Hubert Davis Catch-all

[Calheel]

That 82 team didn't have senior talent either. And since nobody has senior talent like that any more, it's really not worth talking about.

I'm not getting into comparing individual teams across eras. I'm pretty sure that all top 10 teams these days would destroy the best teams of old, because players are much, much better overall. It's especially hard to compare with no 3 point line. If teams today were forced to play without a three point line, then yeah, the 82 team might have been way too much. But if 82 tried to play any college team these days with a three point line, it would be a massacre.

Cooper Flagg came into college as a much more developed player, in virtually all respects, than MJ. That's because everyone is better. Way better. Remember: when MJ came into college, there was nobody who played like MJ. So he had to invent much of it (like his signature post moves), and it took time. Guys like Kobe got to copy MJ. They were doing MJ things as teenagers, because MJ had shown them how. Kobe added some stuff himself. Lebron added a bunch of stuff over time. And today's kids don't have to figure that out, because it's already been shown to them.

So it's pointless to try to compare. It's like comparing Jesse Owens to Carl Lewis. I don't know which was the better sprinter relative to competition, or to background, but I do know that Carl Lewis was faster. Because everyone is faster now.

Jimmy Black was a senior. James Worthy was junior. Yes, Sam, Matt and Mike (as he was known in 82) were underclassman, but that was an experienced team.

A senior Jimmy Black -- although not an NBA talent -- was an extremely valuable piece for that team. A lot of people think Scheyer should just waltz to a championship because he has the most talented freshmen on the floor. That is very rarely a recipe for a championship team. In April, experience is more valuable than raw talent. Of course as Roy used to say, experienced talent is the best.

 

[superrific]

Most of Dean’s teams had as many, if not more, McD’s AAs than the Dukes and Kentuckys of the past ~15 years.

Sure, but there were way more McDAA's in college back then, by your own logic. The average tenure for a McD AA in those days was about 3.9 years, I would imagine. Today it's definitely less than 2 and probably closer to 1.5.

So divide Dean's number by two and compare. Plus, there was so little reliable HS scouting that many McD AAs were stiffs. In many cases, the fact that they got a UNC offer was enough to shoot them up the rankings, which sort of defeats the purpose of this exercise. I mean, Fing was a McD AA! Joey Beard! Crawford Palmer!

 

[Calheel]

My bad. You were calling posters low IQ not Hubert.

And at least some of those posters deserved it.

If you ever catch me suggesting that Hubert doesn't understand basketball, please correct me -- as I do not believe that to be true. I think he has issues communicating his knowledge to players and I don't always agree with his tactical decisions, but he is not an idiot. And anyone who attacks Hubert on knowledge grounds if off base.

 

[superrific]

Jimmy Black was a senior. James Worthy was junior. Yes, Sam, Matt and Mike (as he was known in 82) were underclassman, but that was an experienced team.

A senior Jimmy Black -- although not an NBA talent -- was an extremely valuable piece for that team. A lot of people think Scheyer should just waltz to a championship because he has the most talented freshmen on the floor. That is very rarely a recipe for a championship team. In April, experience is more valuable than raw talent. Of course as Roy used to say, experienced talent is the best.

It's the same issue as with Icky. You have to make the adjustments across the board. Yes, James was a junior and Jimmy a senior. Georgetown started 3 seniors. Houston had similar experience levels. We beat Alabama in the regional -- that was a senior and junior dominated squad, according to the internet.

In 1985, when G'Town lost to Nova in the Big East explosion, Nova started three seniors and two juniors. G'Town had a senior Ewing plus other experienced players. St. Johns had four seniors (three official seniors plus Walter Berry, who IIRC was a Juco transfer).

 

[Calheel]

It's the same issue as with Icky. You have to make the adjustments across the board. Yes, James was a junior and Jimmy a senior. Georgetown started 3 seniors. Houston had similar experience levels. We beat Alabama in the regional -- that was a senior and junior dominated squad, according to the internet.

In 1985, when G'Town lost to Nova in the Big East explosion, Nova started three seniors and two juniors. G'Town had a senior Ewing plus other experienced players. St. Johns had four seniors (three official seniors plus Walter Berry, who IIRC was a Juco transfer).

