Page 6 of 483 FirstFirst 12345678910111656106 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 9644

Thread: Danny Manning Credibility Watch

  1. #101
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    62,906
    We can't get out of this canyon without players. Danny delivered a Top 20 or so class starting behind other programs and having had little to no contact with our recruits before arriving in W-S.

    By any rational metric, his credibility is high due to this.

    This team is terribly flawed. Several of us tried to explain it before the season started. Some think you can expect miracles and when they don't happen they lose their minds. That's not Danny's fault. It's the people are unrealistic and irrational.

  2. #102
    Our basketball program was MONTE for a long time.

    Pre-bzz final season rankings by whatever I deemed to be the best measure for the given year (1. kenpom 2. sagarin 3. rpi 4. ap poll 5. tourney seed). The 91-05 stretch was really impressive.

    Code:
    Year	Ranking	Source
    2010	59	Kenpom
    2009	27	Kenpom
    2008	69	Kenpom
    2007	102	Kenpom
    2006	82	Kenpom
    -----------------------
    2005	7	Kenpom
    2004	18	Kenpom
    2003	21	Kenpom
    2002	24	Sagarin
    2001	13	Sagarin
    2000	34	Sagarin
    1999	61	Sagarin
    1998	32	RPI
    1997	6	Sagarin
    1996	8	RPI
    1995	4	RPI
    1994	22	RPI
    1993	16	AP
    1992	36	Seed
    1991	26	Seed

  3. #103
    Thank goodness {name redacted} was truly able to build that foundation that RW said we so sorely needed or imagine how bad we'd be at this point. We'd probably be at Dino levels where we only made it to the NCAA tournament first or second round.

  4. #104
    Kenpom from 2002-2014:

    2002: 30/327, top 9%
    2003: 21/327, top 6%
    2004: 18/326, top 5%
    2005: 7/330, top 2%
    2006: 82/334, top 24%
    2007: 102/336, top 30%
    2008: 69/341, top 20% (20 wins)
    2009: 27/344, top 8%
    2010: 59/347, top 17%
    2011: 271/345, top 78%
    2012: 217/345, top 63%
    2013: 134/347, top 39%
    2014: 118/351, top 34%


    So, pre-Buzz, for the years that Kenpom has existed, our worst year, 2007, still had us better than 70% (234) of college basketball teams. Our lows have not been as "low" as you seem to think, and, as shown above, we've consistently been one of the best in the nation in our up years.

    Edit: And as Apetit showed above, the pre-Kenpom years from 1990-2002 were much better than 2005+, even though I don't have total number of teams to compare those ranks to and come up with a percentage.
    Last edited by RacerDeac; 12-03-2014 at 05:23 PM.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Why the Deac Not View Post
    And what recruiting advantages am I overlooking? Last time I checked, we're an even more demanding academic institution with the same arduous pre-req demands and heavy course load (with language requirement). When the majority of teenagers wanna goof off and chase girls, I'm not sure how Wake will ever be near the top of that priority list for the average student-athlete.
    Currently we have a lot of things going for us that few, if any, of the 350+ college programs can claim:

    1) ACC
    2) Tobacco Road
    3) Danny Manning and his accolades
    4) Great facilities
    5) Even better practice facilities coming
    5.5) Even better Joel facilities planned
    6) Tim Duncan
    7) Chris Paul
    8) Childress
    9) Historically one of the top 13 teams in the nation for the 20 years pre Buzz.
    10) The ability to play head-to-head with the Dukes, UNC's, Cuse's, etc of the world.
    11) Great campus
    12) Great academic support for our players
    13) Multiple articles like this that rank us one of the top 10-15 NBA producing programs of the last decade or so:
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-decade/page/8

    Our success alone is proof that Wake has more recruiting advantages than disadvantages. We've been very successful without legendary coaches that you find at many of the teams in the 1-12 spots above us.

  6. #106
    Frederic Fuckin' Chopin Why the Deac Not's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sorta Decatur, GA
    Posts
    2,830
    Quote Originally Posted by RacerDeac View Post
    Kenpom from 2002-2014:

    2002: 30/327, top 9%
    2003: 21/327, top 6%
    2004: 18/326, top 5%
    2005: 7/330, top 2%
    2006: 82/334, top 24%
    2007: 102/336, top 30%
    2008: 69/341, top 20% (20 wins)
    2009: 27/344, top 8%
    2010: 59/347, top 17%
    2011: 271/345, top 78%
    2012: 217/345, top 63%
    2013: 134/347, top 39%
    2014: 118/351, top 34%


    So, pre-Buzz, for the years that Kenpom has existed, our worst year, 2007, still had us better than 70% (234) of college basketball teams. Our lows have not been as "low" as you seem to think, and, as shown above, we've consistently been one of the best in the nation in our up years.

