ManhassetDeac
Dshamal Schoetz
If someone has already done this then I apologize, but I saw a few people ask the question what historically competitive means quantitatively and I thought I'd give it a shot. When Wellman gives such ambiguious, qualitative measures, it beomces difficult to hold our coaches accountable for results. Here is my attempt:
In the 21 seasons since Bob Staak and before Jeff [Redacted] (1990-2010) Wake averaged each season a .648 winning percentage overall and a .540 winning percentage in the ACC. Over that time we've had some great years and some real mediocre ones, but I consider the 21-year average as something close to "historically competitive".
If we take a 31-game season with 18 ACC games (tournament not included) and use these derived %s, historically competitive should mean going forward: 20-11 overall and 10-8 in conference.
I don't think we're anywhere near that.
In the 21 seasons since Bob Staak and before Jeff [Redacted] (1990-2010) Wake averaged each season a .648 winning percentage overall and a .540 winning percentage in the ACC. Over that time we've had some great years and some real mediocre ones, but I consider the 21-year average as something close to "historically competitive".
If we take a 31-game season with 18 ACC games (tournament not included) and use these derived %s, historically competitive should mean going forward: 20-11 overall and 10-8 in conference.
I don't think we're anywhere near that.