UNCC Scrimmage?

[PhDeac]

Well yeah it would be unacceptable, and it was unacceptable last year, but it's going to happen...names don't mean anything at this point.

You're doing a great job of accepting it.

I've made my feelings towards Bz abundantly clear; but the fact that he still has any apologists left just stuns me.

The recent quotes about the 90% of his time spent on 10% of the players are infuriating. Ty was clearly part of the '10%' (obviously... i'm questioning Bz's math, but you get the point). He's still on the team. JTT wasn't going anywhere before the DWI charge. Tabb wasn't going anywhere before the judicial problem. I sure don't remember Ari being the biggest distraction last season.

Bz is essentially going to every media outlet he can touting his commitment to a 'culture change' and blaming his/the 2010 teams spectacular and historic ineptitude on that same basis. Its moronic. The bottom line is; there's not much to defend an RPI of 256. There might be a good class lined up for 2012; but the recruiting job is going to become progressively more difficult with anymore embarrassing losses and historically bad seasons. Given that, the chances that Bz would be able to be selective in the remaining candidates (based on his 'culture' commitment) while trying to field a (more) competitive team are even slimmer. And I'm sorry, but I can't exactly be optimistic about his ability to 'coach a team up' at this point.

The guy is 11-53 (in conference) in his 4 seasons of coaching major college basketball with a point differential of -684; what more is there to say?

Wow. Seems like another damning Bz stat gets posted every month. He's averaged under losing by double digits in conference games.

 

[TBR]

I'm sorry, but what?

I found the most comparable season I could (based on SOS & record) to compare our record and point differential to.

2001/2002 UNC : 7-19 (Total Point Differential : -187)
2010/2011 WFU : 8-24 (Total Point Differential : -322)

Divided out per game, that's still a +30% difference in average margin of defeat.

I'm just confused by what you mean by 'differential you would expect'... In a lot of ways, last season was even worse than the record would indicate.

For additional context, consider Georgia Tech and NCSU who tied for next to last in the ACC last season. GT managed a +0.7 point average differential against a schedule fairly comparable to ours. NCSU managed a -0.2 point average differential against a schedule significantly more difficult than ours. Our differential, again, was -10.

Both coaches were fired at the end of the season.

 

[deac_tracy]

I think Travis McKie will get 19 and 9.

If McKie gets those numbers this year he might skip his last two years to go to the draft.

 

[TBR]

If McKie gets those numbers this year he might skip his last two years to go to the draft.

Agreed. Consider that AFA averaged 15.8 ppg and 10.7 rpg as a sophomore.

 

[Deacsfan27]

If McKie gets those numbers this year he might skip his last two years to go to the draft.

I doubt it. He is a team guy and knows that his last two years will be much better than his first two. He's a smart guy...

 

[stonz]

Yeah, a 35 point loss to a 13-17 Georgia Tech team is exactly what one would have expected. How about the 10 point home loss to a 8-23 Atlantic Sun team or the 12 point "neutral court" loss to a 13-18 CAA team or the 9 point home loss to a 13-17 Big South team?

Pull your hand out of the sand. We sucked last season, and [Redacted] was a part of it. Of course there's no objective way to prove it, but do you really think that that team couldn't have done better than a -10 point differential against a weak out of conference schedule and an historically weak ACC?

First- my head's not in the sand, although I appreciate your concern. Fwiw, as long as we're trading outlook advice, you would stand a much better chance of engaging in thought-provoking debate if you would refrain from insulting people as soon as your ideas are questioned.

Now, for the "meat" of your post- Of course we had plenty of blowout losses last year. Some of those blowout losses were against bad teams. You don't need to rattle them off to me; I'm well aware. Of course we sucked last season, and of course [Redacted] was part of it. No one argues against any of that. Should we have been better? Maybe, maybe not. There isn't really any definitive way to know that.

My point is that your logic is flawed. Two posts ago, you said:

For what it's worth, I don't think an average coach would have gotten much more than 10 wins out of last year's team, but I do think there would have been far fewer humiliating losses.

Which, to me, boils down to an idea that I've seen fairly frequently the past 8 months or so on the boards which goes something like: 8 wins is absolutely awful, but the real unacceptable part of last season was the number of blowouts. (If I've misinterpreted your above quote, please feel free to correct. But it sounds like you think the magnitude of the losses reflects [Redacted]'s ineptitude more so than the W-L record, and that is where "upgrading" to an average coach would make the biggest impact.)

As I said in my original post in this thread, "our point differential was almost exactly what you would expect for an 8-24 team playing against the schedule that we did."

I'm not sure how else to phrase that. It does not make any sense for you to say (I'm paraphrasing), "I think an average coach would have won around 8 games, but we would have had fewer blowout losses."

There's no reason to believe that. We got blown out exactly as much as we should have, given our schedule and team strength. If you want to say, "I think an average coach would have won 12-15 games, and we would have had way fewer blowout losses" that's fine, and you might be right. Same thing if you want to say "I think an average coach would have only won around 5 games, and we would have been blown out even more."

But there is no reason to expect an average coach to win about the same number of games as Buzz with significantly fewer humiliating losses.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Also, he doesn't have the freakishly athletic body that AFA has that NBA teams loved.

McKie seems like a 4 year guy that may not have a great NBA career.

 

[stonz]

I'm sorry, but what?

I found the most comparable season I could (based on SOS & record) to compare our record and point differential to.

2001/2002 UNC : 7-19 (Total Point Differential : -187)
2010/2011 WFU : 8-24 (Total Point Differential : -322)

Divided out per game, that's still a +30% difference in average margin of defeat.

I'm just confused by what you mean by 'differential you would expect'... In a lot of ways, last season was even worse than the record would indicate.

The most comparable season you could find was from 10 years ago? I'm sorry, but what?

Just looking at last year, Depaul went 7-24 (1-17) and was outscored by 272 points. They were actually a bit unlucky. They were better than us last year, and probably should have won 8-10 games instead of 7.

In case you want another example, 2009 Indiana went 6-25 (1-17) with a point differential of -325. They played an incredibly hard schedule that year; against our schedule of a year ago, I suspect they would have won 7-9 games.

Again, our point differential was in-line with our W-L record.

Edit: Also, fwiw (very little), if you take out UNC's game against NC A&T (who was significantly worse than anyone we played last year), UNC's differential in 02 was -224. On a per-game basis, that's not much better than what we did last year.

 

[deac_tracy]

I doubt it. He is a team guy and knows that his last two years will be much better than his first two. He's a smart guy...

How's that the smart decision? In my opinion the smarter decision would be to take the money and run especially if the season is as embarrassing as everyone thinks it will be. How much better can the last two seasons be anyways? I don't understand how McKie could possibly be happy in a situation where he gets blown out game after game and his home stadium is pretty much empty. I'm sure if McKie puts up 19 and 9 dozens upon dozens of agents will be in his ear and convince him that he's a first round pick and then he'll be gone.

 

[PhDeac]

I doubt it. He is a team guy and knows that his last two years will be much better than his first two. He's a smart guy...

He'd have a team in the NBA, too.

 

[TBR]

First- my head's not in the sand, although I appreciate your concern. Fwiw, as long as we're trading outlook advice, you would stand a much better chance of engaging in thought-provoking debate if you would refrain from insulting people as soon as your ideas are questioned.

Now, for the "meat" of your post- Of course we had plenty of blowout losses last year. Some of those blowout losses were against bad teams. You don't need to rattle them off to me; I'm well aware. Of course we sucked last season, and of course [Redacted] was part of it. No one argues against any of that. Should we have been better? Maybe, maybe not. There isn't really any definitive way to know that.

My point is that your logic is flawed. Two posts ago, you said:



Which, to me, boils down to an idea that I've seen fairly frequently the past 8 months or so on the boards which goes something like: 8 wins is absolutely awful, but the real unacceptable part of last season was the number of blowouts. (If I've misinterpreted your above quote, please feel free to correct. But it sounds like you think the magnitude of the losses reflects [Redacted]'s ineptitude more so than the W-L record, and that is where "upgrading" to an average coach would make the biggest impact.)

As I said in my original post in this thread, "our point differential was almost exactly what you would expect for an 8-24 team playing against the schedule that we did."

I'm not sure how else to phrase that. It does not make any sense for you to say (I'm paraphrasing), "I think an average coach would have won around 8 games, but we would have had fewer blowout losses."

