• 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!

Next Wake Forest Basketball Coach...

RChildress107 said:
10% chance Manning turns into a “Top ACC coach” and 50% chance that Wellman can hire someone as good as Manning (based solely on Wellman’s last two hires).

To seriously advocate for Manning’s firing you have to, IMO:

1. Vastly underestimate Manning’s overall coaching ability;

2. Vastly overestimate how easy it is to succeed at Wake;

3. Vastly overestimate how easy it is to identify AND hire a potential top 20 coach from all available options; and

4. Vastly overestimate Ron Wellman’s ability to do #3.

The further down the list you get the less defensible the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the number 10% for the "chance that Manning becomes a top ACC coach"? And why are you multiplying the probabilities together in the second half of your inequality? Those are not dependent out comes so the probabilities (that you made up) shouldn't be multiplied.
 
knowell said:
This is the truth.

You sell before the bottom. After manning screws up another year, has even more players leaving the program, and a weak incoming class, there will be nothing to sell.

At this point, you still have some returning talent and a good class to offer an incoming coach.

Wellman let the ship sink all the way down before he let BZ go and will likely do the same with Manning. This is the Rchill plan.
Click to expand...

The Rchill plan is don’t let Wellman hire another coach
 
RChildress107 said:
If we are talking best case scenarios:

What do people expect if Crawford returns to 2016 form, Moore and Chill improve slightly, Chaundee (especially) and Sarr both take leaps, and Hoard and Mucius play to the upper end of their potential as freshman? Many of you seem to think that team wouldn’t even make the tournament.
Click to expand...

I don’t expect him to return to 2016 form. I think we match [Redacted]’s final year.
 
birdman said:
Where did you get the number 10% for the "chance that Manning becomes a top ACC coach"? And why are you multiplying the probabilities together in the second half of your inequality? Those are not dependent out comes so the probabilities (that you made up) shouldn't be multiplied.
Click to expand...

10% was arbitrary number that I thought would be low enough to satisfy everyone. It’s irrelevant to the equation.
 
RChill im not sure why you think our 19 class will be good. Weve lost all momentum in recruiting. But sure whatever you say.
 
RChildress107 said:
10% was arbitrary number that I thought would be low enough to satisfy everyone. It’s irrelevant to the equation.
Click to expand...

Wait, the key number, one of only two numbers in the equation, is irrelevant to the equation, that’s wrong anyway?
 
bigboy8 said:
Craw and Moore will be gone, if we get a grad transfer hes gone, Chaundee could possibly go pro as well as Hoard, our 19 class will not be very good.
Click to expand...

If Hoard and Brown go pro, we will likely have had a very good year. I think it’s unlikely either do next year.
 
birdman said:
It is invalid regardless, why do you multiply the probabilities in the second half of the inequality?
Click to expand...

A more accurate statement would have been x > .5x + .5(0), where x=Manning’s chances of becoming a Top ACC coach. The right side of the equation reflects Wellman’s recent hiring history.

The equation was simply meant as a retort to Biff to demonstrate that the more you think Manning sucks the less confidence you should have in him to find a better replacement.
 
RChildress107 said:
A more accurate statement would have been x > .5x + .5(0), where x=Manning’s chances of becoming a Top ACC coach. The right side of the equation reflects Wellman’s recent hiring history.

The equation was simply meant as a retort to Biff to demonstrate that the more you think Manning sucks the less confidence you should have in him to find a better replacement.
Click to expand...

What exactly does the right side of the equation represent about Wellmans recent hiring history? Where does .5 come from and why do you multiply in by x? Adding a second multiplication term to the right side and switching Mannings success to a variable does make this any clearer. What does x have to do with quality of Wellman's next hiring decision?
 
RChildress107 said:
Because most of Manning’s classes have been good, despite “8 years of misery” as y’all like to say.
Click to expand...

Huh?? Where the eff do you get this?? 2015 yielded 2 good players and a third who took two years to get into good enough shape to play more than 4 minutes at a time. 2016 has been a dumpster fire and while Brandon has played above his ranking, you can easily make the case that he probably played more minutes than he should have in year 2. 2017 remains to be seen, but it may yield 1 very good player and another who needs strength and weight to be the player we want him to be (and it might not be until next year where it really comes to fruition in a consistent fashion). 2018 appears to be pretty good, but we know what can happen when you rely too heavily on freshman "studs" (see 2007-08 and 2014-15)...the results can be quite mixed and 16-18 wins might be the ceiling.

2019 seems to be off to a really sluggish start and whatever momentum we had from 2018 is in jeopardy of being lost. So yeah, in your "adjusted for misery" world, Manning has done a grade-A, boffo job of recruiting and we're on course to get to the Sweet 16 in year 5. But relative to realistic expectations, it has been a mixed bag at best with too many reaches and subsequent over-reliance of grad transfers to fill holes that you haven't adequately recruited to fill.
 
birdman said:
What exactly does the right side of the equation represent about Wellmans recent hiring history? Where does .5 come from and why do you multiply in by x? Adding a second multiplication term to the right side and switching Mannings success to a variable does make this any clearer. What does x have to do with quality of Wellman's next hiring decision?
Click to expand...

He hired [Redacted] (0% chance of becoming a Top ACC coach) and Manning (x percent chance of becoming a Top ACC coach). Assessing the expected value of Wellman’s next hire is obviously more complicated than averaging his last two hires. If I had realized this would be so confusing to people I would have just responded with an emoji.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
Huh?? Where the eff do you get this?? 2015 yielded 2 good players and a third who took two years to get into good enough shape to play more than 4 minutes at a time. 2016 has been a dumpster fire and while Brandon has played above his ranking, you can easily make the case that he probably played more minutes than he should have in year 2. 2017 remains to be seen, but it may yield 1 very good player and another who needs strength and weight to be the player we want him to be (and it might not be until next year where it really comes to fruition in a consistent fashion). 2018 appears to be pretty good, but we know what can happen when you rely too heavily on freshman "studs" (see 2007-08 and 2014-15)...the results can be quite mixed and 16-18 wins might be the ceiling.