I am simply comparing 82 UNC to Duke 2025. We would have beat those young'uns handily. If you simply mean the eras are different for coaching, obviously.

But I brought up originally to note that coaching NBA talent at all five positions is no guaranty of NCAAT success. In fact, if you look at the NCAAT champions the past 20 years or so, almost all have been experienced talent with a couple of young stars. Trying to win with all underclassmen in a one and done tournament is not a recipe for success.

 

[NYCBlueBlood]

Sorry, I got cut off from finishing my previous response. My main point was that Dean didn’t need to constantly bring in big recruiting classes every year because most players stuck around throughout their eligibility, and he was able to have teams loaded with McD’s AAs, with many being upperclassmen. Most of Dean’s teams had as many, if not more, McD’s AAs than the Dukes and Kentuckys of the past ~15 years. 1981 was the year that the first class McD’s AAs were college seniors. Starting with 1981, this is the number of McD’s AAs Dean had on his teams:

1981 - 6
1982 - 6
1983 - 7
1984 - 8 + 1 redshirt
1985 - 6
1986 - 8
1987 - 8 + 2 redshirts
1988 - 7
1989 - 7
1990 - 6
1991 - 8
1992 - 6
1993 - 6 + 1 redshirt
1994 - 8
1995 - 5
1996 - 4
1997 - 5

It's hard to conceive of a world where McDs are willing to redshirt.

 

[donbosco]

It's hard to conceive of a world where McDs are willing to redshirt.

Injury?

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

So who's your choice to replace Hubert? Scheyer?

A search firm to run a diligent search...
any other senior professional role.

Just throwing names a dartboard not understanding the details of the approach, the commitments they require, and their potential synergies with the institution dows make much sense to me.

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

Who is settling? I just don't think firing Hubert who, in my view, is growing as a coach in every measure is a magic bullet. I don't. I think it would be messy, alienate a lot of fans, and not sure the coaches expressing interest would be stellar. I could be wrong but I am not settling for anything.

How is he growing? His best regular season and post season performances are in the past...and the team just flopped last year.

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

I don't understand this "replace 5 starters" bit. They had top 10 recruits sitting on the bench last year. What we are seeing is mostly just "next man up," which is sort of how all sports operate. And then also adding the national player of the year or at the very least a 1st team AA. I don't see that as terribly impressive.

Hubert has regularly lost to leas talented teams. The same argument people can make about dook, others can make about North Carolina...don't see many Caleb Wilsons out there.

Recruiting is a part of coaching...and the "little engine that could argument" only makes sense if we are not losing to teams with less talent.

Last year was a disaster with a lineup that, on paper, had more talent than 98% of the teams out there. Roster construction was not ideal, but whose fault is that?

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

1. Dean's well oiled recruiting machine was nowhere near as well oiled as the Duke machine. We weren't getting top 5 players year in and year out, and certainly not in those numbers. We had 'Tawn and Vince in a really good recruiting class. Mcinnis too. And then . . . Okulaja. Who turned out to be a great surprise, but the point is that Dean was rarely able to bring in whole classes of nothing but burger boys, and certainly not three or four top 10 recruits a year.

2. Gut was old and had one foot out the door almost from the beginning.

3. I very much doubt that anyone is going to Duke to be coached by Scheyer. You think Cam Boozer gives a shit about Scheyer? What does Scheyer have to teach him? Boozer has had skills trainers since middle school (more than likely), and a Dad who can teach him a few things here or there. After he leaves, he will have plenty more skills trainers and coaches.

Flagg was ready for the pros before he got to Duke. He wasn't looking to be coached. He was looking for a place he could show out for a year and do some winning with the other top 10 talents.

Do you think that Caleb Wilson or Big V plays for Hubert Davis if he's coaching at Boston College?

 

[finesse]

Do you think that Caleb Wilson or Big V plays for Hubert Davis if he's coaching at Boston College?

I figure it's about the same chance as Duke's roster following Scheyer there. Of course, the school matters.

 

[sringwal]

Hubert has regularly lost to leas talented teams. The same argument people can make about dook, others can make about North Carolina...don't see many Caleb Wilsons out there.

Recruiting is a part of coaching...and the "little engine that could argument" only makes sense if we are not losing to teams with less talent.

Last year was a disaster with a lineup that, on paper, had more talent than 98% of the teams out there. Roster construction was not ideal, but whose fault is that?

I don't agree that, under Davis, Carolina has regularly lost to less talented teams. His problem the last couple of years, before this one, was a) his ranking against Q1 teams, and b) his teams' lack of balanced scoring. He was beating the teams that Carolina was clearly more talented then, consistently. This year, that has also by and large been the case. His record against the top 25 (4-1) has been much more stellar then the past couple of years (we are 5-4 in quad one games and undefeated at home). Overall, though, he has beaten the quad 2-4 teams pretty consistently outside of the first two months of his first year, and the disaster of his second.

 

[superrific]

I am simply comparing 82 UNC to Duke 2025. We would have beat those young'uns handily. If you simply mean the eras are different for coaching, obviously.

Oh. 25 would smoke 82. Players are just too much better these days. Cooper Flagg as a freshman > MJ as a freshman. The game would have to be played on 82's terms -- i.e. no 3 point shot. Either no shot clock or a 45 second shot clock. Without 3 point shooting, the Duke 25 team would have a chance. With it, it would be a blowout.

 

[superrific]

Hubert has regularly lost to leas talented teams. The same argument people can make about dook, others can make about North Carolina...don't see many Caleb Wilsons out there.

Recruiting is a part of coaching...and the "little engine that could argument" only makes sense if we are not losing to teams with less talent.

Last year was a disaster with a lineup that, on paper, had more talent than 98% of the teams out there. Roster construction was not ideal, but whose fault is that?

I was just talking about Scheyer.

 

[rodoheel]

Oh. 25 would smoke 82. Players are just too much better these days. Cooper Flagg as a freshman > MJ as a freshman. The game would have to be played on 82's terms -- i.e. no 3 point shot. Either no shot clock or a 45 second shot clock. Without 3 point shooting, the Duke 25 team would have a chance. With it, it would be a blowout.

I think it is impossible to say what would happen in any game between a pre-three-point-line team and a current team. They were literally playing different sports, and the rules were being interpreted differently. Playing by 1982 rules would be a huge advantage for 1982, and playing by current rules would be a huge advantage for 2025. I also tend to agree with you that the modern players tend to be more skilled overall and better physically developed (and better developed at a similar age) than the players from back then. Offset to some degree by the fact that the best players stayed in college longer.

But one note - Flagg wouldn't have matched up against freshman MJ, he would have matched up against junior Worthy

A better hypothetical would be UNC 2009 vs. Duke 2025. Still really impossible to say what would have happened but at least it's closer to comparing apples to apples.

 

[heelinhell]

Given the brave new world of college basketball, I humbly suggest we stop comparing CHD to Roy and Dean...

 

[superrific]

I think it is impossible to say what would happen in any game between a pre-three-point-line team and a current team. They were literally playing different sports, and the rules were being interpreted differently. Playing by 1982 rules would be a huge advantage for 1982, and playing by current rules would be a huge advantage for 2025. I also tend to agree with you that the modern players tend to be more skilled overall and better physically developed (and better developed at a similar age) than the players from back then. Offset to some degree by the fact that the best players stayed in college longer.

But one note - Flagg wouldn't have matched up against freshman MJ, he would have matched up against junior Worthy

A better hypothetical would be UNC 2009 vs. Duke 2025. Still really impossible to say what would have happened but at least it's closer to comparing apples to apples.

Flagg was at least as good as junior Worthy. Anyway, I think I started this line of posts with something like, "I hate these cross eras comparisons because they are meaningless."

My basis for saying that 25 would smoke 82 is quite simple: players are just better now, way better. Being 5 standard deviations above the mean is going to be worse than 2 standard deviations above a considerably higher mean.

BUT, 25 would have a great deal of difficulty adjusting to the officiating, I think. Pretty much any team these days would foul out everyone if they were transported back to the 80s. Likewise, if the officiating was like it is today, 82 would get absolutely crushed and might not even score 30. None of those guys were built to absorb contact (not at that age) because contact wasn't a thing.

 

[stankeylegjones]

I believe that UNC has been fortunate to have 2 of the 5 greatest coaches who have coached basketball at the collegiate level. I never expected that sustained level for success to last beyond Roy, which is why I was, and continue to be, perplexed that people were ready for him to go, despite all that the program endured during the academic scandal phase. And that was before the rise of the NIL era, which has taken many teams time to figure. Expecting anyone to come in and for things to be "business as usual" was foolish.

