Wake 24, UNC 17

One of real sportswriters' favorite cliches is "good teams find a way to win."

My brother, who was at Kenan Stadium on Saturday, said that Wake didn't deserve to beat Carolina.

But didn't Clint Eastwood, in Unforgiven, say something like 'deserves got nothing to do with it'? Wake might have played ugly, but they found a way to win, and now Wake fans have to ask themselves a mostly unfamiliar question:

Just how good is this team?

They're 7-1, still in the AP top 25, and thanks to Virginia Tech's whuppin' of Clemson last Thursday, they have a share of the lead in the ACC's Atlantic Division and a realistic shot at the ACC Championship Game.

If I weren't already sitting down, I'd need to.

That 7-1 record is the Deacons' best since the 1979 Tangerine Bowl season under John Mackovic. For the first time since 1987, they've beaten all three of the other Big 4 schools: Duke, State, and now Carolina. All this without their starting quarterback or tailback.

Carolina, riding a rush of "win-one-for-Bunting" emotion*, drove to inside the Deacon 10 with less than a minute left. On third down Joe Dailey tried to sidearm a pass into the end zone. The ball made it to the end zone, but I don't think Dailey meant for it to hit Jon Abbate square in the numbers (though he might have, since Abbate was closer to it than anyone in baby blue).

So now all Wake has to do to ensure a chance at the ACC title game is run the rest of the table: Boston College at home, Florida State in Tallahassee, Virginia Tech at home, Maryland in College Park.

Gee, is that all? Why don't we throw Ohio State into that schedule for good measure? Is there any way we can move Ol' Miss from September to November? Can we play Duke again?

Mathematically, Wake could lose one of its remaining games and still win the Atlantic division, but that would require both Boston College and Clemson to lose again to an ACC opponent. Honestly, Wake could lose the rest of their games and still go to a decent bowl game and call the season a success. Historically, Wake finishing 7-5 should satisfy any Deacon fan with a lick of sense.

But now the Deacons have done gone and raised expectations on us. Would 7-5 satisfy the faithful? Would 10-2, 9-3, 8-4? What if the next loss is a gut punch like the Clemson game? What if the next loss is in the Wake tradition of well-played, hard-fought, ultimately futile close-score defeats at the hands of a deeper and more talented team? What if Wake loses another key player? Which of those scenarios would make 7-5 easier to take? Should any of those scenarios make 7-5 easier to take? Are we justified in un-humbling our expectations for "little old Wake Forest"?

I'd love to know how other Deacon fans answer those questions.

* Mark Packer on Prime Time with the Packman correctly (I think) pointed out that the Tarheels' rallying around Bunting now is about the biggest slap in the face they could give him. They wouldn't or couldn't rally around him earlier, when they had to know his job was on the line, and they could have done something to help keep him there. Suddenly showing up to play at this point, when Bunting's fate has been decided, is almost like saying they're glad he's gone.

Maybe they are, but by all accounts Bunting is a decent guy and a class act all the way. And he obviously bleeds Carolina blue. Like Matt Doherty before him, though, Bunting seemed a little overmatched, a little underprepared for his dream job. He kept Willie Parker, the running back who would become the starter for the Super Bowl champions, on the bench. He recruited as much talent as any coach in the ACC, but couldn't seem to get them to play consistent, disciplined football.