Hubert Davis Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeoBloom
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 42K
  • UNC Sports 
stankeylegjones said:
I'd say teams performing around the top 8-10 are considered serious contenders for the final weekend. I don't think I'm in the minority here. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of folks agree with that. Hence, why I didn't think it needed to be stated.

What do you consider the cutoff for teams to be considered serious contenders for the final weekend?
Click to expand...
Any team that could legitimately make a final four run. We were certainly in that group after the first Duke game.
 
rodoheel said:
I didnt say it wouldnt have. I agree with you that we will never know. That’s why we have to judge the team on what actually happened, not “what if.” People have a tendency to count these sort of “what if” scenarios as an assumption that the rosiest scenario would have occurred.
Click to expand...
And that is why I grade this year as an incomplete. Which in some ways is the worst possible outcome.
 
Calheel said:
Any team that could legitimately make a final four run. We were certainly in that group after the first Duke game.
Click to expand...
Based on what exactly would you put us in that group?

Like I said, those teams performing around the level of a top 8-10 team legitimately could make a final four run. Outside of that, you're looking at dark horses and/or teams who'd need a lot of their bracket to break right.
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
I'm going to steal rodo's list and work from there:

Tier 1: "I really doubt they leave their current school but you gotta call and ask"
  • Tommy Lloyd
  • Dusty May
  • Matt Painter
  • Todd Golden (personally, I'd have him off the board anyway for personal reasons, but I understand if others don't)
Tier 2: "The top realistic targets"
  • TJ Olzeberger (my personal choice)
  • Nate Oats
Tier 3: "Minor potential concerns but still good hires on paper"
  • Brad Underwood (too old?)
  • Fred Hoiberg (How lasting will his success at Nebraska be, and does he still really want the NBA?)
  • Mark Byington (can he be elite, or just consistently very good?)
  • Ryan Odom (would really love to see another good year at UVA first)
___________________________

IMO Brad Stevens is 1A above any of rodo's Tier 1. Obtainable? Likely not. But he's a slam dunk. Tommy Lloyd is 1B. Dusty May is a clear 2 with Painter at 3. Todd Golden is an absolute no for me. TJ and Nate are both a clear step down to me... I'd call them 4-ish. High risk, potential high reward... similar to the risk we took with HD. Would prefer we don't go there. I don't like Oates, so for me the options end with Painter, but TJ is worst case scenario if we are determined to fire HD and move on whether we get better or not.
Click to expand...
I'm not weighing into whether Hubert should be retained or let go as head coach, but I am skeptical that Brad Stevens is a slam dunk. He hasn't coached a single game of college basketball in well over a decade, and the college game has changed enormously since then in terms of paying players and easy transfer rules. For all intents and purposes the college sports world he coached in doesn't really exist anymore. Yes he has NBA connections and was a great young coach in his day, and he might indeed be able to return to a college coaching gig and do well right away, but I wouldn't call him a slam dunk hire, imo. TBH I don't think he will ever return to college coaching given how much he's making as an NBA team executive, so it's very unlikely to happen anyway.
 
Last edited:
stankeylegjones said:
Based on what exactly would you put us in that group?

Like I said, those teams performing around the level of a top 8-10 team legitimately could make a final four run. Outside of that, you're looking at dark horses and/or teams who'd need a lot of their bracket to break right.
Click to expand...
Every team is a dark horse. Even a 1 seed is only 42% likely to make the final four. And a two seed is about 25%. So almost all teams need everything to break right to make the Final Four.
 
Calheel said:
Every team is a dark horse. Even a 1 seed is only 42% likely to make the final four. And a two seed is about 25%. So almost all teams need everything to break right to make the Final Four.
Click to expand...
I don't think many, at all, agree with your statement that every team is a dark horse. But, given that term is ambiguous, there is no use in arguing over it.

Now, back to my question, based on what exactly would you put us in that group ("any team that legitimately could make a run for the final four")? And what is your cutoff for determining "any team that legitimately could make a run for the final four?"
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
I'm going to steal rodo's list and work from there:

Tier 1: "I really doubt they leave their current school but you gotta call and ask"
  • Tommy Lloyd
  • Dusty May
  • Matt Painter
  • Todd Golden (personally, I'd have him off the board anyway for personal reasons, but I understand if others don't)
Tier 2: "The top realistic targets"
  • TJ Olzeberger (my personal choice)
  • Nate Oats
Tier 3: "Minor potential concerns but still good hires on paper"
  • Brad Underwood (too old?)
  • Fred Hoiberg (How lasting will his success at Nebraska be, and does he still really want the NBA?)
  • Mark Byington (can he be elite, or just consistently very good?)
  • Ryan Odom (would really love to see another good year at UVA first)
___________________________

IMO Brad Stevens is 1A above any of rodo's Tier 1. Obtainable? Likely not. But he's a slam dunk. Tommy Lloyd is 1B. Dusty May is a clear 2 with Painter at 3. Todd Golden is an absolute no for me. TJ and Nate are both a clear step down to me... I'd call them 4-ish. High risk, potential high reward... similar to the risk we took with HD. Would prefer we don't go there. I don't like Oates, so for me the options end with Painter, but TJ is worst case scenario if we are determined to fire HD and move on whether we get better or not.
Click to expand...
That's a good list.

Although I'm a lot higher on TJO than you are.
 
stankeylegjones said:
You sure do like blaming the players...for everything. You don't find it curious that several players have come to UNC and found their shooting to take a hit? When that happens across multiple players, you have to wonder if it's the way they being coached/treated.
Click to expand...
You mean like Max Owens? Or Brian Morrison? Michael Booker? Will Graves?
 
stankeylegjones said:
I don't think many, at all, agree with your statement that every team is a dark horse. But, given that term is ambiguous, there is no use in arguing over it.

Now, back to my question, based on what exactly would you put us in that group ("any team that legitimately could make a run for the final four")? And what is your cutoff for determining "any team that legitimately could make a run for the final four?"
Click to expand...
That is not an easy thing to quantify. In particular, I don’t think metrics are a great way to quantify that quality.

I think a team needs a good record, a demonstrated ability to play elite teams close (and sometimes win), some experience in the backcourt and a couple of dynamic playmakers. An experienced final four coach is a plus.

This UNC team before the Caleb injury was the best UNC teams under Hubert, save the 24 team. I thought it had a very legitimate chance to make a run to the final four, although bracket luck and game luck needed to be on our side.
 
Calheel said:
That is not an easy thing to quantify. In particular, I don’t think metrics are a great way to quantify that quality.

I think a team needs a good record, a demonstrated ability to play elite teams close (and sometimes win), some experience in the backcourt and a couple of dynamic playmakers. An experienced final four coach is a plus.

This UNC team before the Caleb injury was the best UNC teams under Hubert, save the 24 team. I thought it had a very legitimate chance to make a run to the final four, although bracket luck and game luck needed to be on our side.
Click to expand...
I think the metrics are the best, we currently have, way to judge the performance of a team. At the time CWilson went down, that team was not performing at the level of a team that I would say would be a legit contender to make the final weekend. The team proved that it could definitely beat good teams. It also proved that it could lose to bad teams. That team struggled away from home. That team was very inconsistent. I just don't see how anyone could realistically say they were a legit final four contender. I do seem to recall you saying that others were saying they were. I'd like to read their reasons for why they felt that way, if you'd be kind enough to link those stories. (If I'm mistaken about you saying it, my apologies.)

Addressing your "check boxes." That team had very little experience in the backcourt. The backcourt was a weak link on the team. That team had one "dynamic" play maker - probably the best freshmen we've had in the past 30 years, if not longer. (I freaking love watching that kid play.)

I agree with you, they could have gone on a magical run in the tourney. I just think that is what it would have taken, a magical run.
 
stankeylegjones said:
I think the metrics are the best, we currently have, way to judge the performance of a team. At the time CWilson went down, that team was not performing at the level of a team that I would say would be a legit contender to make the final weekend. The team proved that it could definitely beat good teams. It also proved that it could lose to bad teams. That team struggled away from home. That team was very inconsistent. I just don't see how anyone could realistically say they were a legit final four contender. I do seem to recall you saying that others were saying they were. I'd like to read their reasons for why they felt that way, if you'd be kind enough to link those stories. (If I'm mistaken about you saying it, my apologies.)

Addressing your "check boxes." That team had very little experience in the backcourt. The backcourt was a weak link on the team. That team had one "dynamic" play maker - probably the best freshmen we've had in the past 30 years, if not longer. (I freaking love watching that kid play.)

I agree with you, they could have gone on a magical run in the tourney. I just think that is what it would have taken, a magical run.
Click to expand...
If the current roster makes the final four that would be a magical run. The roster that beat Duke just needed a fortunate run.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I'm not weighing into whether Hubert should be retained or let go as head coach, but I am skeptical that Brad Stevens is a slam dunk. He hasn't coached a single game of college basketball in well over a decade, and the college game has changed enormously since then in terms of paying players and easy transfer rules. For all intents and purposes the college sports world he coached in doesn't really exist anymore. Yes he has NBA connections and was a great young coach in his day, and he might indeed be able to return to a college coaching gig and do well right away, but I wouldn't call him a slam dunk hire, imo. TBH I don't think he will ever return to college coaching given how much he's making as an NBA team executive, so it's very unlikely to happen anyway.
Click to expand...

Brad Stevens would be a great hire: he'd blow away any other candidate we could even consider. He was a great college coach and a great NBA coach. His time as NBA GM probably has made him even better suited for the modern college basketball landscape. I'm not sure he ever returns to the sidelines (seem to remember a story about burnout and wanting to see his kids grow up).
 
The more o read this thread and others in other places the more I think Head Men’s Basketball Coach at Carolina is a job like President — no one that is crazy enough to want it ought to be permitted to have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top