Clemson and the chemistry issue
posted by LW, Thursday, March 18, 2010
The main problem with gauging the chemistry and camaraderie of a team is that those qualities -- or lack thereof -- are usually overwhelmingly dictated by wins and losses.
If a team is stringing victories together and playing well, beefs and grievances tend to be minimized and maybe even ignored.
If a team is sputtering and struggling to win, minor issues tend to get magnified into major issues.
Which brings us to the case of last year's Clemson team versus this year's Clemson team.
This year's players have regularly cited chemistry problems present on last year's team, albeit in vague terms. They say everything is hunky-dory now and that there's a night-and-day difference in terms of how the personalities mesh and work together.
I explored this topic recently, and Greg Wallace of the Independent-Mail addresses the chemistry issue in this story.
“This year we’re all on the same page, team chemistry is there,” Demontez Stitt said. “The vibe going into the tournament is a lot different. Any team that has good chemistry, you’re putting yourself with a better chance to win.
“When you’re not on the same page, guys are doing their own things, guys are having problems with other guys, that puts a barrier on the team. We have good team chemistry. Guys understand that when we lose, it’s because of a lack of execution, something we didn’t do on our part.”
So how bad was last year's chemistry? It's not too hard to read between the lines and determine that Terrence Oglesby is viewed as one of the main problems. He was beloved when he was drilling 3-pointers from just about everywhere. But when he went cold, his shot selection didn't exactly go over too well with others. And his defense was a major liability.
But would we be hearing anything about these chemistry problems had Clemson hit one or two more buckets and beaten Georgia Tech in the first round of the ACC Tournament? Would we be hearing about agendas and beefs had the Tigers pulled out a close one against Michigan in the first round of the NCAA Tournament?
I say no way. And I also submit that this season won't exactly be retroactively viewed as a love fest if Clemson doesn't manage to pull out a win over Missouri on Friday in Buffalo.
Oliver Purnell has always downplayed the chemistry problems from last year. He's not denying that they existed, but he thinks the much bigger problem was an absolute sieve of a defense that allowed opposing guards to pillage the Tigers down the stretch.
The defense has been much better this year, and Purnell thus feels more confident in the Tigers' chances.
"I really feel that we're in more solid shape this year."
So the U.S. Secretary of Education is calling for programs that don't graduate 40 percent of their players to be banned from the NCAA Tournament. Clemson is one of the 12 teams that would be banned from this year's field under that proposed restriction.
Representatives from the NCAA and Clemson correctly point out the major flaw of this reasoning: It penalizes players who weren't even around when the current graduation rates were compiled.
The APR measured six-year graduation rates for the freshman classes that entered from 1999-2000 through the 2002-03 school years.
NCAA spokesman Bob Williams told The Associated Press that a ban based on graduation rates unfairly penalizes current players for the academic performance of athletes from years ago.
Clemson University spokesman Tim Bourret agreed.
“Should a kid who entered Clemson in 1999 affect the ability of the team to go to the tournament in 2010?” Bourret said.
First off, the U.S. Secretary of Education probably has more pressing matters to tend to than the graduation rates of college basketball teams.
Aside from the problem of the numbers being severely dated, graduation rates in college athletics is probably a can of worms the Department of Education doesn't want to open.
If we're sincerely interested in addressing real problems with the concept of "student-athletes," let's talk about the academic rigor of the majors through which these graduation rates are compiled.
At Clemson and just about everywhere else, this stuff is largely a charade. So trying to get all high-and-mighty while attaching importance to graduation rates that were compiled seven years ago is a little silly and a lot off-target.
In The Post and Courier, Travis Sawchik lists the five keys to a Clemson victory.
Also in the Greenville News, a piece on the importance of Clemson's freshmen -- complete with a gem of a headline:
Freshman man control Clemson's fate against Missouri on Friday
Ron Morris of The State says the Palmetto State rates as a hoops hotbed.
Man, imagine the possibilities if the following guys would've stuck around:
Ray Allen, Tyrone Corbin, Raymond Felton, Kevin Garnett, Xavier McDaniel, Jermaine O'Neal and Stanley Roberts.
No chemistry problems with Tanner Smith and Andre Young. Here's a good story on their friendship.
Pssst ... Missouri and Clemson like to run ... pass it on.
Tim Crothers of The ACC Sports Journal says it's put-up or shut-up time for the ACC in general, and Clemson in particular.
Clemson needs to live up to its seed for a change and win its opener to get into a game against West Virginia. The Mountaineers lack a dominant inside presence, so Trevor Booker is capable of being the best player on the floor. Stranger things have happened.
Rob Daniels, also of the ACC Sports Journal, sizes up the ACC's opponents in the NCAA Tournament. He departs from the conventional wisdom that Missouri is a good matchup for Clemson.
The Missouri Tigers force more turnovers than anybody in the country (19.3), and the Clemson Tigers give the ball away more often than two-thirds of Division I teams. Mizzou coach Mike Anderson is a disciple of the “Forty Minutes of Hell” defensive philosophy of Nolan Richardson. This is not a good matchup for Clemson.
Paul Hewitt is taking his players' cell phones away for the NCAA Tournament because it worked so well at the ACC Tournament.
His next move: Confiscating the laptops of the mean old media.
LW
Click here for the "Eye On The Tigers" blog archive.
Link to this entry - Discuss this entry - Return to Blog Home
The main problem with gauging the chemistry and camaraderie of a team is that those qualities -- or lack thereof -- are usually overwhelmingly dictated by wins and losses.
