How High Can NC State Finish Next Season?

by Akula Wolf on May 17, 2011 2:19 PM EDT

GREENSBORO, NC - MARCH 10: Lorenzo Brown #2 of the North Carolina State Wolfpack rebounds against the Maryland Terrapins during the first half of the game in the first round of the 2011 ACC men's basketball tournament at the Greensboro Coliseum on March 10, 2011 in Greensboro, North Carolina. Maryland won 75-67 in regulation. (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)

Ever since Ryan Harrow decided to see other shoe stores I've been feeling pessimistic about the next basketball season, but yesterday I was looking over these pre-pre-preseason ACC power rankings...

7. N.C. State (15-16, 5-11)

Mark Gottfried wasn’t the big-name hire many Wolfpack fans were hoping for, but he is a major upgrade over Sidney Lowe. Gottfried took two programs (Murray State and Alabama) to a combined seven NCAA tournament appearances, which is seven more than Lowe managed in five years in Raleigh. Point guard Ryan Harrow (9.3 ppg) is transferring away, but Gottfried still inherits a reasonable amount of talent. Three starters return, thanks to C.J. Leslie wisely choosing to stay out of the draft, and so do a pair of proven reserves who are capable of handling bigger roles, swingman C.J. Williams and power forward Richard Howell. Replacing Tracy Smith’s inside scoring will be an issue, but there is enough in place for Gottfried to keep this club competitive and start building for a better future.

...and while we're obviously shorthanded and hurting in the backcourt, when you look at what the teams at the back end lost, our situation really is not that bad. Boston College and Wake Forest figure to battle for 11th; BC lost so many guys they may not even be recognizable this year. Maryland lost its entire 2011 recruiting class in addition to Jordan Williams. Virginia Tech lost Delaney and Allen, as well as Manny Atkins, who is transferring.

I think Richard Howell will replace more of Tracy Smith's production than many expect, we'll see some growth out of Zo Brown and CJ Leslie, and we know what we're going to get from the reliable Scott Wood, which is a leg up on some of these teams by itself. Am I talking myself into this? Can't really be sure. Is this team good enough to sneak into the top six and win 8-9 games?

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

about right

This seems about right. I think we’ll have a slightly better record than last year but finish about 7th. Man, there are going to be some pretty bad teams in the ACC.

by bms on May 17, 2011 2:29 PM EDT reply actions

ACC is awful next year

Wow, when you think about it, UNX should run away with this league. We will have 9 scholarship players on roster next year. That includes our two recruits who are unknown quantities and JV, who…is still an unknown quantity. Yikes!

We have 4 spots available (if CJ comes back) for 2012, and four more for 2013. Good chance for building. So what do expectations hold for next year? NCAA? NIT? .500 record in conference?

by chip24spb on May 17, 2011 2:41 PM EDT reply actions

Its Tough to Say...

My most optimistic has us in the NCAA 1st or 2nd round…my most pessimistic is another 15-16 win season while the players learn the staff and adjust to new expectations or Lo Brown misses some time…

Realistically? I think we’ll be on the edge of a NCAA berth and end up in the NIT w/ 7-9 wins in conference…

by JEOHankins2 on May 17, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Seems like

we could finish anywhere from 4th to 10th depending… Sad thing is we are most likely going to finish higher than Lowe ever did, right? Wasn’t his best season a tie for 9th – or am I off there?

by Tampa-Pack on May 17, 2011 2:52 PM EDT reply actions

you're correct

T9th in 2010.

Backing The Pack

by Akula Wolf on May 17, 2011 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions

So high

by PACKHOOLIGAN on May 17, 2011 3:17 PM EDT reply actions

I'd be very happy with an NIT bid

Wonder what we’ll do on defense. I am no basketball expert, but would it make sense to be zone heavy given our tall, slow, guard-deficient lineup?

by TVP on May 17, 2011 3:21 PM EDT reply actions

I was leaning more

towards the 6th-man defense. Every other series, we sneak a 6th guy onto the floor to put out around the perimeter and then sneak him back off when we switch to offense after ever steal. Don’t worry, ACC officials can’t count, we’ll never get caught.

by chip24spb on May 17, 2011 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Simple Requirements

All we Pack fans ask for in year one is reason for optimism.
Here’s my hopes/goals/requirements for next year: In priority order.

1. I hope to see evidence of coaching on the floor – offensive structure, defense, rebounding
2. Win more games than last year, both more ACC games and more OOC games
3. Make us happy with the hire. Including player performance on the court, player performance off the court, and MG’s performance as a representative of our school

I agree that Richard can pick up the slack for Tracy, but he’s got to get in shape to do it. He’s got to be a 30 minute man this year.

by Wolphpack on May 18, 2011 8:45 AM EDT reply actions

Richard

should definitely be able to make up for the loss of Senior macrowave (playing on a sore knee). I could see the defense being greatly improved if depth was not so limited. Lo is a definite upgrade defensively at PG and Tracy was not interested in defense. Plus more time with Howell and CJ on the floor together should up our rebounding, helping us finish off defensive stands.

by PACKHOOLIGAN on May 18, 2011 8:55 AM EDT reply actions

As a rule

I refuse to build expectations for a team with 9 scholarship players, two of which were lightly recruited freshmen, coached by a new head coach with a mixed record in the past that has had to build a coaching staff from scratch.

Oh and I almost forgot, our PG depth chart reads as such:
1. ’Zo
2. new kid we signed
3. HAHAHAHA

All that said, we could be moderately good, could be horrible. Somewhere between 1 and 15 conference wins feels about right.

by ginger avenger on May 18, 2011 12:48 PM EDT reply actions