• 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!

Jim Grobe to Illinois?

bobknightfan said:
Have no idea. All I know is that in 29 years at Indiana, Knight only had 2 or 3 players who completed their eligibility and did not graduate.

I would accept that as a benchmark....1 player per decade who does not graduate.
Click to expand...

The answer is no. Kenny Green was not an admissible candidate. Neither was Danny Young or Jim Johnstone. Nor Keith Smart, Dean Garrett, or Ricky Calloway. Scholarship athletes all, who would not have been admitted but for their ability to play basketball. And it was doubly worse at IU, given that almost anyone with a pulse could be admitted at IU.

Seems like your benchmark is a move of the goal posts from your prior statement. If Carl Tacy and Bob Knight accepted players who were not admissible as regular students, why is it not acceptable for Wake now?
 
scooter84 said:
Someone else already addressed this but I don't think anyone interprets the elimination of the requirement to submit an SAT score as a lowering of our standards. If anything, we were on the leading edge of a trend that recognizes the inherent faults in standardized tests and the fact that other aspects of a student's HS record are actually better predictors of success in college.
Click to expand...

Consider me skeptical. Eliminating the SAT simply allows administrators somewhat greater leeway in whom they choose to admit. This may be used for greater diversity - however they choose to define diversity - or make it easier to admit wealthy donors' kids, or in any one of a number of different ways. But it certainly allows the administration greater discretion - and power - and will probably have a damping effect on, possibly legitimate, criticism of their admissions policies. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that it will improve academic standards. It will, however increase administrators power and reduce their possible accountability. Sounds a lot like more control with less accountability. Obviously, administrators will feel it works for them, and apparently they have done a pretty good job of selling people on it. If anybody wants to call that "cutting edge," then be my guest. But consider me skeptical.
 
Last edited:
DeaconSig said:
The answer is no. Kenny Green was not an admissible candidate. Neither was Danny Young or Jim Johnstone. Nor Keith Smart, Dean Garrett, or Ricky Calloway. Scholarship athletes all, who would not have been admitted but for their ability to play basketball. And it was doubly worse at IU, given that almost anyone with a pulse could be admitted at IU.

Seems like your benchmark is a move of the goal posts from your prior statement. If Carl Tacy and Bob Knight accepted players who were not admissible as regular students, why is it not acceptable for Wake now?
Click to expand...

And yet virtually all of them who were in Bob Knight's care graduated.
 
bobknightfan said:
WF should be in a conference with some schools like Vanderbilt, Villanova, Richmond, Navy, Davidson & Furman, etc.
Click to expand...

I'd rather WFU discontinue athletics altogether. Otherwise I might accidentally tune into a conference game while driving, fall instantly to sleep and have a wreck.

As an aside, if it were 100 or so years ago, would you be raging against these newfangled automobile things the kids are driving, and urging us back to our horses?
 
Wake managed a conference win and was close to one or two more with probably the worst offense we have had in decades in a complete rebuilding year.

bkf's line in the sand take on Clawson, who probably has the most impressive resume of any coach we have hired, and has proven to be a guy who can turn around multiple programs, is a curious and IMO, foolish take.

If you think that Clawson's ceiling is 2-6 or 3-5 then you think he is a bad college football coach.
 
sailordeac said:
Consider me skeptical. Eliminating the SAT simply allows administrators somewhat greater leeway in whom they choose to admit. This may be used for greater diversity - however they choose to define diversity - or make it easier to admit wealthy donors' kids, or in any one of a number of different ways. But it certainly allows the administration greater discretion - and power - and will probably have a damping effect on, possibly legitimate, criticism of their admissions policies. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that it will improve academic standards. It will, however increase administrators power and reduce their possible accountability. Sounds a lot like more control with less accountability. Obviously, administrators will feel it works for them, and apparently they have done a pretty good job of selling people on it. If anybody wants to call that "cutting edge," then be my guest. But consider me skeptical.
Click to expand...

good post. not sure I agree, not sure I don't. but good post
 
Let the record show that I have zero problem admitting early entry folks as long as they aren't character red flags and as long as the coaches feel they can be engaged in their studies while they are here. They have zero negative impact on the perceived value of the degree and can help boost the school's popularity which can lead to more selectively in the future. For basketball and football you are talking a fraction of 1% of our incoming class.
 
bobknightfan said:
Actually, I don't think it has anything at all to do with Clawson's coaching ability. He has been placed in an impossible situation. Expecting him to produce consistent winning seasons over an extended period at WF is a totally unrealistic goal. Vince Lombardi couldn't have done it. What Grobe did during 2006 thru 2008 was a once-in-a-lifetime miracle.

