• 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!

Wake Forest Basketball - '23-24 Schedule Thread

What I don’t understand is that Forbes himself acknowledged that the OOC scheduling after the 21 season was problem with us not making the tourney and vowed to schedule higher ranked teams in 22, which we did. Now it seems like history is repeating itself.
 
Here's a simple example of why schedule strength matters. Nobody who watched both the men's and women's hoops teams would think the women's team was better. Spear was the only All-ACC player and one of maybe 3 players who would get serious rotation minutes for an NCAA Tournament team. Whereas the men were led by an ACC POY and had several guys who would get run for a good team. The women finished 17-17 (5-13) and #79 in NET. The men finished 19-14 (10-10) and #89 in NET. The main difference was strength of schedule, non-con and ACC.
 
UncleTupeloDeac said:
What I don’t understand is that Forbes himself acknowledged that the OOC scheduling after the 21 season was problem with us not making the tourney and vowed to schedule higher ranked teams in 22, which we did. Now it seems like history is repeating itself.
Click to expand...

Eh, the top end of the schedule is much much better than that one. The bottom is still admittedly a bit of the problem but that one was like bottom 5 overall in the country.
 
PhDeac said:
We’re talking about moving up to 150 from 350.

And we’re talking about maximizing the impact of wins not being scared of losses. Keep up.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about average but hey I'm the one that's gotta keep up!
 
Strickland33 said:
yea i have to disagree with @CamLemons here

going 5-5 against a tough schedule will go a lot farther than 10-0 against this schedule in this new era of bracketology, and it's better for the players, fans, and programs

and we're also lighting money on fire by paying all of these teams to come to the Joel to lose by 20+ to crowds of hundreds.
Click to expand...
Oh i 100% think it's better for the fans to play better teams and said that earlier. Money wise, it's a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. But it's not just a Wake thing, this is just how people are scheduling. I'd like more regional stuff and it avoids you playing sister of the poor state, but that's not how people are scheduling outside of your conferences like the MWC. Schools see those games as a lose-lose. It does not help you in terms of your quadrants because you are still playing a Q4 game regardless and if you lose you are screwed. That's just how that goes. It's also a thing your smaller schools have issues with as well because they have the same mindset (link)

I think it is better for the programs in theory to do in a perfect world. But that's not the world that the coaches and admins are dealing with. And I think people have seen there are two ways to game the system: you either do things like the MWC and game it the system into all of your games being Q1/Q2 games, or you do things like Oral Roberts did and just beat the everloving hell out of every Q3 and Q4 team you play. There isn't just one way to skin a cat here.

Is the schedule boring outside of the MTE, Rutgers, UGA, Florida? Yes. Is it bad enough to have some sort of meltdown over? No.
 
I think we all want what's best for the team and the university. I think (but I don't really know) that they've taken a course that will give them the greatest occasion for success. There's a lot of experienced people involved in the decision making. And they're certainly accountable.

I'm glad we have the opportunity to discuss it. I just don't think we have or ever will have the whole story on how/why these kinds of decisions get made.

I hope we kill it this year.
 
I just want to hear Forbes discuss the schedule given he's been pretty vocal about not scheduling a number of these 300+ opponents in the past.

But I suspect that'll be something that we won't get much "real talk" on until after the season concludes. It's not like he can be like, "we wanted to play a number of really easy games to offset some of the bigger matchups" before those games actually happen.
 
Five opponents over 300 is absolutely unacceptable. If we want to get to the level that Forbes expects us to be at, and we think we can be at this needs to change. Play 2-3 of those maybe but schedule another big time opponent, we need an opportunity for a win. If we lose so be it, it's obvious that a loss to a top 25 team is worth way more than a win over dick state.
 
Coaching staff has to know the schedule is problematic. I'm sure we tried and for some reason could not get the games we needed/wanted. Would love to know how it went down.
 
WFUWaldo said:
Going 10-0 likely means multiple Quad 1 wins.
Click to expand...

If those teams are good. We haven’t had luck with our OOC counting enough when it counts.

Schedule better and you don’t have to worry about that.

Of course, we could also go undefeated this year and we don’t have to worry about it.
 
Here's what we need for Quad 1 wins:

at Georgia top 75 (#157 last season)
3 games Charleston Classic top 50 (only Houston and North Texas were top 50)
Florida top 30 (#73 last season)
Rutgers top 30 (#40 last season)

If our opponents are similar to last season, we may not get any Quad 1 games. Odds are 1 or 2 games if we advance in the Charleston Classic and Rutgers is good.

Most likely an 11-0 start would be 1-0 Q1, 5-0 Q2, and 5-0 Q4. There's no room for error.
 
PhDeac said:
Here's what we need for Quad 1 wins:

at Georgia top 75 (#157 last season)
3 games Charleston Classic top 50 (only Houston and North Texas were top 50)
Florida top 30 (#73 last season)
Rutgers top 30 (#40 last season)

If our opponents are similar to last season, we may not get any Quad 1 games. Odds are 1 or 2 games if we advance in the Charleston Classic and Rutgers is good.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this, too.

Depending on draw/performance in Charleston, that could be a zero for Quad 1s.

I don't think Rutgers is going to be as good, so we're left with hoping we can beat UF (while also hoping they are good enough to stay in the top 30, but not good enough to beat us).
 
People who spend a lot of time on college basketball think Florida will be very good next year. Agree that Rutgers could be down. Houston will be a Quad 1 opponent if WF plays them. Barring injuries the Cougars will be a top 10 team.
 
Pilchard said:
People who spend a lot of time on college basketball think Florida will be very good next year.
Click to expand...

I like UF. Went to grad school there. Agree they will be a lot better this year.

I'll just be bummed if that is our only OOC Q1 opportunity.
 
Pilchard said:
People who spend a lot of time on college basketball think Florida will be very good next year. Agree that Rutgers could be down. Houston will be a Quad 1 opponent if WF plays them. Barring injuries the Cougars will be a top 10 team.
Click to expand...
It's a weird dynamic to hope the best teams win in a tournament instead of hoping for an easy route. But we need to get Houston and we could get them in the first round.
 
We are putting a lot of eggs into that Charleston tournament. A loss in round 1 (whoever we play) likely gets us 0 quad 1 opportunities in the second and third rounds. Beating Houston and whoever else is our best theoretical path, but one fraught with risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top