wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,166
- Reaction score
- 3,342
I'm talking about Women's cross country.
In this thread, you said they got 8th last year, and that finish was their best in 13 years.
I'm talking about Women's cross country.
In this thread, you said they got 8th last year, and that finish was their best in 13 years.
I'm talking about Women's cross country.
In this thread, you said this fall's finish was the program's best in 13 years.
this fall, they finished 8th.
Women's xc had their best finish in 13 years.
Men's xc had their best finish in 17 years.
Yes. Women finished 8th. No NCAA bid. Is that “excelling”?
Men finished 5th. No NCAA bid. Is that “excelling”?
They finished eighth in the *region* ya doofus.
Stop RJing this up. Go back and read the posts carefully. It's not that difficult.
Stop RJing this up. Go back and read the posts carefully. It's not that difficult.
He truly is a pompous prick.
I can attest to this in my experience in Wake Athletics as an undergrad in a minor sport. I had one or two interactions with Wellman and I remember thinking even at the tender age of twenty that he was very arrogant. I'm sure that's only gotten worse in the ten years since I've graduated.
Ok, fine. We can agree on that much.
My point is that just using "NCAA bids" as an indicator of excellence in Cross Country or Track and Field is reductive.
We're not finishing top 3 in the country like we did in the early 90s, so we're probably not "historically competitive". But I think we've got a solid coaching staff and both programs are moving in the right direction. Men finishing fifth in the ACC with an individual as runner up is pretty fucking good.
When I was in school not that many years ago we had several individual national champions and several Olympians. Since wake can count those on a couple of hands I'd say that's pretty excellent. And we've got a better coaching staff now.
More or less.so you agree with my original statement
cool
glad you got to start a semantics argument anyway
More or less.
And this argument wasn't about semantics at all. It was about you using incorrect facts to make a reasonable argument. Just wanted to set the record straight because I care.
I care too. Just not about this.
Fair or not, ADs are judged by football and men’s basketball and depending on your situation women’s basketball and baseball. We are decent in two and horrible in two.
I really have no problem with someone being arrogant, if they have earned it. There is nothing worse than incompetence mixed with arrogance. Looks like Wellman found like minds with his last two basketball hires.
Just to echo what a lot of others have said: He is arrogant and VERY conservative (politically and socially, too, but not the point, though that has caused some clashes with coaches and some AD personnel). He has basically lucked into a couple of these high profile big donors (Flow, Sutton, Shah, McCreary), as he is not a dynamic personality nor a particularly gifted fundraiser, and has enough people on the board who have his back (though there has been some rustling lately). Basically what it looks like and what a lot of people have already said. Some of the board may also have reason not to particularly care about our athletic success, specifically in hoops — nothing nefarious, just some mixed loyalties — and he runs a clean department and keeps it solvent.
Some of these big guys would need to start making a lot of noise for any forced change, and I think most are content with just riding it out.
I really have no problem with someone being arrogant, if they have earned it. There is nothing worse than incompetence mixed with arrogance. Looks like Wellman found like minds with his last two basketball hires.
Since the moment that skip died, well man has screwed up every single basketball decision he has made. Every one.