There is no need to worry about it, though. We will know whether or not I am right in due time. He's 3-9 so far...and I will be surprised if he wins more than 3 games this year.
Click to expand...


You didn't say he wouldn't have consistent winning seasons over an extended period of time. You said he would never have a winning season. The last Wake coach that didn't have at least one winning season was Chuck Mills'.
 
bobknightfan said:
Actually, I don't think it has anything at all to do with Clawson's coaching ability. He has been placed in an impossible situation. Expecting him to produce consistent winning seasons over an extended period at WF is a totally unrealistic goal. Vince Lombardi couldn't have done it. What Grobe did during 2006 thru 2008 was a once-in-a-lifetime miracle.

There is no need to worry about it, though. We will know whether or not I am right in due time. He's 3-9 so far...and I will be surprised if he wins more than 3 games this year.
Click to expand...

Perhaps once in your lifetime.
 
sailordeac said:
Consider me skeptical. Eliminating the SAT simply allows administrators somewhat greater leeway in whom they choose to admit. This may be used for greater diversity - however they choose to define diversity - or make it easier to admit wealthy donors' kids, or in any one of a number of different ways. But it certainly allows the administration greater discretion - and power - and will probably have a damping effect on, possibly legitimate, criticism of their admissions policies. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that it will improve academic standards. It will, however increase administrators power and reduce their possible accountability. Sounds a lot like more control with less accountability. Obviously, administrators will feel it works for them, and apparently they have done a pretty good job of selling people on it. If anybody wants to call that "cutting edge," then be my guest. But consider me skeptical.
Click to expand...

None of this really rings true to me. Wake is a private institution and does not have to externally report admissions data to anyone (and unlikely reports out broadly internally either). In other words, there was already a vast amount of discretion in the system. The change just really gives regular Joe applicants the power to have some of that discretion applied to their applications, while also reinforcing that Wake considers applications holistically, not just by the numbers like many larger institutions.

Since the policy change, application rates have increased, providing a larger pool of applicants, enabling more selective admissions. Whether or not the resulting admits are actually better or not, I don't know, but the admission web site at least indicates there is no measurable difference in the performance of non-SAT admits versus SAT admits.
 
BDL said:
this isn't really true.

from Deac94 on the recruiting thread:

2007: #90 (20 commits)
2008: #58 (17 commits)
2009: #64 (23 commits)
2010: #69 (19 commits)
2011: #70 (14 commits)
2012: #70 (19 commits)
2013: #58 (23 commits)
2014: #59 (25 commits)
2015: #51 (23 commits)
2016: Between #60 and #75 (**projected**)
Click to expand...

I just said he's recruiting at a high level. His 2015 class was the best class in eight years. His 2016 class is unfinished, but looks like it'll be at least historically average.

I'm just saying that boobknight's posts are bullshit. Not that it's surprising or anything, but it's becoming pretty clear that the old man isn't even paying attention to what Clawson's building at Wake. Maybe he won't win an ACC Championship or get to the Orange Bowl, but I'm impressed with the state of our program right now and its leader. That's a lot more than I could say at this time three years ago. Sure, we're probably going to lose a lot of games this year, but for the first time in awhile, I feel like a Wake Forest team is building towards something.
 
ChrisL68 said:
You didn't say he wouldn't have consistent winning seasons over an extended period of time. You said he would never have a winning season. The last Wake coach that didn't have at least one winning season was Chuck Mills'.
Click to expand...

Yeah. But he isn't responding to that because why let the actual history of WFU football get in the way of your argument about the history of WFU football.
 
Strickland33 said:
I just said he's recruiting at a high level. His 2015 class was the best class in eight years. His 2016 class is unfinished, but looks like it'll be at least historically average.

I'm just saying that boobknight's posts are bullshit. Not that it's surprising or anything, but it's becoming pretty clear that the old man isn't even paying attention to what Clawson's building at Wake. Maybe he won't win an ACC Championship or get to the Orange Bowl, but I'm impressed with the state of our program right now and its leader. That's a lot more than I could say at this time three years ago. Sure, we're probably going to lose a lot of games this year, but for the first time in awhile, I feel like a Wake Forest team is building towards something.
Click to expand...

Historically average recruiting isn't good enough.

Sure BKF is full of shit but what exactly did you see in last year's disaster to give you more confidence in the state of the program than three years ago when we were coming off a season where we were a missed field goal from the ACCCG, had a third-year starter in Tanner Price coming off a 3k yard 20 TD season, what we thought was a future first-rounder at corner (Bud), a skinny, but talented kid on the other side (KJ), a still-promising RB and a scrappy guy to hopefully replace Givens as our top wideout?
 
BDL said:
Historically average recruiting isn't good enough.

