• 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!

Ron Wellman's Performance Metrics (Part 1) UPDATE New Low Achieved!

You're looking for a list and opinions. I gave you a list and facts awhile back. The large majority of championships under Wellman came from coaches he didn't hire. There are so many facts out there that your just being obtuse at this point. Wellman hired coaches who aren't winning. Coaches he didn't hire who used to win aren't winning. Any way you slice it, it's on him.

And if football and men's basketball were doing well our Director's Cup ranking wouldn't be so low. That argument makes no sense.
 
PhDeac said:
You're looking for a list and opinions. I gave you a list and facts awhile back. The large majority of championships under Wellman came from coaches he didn't hire. There are so many facts out there that your just being obtuse at this point. Wellman hired coaches who aren't winning. Coaches he didn't hire who used to win aren't winning. Any way you slice it, it's on him.

And if football and men's basketball were doing well our Director's Cup ranking wouldn't be so low. That argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with you. And you are right, I have seen some of that data - and I saw your pm [actually, that pm was from someone else...] that focuses on championships... It is not quite the same but I get it.... I'm not defending Ron at all.

But, football and basketball could be doing pretty well and not change our Director's Cup standing by THAT much - even when those sports were performing more in line with our expectations, they were not huge contributors to our Dir Cup points... They would certainly move us up some, of course...

I will say that hiring coaches is not easy - that is why I was interested in the notion of whether his various hires looked reasonable at the time. The Bzz hire was bizarre and indefensible on its face - but that is, thankfully, a rare situation.
 
thedeacfan said:
BREAKING NEWS!!!

Winston-Salem, NC - In less than two weeks, when the points from baseball are added to the Director's Cup competition; Wake Forest will become the lowest ranking ACC school in the history of the competition. Wake is currently 97 and that ranking ties the previous record set by GaTech 19 years ago. However, San Diego (currently ranked 106) was in the baseball tournament and appears to have earned more than enough points to move ahead of Wake in the standings.

Wake Forest's performance in the Director's Cup has been on a 5 year decline under the leadership of embattled Athletic Director Ron Wellman. (Although to be fair, five years ago he was not "embattled".) Four years ago Wake was in the bottom third of the conference with a rank of 53. Three years ago Wake was last in the conference with a rank of 74. The last two years Wake has been last in the conference with a ranking in the "90s" (92 & currently 97).
Click to expand...

The final 2013 Director's Cup standings are in...

It's official. With a ranking of 98, Wake Forest has set a record for the worst performance ever by an ACC school in the history of the competition.

Congratulations to Ron Wellman and Nathan Hatch, as well as the Board of Trustees and other enablers who are responsible for this new standard of "historical competitiveness" at LOWF.
 
In investment terms, WFU sports just became a penny stock.


thedeacfan said:
The final 2013 Director's Cup standings are in...

It's official. With a ranking of 98, Wake Forest has set a record for the worst performance ever by an ACC school in the history of the competition.

Congratulations to Ron Wellman and Nathan Hatch, as well as the Board of Trustees and other enablers who are responsible for this new standard of "historical competitiveness" at LOWF.
Click to expand...
 
thedeacfan said:
The final 2013 Director's Cup standings are in...

It's official. With a ranking of 98, Wake Forest has set a record for the worst performance ever by an ACC school in the history of the competition.

Congratulations to Ron Wellman and Nathan Hatch, as well as the Board of Trustees and other enablers who are responsible for this new standard of "historical competitiveness" at LOWF.
Click to expand...

Looks like the FireWellman site needs to be updated. It looks like they had ranked WFU sub-100 for this year, not sure where that came from:

507641fbe385294bb274e9dc07c3bfd3
 
From the early season Directors Cup. We improved to get to #98 this season.
 
09deaconX said:
Looks like the FireWellman site needs to be updated. It looks like they had ranked WFU sub-100 for this year, not sure where that came from:

507641fbe385294bb274e9dc07c3bfd3
Click to expand...


A BCS university president, worth a damn, would have this lone graphic sitting on his desk and be chatting with his AD immediately.
 
coredeac said:
A BCS university president, worth a damn, would have this lone graphic sitting on his desk and be chatting with his AD immediately.
Click to expand...

Winning doesn't matter. Culture and graduation rates matter. Nevermind the fact that we were graduating kids at a high rate from 01-09, they were all thugs and criminals.
 
One of the red herring arguments that is used to excuse our poor performance in the Director's Cup is that the other schools participate in more sports so they have more opportunities to score. I say that it's not how many sports you participate in; it's how well you do in the sports in which you DO participate. I have given some thought as to how to prove or disprove either theorm.

I have already pointed out that 4 other ACC teams participate in fewer than 20 sports and they are all performing better than we are in the competition. But what about the other 7 ACC teams who do field more than 20 teams? I began to wonder what a comparison would like if those teams were pointed in the Director's Cup based on their 20 worst scores instead of their 20 best? In other words, how do we compare to the worst of the worst? As I looked at the Director's Cup website, I realized that I had all the information needed to make that comparison if I was willing to take the time to manually create a spreadsheet. Last night, I did just that.

Once I had all the points for all the sports input into the spreadsheet, I looked at each individual school. For example, Carolina participates in 25 sports. So I subtracted Carolina's best 5 scores from the calculation. That has the same effect as if those sports got "0" points. Carolina went from having a total score of 1075.33 to having a total score of 629.33. That score would have placed Carolina in the standings at ranking of ~31 instead of 8th. For NCSU who only competes in 21 sports, I subtracted only one (the highest) score. They went from 633.6 to 555.6. And their ranking dropped from 34 to ~38. I used that methodology for all 7 schools.

As expected, comparing Wake's performance to the other ACC schools worst performing teams did not significantly improve Wake's standing among ACC schools. In fact, the only school who dropped below Wake was BC. BC was the outlier dropping 79 spots. The average position drop for all other ACC schools including BC was almost 16 positions. The average position drop for the other ACC teams excluding BC was less than 10.

School2013 Director's Cup Ranking~2013 Ranking based on 20 Worst
UNC831
FlSt1111
Duke1238
Va2047
NCSU3438
VaTech3638
Md4457
Clem5252
Mia7171
GaTech7474
BC76155
WFU9898

Even when we compare to the other school's worst teams, it's still very ugly. Hopefully this puts an end to the argument that we are expected to do poorly in the Director's Cup because other ACC schools participate in more sports.
 
Last edited:
It won't because some people are still stuck to the ideas that Wake shouldn't expect success and that Wellman is overall doing a great job and he just made one mistake with Bz. Great work.
 
PhDeac said:
It won't because some people are still stuck to the ideas that Wake shouldn't expect success and that Wellman is overall doing a great job and he just made one mistake with Bz. Great work.
Click to expand...

You were right. Since the NCSU game there have been a surprising number of posters "reminding" us of the "good" things Ron Wellman has done for Wake. I don't see how anyone can take an objective look at the performance of Wake athletics over the last 20 years and call his tenure a success. Even if I were to accept the premise that the performance over the last 20 years is better from a historical perspective, it is still a miserable failure.

ONLY 3 years out of Wellman's 20 have we finished in the UPPER HALF of the conference in the Director's Cup competition. Five of those 20 years we finished as the LAST PLACE school in the conference for the Director's Cup. The man is a miserable failure at his primary job function.

Now in the last few years he has hired two of his crony friends to fill important jobs in his department. He hired Jeff [Redacted], a loser whose resume did not qualify him for a coaching job at a Division III school, much less an ACC school. Then he hired the Krispy Kreme criminal to oversee the AD's finances.

He has been paid very well to fail. I just don't get it...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top