    Edit: And as Apetit showed above, the pre-Kenpom years from 1990-2002 were much better than 2005+, even though I don't have total number of teams to compare those ranks to and come up with a percentage.
    After the highs of 2004 and 2005, '06 and '07 felt like we fell off a cliff and those ratings seem pretty generous considering our awful finish to the 2007 season especially. 2010 was overrated too. But for a better assessment, you gotta include the Staak and [name redacted] years to see the consistently inconsistent trend that has existed through most of Wake's history. Hell, go back to 1960 and it's way up, way down, up, down etc.

    Some folks here act as though it is our damn birthright to be a Top 20 team every year. I'd be pretty happy with Top 50-60 every year with a good run every few years in the tourney, maybe an occasional Sweet 16 or Elite 8.

    But we'll need much better and sustained recruiting going forward, even better than Odom. I think it's harder to recruit to Wake than ever now that there are 15 ACC schools.

  7. #107
    Frederic Fuckin' Chopin Why the Deac Not's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sorta Decatur, GA
    Posts
    2,830
    Quote Originally Posted by RacerDeac View Post
    Currently we have a lot of things going for us that few, if any, of the 350+ college programs can claim:

    1) ACC
    2) Tobacco Road
    3) Danny Manning and his accolades
    4) Great facilities
    5) Even better practice facilities coming
    5.5) Even better Joel facilities planned
    6) Tim Duncan
    7) Chris Paul
    8) Childress
    9) Historically one of the top 13 teams in the nation for the 20 years pre Buzz.
    10) The ability to play head-to-head with the Dukes, UNC's, Cuse's, etc of the world.
    11) Great campus
    12) Great academic support for our players
    13) Multiple articles like this that rank us one of the top 10-15 NBA producing programs of the last decade or so:
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-decade/page/8

    Our success alone is proof that Wake has more recruiting advantages than disadvantages. We've been very successful without legendary coaches that you find at many of the teams in the 1-12 spots above us.
    You forgot our #1 ranked Accountancy program in terms of initial success on the CPA exam. That really makes a difference in recruiting.

    You're ranking Danny Manning 3rd or is this just a random listing not in any particular order. Not to mention Winston is a nice place to live...IF YOU'RE RAISING A FAMILY. It's pretty damn lame for a college student.

  8. #108
    well you can go hang out in the Cleveland projects.. thats a fun thing to do as a college kid.. buy some crack and get stabbed
    #GoDeacs #GoPanthers

  9. #109
    Broderick Hicks
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Big Lick, NC
    Posts
    3,178
    The Boobknight posts about Manning and Clawson make me laugh.

  10. #110
    Plenty of credibility to go with plenty of non-ACC caliber players.

  11. #111
    As a fanbase, we become more comfortable with low expectations in a big hurry.

  12. #112
    Frederic Fuckin' Chopin Why the Deac Not's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sorta Decatur, GA
    Posts
    2,830
    Well it seems as though I have discounted the Tacy years a bit too much. I knew he had some good years / stretches, but did not realize he averaged 17-18 wins per season throughout his 13 seasons. An interesting breakdown of the last 55 years in 5 year increments shows just how Jekyll & Hyde WFU BB has been. To wit, starting with the Final Four years:

    '60-'64 -- 8 appearances in natl rankings, a high rank of #3 and the 42nd best appearance rnk out of 58 schools that were ranked (8 app \ #3 \ 42nd \ 58 tms)
    '65-'70 -- no appearances; 70 different teams ranked over those 6 years
    '71-'75 -- 1 app \ #18 \ T74 \ 83 tms
    '76-'80 -- 21 app \ #4 \ 32nd \ 79 tms
    '81-'85 -- 37 app \ #3 \ 19th \ 72 tms
    '86-'90 -- no app; Staak years
    '91-'95 -- 33 app \ #3 \ 27th \ 78 tms
    '96-'00 -- 43 app \ #2 \ 18th \ 85 tms
    '01-'05 -- 84 app \ #1 \ 5th \ 79 tms
    '06-'10 -- 29 app \ #1 \ 34th \ 90 tms
    '11-'14 -- REDACTED with a heaping helping of KENPOM FAIL

    So ignoring the REDACTED DARK PERIOD, over a 50 year span, Wake averaged 25.6 appearances in national rankings every 5 year period and were the 24th "best" team in terms of appearances out of an avg of 76.5 teams that got ranked in those 10 5-year increments. 24th out of 76 seems pretty good I suppose. But I can't help but feel like our stretches of success come at horribly tragic costs as our program seems to implode every 20-25 years.

    I guess we can hope that 2015 is the beginning of the Wake Forest BB renaissance. Should Harry Giles decide to go the way of Rodney Rogers, Chris Paul and AT&T and choose Wake Forest, perhaps we can return to our "rightful" place among the NCAA basketball elite.

    SIDEBAR: interesting to note that the likes of San Diego State, Gonzaga, Creighton and Wichita St. moved into the Top 25 in terms of appearances in national rankings over the last 4 years. Does that mean Wake Forest has been replaced for good? Other than San Diego, I think I would rather matriculate in Winston over Spokane, Wichita and Omaha, but I'm not sure. Guess it really boils down to coaching charisma, JUCO transfers in some cases, recruiting momentum and some luck as there are several historically consistent programs that have not maintained their levels despite being in a "power" conference.

    I do think it's a bit harder to maintain a high level of recruiting and success now that there seems to be an additional 10-15 mid-majors that can and have emerged as bonafide FF contenders and not just Cinderella spoilers.

    Certainly our 2015 recruiting class is a big step in a very important direction. Keep it going Coach!!
    Last edited by Why the Deac Not; 12-03-2014 at 06:48 PM. Reason: Grammar

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighTriad View Post
    Well...

    The Deacs are at 4-4 with the 4 losses being the following:

    - 30 point beat down at Arkansas.
    - DM pulling his best Chris Webber imitation to lose at home to Iona.
    - The loss to Delaware State might be the worst loss in school history.... Yes, worse than Stetson.
    - Down 1 pt to Minnesota at the half turns into 12 pts down in the first 3 minutes of the second with 3 time-outs burned.

    We are 8 games in to the season and already there have been 4 fiascoes. I want to give DM the benefit of the doubt but after tonight I am putting his credibility on watch.
    8 post rule. 8 games in and 8 posts.

  14. #114
    I just can't help but think that last year's Tulsa team, by years end at least, would have a pretty good shot at being undefeated given our schedule this year. So, I'm going to go with that.

    Also, that Tulsa team last year started out dreadfully slow before winning their last 11 in a row, including the Conference USA tourney, to end the season.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Why the Deac Not View Post

    Some folks here act as though it is our damn birthright to be a Top 20 team every year. I'd be pretty happy with Top 50-60 every year with a good run every few years in the tourney, maybe an occasional Sweet 16 or Elite 8.
    Noone on this board acts like that. Many simply acknowledge that there is nothing fundamentally preventing Wake from being a Top 20 team almost every year (say 4 out of 5). As Racer has pointed out Wake had a 20 year run of high level success. Even the 30 year numbers are strong (which includes the Staak) period.

    claiming that something we sustained for a 20 year period is not sustainable is pretty stupid. There's also a strong argument to be made that we actually consistently underacheived throughout that 20 year period. This means there is nothing about Wake that prevents us from getting back to at least that 20 year baseline we had pre 2010 and likely nothing that prevents us from reaching even higher.

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    We can't get out of this canyon without players. Danny delivered a Top 20 or so class starting behind other programs and having had little to no contact with our recruits before arriving in W-S.

    By any rational metric, his credibility is high due to this.

    This team is terribly flawed. Several of us tried to explain it before the season started. Some think you can expect miracles and when they don't happen they lose their minds. That's not Danny's fault. It's the people are unrealistic and irrational.
    This
    Wtf are people thinking? The program was in the pits of hell. It won't turn around over night.

  17. #117
    It's not really hard to figure out.

    Our major down swings are linked to sudden coaching changes. Tacy quit in the summer leading to Staak. Skip's death in the summer gave us zero options and we took Dino when Battle could not do it. Dino would never have been on Wake HC radar in a normal circumstance. That led to the mess that followed.

    Our minor down swings are because we rarely have been able to follow up great classes with great talent.

    The way we've bounced back is with a great recruiting class. Tacy brought in the Johnstone/Rogers class followed by Danny Young which gave us 4 years near the top. Odom had Childress and Rodgers. Skip had CP3.

    The way back is to have at least a better than average coach that can recruit. True sustained success will only come by being able to recruit behind the great teams.

    ETA clearly our peaks have been closely tied to having first round pick on the team. Frank Johnson, Rodgers, Childress, Duncan, Howard, CP3, Teague, JJ, AFA.
    Last edited by Deac83; 12-03-2014 at 07:56 PM.

