• 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!

2023-24 Wake Forest Basketball Season - 21-14 (11-9) - KP#29 / NET#43

MichDeac25 said:
I'm kinda scared about what we're going to get from Jao. When he returned last year, he looked two steps slow. And now he's coming into an even better team. I'll just trust Forbes to play him when he's ready.
Click to expand...
He won’t play if it’s not helpful.

Can never have too many ball handlers, imo.
 
You know here’s the thing about Monsanto coming back vs. not coming back - if Forbes was certain he was or wasn’t coming back, I think he would say so at this point. The fact that he references how big it would be to have Monsanto back makes me think that there’s more of a chance that he returns than not. The real question in my mind is whether he will be effective (depends on when he returns, obviously). We know he can shoot, but getting to your spot, defending, rebounding…all of that is tough to do coming off of an injury and if he can’t do that stuff in addition to shooting, we are better off feeding minutes to Parker (as well as letting Damari fully heal and hopefully come back next year…although, I think he will try his hand in the draft and he should).

All of that said, I am firmly in the camp that thinks he’s coming back and also think he will be effective. If that’s a month or six weeks from now, he will still get some big minutes to end the regular season and that would be invaluable experience to have in the ACCT and possibly the NCAAT (assuming he didn’t reinjure himself over the break, which would be devastating).
 
Last edited:
Why else would Monsanto be around and on the team if he wasn't going to come back?
 
Just 2 mins a game of an effective Ituka would be nice. Doesn't sound like much but there is a chance of Boopie wearing down by seasons end. Alondes suffered from this a few years back (in addition to an injury).
 
I'm much more concerned about Sallis and Hildreth when it comes to minutes played. They have logged a bunch already this year; a few minutes of Jao or Monsanto to get them closer to 30 will help come tournament time (especially on short turnarounds).
 
TooManyWeapons said:
I'm much more concerned about Sallis and Hildreth when it comes to minutes played. They have logged a bunch already this year; a few minutes of Jao or Monsanto to get them closer to 30 will help come tournament time (especially on short turnarounds).
Click to expand...
Sallis and Hildreth have been picking up the backup point guard minutes. Having Jao do that could indirectly reduce their minutes.
 
I hate daily bracketology updates like Lunardi's because unless you're wiping it clean every day, the priors you're leaning on are just too much imo. Causes inaccuracies.

When I did it a couple of years ago, I would just start fresh each week and not look at what I had in the past so I was looking at it with clear eyes instead of "well they were 42nd on the S-Curve last week and won, so that moves them up 3 spots".
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I hate daily bracketology updates like Lunardi's because unless you're wiping it clean every day, the priors you're leaning on are just too much imo. Causes inaccuracies.

When I did it a couple of years ago, I would just start fresh each week and not look at what I had in the past so I was looking at it with clear eyes instead of "well they were 42nd on the S-Curve last week and won, so that moves them up 3 spots".
Click to expand...
If you and numbers don't put together your own bracket/metrics model then I will be disappointed.
 
If we are looking at ratings of the other ACC teams, I think the most interesting case is Pitt (9-5, 0-3 ACC, 50 NET, 53 KP).

They are sitting at NET of 50 despite an 0-3 Q1 record and an 0-1 Q2 record. They also dropped a Q3 game to Missouri at home. Based on Kenpom, their best win is #124 West Virginia, and they've only beaten 4 top 200 KP teams. Their losses aren't all close games either, as they've lost to UNC by 13, Syracuse by 8, Clemson by 9, Missouri by 7, and Florida by 15.

So what gives, why are they ranked in the same ballpark as Wake? Well, most of their wins are blowouts. They beat NCA&T(KP 345) by 48, Binghamton (KP 276) by 29, Jacksonville (KP 273) by 51, Oregon St (KP 159) by 25, West Virginia (KP 124) by 17, and SC St (KP 334) by 26.

The stats believe that only a pretty good team could blow all these teams out like that. But if they don't start proving it by beating actually good teams, their metrics are going to plummet, because they don't have too many cupcakes to blow out left now. And rest assured, they will not be getting an NCAAT bid over Wake with a resume that even resembles what they have today.
 
NET rankings as of this morning, just for an overall snapshot of where the ACC stands. Remember, the only time the NET really matters is when the committee makes their final decision - this is where the final quads are populated. Of course it would be helpful to have favorable NET breakdowns a few days prior as the committee will have team sheets with the NET before the major conference tournaments really kick off (Tuesday/Wedneday when the committee sits down). Finally, although KP and Torvik are phasing out preseason anchoring to a high degree as we move further into January, NET is better viewed as a resume snapshot at present than the best predictive snapshot moving forward. By February, NET and other metrics should dovetail pretty nicely.

12. UNC
17. Duke
18. Clemson
40. Miami
48. Virginia
50. Pitt
56. Wake Forest
67. Virginia Tech
73. NC State
77. Syracuse
82. Boston College
123. Georgia Tech
132. Florida State
182. Notre Dame
267. Louisville

Overall thoughts: a win over a top 30 team anywhere or a top 75 team on the road is a Q1 win. Wake really cannot afford to lose to GT, FSU, ND, or Louisville wherever the game is played - not just because it would be a Q2/Q3 (or Q4 loss in the Louisville case) but because those are games we need to pad wins for our resume plus avoid our own drop in NET. We need to grab at least 3-4 Q1 wins IMO. Games against Pitt, VT, State, and UVA (to some extent Miami, although I just think they're going to end up safely in the tournament) strike me as particularly important for setting ourselves apart from similarly placed bubble teams (although the committee claims they do not care about conference affiliation at all as far as it comes to sorting teams on the bubble)
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
We need to grab at least 3-4 Q1 wins IMO.
Click to expand...
This seems like a tough ask to be honest, especially if Florida doesn't play their way back into being a Q1 win for us.

The games we have left that either are currently Q1 or realistically could be are: Miami (H), UVA (H), NCST (A), UNC (A), Pitt (A), Duke (A), UVA (A), Duke (H), VT (A), Clemson (H). Of those 10 games, 2 of them are not currently Q1: Miami, UVA at home. And then games like NCST, VT, and even Clemson could all easily fall out of Q1 territory.

There's a realistic world in which we only get 6-7 more chances at a Q1 and 5-6 of them are road games. Two of those road games are at Duke and UNC. Expecting 4 wins out of all this leaves very little room for error.
 
deacon14 said:
There's a realistic world in which we only get 6-7 more chances at a Q1 and 5-6 of them are road games. Two of those road games are at Duke and UNC. Expecting 4 wins out of all this leaves very little room for error.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mentioned this a few weeks ago but the biggest hindrances ACC bubble teams have had over the last few years are: 1) limited Q1 opportunities - and most of them end up on the road and 2) multiple Q3/Q4 games where they're just landmines (no upside for winning, huge downside for losing - see UVA @ Notre Dame already this season).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top