Brownell road record against ranked ACC opponents
142, 161, 294, 307, 293, 166, 225, 180, 260, 164, 141, 72, 68 - assist rankings amongst all D1 programs during Brownell's tenure


I suspect it had to do


Mar 29, 2019, 12:38 PM [ in reply to Our NET and the end of this year was 34. ]

With close losses to good teams.

I think the NET factored in margin of victory where RPI didn't, thus a close loss wasn't much different than a close win for the NET. Our final RPI was in the 60's and in the past you had to be in the 40's to even sniff a bid. I'm not sure the committee trusted the NET and probably looked at the RPI to some degree when issuing bids.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What metric are you using for SOS?


Mar 28, 2019, 4:16 PM

Just from watching the league i thought the ACC was easily at it's weakest during OP's tenure.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I used


Mar 29, 2019, 12:02 PM

www.sports-reference.com

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: The ACC under Barnes, Purnell, and Brownell- the numbers


Mar 28, 2019, 6:54 PM

ACC was MUCH tougher as an eight- or nine-team conference than it is now. Those bottom six programs this year were trash. There were no easy games in the old ACC. There are several this season.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There were occasionally some easy games in the old ACC


Mar 29, 2019, 11:41 AM

they just happened to be Clemson (or occasionally FSU).

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The ACC under Barnes, Purnell, and Brownell- the numbers


Mar 29, 2019, 12:03 PM

Wah wah wah

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

More Support for your schedule analysis


Mar 29, 2019, 12:43 PM

I had posted this earlier regarding the ACC and the dilution particularly among the bottom teams...

What I suspected is that the ACC is much more diluted from expansion than it was. Even now when they regularly put 6-8 teams in the tourney, by the numbers, it's not nearly as challenging as it was during Ellis coaching career.

Going back over Ellis 10 year span, ACC teams other than Clemson made the tourney 71% of the time! I knew it would be high but that was more than I expected.

Just a quick summary of the coaches ACC record vs relative strength of the league based on number of tournament teams in the league. (The percentage is the number of teams in the ACC that made the tournament during that coaches tenure)

Cliff Ellis / .384 / 71%
Rick Barnes / .438 / 56%
Larry Shyatt / .250 / 50%
Oliver Purnell / .464 49% *
Brad Brownell / .479 / 47% *

As you can see the league was significantly stronger during Ellis tenure. Barnes time was notably stronger than his successors, but Purnell & Brownell have benefited from expansion and/or a down ACC.

*In addition, the league moved to a 16 game unbalanced schedule in 2004/2005 when the 11 & 12 teams were added. Then moved to an 18 game unbalanced schedule in 2013/2014 for the second round of expansion. This would weaken our ACC schedule more as you no longer played every team twice. Given the numbers, it does make Brownell and Purnell look relatively equal. It also would show that Barnes and in particular Ellis winning percentages were impacted more by the strength of the league than the others.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

nice work... this goes back to my contention


Mar 29, 2019, 12:57 PM

that, while Brownell has won more ACC games than previous coaches, and has a fairly high winning %... those numbers aren't what they seem. He has absolutely benefited from the ACC being diluted.

His wins over his tenure have almost exclusively come against the bottom half. He has 17 wins in 9 years over teams that finish above .500 in ACC play, and only 11 in the last 7 years. During the Ellis and Barnes years, a win over a .500 team, or even a sub-.500 team in conference could have been a really good win.

That is why our 9-9 record doesn't get you an NCAAT look, where during the Barnes and Ellis years, .500 in conference basically made you a lock.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: nice work... this goes back to my contention


Mar 29, 2019, 1:06 PM

https://www.tigernet.com/forum/message/Brad-Brownell-by-the-numbers-25163871#25163871

I posted this earlier. You might find it interesting. Brownell plays easier competition than his predecessors and has dismal results when playing competitive teams in conference.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Jstone D329 - “ It’s ok to want a coaching change”
Brownell @Clemson: 8 seasons ranked 50th or worse by Sports Reference’s SRS
1-29: Brad Brownell road record against ranked ACC opponents
142, 161, 294, 307, 293, 166, 225, 180, 260, 164, 141, 72, 68 - assist rankings amongst all D1 programs during Brownell's tenure


That was good stuff... it amazes me, reading that thread,


Mar 29, 2019, 1:28 PM

how people try and combat facts by being "vague" and making assumptions

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


The problem with this analysis is that it assumes “getting


Mar 29, 2019, 1:10 PM [ in reply to More Support for your schedule analysis ]

I to the tournament” is based on a static set of criteria. Thus, 56% is better than 55%. But are we sure that’s the case? All I’ve heard this year is that they were pushing to get more mid-majors in so they can do more of the Cinderella stories.

Do Barnes’ two 7-9 teams get in this year?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


the numbers show that Brownell has not beaten enough


Mar 29, 2019, 1:24 PM

good teams over his tenure... period. That is a fact.

I think Barnes 7-9 absolutely has a great shot to get in, considering the SOS of the ACC then. There were a couple of 7-11 teams in consideration this year, and Barnes played a tougher SOS than they did.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


What is this “SOS of the ACC”? Is that strength of schedule?


Mar 29, 2019, 2:27 PM

And if so, wouldn’t SOS of Clemson be the only concern? Not the SOS of the whole conference.

Sorry if SOS means something else...hard to keep up with all the calculations used these days.

And just for the record, I am neither a passionate advocate to keep or remove CBB. Just want to make sure the analysis makes sense.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


It is essentially the strength of the conference...


Mar 29, 2019, 2:39 PM

It's the SOS within the conference... not the combined SOS of who everyone played. Basically, it is a measure of how difficult the conference as a whole is in an given year.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Replies: 22
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic