Comparing Brownell and Barnes

Last week, while spending the day with Brad Brownell for the series that's being featured this week on TI, I asked Brownell if anyone told him his style evokes memories of Rick Barnes' time at Clemson.

He responded that some folks indeed had told him that.

It's certainly an interesting comparison to explore.

There are some striking similarities on the defensive end of the floor, for sure.

In his four season at Clemson from 1994-98, Barnes built his success on defense.

The statistics bear it out. Barnes' first team trimmed 10 points off points per game allowed, from 72 in 1993-94 to 62 in 94-95. The Tigers led the ACC and ranked ninth nationally in scoring defense that year.

Opponents never averaged more than 65 points per game during Barnes' tenure, which included three consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances.

The Tigers under Brownell have been better than anticipated largely because of hard-working, man-to-man defense that's reminiscent of Barnes' bunch.

Opponents are shooting just 40.4 percent from the field. If that statistic held up, it would be the lowest by Clemson's opponents since the 1962-63 season.

The Tigers lead the ACC in scoring defense, allowing 60.4 points per game. In conference games, they rank fourth in shooting-percentage defense at 41.3.

Last week, Brownell told me that his defensive foundation was built when he was in high school, and later when he was an assistant for Jerry Wainwright at UNC Wilmington.

"He was defensive-minded," he said. "We both were. We felt that, to establish an identity in the program we wanted to do it defensively."

There are different ways to do it, of course. Brownell's predecessor, Oliver Purnell, relied on full-court pressure that wore opponents down and created opportunities for easy baskets off turnovers. It was a great equalizer against more talented teams in the ACC, and it fueled success that isn't often seen at Clemson: three consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances, and three straight seasons of nine wins or more in the ACC.

The great revelation this season, in my mind at least, is that you can wear opponents down with really good halfcourt defense, too. The telling example of this came a few weeks ago when Boston College visited. The Tigers played such good defense, extending so many Eagles possessions past the 10-second mark on the shot clock, that Boston College seemed gassed about midway through the second half.

After that game, Eagles coach Steve Donahue told reporters he wished he could get his team to play defense the way Brownell's team plays it. That's a heck of a compliment.

Back to Barnes: The comparison is also interesting because Clemson sought the old coach's advice last year when it was trying to replace Purnell, and Barnes had nice things to say about Brownell. Last week, Brownell told me he called Barnes and picked his brain on the situation here when he was deciding whether this was the right place for him (more on that later).

Over the past few weeks, I've consulted some folks who were around during the Barnes era and asked their thoughts on the Barnes-Brownell stylistic comparison.

They believe there's indeed a common thread with defense, because both coaches get their guys to work so hard on that end of the floor. But the similarities end there, because the approaches on offense are quite different.

First of all, Barnes was much more of a walk-it-up type than Brownell. Remember the Top 10 matchup at Wake Forest in 1997, when the Demon Deacons won 55-49? Barnes was plenty content with games in the 60s, 50s and even 40s.

At his introductory press conference, Brownell said teams have to be able to win low-scoring games if they hope to advance in the NCAA Tournament. But this season has shown that characterizations of Brownell as a walk-it-up offensive coach have been unfair, and possibly blatantly so, because this team has shown no fear at all of pushing in transition and consistently probing for high-percentage baskets before defenses get set.

Another difference would have to be X's and O's prowess. Barnes was not -- and is not -- known as being particularly skilled in this category. His strength at Clemson was motivating his players and getting them to work hard. They were going to play defense, box out and rebound.

Brownell was known as a skilled offensive tactician when he was hired, and that reputation has been burnished thus far in his first season.

The Tigers haven't exactly lit it up offensively, but that's more a reflection of a lack of skill and talent than a lack of X's and O's. In my mind, two of the best measures of superior offensive scheming are 1) the number of open shots created in halfcourt situations, and 2) the number of made baskets out of timeouts. Hard to argue that Brownell hasn't been productive in both categories this season.

So that's my take on this comparison. Interested to get some thoughts and insight from those of you who followed Barnes' program closely when he was here.

LW