“I’m much more inclined to put my finger on all the things that have gone well and not continue to dwell on those last couple of games. At this point I think we should look at the season that we’ve had as a complete body of work. We give our men a sense of a new beginning. We have to move forward.”
I don’t necessarily agree with Herb very often, but I could not agree more with Coach Sendek’s desire to of look at his complete body of work. However, the irony in this request is so thick that Superman would have a hard time seeing through it with X-Ray vision.
I think that we all know that we aren’t really supposed to spend time analyzing Coach Sendek’s entire body of work. We really are only supposed to look 50% of Coach Sendek’s work – as in the most recent 5 years since the first 5 years were magically carved away by Lee Fowler and never happened in the ‘minds’ of the HSSS. I just wish that the the money that was magically carved from my checking account for Lifetime Rights and Season Tickets every season never REALLY happened, either.
How does Sendek whine to the world in good conscious requesting an analysis of his “entire body of work” when the only way that he has a job is because his own boss publicly and privately proclaims that he chooses to ignore five entire years of Sendek’s performance? Lee Fowler, February 16, 2004’s Wolfpacker magazine:
I canâ€™t get involved with what happened 10 years ago, even though it is wasy to lump it all together and make an argument. Iâ€™m trying to do what is best for NC State. A couple of years ago I stood up and said that Herb was our coach, and our coach of the future. Iâ€™ve been basically looking from that point on, and not before that. I think thatâ€™s what we have to do in order to make sure that our program is heading in the right direction.
Last year, for example, the Herb Sendek Sunshine Squad wanted no part in looking at the entire body of the season’s work. After finishing 7th in the ACC with a losing record and squeaking into the NCAA Tournament as the worst rated (#61 RPI) at-large team in the field…the LAST THING that Coach Sendek and squad wanted was a review of the entire body of work. The ONLY thing that mattered last year was a single win over a young UConn team in the NCAA Tournament. I know that the ever-changing (lack of) standards and measurements have become customary to the NC State Excuse Club…but, come on. Isn’t this hypocrisy slightly embarassing to anyone?
So…suddenly this year is the year that it is prudent to examine the complete body of work? Ok. NC State’s 2005-2006 entire body of work is as follows:
*10-6 in the weakest ACC in memory
* #51 in the RPI
* 4th place finish in #3 conference in the country
* Played the 4th easiest conference schedule of the ACC teams
* 3-6 vs NCAA Tournament Teams
* 1-5 vs RPI’s Top 25
* 3-5 vs RPI’s Top 50
* 8-3 vs RPI’s #51-100
* 2-1 vs RPI’s #101-200
* 8-0 vs RPI’s #201+
* #206 Ranked Out of Conference strength schedule
* #64 Ranked overall strength of schedule
* Haven’t won a game in a month
* 1-5 vs Big Four competition (3 games vs LAST PLACE team in the ACC)
* 18 teams had as many or more wins vs the RPI’s Top 100 than NC State’s 11
* 38% of this season’s wins came against teams ranked worse than #200 in the RPI
* Set ACC Tournament record for seed descrepancy in a loss by a higher seed.
There you go. There is your “entire body of work”. Does that somehow make things better in your eyes? How does it improve your view in light of the fact that this “entire body of work” ranks as one of Sendek’s 2 or 3 best in ten years of coaching at State. (Wait…or is it only 5 years of coaching?)
This begging and pleading for the media (and fans) to look at the entire body of work is a marketing ploy designed to take advantage of a lazy media. If Team Sendek can hammer home how “unfair” criticism is based on a 21-9 overall record and 10-6 record in the ACC, then they can achieve criticism of their critics in the media. Unfortunately for most of us…the average member of the media is quite complicit in such behavior and would never take the time to look at this ENTIRE picture, or peel away the onion on the entire 10 years of the Sendek era.
I will leave you with a market-based perspective of how NC State’s 2005-2006 body of work was manufactured on the back of a disproportionately weaker schedule than the other programs that we claim to call peers:
* There wasn’t a single program in the RPI’s Top 25 that won as large of a percentage of their games against programs ranked worse than #200 as NC State.
* Not another BCS Conference program (ranked in the Top 50) won a greater percentage of their games against teams ranked worse than #200.
* NC State won a greater percentage of games against teams #200+ than 44 of the Top 50 teams in the RPI. The only programs with a greater percentage of total wins than NC State vs #200+ were the following: George Mason, UNC-W, Hofstra, UAB, George Washington, Bucknell.
I don’t know what sucks more…the fact that we choose to be so uncompetitive that we construct a schedule consistently comparable to these programs (who have weaker conferences creating this disproportion) or that every one of these programs are rated ahead of us in the RPI (again).
Update for Thursday’s Press Conference
Sendek in Thursday’s PC:
They (the Wolfpack players) have enjoyed a terrific season. It is important we recognize that we have this wonderful opportunity for the body of work that we have accomplished and we don’t isolate our season to the very end.”