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Deac83 View Post
    It's not really hard to figure out.

    Our major down swings are linked to sudden coaching changes. Tacy quit in the summer leading to Staak. Skip's death in the summer gave us zero options and we took Dino when Battle could not do it. Dino would never have been on Wake HC radar in a normal circumstance. That led to the mess that followed.

    Our minor down swings are because we rarely have been able to follow up great classes with great talent.

    The way we've bounced back is with a great recruiting class. Tacy brought in the Johnstone/Rogers class followed by Danny Young which gave us 4 years near the top. Odom had Childress and Rodgers. Skip had CP3.

    The way back is to have at least a better than average coach that can recruit. True sustained success will only come by being able to recruit behind the great teams.

    ETA clearly our peaks have been closely tied to having first round pick on the team. Frank Johnson, Rodgers, Childress, Duncan, Howard, CP3, Teague, JJ, AFA.
    Lol at Deac83 still trying to pin [name redacted]'s failures on Dino. Nothing about Dino's time at Wake constitutes or resulted in a major downswing.

    I will give you credit for sticking to your guns.

  19. #119
    Frederic Fuckin' Chopin Why the Deac Not's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sorta Decatur, GA
    Posts
    2,830
    Wake Forest, since 1936 (and entrance into the Southern Conf) is 1197 - 921 all-time for a 56.5% win percentage. That is an average of 15 wins and 12 losses per year for 78 years. Is that what is considered good enough to be an "elite" Top 25 program on average?

    Since entering the ACC in 1953, Wake is 484-486 in ACC competition for an average of 8 - 8 over 61 years. Only Greason and Bones have an ACC W% above 60% while Odom, Prosser & Dino have roughly a 54% W%, which would certainly be quite acceptable for any coach going forward. But it ain't that easy. Over 24 seasons, McCloskey, Murdock, Tacy & Staak went a combined 111 - 205 against ACC competition. While the Staak & Bzfuck years seem like extreme aberrations, how do we know that 20 year period of success from 1990 - 2010 wasn't just the peak of a mostly pretty mediocre 80 year avg?

    Now, our results are certainly skewed by the likes of McCloskey, Staak, and Bzfuck, but can we really say that we are an historically Top 25 program and not have it ring just a bit hollow? Especially without the post-season results? 21-18 in the Tourney since 1977 isn't what I think of when I think of perennial contenders. Perhaps there really are only about 15 teams who can honestly say that they are a perennial contender with the results to back it up, both regular conf season and post-season play.

    But outside of the Final Four years under McKinney and the sustained run from '91 thru '05 with a combined ACC record of 227 - 155 (59.5% W%), can what has been an historically average, middle of the pack ACC team expect to be a perennial Top 20 team? Perhaps that Odom/Prosser period was an aberration and it will never get much better than that? I hope not, but I'm just trying to put things in perspective for the folks who are already freaking out about Danny Manning's coaching after 8 GAMES!

    Playing 18 conf games per year will only make it harder and harder to be a .500, MOTP team that gets to the Dance more than once or twice every 4 years. Obviously in CBB, it is easier to climb from the depths quickly since you need only 2 or 3 really good players and a decent supporting cast. We may not be that far away, but let's put the pitch forks and torches away until 2016 shall we? We have no idea if Manning will be the next Bob Staak or the next Dave Odom (good luck!) or just average. Of course, average looks pretty damn good.
    Last edited by Why the Deac Not; 12-03-2014 at 08:29 PM.

  20. #120
    Um who gives a fuck what happened in 1936 or 1953. Our recruits parents weren't even alive then.

    It's ok to admit you are wrong. The run from 91-2010 (20 seasons) is far more relevant to how successful our program can be than what happened in the 1960's and 70's. If you can't see that then there's no point in really having this conversation.

    During those 20 years we were by any measure a top 25 program. Does this mean we will be in the top 25 every single year? No of course not. There are maybe 4 programs that can expect to never slip out on occasion.

    It does mean that 4 out of every 5 years we should expect to make the tournament (we went to 14 out of 20 prior to bz) and 2 or 3 out of every 5 years we should finish as a top 20 team (8 out of 20) with a chance to contend for a Final Four once out of every 5 years (5-6 out of 20 depending on how you feel about certain teams).

    I think you are confusing the expectation to be a top 20 program (something we were during the 20 years prior to bz) with the expectation to be in the top 20 every year (something maybe 5 programs have accomplished consistently over the last decade)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •