Hot Stove: UNC Basketball

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 37K
  • UNC Sports 
duluoz said:
All Scheyer and Pope have had to do is keep things on the rails. Those rails were greased long before those two got there, so let’s not act like they’ve so greatly distinguished themselves from HD, who didn’t have the same funding pipelines in place when he took over.

Last I checked, only one of the three has been to a national title game or even a Final Four. Especially given the respective coffers they’ve all worked with.
Click to expand...
What do you think players care more about these days, winning a title or getting better, getting to the league, and lasting longer in the league/higher profile (all of which fall under the umbrella of "development")? Now, between Duke, UK, and UNC, how do those schools rank in the eyes of agents and players who prefer winning? How do they rank for those who prefer development?
 
farce© said:
How is it that Duke has so much more money to buy players than UNC?
Click to expand...
It's never been outright said by anyone that I can find, but it appears that dook has generated significant NIL contributions from program donors in a way that Carolina has not done (at least until maybe this year).

dook also spends 2x on tracked/reported basketball program expenses than does Carolina, so having significantly more NIL would not be surprising.
 
farce© said:
How is it that Duke has so much more money to buy players than UNC?
Click to expand...
They might have more, but not significantly more, at least from what you hear from Sherrell. What I mean is, UNC has matched, in some cases exceeded, asking prices of players who went elsewhere. One reason, imo, is because HD/staff aren't seen as being able to develop talent...at least not on the level of the schools they're are competing with for players.
 
farce© said:
How is it that Duke has so much more money to buy players than UNC?
Click to expand...
No way to know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they got guys on a discount. Their NBA pipeline reputation precedes them. They're as much a sure-thing as there is in college basketball.
 
CRHeel94 said:
Let me see if I can express this correctly. Bear with me, give me some latitude for a bit...

In the traditional format, you had a point guard, two wings, two post players. The functions of the PG was ball handling and running the offense. The wings were usually your scorers...these could either be shooters from the outside (something that gained more value with a three point line) and guys adept at slashing to the basket...that was the "original" separation between a shooting guard and a small forward. Then you had two post players who played inside mostly (post offense, elbow offense, screens, rebounds).

"Modern" basketball has gone towards offensive sets that feature four perimeter guys and one inside guy, or can even start from a five out alignment (though I think you still have a big guy who's job is to mostly set screens). With 4-1 sets, some coaches tend to divide the 4 perimeter spots into 2 guards and 2 forwards (more on that later). With that thinking you'd want the 2 guards to provide ball handling, playmaking and shooting, and for the 2 forwards to provide shooting and slashing.

There is currently a position less trend that is more prevalent in some European basketball (of course) that some NBA teams and college teams have emulated. Basically the concept is that in a basketball game there is a series of actions that needs to be done (bringinging the ball up, passing, scoring outside, scoring inside)...and that you should maximize your player's ability rather than define their roles based on height. That's how you end up with big men being the perimeter shooters or passers (also some guards as very adept post up players). The message is don't worry so much about positions as about maximizing talent and making sure you have enough of each role (a team with 5 pass only guys doesn't work).

So coming back to the RJ/Caleb backcourt. In the 4-1 sets UNC was running that year (which was a more "modern" look than Roy's 3-2 system), I don't think you need to have a traditional PG per se for it to be effective. In fact, that offense is more dangerous when you can have two guys who can handle the ball, attack the basket and shoot. So having two quasi combo guards is probably a good fit for that sort of offense...opens all sorts of options in early offense in how you can push the ball. The one possible downside? Personally, you still need a leadership on the court and having one designated PG makes it easier (rather than two guys vying for the wheel). Easier with a veteran team, more challenging with an inexperienced one.

Sorry for the diatribe...I am ramping up in my basketball season down here.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that (and the follow up) explanation(s).

