• 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's athletic performance under Ron Wellman's leadership

ChrisL68 said:
Not surprisingly, you are missing the point. The point is that in those two awesome athletics years, we were barely top half of the ACC in the director's cup.

It takes a very good athletics year to get us in the top half of the director's cup.

You are inferring that because of this I am finding the current state of our athletics program acceptable, and that's a big strawman.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you think these two years where we finished 5th and 7th were "awesome". And unfortunately, from Ron Wellman's "historically competitive" stand point, I guess they were. But objectively, those two years were middle of the pack finishes in the ACC. It's hard to believe that Wake fans could be so conditioned to losing, that rising to mediocrity is considered "awesome".
 
Last edited:
So, you're showing us that we've actually been historically uncompetitive?!:tear:
 
thedeacfan said:
The problem is that you think these two years where we finished 5th and 7th were "awesome". And unfortunately, from a "historically competitive" stand point, I guess they were. But objectively, those two years were middle of the pack finishes in the ACC. It's hard to believe that Wake fans could be so conditioned to losing, that rising to mediocrity is considered "awesome".
Click to expand...

It's not hard to believe. It's been a problem for a long time.
 
thedeacfan said:
The problem is that you think these two years where we finished 5th and 7th were "awesome". And unfortunately, from a "historically competitive" stand point, I guess they were. But objectively, those two years were middle of the pack finishes in the ACC. It's hard to believe that Wake fans could be so conditioned to losing, that rising to mediocrity is considered "awesome".
Click to expand...

If we have 16 sports and 2 are in the top 4 of the nation and one wins the national title and we score director's cup points in half of them, I think that's a pretty good year.

I would love for 75% or 80% of our sports to score, but that's going to be really difficult to do.
 
ChrisL68 said:
If we have 16 sports and 2 are in the top 4 of the nation and one wins the national title and we score director's cup points in half of them, I think that's a pretty good year.

I would love for 75% or 80% of our sports to score, but that's going to be really difficult to do.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
ChrisL68 said:
If we have 16 sports and 2 are in the top 4 of the nation and one wins the national title and we score director's cup points in half of them, I think that's a pretty good year.

I would love for 75% or 80% of our sports to score, but that's going to be really difficult to do.
Click to expand...

You have got to be trolling me with these posts. It is a "pretty good year" for those two teams. But it should not be acceptable that once every few years we have two or three teams out of 16/18 achieve some success. We should be striving to build sports programs that can be competitive year in and year out.

You do not have to win NT's to score well in the Director's Cup, but you do have to be competitive in more than two sports.

(Again, do you have a source for the T&F scoring info? Link? Thanks.)
 
Last edited:
thedeacfan said:
You have got to be trolling me with these posts. It is a "pretty good year" for those two teams. But it should not be acceptable that once every few years we have two or three teams out of 16/18 achieve some success. We should be striving to build sports programs that can be competitive year in and year out.

You do not have to win NT's to score well in the Director's Cup, but you do have to be competitive in more than two sports.
Click to expand...

Read my post again. I talked about half of our programs scoring director's cup points. The year we finished 4th or 5th in the ACC, we scored points from around 9 or 10 of our 16 programs.

Here is 06: W&M Soccer, FH, Football, M&W Golf, M&W Tennis, M&W Track Baseball. That's scoring points in 11 of 16 (68%) sports and going to the final four in two sports. That got us 5th place in the ACC.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
If we have 16 sports and 2 are in the top 4 of the nation and one wins the national title and we score director's cup points in half of them, I think that's a pretty good year.

I would love for 75% or 80% of our sports to score, but that's going to be really difficult to do.
Click to expand...

thedeacfan said:
You have got to be trolling me with these posts. It is a "pretty good year" for those two teams. But it should not be acceptable that once every few years we have two or three teams out of 16/18 achieve some success. We should be striving to build sports programs that can be competitive year in and year out.

You do not have to win NT's to score well in the Director's Cup, but you do have to be competitive in more than two sports.

(Again, do you have a source for the T&F scoring info? Link? Thanks.)
Click to expand...

ChrisL68 said:
Read my post again. I talked about half of our programs scoring director's cup. The year we finished 4th or 5th in the ACC, we scored points from around 9 or 10 of our 16 programs.

06: W&M Soccer, FH, Football, M&W Golf, M&W Tennis, M&W Track Baseball. That's scoring points in 11 of 16 sports and going to the final four in two sports. That got us 4th place in the ACC.
Click to expand...

Read MY post again. I said, "...but you do have to be competitive in more than two sports." Receiving points for a sport does not necessarily mean that you were competitive.

Example - From the Director's Cup website...

"Point Determination
Standings for the Directors' Cup will be based upon the size of the bracket. A minimum of five (5) points will be awarded to any team that places 65th or lower."

http://www.nacda.com/directorscup/nacda-directorscup-scoring.html
 
Last edited:
Went back and looked at our scoring for 06-07 when we finished 5th in the ACC:

W CC-27th place
M CC- N/A
FH- 2nd place
Football- 17th place
Men's Soccer- 3rd place
Women's Soccer- 17th place
Volleyball- N/A
Men's Basketball- N/A
Women's Basketball- N/A
Baseball- 33rd place
Women's Golf- 12th
Men's Golf-10th
Women's Tennis- 17th
Men's Tennis- 9th
Women's T&F- 21st
Men's T&F-55th


So two programs made the final 4, 4 of the 16 programs were in the top 10, 10 of the 16 programs were in the top 30 and we finished 5th in the ACC.

Top to bottom, that's probably the best athletics year in school history.
 
Last edited:
Are you dense?

We play against other programs, not Wake Forest history.
 
The problem with shifting the focus to Wellman (which I think is a good idea, for the record) and his overall performance is that eventually the debate will boil down to referendum on LOWF and what "realistic" expectations for its athletics should be. "Historically competitive" is the first preemptive shot across our bow in that regard.
 
PhDeac said:
Are you dense?

We play against other programs, not Wake Forest history.
Click to expand...

And the vast majority of our programs fared very well against other programs that year, but we were limited by the amount of programs we offer. You are apparently dense if you don't understand that 1/2 of our programs finished in the top 20 of their respective sports that year.

Our programs right now are in bad shape, but in the mid 2000s we had a good run. To try to minimize the good years we had in an effort to bash Wellman is, IMO, silly.
 
ChrisL68 said:
And the vast majority of our programs fared very well against other programs that year, but we were limited by the amount of programs we offer. You are apparently dense if you don't understand that 1/2 of our programs finished in the top 20 of their respective sports that year.

Our programs right now are in bad shape, but in the mid 2000s we had a good run. To try to minimize the good years we had in an effort to bash Wellman is, IMO, silly.
Click to expand...

Most of the years haven't been good. What's your point? Most admit that there was a good stretch, but that the good stretch was surrounded by two miserable stretches.

Ron Wellman has been here a very long time.
 
I am disappointed in Wellman too. We had built up a pretty solid athletics program, and it has gone to pot in 7 years for the most part.
 
ChrisL68 said:
And the vast majority of our programs fared very well against other programs that year, but we were limited by the amount of programs we offer. You are apparently dense if you don't understand that 1/2 of our programs finished in the top 20 of their respective sports that year.

Our programs right now are in bad shape, but in the mid 2000s we had a good run. To try to minimize the good years we had in an effort to bash Wellman is, IMO, silly.
Click to expand...

Half?
 
thedeacfan said:
Half?
Click to expand...

Yes, we aren't Stanford or North Carolina. There aren't many college programs, many of which are state schools that doesn't have the tuition issues that we do, that place half of their teams in the top 20.
 
Last edited:
What about the other half? I have a tough time believing there are structural reasons why we can't be competitive at all in women's basketball and volleyball for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top