• 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!

Reasonable Expectations

DeacinBama said:
When was the last time a 17-win team with a below .500 conference record made the NCAAT without winning their conference tournament?

(not a rhetorical question...just thinking you can find the answer faster than I can)
Click to expand...

We made the tourney with a (7-9) conference record in the early-mid 90s I think it was.
 
Last edited:
mebanedeac said:
I want more positive results...more wins now!

But if I allow myself a brief moment of objectivity and admit the youth of our team, the fact that we don't have any 5* players and our coach is still learning how to be a HC ...I have to admit that he is probably doing better than I want to admit.
Click to expand...
OK, but this absolves Manning for not having any 5* recruits, and not possessing coaching knowledge that any ACC coach should have. It is like saying, he's doing well with the difficult situation he's in, with no acknowledgement of his own contributions to that situation.

Totally agree Bz left us in a terrible spot. Not discounting that. But this is also now year three of Manning. As I said on the other thread, he didn't just ride in behind the Deacon on the Harley last week.
 
DeacinBama said:
When was the last time a 17-win team with a below .500 conference record made the NCAAT without winning their conference tournament?

(not a rhetorical question...just thinking you can find the answer faster than I can)
Click to expand...

We would need to win a couple of games in the ACC Tournament to get to 19 wins in all likelihood. I'm not sure that a 17 win, sub .500 team has ever gotten in to the tournament, at least not recently.

Last year Cuse and Pitt both got in at 9-9, but had 23 and 21 wins respectively. They had the 17th and 22nd ranked SOS in the country.

A lot of things would have to go right for us to get to that point admittedly, but I stand by my original post that it's not "clear" that we aren't going to make it. There's a lot of the year left and a lot of things can happen.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Yes. That doesn't mean that we are going to, but I think Wake fans are underselling what we have right now. I'm not predicting a ACC finals appearance or an 8 seed or anything, but we if we finish one game above what KP projects us then we are 17-13, 8-10 in the ACC with a top 10 schedule. That has us squarely on the bubble.

We need to get some damn wins, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we go 4-2 in the next 6 games, as that's slightly above what is expected. It's not outrageous to believe that by any stretch.
Click to expand...

KP projections are higher than should be expected. Our weakness at 2/3 is a killer in the ACC.
 
RJKarl said:
KP projections are higher than should be expected. Our weakness at 2/3 is a killer in the ACC.
Click to expand...

State is 65th and projected to go 6-12, so even if we were down there it's a game difference or so.
 
RJKarl said:
State has more talent than we do.
Click to expand...

Right, I agree with that, but KP doesn't care about the talent that you have---just how that translates into offensive and defensive efficiency.

Now they may be a little underrated because of what Yurtseven is bringing after sitting the first 9 games, but most of their fall has come since he has gotten back.
 
I don't believe we will be close to the bubble by the end of the season but FSU earned an at large bid one year in the late 90's with a 6-10 conference record and sent us to the NIT with a 7-9 conference record.

If memory serves, though, they played the toughest schedule in the country.
 
Last edited:
Colonel Angus said:
I don't believe we will be close to the bubble by the end of the season but FSU earned an at large bid one year in the late 90's with a 6-10 conference record and sent us to the NIT with a 7-9 conference record.

If memory serves, though, they played the toughest schedule in the country.
Click to expand...

Not only that they won a game against TCU as the 12 seed in 1998.
 
You can't compare 90s at-large bid scenarios to today. There are more high major programs and more mid-major at-large bids than before.
 
RacerDeac said:
Yeah, elite to me means quite a bit more than 4 seasons. That's a good run. I'm thinking of teams that have been consistently good over 10, 20, 30 years. Over the 20 years from Odom to Gaudio, we were consistently one of the better 15-25 teams in the nation and almost always playing in the post season, what I'd consider a step below the elites like Duke and UNC who were often deep in the post season and and ranked damn near every season.
Click to expand...

So we should probably give our coach more than four years to get us to a level that is evaluated on a 10+ year scale.