I get your point now.
 
stankeylegjones said:
Given that we're told that HD/staff specifically told others that they want them back at UNC next year, given that the decision "wasn't about money," given that EC wanted to stay at UNC, given that HD said UNC needs to get bigger at positions, add in that cjones is quite close with EC and was upset with how the exit meeting went, I think it's clear what happened. I don't think HD/staff really cared if he left or not - "pushed out" probably isn't the correct way of putting it.
Click to expand...
Circling back to this, without copy/pasting info, Ben pretty much confirmed what Bwall and cjones were saying about EC not being retained by HD/staff.
 
Unfortunately I think we will be looking for a new coach in a year. Just no confidence that anything will be fixed whether we have a GM or not.
 
SnoopRob said:
I will say this...Jim Tanner is undergoing trial by fire, getting thrown in a situation where the HC is supposedly coaching for his job roughly a month before the portal opened.
Click to expand...
People would be fools to judge Tanner too harshly for whatever happens this off-season.
 
SnoopRob said:
Thanks for that (and the follow up) explanation(s).

I get your point now.
Click to expand...

Having said all that, I love a good point guard. Males the job for a head coach a lot easier.

For the first 10-12 years, I was a traditionalist using a 3 out, 2 in base. My basketball education was under Coach Smith. We ran all the Carolina stuff: secondary break, Shuffle, 1-4, switching defenses, etc. The one thing I never adopted was Run and Jump...just never felt like I could teach it well enough. In 2016 I worked camp in Chapel Hill...one of the insights was that they were doing a lot of the same drills I used with my teams...kind of reinforced that stuff worked. I did very well under that stretch, won almost 70% of my games.

About five years ago I took on responsibilities for the national team. With my club team I felt pretty good about having quality bigs compared to my competition (and I spent my payroll money that way). With the national team, I knew that I could use my regular 3-2 philosophy to win in Central America, but that at the next level of competition that includes the Caribbean, I'd be at a size disadvantage. To compete, I would need to spread the floor and use a 4-1 look....and I figured the only way I would know how to coach that well was if I did it at my club level as well. So I pretty much scrapped my playbook and had to learn how to coach 4-1 systems (I kept the shuffle somewhere in the playbook). And to be honest...I still don't feel like I have mastered it. I've won about 70% of my games in that stretch (though last year was a train wreck).
 
CRHeel94 said:
Having said all that, I love a good point guard. Males the job for a head coach a lot easier.

For the first 10-12 years, I was a traditionalist using a 3 out, 2 in base. My basketball education was under Coach Smith. We ran all the Carolina stuff: secondary break, Shuffle, 1-4, switching defenses, etc. The one thing I never adopted was Run and Jump...just never felt like I could teach it well enough. In 2016 I worked camp in Chapel Hill...one of the insights was that they were doing a lot of the same drills I used with my teams...kind of reinforced that stuff worked. I did very well under that stretch, won almost 70% of my games.

About five years ago I took on responsibilities for the national team. With my club team I felt pretty good about having quality bigs compared to my competition (and I spent my payroll money that way). With the national team, I knew that I could use my regular 3-2 philosophy to win in Central America, but that at the next level of competition that includes the Caribbean, I'd be at a size disadvantage. To compete, I would need to spread the floor and use a 4-1 look....and I figured the only way I would know how to coach that well was if I did it at my club level as well. So I pretty much scrapped my playbook and had to learn how to coach 4-1 systems (I kept the shuffle somewhere in the playbook). And to be honest...I still don't feel like I have mastered it. I've won about 70% of my games in that stretch (though last year was a train wreck).
Click to expand...
It’s a shame MJ doesn’t just donate $50 million to the salary pool.
 
CRHeel94 said:
Having said all that, I love a good point guard. Males the job for a head coach a lot easier.

For the first 10-12 years, I was a traditionalist using a 3 out, 2 in base. My basketball education was under Coach Smith. We ran all the Carolina stuff: secondary break, Shuffle, 1-4, switching defenses, etc. The one thing I never adopted was Run and Jump...just never felt like I could teach it well enough. In 2016 I worked camp in Chapel Hill...one of the insights was that they were doing a lot of the same drills I used with my teams...kind of reinforced that stuff worked. I did very well under that stretch, won almost 70% of my games.

