• 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!

Possible Wake Forest Coaching Candidates Analysis

RJKarl said:
All I was showing is that it wasn't about either of those conferences. Most of them had histories in the big time before becoming head coaches.

It's very, very difficult (and rare) to go from a lower conference to the P6 without having any P6 experience. It becomes who the person is not the lower conference where they started.
Click to expand...

Which I think proves my point...Oats has NO P6 experience. I think you have suggested Oats on the board before.

So, in general, the evidence is that MAC coaches rarely succeed at the next level. Every MAC coach who has gone to a power conference in the past 20 years has been a epic fail other than Hurley who has been mediocre. And folks usually need P6 experience. So with all that said...I stick to my point, maybe we pump the breaks a bit on the Oats is a "homerun" talk.
 
I like Oats, but he's not my first choice. He has far exceeded what the others have done on the same level. But there would be some hesitation.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Pat Chambers is the only one of those that didn’t have significantly more success in the AEC than Odom. In a few weeks he will be fired. If you want to use those guys as the template then Becker is the one we should hire.

What you are missing is that having a top 25 team in the MAC is something that does not happen. Hurley’s best team was 58th, Groce’s best team was 57th, Christian’s was 82nd, Heath’s was 14th but his tenure at Kent State was a single year with a team that Waters built. So, if Waters is the only one in the same territory as Oats, that’s not a bad sign because he has had the most successful stint at Rutgers of any coach since they have been in the Big East.
Click to expand...

Your first point is just not true. Neither of them had significantly more success. Odom turned around a much more difficult situation than either of Wright or Brey. They both did finish 1st and Odom hasn't yet. He took a last place team to 5th and then 2nd and now 1 game out of first. Plus neither Brey nor Wright won a single game in the NCAA. So "significantly" better is simply untrue.

Your second point is absolutely spot on. Oats has done an incredible job...and I have said many times, he'd be a great hire. My contention all along has been before getting too far ahead of ourselves, let's slow down on the Oats is a slam dunk since the results from that league have little positive history at the next level and I think P6 experience is valuable. That's all I'm saying. Oh, and that Odom is a viable candidate and the idea that he should be dismissed is silly.
 
No one knows if oats will be a home run in hindsight. However, with his resume he is absolutely a home run hire now.
 
So where do the true home run hires come from?
 
Deacs9394 said:
Your first point is just not true. Neither of them had significantly more success. Odom turned around a much more difficult situation than either of Wright or Brey. They both did finish 1st and Odom hasn't yet. He took a last place team to 5th and then 2nd and now 1 game out of first. Plus neither Brey nor Wright won a single game in the NCAA. So "significantly" better is simply untrue.

Your second point is absolutely spot on. Oats has done an incredible job...and I have said many times, he'd be a great hire. My contention all along has been before getting too far ahead of ourselves, let's slow down on the Oats is a slam dunk since the results from that league have little positive history at the next level and I think P6 experience is valuable. That's all I'm saying. Oh, and that Odom is a viable candidate and the idea that he should be dismissed is silly.
Click to expand...

Nah, it is true. Pikiell has Stony Brook at 94th in the country, Odom reached 166th (206 this year). KP did not exist when Brey and Weight were coming up but they both had 13 seeds while Odom had a 16 seed last year and will probably be seeded the same if he makes it next year. I don’t really care about the NCAAT win. We should not make decisions off of single games.

As for the second point, I would normally agree but building a P6 grade team in a mid major conference is surely a better indicator of being able to build a P6 grade team at a P6 program than being an assistant at a not very successful P6 program. The best team Odom has ever been a part of was 34th ranked Virginia Tech in 2007-8. Oats has taken a team in a much worse conference, in a much worse location, and with much fewer resources to 21st.
 
I don't think there is one place. You have to look at all factors. In a perfect world things like p6 experience is ideal. But the right coach at a low major might be a good pick if their body of work is good. You can be a really good coach at a low major and you'll never be able to beat the big names bc you can't bring the recruits necessary. That same coach can still show signs of being able to compete with them. I don't think the modern game has only one way to find the right coach.
 