If a team is stringing victories together and playing well, beefs and grievances tend to be minimized and maybe even ignored.
If a team is sputtering and struggling to win, minor issues tend to get magnified into major issues.
Which brings us to the case of last year's Clemson team versus this year's Clemson team.
This year's players have regularly cited chemistry problems present on last year's team, albeit in vague terms. They say everything is hunky-dory now and that there's a night-and-day difference in terms of how the personalities mesh and work together.
I explored this topic recently, and Greg Wallace of the Independent-Mail addresses the chemistry issue in this story.
“This year we’re all on the same page, team chemistry is there,” Demontez Stitt said. “The vibe going into the tournament is a lot different. Any team that has good chemistry, you’re putting yourself with a better chance to win.
“When you’re not on the same page, guys are doing their own things, guys are having problems with other guys, that puts a barrier on the team. We have good team chemistry. Guys understand that when we lose, it’s because of a lack of execution, something we didn’t do on our part.”
So how bad was last year's chemistry? It's not too hard to read between the lines and determine that Terrence Oglesby is viewed as one of the main problems. He was beloved when he was drilling 3-pointers from just about everywhere. But when he went cold, his shot selection didn't exactly go over too well with others. And his defense was a major liability.
But would we be hearing anything about these chemistry problems had Clemson hit one or two more buckets and beaten Georgia Tech in the first round of the ACC Tournament? Would we be hearing about agendas and beefs had the Tigers pulled out a close one against Michigan in the first round of the NCAA Tournament?
I say no way. And I also submit that this season won't exactly be retroactively viewed as a love fest if Clemson doesn't manage to pull out a win over Missouri on Friday in Buffalo.
Oliver Purnell has always downplayed the chemistry problems from last year. He's not denying that they existed, but he thinks the much bigger problem was an absolute sieve of a defense that allowed opposing guards to pillage the Tigers down the stretch.
The defense has been much better this year, and Purnell thus feels more confident in the Tigers' chances.
"I really feel that we're in more solid shape this year."
So the U.S. Secretary of Education is calling for programs that don't graduate 40 percent of their players to be banned from the NCAA Tournament. Clemson is one of the 12 teams that would be banned from this year's field under that proposed restriction.
Representatives from the NCAA and Clemson correctly point out the major flaw of this reasoning: It penalizes players who weren't even around when the current graduation rates were compiled.
The APR measured six-year graduation rates for the freshman classes that entered from 1999-2000 through the 2002-03 school years.
NCAA spokesman Bob Williams told The Associated Press that a ban based on graduation rates unfairly penalizes current players for the academic performance of athletes from years ago.
Clemson University spokesman Tim Bourret agreed.
“Should a kid who entered Clemson in 1999 affect the ability of the team to go to the tournament in 2010?” Bourret said.
First off, the U.S. Secretary of Education probably has more pressing matters to tend to than the graduation rates of college basketball teams.
Aside from the problem of the numbers being severely dated, graduation rates in college athletics is probably a can of worms the Department of Education doesn't want to open.
If we're sincerely interested in addressing real problems with the concept of "student-athletes," let's talk about the academic rigor of the majors through which these graduation rates are compiled.
At Clemson and just about everywhere else, this stuff is largely a charade. So trying to get all high-and-mighty while attaching importance to graduation rates that were compiled seven years ago is a little silly and a lot off-target.
In The Post and Courier, Travis Sawchik lists the five keys to a Clemson victory.
Also in the Greenville News, a piece on the importance of Clemson's freshmen -- complete with a gem of a headline:
Freshman man control Clemson's fate against Missouri on Friday
Ron Morris of The State says the Palmetto State rates as a hoops hotbed.
Man, imagine the possibilities if the following guys would've stuck around:
Ray Allen, Tyrone Corbin, Raymond Felton, Kevin Garnett, Xavier McDaniel, Jermaine O'Neal and Stanley Roberts.
No chemistry problems with Tanner Smith and Andre Young. Here's a good story on their friendship.
Pssst ... Missouri and Clemson like to run ... pass it on.
Tim Crothers of The ACC Sports Journal says it's put-up or shut-up time for the ACC in general, and Clemson in particular.
Clemson needs to live up to its seed for a change and win its opener to get into a game against West Virginia. The Mountaineers lack a dominant inside presence, so Trevor Booker is capable of being the best player on the floor. Stranger things have happened.
Rob Daniels, also of the ACC Sports Journal, sizes up the ACC's opponents in the NCAA Tournament. He departs from the conventional wisdom that Missouri is a good matchup for Clemson.
The Missouri Tigers force more turnovers than anybody in the country (19.3), and the Clemson Tigers give the ball away more often than two-thirds of Division I teams. Mizzou coach Mike Anderson is a disciple of the “Forty Minutes of Hell” defensive philosophy of Nolan Richardson. This is not a good matchup for Clemson.
Paul Hewitt is taking his players' cell phones away for the NCAA Tournament because it worked so well at the ACC Tournament.
His next move: Confiscating the laptops of the mean old media.
LW
Click here for the "Eye On The Tigers" blog archive.
Link to this entry - Discuss this entry - Return to Blog Home
Donnie Patterson. Donnie Patterson is the founder of Patterson Tax Service, located in Easley, S.C. He has been active in tax preparation since 1970, and offers a full range of tax and bookkeeping services.
Larry Williams. Larry has covered the daily beat at Clemson since 2004. Williams, who worked for the Charleston Post & Courier from 2004-08, joined Tigerillustrated.com in November of 2008. He may be reached by email at ldubya08(at)gmail.com. Replace (at) with @.