• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BBall Recruiting Thread 2k16- SJM, Washington, Childress & Mitchell sign NLIs; 2017?

pourdeac said:
Let's not pretend we were Duke or UNC.
Click to expand...

pourdeac said:
Lots of self-pity on this thread. Even sounds LOWF to me.
Click to expand...

pourdeac said:
We finished in the AP top 25 only 9 nines during that time period, averaging outside the top 10 in those 9 years. We were ranked at some point of the season 15 of those years but fell out 6 of them (and much lower rankings at the end from the peak in another 6) because of the classic late season Wake Forest collapse that also defined that era...historically. You pining away for that too? That's about the same pattern as the Tacy years and more like a consistent top 50...tourney NCAA bubble team...averaging outside the top 25.
Click to expand...

So, on one hand, we're not Duke or UNC. On the other hand, we shouldn't be "pining away" for the 20 years of sustained success we had under Odom, Prosser and Dino because it wasn't good enough? We finished in the top 25 only 9 times? You say that like it's a bad thing. How many other teams do you think finished in the top 25 9 times over that period? And somehow anyone who wants to have that success again is LOWF? But didn't you just say we're not Carolina or Duke? You're an extremely confused man.

Here's the data I posted near the end of the [Redacted] error:
RacerDeac said:
Despite the Buzz error, since Odom started in 1989, Wake is still ranked #22 in Top 25 appearances, #23 in Top 10 appearances, #25 in Top 5 appearances, and #23 in #1 appearances. For the more recent years during which Skip and Dino coached, Wake was #15 in Top 25, #15 in the Top 10, #17 in Top 5, and #15 in #1 appearances.
Click to expand...
 
birdman said:
I disagree. We have a history of far greater achievement than [Redacted], and in my view, simply exceeding [Redacted]'s achievements does not meet our historical bar.
Click to expand...

This. Finally, a poster with a brain.
 
RacerDeac said:
So, you admit it's a meme and then you take the time to explain why it doesn't make sense...

You realize the context under which the phrase is being used, right?
Click to expand...

So you mean we are now awful relative to our historical success? Isn't this all just semantics?

But "historically awful" makes it sound like we are as bad as the worst possible historical patterns of the worst teams to play college basketball over the course of "history."

Without really defining the period of time we're talking about -- compared to our Final Four runs in the early 60's most all Wake teams have been "historically awful" relative to that -- things do seem to get a bit muddied and confusing.

I think we can all agree we're a far cry from where we've typically been in the last 30 years, but we seem to be on an upward trend towards mediocre to above average from a steaming pile of poo. Hooray!! ;-)
 
I didn't think Racer's phrasing was all that complicated. We're awful as compared to our recent history, which should be the baseline against which we measure our current performance.

Other than 22fan, a well known moron, why are folks nitpicking that fairly obvious observation?
 
wfu22fan said:
Now lick me you asshole.
Click to expand...

tumblr_inline_ndqc17q6TM1sqqavy.jpg
 
06deacon said:
I didn't think Racer's phrasing was all that complicated. We're awful as compared to our recent history, which should be the baseline against which we measure our current performance.

Other than 22fan, a well known moron, why are folks nitpicking that fairly obvious observation?
Click to expand...

I'm more or less bored and just "arguing" for the sake of preoccupying myself while I waited on some reports. But anyway, I'm not sure Danny Manning is using our recent history as the "baseline against we measure" ourselves. He knows where Wake Forest has been "historically" and he wants to make us "historically competitive" again and far exceed that bar.

I guess you could say we are "historically awful" not only relative to recent history, but also relative to the depths we plummeted to under Bob Staak. But we're not as "historically awful" as NC State was after Valvano for what seemed like well over a decade. For now, we can be thankful for that?

I think we all want to return to the success we had under Odom and, for a period, under Skip and Dino. Interesting question though would be how many here would settle for a ridiculous end of season run similar to what we had under Tacy over the sustained consistency of the Odom years if it meant we might suck again for two years in between successful campaigns in which we make deep runs or challenge for an ACCT title?

Of course who knows when we'll quite be ready to have a team even capable of such a late season run?
 
RacerDeac said:
So, on one hand, we're not Duke or UNC. On the other hand, we shouldn't be "pining away" for the 20 years of sustained success we had under Odom, Prosser and Dino because it wasn't good enough? We finished in the top 25 only 9 times? You say that like it's a bad thing. How many other teams do you think finished in the top 25 9 times over that period? And somehow anyone who wants to have that success again is LOWF? But didn't you just say we're not Carolina or Duke? You're an extremely confused man.
Click to expand...
Ummm...no, not confused at all. You set the bar as being as our historical accomplishments from 1990 to 2010...and then stated it was top 25. That's not really true...it's your bar, not mine.

A smarter take would be a team that was consistently a top 50 (at large bubble team), that flirted into but only finished half the time in the top 25, which often fizzled at the end of the year and, which disappointed often in the NCAA tourny. THAT is our historical bar if you're going to claim what happened historically in that period as the bar. It's your claimed bar, not mine. That bar likely ends up with the stats you posted since a lot of teams aren't as consistently in the top 50 as we were during that period. So I have no problem with that bar, but our historical average in that period is not as high and hard to accomplish from where we are as you seem to act.

