Biorhythms for Carolina @Virginia: Post-Game Discussion

Enigma94 said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It's just when someone says something wasn't good I tend to think it was bad. Semi-good?
Click to expand...
no worries. we're all passionate about UNC basketball.

good and bad aren't the only possible outcomes!

i'd probably look at that season as more solidly in the "good" category if we hadn't followed it up with 2 poor seasons and just 1 good season (and 1 incomplete).

but with how the rest of his tenure has unfolded, we can't just ignore the shitty first half of 2022. it happened.
 
4thgenheel said:
no worries. we're all passionate about UNC basketball.

good and bad aren't the only possible outcomes!

i'd probably look at that season as more solidly in the "good" category if we hadn't followed it up with 2 poor seasons and just 1 good season (and 1 incomplete).

but with how the rest of his tenure has unfolded, we can't just ignore the shitty first half of 2022. it happened.
Click to expand...
We can certainly agree that two of Davis' seasons have fallen into the bad bucket.
 
I think the run at the end of his first season was awesome. I think he has had one other good season. The rest have been mediocre to bad. This season looks up and down so far.
 
donbosco said:
Did Coach Smith and Coach Williams do that?
Click to expand...
Roy was 10 out of 17 ncaa tournaments, so 59% (and was upset twice to keep him from the sweet 16). I think more important than the actual result is being a top 3/4 seed, which Roy was over 60% the time. I’m going to assume Dean was since he made the sweet 16 every year 1981-1993 and then again in 1995 and 1997
 
In an attempt to compare seasons objectively, I created a simple (not entirely flawless, but very solid) formula to rank the success of seasons starting with 1989-90 and ending with last season. I then broke it up into 10 tiers based on points resulting from the formula. Here goes:

Tier 1 (95+ points)
1993, 1998, 2005, 2008, 2009

Tier 2 (90-94 points)
2016, 2017

Tier 3 (85-89 points)
1991, 1995, 1997, 2007, 2012, 2019

Tier 4 (80-84 points)
1994, 2001, 2011, 2024, 2022

Tier 5 (75-79 points)
2006

Tier 6 (70-74 points)
1992, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018

Tier 7 (66-69 points)
1990, 1996, 2000, 2004

Tier 8 (60-64 points)
2021, 2023, 2025

Tier 9 (50-59 points)
2003, 2010

Tier 10 (<50 points)
2002, 2020

So, of Hubert’s full seasons, two fall in Tier 4 and two fall in Tier 8.
 
Icky Mettle said:
In an attempt to compare seasons objectively, I created a simple (not entirely flawless, but very solid) formula to rank the success of seasons starting with 1989-90 and ending with last season. I then broke it up into 10 tiers based on points resulting from the formula. Here goes:

Tier 1 (95+ points)
1993, 1998, 2005, 2008, 2009

Tier 2 (90-94 points)
2016, 2017

Tier 3 (85-89 points)
1991, 1995, 1997, 2007, 2012, 2019

Tier 4 (80-84 points)
1994, 2001, 2011, 2024, 2022

Tier 5 (75-79 points)
2006

Tier 6 (70-74 points)
1992, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018

Tier 7 (66-69 points)
1990, 1996, 2000, 2004

Tier 8 (60-64 points)
2021, 2023, 2025

Tier 9 (50-59 points)
2003, 2010

Tier 10 (<50 points)
2002, 2020

So, of Hubert’s full seasons, two fall in Tier 4 and two fall in Tier 8.
Click to expand...
nice work. what is your formula?
 
Icky Mettle said:
In an attempt to compare seasons objectively, I created a simple (not entirely flawless, but very solid) formula to rank the success of seasons starting with 1989-90 and ending with last season. I then broke it up into 10 tiers based on points resulting from the formula. Here goes:

Tier 1 (95+ points)
1993, 1998, 2005, 2008, 2009

Tier 2 (90-94 points)
2016, 2017

Tier 3 (85-89 points)
1991, 1995, 1997, 2007, 2012, 2019

Tier 4 (80-84 points)
1994, 2001, 2011, 2024, 2022

Tier 5 (75-79 points)
2006

Tier 6 (70-74 points)
1992, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018

Tier 7 (66-69 points)
1990, 1996, 2000, 2004

Tier 8 (60-64 points)
2021, 2023, 2025

Tier 9 (50-59 points)
2003, 2010

Tier 10 (<50 points)
2002, 2020

So, of Hubert’s full seasons, two fall in Tier 4 and two fall in Tier 8.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how to really evaluate this, but I also love it.
 
4thgenheel said:
nice work. what is your formula?
Click to expand...
It’s super simple. I take the winning percentage for each season and round it to the nearest ten. Each percentage point is worth a point (so, for example, a season with an 80% win percentage is 80 points).

Add 1 point if an ACC regular season championship was won.

Add 1 point if an ACCT championship was won.

Add 1 point if there was an NCAAT appearance OR
Add 2 points if the Heels advanced past the round of 64 OR
Add 3 points if the Heels advanced past the the round 32 OR
Add 4 points if the Heels advanced past the Sweet 16 OR
Add 5 points if the Heels reached the Final Four OR
Add 6 points if the Heels reached the national championship game OR
Add 7 points if the Heels won the national championship.

The highest possible score is 109.
 
Icky Mettle said:
It’s super simple. I take the winning percentage for each season and round it to the nearest ten. Each percentage point is worth a point (so, for example, a season with an 80% win percentage is 80 points).