Bennett appears to have a pretty sustainable program. If he keeps this up for five more years UVA will clearly be an elite program.

In 10-15 years I want to see Wake established as an elite program. Tony Bennett has provided a good model of how to do that in the ACC.

I'm holding Manning to the Tony Bennett standard but giving him an extra year since he took over a worse situation.
 
RacerDeac said:
This isn't football. Flipping the roster just isn't the huge undertaking that some of you are making it out to be.
Click to expand...
This is accurate if you're pulling in high 4 stars and five stars like duke or Kentucky. You can lose any amount of players if you're being in 4-5 top 20 recruits but we aren't here yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DeacDaddy said:
OK, but this absolves Manning for not having any 5* recruits, and not possessing coaching knowledge that any ACC coach should have. It is like saying, he's doing well with the difficult situation he's in, with no acknowledgement of his own contributions to that situation.

Totally agree Bz left us in a terrible spot. Not discounting that. But this is also now year three of Manning. As I said on the other thread, he didn't just ride in behind the Deacon on the Harley last week.
Click to expand...

How is he supposed to recruit 5* in a program that has been at the bottom for how long before he came? The best programs in the nation are competing for 5* recruits. How is Manning supposed to out-recruit UK and KU and Duke and UNC not to name a bunch more who have contended for national championships while we have been barely surviving? It is rare that perennially losing programs get 5* or 4* recruits. He must win first. And that requires transforming 3*, even 2*, players into a team that can compete night-in and night-out with teams filled with MacDonald's All-Americans. And Manning is endeavoring to do all this with 5 years of experience as a head coach.

I think it is reasonable that he can rebuild Wake into a consistent top 20 team; but he will have to learn how to win with less against people who have much more. That is a process, a painful process. But I want to believe it's happening. Maybe.
 
RChildress107 said:
So we should probably give our coach more than four years to get us to a level that is evaluated on a 10+ year scale.

Bennett appears to have a pretty sustainable program. If he keeps this up for five more years UVA will clearly be an elite program.

In 10-15 years I want to see Wake established as an elite program. Tony Bennett has provided a good model of how to do that in the ACC.

I'm holding Manning to the Tony Bennett standard but giving him an extra year since he took over a worse situation.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you started this thread, since you were already pushing this narrative in the Credibility thread, but I'll bite:

From Wikipedia:
During the rebuilding process, Bennett's teams increased their win total in every successive season. After inheriting a 10–18 squad, Bennett's Virginia won 15, 16, 22, 23, 30, and 30 games in his first six seasons. They also improved their ACC record in each of these years, earning records of 5–11, 7–9, 9–7, 11–5, and finally a repeat ACC-best 16–2 and 16–2.
Click to expand...

Even with your generous "extra year" caveat, Manning does not meet your own standard, as his teams have not improved year-to-year. In fact, even if you give Manning a double-secret caveat that he took over a complete mess, he regressed from year one to year two. And for good measure, Redacted's last team went 17-16 (6-12), so Manning took over a bad situation and made it worse. He fails your own Bennett comparison completely.
 
mebanedeac said:
How is he supposed to recruit 5* in a program that has been at the bottom for how long before he came? The best programs in the nation are competing for 5* recruits. How is Manning supposed to out-recruit UK and KU and Duke and UNC not to name a bunch more who have contended for national championships while we have been barely surviving? It is rare that perennially losing programs get 5* or 4* recruits. He must win first. And that requires transforming 3*, even 2*, players into a team that can compete night-in and night-out with teams filled with MacDonald's All-Americans. And Manning is endeavoring to do all this with 5 years of experience as a head coach.

I think it is reasonable that he can rebuild Wake into a consistent top 20 team; but he will have to learn how to win with less against people who have much more. That is a process, a painful process. But I want to believe it's happening. Maybe.
Click to expand...

The fact that Manning has already stolen a high 4* guy from Kansas is incredibly impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
How many current or recent ACC coaches took longer than 3 seasons to make the postseason at their ACC school?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top