Page 15 of 94 FirstFirst ... 510111213141516171819202565 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 1877

Thread: Wake Forest Basketball Recruiting: Lucas Taylor Commits!

  1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasDeac1 View Post
    Probably still have my rose colored 20 year old glasses on, thinking that we would stack up well with other ACC offers excepting Duke and Carolina, for a kid from Raleigh. May not be a very valid assumption anymore.
    I get the historical amnesia. The last time Wake was relevant was when the kids in the 2021 class were about 7 YO. A lot of ACC schools have had more success than Wake and been nationally relevant over the past decade, including UVA, FSU, and Louisville.

  2. #282
    Was thinking earlier today, as there were a couple semi-anxious posts about what's "not gone on" the last few weeks in recruiting, that all the cheering about firing DM and hiring Steve Forbes was wildly over-optimistic for the moment. Sadly, Wake basketball hasn't been relevant since Dino was head coach. Over the 30 plus years before that we were only truly "relevant" during the Duncan era last 2 years. We did have a year or two here and there of over-achieving teams, but generally we weren't a factor nationally. If folks are honest, our best teams kind of under-performed. We have had history, but no pedigree or reputation to stand on. So to expect that Forbes is going to magically fulfill our dreams is pretty unfair. College bball today is basically all about the perennial top 9 teams of the millenium, Duke, UNC, Mich St., Kansas, Kentucky, Villanova, Louisville, and Gonzaga. Everybody else is gasping for air from one year to the next. If Wake Forest somehow manages to consistently get to 18-22 wins a year under Forbes in the next 3-5 years that will be a massive accomplishment. To do it with 3 star recruits will be next to impossible. Be patient with Forbes. He needs all the support he can get.

  3. #283
    Uh...Wake was ranked #1 in the country twice in the post-Duncan era (and not ever ranked that highly during the Duncan years). That’s pretty relevant (albeit short-lived and ultimately underachieving). Agreed that the last ten years have been intolerably terrible but from 1990-2010 we were relevant in many more years than not.

    Steve Forbes is going to win us a national championship before he’s done. Go Forbes!

  4. #284
    Tony Bennett made one NCAA and one nit in his first four years in Virginia. And for 2021 we already have a 4-star recruit.

  5. #285
    you mean reigning ACC champs FSU?

  6. #286
    ACCN is showing the 2005 UNC game. It demonstrates what the Joel can be. The atmosphere is crazy, perhaps the most electric ever?

  7. #287
    Forbes said they were "close" to getting a couple more commitments on Packer & Durham this morning

  8. #288
    Uh...Wake was ranked #1 in the country twice in the post-Duncan era (and not ever ranked that highly during the Duncan years). That’s pretty relevant (albeit short-lived and ultimately underachieving). Agreed that the last ten years have been intolerably terrible but from 1990-2010 we were relevant in many more years than not.

    Not sure how you measure "relevance" son. In the 20 year period you reference Wake Men's basketball finished the season ranked in the Top 25 only six times, once at #3, once at #8, twice at #9, once at #12 and once at #14. Those all occurred during the Duncan, Paul, and JJ/JT years. The other 14 years we never finished in the top 25.

  9. #289
    One losing season in 20 years, 13 years where we were above .500 in conference, 14/20 seasons with 19+ wins, 14 NCAA bids, 4 NIT bids, 1 NIT championship between 1990 and 2010. No national championships, no deep tourney runs, maybe not as many top 25 seasons as there should have been but I definitely count those results as being “relevant” nationally and certainly in the ACC...son.

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakydeac08 View Post
    Uh...Wake was ranked #1 in the country twice in the post-Duncan era (and not ever ranked that highly during the Duncan years). That’s pretty relevant (albeit short-lived and ultimately underachieving). Agreed that the last ten years have been intolerably terrible but from 1990-2010 we were relevant in many more years than not.

    Steve Forbes is going to win us a national championship before he’s done. Go Forbes!
    One of those times, we lost the next game, I believe, at home to unranked Va Tech. That was one of the JJ/JT teams. The other time, I believe, we lost soon thereafter on the road to also top 5 ranked Illinois on the road. CP3 team. Yes those were #1 rankings, but short-lived indeed. And not recent enough that any current recruit will remember.

  11. #291
    Definitely not recent enough to be relevant to today’s recruiting efforts but the other poster said that we weren’t relevant even then. We were. We had a good run for an extended period of time. Now we’re heading in the right direction again.

  12. #292
    Wake was hugely relevant in college basketball from 1990-2010. We had the 4th highest ACC winning percentage during those 20 years and were only one game below Maryland. Do HS kids today remember that? Not really, but it is the job of our staff to educate them, get them video clips of what the Joel atmosphere can be, and sell them that it WILL be that way again and they can become legends by being the group that leads us back. Forbes has tons of street cred and this staff has a swagger we haven’t had since Skip. We have a lot to sell and the right staff to sell it. It’s going to happen people.

  13. #293
    From 1990 to 2010 there were only three ACC teams more “relevant” than Wake, and those three were Duke, Unc and Maryland.

  14. #294
    Again Fusiondad reaffirms why the ignore button is so valuable. It helps keep mindless inaccuracies from the dialogue. Wake relevant in every decade since the 70s by any measure. Forbes in the Forest!

  15. #295
    When you can't make the argument, attack the poster.

    rel·e·vant
    /ˈreləvənt/

    adjective
    closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

    appropriate to the current time, period, or circumstances; of contemporary interest.

  16. #296
    From 1991 to 2010 (20 seasons) the Deacons were in the final AP Top 25 on nine occasions. They finished 16th in 1993, went 6-5 against Top 25 teams and made the Sweet 16. They finished 3rd in the AP in 1995, went 8-5 against the Top 25 and made the Sweet 16. In 1996 the Deacs finished 9th in the Top 25, went 4-4 against Top 25 teams and made the Elite 8. In 1997 they again finish 8th nationally, had a 6-4 record against Top 25 opponents but only made it to the second round of the Dance. In 2001 they were ranked 23rd, went 2-8 against the Top 26 and were Butlerized in the tourney. In 2003 the Deacs finished the season ranked 8th, went 3-3 against the Top 25 but ended the Dance in the Top 32. In 2004 Wake finished the season ranked 17th, went 4-6 against the Top 25 and advanced to the Sweet 16. In 2005 the Deacs were 5th in the final AP poll, went 6-3 against Top 25 teams but were eliminated in the round of 32. The most recent Top 25 season was in 2009 when Wake finished 12th in the AP, went 5-1 against Top 25 competition but were upset in the first round of the tourney. During these nine seasons Wake had a 44-39 record against Top 25 competition and 12-9 in NCAA tournament games. Relevant.

    Wake had five seasons (1991, 1992, 1994, 2002 and 2010) in the 20 year span that they were invited to the Dance. During those five seasons the Deacs were 15-31 against the Top 25 and 4-5 in the Dance. Recognized.

    There were six seasons were the Deacons weren't ranked nor went to NCAA tourney. One of those seasons produced an NIT championship. The Deacons record against Top 25 opponents during those six seasons was 9-32. Irrelevant.

    In summary, the best twenty seasons in Wake basketball history saw the Deacons go 16-14 in the Dance and 68-102 against Top 25 ranked teams. That is about what you would expect from a Top 40 program. Exactly where they were ranked by Sagarin. I hope this is helpful in determining relevance.
    Last edited by BlackjackMc; 08-12-2020 at 01:35 AM.

  17. #297
    Buddy, your second post stated that Wake wasn’t relevant during the 1990-2010 time period. You are incorrect; we were significantly relevant as shown by the results/stats/rankings posted after your claim. To apply the definition of relevant you so kindly provided, we were relevant and appropriate to the time period that was being referred to.

  18. #298
    Wake basketball has been relevant to me since the 70s.

  19. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by Dekin View Post
    Wake basketball has been relevant to me since the 70s.
    ... since the 50's.

  20. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by raldeac View Post
    ... since the 50's.
    I’m impressed!

Posting Permissions

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