Add 1 point if an ACC regular season championship was won.

Add 1 point if an ACCT championship was won.

Add 1 point if there was an NCAAT appearance OR
Add 2 points if the Heels advanced past the round of 64 OR
Add 3 points if the Heels advanced past the the round 32 OR
Add 4 points if the Heels advanced past the Sweet 16 OR
Add 5 points if the Heels reached the Final Four OR
Add 6 points if the Heels reached the national championship game OR
Add 7 points if the Heels won the national championship.

The highest possible score is 109.
Click to expand...
nice. not bad at all. baseline as win % feels fair and hard to argue.

my one complaint would be that while you're getting win % points for winning the games that lead to the two ACC trophies, simply advancing out of the first or second round of the big dance being worth double or triple either of those trophies just feels wrong.
 
4thgenheel said:
nice. not bad at all. baseline as win % feels fair and hard to argue.

my one complaint would be that while you're getting win % points for winning the games that lead to the two ACC trophies, simply advancing out of the first or second round of the big dance being worth double or triple either of those trophies just feels wrong.
Click to expand...
That would have been my quibble. That and an early round upset in NCAA seems a bit overweighted overall.
 
Icky Mettle said:
It’s super simple. I take the winning percentage for each season and round it to the nearest ten. Each percentage point is worth a point (so, for example, a season with an 80% win percentage is 80 points).

Add 1 point if an ACC regular season championship was won.

Add 1 point if an ACCT championship was won.

Add 1 point if there was an NCAAT appearance OR
Add 2 points if the Heels advanced past the round of 64 OR
Add 3 points if the Heels advanced past the the round 32 OR
Add 4 points if the Heels advanced past the Sweet 16 OR
Add 5 points if the Heels reached the Final Four OR
Add 6 points if the Heels reached the national championship game OR
Add 7 points if the Heels won the national championship.

The highest possible score is 109.
Click to expand...
I think your rating system highlights the heart of the point of contention. To me, way too much weighting is put on the regular season. IMO any season where we make it to the NC game is a great season.

I get why others would disagree, but no rating system is going to change how I feel. For me anything to do with sports is all about how you finish. If I was a UVA fan, the year they were the overall #1 and then lost in the first round of the NCAAT... that would be a heartbreaking season I'd want to forget. The UVA game last week, to me that's a great game. We may have laid an egg to start, but we made adjustments, came back strong, and won in the end. That shows heart and determination.

It's like the old Dean Smith saying (I think it was Dean's), it's not who starts... it's who finishes. To me a great finish trumps everything that came before. But we all enjoy things in different ways. Reasonable minds can disagree.
 
finesse said:
No. It's more that I'm satisfied with the improvements coming through some disruptive times that I'd rather not give up some irretrievable connections yet instead choosing to chase some sort of success that it's not clear that we'll find. We can always do that in a couple of years .If nothing else, it'll give us time to see more about where the game is going. There's still some bugs in the current system.

The program next door currently has exemplified how you can spend a lot of money, gain a lot of fame ,win a lot of games and still do no better making the Final Four for 10 years. Do you really think they represent anything about the school? Even if it's all about winning, when it gets to the bottom line, they're not. But, enough about that.

We're well on the way to being the same way. Hell, probably college basketball is. I don't much care for it and I don't much think I can change things. I sure am willing to speak up about why I don't care for the changes
Click to expand...
Thank you for elaborating. I'm curious, what improvements are you referencing?

Also, we've put a lot of money and resources into our program. This year we've spent in the top-5 range (according to Greg). To be spending that much money and diverting that many resources, I'd think we should expect better results, no? That money/resources has brought in a lot of talent over the past couple of years. Outside of 1/3 of one season and two years ago, we've underperformed pretty clearly.
 
finesse said:
Doesn't fit the narrative that the team jelled and improved under the coaching staff. Luck fits the story line.
Click to expand...
How do you explain the following year then? Was that on the coaching staff for them not jelling? I'm pretty sure you'll agree that is does fall on them. And that just highlights the inconsistency we've seen, routinely, under HD/staff.
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
I think your rating system highlights the heart of the point of contention. To me, way too much weighting is put on the regular season. IMO any season where we make it to the NC game is a great season.

I get why others would disagree, but no rating system is going to change how I feel. For me anything to do with sports is all about how you finish. If I was a UVA fan, the year they were the overall #1 and then lost in the first round of the NCAAT... that would be a heartbreaking season I'd want to forget. The UVA game last week, to me that's a great game. We may have laid an egg to start, but we made adjustments, came back strong, and won in the end. That shows heart and determination.

It's like the old Dean Smith saying (I think it was Dean's), it's not who starts... it's who finishes. To me a great finish trumps everything that came before. But we all enjoy things in different ways. Reasonable minds can disagree.
Click to expand...
The one season that’s a real conundrum for me is that 2000 season. The NCAAT Final Four run was a lot of fun, but everything before that NCAAT was the most miserable experience I had had as a UNC basketball fan prior to 2002.
 
Centerpiece said:
d00k as a University provides the carrot in terms of NIL and a hot date.
Scheyer has figured out how to motivate - tactfully - with the stick.
Click to expand...
Dook pays, but is not the only 1 out there paying. We paid Evans & Cade (also Wilson & V), still gotta pick the right pieces and make it work.

Our roster is $14M and KY is apparently 20. I hate dook, but Scheyer has kept the gravy train going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top