Hubert Davis Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeoBloom
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 940
  • Views: 15K
  • UNC Sports 
Jamie Shaw has top 25 post on IC. Thread title talks about parity. I looked. Top 25 teams average 4 losses, with hard part of season left. This includes Miami Ohio, which is unbeaten, and an anomoly. Texas Tech, which has wins over Dook, Houston and Arizona has six losses, and is not in top 10. Florida, with six losses, is ranked eighth.
 
I ran the following through ChatGPT:

if these North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons happened today, how would modern ranking systems (AP Poll, NET, KenPom, NCAA seeding logic) likely treat them?


I’ll evaluate them using modern standards:


  • Overall record (30+ wins = elite)
  • Conference strength (ACC context matters)
  • Conference finish
  • NCAA Tournament performance
  • How selection committee values metrics today (NET, efficiency, Q1 wins)


🔵 1995–1999 (Dean Smith → Bill Guthridge era)​


1995–96: 21–11 (10–6 ACC, 3rd) – NCAA 2nd Round​


Today’s view:


  • 11 losses is heavy by modern blue-blood standards.
  • Likely a 5–7 seed today.
  • Probably ranked fringe Top 25 during season but not elite.

Modern comparison: Similar to a team finishing ~#20–25 range.
👉 Not a true national contender by today’s standards.



1996–97: 28–7 (11–5 ACC, 2nd) – Final Four​


  • 28 wins + Final Four run
  • 7 losses is very solid
  • Strong ACC finish

Today’s projection:


  • Likely #5–#10 range nationally
  • Probably a 2–3 seed
  • Advanced metrics would likely love them (Final Four teams usually rate top 10 in efficiency)

👉 Yes — clearly highly ranked by modern standards.



1997–98: 34–4 (13–3 ACC, 2nd) – Final Four​


This one translates extremely well to modern systems.


  • 34 wins is elite in any era.
  • 4 losses = dominant.
  • Deep NCAA run.

Today’s projection:


  • Top 3 nationally.
  • Likely a 1 seed.
  • KenPom-type systems would probably have them top 5.

👉 Absolutely elite by today’s standards. National title-level team.



1998–99: 24–10 (10–6 ACC, 3rd) – NCAA 1st Round exit​


  • 10 losses.
  • Early tournament exit.
  • Not dominant in conference.

Today:


  • Likely unranked or low Top 25.
  • Probably a 5–6 seed.
  • Efficiency metrics might expose inconsistency.

👉 Good, not elite. Not highly ranked nationally.



🔵 1976–1980 (Pre-3-point era)​


Important context:


  • No 3-point line.
  • Slower pace.
  • Fewer teams in NCAA Tournament.
  • Conference titles mattered more than overall wins.


1976–77: 28–5 (ACC champs) – NCAA Runner-Up​


  • Conference champion.
  • 28 wins in a shorter schedule era is strong.
  • National runner-up.

Modern translation:


  • Likely top 5.
  • Probably a 1 or 2 seed.
  • Deep tournament run validates ranking.

👉 Yes — highly ranked by modern standards.



1977–78: 23–8 (ACC champs) – NCAA 1st Round​


  • 8 losses.
  • Early tournament exit.

Today:


  • Likely a 4–6 seed.
  • Probably ranked in teens if at all.
  • Would not be considered elite.

👉 Good, but not nationally dominant today.



1978–79: 23–6 (T-1st ACC) – NCAA 2nd Round​


  • Strong record for era.
  • Only 6 losses.

Today:


  • Likely Top 10–15.
  • Probably a 3 seed.
  • Would be viewed as a solid contender.

👉 Yes — likely ranked fairly high.



1979–80: 21–8 (T-2nd ACC) – NCAA 2nd Round​


  • 8 losses.
  • Not dominant.
  • Modest tournament run.

Today:


  • Likely a 5–7 seed.
  • Possibly unranked or fringe Top 25.

👉 Not considered highly ranked nationally today.
 
donbosco said:
I get you Snoop but I have to wonder if, given the multiple statistical categories and ratings and rankings extant today how all of those rankings and seedings might have been influenced 'back in the day?' Of course I know that Coach Smith was the master of the statistics and perhaps his teams might even have been more highly rated than they were?

