• 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!

Does Wake Forest make a bowl game in 2013-2014?

Does Wake go bowling this year

  • Total voters
    284
  • Poll closed .
Neurodeac said:
The criteria for getting into a bowl is finishing .500 (although not a guarantee at .500) now, which is easier than in the past. Jim Grobe has finished .500 or better 6 out of 12 years (with 5 bowls). In the 50 years preceeding Jim Grobe and since the establishment of the ACC, WFU has had only 12 out of 50 .500 or better seasons and been bowl eligible by today's standards. Jim Grobe has made WFU bowl eligible at a rate more than twice that of the previous 50 years, using today's standards. I hope this puts to rest the idea that the only reason Grobe has more bowls is because of the relaxed standards.
Click to expand...

The bold is what people have said.

The underlined is what nobody said.
 
wsc8521s said:
No one said it was the only reason. But it's certainly a major one
Click to expand...

Not even a major reason. Not even a reason at all. Correcting for easier standards, his "bowl rate" is more than double that of previous coaches. Citing bowls is a perfectly legitimate argument for the position that Grobe's teams are better than the last 50 years at WFU.
 
PhDeac said:
The bold is what people have said.

The underlined is what nobody said.
Click to expand...

What people have said is that citing bowls is not a good argument in support of Jim Grobe because it's easier to get into bowls now. I am countering that argument with statistics.
 
Neurodeac said:
What people have said is that citing bowls is not a good argument in support of Jim Grobe because it's easier to get into bowls now. I am countering that argument with statistics.
Click to expand...

Please quote who said this.
 
Winning percentage and wins and losses, yes. Bowls, I'm not so sure.

The only bowl that we've made that was around more than 15 years ago was the Orange Bowl in 2006. I think we probably would've made a bowl in 2007 even in the previous era of way less bowls ... though one could certainly argue that we wouldn't have, and going way back into like the '60s we certainly wouldn't have.

But either way, that is it.

Record at end of regular season:
6 +.500 records in the '70s and 80s. 1 bowl game.
4 +.500 records since the year 2000. 5 bowl games.
 
Last edited:
mebanedeac said:
At the time of the extension it seemed rational and even necessary. Now, it appears extreme. Surely no one thinks that the same money would be paid today.
Click to expand...

Would bet that WF football revenues are greater today than the day that Grobe signed the extension. So, a lesser percentage of football revenue goes to his salary now than three years ago.

To me Grobe's salary is irrelevant. I would not have felt any better about WF football last year if Grobe's salary was less. The market determines the salary of a football coach, and at the time that Grobe and WF agreed to the contract extension, other schools were willing to pay equal to or more for Grobe than the amount of his deal with WF. If Grobe agreed to a pay cut tomorrow, I would not expect any less out of WF football. Football coaches's salarlies are constantly rising, when Grobe was a hot commodity he was among the highest paid coaches in the country. Over time, others have passed him in salary, that does not make me expect less out of Grobe. Grobe and the WF althletic department can cut any deal they want, and I assume that they bargained on equal terms and made a deal that was financially reasonable for both sides. As a fan, that does nothing to change what to expect out of the football program.

Put another way, IIRC, Bz is among the lowest paid hoop coaches in the ACC. That does not make me feel any better about WF basketball.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Please quote who said this.
Click to expand...

Good grief... My original post quoted this post:

We have all this talk about how many bowl games grobe has taken wake to but for really anyone but Grobe there haven't been 34 bowl games to fill and 6 wins didnt get the job done. It has been significantly easier in terms of availability of spots for Grobe to get his teams into a bowl than his predecessors.
 
Neuro, it's easier to get into bowls. There's no argument against that. It just is. wsc lays it out.

Your point is that it's not easier for a Wake coach to get to .500 than before Grobe. That's a fair point that can be debated.
 
The semantics of this easy-to-qualify-for-a-bowl issue is ridiculous. Of course it's easier to get into a bowl during Grobe's tenure. Bill Dooley went 7-4 and 6-4-1 in his first two years and didn't make a bowl. Today he surely would have, and that would've given him 3 bowls in 6 years, about the same as Grobe.
 
Lohengrin said:
The semantics of this easy-to-qualify-for-a-bowl issue is ridiculous. Of course it's easier to get into a bowl during Grobe's tenure. Bill Dooley went 7-4 and 6-4-1 in his first two years and didn't make a bowl. Today he surely would have, and that would've given him 3 bowls in 6 years, about the same as Grobe.
Click to expand...

Boom. Roasted
 
Let's face it. He's the most successful Wake coach in our lifetimes. He stayed here instead of going to Lincoln or Fayetteville, and got the big raise for it. Do you trust this AD or administration to find someone better? Wellman would probably hire John L Smith. That said, we had one upset in '12 (UNC), one in '11 (FSU),one in '09 (STANFORD). His M.O. is to beat the teams we should, pull an upset now and then, but the difference is beating our equals (Duke, NCSU, Md, UVa). We do that we go bowling, we don't and we stay home.
 
