UNC Football Catch-all | Bill Belichick Era underway

[rodoheel]

Well Bubba agreed with you but some BOT folks wanted Bill
The positive thing is Bill is likely building our program up bigger and better-hopefully the nexy guy in a couple of years will actually be a young energetic recruiting machine/Coach

I hope you're right but no guarantee Bill makes our program "bigger and better." Our 2026 recruiting class is not particularly exciting so far.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I haven't posted much about Belichick in a good while, mainly because I've been in a wait-and-see mode to see how he and the team actually performs on the field. I will say that the whole Jordon Hudson interview brouhaha, while typical celebrity fluff nonsense, was nonetheless very embarrassing. But I hope to god that we do well this year, not just because I'm a UNC fan who wants our sports teams to win, but because if we don't do well the national sports media will have a field day reporting on our "failures" under Belichick and we'll be in the national news nonstop. The reason for hiring Belichick was that he would bring a tougher, winning attitude to the program that would translate to more wins on the field, as well as bring positive national publicity for the school and football program. So far the positive publicity hasn't been there, but if we do have a really good season then maybe it will turn around. Again, I'm just waiting for the season to start and see what happens on the field.

 

[SnoopRob]

I'll ask the same question here. Are we gonna be any good this year?

I'd give the same answer on both threads...

 

[CFordUNC]

We had better hope that we get a version of Bill Belichick that is a hell of a lot better than the one that did not have Tom Brady, before and after. I get that independent of Brady, Belichick is known for being this obsessive, compulsive, detail oriented, no nonsense, no bullshit kind of guy – but so are a whole hell of a lot of other head coaches. I’m not convinced that there is going to be some enormous schematic advantage that we will have. And I do think that North Carolina will become Public Enemy number one on the schedule of pretty much every single team we face this year, so we are going to have the full and undivided attention of all 12 coaching staff and all 12 sets of players whom we will face. I do think we will play with a lot more discipline and a lot more intensity, which by itself can yield more wins than we normally get with our usual half ass coaching.

 

[heel79]

I hope you're right but no guarantee Bill makes our program "bigger and better." Our 2026 recruiting class is not particularly exciting so far.

Got a 4 star today. It is a very big class..top 20 but that is largely because of the numbers not star ratings. I think the hope,/belief is that some of these 3 stars will move up in rankings. I know the QB did. I have no doubt that we will be better coached.

 

[Calheel]

Got a 4 star today. It is a very big class..top 20 but that is largely because of the numbers not star ratings. I think the hope,/belief is that some of these 3 stars will move up in rankings. I know the QB did. I have no doubt that we will be better coached.

With the way the portal operates today, HS recruiting is probably 10th on the list of important skill sets for a college coach. That said, the correct strategy is to recruit numbers over quality, with the hope that you will be able to keep a few discovered gems at a hometown discount in years 2, 3 & 4.

 

[Bobfripp]

Let's face it ...

 

[mpaer]

I hope you're right but no guarantee Bill makes our program "bigger and better." Our 2026 recruiting class is not particularly exciting so far.

Well its already a lot bigger-GM , staff to review a million portal guys-more Nutrition folks
At this point our 2026 recruiting class is starting to push top 20 (clickbait I saw on MSN on my laptop)

 

[SnoopRob]

With the way the portal operates today, HS recruiting is probably 10th on the list of important skill sets for a college coach. That said, the correct strategy is to recruit numbers over quality, with the hope that you will be able to keep a few discovered gems at a hometown discount in years 2, 3 & 4.

I think HS recruiting is a little more complex than that, but you're generally correct.

If you can pull 4 & 5-star recruits, you definitely want to as you'd expect them to have a higher chance of being difference makers for your program, but there are only 5-10 programs who can legitimately load up on those recruits, For everyone else the idea is to target as many 3-star recruits who you think could develop into good players as you can and then weed them out over their first couple of seasons. Let the ones who don't work for you go into portal and do everything you can to retain the ones who develop.

It strikes me that Belichick & staff would be good at that kind of player identification/development/weeding out process, but I guess we'll have to see if they can do it at the college level.

 

[CFordUNC]

UNC has almost always out-talented three-quarters (or more) of the teams on its schedule each year. Where we have frequently fallen short (and therefore has caused us to perennially underachieve) is that we either are at a serious disadvantage from a discipline and toughness standpoint (Mack 2.0), or from a game management and systemic philosophy standpoint (Fedora), or from a schematic standpoint (Butch Davis- offensively), or all of the above (Bunting).