I hesitated to compare for exactly those reasons and maybe I should not have...but then again, that's what's going on --- is actually the main theme -- of this thread and the discussion that underlies it.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree that it's hard to compare across eras separated by a total of 50 years. And while we have better metrics now than we (largely) did in either of our days, I don't think you can conclude that the Coaches, AP voters, and NCAAT seeding committee were so blinded by lack of metrics that they'd have missed the quality of teams by huge amounts.

And, yeah, the biggest question is how far can HD vary from our historical standard before it is "too much"? It's certainly a question that will be applicable until he either gets a good deal closer on a typical basis or we have a different coach.
 
finesse said:
Let's note that there is a hell of a lot difference in what a "cupcake" is these days with the expansion of the game worldwide and growing numbers of foreign players. Add that to NIL and talent is a lot more evenly distributed and so are coaching skills. A lot more of those cupcakes can ambush you.
Click to expand...
I actually believe that NIL has made talent less evenly distributed than it was in prior years. Those mid-majors don’t have the NIL funds that the high majors do and the high majors are taking the mid-major teams’ best players. Mid-majors used to succeed by holding onto their players for four years and putting experienced teams on the court. They can’t do that anymore.
 
Last edited:
Icky Mettle said:
I actually believe that NiL has made talent less evenly distributed than it was in prior years. Those mid-majors don’t have the NIL funds that the high majors do and the high majors are taking the mid-major teams’ best players. Mid-majors used to succeed by holding onto their players for four years and putting experienced teams on the court. They can’t do that anymore.
Click to expand...
Think this year it has been exacerbated as well. The top 10/25 has much less losses this year at this point in time than at this point last year
 
I think today you have to have less than 5 losses at the end of the regular season to be considered elite.
 
superrific said:
Brady was obviously more important to the NCAA tourney success than was Marvin.

But I don't think that matters. I was making an observation. As bad as Matt was, he did recover a little from the bottoming out. It was Matt who was left with a shit sandwich by Gut after the first year. Matt's problem was that none of the guys he recruited would have stayed unless he went.
Click to expand...
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Doherty was not at all left with a shit sandwich. Not even close. But that’s an entirely different discussion.
 
I think it comes down to this. The anti-Hubert crowd believes the standard set by dean and roy is the expectation, notwithstanding that we caught lightning with two of the best coaches ever and the effigy crowd did not take out dean. I have watched UNC bball since 1966-67 and for most of that time with dean and roy I think I realized just how lucky we were and that the day was coming. I have never felt entitled but mostly just blessed. That day is here. I don't expect Hubert or anyone to replicate what Dean did or Roy, who realized his powers as a coach were neutered by nil and portal and got out. I want Hubert treated fairly. IMO he deserves to remain as our coach.
 
05 was one of the very best teams of the century, and probably top 10 since the 3 point line was introduced. Remember -- it wasn't the only great team that year. It beat a one-loss Illinois in the finals. And 2 of our four losses were to 1 seed Duke and the Chris Paul Wake team that was #4 at the time and ended up with a 2 seed.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Doherty was not at all left with a shit sandwich. Not even close. But that’s an entirely different discussion.
Click to expand...
He was a bit like Belichick in how he ran off talent. I bet Julius and Ronald would have stuck around for Roy in 2002. But they had options and didn't want to waste their time with that asshole.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Doherty was not at all left with a shit sandwich. Not even close. But that’s an entirely different discussion.
Click to expand...
He was left with plenty of talent for his first year. But Matt D's first recruiting class was Jackie, Jawad and Melvin. What he inherited for the 8-20 team was:

Boone, BMo, Capel, Lang, Melendez, Fing.

If that's not a shit sandwich, it's close. Capel was a fine role player, but at his peak he would be the fourth best player on a good team. Lang was also a complementary piece. The backcourt was a disaster and there was no depth.
 
Calheel said:
He was a bit like Belichick in how he ran off talent. I bet Julius and Ronald would have stuck around for Roy in 2002. But they had options and didn't want to waste their time with that asshole.
Click to expand...
Peppers was definitely not going to play again. He was drafted in 2002! He would have been prepping for the draft under any circumstance. Curry also, though he might have been a closer call.
 
Calheel said:
He was a bit like Belichick in how he ran off talent. I bet Julius and Ronald would have stuck around for Roy in 2002. But they had options and didn't want to waste their time with that asshole.
Click to expand...
Forte might’ve stuck around too. It was a different era where guys like Forte, who was projected as a late first round pick, might stick around to improve their draft status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top