CUOrange Blog

Clemson Tiger Sports…and other stuff…

  • Blog Stats

    • 11,276 hits
  • You don’t ever know about a football coach until you get in a ditch. He worked his way out of a ditch pretty good. That’s a good sign. - Danny Ford on Dabo Swinney
  • Recommended: AE’s Tiger Gear

    Adam is a Clemson grad, fellow CUTiger.com member and an all around good guy. Click here to check out all of his stylish Clemson related products.
  • RSS Clemson Basketball

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Clemson Football

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Mystery Number

    3,496

Posts Tagged ‘Clemson Tigers’

The Case for Clemson

Posted by cuorange on February 17, 2010

There is considerable angst these days among Clemson fans on whether or not the Tigers will be a part of March Madness.

At first glance there doesn’t appear to be much to worry about. The Tigers are 18-7 overall, 6-5 in the ACC, an RPI of 30, strength of schedule of 34th and have a winning record against top 25 teams (5-4). Furthermore the Tigers are 7-3 against teams ranked 1-50 in RPI and 5-2 against teams ranked 51-100 in RPI. All solid numbers that would seem to indicate there is little to worry about come selection Sunday.

However, there is a little nagging suspicion that the Tigers reputation (late season troubles, losing twice in a row in the first round of NCAA tourney) may come back to haunt.

With 5 games left in the regular season, Clemson has 3 road games (Maryland, Florida State, Wake Forest) along with home games against Virginia and Georgia Tech. For me the timing of the games is what may cause the Tigers a problem.

First, Clemson must beat a falling (2-5 in last 7 games) Virginia team at home. A loss here would be almost too much to overcome.

Next, are road trips to Maryland and Florida State (I think you now see why the Virginia game is so crucial). These are most likely two losses.

Then the Tigers final home game is with a tall, talented but struggling Georgia Tech team (lost 3 of last 4). Assuming losses in the two prior games, this becomes a crucial game for the Tigers, before they close the regular season at Wake Forest (probably a loss).

Assuming the Tigers hold court and win at home and lose on the road, they will end up 20-10 overall and 8-8 in the ACC. A first round win in the ACC Tournament would lock up a bid, but the Tigers probably get in even with a loss in the opening round (leaving them 20-11).

However, if the Tigers manage to go worse than 2-3 in their final five games I believe they will need to win at least 1 game in the ACC Tournament to advance to the Big Dance.

The selection committee is not going to choose a 19-12 Clemson team with 5 losses in their last 6 games (including ACC Tournament).

That loss to Illinois in December may haunt the Tigers yet.

Advertisements

Posted in ACC Basketball, Clemson Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CBB Predictions 1/23/10

Posted by cuorange on January 23, 2010

I trudge on with a 5-13 record so far.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
1/23/10 Duke Clemson 1 Clemson Loss 
1/23/10 Texas Connecticut 3 Texas Loss 
1/9/10 Clemson Boston College 9 Clemson Win
1/9/10 Duke Georgia Tech 7 Georgia Tech Win
1/9/10 Texas Colorado 19 1/2 Texas Loss
1/2/10 Kentucky Louisville 7 1/2 Louisville Loss
1/2/10 Kansas Temple 6 1/2 Temple Loss
1/2/10 Michigan State Northwestern 4 1/2 Northwestern Loss
12/22/09 Clemson Western Carolina 15 1/2 WCU Loss
12/22/09 Texas Michigan State 8 1/2 Texas Win
12/16/09 Clemson East Carolina 14 ECU Loss
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Shift in philosophy?

Posted by cuorange on January 15, 2010

Below are the often mentioned statistics for what happened in the first 5 games of the season vs. what happened over the last 9 games.

To cut to the chase:

*Clemson threw the ball almost as much in last nine games as they did in the first 5 – 44.8% in the first 5 games, 43.5% in the last 9 games.

Run/Pass ratio:

Games Runs Pct Runs Passes Pct Passes
Games 1-5 195 55.2% 158 44.8%
Games 6-14 301 56.5% 232 43.5%

*The number of attempts were lower because Clemson averaged 12 less offensive plays per game over the last 9 games of the season than in the first 5 – 71 in the first 5 and 59 in the last 9.

*There was a shift in the targets that might be significant. In the first 5 games the WRs were targeted 54.4% of the time. In the last 9 games the WRs were targeted 42.7% of the time.  On the other hand a 12% difference really means one of every 8 passes went to a TE/RB instead of a WR.  Is that really significant?  Meaning in the first 5 games 4 of 8 (rounded) passes went to the WRs.  In games 9-14 3 of 8 (more or less) passes went to the WR.  Significant or not?

