Clemson was thew equivalent of Mississippi State football in ACC basketball but a hundred times worse. They have NEVER been successful. EVER. Not even a little two year run...they have made the tournament a couple of times but were never a threat until this year (NIT runner up last year). They would literally have given their right arm to have the fan support that LSU does. They have gotten better each year and if they had any free throw shooters on their team they could have won the ACC this year. This is his first stint at a big school. I was going by big time experience.
Just so folks have the facts... here's his bio: http://clemsontigers.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/purnell_oliver00.html Here's my take. Alleva, much like the sensible folks close to LSU hoops (like me :lol, realize that less "turmoil" is better than more. Alleva would like to start the interviewing with experienced, head coaching candidates at the "mid to upper" tier of established coaches at premier conferences, Mike Brey of ND, Purnell at Clemson, Johnson at Stanford, etc. These late 40-ish, early 50-ish guys have arguably a better chance of retaining Pierre, which will lead to the least amount of turmoil and smoothest transition. You hopefully get Pierre to stay on, and get a new, respectable head coach with street cred and a fresh attitude. Certainly not a bad idea. And, Alleva, as a basketball guy also brings credibility to that discussion. I would comb all of the coaching ranks for that "next tier" of established guy at a hoops conference... Jamie Dixon from Pitt would be another guy I throw in that mix. Guys that likely aren't ever going to be the number 1 guys in the ACC or Big East, but in the SEC? Dethrone Billy D and Billy G and beat up on the likes of Gottfriend, Stansbury--a very realistic opportunity. :geauxtige
Just to add to what you're saying. They haven't beat UNC in some 90+ meetings (if my numbers are off, let me know), and I think their win against Duke in the ACC Tourny was one of their 1st wins (if not the 1st win) against them ever.
As I made my last post, tho', consider his last 10+ years of coaching... 1994-95 Dayton Head Coach 7-20 .259 1995-96 Dayton Head Coach 15-14 .517 1996-97 Dayton Head Coach 13-14 .481 1997-98 Dayton Head Coach 21-12 .636 NIT, 2nd round 1998-99 Dayton Head Coach 11-17 .393 1999-00 Dayton Head Coach 22-9 .710 NCAA, 1st round 2000-01 Dayton Head Coach 21-13 .617 NIT, 3rd round 2001-02 Dayton Head Coach 21-11 .656 NIT, 2nd round 2002-03 Dayton Head Coach 24-6 .800 NCAA, 1st Round 2003-04 Clemson Head Coach 10-18 .357 2004-05 Clemson Head Coach 16-16 .500 NIT, 1st round 2005-06 Clemson Head Coach 19-13 .594 NIT, 2nd round 2006-07 Clemson Head Coach 25-11 .694 NIT, Championship Game I ask you. Is this so much different than John Brady's record? Alot of NIT, first round losses in the NCAAs, and some years in between not making it. Granted, in the last 4 years, Clemson has been in the upswing... but, for all of those folks that bashed Brady's record, consider above.
Took over a 7 win Dayton. He left them a 4-straight 20-win season guy. Took over Clemson, one of the worst BCS conference programs in the country. Left them as a NCAA team, b/c you failed to add their 20+ win season to his 07-08 Clemson resume. Brady had scattered success. Never sustained success. Oliver Purnell is one of the best coaches in the country.
I still take issue with this statement, when you consider Brady's "scattered success" included some seasons with 18-20+ win seasons and post season trips much like Purnell (if not better than)... from 1999-2006, Brady's success is comparable when you consider that in that time Brady went to the Sweet 16 and the Final Four. Something Purnell still hasn't done. But, oh well, folks can differ. In any case, your man is OUT. So, debate is moot. http://www.2theadvocate.com/sports/17413169.html?showAll=y&c=y It continues to get interesting folks. Grant never offered? Ford pulls out? What ever happened to the some of the rumor mongers on the board, eh?:rofl::rofl::rofl: Alleva's pulling something out of the sleeve here, eh?
It is a moot point now, but... Trying to evenly compare a coaches success at different schools is the absolute worst evaluation tool in all of sports. Brady's success is nowhere near what Purnell is doing at Clemson right now. Purnell is completely building a program. Not rebuilding. There is a lot more to basketball than wins and losses. Purnell has cleaned up the program from the inside. He has focused on bringing the prestige to the community where they can be proud to support the program -- and that is a lot harder than it looks on paper. He does all he can to get the pub they need. He would have brought people to the PMAC even if we only won 19-20 games, something MANY coaches couldn't do. I've noticed you tend to go look at records and tournament appearances a lot on here and that does not paint a fair picture as to what someone can do at another school. Dayton is successful today because Purnell changed the environment around. If you were to ask most ACC coaches who impresses them the most he would be at the top of the list every time. And that is not an opinion.
First, not sure I understand the distinction. Brady took over a program every bit in shambles. Whether you build or rebuild, you're having to restore momentum. Brady brought his team to the Sweet 16 just a couple years after taking over, and won the SEC. That isn't coaching? To your second point. I guess, it's a foreign concept to some folks... winning and losing? I'd say that this is how you should ALWAYS measure coaching, at a baseline level. True, in college hoops wins and losses at various schools, in different conferences, lends some subjectivity to the debate... but at the end of the day, if we're judging a coach on results you look at wins and losses. Underlying your statement tho, is certainly a valid point, which is how high do you value "character"? You don't believe Brady has as much "character" as Purnell. So, I take it you'd rather have a guy in here like Dale Brown who builds up the program in ways other than winning---I don't necessarily disagree. My only point was that Purnell's record at Clemson wasn't all that impressive to me. To be the third or fourth best team in the ACC (which is generally down, depth wise) in his best year and to not have gotten past the second round of the NCAAs is something that many folks on this board would argue is not "sustained" success... Lastly, truth be told, I don't think what other coaches think is necessarily a great indicator either. Brady was certainly liked/respected by SEC coaches... alot more than by the fans.
