• 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!

The ACC Basketball Schedule Is Out

So many of you have been sucked in by the low expectations resulting from last year's debacle, that a team that is mediocre (which is saying very little) has been universally deemed as "terrible" before the season starts. This roster is not "terrible". The WF AD loves the 2-4 ACC win expectation. Easy to exceed. Then progress will be claimed.

WF literally blew every winnable game in the final minutes last year. Manning naturally is to blame, but so were the players; the players that played the largest role in these late game collapses are gone. WF won't lose every close game again this year (not saying WF will win them all, just more than none); it's not a huge accomplishment to not completely implode when games are close, but it may seem like it. This is a 7+ ACC win team, even if WF loses many, but just not all, of its close games.

Going 7-11 in the ACC in year 5 of a coach's tenure is not praiseworthy, but with a BS non-conference schedule and being mediocre in the close ACC games, WF will have a winning record and maybe even get an NIT bid. You can bet that significant progress will be claimed. This will happen. Some here are so blinded by their pathos toward Manning and the talent on hand that they are underrating a team that has been set up with a super soft schedule to be "not that bad". That should not be the bar for the program, but by failing to see that this team is mediocre (instead of awful), you are helping set up the argument that will allow Manning to stay.
 
Last edited:
You could also say players who kept the games close left. We will be relying on new players to keep games close and the same coaches to finish games.
 
Ayo said:
I wish I shared your optimism. I guess I'd give it about ~30% chance we win one of those games. ~70% chance we lose all three.
Click to expand...

That means that we only have a ~10% chance to win each game. You think it's that low?
 
WFUWaldo said:
That means that we only have a ~10% chance to win each game. You think it's that low?
Click to expand...
Didn't think about it too closely, but it would actually be more like a ~14% chance in each game. If we're keeping it simple:

(3 choose 1) * (.14)(.86)(.86) = 31.06%

Yeah, maybe a little low, but I have no faith in Wake Forest in ACC road games, especially with a roster this young.
 
Pilchard said:
So many of you have been sucked in by the low expectations resulting from last year's debacle, that a team that is mediocre (which is saying very little) has been universally deemed as "terrible" before the season starts. This roster is not "terrible". The WF AD loves the 2-4 ACC win expectation. Easy to exceed. Then progress will be claimed.

WF literally blew every winnable game in the final minutes last year. Manning naturally is to blame, but so were the players; the players that played the largest role in these late game collapses are gone. WF won't lose every close game again this year (not saying WF will win them all, just more than none); it's not a huge accomplishment to not completely implode when games are close, but it may seem like it. This is a 7+ ACC win team, even if WF loses many, but just not all, of its close games.

Going 7-11 in the ACC in year 5 of a coach's tenure is not praiseworthy, but with a BS non-conference schedule and being mediocre in the close ACC games, WF will have a winning record and maybe even get an NIT bid. You can bet that significant progress will be claimed. This will happen. Some here are so blinded by their pathos toward Manning and the talent on hand that they are underrating a team that has been set with a super soft schedule to be "not that bad". That should not be the bar for the program, but by failing to see that this team is mediocre (instead of awful), you helping set up the argument that will allow Manning to stay.
Click to expand...

So, Is year 5 of Manning better or worse than year 4 of BZ?
 
knowell said:
So, Is year 5 of Manning better or worse than year 4 of BZ?
Click to expand...

We will see. Bz's last year, WF had a winning record (17-16) and won 7 ACC games (6-12 in conference and won a tourney game against Pitt). A similar season is likely, yet somehow expectations for this year's team are less than they were for Bz's final year because there is a mob mentality here that has led to off the charts predictions that this team is going to ridiculously bad; I've seen 2 and 3 win ACC teams; absent injuries or suspensions, WF is not in that category of bad. Just to be clear: an 18-14 season with 7 ACC wins is not acceptable at this point in DM's tenure, but a record along those lines is reasonably possible given the schedule and the players on hand.
 
Wake is picked #13 of 16 in the ACC by all the preseason rankings I've seen so far, so no one except for a few die hard Wake Basketball fans expect this team to be good.
 
There are 15 teams in the ACC. The 12th place team in the ACC last year (BC) went 7-11 and won 19 games.

The schedule was announced today; so, it was impossible to do any accurate predictions about the schedule until today. The statistical models will come out in the next few weeks. The ACC Media Day predictions will come out in October.
 
Think you're looking more so at the vocal segment of the fan base, Pilchard. I believe the median win prediction will be 15 or 16. Will run the poll in a few weeks as it gets closer to the season.
 
How can you say WF is not expected to be that bad? And one could say awful unless Hoard is 2nd coming of JHo. You do realize our team last year was 4-14 in ACC and 11-20 overall and lost close to 80% of our 73 pts/game scoring and close to 75% of our rebounding? So Chill averaged 9 pts, Chaundee 8 and Sarr 3. Let's have some fun and say Chill gets to 14 pts, Chaundee to 14 and Sarr to 10 which I think would be pretty amazing. So we are at 38 pts/game. Reasonable to think Hoard could get 15/game and to 53 pts? Do we really think some combo of transfers/other frosh are going to provide 20 pts/game.

Or maybe a team that has shown no ability to defend the last 4 years will suddenly be lock down and cut our opponents average down from 74/game to 64/game although we will be skinny light unless Ikenna becomes a major player @ C. To look at what we are bringing in and expect to see us put up similar points or to improve on D with a bunch of frosh and transfers is a bit disingenuous imho.
 
netflixnchildres said:
Wake is picked #13 of 16 in the ACC by all the preseason rankings I've seen so far, so no one except for a few die hard Wake Basketball fans expect this team to be good.
Click to expand...

Who thinks we're going to be good? I've seen a few people say "decent" or "not bad", but "good" is a stretch.
 
Pilchard said:
So many of you have been sucked in by the low expectations resulting from last year's debacle, that a team that is mediocre (which is saying very little) has been universally deemed as "terrible" before the season starts. This roster is not "terrible". The WF AD loves the 2-4 ACC win expectation. Easy to exceed. Then progress will be claimed.

WF literally blew every winnable game in the final minutes last year. Manning naturally is to blame, but so were the players; the players that played the largest role in these late game collapses are gone. WF won't lose every close game again this year (not saying WF will win them all, just more than none); it's not a huge accomplishment to not completely implode when games are close, but it may seem like it. This is a 7+ ACC win team, even if WF loses many, but just not all, of its close games.

Going 7-11 in the ACC in year 5 of a coach's tenure is not praiseworthy, but with a BS non-conference schedule and being mediocre in the close ACC games, WF will have a winning record and maybe even get an NIT bid. You can bet that significant progress will be claimed. This will happen. Some here are so blinded by their pathos toward Manning and the talent on hand that they are underrating a team that has been set up with a super soft schedule to be "not that bad". That should not be the bar for the program, but by failing to see that this team is mediocre (instead of awful), you are helping set up the argument that will allow Manning to stay.
Click to expand...

Just so I'm clear, you're saying a team that went 4-12 in conference last year and lost the overwhelming majority of its scoring and other production in the offseason is going to... get better. Not just incrementally better. 75% better, or more. All while being led by the same incompetent, wildly unqualified coaching staff?

incredulous.gif
 
CantStandYa said:
Just so I'm clear, you're saying a team that went 4-12 in conference last year and lost the overwhelming majority of its scoring and other production in the offseason is going to... get better. Not just incrementally better. 75% better, or more. All while being led by the same incompetent, wildly unqualified coaching staff?

incredulous.gif
Click to expand...

You don’t get it. We are replacing our best players who kept games close with brand new players who will finish games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top