[Tau837]

^First off, not sure Freeman really needs to get stronger and bigger. But why would you think this injury would stop that? He can still work on upper body and will probably rehab the hell out of his leg, which means he will also intensely work on his lower body.

He will be fine. A lot of growth that occurs is mental (understanding the game/system, film, etc.) and emotional (maturity). That will also be unaffected.

He won’t scrimmage as much as he would have, but he will have plenty of time to get into basketball shape.

I have zero concerns about this.

[Tau837]

ryebread wrote:

I tend to think of them as somewhat risky. The pluses are that you have real film, that the second time through the process they may better understand what they’re looking form, they have something invested in the transfer year and they have a year to learn the system.

IMO you are underselling the pluses.

1. Having real film from college means the staff has a much better idea of what they are getting than when signing a high school recruit. So it is much more likely a transfer will meet the staff’s expectations than a high school recruit.

2. The transfer going through the process a second time means he is much more likely to be realistic about his role and playing time, and much more likely to be happy than a high school recruit who might have unrealistic expectations.

3. The invested transfer year is huge, as it is a real commitment from the transfer to the program. It is also a year to learn the system, coaches, and teammates, get settled academically, and get better in the weight room and conditioning. High school recruits don’t get that. Furthermore, in a transfer, that year is used by an older and more mature and experienced player, making it more likely to have real value.

ryebread wrote:

The cons are that they’ve “quit once,” that they may have some academic issues to make up in that off year, that they’re older (see Lacey), and that you invest in them a year before you get them on the court.

Players who transfer due to unhappiness over role/playing time and/or personality differences could typically be fairly characterized as quitting on their programs. (Harrow, Purvis, TDT, Raymond, Harris)

However, there are many reasons for transferring that I wouldn’t characterize as ‘quitting’ on the program:

1. Family reason (Painter)
2. Jucos who went to junior college to prove themselves in order to make a jump up to the major college level (Lee)
3. Players who graduate early and performed well enough to have earned a jump to major conference basketball, which is a once in a lifetime dream/event (Alex Johnson)
4. Players who committed to a specific coach/staff that left or were fired (Harrow, Lacey, Turner, Dorn)

I don’t remember the situation with Henderson, but the rest of our incoming transfers have had reasons I wouldn’t characterize as quitting on their programs. So this ‘con’ seems irrelevant to our program.

I’m not aware that we have taken any incoming transfers who have had academic issues. Even if they did, they had a redshirt year to address them. To my knowledge, none of incoming transfers have struggled academically. So this ‘con’ seems irrelevant to our program.

Investing in them a year before getting them on the court is a pro, not a con, as I already outlined above. I assume you are saying it is a con referring to having had Lacey only one year and not two years. To that I say, so what, was it better to have Lacey in practice for one year and on the court for one year or not to have had him at all? Obviously, it was better to have him. So this ‘con’ doesn’t seem like a con at all.

All in all, there doesn’t seem to be any cons you have listed that come close to offsetting the positives. At least not for our program, which does a good job of selecting and recruiting good transfers.

ryebread wrote:

I don’t see why a kid won’t redshirt a year and develop, but will transfer and be forced to sit that year out. I don’t understand why programs won’t redshirt a player, but will take in a transfer (seemingly the same financial commitment). I think redshirting was the best thing that happened to Vandy while he was here.

This is all about the kids. Vandy redshirted and it was great for him. But most transfers who transfer for selfish reasons like role/playing time don’t think redshirting in place will fix their issue. They have to sit out a year to transfer, but they would see that as more worthwhile elsewhere, where they are presumably promised the role/playing time they think they deserve.

All in all, I don’t follow other programs closely enough to intelligently compare, but it’s hard to imagine any other non-elite programs doing a better job than Gott and staff at bringing in quality transfers.

[Tau837]

StateFans wrote:

How th *#@*# can you guys not have the ability to separate the distinctly different topics of “this year in baseball” with the overall topic of NC State Athletics?

Why the *#@*# do you feel compelled to post about the “overall topic of NC State Athletics” right now? As PIR put it:

PackerInRussia wrote:

Maybe better as a mid-summer reflection. Not the day after going 3-0 against ND, Miami, and VA and playing in the championship game even if the result was a loss. Especially considering the improved position they put themselves in for postseason play and the fact that said play hasn’t begun yet. No doubt a relevant topic, but after the fat lady has sung.

