• 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!

WFU Hoops: '24-'25 Roster Construction Thread: (-) Carr, Monsanto, Ituka, Clark, Miller, Marsh, Keller, Canka / (+) Spillers, Biliew, Cosby

DeacInVermont said:
Our analytics didn't disqualify us this year. All of the stupid losses did.
Click to expand...
Why not set things up to put WF in the BEST position to get into the NCAAT and get a good seed? Set a smart OOC schedule, and then beat the teams you should. WF did neither. Agree that WF should've gotten a bid despite a poor scheduling strategy, but that does not mean WF gets a pass for playing an ill-conceived OOC schedule.
 
Clemson basketball fans (if there are any) will be sipping bourbon Sunday night relaxed and waiting to see where they play despite losing to Wake head to head, having a lower ACC tournament seed, and having a worse ACC tournament loss. All due to non conference work. We could not have done that this year without Reid. Next year we could.
 
DeacsATS said:
We can't rely on MTEs and the SEC/ACC Challenge to give us OOC Q1 opportunities.

We need to schedule 1-2 brutally tough games a year. Preferably one home and one away.

But above all? We need to win more fucking games.
Click to expand...

yes - and as a reminder, here is what we have done in neutral-site OOC games in the Forbes era. This simply must improve:

this year:
Q2 vs. Utah - loss (would have earned two Q1 opportunities with a win)
Q3 vs. Towson - win
Q2 vs. LSU - loss

last year:
Q4 vs. LaSalle - 12-point win
Q3 vs. Loyola - loss
Q3 vs. LSU - loss

2022:
Q4 vs. Oregon State - OT win
Q1 vs. LSU - loss
Q3 vs. Charlotte - win (barely)

That's zero Q1 or Q2 wins, plus a Q3 loss, and a couple of other Q3/4 games that were way too close. That is objectively terrible.
 
DeacsATS said:
Have to believe that Sallis will crush it at the "combine" and in private workouts.

If the only real knock on him is killer instinct, there will be teams happy to overlook that criticism.

I'll be shocked if he comes back next season and I am dreading all of the rehashed, stupid discussion that we're going to have over here (again) until he makes a final decision.
Click to expand...

With NIL money now a factor it at least makes it interesting!
 
Pilchard said:
That's what drives me nuts about the complaning about the NET or how the ACC gets dogged every year. Even after losing to UGA, Utah and LSU OOC, WF was in position to get a bid, and then the Deacs lose 4 of 6 to close the year, and WF was favored in every game. It wasn't analytics that cost WF, it was the failure to win games against very beatable opponents... over and over again.
Click to expand...

Feels like this team's fatal flaw was the inability to finish in close games. Along with a tendency to play tight in pressure situations.

So while I am excited that we'll likely bring back a very strong core of players for next season, I have concerns those issues will continue. Maybe another year of development and playing together will get them over the hump?

I'm of the belief that outcomes in close games are largely based on a number of somewhat random events (though I do think you can execute better than your opponent)... But there was clearly something other than randomness and bad luck keeping us from winning close games this year.
 
DeacsATS said:
Feels like this team's fatal flaw was the inability to finish in close games. Along with a tendency to play tight in pressure situations.

So while I am excited that we'll likely bring back a very strong core of players for next season, I have concerns those issues will continue. Maybe another year of development and playing together will get them over the hump?

I'm of the belief that outcomes in close games are largely based on a number of somewhat random events (though I do think you can execute better than your opponent)... But there was clearly something other than randomness and bad luck keeping us from winning close games this year.
Click to expand...
I think a healthy senior Cam Hildreth has the toughness and credibility to be the team leader. I'm not sure we had the guy who could rally the team when things started to spiral, which happened way too often for a team with our talent. Forbes wants a player-led team, but Sallis and Boopie seemed passive/deferential at times and Reid couldn't be counted on to stay on the floor. Carr being a senior could help, too.
 
Pilchard said:
Why not set things up to put WF in the BEST position to get into the NCAAT and get a good seed? Set a smart OOC schedule, and then beat the teams you should. WF did neither. Agree that WF should've gotten a bid despite a poor scheduling strategy, but that does not mean WF gets a pass for playing an ill-conceived OOC schedule.
Click to expand...
Sure. I don't think anyone would argue against that. I also fully expect that we schedule 4 teams that are Quad 1 coming into the season and they all simultaneously poop their britches and end up Quad 3.
 
Does it say anything to your team when your coach schedules a bunch of really shitty teams (rather than just shitty 200+)

Feel like it's reflected every time wake takes the foot off the gas (effort rather than actual pace/speed)
 
i'm in the "scheduling doesn't really matter and we just need to win more games" camp and that i'd rather have resources directed towards making the roster better than trying to futilely (imo) optimize a schedule.

i'm curious what a better scheduling strategy would entail though. it feels to me that the assumption behind other schedules being better is that we would play better (from a W-L perspective) in those hypothetical games than we did in the games we actually played. based on our results this year, i think you would have to assume playing more tough games would have simply resulted in more losses, but i might be missing something. we certainly weren't immune to losing against mediocre teams, capped by losing at home to GT.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
i'm in the "scheduling doesn't really matter and we just need to win more games" camp and that i'd rather have resources directed towards making the roster better than trying to futilely (imo) optimize a schedule.

i'm curious what a better scheduling strategy would entail though. it feels to me that the assumption behind other schedules being better is that we would play better (from a W-L perspective) in those hypothetical games than we did in the games we actually played. based on our results this year, i think you would have to assume playing more tough games would have simply resulted in more losses, but i might be missing something. we certainly weren't immune to losing against mediocre teams, capped by losing at home to GT.
Click to expand...
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they aren't linked at all. The resources that are directed toward building the best roster, have no impact on putting together a schedule that maximizes NCAAT chances and seeding.


For the most part, don't play super-awful teams in the OOC. It's not that hard. Play in a decent tournament, schedule at least two competitive OOC games against Power Conference opponents (not including the SEC/ACC Challenge) and avoid playing teams rated #300 or below. There are so many teams within a 4 hour drive of W-S that WF could schedule.
 
Last edited:
I was more critical of the schedule earlier this season, and it really wasn't a factor down the stretch. Our metrics were more than enough. The post above showing Forbes' results in neutral-site games is a little scary.

However, I do think we should look to schedule some local schools that are almost always in the top-200 vs. NJIT. Or at least swap two Q4 for a D2 and add Richmond.

Clemson's schedule was a good example of when this goes well. They secured their bid in 12 days between Nov. 28 and Dec 9 as long as they didn't play like complete doo-doo in conference. And of course, you do have to win some games.
 
Pilchard said:
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they aren't linked at all. The resources that are directed toward building the best roster, have no impact on putting together a schedule that maximizes NCAAT chances and seeding.


For the most part, don't play super-awful teams in the OOC. It's not that hard. Avoid playing teams rated #300 or below.
Click to expand...

I think there are at least some fungible resources from a coaching staff standpoint that go towards building a schedule, but even just all the mental thought put into it is not a good use of resources, imo. Overall you are probably right that it's not a huge deal.

Why is scheduling bad teams bad? Feels to me like there are some pros and cons -- the big pro is that you aren't gonna lose those games, whereas playing middling teams is dangerous. We went 2-1 in home games against teams in the 100s (on Torvik). We also won a very tough neutral game against Towson. So basically, if we subbed out the 5 garbage teams we played with 5 decent ones, there's a decent chance we would have gone 4-1 instead of 5-0, and it would have effectively washed out or actually backfired.

Forbes's logic seems to be actively play super-awful teams where there is no chance of losing since Quad 3 and Quad 4 games are often combined in the committees head.
 
Last edited:
Q3-4 is not our issue. It is solely a lack of Q1 games and more specifically wins. We need double the chances next year as this year.
 
Most of the advantages of Q4 games are negated by needing to win those games by a ton of points to not be hurt in the metrics.

Non-con sets the range for your team. The conference schedule determines where you fall within that range. Clemson got a higher range than Wake from their non-con. That’s why they’re a lock with basically same last two months as Wake. Improve the schedule on the high end and low end and a Wake team that inevitably disappoints down the stretch still has a better chance to make the tourney.
 
On roster construction, I'm kind of imagining three plausible scenarios.

Scenario A is the run-it-back. Sallis gets a second round grade and comes back for more money and more development opportunity. His draft feedback is that he's a bit small and lacks playmaking / PG ability, so he returns to officially play PG. We add a couple of depth pieces via the portal, including one good frontcourt one. With Sallis at PG, maybe Pfred, Juke or a role player transfer push for a starting spot and Boopie becomes the best sixth man in the ACC.

Scenario B is worst case. Sallis leaves and our top players / starting lineup next year are guys already on the roster or committed. Even if we solve our depth issue, that team (relying on a core of Hildreth, Carr, Reid, Boopie) takes a huge step back. I know some people here think that's a good core to build around, I think those people are delusional.

Scenario C is where we have to rely on more portal magic. Sallis leaves, but we land another big transfer haul, including next year's best player (another lead guard). In a dream scenario, it's out two best players (a la ManMan + LaRavia), but that's probably unrealistic with the guys we have coming back. I think we are pretty good in this scenario as well, since we should have a great cast of role players coming back.

Obviously all of these assume our returning eligibility guys choose to return, but I think that will be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top