There's no reason to believe that. We got blown out exactly as much as we should have, given our schedule and team strength. If you want to say, "I think an average coach would have won 12-15 games, and we would have had way fewer blowout losses" that's fine, and you might be right. Same thing if you want to say "I think an average coach would have only won around 5 games, and we would have been blown out even more."

But there is no reason to expect an average coach to win about the same number of games as Buzz with significantly fewer humiliating losses.

First of all, my expectation for an average coach was to win at least 25% more games than [Redacted]. I said that pretty plainly. Second, you assume that by humiliating I mean games with huge margins. Yes, those were humiliating losses, but equally humiliating were some of the games that didn't have double digit margins. Stetson, Presbyterian, and Winthrop are the ones that come to top of mind. Third, it is quite possible to be very bad as indicated by record and to never lose a game by 29+ points to teams as mediocre as Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. Obviously you're free to disagree.

Finally, the "head in the sand" bit was not intended to be a personal insult, and I apologize that it was interpreted as such.

What gets my goat is when posters like RJ, and to a lesser extent you, act as if we should completely ignore [Redacted]'s poor leadership last year due to the circumstances. I am tired of people saying that no one could do better (the implication of what RJ said earlier in this thread) which is a rather ridiculous thing to say. I apologize for taking this frustration out in you (albeit in a rather mild way, imho).

 

[stonz]

My response to your first two points: fair enough.

I would very much like to see you expand on point #3. The Carolina team that VT brought up lost 9 games by 18+ points. Depaul lost to Cal State Northridge and Indiana St by 22 (each!) early in the year. In the middle of conference play, they lost by 30 in back-to-back games against Syracuse and Marquette, and amazingly enough, the next time they played Syracuse, they lost by 18 more points (i.e 48). 2009 Indiana lost to Notre Dame by 38, Illinois by 31, and Michigan St by 28. So if you have some examples of horrifically bad major-conference teams who never got blown out regularly, I'd like to see them.

I've never said we should ignore [Redacted]'s poor leadership last year due to the circumstances. I apologize if it comes across that way.

Btw, I know this is completely irrelevant, but Virginia Tech was actually really good last year. Should not be in the same sentence as Georgia Tech. If I were you, I would have used NCSt instead.

 

[deacfreke2]

I've gone ahead and canceled my WF basketball updates from the Sportstacular app. I don't want to take the chance of ruining my night by finding out we are down 15 at the half to Loyola.

I'm still trying to figure out how the Xavier transfer, Jordan Latham, is not having to sit out a transfer year. He's not a fifth year player but I've seen no explanation for this.

He's a 6'8, three star Baltimore guy who decided to return home. Once I read about who Jimmy Patsos, former Maryland assistant, was signing and had returning, I thought about how unfortunate we are to have scheduled Loyola for the opener.

 

[deac_tracy]

You're welcome to think that, but I'd love to see some objective evidence.

Our point differential was almost exactly what you would expect for an 8-24 team playing against the schedule that we did, fwiw.

As a Zona fan I like comparing last year's WF team to Zona's 09-10 team. Both teams had a new coach and were mostly comprised of non 5-star underclassman. Arizona won 16 games that year, went 10-8 in Pac-10 play and got blown out only once during the whole season.. I understand Pac 10<ACC but still teams like GT,MIA and MD are at least comparable to Pac 10 teams. The main difference between these two teams was that Zona had Nic Wise. I know Wise is good but I don't think he's good enough to single handedly lead a team to 16 wins. Sean Miller more or less proved a new coach could be competitive with a team of mostly underclassman which is why I believe a better coach could have at least lead us to 10-12 wins or a way lower point differential.

 

[RJKarl]

What gets my goat is when posters like RJ, and to a lesser extent you, act as if we should completely ignore [Redacted]'s poor leadership last year due to the circumstances. I am tired of people saying that no one could do better (the implication of what RJ said earlier in this thread) which is a rather ridiculous thing to say. I apologize for taking this frustration out in you (albeit in a rather mild way, imho)."

I haev ignbored NOTHING.

Because I won't yet say [Redacted] is the worst coach of all time you ascribe that that I thiink he's good.

I've said HUNDREDS of times that we won't know much of anything about [Redacted]'s ability until after next season.

If we aren't good by then, I will be happy to join you.

