• 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!

BBall Recruiting Thread 2k19 - Charles Coleman de-commits to Wake. :(

RChildress107 said:
That was acceptable for year 1 (and it actually ended up working quite well compared to the rankings); it’s not acceptable for year 5. Every class at Wake should either have a 5 star recruit or multiple top 100 guys in it.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's a standard that Wake has ever lived up to. From 1998 (when I can first find RSCI data) through 2009 (Dino's last class), we met the bold criterian 8-of-12 times. Clearly it impacted our success on the court, as the 01-03 classes and the 05-08 classes culminated in #1 rankings and lofty NCAA tournament expectations. But it's likely unrealistic for every single class to have either a 5-star or multiple top-100 players.

1998 - yes
1999 - no
2000 - no
2001 - yes
2002 - yes
2003 - yes
2004 - no
2005 - yes
2006 - yes
2007 - yes
2008 - yes
2009 - no

For reference, Danny is 2-for-5 on the above (met in 2015 and 2018, did not meett in 2014, 2016, and 2017). [Redacted] was 2-for-4.
 
As was proven in the [Redacted] years, if Wake received a commitment from a 5'6 center who got cut from his high school team, there are a certain number of posters who would rejoice and proclaim that such a recruit will end up helping Wake return to prominence.

Those same folks will then feel fine saying that there is not enough talent in the program when said 5'6 center is getting the shit beat out of him in actual games, and point to the 6'3 center who actually made his high school team that has committed for the following year as proof that help is on the way.
 
How was that proven? I don't recall WF ever getting a commitment from a 5'6" center who got cut from his hs basketball team.
 
Hyperbole is a thing. It's also been proven that some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
 
RacerDeac said:
Hyperbole is a thing. It's also been proven that some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...

Snarkiness is also a thing. It has been proven that is the go-to persona for many on here.

Snarkiness can be awesome when done right; but also grows tiring, especially when it is the repetitive beat of the poster. It's a low value add IMO
 
jaybone said:
Snarkiness is also a thing. It has been proven that is the go-to persona for many on here.

Snarkiness can be awesome when done right; but also grows tiring, especially when it is the repetitive beat of the poster. It's a low value add IMO
Click to expand...

Snarkiness is healthy and expected at this point. Hard to blame anyone for being snarky.
 
WFUWaldo said:
Not sure that's a standard that Wake has ever lived up to. From 1998 (when I can first find RSCI data) through 2009 (Dino's last class), we met the bold criterian 8-of-12 times. Clearly it impacted our success on the court, as the 01-03 classes and the 05-08 classes culminated in #1 rankings and lofty NCAA tournament expectations. But it's likely unrealistic for every single class to have either a 5-star or multiple top-100 players.

1998 - yes
1999 - no
2000 - no
2001 - yes
2002 - yes
2003 - yes
2004 - no
2005 - yes
2006 - yes
2007 - yes
2008 - yes
2009 - no

For reference, Danny is 2-for-5 on the above (met in 2015 and 2018, did not meett in 2014, 2016, and 2017). [name redacted] was 2-for-4.
Click to expand...

The 1999 class was a one man class. 2000 was a small class. 2004 was a small class. 2009 was a small class. Every class with 3 or more players met that criteria.
 
PhDeac said:
The 1999 class was a one man class. 2000 was a small class. 2004 was a small class. 2009 was a small class. Every class with 3 or more players met that criteria.
Click to expand...

yeah -

1999 the one recruit had his jersey retired and became an NBA All-Star
2000 we had a returning 9-man rotation including 2 future NBA players and the ABCDE class
2004 we had a returning 9-man rotation including a Top 50 all-time player and a returning first-team All ACC player in the backcourt along with depth pretty much everywhere; tough lineup to recruit into
 
Keep in mind that the ACC had 9 teams until 2004. So, everyone had a top 10 classes until then; so a top 10 ACC class was meaningless. In 2004, the ACC increased to 11 teams and to 12 in 2005. The ACC stayed at 12 until 2013. The ACC increased to 15 in 2014 (Bz's last year). So, a top 10 ACC recruiting class meant essentially nothing until 2014 as almost every year between 2004 and 2013 as one or more ACC team was in obvious coaching turmoil (e.g., Dave Leitao at UVA, James Johnson at VT, Sidney Lowe at State) almost every year. While a top 10 ACC class doesn't mean a lot even now, it does mean more than it did historically before 2014.
 