I see us on the road to meeting that bar and IMO will probably be more consistently better on average because I think we'll have deeper teams as far as quality contributors goes. I know you think that's "unsmart" but that's what I see. Manning is recruiting players who seem to play better than their recruiting ranking, especially the ones >75, and he doesn't seem to make many complete misses at this point.

Much harder to get to the #1 rankings like we saw with Dino but...that was an anomaly of sorts for Wake bball. The 4*s/5*s needed to get there will come if Manning keeps on this road.
 
pourdeac said:
Ummm...no, not confused at all. You set the bar as being as our historical accomplishments from 1990 to 2010...and then stated it was top 25. That's not really true...it's your bar, not mine.
Click to expand...

How were we not a Top 25 team during that time?
RacerDeac said:
Despite the Buzz error, since Odom started in 1989, Wake is still ranked #22 in Top 25 appearances, #23 in Top 10 appearances, #25 in Top 5 appearances, and #23 in #1 appearances. For the more recent years during which Skip and Dino coached, Wake was #15 in Top 25, #15 in the Top 10, #17 in Top 5, and #15 in #1 appearances.
Click to expand...

pourdeac said:
A smarter take would be a team that was consistently a top 50 (at large bubble team), that flirted into but only finished half the time in the top 25, which often fizzled at the end of the year and, which disappointed often in the NCAA tourny.
Click to expand...

So, were there 25 other teams who did the same or better during those 20 years (actually, I think the numbers above included the Bzz years for a total of 24 years, which obviously skew them down significantly)? If not, that makes us a Top 25 team over that time period. And since I've already answered that question with the numbers above...

Over that 20 year span, we were one of the best 25 teams in the nation, period.
 
Last edited:
We haven't been this bad over a multi-year period since the late 80s. So however you want to term it, we're pretty bad compared to a ~30 year history
 
06deacon said:
I didn't think Racer's phrasing was all that complicated. We're awful as compared to our recent history, which should be the baseline against which we measure our current performance.

Other than 22fan, a well known moron, why are folks nitpicking that fairly obvious observation?
Click to expand...
This is the statement that generated the blowback.

RacerDeac said:
Exactly. We're not longer awesomely awful, but we're still historically awful and there's no guarantee that we're getting better.
Click to expand...
It's not about the bar of success...it's the notion we're just "no longer awesomely awful" but still awful.

Look at Ken Pom...pretty objective assessment. We're sitting at 68 right now. We finished 82, 102, 69 in 2006, 2007, 2008....27 in 2009 but only 59 in 2010. We averaged 68 in those 5 years..right where we are now. Would anyone claim those years were awful? There's never a guarantee of getting better but we are clearly on the path and moving up. The last at large bubble team last year was Indiana at 53 just for reference. I like what I see...and think Manning is going to push us much higher than Racer thinks.
 
birdman said:
Love your optimism, but let's be honest, 'better than [Redacted]' is an extremely low bar to set. We should be comparing Manning's performance to Odom and Skip...not a pile of dog shit.
Click to expand...

No kidding - I acknowledged that we were working from a low bar. The question I was addressing was whether we were going to be better. I interpret that to mean better than we have recently been. In now way do I accept 'better than the last 5 crappy years' as the ultimate goal - I expect us to at least get back to relevance/competitiveness - I'm not going to try to define what relevance/competitiveness means but I think we will all know it when we see it - and we haven't seen it yet.
 
scooter84 said:
No kidding - I acknowledged that we were working from a low bar. The question I was addressing was whether we were going to be better. I interpret that to mean better than we have recently been. In now way do I accept 'better than the last 5 crappy years' as the ultimate goal - I expect us to at least get back to relevance/competitiveness - I'm not going to try to define what relevance/competitiveness means but I think we will all know it when we see it - and we haven't seen it yet.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
pourdeac said:
Look at Ken Pom...pretty objective assessment. We're sitting at 68 right now.
Click to expand...

KenPom is based on a whole lot of assumptions until the season gets going and there are actual games and scores to compare. I remember most everyone being surprised it had us listed so "highly" when it first came out. Even if we are a 68 right now, we lose our two best players and senior leaders next year and don't really have any impact players coming in. The current freshmen may get much better or they may not. There's no guarantee, at this moment, that we make any sort of jump next season. Seems like a toss up that could go either way knowing what we know right now.

If you look at what we have right now and like what you see, you should be aware that there's a good bit of homerism mixed into that equation. There's nothing wrong with that. You're a Wake fan. But I don't think the rest of the league is looking at our roster and our completely unproven coach, and worrying about Wake Forest taking it's place back in the 2nd tier of the conference. The best thing we have going for us right now is that Manning is unproven. We've just got to hope he proves to be great.
 
If you finished in the top 25 70% or 80% of the time over a 20 year period, you would be a top 10-15 program.

I hope pourdeac turns out correct, but it is just speculation at this point without a ton of concrete evidence. Kind of like our 68 kenpom ranking right now.
 
Damn, Miami landed Brown & Huell. Alongside of Rodney Miller, that's a huge 2016 class for the Canes. There is no reason why we can't recruit this well and expect as much moving forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top