First five games:

Game WR TE/RB INT UNK TOTAL
MTSU 14 6 1 0 21
Georgia Tech 18 12 2 0 32
Boston College 17 9 2 0 28
TCU 17 20 0 0 37
Maryland 20 15 1 4 40
Totals 86 62 6 4 158
Pct of Passes 54.4% 39.2% 3.8% 2.5% 100.0%

Games 6-14:

Game WR TE/RB INT UNK TOTAL
Wake 12 12 0 0 24
Miami 12 24 1 0 37
Coastal 11 10 2 0 23
FSU 16 13 1 0 30
NCSU 9 10 0 0 19
UVA 11 15 0 0 26
SC 18 23 1 0 42
Georgia Tech 6 8 2 1 17
Kentucky 4 10 0 0 14
Totals 99 125 7 1 232
Pct of Passes 42.7% 53.9% 3.0% 0.4% 100.0%

So, with that said do I think we can definitively say there was a change in philosophy after the Wake game to keep “Dabo’s hands off the offense” and move to a power running game? No. Sure, they moved away from targeting “Dabo’s guys” (WRs). But, there was a very small increase in the percentage of runs. Hardly “proof”.

There were plenty of dropped balls by the WRs, but there were also plenty of missed throws by Kyle Parker, too. Perhaps the staff decided to keep the throws shorter (i.e. TE’s and RBs) vs. downfield to avoid the chances of turnovers. Is a short passing game a part of a power running offense – sure. And you could argue that this shift from WRs to TE/RBs show that there was a fundamental change at this point. But a short passing game is also part of the spread offense – see the numerous short throws by Colt McCoy for example in the Texas spread offense.

The key to me would be the alignment. How many TEs were used and what formations were we in during those last 9 games? More double (or triple) TE would point toward a power running philosophy, while the same (or similar) sets, but throwing to the TE and/or RBs more often would suggest to me a) you have a young QB b) your WR haven’t developed and c) your coaching staff made good adjustments during the off week, it worked so you kept doing it (a sign of good coaching).

I haven’t been able to find the final participation chart, which would give me a great indication of how many times some combination of Palmer, Allen, Taylor and Diehl (and Barry) were on the field together, but my recollection is that is was very few plays.

Another key to me would be game situations. It’s easy to look at numbers on a page and think you know what happened and why. But Clemson was all over the place in running and passing due to the situation presented in each game. Examples?

MTSU = blowout = 21 passes.

Wake = game under control = 24 passes.

Miami = wild OT game = 37 passes.

SC = behind all day = 42 passes.

GTech(1) – way behind early = 32 passes.

GTech(2) = close game all the way, CJ running wild = 17 passes.

Kentucky = close game, need to eat clock at end = 14 passes.

Even after the so-called change in philosophy after the MD game we threw the ball a lot when the game dictated we do so (37 times against Miami, 42 against SC, 30 against FSU, for example).

I’m no expert, but what all this (similar % of runs, not a heavy use of multiple TEs, wide variety in number of passes in different games) suggests to me is that the formations and philosophy didn’t change all that much, but what did change is the coaches found out that Palmer can catch the ball and Parker could throw it to him relatively accurately (I seem to recall Palmer diving, falling backwards, jumping, etc quite often though) and the WRs had a not so great year (other than Ford). Basically, without having a chart of the down and distance, game situation, and formations there is no “scientific” way to tell from the data I have available.

Perhaps a better way to look at this would be to see what happened on 1st and 10s (a good gauge of philosophy, in my opinion), when the score and game time is within a certain range (i.e. it’s not a blowout and/or you aren’t trying to run the clock out).

Personally, I believe the offense will continue to evolve (as it should) and depend on the personnel we have and game situation at hand. That’s a sign of good coaching. Identities can change from year to year.

Posted in Clemson Football | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

CBB predictions for 1/9/10

Posted by cuorange on January 9, 2010

I trudge on with a 3-12 record so far. 

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
1/9/10 Clemson Boston College 9 Clemson Win 
1/9/10 Duke Georgia Tech 7 Georgia Tech Win 
1/9/10 Texas Colorado 19 1/2 Texas Loss 
1/2/10 Kentucky Louisville 7 1/2 Louisville Loss
1/2/10 Kansas Temple 6 1/2 Temple Loss
1/2/10 Michigan State Northwestern 4 1/2 Northwestern Loss
12/22/09 Clemson Western Carolina 15 1/2 WCU Loss
12/22/09 Texas Michigan State 8 1/2 Texas Win
12/16/09 Clemson East Carolina 14 ECU Loss
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bank on these two…

Posted by cuorange on December 22, 2009

if you have money to lose.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
12/22/09 Clemson Western Carolina 15 1/2 WCU Loss 
12/22/09 Texas Michigan State 8 1/2 Texas Win 
12/16/09 Clemson East Carolina 14 ECU Loss
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

College hoops predicition

Posted by cuorange on December 16, 2009

I trudge onward.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
12/16/09 Clemson East Carolina 14 ECU Loss 
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Pick ’em – Bowl edition 1