In over forty years of watching Wake basketball I have never seen a coach having as bad a situation as [Redacted] was handed.

Other than plane crashes, I can't think of any high major program that was put into the position Wake was.

Again, I expect a dreadful year this year, but expect better effort as we have ridded the team of multiple detrimental actors.

 

[vtwhat etc]

I haev ignbored NOTHING.

 

[TBR]

My response to your first two points: fair enough.

I would very much like to see you expand on point #3. The Carolina team that VT brought up lost 9 games by 18+ points. Depaul lost to Cal State Northridge and Indiana St by 22 (each!) early in the year. In the middle of conference play, they lost by 30 in back-to-back games against Syracuse and Marquette, and amazingly enough, the next time they played Syracuse, they lost by 18 more points (i.e 48). 2009 Indiana lost to Notre Dame by 38, Illinois by 31, and Michigan St by 28. So if you have some examples of horrifically bad major-conference teams who never got blown out regularly, I'd like to see them.

I've never said we should ignore [Redacted]'s poor leadership last year due to the circumstances. I apologize if it comes across that way.

Btw, I know this is completely irrelevant, but Virginia Tech was actually really good last year. Should not be in the same sentence as Georgia Tech. If I were you, I would have used NCSt instead.

I think you're missing my underlying assumption that I think we should have won more than 8 games last year. Looking at the 10 and 11 win teams and I am not seeing nearly as many 25+ point blow outs, especially ones to sub par teams.

I would hardly say Virginia Tech was really good. They benefited from a pretty easy ACC schedule and still fell midpack. Certainly not as bad as Georgia Tech, but I think the mediocre moniker fits.

Personally, I think it is kind of interesting (and worrisome) that our biggest blowouts came against Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and NCSU. Our performances against Duke and UNC were much, much better, as reflected in the scores.

 

[TBR]

What gets my goat is when posters like RJ, and to a lesser extent you, act as if we should completely ignore [Redacted]'s poor leadership last year due to the circumstances. I am tired of people saying that no one could do better (the implication of what RJ said earlier in this thread) which is a rather ridiculous thing to say. I apologize for taking this frustration out in you (albeit in a rather mild way, imho)."

I haev ignbored NOTHING.

Because I won't yet say [Redacted] is the worst coach of all time you ascribe that that I thiink he's good.

I've said HUNDREDS of times that we won't know much of anything about [Redacted]'s ability until after next season.

If we aren't good by then, I will be happy to join you.

In over forty years of watching Wake basketball I have never seen a coach having as bad a situation as [Redacted] was handed.

Other than plane crashes, I can't think of any high major program that was put into the position Wake was.

Again, I expect a dreadful year this year, but expect better effort as we have ridded the team of multiple detrimental actors.

Earlier in this thread you implied that no coach could have done better than 8 or 9 wins this season.

 

[RJKarl]

With everything that happened last year, no coach could have done apprecaibly better...and no 10 wins is not appreciably better. we still would have bene last in the ACC and absolutely awful.

The reality is if [Redacted] gets us to The Danbce in 12/13, you will frget everything you have said anbd say,"you I really wanted to give him a chance."

You aren't alone in the haters on this board.

I have no clue what's goign to happen. What I do know is that no coach has ever been given a worse hand at Wake since the 60s.

 

[RJKarl]

As a Zona fan I like comparing last year's WF team to Zona's 09-10 team. Both teams had a new coach and were mostly comprised of non 5-star underclassman. Arizona won 16 games that year, went 10-8 in Pac-10 play and got blown out only once during the whole season.. I understand Pac 10<ACC but still teams like GT,MIA and MD are at least comparable to Pac 10 teams. The main difference between these two teams was that Zona had Nic Wise. I know Wise is good but I don't think he's good enough to single handedly lead a team to 16 wins. Sean Miller more or less proved a new coach could be competitive with a team of mostly underclassman which is why I believe a better coach could have at least lead us to 10-12 wins or a way lower point differential.

Wise had started and been a star. We had no such players.

From the instant Drrick Williams stepped on campus he was a SUPERSTAR. We have no one close to his league.

Solomon Hill was ranked #27 by rivals and the #3 SF. Again, we had no one ranked that highly.

Your comparison couldn't be farther off target.