UNC Football Catch-all | Bill Belichick Era underway

[wmheel1287]

If it leads to being able to hire the best GM when we're moving on to a new staff, then I'm okay with it.

That has been the best thing about this hire for me, that we're finally starting to put resources into the program.

None of these resources last past Belichick. The people who did this are completely transactional and have no real stake or care for long term success. They bought and wanted the show, spectacle, and to exert their power.

 

[wmheel1287]

Yep. It's a gamble, but at least we're trying something very different from our norm.

Yeah... logic like this is how true disasters are made.

 

[gregh1]

The Tyler Thompson thing could easily be about not liking his role, hating his coaches, not getting enough snaps, or just doing what Beau did (money and a chance to play for a powerhouse).

Good teams across the nation are losing a few good players. Middling teams are losing many good players. And lowly programs are definitely losing a bunch of good players. We're middling.

Beau would've helped this D last yr, but what if paying Beau meant we couldn't afford Isaiah Johnson and D'Antre Robinson, then we'd be softer up the middle which is the starting point of the D - keeping him would ultimately have hurt in that case. Can't keep them all, we're just going to have to wait 9 months to see what the D looks like without Thompson/House.

 

[CFordUNC]

Yep. It's a gamble, but at least we're trying something very different from our norm.

Yeah. I don't necessarily disagree with us doing that, but I'd have much preferred the "outside of our norm" to have been 'invest this same enormous amount of money into Matt Campbell or Jon Sumrall last offseason instead of a 73-year-old out-of-work pro coach who has never spent one second in college football.' My biggest gripe with this whole gamble has always been that the PTB's and decision-makers at UNC care far too much about making splashy instead of substantive hires. In other words, the wealthy people calling the shots care more about hiring celebrities (Belichick) or golf buddies (Mack) than they do hiring good coaches. Until or unless that changes, UNC is never going to be good in football. The idea that *only* Mack Brown or *only* Bill Belichick can be the impetus behind the wealthiest benefactors opening their wallets is going to continue to be an albatross for the University to ever be truly good in football.

 

[gregh1]

Yeah... logic like this is how true disasters are made.

We're talking about a game. It generates revenue, so you don't want to kill it, but a losing season is hardly a disaster. Worst case scenario we're horrible in 26 and 27 and have to hire a new coach who inherits something just as void as BB inherited. UNC's baseline is mediocre, that is never too far away.

 

[wmheel1287]

We're talking about a game. It generates revenue, so you don't want to kill it, but a losing season is hardly a disaster. Worst case scenario we're horrible in 26 and 27 and have to hire a new coach who inherits something just as void as BB inherited. UNC's baseline is mediocre, that is never too far away.

That is far from worst case scenario. Worst case is we are left bankrupt and worse off that we began. That is a real possibility. We won't sell enough tickets next year to pay this freight.

 

[stankeylegjones]

None of these resources last past Belichick. The people who did this are completely transactional and have no real stake or care for long term success. They bought and wanted the show, spectacle, and to exert their power.

Well then, we'll be right back where we were prior to Belichick. I hope you're wrong about the money.

 

[wmheel1287]

Well then, we'll be right back where we were prior to Belichick. I hope you're wrong about the money.

No, we will not. The previous sources have been sufficiently alienated that those bridges are largely burned.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Yeah. I don't necessarily disagree with us doing that, but I'd have much preferred the "outside of our norm" to have been 'invest this same enormous amount of money into Matt Campbell or Jon Sumrall last offseason instead of a 73-year-old out-of-work pro coach who has never spent one second in college football.' My biggest gripe with this whole gamble has always been that the PTB's and decision-makers at UNC care far too much about making splashy instead of substantive hires. In other words, the wealthy people calling the shots care more about hiring celebrities (Belichick) or golf buddies (Mack) than they do hiring good coaches. Until or unless that changes, UNC is never going to be good in football. The idea that *only* Mack Brown or *only* Bill Belichick can be the impetus behind the wealthiest benefactors opening their wallets is going to continue to be an albatross for the University to ever be truly good in football.

Oh absolutely. But, they weren't going to invest this much money in those two. The hope is that they continue to invest this much money and support into the next staff.

 

[stankeylegjones]

No, we will not. The previous sources have been sufficiently alienated that those bridges are largely burned.

By "right back where we were" I mean a basketball school whose football team sometimes wins 8 games in a season, sometimes looses 8 games in a season.

Historically, we're an average football program (55% winning).

 

[wmheel1287]

By "right back where we were" I mean a basketball school whose football team sometimes wins 8 games in a season.

Yeah, I think we will all wish thats where we are. You know the same funds sources that have traditionally funded football also fund basketball and everything else, right? This hire and staff have ruptured the UNC status quo. If it fails, we fail. They sold out the entire athletic department and all the historical relationships for this thing.

 

[gregh1]

Yeah, I think we will all wish thats where we are. You know the same funds sources that have traditionally funded football also fund basketball and everything else, right? This hire and staff have ruptured the UNC status quo. If it fails, we fail. They sold out the entire athletic department and all the historical relationships for this thing.