About five years ago I took on responsibilities for the national team. With my club team I felt pretty good about having quality bigs compared to my competition (and I spent my payroll money that way). With the national team, I knew that I could use my regular 3-2 philosophy to win in Central America, but that at the next level of competition that includes the Caribbean, I'd be at a size disadvantage. To compete, I would need to spread the floor and use a 4-1 look....and I figured the only way I would know how to coach that well was if I did it at my club level as well. So I pretty much scrapped my playbook and had to learn how to coach 4-1 systems (I kept the shuffle somewhere in the playbook). And to be honest...I still don't feel like I have mastered it. I've won about 70% of my games in that stretch (though last year was a train wreck).
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the 4-1 look. What I can't stand, though, is the lack of movement. Just because you use one big you can do more than have that big set the high screen for the pick and roll, and then just go 1 on 1 with everyone standing around if that doesn't work. You don't have to have the players just standing around the perimeter watching one person dribbling and then going 1 on 1 to the basket or shooting a 3 off the dribble. You don't have to pass the ball around the perimeter without moving after passing the ball, and then watch someone again try to go 1 on 1 to the basket or get a 3. Why can't you still use motion, pass the ball, make a cut, set a screen off the ball, get the players and the ball moving to get shots that aren't 1 on 1 off the dribble all the time?
 
Carolina Fever said:
I have no problem with the 4-1 look. What I can't stand, though, is the lack of movement. Just because you use one big you can do more than have that big set the high screen for the pick and roll, and then just go 1 on 1 with everyone standing around if that doesn't work. You don't have to have the players just standing around the perimeter watching one person dribbling and then going 1 on 1 to the basket or shooting a 3 off the dribble. You don't have to pass the ball around the perimeter without moving after passing the ball, and then watch someone again try to go 1 on 1 to the basket or get a 3. Why can't you still use motion, pass the ball, make a cut, set a screen off the ball, get the players and the ball moving to get shots that aren't 1 on 1 off the dribble all the time?
Click to expand...
Because the way to win basketball games is to get as many layups and 3 pointers as possible. Mid range jumpers or even back to the basket play are for losers, unless there is a horrible mismatch to exploit.

That said, you've got to make the layups, which is usually a no-brainer but we've proven that to be more challenging than one might think on occasion.
 
superrific said:
Because the way to win basketball games is to get as many layups and 3 pointers as possible. Mid range jumpers or even back to the basket play are for losers, unless there is a horrible mismatch to exploit.

That said, you've got to make the layups, which is usually a no-brainer but we've proven that to be more challenging than one might think on occasion.
Click to expand...
You can get plenty of layups and 3 pointers that way. In fact, you can get open 3s off the pass in rhythm more often instead of trying to go 1 on 1 and taking them off the dribble.

It feels like coaches don't want to do it because players don't really want to work to get shots like that because they don't work like that to get shots in the NBA, and they want to show off what they can do 1 on 1 all the time.
 
Carolina Fever said:
You can get plenty of layups and 3 pointers that way. In fact, you can get open 3s off the pass in rhythm more often instead of trying to go 1 on 1 and taking them off the dribble.

It feels like coaches don't want to do it because players don't really want to work to get shots like that because they don't work like that to get shots in the NBA, and they want to show off what they can do 1 on 1 all the time.
Click to expand...
It's really hard to make generalizations about an offense over a season-wide basis. I'll just say that there are sometimes good reasons to put a shooter in the spot where you want him to shoot from, and not move him.
 
UNCatTech said:
Ok, someone over there has claimed to have played for UNC, i believe in a walk on role, but I'm pretty sure some made that claim.

But my memory isn't great, so there's a possibility I'm just mixing thing up.
Click to expand...
pretty sure that bwall maybe played JV and was a practice player for the women's team. he's definitely got real connections to the program.

seems like a good guy. a lot of people on IC are melting down and trashing the "insiders" today because they don't like what's being said.

reality can be harsh. the program is on rocky ground right now.

eta: also pretty sure that bwall works for klutch now. he's definitely got sources all over the basketball world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top