[Tau837]

It’s hard for me to put much stock in the Forbes ranking. It seems to simply equate to an annual revenue figure. Some of the components involved include:

Gate revenue, which obviously correlates to attendance and arena size
Parking and concession sales, also correlated to attendance and arena
Multimedia revenue
Apparel revenue
Licensing revenue
NCAA and conference distributions
Alumni contributions

Clearly, the majority of that revenue is generated by fans of the program, and that means fan attitudes toward the program will directly affect that revenue. But it is not solely about that.

The athletic department also plays an important role in negotiating many of those agreements. The conference negotiates deals that result in conference distributions. The performance of other ACC programs in the NCAA tournament may also influences the conference distribution, not sure about that. I assume gate revenue is shared with road teams, so total revenue is also influenced to some degree by the attendance at road games.

To me, it seems difficult to quantify the direct correlation of head coach performance to this revenue ranking. I mean, it’s obvious that better performance would generate more revenue. But I’m not sure what level/range should be expected and where we fall in comparison to that.

[Tau837]

So I looked at some attendance info out of curiosity since rye brought it up in the other thread. Here is the data for the last 10 available seasons:

2013-2014 (Gott season #3)
Average home attendance: 12,641 (#25)
Total home attendance: 240,182 (#19)

2012-2013 (Gott season #2)
Average home attendance: 16,299 (#12)
Total home attendance: 277,087 (#14)
Average attendance increase, year over year: 2,739 (#2)

2011-2012 (Gott season #1)
Average home attendance: 13,560 (#20)
Total home attendance: 257,638 (#16)

2010-2011 (Sid season #5)
Average home attendance: 13,779 (#19)
Total home attendance: 220,457 (#28)

2009-2010 (Sid season #4)
Average home attendance: 13,184 (#24)
Total home attendance: 224,131 (#23)

2008-2009 (Sid season #3)
Average home attendance: 13,456 (#21)
Total home attendance: 242,206 (#18)

2007-2008 (Sid season #2)
Average home attendance: 15,043 (#15)
Total home attendance: 240,682 (#21)

2006-2007 (Sid season #1)
Average home attendance: 13,952 (#18)
Total home attendance: 279,035 (#13)

2005-2006 (HWSNBN season #10)
Average home attendance: 14,472 (#17)
Total home attendance: 260,509 (#13)

2004-2005 (HWSNBN season #9)
Average home attendance: 14,464 (#13)
Total home attendance: 245,898 (#11)

I’ll leave it to others to determine if there is any meaningful trend data in there.

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

Tau837 wrote:

Rick wrote:

Tau,
I tell you what find where anyone refers to this as Gotts fifth ‘off season’ and I will say you are right. If you cannot I will expect you to once again say I an right

I don’t need to search for proof. I can make up crap to fit my agenda. YMMV.

Ftfy

Whatever you say. When I asked you if you had anything constructive to add to the discussion and you didn’t, I already said it’s not worth discussing further with you. You can have the last word if you insist on responding again.

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

Tau,
I tell you what find where anyone refers to this as Gotts fifth ‘off season’ and I will say you are right. If you cannot I will expect you to once again say I an right

I don’t need to search for proof. I can count. YMMV.

[Tau837]

ryebread wrote:

As for your value question, go look at the Forbes basketball evaluation for this year. We dropped out of the top 20. We’d spiked up in Gott’s first year.

For attendance, we were 25th this year, with an average of 12k fans. In 2013 we were 12th with an average of 16k fans. We were 20th in 2012 with 13.5k. In 2011, we were 19th with 13.7k. I suspect that 2013 was probably the TJW effect.

Part of the promise was that ticket sales and revenues were going to go up and that season ticket sales would be on the rise which are more full cost tickets. We’ve been dumping tickets every year and still not filling the arena. I don’t have the revenue numbers right here, but have seen them. We do make some serious cash as a program and are in the black. I don’t remember how that is trending.

Good info. I wasn’t aware of these trends. I would be interested to see a more comprehensive treatment of this topic by someone who has access to the various data.

If it were true that all of those various off court metrics that you referenced earlier are trending poorly, I would expect that to be a significant point of concern with Debbie.

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

I made the only one I planned on making earlier when I said the following:

I am surprised anyone would argue that statistics cannot be skewed to favor an argument. I mean there’s even a saying about lies, damn lies and statistics.
It is a well known fact that statistics can be skewed to support your argument. I think a perfect example is when you were adding “offseasons” when we were arguing transfers to make the rate look lower.

