Which program is positioned best for long-term success?

[Milwaukee]

Clemson.

 

[Peacone36]

I am assuming AD is the primary front court player next year but he isn't a 30 min guy and we are going to have to have someone play the 4.

To make the tourney I think we have to have an ACC level grad transfer big. Plus someone emerge so JO isn't the routine 4 (some small ball expected).

We can improve and probably sniff the bubbly without this but to actually make it we have to have more in the front court than just AD.

absolutely agree. I think we need a GradX big. To put too much faith in developmental guys is sketchy. Im still a Vess fan as well. Here's to his health!

 

[Silk3]

It is not out of the realm of possibility that we make the tournament NEXT YEAR, but a lot of things will have to go right:

1. Josh returns
2. Everyone gets and stays healthy
3. Michael Devoe is as good as advertised.
4. One of Wright or Cole makes the 2nd year leap to a quality ACC player
5. One of Kristian Sjolund or Khalid Moore is able to contribute meaningfully as a freshman.
6. With Devoe, Alvarado, CGB, Okogie etc our 3 point shooting makes a quantum leap to near 40%
7. Everyone else continues to improve.

After a season where seemingly everything went wrong, maybe we're do for some good luck

I think of course Okogie returning is needed, also thing Phillips is going to be a big key and think hes going to be good for us. Lastly we need a good talented big man grad transfer. I dont think we have 1 big on current roster that is ACC starter/big minute caliber. Rlly rlly need to land someone badly unless were planning on going 5 guards and forwards

 

[alagold]

Wow, Tech the most likely?Really?
I think Pastner has no better than a 50% chance of lasting past 2020.If he doesn't get some real bigs and soon next yr will be a struggle.Besides Pitt who do we plan to beat? That's assuming his legal problem go away and don't hurting recruiting even more. So that makes the next yr CRITICAL.
So we could start over again in '21.

 

[CuseJacket]

I was thinking this conversation would be way more coach agnostic than a lot of posters are suggesting. Sure, some long-term success might be tied to current coaches and immediate results. My opinion is that long-term success is more tied to the schools, their built-in advantages and far longer history of success (or lack thereof).

Even if there are ebbs and flows of success year-to-year or coach-to-coach, do folks believe the three schools are on equal footing? In other words, plug in the same relative coach at each school, all three will perform relatively the same over time? I'm wavering on this assumption.

 

[Peacone36]

Wow, Tech the most likely?Really?
I think Pastner has no better than a 50% chance of lasting past 2020.If he doesn't get some real bigs and soon next yr will be a struggle.Besides Pitt who do we plan to beat? That's assuming his legal problem go away and don't hurting recruiting even more. So that makes the next yr CRITICAL.
So we could start over again in '21.

Apart from Duke do you see any teams left in the sweet 16 that have dominant bigs?

Michigan stomped on A&M while at a clear interior disadvantage last night.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Florida State

 

[jacketup]

I voted FSU but in full disclosure I have a relative who is affiliated with the program. Gotta cool pic from the Sweet 16 but I digress.

Clemson has money but lacks tradition. Location hurts them. They will spend more money on buying football players than they will on basketball, and buying players is always the key to Clemson success. I Pay Two Athletes Yearly.

We have lots going for us if our athletic administration gets it together. Great location and decent tradition. I have faith in Pastner, but if the program hasn't shown a lot of progress by the 2019-20 season-- send out the hook. Homer would.

FSU has money, a decent location (not as good as the ATL) but no real tradition. Football will always be first. Right now they are seen as better than us; if we can get over that hump our long term prospects are better than theirs.

 

[YlJacket]

I was thinking this conversation would be way more coach agnostic than a lot of posters are suggesting. Sure, some long-term success might be tied to current coaches and immediate results. My opinion is that long-term success is more tied to the schools, their built-in advantages and far longer history of success (or lack thereof).

Even if there are ebbs and flows of success year-to-year or coach-to-coach, do folks believe the three schools are on equal footing? In other words, plug in the same relative coach at each school, all three will perform relatively the same over time? I'm wavering on this assumption.

I would love to say that because we had Cremins and Hewitt's short term magical mystery tour combined with Atlanta we had more long term potential than 2 schools I would define as close to football only. I understand that thought process. But I voted for FSU as they are currently doing it and we have yet to prove we can get out of the hole we dug for ourselves. Not that I think we can't do it or won't do it but there is a big amount of inertia we have to prove we can overcome. Need to show me. Now if FSU and GT were on the same level currently I would vote GT but that isn't reality.

 

[Silk3]

I want to vote for GT and believe we have potential but its hard to pick us over FSU when they are currently in the elite 8 and bringing in more talent then us

 

[LawTalkin Jacket]

Apart from Duke do you see any teams left in the sweet 16 that have dominant bigs?

Michigan stomped on A&M while at a clear interior disadvantage last night.

FSU

 

[Peacone36]

FSU

They don’t have a dominant big. They have five 6’6 athletic as **** guys and a couple guys that block some shots

 

[awbuzz]

... if the FBI and NCAA enforce rules... then GT for sure...

 

[jacketup]

They don’t have a dominant big. They have five 6’6 athletic as **** guys and a couple guys that block some shots

Reminds me of Denny Crum's Louisville teams. He liked for his big athletic guards to post up smaller guards. Hewitt tried that same West Coast philosophy--he and Crum both have West Coast coaching roots-- but it doesn't work as well with the 3 point rule and a shot clock.

Crum was a very vocal opponent of the 3 point rule. Seems like it would have worked in his favor if he had been willing to bend a bit. He didn't and was pushed into retirement as I recall.

 

[slugboy]

I voted for Clemson, but watching MJ Walker playing, I'm just really impressed with FSU's recruiting.

 

[Techster]

I voted for Clemson, but watching MJ Walker playing, I'm just really impressed with FSU's recruiting.

MJ Walker would be playing starter minutes at GT...at least that's what I was telling myself. The guy is super athletic, but it seems like he can never get in the groove with the minutes he's getting because of all the guys FSU plays. He definitely would be averaging more than 7pts a game at GT.