As I see them, the arguments supporting Forbes are this:
1. Forbes has already accomplished enough
2. Forbes has improved the program such that people believe he will soon accomplish enough
3. Accomplishment aside, Wake is incapable
of hiring a superior replacement.
My opinion is that none of those are true.
This is kind of a reductionist synthesis of these arguments imo.
1 and 2 are closely related and I don't think anyone is outright claiming 1. To say he's already accomplished "enough" implies that there is no expectation of future growth. Nobody is saying there is no need for progress.
I understand the line of thinking for 2 and it's kind of where I fall at the moment, but I think the statement, as written, ignores some of the nuance here. To follow birdman's lead, we have data to suggest Forbes is capable of making the NCAAT. We have data to suggest Forbes has coached more than one team at Wake that probably (statistically speaking) should have been in the tournament. We have data to suggest he can recruit multiple NBA-caliber players to the same team and can recruit All-ACC and ACC POY-level kids consistently.
As I see it, the question is how big is the Forbes variable in this equation? Sure, he shoulders some level of responsibility for not making the NCAAT in his first three actual seasons and it's fair game to disagree on how much of this is solely because of Forbes, but the way 2 is written makes it sound like the thought that Forbes can get it done and get it done soon is some uninformed, overly-idealistic position, which makes it easier to shit on.
Nobody is arguing 3. You're right in that this is a very high paying position with high expectations. All anybody is saying here is that making firing and hiring decisions completely independent of each other in our current situation could be dangerous and is probably imprudent. Making each of these decisions in a vacuum is like cashing out an investment with a known return and a possibly high upside to go to the roulette table and put it all on red. The stock might keep going up, but you're not taking your money to the casino in this case unless you either have a sure bet or there is near-zero opportunity for future growth. What it comes down to is disagreeing on whether Forbes has hit his ceiling at Wake or not and if you don't think he has yet hit his ceiling how much time are you willing to give him to get there.
To be clear, I do think there are several coaches out there who would be clear upgrades, but if you're going to replace Forbes now it needs to be with someone who you think is going to be better and this thinking needs to be backed up by something. If there is a clear upgrade we can land tomorrow then yeah we should totally move on, but it's fair to ask how many, if any, of these coaches are available to Wake now? I don't think asking this is LOWF. The question is does Forbes' performance to date currently warrant taking on the risk that comes with burning it all down? This question exists for every program to some degree.
Maybe it's the trauma of the past decade+ that is making me risk averse, but I do think our fanbase is still in a rock bottom, DFL, unwiped ass mindset. There was zero risk to firing [Redacted] and Manning. Virtually no person with a pulse could have made those situations worse so it's easy to look at those firings, and subsequent hirings, as decisions that could be made independent of each other. This situation is different, imo.
And for posterity's sake, my position right now is that I still think Forbes can get us consistently to the NCAAT and that it's possible for him to win big here. I might be wrong or I might be right. Nothing's guaranteed here. I think he should get one more season to prove this by, at minimum, making the NCAAT. If he doesn't do this next year then it's time to move on.