How ironic that you would suggest that I skewed that previous discussion on offseasons by “adding offseasons.” I agree with you that this previous discussion on transfers and offseasons is a perfect example of skewing facts. Except I was the one who presented facts in that discussion (that we are in Gott’s 5th offseason as head coach), and you were the one who wanted to skew the facts to fit your agenda in making the transfer problem out to be worse than it has been.

It’s not really worth continuing the discussion with you. You have been beating the same drum for years, regardless of whether the facts and context fit or not. Carry on.

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

Tau,
Get proven wrong so change the subject? That is not intellectually honest (to use a phrase you seem enamored with).

LMAO. You win, you “proved me wrong” in finding that I actually made another post that I didn’t recall.

I stand by all three points. Do you actually have anything constructive to add to the discussion? Do you care to discuss merits of anything that has been posted rather than semantics?

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

You said it at 11:18 am yesterday and I quote

Also, I disagree that you can pick out any set of stats and back up any argument you want to make, at least not if you are being intellectually honest.

So you are disagreeing with this statement? Any set of stats to back up any argument while being intellectually honest?

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

I am surprised anyone would argue that statistics cannot be skewed to favor an argument. I mean there’s even a saying about lies, damn lies and statistics.

Who said that?

I made two points related to this: (1) one cannot make an intellectually honest argument that SL was a competent head coach at State; and (2) I do not believe my post presented any skewed statistics/data. I stand by both statements.

[Tau837]

ryebread wrote:

brand evalution (which we dipped hard in this year)

I’m not sure what you are referencing here. Can you elaborate on what it is you are saying dipped hard this year and why you say it dipped hard?

[Tau837]

ryebread wrote:

The bigger point I’m making is that when people trot out some stats and then say that based on the stats they’ve shown, they can’t see how you’d draw any other conclusion, well………………

The stuff you laid out for your SL argument doesn’t hold water, because it neglects obvious counterpoints. It is not an intellectually honest argument.

This quote from you seems to refer back to my post again. Can you cite any obvious counterpoints that I ignored in my post about Gott’s accomplishments? Can you make an argument that I tried to cherry pick or distort facts in my post? Can you make an argument that my post was not intellectually honest?

I don’t think so, but I’m open to considering it.

[Tau837]

ryebread wrote:

I could gin together that made SL look like a competent coach just as easily as I could put some together that make this one look bad. It can be done. People will do it.

I disagree. One cannot make an intellectually honest argument that makes SL look like a competent head coach during his tenure at our program, as much as I appreciate him for his time as a player and for his passion for the program and university.

ryebread wrote:

I would argue that there are some important metrics other than just wins and losses and graduation rates. This is big business and it is an entertainment business. Ticket sales, attendance, gate revenue, brand evalution (which we dipped hard in this year), games on TV, TV ratings, apparel sales, etc. are all important and are measures of fan interest. The fans are the customers. These metrics better reflect the state of the fan base than any of the ones you mention.

Well, I have been posting about the job Gott has done, which should presumably be a significant basis for the “state of the fan base.” What I don’t understand are those fan who have a perspective that Gott should have accomplished significantly more (because accomplishing just a little more doesn’t seem to be what anyone complains about).

Sure, if fans have that perspective, i.e., that the program is significantly underachieving under Gott, I agree it would probably be reflected in ticket sales, attendance, gate revenue, televised games, TV ratings, apparel sales, etc. I’d be interested in seeing how the program is performing in all of those areas. Perhaps many of those things have dipped below where one should expect them to be, and I’m just not aware of it. Do you have information that shows that to be true?

ryebread wrote:

The point that I’m trying to make, is when I see this stuff come out, that means we’re in the Clone Wars time. There’s a certain percentage of people who think all is rosy within the fan base. That’s just not true.

To be clear, I don’t think all is “rosy” within the fan base. Anyone who has been reading this thread and has a clue knows that isn’t the case. That’s exactly the point of the discussion we are having.

[Tau837]

ryebread wrote:

ancsu and Tau: I’ve called out the V references and the metrics as examinations of behavior that we saw during the HWSNBN days and what are signs of the start of the Clone Wars.

For some reason, you opened your post by addressing me, then proceeded to talk about comparisons to V and other past coaches for most of your post. I haven’t posted anything about such comparisons, so I assume you were directing all of that stuff to others.

ryebread wrote:

With respect to the stats, my issue is the contention that these are the only metrics by which to measure the program that matter.

