• 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!

Danny Manning Credibility Watch

BamaDeac said:
For the following question just assume that we finish with a resume that would give us either an #11 or #12 seed in the NCAA Tourney, but we do not play one of those "1st Round/Play-In Games" that are played before the "Real 1st Rd" starts on Thursday. On the other hand, if we were to go to the NIT we would either be a #1 or #2 seed. Which do you think is more important for the program?

I understand the value in going back to the NCAA Tourney and being on the national stage after a prolonged absence; as well as, how it can help future recruiting. On the other hand, I would place more value on this core of players, including Manning, learning how to win post season games in the NIT rather than going to the NCAA Tourney and losing in the 1st round. We have to learn how to walk before we can run, and since we haven't won a conference road game or an ACC Tourney game under Manning I believe winning actual post-season games in the NIT would be more beneficial for the long term success of the program going forward. Also, if Wake can get a #1 or #2 seed in the NIT, then that could give them 2-3 possible home games. Finally, remember that the NIT isn't like what it use to be 15-20 years ago, there are a lot more quality teams in the NIT than in the past.
Click to expand...

Screw this. We want to be in the position to win the whole thing. The NIT is the consolation prize.
 
PhDeac said:
Screw this. We want to be in the position to win the whole thing. The NIT is the consolation prize.
Click to expand...

Agree. Always better to play in the NCAAs. BTW, after playing Nova, Xavier, an 18 game ACC season and then the ACC tourney, there is no NCAA first round opponent that WF wouldn't have a chance to beat. As an at large, WF is not going to be lower than an 11 or 12 seed, which means that WF would either play another 11 or 12 seed in the first four or someone like Oregon, Cincy or St. Mary's as a 5 or 6 seed. Bring it on.
 
RJKarl said:
Except you can't. Bennett inherited multiple 4* players and I believe 2 NBA players on his roster. The previous left him a strong recruiting class coming in.

DAnny was given a dumpster fire and an asshole AD.

You can't compare these two. Well, if you are trying to be fair you can't.
Click to expand...

It's a fair comparison, though adjustments should be made for the factors you mention.

Same conference, similar schools, similar program history, were in somewhat similar situations heading into their last coaching hires.

They are currently at a level we want to get to. Looking at the path their coach took to get them there is instructive and seems like a good barometer to measure Manning against.
 
We'd be facing SC in Lunardi's Bracketology if we win the play-in. Would be very much an O vs. D showdown, but we can take 'em! Would only be a narrow dog per Kenpom.

Also, no guarantee we win a couple games if we make the NIT
 
RChildress107 said:
It's a fair comparison, though adjustments should be made for the factors you mention.

Same conference, similar schools, similar program history, were in somewhat similar situations heading into their last coaching hires.

They are currently at a level we want to get to. Looking at the path their coach took to get them there is instructive and seems like a good barometer to measure Manning against.
Click to expand...

There in dramatically different situations heading into their last hires. Danny, or any coach, would have killed to switch positions in regard to talent with Bennett versus Wake's situation. They have tremendously more talent at that point than the Deacs did when we hired Danny.

It's light years different.
 
RJKarl said:
There in dramatically different situations heading into their last hires. Danny, or any coach, would have killed to switch positions in regard to talent with Bennett versus Wake's situation. They have tremendously more talent at that point than the Deacs did when we hired Danny.

It's light years different.
Click to expand...

It was better, but it wasn't light years better. Based on recruiting rankings and experience, Bennett's first team had about .3 stars on Manning's first team.

It's a fair comparison (though not a perfect one) and Manning stacks up fairly well through 2.5 seasons.
 
RChildress107 said:
It was better, but it wasn't light years better. Based on recruiting rankings and experience, Bennett's first team had about .3 stars on Manning's first team.

It's a fair comparison (though not a perfect one) and Manning stacks up fairly well through 2.5 seasons.
Click to expand...

How many conference wins did Bennet have at this point? How many road conference wins? And UVA made the tournament in year 3, correct?
 
I'm pretty sure it was the next year...when they had more talent.
 
In years 3-4 combined, Bennett went 45-22 (20-18 including conference tourney) with 6 ACC road wins, one NCAA appearance and an average Kenpom rating of 37.

I bet that Manning meets at least 3 of those 5 benchmarks.
 
Last edited:
BamaDeac said:
For the following question just assume that we finish with a resume that would give us either an #11 or #12 seed in the NCAA Tourney, but we do not play one of those "1st Round/Play-In Games" that are played before the "Real 1st Rd" starts on Thursday. On the other hand, if we were to go to the NIT we would either be a #1 or #2 seed. Which do you think is more important for the program?

I understand the value in going back to the NCAA Tourney and being on the national stage after a prolonged absence; as well as, how it can help future recruiting. On the other hand, I would place more value on this core of players, including Manning, learning how to win post season games in the NIT rather than going to the NCAA Tourney and losing in the 1st round. We have to learn how to walk before we can run, and since we haven't won a conference road game or an ACC Tourney game under Manning I believe winning actual post-season games in the NIT would be more beneficial for the long term success of the program going forward. Also, if Wake can get a #1 or #2 seed in the NIT, then that could give them 2-3 possible home games. Finally, remember that the NIT isn't like what it use to be 15-20 years ago, there are a lot more quality teams in the NIT than in the past.
Click to expand...

2000 didn't help 2001.
 
PhDeac said:
Screw this. We want to be in the position to win the whole thing. The NIT is the consolation prize.
Click to expand...

So you think that we would be in position to win the NCAA Tourney in Year 3 of The Manning Era? My scenario is based ONLY on this season, and the CURRENT position we are in to finish the season. Overall, I agree in your premise that the NIT is a consolation prize, and we need to be in the NCAA Tourney at least 3 out of 4 years, with 1 or 2 of them having the ability to make a deep run. However, we are not in the latter position, and my premise was what is the best post season experience for the current core of the team and Manning as a coach for only this season. Therefore, under my original scenario what would give this core and HC the best experience in the post season for them to build on to have better success in future seasons.
 
BamaDeac said:
So you think that we would be in position to win the NCAA Tourney in Year 3 of The Manning Era? My scenario is based ONLY on this season, and the CURRENT position we are in to finish the season. Overall, I agree in your premise that the NIT is a consolation prize, and we need to be in the NCAA Tourney at least 3 out of 4 years, with 1 or 2 of them having the ability to make a deep run. However, we are not in the latter position, and my premise was what is the best post season experience for the current core of the team and Manning as a coach for only this season. Therefore, under my original scenario what would give this core and HC the best experience in the post season for them to build on to have better success in future seasons.
Click to expand...

NCAA tourney no question.
 
DeaconSig said:
2000 didn't help 2001.
Click to expand...

However, Josh Howard was a freshman on the 2000 team and both Dawson and Songaila were sophomores. One could argue that the experience they received by winning the NIT in 99-00 season help rebuild after the Duncan-Era. Granted, they got destroyed by Butler the following season, but in 01-02 they beat Pepperidine in the 1st Rd of the NCAAs, and won the regular season ACC Title outright in 02-03 (we can all theorize as what happened in the 02-03 NCAA Tourney, but I think almost all of us would agree that Howard was not the same player starting during the ACC Tourney). Also, we began to get better recruits during this time period too, and would we have still gotten CP3 if we were only playing in the NITs every season, or would he have gone to Duke or UNC?

My point is no one on this team knows how to win, including the head coach (excluding Childress). That experience of learning how to close out games is passed down from one class to the next, and it has to begin somewhere.
 
RChildress107 said:
NCAA tourney no question.
Click to expand...

Just curious, why NCAA Tourney over NIT? Also, I have a follow up question. If we went to the NCAA Tourney and lost in the 1st Rd but went to the NIT and reached only the Final Four, then would you change your mind? If not, could you please explain why. I'm just trying to understand why some people value a one and done in the NCAA Tourney over the ability to make a deep run in the NIT.
 
DeaconSig said:
Danny Manning doesn't know how to win but Childress does? Are you shitting me?
Click to expand...

I was only referring to Randolph in case someone brought him up. However, Manning is the HC, and Randolph is only an assistant. There is a difference between being able to win championships as a player, but fail as a HC.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top