Haha good luck with that. Danny hasn't been able to recruit players in the range of 50-125 (or even Top 150) in four years. Suddenly he's going to put together a 2019 class that includes two more Top 100 players (AND a Top 40) when we don't seem to be on the serious consideration radar of any Top 50 players. BTW, Egg was ranked roughly 200th, and that may be generous as one service had him as high as 129, which seems quite high), and Okeke was a preferred walk-on ranked in the 500-600 range. The average rank of 2016 was around 160ish. And Sharone and Jamie (post-injuries) are both in the 175-200 range at this point. While we might get another Top 100 this year, I would have preferred 4 straight years of 3 or 4 player classes who were all in the 50-150 range, save for the odd reach here and there, along with Brown and Hoard, who are consensus Top 50 players. The only 2 consensus Top 50 players he has hit on in 4 years. Not quite enough when your other 13 or 14 players average 195-200.
I just think it's funny that you are so adamant that Danny can pull off a miracle in 2019 when there is very little in terms of positive recruiting trail scuttlebutt at this point.
Even though Dave Odom did it in '89-90 and snagged key role players the following two years. And while Skip had the luxury of building off the momentum of 2001's near Sweet 16 appearance, it's not like he got CP3 the first year and the rest followed. He did his due diligence and recruited 7 out of 8 players the first two years that went on to graduate. How bout [Redacted] and Manning? Not so much.
Danny had a chance to establish stability and a foundation to build upon. It looks as though he has failed to do so. Now it all boils down to the 2019 class? Maybe 2018/2019 will prove to be his 2007/2008, but the foundation has crumbled (was it ever there?) and we will likely crash and burn in 2020 and beyond, if the ascent is all that high to begin with. No pressure Jaylen!
I would feel much better about anchoring my hopes on 2018's class if Hoard were a dominant PG, who can control the game without dominating the ball a la a certain someone.
Who knew our foundation was SJM, Washington, Mitchell, Woods, and maybe Eggleston.
That's the whole fucking point Sherlock. You can't build a program with "throw-away" classes who either aren't good enough, or decide to transfer because they figure their coach will just recruit a grad-transfer or two to play in their place. 2017 was barely acceptable because he managed to snag Sarr late in the game.
But Sarr was nowhere close to Top 75. He might have cracked the Top 100 if he played more in the US. He was 176th by one service, 185th by another and an average of 222. Seems a bit of a "stretch" if you ask me, as he barely got a 4th star from someone based on his potential. Same thing for SJM, and that didn't exactly pan out. Hopefully Sarr works harder and gets the minutes he needs as a stretch 4 to excel.
He hired [Redacted] (0% chance of becoming a Top ACC coach) and Manning (x percent chance of becoming a Top ACC coach). Assessing the expected value of Wellman’s next hire is obviously more complicated than averaging his last two hires. If I had realized this would be so confusing to people I would have just responded with an emoji.
Sarr's ranking was absurd as he never played in the U.S. Rivals had him as 4*. ESPN Insider ranked him the top NBA prospect at the FIBA tournament. People who actually saw him didn't think what you do.
Isn't Melo Charlie Harrison's nephew? You take chances like this. Some work. Some don't. Do you think Seth Greenberg wishes he took the kid of a former VT player?
15 was very good getting JC, Doral and Craw. 16 sucked due missing on Giles. 17 was decent and could look much better if Chaundee and Sarr improve. If you get two solid multi-year starters in one class it's a good year. 2018 is a Top 20 class. We need to get moving on 19.
My bad, being dispassionate and not saying everything sucks is not what the board wants to hear and everything else is wrong.
Well the phrase expected value helps me understand what you're trying to do here, but the reason it's confusing is that you're doing it wrong. Expected future value of a potential future coach needs to be about the value of the coaching candidates not the past hires. The correct inequality statement looks more like: P(m)>? sum(P(h)i*P(succ)i), where P(m) is the probability of Manning becoming a successful "top Acc coach", P(h) is the probability of Wellman hiring candidate i, and P(succ) is the probability of coach i being a successful top Acc coach. The P(h) is based on the data we have on Wellman's past hiring practices and it probably varies among candidates, P(succ) is based on the success of the candidate coaches at prior coaching gigs and definitely varies among candidates, and P(m) is based on Manning's success so far as an HC. P(m) is the only quantity that is really fixed at this point but we don't have certainty on what it actually is, though most posters on this board would probably assign low P(m) value. P(succ) and P(h) are dependent on the candidate pool of future coaches and you definitely cannot definitively say P(m) is greater than the sum of P(h)i*P(succ)i, because we don't know who the i's are.
You're right about one thing, emoji's would be less confusing, assuming you know how to use those correctly.
.
My bad, being dispassionate and not saying everything sucks is not what the board wants to hear and everything else is wrong.
Biff quipped that because in four years Manning has yet to prove that he is ever going to be a Top ACC coach.
Recruiting has been a roller coaster. In-game coaching has been good in the first half and awful in the second half. And he has yet to build a bench of 3* players who improve and are inspired by his leadership.
And I quipped back because people want to give the guy who hired [Redacted] and Manning, as you pointed out, another chance. I’d rather put our program in the hands of the guy who has assembled a potential starting 5 full of top 100 players, at least for another year.
Holy shit dude. The reason it’s confusing is because you failed to recognize simple context clues. I stated that I had more faith in Manning becoming a Top ACC coach than in Wellman hiring one. Biff quipped that Wellman hired Manning. I essentially quipped back that he also hired [Redacted].
I clearly wasn’t trying to lay down an equation to perfectly capture the expected value of a Wellman hire (though thanks for taking the time to do so).
As to your equation, we may not know who the i’s are, but we know who they are not (I.e. likely top 20 coaches). Given that, and given what we know about P(h), I feel extremely confident that P(m) is > the sum of P(h)i *P(succ)i.
This is fine, but it's an opinion based on your assessment of unmeasured probabilities, not a fact. To be clear, I agree that Welman would probably fuck up another hire, but other folks weigh the equation differently you, i.e., assigning a much lower probability to Manning's success than you. It is not an invalid conclusion to say we'd be better off going with a completely unknown new coach than to stick with a pretty well known bad coach.
And I quipped back because people want to give the guy who hired [Redacted] and Manning, as you pointed out, another chance. I’d rather put our program in the hands of the guy who has assembled a potential starting 5 full of top 100 players, at least for another year.