Posted by cuorange on December 15, 2009

Game Spread AccuScore Predicted Score Actual Score AccuScore CUOrange Texas D B. Rink A. Eargle
Oregon St. vs. BYU  BYU +3  32-31 BYU 44-20 BYU  BYU  OSU  OSU   OSU BYU 
Utah vs. California Utah +3  28-27 Cal   37-27 Utah Utah   Cal Cal   Cal Cal 
Pittsburgh vs. UNC  UNC +3  26-21 Pitt 19-17 Pitt  Pitt  Pitt  Pitt   UNC UNC 
Boston College vs. USC  BC +9 28-18 USC  24-13 USC   USC BC  USC  USC  USC 
Kentucky vs. Clemson  UK +7.5  29-21 CU 21-13 CU   CU UK  UK  UK UK 
Texas A&M vs. Georgia TAMU +7  35-27 UGA   44-20 UGA  UGA TAMU   UGA  UGA UGA 
Miami (FL) vs. Wisconsin  UW +3 28-26 UM   20-14 UW  UW UM  UW   UM UM 
Arizona vs. Nebraska UN +1  22-21 UN   33-0 UN UN  UA  UA   UA  UN
Houston vs. Air Force AFA +5  33-30 UH  47-20 AFA AFA   UH  UH  UH UH 
Oklahoma vs. Stanford  SU +8  34-25 OU  31-27 OU OU  OU   SU OU  SU 
Navy vs. Missouri Navy +6  29-23 UM  35-13 Navy  UM  UM   Navy  UM  UM
Minnesota vs. Iowa State ISU +2.5   23-23  14-13 ISU ISU  ISU  ISU  ISU   UM
Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee  UT +4.5 28-21 VT  VT 37-14   VT  UT UT   VT VT 

Posted in College Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

College hoops V3.0

Posted by cuorange on December 12, 2009

Still in pursuit of perfection.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss 
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss 
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win 
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss 
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Week 14 pick ’em

Posted by cuorange on December 1, 2009

Week 14 games, spreads, picks.  I said it couldn’t get any worse.  I was wrong.  The humans went a combined 5-35 last week.  U-G-L-Y.

Game Spread AccuScore Predicted Score Actual Score AccuScore CUOrange Texas D B. Rink A. Eargle
Oregon St. @ Oregon Oregon St.+ 9.5  OU 36-24  37-33 OU OU  OU   OSU  OU  OU
Cincinnati @ Pittsburgh Cincinnati +1 28-27 UC   45-44 UC  UC Pitt    Pitt  UC  UC 
Houston @ E. Carolina ECU +1  36-33 UH 38-32 ECU   UH ECU  UH  UH  UH
W. Virginia @ Rutgers Rutgers +2.5 26-23 WVA  24-21 WVA   WVA RU   RU WVA  WVA 
Arizona @ USC Arizona +7  30-21 USC  UA 21-17 USC  UA   USC USC  USC 
Florida vs. Alabama Alabama +5.5  25-21 UF 32-13 Bama  Bama  Bama   Bama  UF  Bama
California @ Washington UW +7  32-24 Cal 42-10 UW  Cal  Cal  Cal  UW  Cal 
Texas vs. Nebraska Nebraska +14  29-19 UT  13-12 UT UN UT UT   UN UT 
S. Florida @ Connecticut S. Florida +7 30-25 UC   29-27 UC USF  USF   UC  USF USF 
Georgia Tech vs. Clemson Clemson +1  31-28 CU 39-34 GT  CU   CU GT   CU CU

Posted in College Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Week 12 Pick ‘Em

Posted by cuorange on November 17, 2009

Getting harder and harder to find 10 games.

Week 12 games, spreads, picks

Game Spread AccuScore Predicted Score Actual Score AccuScore CUOrange Texas D B. Rink A. Eargle
Ohio State @ Michigan UM +12.5 32-16 OSU   21-10 OSU OSU  Michigan   OSU  OSU OSU 
UNC @ Boston College UNC +3.5  21-16 BC   31-13 UNC BC   UNC  BC  UNC  UNC
Oklahoma @ Texas Tech TTU +7 29-26 OU  41-13 TTU  TTU   OU  OU  TTU  OU
LSU @ Mississippi LSU +3.5 25-19 Ole Miss  Ole Miss 25-23  Ole Miss  Ole Miss   LSU  LSU LSU 
Penn State @ Michigan St. MSU +3  29-23 Penn St.  42-14 Penn St.   Penn St. Penn St.   Penn St.  Penn St.  Penn St.
Virginia @ Clemson UVA +20.5 29-11 Clemson   34-21 CU UVA   CU  UVA  CU  CU
Cal @ Stanford Cal +7.5 34-29 Stanford  34-28 Cal  Cal   Stanford  Cal  Cal  Stanford
Kansas St. @ Nebraska KSU +17 33-16 Nebraska  17-3 UN  KSU   KSU  KSU  KSU  KSU
Kansas @ Texas KU +28 43-14 Texas  51-20 Texas  Texas   Texas  Kansas  Texas  Texas
Oregon @ Arizona Arizona +6 35-26 Oregon  44-41 OU  Oregon   Oregon  Oregon  Oregon Oregon 

Posted in College Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »