• 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!

Steve Forbes credibility watch

Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah the ACC used to be better. The committee has also gotten better at identifying when mid-majors are actually good instead of just assuming they were playing trash and therefore cannot possibly be as good as a middling power conference team.
Click to expand...
That and the conference has so many more teams. When it was 8 or 9 if you finished middle of the conference at say 5th or 6th, you were typically behind some really good teams (Normally some combination of UNC, Duke, UVA, Maryland, Ga Tech or even State depending on the time period)
 
We’ve gotta beat at least 2 of Duke, Clemson, Virginia, UNC, and Miami. Going 13-7 or even 14-6 in the league without wins over those teams won’t mean anything (see 2021).

Unfortunately we only get Miami and UNC once.
 
BigDeacEnergy said:
We’ve gotta beat at least 2 of Duke, Clemson, Virginia, UNC, and Miami. Going 13-7 or even 14-6 in the league without wins over those teams won’t mean anything (see 2021).

Unfortunately we only get Miami and UNC once.
Click to expand...
Exactly. In 2021-2022 we won as many conference games (13) as we ever have in a single season (also won 13 in 2003 and 2005 when we were only playing 16 ACC games a season) and we won 25 games over all, which has only been matched once (2003) and exceeded three times (1995, 1996, 2005). So by numbers of wins it is one of our Top 5 seasons ever. Yet we still didn't make the NCAA. It's not so much about how many teams you beat but more about which teams you beat. In 2022 we won a lot of games didn't beat any ranked teams. In fact Duke was the only ranked team we played.
 
If you remove the COVID year (his first year, weird all around), Forbes is 49-27 overall and 23-17 in the ACC.

It sucks we haven't made the NCAAT yet, but I think he's done a fine job considering the absolute dumpster fire of a program he inherited from the last two head coaches.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
If you remove the COVID year (his first year, weird all around), Forbes is 49-27 overall and 23-17 in the ACC.

It sucks we haven't made the NCAAT yet, but I think he's done a fine job considering the absolute dumpster fire of a program he inherited from the last two head coaches.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the COVID year. Who all on the current roster has an extra year of eligibility from the COVID year?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah the ACC used to be better. The committee has also gotten better at identifying when mid-majors are actually good instead of just assuming they were playing trash and therefore cannot possibly be as good as a middling power conference team.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, why do they keep taking so many Big 10 teams?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
If you remove the COVID year (his first year, weird all around), Forbes is 49-27 overall and 23-17 in the ACC.

It sucks we haven't made the NCAAT yet, but I think he's done a fine job considering the absolute dumpster fire of a program he inherited from the last two head coaches.
Click to expand...
This is exactly how I feel. I mean the prior two coaches were so god awful. Forbes was trying to put out a dumpster fire and rebuild on top of it, coming out of a pandemic and into a new world of NIL, transfer portal and whatever else. I'm not a basketball guru like most of you, but it seems that Forbes' scheme relies on talented players at every position, and we just haven't been talented top down in a long time. Seems like we are getting there. Interested to see how this year plays out and next year will tell us a lot I think. If we are top quartile in the league this and next year you gotta feel good about Forbes. If we finish middle of the pack this year and/or next makes you wonder...
 
Turd Ferguson said:
This is exactly how I feel. I mean the prior two coaches were so god awful. Forbes was trying to put out a dumpster fire and rebuild on top of it, coming out of a pandemic and into a new world of NIL, transfer portal and whatever else. I'm not a basketball guru like most of you, but it seems that Forbes' scheme relies on talented players at every position, and we just haven't been talented top down in a long time. Seems like we are getting there. Interested to see how this year plays out and next year will tell us a lot I think. If we are top quartile in the league this and next year you gotta feel good about Forbes. If we finish middle of the pack this year and/or next makes you wonder...
Click to expand...
Totally agree. One caveat though. We do not need any devastating season ending injuries (Monsanto) for us to finish in the upper echelon.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
This is exactly how I feel. I mean the prior two coaches were so god awful. Forbes was trying to put out a dumpster fire and rebuild on top of it, coming out of a pandemic and into a new world of NIL, transfer portal and whatever else. I'm not a basketball guru like most of you, but it seems that Forbes' scheme relies on talented players at every position, and we just haven't been talented top down in a long time. Seems like we are getting there. Interested to see how this year plays out and next year will tell us a lot I think. If we are top quartile in the league this and next year you gotta feel good about Forbes. If we finish middle of the pack this year and/or next makes you wonder...
Click to expand...
Obviously the key to next year, will be not losing anyone to the portal or early entry, like we have the last few years.
 
deacfan78 said:
Obviously the key to next year, will be not losing anyone to the portal or early entry, like we have the last few years.
Click to expand...

I mean, Sallis probably ain't sticking around for his senior year if he's a borderline 1st round pick (and I suspect he will be by the end of the season, if not higher). And Monsanto could be ready to move on after 5 years in college.

But beyond that, I really hope we can convince Carr (and Reid) to come back for another season.
 
I'd say there's no way we bring back all of Sallis, Damari, Marsh, Keller, Cam. That is in order of least likely to be back imo. We can sustain a couple, but if we can retain the core of that group, along with Boop, Carr, Juke, PF, MMM plus a transfer or two that is a damn good team.
 
DeacsATS said:
I mean, Sallis probably ain't sticking around for his senior year if he's a borderline 1st round pick (and I suspect he will be by the end of the season, if not higher). And Monsanto could be ready to move on after 5 years in college.

But beyond that, I really hope we can convince Carr (and Reid) to come back for another season.
Click to expand...
:cry:
 
DeacsATS said:
I mean, Sallis probably ain't sticking around for his senior year if he's a borderline 1st round pick (and I suspect he will be by the end of the season, if not higher). And Monsanto could be ready to move on after 5 years in college.

But beyond that, I really hope we can convince Carr (and Reid) to come back for another season.
Click to expand...
If last night is the indication of what Reid will do all season, along with hitting 3s -- he and Forbes sound confident he can make those -- he's going to be a safer first-round projection than Sallis.
 
Rafi said:
If that's the case, why do they keep taking so many Big 10 teams?
Click to expand...
Because the Big 10 has been better than the ACC for the last 5 seasons? I mean there's no conspiracy - look at the last time the ACC was better over the course of the season than the Big 10: 2018. The ACC sent 8 teams to the tournament and the Big 10 sent 4.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Because the Big 10 has been better than the ACC for the last 5 seasons? I mean there's no conspiracy - look at the last time the ACC was better over the course of the season than the Big 10: 2018. The ACC sent 8 teams to the tournament and the Big 10 sent 4.
Click to expand...
Yeah, based on computer rankings that are consistently poor at predicting Big 10 success in the NCAA tournament. At some point don't you think you should wonder if perhaps the model is flawed? A Big 10 team hasn't won the NCAA championship in well over 2 decades. It has been 4 years since they even had a team in the final four. Blind faith in computer models that consistently fail in regards to predicting Big 10 success seems problematic, especially when the model isn't even released for the public to assess and test.

Off the top of my head, here are just some of the problems with heavy emphasis on the NET for team selection:

1. It's inexplicably counted twice. First the team's ranking and then the quad system. This is redundant and unnecessary.
2. The model is unknown, so it can be replicated for quality control or tested for variable weighting.
3. It heavily weights margin of victory. This is extremely problematic for many reasons. It forces coaches to want to run up the score, especially before conference play starts. This means starters play more minutes and may be more likely to get injured. Back-ups play less so player development is hindered and players may be more likely to transfer for playing time. The walk-ons get in less often, so it's less fun in general.
4. It does not take into account team composition. For example, Wake might be a very different team in March with Reid and Monsanto than we were in November.
5. It does not take into account improvement (or worsening) as the year goes on.
 
Stormfury said:
Your fighting more than just other teams though. There is an obvious anti-ACC bias in the committees.
Click to expand...
That would seem to be more because the ACC loses more than its share of November and December games against inferior nonconference opponents. Georgia (beat 3 ACC teams), LSU in our case. Western Carolina, UT-C, Colorado St, Loyola, UMass Lowell, just for a few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top