2019 seems to be off to a really sluggish start and whatever momentum we had from 2018 is in jeopardy of being lost. So yeah, in your "adjusted for misery" world, Manning has done a grade-A, boffo job of recruiting and we're on course to get to the Sweet 16 in year 5. But relative to realistic expectations, it has been a mixed bag at best with too many reaches and subsequent over-reliance of grad transfers to fill holes that you haven't adequately recruited to fill.
Click to expand...

If he recruits two top 100 players, including a top 40 guy in 2019 we will be fine. That’s a good, not great class, similar to 2015, 17, and 18. If Manning can keep putting 5 or more top 100 players on the floor each year he will be fine. He needs at least 2 in 2019.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
Huh?? Where the eff do you get this?? 2015 yielded 2 good players and a third who took two years to get into good enough shape to play more than 4 minutes at a time. 2016 has been a dumpster fire and while Brandon has played above his ranking, you can easily make the case that he probably played more minutes than he should have in year 2. 2017 remains to be seen, but it may yield 1 very good player and another who needs strength and weight to be the player we want him to be (and it might not be until next year where it really comes to fruition in a consistent fashion). 2018 appears to be pretty good, but we know what can happen when you rely too heavily on freshman "studs" (see 2007-08 and 2014-15)...the results can be quite mixed and 16-18 wins might be the ceiling.

2019 seems to be off to a really sluggish start and whatever momentum we had from 2018 is in jeopardy of being lost. So yeah, in your "adjusted for misery" world, Manning has done a grade-A, boffo job of recruiting and we're on course to get to the Sweet 16 in year 5. But relative to realistic expectations, it has been a mixed bag at best with too many reaches and subsequent over-reliance of grad transfers to fill holes that you haven't adequately recruited to fill.
Click to expand...

Please share these realistic expectations that do not take the state of the program Manning inherited into account.
 
RChildress107 said:
If he recruits two top 100 players, including a top 40 guy in 2019 we will be fine. That’s a good, not great class, similar to 2015, 17, and 18. If Manning can keep putting 5 or more top 100 players on the floor each year he will be fine. He needs at least 2 in 2019.
Click to expand...

Haha good luck with that. Danny hasn't been able to recruit players in the range of 50-125 (or even Top 150) in four years. Suddenly he's going to put together a 2019 class that includes two more Top 100 players (AND a Top 40) when we don't seem to be on the serious consideration radar of any Top 50 players. BTW, Egg was ranked roughly 200th, and that may be generous as one service had him as high as 129, which seems quite high), and Okeke was a preferred walk-on ranked in the 500-600 range. The average rank of 2016 was around 160ish. And Sharone and Jamie (post-injuries) are both in the 175-200 range at this point. While we might get another Top 100 this year, I would have preferred 4 straight years of 3 or 4 player classes who were all in the 50-150 range, save for the odd reach here and there, along with Brown and Hoard, who are consensus Top 50 players. The only 2 consensus Top 50 players he has hit on in 4 years. Not quite enough when your other 13 or 14 players average 195-200.

I just think it's funny that you are so adamant that Danny can pull off a miracle in 2019 when there is very little in terms of positive recruiting trail scuttlebutt at this point.
 
It's very tough to recruit well into a shitty program, which is what we are right now. At the end of last year, sure we had some momentum and DM could sell the "program on the rise" BS. Not so much now.
 
Why the Deac Not said:
Haha good luck with that. Danny hasn't been able to recruit players in the range of 50-125 (or even Top 150) in four years. Suddenly he's going to put together a 2019 class that includes two more Top 100 players (AND a Top 40) when we don't seem to be on the serious consideration radar of any Top 50 players. BTW, Egg was ranked roughly 200th, and that may be generous as one service had him as high as 129, which seems quite high), and Okeke was a preferred walk-on ranked in the 500-600 range. The average rank of 2016 was around 160ish. And Sharone and Jamie (post-injuries) are both in the 175-200 range at this point. While we might get another Top 100 this year, I would have preferred 4 straight years of 3 or 4 player classes who were all in the 50-150 range, save for the odd reach here and there, along with Brown and Hoard, who are consensus Top 50 players. The only 2 consensus Top 50 players he has hit on in 4 years. Not quite enough when your other 13 or 14 players average 195-200.

I just think it's funny that you are so adamant that Danny can pull off a miracle in 2019 when there is very little in terms of positive recruiting trail scuttlebutt at this point.
Click to expand...

I mean, by this logic, Manning pulled off a miracle last year on the court last year, didn't he? If he had that little talent on the roster.
 
Even though Dave Odom did it in '89-90 and snagged key role players the following two years. And while Skip had the luxury of building off the momentum of 2001's near Sweet 16 appearance, it's not like he got CP3 the first year and the rest followed. He did his due diligence and recruited 7 out of 8 players the first two years that went on to graduate. How bout [Redacted] and Manning? Not so much.

Danny had a chance to establish stability and a foundation to build upon. It looks as though he has failed to do so. Now it all boils down to the 2019 class? Maybe 2018/2019 will prove to be his 2007/2008, but the foundation has crumbled (was it ever there?) and we will likely crash and burn in 2020 and beyond, if the ascent is all that high to begin with. No pressure Jaylen!

I would feel much better about anchoring my hopes on 2018's class if Hoard were a dominant PG, who can control the game without dominating the ball a la a certain someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top