So here is where I guess you are addressing me. Reaction:

1. Can you point out where I said the info I posted is the only info (metrics) by which to measure the program? I’m pretty sure you can’t, because I said no such thing.

2. You mention ‘stats’. I posted wins and losses for overall seasons, vs. ACC opponents, and for postseason. Surely you aren’t suggesting that wins and losses are a bad way to judge the performance of the head coach. So I don’t see why you would take issue with that data being applicable. I certainly didn’t twist or cherry pick that information.

3. I also posted RPI and SOS and referenced big wins and bad losses (based on opponent RPI). This sort of data is commonly used at SFN throughout each season and is obviously used by others (media, NCAA committee) to judge the success (or lack thereof) of the program in a given year. So, again, I don’t see why you would take issue with that data being applicable. I certainly didn’t twist or cherry pick that information.

ryebread wrote:

First, those stats tend to leave out how the team performed related to expectations, talent, the state of other teams, tournament draws, etc.

I commented on expectations and specifically said that Gott’s second season was a disappointment. IMO Gott exceeded expectations in years 1, 3, and 4 and failed to meet expectations in year 2. This area of discussion departs from facts and moves into subjectivity, but I’m fine with that.

Talent, state of other teams, and tournament draws are all components of expectations, so there isn’t much need to mention them when you start out referencing expectations.

As for talent, IMO the only season that our team underperformed its talent level was season 2. If you disagree, do you think we should have won several more games in one of the other seasons? If not, then on what basis do you disagree? If you do agree, then what overall point are you trying to make?

ryebread wrote:

Second, I can go in and pick out any set of stats and back up any argument that I want to make. I won’t do it, because I’m not really interested at this point.

If you aren’t interested in backing your point of view, why bother to post at all?

Also, I disagree that you can pick out any set of stats and back up any argument you want to make, at least not if you are being intellectually honest.

[Tau837]

LMFAO

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

I did not say that only my view is reasonable and/or realistic. I said that some views are unreasonable and/or unrealistic. I don’t see that as a controversial statement.

You made it in direct response to Va’s post about it not being a great year (see below). I am not sure how else to take that.

Va post:
This is where personal evaluation scales come into play.
Good job?
Absolutely!

Great job?
Nope

Tau post:
And a lot of personal evaluation scales are unrealistic and unreasonable. :shrug:

First off, Va responded to my post about the job Gott has done over his entire time at State, not just whether last season being a great year. I took his response as saying Gott has done a good job overall (all four years), not a great job overall.

As I said, I did not say only my view is reasonable/realistic. I said many views (a.k.a. “personal evaluation scales”) are unreasonable/unrealistic. Apparently, you disagree with that. Is it merely a matter of degree? If I said “some” or “a few” instead of “many”, would that have made the difference?

Bottom line, many fans apparently expected more through 4 years than Gott has achieved. Whether or not their expectations were reasonable/realistic or unreasonable/unrealistic depends on how much more they expected. Somewhere between what he has achieved and winning 4 national championships, there is a line where expectations move from reasonable to unreasonable.

IMO the way most of those in the “Gott opposers camp” come across in their posts, their expectations are likely on the unreasonable side of that line. YMMV.

[Tau837]

Rick wrote:

And this is where the tension comes from. Your assumption that your view is the only “reasonable” and “realistic” one. :shakeshead

I did not say that only my view is reasonable and/or realistic. I said that some views are unreasonable and/or unrealistic. I don’t see that as a controversial statement.

For example, if anyone expected State to have an undefeated season and thus win the ACC and a national title within Gott’s first four years on the job, that was unreasonable/unrealistic. If we can agree on that, then it simply becomes a matter of where the dividing line falls between reasonable and unreasonable.

ryebread wrote:

– The numbers at the ready to defend the stated position. I’m sure these will get updated. They’re always quite selectively picked to show the opinion of the presenter…….

Please elaborate on the numbers that have been selectively chosen to fit a particular perspective.

Without going back through the thread, I don’t remember many “numbers” being presented unless you are referring to my post listing the team’s records, RPI, SOS, and other data/info year by year under Gott. If that is what you are referencing, how was that information selectively chosen?

[Tau837]

VaWolf82 wrote:

Tau837 wrote:

but overall it feels like Gott has done a great job.

This is where personal evaluation scales come into play.

Good job?
Absolutely!