Here is a novel idea, how about we wait and see them play at least one game before we make a judgement on these kids? They may turn out to be a bunch of Dick Wash's or could be a John Collins, none of us know which just yet. I personally haven't seen any of them live like the coaches have but if you have let's hear your evaluation. Would I have rather had Cole Anthony, Wendell Moore, Andrew Bacot, Boogie Ellis etc, of course I would but coming off a terrible year that was never going to happen. I am not sure that even with that 2nd group Manning could win 20 games, he is just not a good coach, especially defensively.
 
Pilchard said:
Keep in mind that the ACC had 9 teams until 2004. So, everyone had a top 10 classes until then; so a top 10 ACC class was meaningless. In 2004, the ACC increased to 11 teams and to 12 in 2005. The ACC stayed at 12 until 2013. The ACC increased to 15 in 2014 (Bz's last year). So, a top 10 ACC recruiting class meant essentially nothing until 2014 as almost every year between 2004 and 2013 as one or more ACC team was in obvious coaching turmoil (e.g., Dave Leitao at UVA, James Johnson at VT, Sidney Lowe at State) almost every year. While a top 10 ACC class doesn't mean a lot even now, it does mean more than it did historically before 2014.
Click to expand...

Bzedelik would have found a way to be outside the top-10 had he been coach in the 90's.
 
sportsnut said:
Here is a novel idea, how about we wait and see them play at least one game before we make a judgement on these kids? They may turn out to be a bunch of Dick Wash's or could be a John Collins, none of us know which just yet.
Click to expand...

Just because exceptions exist doesn't mean that you must assume that everyone might be an exception before discussing individual commitments or the class as a whole. We make judgments based on the data available. As you get more data, sure, your judgement can change. There's a whole system and multiple businesses setup around watching and analyzing these kids. It would be silly to wholesale dismiss all of that data and not bother forming opinions on our recruiting until a kid has shown up on campus. And it's easier than ever for a kid to get exposure and get in front of analysts and coaches. The rankings are more meaningful now than they've ever been.
 
Last edited:
sportsnut said:
Here is a novel idea, how about we wait and see them play at least one game before we make a judgement on these kids? They may turn out to be a bunch of Dick Wash's or could be a John Collins, none of us know which just yet. I personally haven't seen any of them live like the coaches have but if you have let's hear your evaluation. Would I have rather had Cole Anthony, Wendell Moore, Andrew Bacot, Boogie Ellis etc, of course I would but coming off a terrible year that was never going to happen. I am not sure that even with that 2nd group Manning could win 20 games, he is just not a good coach, especially defensively.
Click to expand...

Lousiville's program should be facing the most severe punishments sans the death penalty yet they arguably have the #1 recruiting class in the nation right now. Just because Danny's a loser and our assistant coach accidentally killed someone doesn't mean we have to settle for mid-major talent.
 
RacerDeac said:
Just because exceptions exist doesn't mean that you must assume that everyone might be an exception before discussing individual commitments or the class as a whole. We make judgments based on the data available. As you get more data, sure, your judgement can change. There's a whole system and multiple businesses setup around watching and analyzing these kids. It would be silly to wholesale dismiss all of that data and not bother forming opinions on our recruiting until a kid has shown up on campus. And it's easier than ever for a kid to get exposure and get in front of analysts and coaches. The rankings are more meaningful now than they've ever been.
Click to expand...

And I take the opinion of Wake fans who have seen our recruits play with a grain of salt. Wake fans see through Wake glasses, and seeing a kid play, while is adds perspective, doesn't necessarily trump the opinions of multiple analysts and coaches who see hundreds of kids play and have a far more complete picture of the talent landscape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top