• 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!

Danny Manning Credibility Watch

If you want to make an argument that Manning-coached teams, when compared to other teams with similar talent, have a unique tendency to blow games they should conceivably win I'd be interested to hear it. It's a small sample size and I think you'd have trouble showing a trend, but maybe the data is out there.

Or if you want to argue that even controlling for the situation Manning took over, his recruiting so far indicates that he won't be able to recruit the talent we need going forward, then make that argument. I think the data is mixed so far but if you disagree put it out there.
 
DeacDaddy said:
:thumbsup:
I look at everything. Data, game trends, win/loss record, recruiting, demeanor. Everything else you can perceive about a coach. And I see the good. (Since you're still trying to convince me of all of the positive data, I think you have missed this point.) I just don't think it's all going to add up to him being the phenomenal coach that we need.

I view his potential differently than you do. And for some reason you have a really hard time accepting that.
Click to expand...

If that's all true then maybe you are using a different bar. I've never said he's going to be a phenomenal coach, or even someone who should be here 8, 10, 20 years. Too early to tell on that front.

I simply think he has met or exceeded all reasonable expectations and has earned the opportunity to complete the rebuild. When it appears Manning has peaked or plateaued we should evaluate from there. The evidence so far, IMO, is trending towards that peak being at least back to where we were before [Redacted].

That alone is not good enough long term, but it's a necessary step before we start competing for championships. If you think Manning isn't currently taking that step or is incapable of taking that step, that's fine. I'm confident that you are wrong but I'm willing to listen to data-backed arguments to the contrary.
 
It is just hard for me to wrap my head around the concept that Manning has met or exceeded all reasonable expectations when we are 3 and 25 and our last 28 ACC games

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
ChrisL68 said:
It is just hard for me to wrap my head around the concept that Manning has met or exceeded all reasonable expectations when we are 3 and 25 and our last 28 ACC games

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I really don't know the answer to this, but what's his record against the spread in the ACC? Obviously he is getting to a point where the spread should be less and we should be favored in more, but that's a decent way to look at whether or not he is exceeding expectations game in and game out.
 
DeacDaddy said:
:thumbsup:
I look at everything. Data, game trends, win/loss record, recruiting, demeanor. Everything else you can perceive about a coach. And I see the good. (Since you're still trying to convince me of all of the positive data, I think you have missed this point.) I just don't think it's all going to add up to him being the phenomenal coach that we need.

I view his potential differently than you do. And for some reason you have a really hard time accepting that.
Click to expand...

I also think that you are weighing subjective data (demeanor, trends you notice during games, etc.) equal to or above objective data.

Objective data is less subject to bias and paints a much broader picture than subjective data (unless you are watching dozens of college basketball games each week).

I know that my selection and presentation of objective data is inevitably influenced by my subjective biases, but at least I'm making the effort to fact-check (so to speak) the improvement I see on the floor. Feel free to do the same if you disagree with me.
 
ChrisL68 said:
It is just hard for me to wrap my head around the concept that Manning has met or exceeded all reasonable expectations when we are 3 and 25 and our last 28 ACC games

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You could argue he didn't meet reasonable expectations for the second half of last season. But I'm taking a slightly longer view than that. Overall, based on what he took over, he is at or ahead of where it was reasonable to expect him to be at this point.

FWIW I think he needs to get to 6-12, 15-15, 60ish Kenpom in order for that statement to still be true.

I think we end up at 7-11, 17-15, 50ish Kenpom.
 
ChrisL68 said:
It is just hard for me to wrap my head around the concept that Manning has met or exceeded all reasonable expectations when we are 3 and 25 and our last 28 ACC games

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Post-truth era. Facts don't matter as much as how you feel.
 
CantStandYa said:
Post-truth era. Facts don't matter as much as how you feel.
Click to expand...

Ruling?

Pretty sure I'm the only one offering a healthy dose of objective facts on this thread recently.

Kenpom, RPI, other computer rating systems, SOS, talent level, etc. are being ignored left and right on this thread because people are tired of losing. Wake fans are the ACC version of the Midwestern/Rust Belt white working class I guess.
 
Last edited:
I think Wake needs a coach that is well above average at improving players, producing an effective offensive and defensive system, and making astute in game decisions. Wake will never be good enough at attracting players to out talent the teams in the ACC. Wake can get close or comparable talent to most of the teams we face, but to achieve at a maximum level, the coaching needs to be top notch.

I think Manning has improved some in these areas, but he was starting from a very low level in some areas. Some of the substitutions in the first couple of years were godawful. Timeout usage was similar. Coaching up the players and identifying talent seems to be mixed.

Up to this point, I have not seen enough of what I think will make a long term successful coach, but I do feel we need more data. If this team finishes the year strong and kempom rating stays in the 50ish area, then I will be on board with giving Manning more time. The rest of this year will be very important. We cannot have another 2-4 win ACC season and keep any illusion of being on track.

I hope R Childress is right and I do think we need more info, but time is beginning to run out.
 
Are Dave Odom and Skip Prosser acceptable benchmarks for Manning? Neither of them fit the bill of what you just described.

If they are acceptable benchmarks for Manning over the next 6-8 years then let's talk about whether he is on track to meet those benchmarks.

If they aren't acceptable benchmarks then we are truly in la la land.
 
First three years for Odom:

89-90: 12-16 (3-11)
90-91: 19-11 (8-6) NCAA Second Round
91-92: 17-12 (7-9) NCAA Sweet Sixteen

First three years for Prosser:

01-02: 21-13 (9-7) NCAA Second Round
02-03: 25-6 (13-3) NCAA Second Round
03-04: 21-10 (9-7) NCAA Sweet Sixteen
 
I think given what Mannin took over, it was reasonable to expect that by year 3 he would have the program back to where it was during Odom and Skip's down years, and in years 4-6 we would see a typical range of Skip/Odom teams (1 bubble, 1 championship contender, and one borderline ACC contender.)

Through 16 games in year 3 he has us safely within the Skip/Odom range and I'm confident that next years team will at least be a bubble team.

Hoping for our own program defining, 20+ year coach after firing Dino was an appropriate goal (and the only real justification for the firing). Hoping for one after [Redacted], and demanding concrete evidence after 2 1/2 seasons is borderline insane.

If Brad Stevens was the logical next step after Dino, and [Redacted] was at a minimum 3 steps back, asking Manning to cover those theee steps AND start taking the next one in less than 3 seasons is a tall order.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
First three years for Odom:

89-90: 12-16 (3-11)
90-91: 19-11 (8-6) NCAA Second Round
91-92: 17-12 (7-9) NCAA Sweet Sixteen

First three years for Prosser:

01-02: 21-13 (9-7) NCAA Second Round
02-03: 25-6 (13-3) NCAA Second Round
03-04: 21-10 (9-7) NCAA Sweet Sixteen
Click to expand...

What did they take over? Surely you aren't suggesting Manning's first 3 years should remotely resemble those coaches first 3 years.

And before we start with "but Staak...", [Redacted] was so bad that Odom's starting point was more similar to Skip's than it is to Manning's.
 
RChildress107 said:
Ruling?

Pretty sure I'm the only one offering a healthy dose of objective facts on this thread recently.

Kenpom, RPI, other computer rating systems, SOS, talent level, etc. are being ignored left and right on this thread because people are tired of losing. Wake fans are the ACC version of the Midwestern/Rust Belt white working class I guess.
Click to expand...

Jesus this post sucks. And I'm very much in favor of advanced stats over feelings. Because yea, winning is a fuckload more fun than losing but having good Kenpom.
 
Odom SRS first 2 seasons:

7.81
13.81

Manning years 2 and so far year 3:

5.5
12.8

If you operate under the reasonable assumption that [Redacted] set Manning back a full year when compared to a "normal" rebuild, his progress mirrors other above average coaches, including Odom.
 
RChildress107 said:
What did they take over? Surely you aren't suggesting Manning's first 3 years should remotely resemble those coaches first 3 years.

And before we start with "but Staak...", [Redacted] was so bad that Odom's starting point was more similar to Skip's than it is to Manning's.
Click to expand...

I just listed their records with no context.
 
TownieDeac said:
Jesus this post sucks. And I'm very much in favor of advanced stats over feelings. Because yea, winning is a fuckload more fun than losing but having good Kenpom.
Click to expand...

This year has been way more fun than 13-14 but I doubt we win 17 games.

All things being equal winning is more fun. But I'd rather watch a top 50 team that's capable of beating top 25 teams lose to top 25 teams than watch a top 100 team beat a bunch of low majors.

In other words I think being a Wake fan this year is more fun than being a New Mexico St. fan, though probably more frustrating as well.
 
RChildress107 said:
This year has been way more fun than 13-14 but I doubt we win 17 games.

All things being equal winning is more fun. But I'd rather watch a top 50 team that's capable of beating top 25 teams lose to top 25 teams than watch a top 100 team beat a bunch of low majors.

In other words I think being a Wake fan this year is more fun than being a New Mexico St. fan, though probably more frustrating as well.
Click to expand...

Fine, but you're way overthinking by doing all this contextualizing. No amount of rationalization makes this season fun until we beat a good team.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
First three years for Odom:

89-90: 12-16 (3-11)
90-91: 19-11 (8-6) NCAA Second Round
91-92: 17-12 (7-9) NCAA Sweet Sixteen

First three years for Prosser:

01-02: 21-13 (9-7) NCAA Second Round
02-03: 25-6 (13-3) NCAA Second Round
03-04: 21-10 (9-7) NCAA Sweet Sixteen
Click to expand...

1992 we got drilled by Louisville in the first round. That was the season Childress redshirted due to his knee injury. 1993 we lost in Sweet 16 to put it nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top