Great job?
Nope

And a lot of personal evaluation scales are unrealistic and unreasonable. :shrug:

[Tau837]

Alpha Wolf wrote:

“For us, we’re going after the top guys and the guys we believe that can help us compete for an ACC championship or a national championship. I’m not going to do anything different.”… Mark Gottfried

That’s what Gottfried should be doing, and were he not, he’d be getting excoriated by some Wolfpack fans for that.

Exactly.

[Tau837]

VaWolf82 wrote:

Tau837 wrote:

Like it or not, it [the title] reflects negatively on Gott and thus on the basketball program.

Is the title accurate? I think that it is and thus any “reflection” is accurate as well.

If you think that the title is inaccurate, then maybe you could explain why.

Cowdog explained it perfectly:

TheCOWDOG wrote:

No. The title is not at all accurate.

In the space of those 24 hrs. Gottfried lost a 5 star that he never had in the first place, and he got a verbal from a “rising star?”

Hey. Not shabby. All in all those 24hrs. ain’t a bad day’s work.

Again, the title was loaded.

[Tau837]

VaWolf82 wrote:

Many discussions run aground because there is no common ground on exactly what to hold the coach responsible for. But for me, this is quite simple. The good and the bad from any college program begins and ends with the head coach…

…If we focus our conversation on meaningful facts/observations, then it might be easier to walk the line between disagreement and being disagreeable.

Agree with this. Here is one way to to assess Gott’s accomplishments to date as our head coach:

2011-12:
Took over team that was 15-16 (5-11) in 2010-11 and had not made NCAA tournament since 2005-06
20-11 (9-7) regular season, 24-13 (11-8) overall
2-1 ACC tournament (2 point screwjob loss to UNC in semis)
2-1 NCAA tournament (3 point loss to Kansas in S16)
RPI 47, SOS 21
3 big wins, all in postseason: UVA in ACC tournament and SDSU and Georgetown in NCAA tournament
2 bad losses: Georgia Tech at home, at Clemson

2012-13:
22-9 (11-7) regular season, 24-11 (13-8) overall
2-1 ACC tournament
0-1 NCAA tournament (bad loss to Temple by 4 points)
RPI 32, SOS 39
2 big wins: UNC and #1 Duke, both at home
1 bad loss: at Wake

2013-14:
Lost starters Brown, Leslie, Howell, and Wood from previous season
19-12 (9-9) regular season, 22-14 (11-10) overall
2-1 ACC tournament
1-1 NCAA tournament (lost to #5 seed St. Louis in OT)
RPI 54, SOS 23
2 big wins: at Pitt, Syracuse in ACC tournament
3 bad losses: NC Central, at Wake, Miami

2014-15:
Lost ACC POY Warren from previous season
19-12 (10-8) regular season, 22-14 (11-10) overall
1-1 ACC tournament
2-1 NCAA tournament (lost to #4 seed Louisville)
RPI 39, SOS 9
4 big wins: Duke, at UNC, at Louisville, #1 seed Villanova in NCAA tournament
2 bad losses: at Wake, at BC

Overall:
Overall record 92-52 (.643), ACC record (including postseason) 46-36 (.561), Postseason record 12-8 (.600)
4 NCAA bids in 4 seasons, with 2 S16s
Has recruited well
Teams are typically competitive with the best teams in the country
Teams and players have typically shown improvement throughout seasons and careers

Aside from that performance that is reflected on the court, there have been no significant off court issues, and Gott has raised the overall perception of the program in the media thanks in large part to his media contacts and savvy.

I’m pretty impressed. The 2012-13 season was disappointing, but overall it feels like Gott has done a great job.

Some are saying that we as a fan base have now divided into Gott supporters and Gott opposers. All of us as fans wish for better results, but I really don’t understand the basis for people to be in the Gott opposers camp. Regardless, I am firmly in the Gott supporters camp.

[Tau837]

Adventuroo wrote:

First….the Title, how can I put this delicately, SUCKS!

I agree with the consensus on the title. Like it or not, it reflects negatively on Gott and thus on the basketball program. No fan of the basketball program should want that, since as already noted, that sort of headline gets picked up by other outlets.

Why would SFN want to promote a negative view of our coach/program? I think the answer is that SFN does not want to do that, which means a different title should have been used.

[Tau837]

I think everyone has moved on.

But when it gets brought up in the news, and particularly when SFN blogs about it, fans will discuss. :shrug:

[Author]

Posts