Odom has done well, but I think having had a top 100 team is pretty much a line in the sand for me.
 
Having said that ronnie has clearly shown he does not have the ability to take in all the necessary evidence resume, intangibles etc and choose the right person. He goes with his "smartest guy in the room gut" and its clearly failed wake forest basketball.
 
wsc8521s said:
That makes me a little queasy seeing an AD plant talking up Odom.

[Redacted] improved Wake's Kenpom each year! 259 to 211 to 137 to 117! Success!
Click to expand...

I think Nate Oats would be a fantastic hire - he's probably my #1 choice right now. I was simply pointing out that Ryan Odom has more than just one game to support his resume.

Also, I have nothing to do with the AD and never have. I know you're looking for a good conspiracy theory, though - sorry to burst your bubble.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Odom has done well, but I think having had a top 100 team is pretty much a line in the sand for me.
Click to expand...

Arbitrary KenPom lines doesn't make sense to me. In fact you marked that line @ 100 shortly after pointing out that Pikiell's Stony Brook team was higher ranked than any Odom team at 94...inside your arbitrary 100 line. How's things going at Rutgers? Again, the obsession here with KenPom as the bible on comparing teams is crazy.
 
Odom, Miller, Kelsey, et al have done good jobs at their schools and are good candidates to move up to mid major schools, like when Kelsey considered UMass and Miller was in the running for the UNCW gig. But none are high caliber candidates for an ACC school and the only reason they are in discussion is because of previous ties (pretty loose, at that) to Wake.
 
RJKarl said:
I like Oats, but he's not my first choice. He has far exceeded what the others have done on the same level. But there would be some hesitation.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to declare your first choice?
 
deaconson said:
Kenpom is not the bible on comparing teams. Kenpom is evidence based.
Click to expand...

True. However, like any statistical analysis like this, context is necessary. It is simply not the only item to analyze. And there is plenty of evidence that it is not predictive of success at the next level. I just need to look to Shaka Smart to see the flaws in KenPom and the flaws in using it as predictive. His KenPom numbers at VCU indicated he'd succeed at the highest levels. That has turned out to be not the case. Or has it? Wait a minute...Texas is ranked 27 in KenPom, then he must be doing a bang up job! :rolleyes: KenPom has flaws that slant the data towards better teams and your schedule. As a result, it is absolutely necessary to consider relativity here...not absolutes. For example, there is no way Penn State is a Top 50 team and no way Pat Chambers is doing a good job. And there is no way folks at Texas are please with the program currently. Let's use our eyes please. What's the context of certain coach's situation, did they take over a dumpster fire, has it turned around, are they trending in the right direction, do they win big games when it matters most, etc. And KenPom, sure. I just am opposed to that as the only measure as many on here repeatedly return to.
 
Deacs9394 said:
I'm not convinced either. And I think he could see success here...maybe having learned from the Texas situation. But the facts are the facts...he's barely above .500 at a school that has at least more advantages than we do and is a better job. I love WF, but it is not as good a job as Texas. And the point being, he was a "homerun" and a "can't miss" and the evidence right now indicates he's mediocre at the highest level. If we hired him 5 years ago and were barely above .500 do you think our fan base would currently be happy?
Click to expand...

If he had the KenPom ranking of 26 with it like he does a UT, then yes. It seems like Shaka has lost a ton of close games while at UT. He has had pretty good talent the bulk of his time at UT, but seemed to always be missing a player for a critical position most of the time. I also think that being at UT and being able to recruit at a higher level has caused him to recruit based more on talent than on schematic fit. Some guys simply don't fit the style of play he's known for. Plus, some talented guys don't like to play or aren't good at playing his style of defense, which also hurts his teams because they lose confidence and get tired out on defense making their offense suffer. It's kind of like when Roy Williams' talent resides in big, lumbering guys, yet he still tries to play up tempo rather than dominating play in slow, half-court contests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top