• 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!

How Many Wins Will 2018-19 Wake Forest Basketball Have on Selection Sunday?

How many wins for WF on Selection Sunday (excluding exhibition)?

  • 0-11

    Votes: 23 17.3%
  • 12

    Votes: 20 15.0%
  • 13

    Votes: 28 21.1%
  • 14

    Votes: 15 11.3%
  • 15

    Votes: 14 10.5%
  • 16

    Votes: 9 6.8%
  • 17

    Votes: 12 9.0%
  • 18

    Votes: 7 5.3%
  • 19

    Votes: 2 1.5%
  • 20 or more

    Votes: 3 2.3%

  • Total voters
    133
  • Poll closed .
What rankings are you using? I get 5-9 against the top 70.

I'm using objective computer ratings from the 2016-17 season

what are you using? name our 5 top 70 wins, and the 5 losses that came against non-top 70 teams
 
I'm using objective computer ratings from the 2016-17 season

what are you using? name our 5 top 70 wins, and the 5 losses that came against non-top 70 teams

That’s allowed? Which one(s)?

Top 70 wins: Bucknell, Charleston, UNCG, Louisville, VT

Non-Top 70 losses: Xavier, Clemson (twice, woof), Syracuse, Kansas State
 
That’s allowed? Which one(s)?

Top 70 wins: Bucknell, Charleston, UNCG, Louisville, VT

Non-Top 70 losses: Xavier, Clemson (twice, woof), Syracuse, Kansas State

oh

you see, for a second there I thought you actually wanted a serious conversation

now I see you value 2017 Bucknell, Charleston, and UNCG above Xavier, Syracuse, and Kansas State

never mind, I'll exit this thread - I have better things to do with my time
 
oh

you see, for a second there I thought you actually wanted a serious conversation

now I see you value 2017 Bucknell, Charleston, and UNCG above Xavier, Syracuse, and Kansas State

never mind, I'll exit this thread - I have better things to do with my time

Oh I don’t value the teams that way. I’ve just been told that winning is what matters; just trying to use your criteria.

I’m fine switching back to proven computer rankings, agreeing that Manning coaches a top 40 team in 16-17 (the second since 2005 at Wake and slightly above average for the 20 years pre [Redacted]), and calling it a day.
 
This board seems to value win percentage over computer rankings and I’m trying to do a better job of going with the flow. Personally, I think the latter is a far more accurate measure of the quality of a team. Since you do too, let’s move on.

ok, moving on; so what we confirmed here is that in Danny's dream season he went 3-14 against the top 70*, and that you like to lie

*this of course casts into doubt the infamous "Top 40" proclamation ([Redacted] had a better record vs. the top 70 in 2013-14), but that's probably for another day
 
This board seems to value win percentage over computer rankings and I’m trying to do a better job of going with the flow. Personally, I think the latter is a far more accurate measure of the quality of a team. Since you do too, let’s move on.

R Child, that great slayer of strawmen. Accumulating kills by the dozen. Almost seems intentional.
 
I have trouble even thinking of who plays on this team
In my 20 ish years of Wake fandom, I have never thought we are going to be bad and we've been good or even close to it (football or basketball), there have been a few years I thought we'd be good and we sucked, but never the other way.
As a blind squirrel finds a nut, i imagine we'll squeak out an ACC win or 3...maybe someone gets hot from 3 on an off night for our opponent, but I don't see how we win more than that.
Admittedly, I'm more ignorant of this team than any team in the last 20 years, so hopefully my ignorance is exposed and i'm wrong.....but this year is going to be rough (more of the same)
 
ok, moving on; so what we confirmed here is that in Danny's dream season he went 3-14 against the top 70*, and that you like to lie

*this of course casts into doubt the infamous "Top 40" proclamation ([Redacted] had a better record vs. the top 70 in 2013-14), but that's probably for another day

This season seems like make or break as to whether Manning is greater than BZ. Manning has a slight edge going into this year but the trend is not his friend. Manning might should have quit while still ahead.

Then again, maybe year 5 is the year that catapults Manning beyond reach of his retired nemesis.
 
I have trouble even thinking of who plays on this team
In my 20 ish years of Wake fandom, I have never thought we are going to be bad and we've been good or even close to it (football or basketball), there have been a few years I thought we'd be good and we sucked, but never the other way.
As a blind squirrel finds a nut, i imagine we'll squeak out an ACC win or 3...maybe someone gets hot from 3 on an off night for our opponent, but I don't see how we win more than that.
Admittedly, I'm more ignorant of this team than any team in the last 20 years, so hopefully my ignorance is exposed and i'm wrong.....but this year is going to be rough (more of the same)

Hard not to be ignorant about a team with 10 new players and only 3 hold overs. Assessment seems accurate nevertheless.
 
ok, moving on; so what we confirmed here is that in Danny's dream season he went 3-14 against the top 70*, and that you like to lie

*this of course casts into doubt the infamous "Top 40" proclamation ([Redacted] had a better record vs. the top 70 in 2013-14), but that's probably for another day

which then of course cast doubts on the “top 70” that Manning went 3-14 against, which in turn casts doubt on the doubt already cast on the “top 40” proclamation.

Surely you see the nonsense in using Kenpom to rank teams that Wake played in order to cast doubt on Wake’s Kenpom ranking, right?
 
R Child, that great slayer of strawmen. Accumulating kills by the dozen. Almost seems intentional.

Would love to be proven wrong on this count moving forward. I hope the post above yours is the last time I have to ever see a comparison between [Redacted] and Manning’s win-loss records (or arbitrary sample sizes thereof) serve as a proxy for comparing the quality of their teams.

Birdman, feel free to jump in here.
 
which then of course cast doubts on the “top 70” that Manning went 3-14 against, which in turn casts doubt on the doubt already cast on the “top 40” proclamation.

Surely you see the nonsense in using Kenpom to rank teams that Wake played in order to cast doubt on Wake’s Kenpom ranking, right?

well, I didn't use Kenpom

but you did?

don't lie this time
 
Would love to be proven wrong on this count moving forward. I hope the post above yours is the last time I have to ever see a comparison between [Redacted] and Manning’s win-loss records (or arbitrary sample sizes thereof) serve as a proxy for comparing the quality of their teams.

Birdman, feel free to jump in here.

are you referring to my post?

am I using a proxy or simply stating a statistic?

don't lie this time
 
well, I didn't use Kenpom

but you did?

don't lie this time

Not sure where you think I lied. In general I use Kenpom because it is one of the best systems out there from a predictive standpoint and is widely known. That’s why I’ve been claiming the 16-17 team was “Top 40” since the end of that season. You or someone else pointed out that a composite of a ton of computer rankings had Wake at 44 that year. I hope I don’t need to explain why that’s a poor ranking system.
 
are you referring to my post?

am I using a proxy or simply stating a statistic?

don't lie this time

I don’t know. It would be weird to repeat a statistic over and over again if you weren’t ever trying to make a broader point, but I wouldn’t put it past you. Are you not meaning to compare the quality of the 16-17 team to the 13-14 team in the post I referenced?
 
Would love to be proven wrong on this count moving forward. I hope the post above yours is the last time I have to ever see a comparison between [Redacted] and Manning’s win-loss records (or arbitrary sample sizes thereof) serve as a proxy for comparing the quality of their teams.

Birdman, feel free to jump in here.

I don’t know. It would be weird to repeat a statistic over and over again if you weren’t ever trying to make a broader point, but I wouldn’t put it past you. Are you not meaning to compare the quality of the 16-17 team to the 13-14 team in the post I referenced?

So you think a data point for comparison is the same thing as a proxy?

Bless your heart. This explains a great deal
 
Hey everyone, Manning sucks as evidenced by his over all win loss record, but he doesn't suck as much as [Redacted] did/does as evidenced by Manning's Kenpom rankings. The basketball program is still very disappointing because not sucking a badly as [Redacted] is an extremely low bar and we all want the program to be what it was ~25 years ago. It is pretty straight forward, so y'all don't have to argue about this anymore if you don't want to. I'm gonna go watch the David Attenborough Life of Birds series now.
 
Back
Top