Hot Stove: UNC Basketball

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 58K
  • UNC Sports 
IC is actually pleasant right now for the first time since like october. i really feel like these guy's skillsets are a lot more complementary and balanced than what we had last season.

 
"Playing for the SC Derby club based out of Podgorica, Montenegro, Bogavac is coming off his best season to date, averaging 14.9 points, 3.6 rebounds, and 2.3 assists per game in 2024-25, with shooting splits of 45.1% FG, 39.9% 3pt, 87% FT. He scored 19 or more points in eight of his final 15 ABA games, including a season-high 27 points (with five threes) on April 25, and 24 points (with a season-high seven made threes) on March 30. He hit four or more threes in six of his final 13 games.

"For a frame of reference about the competitive level of the ABA, consider that former Tar Heel All-American, and current Tar Heel assistant coach, Marcus Paige averaged 8.7 points per game in the 2020-21 season for the Partizan club (out of Serbia) in the ABA.”
 
Sounds like a good get. Not sure we have any NBA talent on the team besides Wilson, but maybe it will end up being a better team overall. Hope they will go back to playing more team ball on offense with more ball movement, screens, and movement off the ball than the way they have been playing under Hubert.
 
Calheel said:
Does the portal grade deduct for players lost or just get credit for players gained? Seems to me that a huge part of portal performance is retaining players, too.

Otherwise, you’ll always give the best portal grades to the teams that lose the most players and have to get the most replacements.
Click to expand...
I’m basing solely on filling perceived needs ( which ended up being an entirely new team ). Obviously, we have no idea how it will workout but on paper seems to be a good set of pieces.

My grade has nothing to do with players lost (number or quality). While I agree you could lower the grade because we lost so many players. We don’t know enough about why kids leave. Offered more money elsewhere. Didn’t like the staff? Didn’t like their role? Didn’t like their future role? Wanted to be closer to home? Too many factors to consider. End of the day, they left and staff has to rebuild. UNC was in a similar situation to many of the programs in the country and I think the staff has done a good job of identifying and signing quality pieces. Time will tell if it works.
 
Will be interesting to see how the staff puts the individual pieces of this team together collectively. I like its potential. I think that UNC, Duke, Virginia, Louisville, and NC State all seem like they've done very good jobs at roster construction/reloading/rebuilding this offseason.

A key for us, IMO, will be to make sure we win that signature home game against Kansas, and then win 2 of the Michigan State/Ohio State/SEC Challenge opponents- while not losing any non-con games to the other scrubs on our schedule. If we do that, we should have a manageable enough conference slate to be a lock at-large NCAAT team at worst.
 
bassydude77 said:
I’m basing solely on filling perceived needs ( which ended up being an entirely new team ). Obviously, we have no idea how it will workout but on paper seems to be a good set of pieces.

My grade has nothing to do with players lost (number or quality). While I agree you could lower the grade because we lost so many players. We don’t know enough about why kids leave. Offered more money elsewhere. Didn’t like the staff? Didn’t like their role? Didn’t like their future role? Wanted to be closer to home? Too many factors to consider. End of the day, they left and staff has to rebuild. UNC was in a similar situation to many of the programs in the country and I think the staff has done a good job of identifying and signing quality pieces. Time will tell if it works.
Click to expand...
Right. But in terms of grading the portal, you have to include everything. I don’t know why the players came either, but the incoming players still count in the grade.

At the end of the day all that matters is whether the team is better than last year. Obviously, we are hard wired to assume the replacements “fit” better than the departing players, but that is TBD.

Certainly, we lost more talent than we obtained (especially if you count departing seniors). But we don’t appear to have any obvious positional deficit like last year. That said, when you lose two of the top ranked portal talents in one year, that has to be factored into the overall portal grade.
 
As an intellectual exercise, construct the razor thin line that has us keeping both. It's true that one was perfectly plausible but never taken for granted.
 
finesse said:
As an intellectual exercise, construct the razor thin line that has us keeping both. It's true that one was perfectly plausible but never taken for granted.
Click to expand...
Assuming that is directed to me, I am not sure who the “both” is. In any event, I don’t think there was any universe where either Ian or Elliot were going to play for Hubert again.
 
Calheel said:
Right. But in terms of grading the portal, you have to include everything. I don’t know why the players came either, but the incoming players still count in the grade.

At the end of the day all that matters is whether the team is better than last year. Obviously, we are hard wired to assume the replacements “fit” better than the departing players, but that is TBD.

Certainly, we lost more talent than we obtained (especially if you count departing seniors). But we don’t appear to have any obvious positional deficit like last year. That said, when you lose two of the top ranked portal talents in one year, that has to be factored into the overall portal grade.
Click to expand...
This team, on paper anyway, is much bigger, more balanced, and better shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top