• 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!

WHY is he still our basketball coach?

I have a hard time seeing a PC scheduled during NCAAT games, but who knows.
 
Maybe the buyout decreases after some approaching date so they are waiting for that date to hit to fire him.
 
Wake Forest supposedly gave a men's basketball coach a contract that allows that coach to have a losing record through his first 5 seasons, including three 20-loss seasons, without being able to fire that coach.

It's beyond incompetent, even more so because it's our signature sport. You can't even make the 'hindsight is 20-20' argument. It was completely avoidable. There's no way a competent AD puts their school in that position. If it's true, it will completely overshadow any good you might think Ron Wellman did over the past 2+ decades. His legacy will be permanently tarnished, and it should be. That type of incompetence should be illegal.

Again, if true.
 
I'm far from an expert on these things, but if Wellman tells Manning he is done in their annual post-season meeting, there could still be a couple of days of negotiations that would be needed before his departure is truly official, right? Unless Wake is cool with paying the full buy-out and Manning is cool with all of the terms and conditions that it comes with. Even then, I would think that he would want someone to look over it to completely understand the terms/conditions.
 
scooter84 said:
I still have faith he is going to be gone.

But, did anyone do the research on the power 5 coaches with the worst records after 4-5 years to still be retained? I would love to see those numbers. His retention could be unprecedented.
Click to expand...

Danny is 0.433.

I went through the last two coaches at all of the P6 programs to identify coaches with a record below 0.45 after 5 years, here's what I came-up with:
-Pat Chambers: 0.441 at Penn State
-Ed DeChellis: 0.383 at Penn State
-Scott Drew: 0.416 at Baylor
-Ernie Kent: 0.372 at Washington State
-Steve Robinson: 0.427 at Florida State
-John MacLeod: 0.441 at Notre Dame
-Jim Christian: 0.383 at Boston College
-Oliver Purnell: 0.340 at DePaul

Out of these 8, actually it looks like only Steve Robinson, Ernie Kent, and Oliver Purnell were fired after year 5 (TBD on Jim Christian but no smoke there).

In years 6-8, Pat Chambers has gone 0.529 while winning an NIT title. Presumably, he will be fired next year without a NCAAT appearance (although I think everyone said that about this year too). In years 6-8, Ed DeChellis went 0.553 while winning an NIT title and making the NCAAT before leaving for Navy. In years 6-16, Scott Drew has gone 0.670 while missing the post season once. In years 6-8, John MacLeod went 0.494 with one NIT appearance before getting fired.

In short, only one of the coaches kept past the initial bad 5 years was actually successful by any reasonable metric - Scott Drew. Thing is Drew's program actually got better years 3 through 5 and even made the tournament in year 5. He probably wouldn't even be on the list except they didn't play an OOC in year 3 due to NCAA sanctions. Furthermore, even the two Penn State guys were trending up after two bad years to start off their tenures. In comparison, this year was Manning's worst by most metrics.
 
Honestly, if this happens, maybe we should give some real consideration to bringing out the toilets???
 
ATLDeac86 said:
Wake Forest supposedly gave a men's basketball coach a contract that allows that coach to have a losing record through his first 5 seasons, including three 20-loss seasons, without being able to fire that coach.

It's beyond incompetent, even more so because it's our signature sport. You can't even make the 'hindsight is 20-20' argument. It was completely avoidable. There's no way a competent AD puts their school in that position. If it's true, it will completely overshadow any good you might think Ron Wellman did over the past 2+ decades. His legacy will be permanently tarnished, and it should be. That type of incompetence should be illegal.

Again, if true.
Click to expand...

Certainly don't disagree with this. At a minimum, it seems like there should be an investigation to make sure Wellman isn't profiting (i.e. getting a kickback) from this absurd agreement (if true). I can't imagine that he is that corrupt; however, I would never imagine that someone in his position could enter into a deal that is so bad. It truly makes no sense at all.
 
Bubble Boy said:
I'm far from an expert on these things, but if Wellman tells Manning he is done in their annual post-season meeting, there could still be a couple of days of negotiations that would be needed before his departure is truly official, right? Unless Wake is cool with paying the full buy-out and Manning is cool with all of the terms and conditions that it comes with. Even then, I would think that he would want someone to look over it to completely understand the terms/conditions.
Click to expand...

I would strongly assume that Wake's legal folks combed thru the terms and conditions of the contract several weeks ago.
 
HONDO2 said:
I would strongly assume that Wake's legal folks combed thru the terms and conditions of the contract several weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Agree - I mean that Manning would likely want/need someone on his side to look over everything. And that is if there is no negotiating on a final deal. I just can't see that Wellman tells Manning he is done, Manning says "OK", and then there is a press conference a few hours later. If the buy-out is as high (or close to) as has been mentioned, and if we think the final numbers/terms will get negotiated to something that works better for everyone, it seems there is some detailed legal back and forth that would need to happen.
 
Last edited:
I would assume those kinds of things are discussed over a longer period of time than that. Wake's AD should have been in contact with Manning's people for negotiations long before now - especially with a mistake of this magnitude.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
How would this change anything re: paying Danny?
Click to expand...

My thought is if Manning is being retained due to the amount of money required for the buyout plus a large contact for a new coach next year then maybe consider Randolph for a year at minimum cost. Not want I want but if it sends Danny packing I'm on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top