I'm having trouble envisioning all donor-class people just severing ties with UNC sports for good unless there were already fractures, fissures and disdain due to NIL and modern things unrelated to the BB hire. You feel BB lasting two more years would cause people to just quit taking interest in UNC fball forever?

 

[stankeylegjones]

Yeah, I think we will all wish thats where we are. You know the same funds sources that have traditionally funded football also fund basketball and everything else, right? This hire and staff have ruptured the UNC status quo. If it fails, we fail. They sold out the entire athletic department and all the historical relationships for this thing.

Like I said before, hopefully you're wrong on this.

 

[CFordUNC]

The concern that I personally have as it pertains to the financial piece of this whole experiment is that a lot of our fans seem to think that future funding at this currently-high level is inevitable. It is not, IMO. While UNC is a very well-resourced public university with a good donor base and sizable endowments (both the university and the athletics department), it is not a place that has people who are willing to spend limitless amounts of money to prop up the football program like you see at places like LSU, Texas Tech, Alabama, Ole Miss, etc., etc., etc. What I mean by that is that those types of places (i.e., every school in the SEC) would gladly spend their last dollar to try to win a football game, and their donors fully support that mindset. UNC doesn't have those people. LSU, for example, has people who would rather their on-campus libraries quite literally crumble in place as long as they can spend $30 million to install nap pods in the football team's locker room. The vast majority of UNC people with money and influence would turn Kenan Stadium into a chemistry lab before letting that happen.

To put this into perspective, UNC recently concluded a $5 billion university-wide fundraising campaign, of which $600 million (12% of the overall campaign) was earmarked specifically for Athletics. By contrast, the University of Alabama recently concluded a $1 billion university-wide fundraising campaign, of which $600 million (60%) was specifically earmarked for Athletics. The fact that a purported R1 research university would have a comprehensive campaign where 60% of the goal was specific to Athletics is staggering and extremely revealing as to both institutional and donor priorities.

My thesis is that even though schools like Texas Tech, Texas A&M, LSU, Auburn, etc. will happily continue lighting donor money on fire to cycle through coaches every 2-3 years- and their donors will happily let them do so- those are a very, very stark contrast to the donor culture at UNC. UNC desperately needs for *THIS* very specific $100 million experiment to work out, and work out very quickly, or there is going to be a lot of people who withdraw their financial support of the football program. As it stands, we had to drag several prominent donor families kicking and screaming to the table to secure the resources necessary to hire this staff and provide the current infrastructure. Many of those people are already extremely turned off by how poorly this whole thing is going and how they've been treated. I would not want to be the UNC Development personnel having to go salve those relationships anytime soon.

The other enormously complicating factor financially for UNC is that we are apparently about to go full steam ahead with building a brand new basketball arena. UNC is going to need each and every single donor family with any capacity and any remote affinity for Carolina Athletics to support that project. Guess which one, if forced to choose between a new Carolina Basketball arena or propping up a failing football coaching staff, most of them are going to choose?

 

[wmheel1287]

I'm having trouble envisioning all donor-class people just severing ties with UNC sports for good unless there were already fractures, fissures and disdain due to NIL and modern things unrelated to the BB hire. You feel BB lasting two more years would cause people to just quit taking interest in UNC fball forever?

Yes, all of those fractures are precisely why this hire has done so much damage so quickly. The folks who were reaching a boiling point of frustration with college sports were essentially shoved out the door by "this is the way it is now. Get on board or find somewhere else".

 

[stankeylegjones]

The concern that I personally have as it pertains to the financial piece of this whole experiment is that a lot of our fans seem to think that future funding at this currently-high level is inevitable. It is not, IMO. While UNC is a very well-resourced public university with a good donor base and sizable endowments (both the university and the athletics department), it is not a place that has people who are willing to spend limitless amounts of money to prop up the football program like you see at places like LSU, Texas Tech, Alabama, Ole Miss, etc., etc., etc. What I mean by that is that those types of places (i.e., every school in the SEC) would gladly spend their last dollar to try to win a football game, and their donors fully support that mindset. UNC doesn't have those people. LSU, for example, has people who would rather their on-campus libraries quite literally crumble in place as long as they can spend $30 million to install nap pods in the football team's locker room. The vast majority of UNC people with money and influence would turn Kenan Stadium into a chemistry lab before letting that happen.

To put this into perspective, UNC recently concluded a $5 billion university-wide fundraising campaign, of which $600 million (12% of the overall campaign) was earmarked specifically for Athletics. By contrast, the University of Alabama recently concluded a $1 billion university-wide fundraising campaign, of which $600 million (60%) was specifically earmarked for Athletics. The fact that a purported R1 research university would have a comprehensive campaign where 60% of the goal was specific to Athletics is staggering and extremely revealing as to both institutional and donor priorities.

My thesis is that even though schools like Texas Tech, Texas A&M, LSU, Auburn, etc. will happily continue lighting donor money on fire to cycle through coaches every 2-3 years- and their donors will happily let them do so- those are a very, very stark contrast to the donor culture at UNC. UNC desperately needs for *THIS* very specific $100 million experiment to work out, and work out very quickly, or there is going to be a lot of people who withdraw their financial support of the football program. As it stands, we had to drag several prominent donor families kicking and screaming to the table to secure the resources necessary to hire this staff and provide the current infrastructure. Many of those people are already extremely turned off by how poorly this whole thing is going and how they've been treated. I would not want to be the UNC Development personnel having to go salve those relationships anytime soon.