Sure BKF is full of shit but what exactly did you see in last year's disaster to give you more confidence in the state of the program than three years ago when we were coming off a season where we were a missed field goal from the ACCCG, had a third-year starter in Tanner Price coming off a 3k yard 20 TD season, what we thought was a future first-rounder at corner (Bud), a skinny, but talented kid on the other side (KJ), a still-promising RB and a scrappy guy to hopefully replace Givens as our top wideout?
Click to expand...

The fact that the new coach has won a conference championship at every school he has ever coached at within 5 years of getting to that school.
 
The elimination of the SAT/ACT requirement was intended solely in the hope that it would help Wake attract minority students whose scores would otherwise make them unlikely, at best, to be admitted. It probably wouldn't surprise most of us that Wake has had an even more difficult time than most Universities in attracting minority students. We can all speculate as to why that might be but it seems to be beyond dispute that it is true.

Whether you are in favor of such a policy or not is of course a separate question, but the reason for the change in policy was entirely an effort to attract minority students.
 
bobknightfan said:
Those coaches were not coaching in this ACC. They didn't have to play Miami, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Louisville, etc.
Click to expand...

We don't play Miami, Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh most years either. I know you like to live in the distant past, but if you haven't noticed Pitt hasn't had Tony Dorsett or Dan Marino in going 4 decades either. Heck, when do we play Pitt?
 
sailordeac said:
Consider me skeptical. Eliminating the SAT simply allows administrators somewhat greater leeway in whom they choose to admit. This may be used for greater diversity - however they choose to define diversity - or make it easier to admit wealthy donors' kids, or in any one of a number of different ways. But it certainly allows the administration greater discretion - and power - and will probably have a damping effect on, possibly legitimate, criticism of their admissions policies. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that it will improve academic standards. It will, however increase administrators power and reduce their possible accountability. Sounds a lot like more control with less accountability. Obviously, administrators will feel it works for them, and apparently they have done a pretty good job of selling people on it. If anybody wants to call that "cutting edge," then be my guest. But consider me skeptical.
Click to expand...

So an elite, national top-25 university eliminates the requirement for submission of an SAT score just so they can admit whomever they want? OK... They have plenty of leeway in who they admit anyway, they don't really answer to anyone. All this does is put them on the leading edge of a known issue and allow students to decide whether they want to submit an SAT score or not. The whole SAT/ACT/AP testing conglomerate is basically a money-making scam anyway so I don't really have a problem with it.
 
bobknightfan said:
Actually, I don't think it has anything at all to do with Clawson's coaching ability. He has been placed in an impossible situation. Expecting him to produce consistent winning seasons over an extended period at WF is a totally unrealistic goal. Vince Lombardi couldn't have done it. What Grobe did during 2006 thru 2008 was a once-in-a-lifetime miracle.

There is no need to worry about it, though. We will know whether or not I am right in due time. He's 3-9 so far...and I will be surprised if he wins more than 3 games this year.
Click to expand...

Actually Clawson has chosen to be here, he hasn't been "placed here". There are multiple examples of a down for a while team getting off the mat to compete. The one that comes to mind right now is SC. Even under Holtz, he could only get them so far, but insert Spurrier and the team has not had a losing season since he arrived in 2005. You could say the same for when he was at Duke and Florida as they were under achievers as well.

Clawson has done the same as Spurrier at his 3 stops and while not as sexy stops as SOS, he has endured a losing season or 2 before drastically turning things around. I don't expect Wake to compete for league titles but winning 6,7,8, or 9 games a year is not out of the question after he gets the program on firm footing from the mess he was left.
 
The only differences between the ACC we won and "this ACC," as BKF likes to call it, from a membership standpoint are OK, Louisville, but also Syracuse and Pittsburgh who have been at-best 7-win programs for as long as any current recruit can remember.

Sure, FSU and Clemson are up versus where they were when we won it, but they will have down cycles -- basically everyone does.

And even if they don't for a while, if Vandy can churn out 9-win seasons in a not-down SEC of all places with the right coach, no reason we can't with the right coach in its weaker stepbrother
 
wsc8521s said:
The only differences between the ACC we won and "this ACC," as BKF likes to call it, from a membership standpoint are OK, Louisville, but also Syracuse and Pittsburgh who have been at-best 7-win programs for as long as any current recruit can remember.

Sure, FSU and Clemson are up versus where they were when we won it, but they will have down cycles -- basically everyone does.

And even if they don't for a while, if Vandy can churn out 9-win seasons in a not-down SEC of all places with the right coach, no reason we can't with the right coach in its weaker stepbrother
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a long time ago in a land far away, Syracuse and Pitt were powerhouse programs don't you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top