Hot Stove: UNC Basketball

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 42K
  • UNC Sports 
SnoopRob said:
I've been thinking about this lately...I think one issue our fanbase is having is how long it's been since we've had a dominant season, the kind where you win nearly every game and it's just a lot of fun. I'd define this kind of season as having 5 or less losses on the year.

The last one of those we've had was 2008-2009, when we went 34-4. It's been 16 seasons and counting since then.

Here are the ones before that, going back through the undefeated 1957 team (year achieved, record, and # of years from last occurrence):

2007-2008, 36-3, 1 year
2004-2005, 33-4, 3 years
1997-1998, 34-4, 7 years
1992-1993, 34-4, 5 years
1986-1987, 32-4, 6 years
1983-1984, 28-3, 3 years
1981-1982, 32-2, 2 years
1976-1977, 28-5, 5 years
1975-1976, 25-4, 1 year
1971-1972, 26-5, 4 years
1968-1969, 27-5, 3 years
1967-1968, 28-4, 1 year
1960-1961, 19-4, 7 years
1958-1959, 20-5, 2 years
1956-1957, 32-0, 2 years

So going back almost 70 years now, our current 16 season streak with no fewer than 6 losses is nearly double the longest streak before that of 7 years (twice). Of course, we play a lot more games now than in the 1950s and 1960s, but I think there's something to be taken from this. For a lot of fans, losses hurt a lot more than your average win makes you excited. So if we've not had a season in the last decade and a half where we have 5 or fewer losses, I think part of what the Carolina fanbase is going through is not having a season where we've been absolutely dominant and only experienced the pain of a few losses.
Click to expand...
We had that season with Zeller, Henson, Barnes and Marshall. It doesn't look like it because of the injuries, but that was a fun team. It was a very good team.
 
4thgenheel said:
and characterizing taking unauthorized video of a woman during a sex act as a "prank" is way too lenient and attempts to excuse the offender.
Click to expand...
Prank is about intention, not effect. If I hack into Hegseth's phone and plant a bogus report about Panamanian subs sharking around the Florida, it would be a prank. I mean, Hegseth would know that Panama doesn't have a sub fleet, right? Well, after Trump napalms Panama, it would be far less funny, right?

And it would be fair to charge me with the knowledge of what I'm doing, right? I should realize that Trump is so ignorant and bellicose and impulsive that he might actually act on that report. So if you want to blame me for the deaths in Panama, I guess that wouldn't be unfair.

But I still would have been pulling a prank, in my mind.
 
superrific said:
Prank is about intention, not effect. If I hack into Hegseth's phone and plant a bogus report about Panamanian subs sharking around the Florida, it would be a prank. I mean, Hegseth would know that Panama doesn't have a sub fleet, right? Well, after Trump napalms Panama, it would be far less funny, right?

And it would be fair to charge me with the knowledge of what I'm doing, right? I should realize that Trump is so ignorant and bellicose and impulsive that he might actually act on that report. So if you want to blame me for the deaths in Panama, I guess that wouldn't be unfair.

But I still would have been pulling a prank, in my mind.
Click to expand...
i chuckled at this but you tried to do entirely too much here.

ZH didn't think that he was "pranking" this girl - he took unauthorized video of her in the midst of a sex act so that he could have it to watch whenever he wanted and/or so that he could share it with his buddies. it was about later gratification for himself or impressing his boys with his sex life. since he and the young woman don't seem to have had a pre-existing relationship or drama we can eliminate the revenge porn angle here although if she hadn't discovered that she was being recorded he could've used the video for that at some later point.

anywho, you've got the wrong P word here - this was not a prank, it was predatory.
 
4thgenheel said:
i chuckled at this but you tried to do entirely too much here.

ZH didn't think that he was "pranking" this girl - he took unauthorized video of her in the midst of a sex act so that he could have it to watch whenever he wanted and/or so that he could share it with his buddies. since he and the young woman don't seem to have had a pre-existing relationship or drama we can eliminate the revenge porn angle here although if she hadn't discovered that she was being recorded he could've used the video for that at some later point.

anywho, you've got the wrong P word here - this was not a prank, it was predatory.
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer but it sure seems like some comparative liability to me. I say comparative and not contributory because I don't want to exculpate High but there sure seems to be a whole lot of "Oh shit, I got caught doing something I shouldn't have been doing" deflection going on here. Is there credible info about who initiated the sex? I don't doubt or blame her for being pissed and I don't think she's some kind of slut for having consensual sex but this was not some shrinking violet virgin violated against her will.
 
finesse said:
Not a lawyer but it sure seems like some comparative liability to me. I say comparative and not contributory because I don't want to exculpate High but there sure seems to be a whole lot of "Oh shit, I got caught doing something I shouldn't have been doing" deflection going on here. Is there credible info about who initiated the sex? I don't doubt or blame her for being pissed and I don't think she's some kind of slut for having consensual sex but this was not some shrinking violet virgin violated against her will.
Click to expand...
huh?

the sex was totally consensual, all parties agree about that. what was not consensual was ZH secretly recording the sex.

i'm not a lawyer, either....but the internets tell me that it is a felony to secretly record sexual activity in north carolina. which makes perfect sense, you are essentially creating porn featuring some person but without their consent. extremely unacceptable.

frankly, ZH is very lucky that this girl didn't go the real legal route and instead had the university punish him which it sounds like they may have bungled a bit.
 
4thgenheel said:
huh?

the sex was totally consensual, all parties agree about that. what was not consensual was ZH secretly recording the sex.

i'm not a lawyer, either....but the internets tell me that it is a felony to secretly record sexual activity in north carolina. which makes perfect sense, you are essentially creating porn featuring some person but without their consent. extremely unacceptable.

frankly, ZH is very lucky that this girl didn't go the real legal route and instead had the university punish him which it sounds like they may have bungled a bit.
Click to expand...
I don't see that from any of the statutes. There was one that might apply but not a slam dunk.

So everything you say about "predatory" could be correct. Again, my position is that I don't really know what happened. Maybe ZH was being a predator. But the evidence is also consistent with prank -- or if prank is too flippant (it is flippant), a stunt. And if I had access to all the information, I'd have a better opinion. But what was in the N&O was her story; we haven't heard either ZH's side or the university's side (that I know of, though I don't follow NC news on the regular). So there are two possibilities and my position is that HD and others in the department should be able to sort it out correctly.

If this was a starter, like say RJ last year, I'd be more skeptical of the team's stance. The "they are going easy on him to keep him on the court" theory would apply and cast doubt. But ZH is a bit player. I just don't see any incentive for HD to bend the rules (morally or legally) for a warm body on the bench.

Anyway, I've made my thoughts fully clear, as have others. I see no reason for me to continue to talk about this unless there are further developments.
 
superrific said:
I don't see that from any of the statutes. There was one that might apply but not a slam dunk.

So everything you say about "predatory" could be correct. Again, my position is that I don't really know what happened. Maybe ZH was being a predator. But the evidence is also consistent with prank -- or if prank is too flippant (it is flippant), a stunt. And if I had access to all the information, I'd have a better opinion. But what was in the N&O was her story; we haven't heard either ZH's side or the university's side (that I know of, though I don't follow NC news on the regular). So there are two possibilities and my position is that HD and others in the department should be able to sort it out correctly.

If this was a starter, like say RJ last year, I'd be more skeptical of the team's stance. The "they are going easy on him to keep him on the court" theory would apply and cast doubt. But ZH is a bit player. I just don't see any incentive for HD to bend the rules (morally or legally) for a warm body on the bench.

Anyway, I've made my thoughts fully clear, as have others. I see no reason for me to continue to talk about this unless there are further developments.
Click to expand...
G.S. 14-190.5A seems to pretty clearly apply to this situation. maybe the orange county DA wouldn't have pursued charges let alone gotten a conviction since the recording was deleted. but what if the young woman hadn't noticed what was happening and the recording wasn't deleted? if ZH had both kept it and shared it, it seems like a slam dunk. luckily, those things didn't happen.

and again, attempting to categorize recording a naked or partly naked woman during a sex act without her permission as a "prank" or "stunt" is absolutely bonkers and seriously disconnected from reality.
 
Last edited:
4thgenheel said:
G.S. 14-190.5A seems to pretty clearly apply to this situation. maybe ZH wouldn't have been convicted since the recording was deleted. what if she hadn't noticed what was happening and the recording wasn't deleted?

again, attempting to categorize recording a naked or partly naked woman during a sex act without her permission as a "prank" or "stunt" is absolutely bonkers and seriously disconnected from reality.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t apply. That’s the “revenge porn” statute. It requires disclosure of the images. There was no disclosure here. Moreover, such disclosure must be intended to coerce, intimidate, demean, humiliate, or cause financial loss to the depicted person.

NCGS 14-202(f) would likely apply, however.
 
Last edited:
Icky Mettle said:
It doesn’t apply. That’s the “revenge porn” statute. It requires disclosure of the images. There was no disclosure here. Moreover, such disclosure must be intended to coerce, intimidate, demean, humiliate, or cause financial loss to the depicted person.

NCGS 15-202(f) would likely apply, however.
Click to expand...
yeah, i edited my post a bit to acknowledge that the situation probably would have needed to evolve differently for that one to apply.

i can't find the other statute that you cited, is that some sort of peeping tom law?
 
Last edited:
TarSpiel said:
Yea, I don't really know a lot about him, and he has some drawbacks (3 point %), but I think he would clearly make us a better team, even IMO moreso than Stoja.
Click to expand...

It sounds like he has some level of playmaking chops, good size and physicality, and a general toughness and positive bball iq

Maybe an even better fit than Drake was offensively

Seems like it's been forever since UNC had a player that size who can attack the rim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top