Lohengrin said:
The semantics of this easy-to-qualify-for-a-bowl issue is ridiculous. Of course it's easier to get into a bowl during Grobe's tenure. Bill Dooley went 7-4 and 6-4-1 in his first two years and didn't make a bowl. Today he surely would have, and that would've given him 3 bowls in 6 years, about the same as Grobe.
Click to expand...

Both excellent points and you used my strategy of applying todays easier bowl standard to make the point that Grobe and Dooley are fairly equal as coaches getting into bowls. I think Dooley was a very good coach and so is Grobe. It's obvious that it's easier to get into a bowl now. I just did mathematically what you did with Dooley's record and applied it to the last 50 years before Grobe (including Dooley) and showed that Grobe (and as you pointed out, Dooley) would have qualified for more than twice as many bowls as WFU would have overall during that time.

Simple as I can make it. Grobe supporters point out the bowls. Grobe detractors say bowls are easier now. I agree they are easier. However, my analysis says Grobe does better with bowls than would be expected, even accounting for the easier bowls. Is that wrong? Is that helpful? Clear as mud?
 
We were set to go a bowl in 88 until we tied App State on the last game of the season.
 
ChrisL68 said:
We were set to go a bowl in 88 until we tied App State on the last game of the season.
Click to expand...

A very painful memory, especially since appalachian refused to go for the win and settled for the tie just to spite us.
 
Neurodeac said:
Both excellent points and you used my strategy of applying todays easier bowl standard to make the point that Grobe and Dooley are fairly equal as coaches getting into bowls. I think Dooley was a very good coach and so is Grobe. It's obvious that it's easier to get into a bowl now. I just did mathematically what you did with Dooley's record and applied it to the last 50 years before Grobe (including Dooley) and showed that Grobe (and as you pointed out, Dooley) would have qualified for more than twice as many bowls as WFU would have overall during that time.

Simple as I can make it. Grobe supporters point out the bowls. Grobe detractors say bowls are easier now. I agree they are easier. However, my analysis says Grobe does better with bowls than would be expected, even accounting for the easier bowls. Is that wrong? Is that helpful? Clear as mud?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "than would be expected"? Are you in Wellman's camp, embracing "historical competitiveness"? Grobe has done as well as any Wake coach I've been around, with 2006-08 (Fresh Deacs) being the difference maker. Before and after that, he's fairly mediocre (two bowls in 9 years). Grobe himself showed that better things can be achieved at Wake, but this institution hasn't got the will to make it happen.
 
I don't think you can take out the Fresh Deacs because he recruited them here. He certainly deserves the credit for getting them here does he not? You can't just take out the three best years of any other coach.
 
I can see how neuro got double (or at least close), but there are also some variables that allow him to get there.

Most significantly, as Ph pointed out, in every season but one Grobe has played a 12-game schedule, and 6-6 became enough for bowl eligibility. In 1976, 1980 and 1986 Wake finished 5-6. If we had played another game those years, those could've turned into bowl years.

So if you throw out the two years where Grobe got to a bowl at 6-6 (but counting the 6-5 year where we didn't bowl), you're looking at Grobe going to bowls about 25% more than the average Wake coach. (And three of those four +.500 finishes came with the Fresh Deacs ... so without those years he is well below average)

That's not that great, especially when there are factors that make it easier to win at Wake now than in the past
 
Last edited:
Lohengrin said:
What do you mean by "than would be expected"? Are you in Wellman's camp, embracing "historical competitiveness"? Grobe has done as well as any Wake coach I've been around, with 2006-08 (Fresh Deacs) being the difference maker. Before and after that, he's fairly mediocre (two bowls in 9 years). Grobe himself showed that better things can be achieved at Wake, but this institution hasn't got the will to make it happen.
Click to expand...

"than would be expected" was in the mathematical sense, not in the LOWF sense.
 
wsc8521s said:
I can see how neuro got double (or at least close), but there are also some variables that allow him to get there.

Most significantly, as Ph pointed out, in every season but one Grobe has played a 12-game schedule, and 6-6 became enough for bowl eligibility. In 1976, 1980 and 1986 Wake finished 5-6. If we had played another game those years, those could've turned into bowl years.

So if you throw out the two years where Grobe got to a bowl at 6-6 (but counting the 6-5 year where we didn't bowl), you're looking at Grobe going to bowls about 25% more than the average Wake coach. (And three of those four +.500 finishes came with the Fresh Deacs ... so without those years he is well below average)

That's not that great, especially when there are factors that make it easier to win at Wake now than in the past
Click to expand...

Actually you are the one manipulating variables "to get there". I simply applied the current criteria for bowl eligibility to Grobe's era and then to the rest of the ACC era (50 years prior to Grobe) to get a sense of how much the easing of bowl eligibility contributed to WFU's increased frequency bowl attendance under Grobe. Six bowl eligible years out of twelve is more than double (not almost double) 12 bowl eligible years out of 50. The issue of whether it is easier to win at Wake now is a whole nother debate that is not addressed by this analysis. If you want to factor in the the eleven vs. twelve game schedule you would have to account for the 6-5 years as well as the 5-6 years that you pointed out and then figure out what percentage of 6-6 teams don't get invited to a bowl and apply those proportionately. I don't want to do the research and math and doubt it would make much difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top