Has Hubert lived up to my hopes and expectations? No, but he has been closer to them than he has for many of you all, because I was expecting bumps in the road.

My primary issue with the anti-hubert crowd is that the reason you are anti-hubert seems to change each year. I felt the same way about the sliding "but Roy hasn't won a championship"/"he hasn't won a championship with his own players"/'he has won a championship without an experience core"/"yada yada" crowd (and some of the anti-Hubert crowd here were also whining during Roy's tenure."

I don't think Hubert was ready to take the program on from day one (despite the end of year success his first year). Many people pointed out, and I think were right, that you really need experience at another program before taking on something like UNC. With that in mind, many of you who claim that also claim that coaches don't grow after the first few years. I think that is absurd. Good coaches become great coaches over time, provided they are willing to put in the effort, and learn from their mistakes. Hubert has made a number of mistakes, but he seems to be learning from them. I do believe that Hubert has been working towards building a basketball culture at the school that is uniquely his, and I believe that he is onto something special, but isn't there yet.
I've watched other programs like State go from great to mediocre, largely because they pulled the trigger too quickly on coaches with moderate success. The biggest mistake State made was getting rid of Sendek. Hubert reminds me, in a lot of ways, of Sendek. It's part of why I think we need to give him more of a chance.

My greatest concern about Davis' teams is the consistent slow starts. We have found ourselves down in too many games, but generally, have worked out way back into the game as it continued. I would like to see that improve and, if it doesn't improve in the next two years, I believe that there is a call for a new coach.

At the same time - over the last several years we have beaten the 2-4 tier teams consistently, but struggled against tier one. This year, we are balling out vs. Tier one, and struggling in some of our tier two games. Last year, the complaint was that Hubert wasn't winning big games. He is doing that this year. So the anti-Hubert crowd is finding something else to complain about.

This team, and by its nature, Hubert, is more resilient/able to overcome injuries than in past years. They also believe in each other, and seem to have bought into a team first attitude.

Players such as High have stepped into big roles unexpectedly and succeeded. Players who have been in the program for multiple years have grown.

We live in an era of "win now" at all costs. I don't believe in that philosophy, even as I recognize that it is, somewhat, a necessary evil. We are where we are. But if that is all that we are, then we stop being Carolina. We must thread that needle. Hubert has missed a few stitches, but - again - I'm not convinced that they were stitches that anybody else would have made. He was given a nearly impossible task, at an era where college basketball was going through its biggest transition in my lifetime, and he has earned a passing grade.

So, yes, I believe that the program will continue to work under Hubert's guize. I also believe that, short of winning championships/making final fours at the same place that Roy and Dean did, some of you will not be satisfied. If I'm being honest, then I don't think that any coach will satiate your appetite. You can be perennially unhappy about the state of Carolina Basketball, or you can appreciate the gift that the last fifty years has given us as fans, and celebrate the wins moving forward. We are in better shape than you think, right now, and closer to greatness. I don't believe that there is a magic cure-all coach waiting in the wings who is going to get us there, and I believe that Hubert can. I don't know that he will, but he can. For me, that's enough, provided we see incremental improvements most years.

I really appreciate your perspective and the context you provide around Hubert’s time at UNC, especially given the challenges of following Roy, the academic scandal, the NIL era, and all the transitions in college basketball. I still see things differently, though. While it might seem like criticisms of Hubert shift from year to year, I don’t think that’s just moving the goalposts. His record against peer programs teams shows that there are more lows than highs, and that matters when evaluating whether the program is truly trending upward. Things like slow starts, inconsistency, and gaps in roster development aren’t just complaints, they’re indicators of program performance. I agree he’s facing a tough situation and has made some progress, but it’s fair for fans to hold him to the standards that come with running a program like UNC rather than assuming criticism is just impatience.

 

[Bigs23]

A search firm to run a diligent search...
any other senior professional role.

Just throwing names a dartboard not understanding the details of the approach, the commitments they require, and their potential synergies with the institution dows make much sense to me.

It's just a message board. Throw us some names.