Where I think Belichick will improve us primarily is in the discipline and toughness standpoint, as well as in game management. Improvements in those areas alone, paired with our usual penchant for fielding more talented rosters than 75% of our opponents in a given year, should enable us to win an additional game or two than we have been winning under the previously mentioned coaches. In other words, I don't think we're going to lose very many of our historic "WTF" games against an East Carolina, or a 1-5 UVA, or a 4-7 NCSU, or a Wake Forest, etc.

What I *don't* think is going to happen, is I don't think that we are going to improve our talent advantage and our depth enough to actually win games against teams that have significant talent and depth advantages over us. If we think we can pay players now, there's always going to be a Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Florida, etc. that's going to be willing to pay more. We'll win some recruiting/portal battles, to be sure, but I can't see us winning enough of them to be able to win a conference championship or compete legitimately in the CFP (though, to be sure, the expanded playoff will at least give us a fighting chance to at least get there in the occasional year where everything breaks right for us). I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think we'll see this play out against Clemson this year, Notre Dame/Clemson next year, etc.

With the preemptive caveat that, again, I absolutely, positively would like to be proven incorrect, I stand by my belief that 72 year old Bill Belichick and his NFL staff aren't going to be here long enough to build an actual college program that has the talent and depth to win championships of any kind. But I do agree with other posters who hope that, regardless of how thing whole Belichick experiment goes, it will at least raise the floor for the UNC program in terms of commitment of resources moving forward.

Edited to add: Looking ahead at our future schedules, IF- and it's a massive *if*, one that I think will be a 'no'- but IF Belichick is here in 2027, that's a schedule that UNC can use to make a CFP. We play one team that should have a talent/depth advantage against us, and that's FSU, and it's in Chapel Hill.

 

[Calheel]

I think HS recruiting is a little more complex than that, but you're generally correct.

If you can pull 4 & 5-star recruits, you definitely want to as you'd expect them to have a higher chance of being difference makers for your program, but there are only 5-10 programs who can legitimately load up on those recruits, For everyone else the idea is to target as many 3-star recruits who you think could develop into good players as you can and then weed them out over their first couple of seasons. Let the ones who don't work for you go into portal and do everything you can to retain the ones who develop.

It strikes me that Belichick & staff would be good at that kind of player identification/development/weeding out process, but I guess we'll have to see if they can do it at the college level.

The problem with pulling 4-5 star HS recruits (especially 5 star) are as follows:

1. They are expensive. You could probably pay for ten 3 star recruits for the cost of one 5 star.

2. They often are not ready year one, compared to a portal player who is more physically mature.

3. By the time the talented player shows out on the field, the cost to retain that player goes through the roof. Look at Travis Shaw. He took years to get going, finally showed a bit of a pulse last year, and then Texas outbids us for him and gets his best and last year.

4. If it were like the old days, where you had a decent shot of retaining 5 star talent for 3-4 years, it would make sense to get as much premium talent as possible in HS every year. But that system no longer exists and it makes little sense to blow your budget on high ranked HS guys that will not even be with your program when they finally start to reach their potential.

 

[SnoopRob]

UNC has almost always out-talented three-quarters (or more) of the teams on its schedule each year. Where we have frequently fallen short (and therefore has caused us to perennially underachieve) is that we either are at a serious disadvantage from a discipline and toughness standpoint (Mack 2.0), or from a game management and systemic philosophy standpoint (Fedora), or from a schematic standpoint (Butch Davis- offensively), or all of the above (Bunting).

Where I think Belichick will improve us primarily is in the discipline and toughness standpoint, as well as in game management. Improvements in those areas alone, paired with our usual penchant for fielding more talented rosters than 75% of our opponents in a given year, should enable us to win an additional game or two than we have been winning under the previously mentioned coaches. In other words, I don't think we're going to lose very many of our historic "WTF" games against an East Carolina, or a 1-5 UVA, or a 4-7 NCSU, or a Wake Forest, etc.

What I *don't* think is going to happen, is I don't think that we are going to improve our talent advantage and our depth enough to actually win games against teams that have significant talent and depth advantages over us. If we think we can pay players now, there's always going to be a Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Florida, etc. that's going to be willing to pay more. We'll win some recruiting/portal battles, to be sure, but I can't see us winning enough of them to be able to win a conference championship or compete legitimately in the CFP (though, to be sure, the expanded playoff will at least give us a fighting chance to at least get there in the occasional year where everything breaks right for us). I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think we'll see this play out against Clemson this year, Notre Dame/Clemson next year, etc.

With the preemptive caveat that, again, I absolutely, positively would like to be proven incorrect, I stand by my belief that 72 year old Bill Belichick and his NFL staff aren't going to be here long enough to build an actual college program that has the talent and depth to win championships of any kind. But I do agree with other posters who hope that, regardless of how thing whole Belichick experiment goes, it will at least raise the floor for the UNC program in terms of commitment of resources moving forward.

Edited to add: Looking ahead at our future schedules, IF- and it's a massive *if*, one that I think will be a 'no'- but IF Belichick is here in 2027, that's a schedule that UNC can use to make a CFP. We play one team that should have a talent/depth advantage against us, and that's FSU, and it's in Chapel Hill.

I agree with every bit of this.

For me, success (in the next few seasons) isn't becoming Ole Miss or Florida or Tennessee (much less Clemson or Georgia or tOSU), it's becoming the best version of Carolina Football we can be where we don't drop mystery games or suddenly go in the tank halfway through the season or only compete at a high level on one side of the ball. If we can be a complete team that competes hard and tough week in and week out, I'm likely going to be ok with the W/L record we achieve.

I'd looked at our schedule over the next few years awhile back, as well, and I also noticed our 2027 schedule. In my dream world, our progression goes something like this...win 8 games in 2025 and make a decent bowl, 10 games in 2026 and make a good bowl, 11 (or 12) games in 2027 and make the CFP. I'm not saying we'll do it (in fact, I find it much more likely we don't), but that would make me the happiest Tar Heel on earth if we could pull it off.

 

[SnoopRob]

The problem with pulling 4-5 star HS recruits (especially 5 star) are as follows:

1. They are expensive. You could probably pay for ten 3 star recruits for the cost of one 5 star.

2. They often are not ready year one, compared to a portal player who is more physically mature.

3. By the time the talented player shows out on the field, the cost to retain that player goes through the roof. Look at Travis Shaw. He took years to get going, finally showed a bit of a pulse last year, and then Texas outbids us for him and gets his best and last year.

4. If it were like the old days, where you had a decent shot of retaining 5 star talent for 3-4 years, it would make sense to get as much premium talent as possible in HS every year. But that system no longer exists and it makes little sense to blow your budget on high ranked HS guys that will not even be with your program when they finally start to reach their potential.

I'll respond using your number system...

1. You need difference-makers in your program and 5-stars are far more likely, statistically-speaking, to be/come difference-makers. It's ok if a 5-star is 10x more expensive than a 3-star if the 5-star is at least 11x more likely to be/come a difference-maker, which I think is likely the case. It's ok if a 4-star is 5x more expensive than a 3-star if that 4-star is at least 6x more likely to be/come a difference-maker, which I think is also likely the case. A program like Carolina isn't going to be attract a ton of 4/5-star (especially 5-star) talent, but you need some in the program in hopes that you can pursuade them to stay once they develop.

2. I think immediate readiness is partially determined by position. So perhaps target 4/5-stars for positions that lend themselves to more immediate readiness (maybe QB, WR, RB, CB, & Safety?) and target 3-stars for positions that require more development (linemen & LBs?) plus take the occasional chance on a 4/5-star at "development" positions if you get the opportunity at a truly elite recruit.

3. I think teams have a built-in advantage with retaining their own players who show out on the field over getting them through the portal, which is why you need to develop some real difference-makers in-house. That's why I'd (selectively) recruit a number of 4/5-star players each year in hopes of upping the chances that you acquire and develop top-end talent in-house that is easier to retain than acquire later.

4. I agree that with the portal a team has to be more selective in how they recruit HS talent because the portal has changed everything. But I also think that there is still a place for recruiting 4/5-stars because, if you develop them according to their talent, it gives you the best chance of having real difference-makers in your program that is easier to retain rather than pull from the portal.

 

[Calheel]

I'll respond using your number system...

1. You need difference-makers in your program and 5-stars are far more likely, statistically-speaking, to be/come difference-makers. It's ok if a 5-star is 10x more expensive than a 3-star if the 5-star is at least 11x more likely to be/come a difference-maker, which I think is likely the case. It's ok if a 4-star is 5x more expensive than a 3-star if that 4-star is at least 6x more likely to be/come a difference-maker, which I think is also likely the case. A program like Carolina isn't going to be attract a ton of 4/5-star (especially 5-star) talent, but you need some in the program in hopes that you can pursuade them to stay once they develop.

2. I think immediate readiness is partially determined by position. So perhaps target 4/5-stars for positions that lend themselves to more immediate readiness (maybe QB, WR, RB, CB, & Safety?) and target 3-stars for positions that require more development (linemen & LBs?) plus take the occasional chance on a 4/5-star at "development" positions if you get the opportunity at a truly elite recruit.

3. I think teams have a built-in advantage with retaining their own players who show out on the field over getting them through the portal, which is why you need to develop some real difference-makers in-house. That's why I'd (selectively) recruit a number of 4/5-star players each year in hopes of upping the chances that you acquire and develop top-end talent in-house that is easier to retain than acquire later.

4. I agree that with the portal a team has to be more selective in how they recruit HS talent because the portal has changed everything. But I also think that there is still a place for recruiting 4/5-stars because, if you develop them according to their talent, it gives you the best chance of having real difference-makers in your program that is easier to retain rather than pull from the portal.

Maybe we just had bad luck under Mack, but I can’t remember any difference makers in year 1 from the freshman studs except Howell, but I recall lots of portal studs in year 1.

It is true that it was a lot easier to keep Drake and Omarion than to recruit comparable talent in the portal, but those classes are already dated. Going forward, I’m not sure how easy it will be to keep Drakes and Omarions.

Until we can get multi year contracts, I think the right strategy for UNC is casting a wide HS net. When you have free agency every year, the value of a HS stud goes way down.

 

[SnoopRob]

@Calheel - This annual article about the Blue-Chip Ratio touches on our earlier discussion about HS recruiting, particularly 4* & 5* players...

What about transfers?

Transfers are not factored into the primary Blue-Chip Ratio. Through four years of intense portal activity, no team has won the national title by building through transfers.

Including transfer player ratings, who are, on average, lacking the upside of the elite high school recruits, makes the rankings less accurate. If you look at the incoming 2025 transfer class, it is lacking at the top. This is, according to people in the personnel space, because teams are doing a better job of holding on to their elite talents with revenue share and NIL money. It looks like the window to even attempt to build through the portal is closing. Programs I spoke with were disappointed in the quality of the portal this year.

All elite programs recruit high school talent at a high level and use the portal to patch holes. Meanwhile, teams bringing in 30 or 40 transfers are trying to either jumpstart a rebuild or salvage a coaching tenure.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2025: These 18 college football teams can actually win the national championship

Breaking down the programs that have done well enough on the recruiting trail to win the CFP in the 2025 season

www.cbssports.com

This article provides a bit of evidence that the top players each year don't entire the portal in any real numbers and the way to get those most talented players is to recruit them out of HS and then do everything you can to retain them.

 

[Calheel]

@Calheel - This annual article about the Blue-Chip Ratio touches on our earlier discussion about HS recruiting, particularly 4* & 5* players...

What about transfers?

Transfers are not factored into the primary Blue-Chip Ratio. Through four years of intense portal activity, no team has won the national title by building through transfers.

Including transfer player ratings, who are, on average, lacking the upside of the elite high school recruits, makes the rankings less accurate. If you look at the incoming 2025 transfer class, it is lacking at the top. This is, according to people in the personnel space, because teams are doing a better job of holding on to their elite talents with revenue share and NIL money. It looks like the window to even attempt to build through the portal is closing. Programs I spoke with were disappointed in the quality of the portal this year.

All elite programs recruit high school talent at a high level and use the portal to patch holes. Meanwhile, teams bringing in 30 or 40 transfers are trying to either jumpstart a rebuild or salvage a coaching tenure.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2025: These 18 college football teams can actually win the national championship

Breaking down the programs that have done well enough on the recruiting trail to win the CFP in the 2025 season

www.cbssports.com

This article provides a bit of evidence that the top players each year don't entire the portal in any real numbers and the way to get those most talented players is to recruit them out of HS and then do everything you can to retain them.

The problem with that study is that is already outdated. The portal of today is not the portal of even two years ago. I mean, we were just litigating the Tez Walker situation less than two years ago -- back when the NCAA had the "only transfer once" rule.

It is becoming more and more common for high profile players to transfer for greater money, even from elite to elite programs, e.g., Caleb Downs. That trend will continue under the current system. (I disagree with the author's comment that the portal is less important because retention budgets have increased; I don't think the data bears that out). Unless and until enforceable multi-year contracts become a thing, high school recruiting just isn't that important anymore.

I agree that elite programs can often retain their elite recruited talent but that is largely because those schools have the most resources in the first place. Georgia can load up with five stars and retain them because it has the funds to do so. But still, there will be Caleb Downs types who go for the biggest buck.

For a program like UNC, we simply do not have the financial resources to retain numerous elite 5 stars. We must recruit at a lower level for financial reasons and then hope to retain a significant chunk of the overperformers.

Edit -- I'll add that all that analysis shows is that teams with the biggest budgets tend to perform the best. That is not a surprise. Nor does it really shed any light on how a mid-tier financial budget like UNC should allocate its financial resources.

 

[SnoopRob]

The problem with that study is that is already outdated. The portal of today is not the portal of even two years ago. I mean, we were just litigating the Tez Walker situation less than two years ago -- back when the NCAA had the "only transfer once" rule.

It is becoming more and more common for high profile players to transfer for greater money, even from elite to elite programs, e.g., Caleb Downs. That trend will continue under the current system. (I disagree with the author's comment that the portal is less important because retention budgets have increased; I don't think the data bears that out). Unless and until enforceable multi-year contracts become a thing, high school recruiting just isn't that important anymore.

I agree that elite programs can often retain their elite recruited talent but that is largely because those schools have the most resources in the first place. Georgia can load up with five stars and retain them because it has the funds to do so. But still, there will be Caleb Downs types who go for the biggest buck.

For a program like UNC, we simply do not have the financial resources to retain numerous elite 5 stars. We must recruit at a lower level for financial reasons and then hope to retain a significant chunk of the overperformers.

Edit -- I'll add that all that analysis shows is that teams with the biggest budgets tend to perform the best. That is not a surprise. Nor does it really shed any light on how a mid-tier financial budget like UNC should allocate its financial resources.

The article talks about how the 2025 transfer class has very few elite players despite the large number of players in the portal and how teams have figured out how to keep their elite players in their programs using NIL & rev share funds. That's not outdated information, that's literally the latest information we have.

If that is accurate, then the best way to have elite talent is to recruit it out of HS, which means that teams can't completely give up on HS recruiting nor can they go for a quantity over quality approach in hopes of finding significant "diamonds in the rough". The surest way to have elite production is to recruit elite potential out of HS and then develop that elite potential into elite production once the players are in college.

I do not dispute that the teams with the biggest budgets tend to perform the best. That's as simple a truism as can be. But even for teams like Carolina, the best way (and likely the only way) to get elite talent is to recruit it out of HS and then to develop it appropriately; which practically means getting the 4 and (rare) 5-star recruits that are "gettable" and then doing the best one can do with development. Given that Carolina Football isn't in a place to outspend the big boys for the rare elite production available in the portal, it's the only way to acquire elite production and the only other option is to "do more with less" by not attempting to acquire elite production at all.

 

[Calheel]

The article talks about how the 2025 transfer class has very few elite players despite the large number of players in the portal and how teams have figured out how to keep their elite players in their programs using NIL & rev share funds. That's not outdated information, that's literally the latest information we have.

If that is accurate, then the best way to have elite talent is to recruit it out of HS, which means that teams can't completely give up on HS recruiting nor can they go for a quantity over quality approach in hopes of finding significant "diamonds in the rough". The surest way to have elite production is to recruit elite potential out of HS and then develop that elite potential into elite production once the players are in college.

I do not dispute that the teams with the biggest budgets tend to perform the best. That's as simple a truism as can be. But even for teams like Carolina, the best way (and likely the only way) to get elite talent is to recruit it out of HS and then to develop it appropriately; which practically means getting the 4 and (rare) 5-star recruits that are "gettable" and then doing the best one can do with development. Given that Carolina Football isn't in a place to outspend the big boys for the rare elite production available in the portal, it's the only way to acquire elite production and the only other option is to "do more with less" by not attempting to acquire elite production at all.

But that simply isn’t financially feasible for UNC. There is no way UNC can afford elite HS talent and it especially cannot afford to retain that talent. It would be a huge waste of our limited financial resources to spend on elite talent that we cannot afford to retain.

 

[SnoopRob]

But that simply isn’t financially feasible for UNC. There is no way UNC can afford elite HS talent and it especially cannot afford to retain that talent. It would be a huge waste of our limited financial resources to spend on elite talent that we cannot afford to retain.

We currently have eight (8) 4-stars committed for 2026, even if some of them were to ultimately go elsewhere, do you think all of them are a figment of our collective imaginations?

 

[Calheel]

We currently have eight (8) 4-stars committed for 2026, even if some of them were to ultimately go elsewhere, do you think all of them are a figment of our collective imaginations?

Four stars are affordable. Five stars aren’t. Our sweet spot should be about 10 four stars every year and a bunch of high three stars and an occasional 5 star.