The other enormously complicating factor financially for UNC is that we are apparently about to go full steam ahead with building a brand new basketball arena. UNC is going to need each and every single donor family with any capacity and any remote affinity for Carolina Athletics to support that project. Guess which one, if forced to choose between a new Carolina Basketball arena or propping up a failing football coaching staff, most of them are going to choose?

I wonder how much revenue there is in big-time college football plays a role in these decisions? A lot of schools in the SEC are building new buildings, funding research, etc., from the money their football teams bring in (tv deals, merch, applicants, and so on).

 

[CarolinaFever]

Xavier Lewis (walkon turned contributor) Rolesville High class of '25
Reggie Love II (Mack walk-on) Rolesville High class of '23
Nathan Leacock hometown:Rolesville (went to milbrook high) class of '23

We just landed '27 4* safety Marquis Bryant over perennial top-5 teams from...... ROLESVILLE in Wake county, basically part of Raleigh sprawl. Love, Lewis, Marquis Bryant all played for the same HS coach.

Wouldn't Xavier and the others warn Marquis of the turrrible terrors under BB? Or wouldn't his awareness of Jordon have scared him off?

I remember when all the good players in the area went to Wake Forest High, and they won 3 straight state titles. Then they built Roseville High and we found out where all the good players actually came from into Wake Forest.

 

[wmheel1287]

The concern that I personally have as it pertains to the financial piece of this whole experiment is that a lot of our fans seem to think that future funding at this currently-high level is inevitable. It is not, IMO. While UNC is a very well-resourced public university with a good donor base and sizable endowments (both the university and the athletics department), it is not a place that has people who are willing to spend limitless amounts of money to prop up the football program like you see at places like LSU, Texas Tech, Alabama, Ole Miss, etc., etc., etc. What I mean by that is that those types of places (i.e., every school in the SEC) would gladly spend their last dollar to try to win a football game, and their donors fully support that mindset. UNC doesn't have those people. LSU, for example, has people who would rather their on-campus libraries quite literally crumble in place as long as they can spend $30 million to install nap pods in the football team's locker room. The vast majority of UNC people with money and influence would turn Kenan Stadium into a chemistry lab before letting that happen.

To put this into perspective, UNC recently concluded a $5 billion university-wide fundraising campaign, of which $600 million (12% of the overall campaign) was earmarked specifically for Athletics. By contrast, the University of Alabama recently concluded a $1 billion university-wide fundraising campaign, of which $600 million (60%) was specifically earmarked for Athletics. The fact that a purported R1 research university would have a comprehensive campaign where 60% of the goal was specific to Athletics is staggering and extremely revealing as to both institutional and donor priorities.

My thesis is that even though schools like Texas Tech, Texas A&M, LSU, Auburn, etc. will happily continue lighting donor money on fire to cycle through coaches every 2-3 years- and their donors will happily let them do so- those are a very, very stark contrast to the donor culture at UNC. UNC desperately needs for *THIS* very specific $100 million experiment to work out, and work out very quickly, or there is going to be a lot of people who withdraw their financial support of the football program. As it stands, we had to drag several prominent donor families kicking and screaming to the table to secure the resources necessary to hire this staff and provide the current infrastructure. Many of those people are already extremely turned off by how poorly this whole thing is going and how they've been treated. I would not want to be the UNC Development personnel having to go salve those relationships anytime soon.

The other enormously complicating factor financially for UNC is that we are apparently about to go full steam ahead with building a brand new basketball arena. UNC is going to need each and every single donor family with any capacity and any remote affinity for Carolina Athletics to support that project. Guess which one, if forced to choose between a new Carolina Basketball arena or propping up a failing football coaching staff, most of them are going to choose?

You have expressed in much greater clarity and detail my own point. The people running Carolina right now are treating UNC fans and donors like they are Bama fans and donors and it is going to over like a turd in a punch bowl.

Oh, and the new Smith Center will only exacerbate that.

 

[CarolinaFever]

Contracts alone won't solve the problem because the specifics of the NIL laws/regulations state that payment can't be "pay for play" and must be tied to revenue based on player's name, image, & likeness (which is a little fuzzy with revenue sharing, but still fits under this rule). So while the NIL contract can incentivize the player to stay at that particular school, there's really no known way to write the contract that actual binds the player to the school.

Then they need to make rules about transferring, like sitting out a season or only being able to transfer once. Something needs to be done because that is what is really making it hard for fans to be invested.

 

[SnoopRob]

Then they need to make rules about transferring, like sitting out a season or only being able to transfer once. Something needs to be done because that is what is really making it hard for fans to be invested.

I believe courts have struck down rules on both sitting out a year due to transferring or limiting SAs to one transfer.

For those rules (or others like them) to be (re)instated, there will almost certainly have to be collective bargaining.