Apparently did ch
Maybe the lack of effort or diligence here is the issue. If everything was approved, who could possibly hold this up.
Nah, it’d likely be better than that. A 24-7 regular season finish is typically really good. Look at history over the past 10 years:
The reality is a weak schedule. I actually think this team can win the games they're supposed to, but must avoid bad losses not to get punished by the committee.. even if the record looks good on paper..
You’re looking at historical results largely from UNC teams playing much tougher schedules in much tougher ACCs. Last year Louisville and Clemson went 25-6 and 26-5 and got a 8 seed and a 5 seed. Our non conference schedule is weaker than in recent seasons too (too many cupcakes). I think our goal has to be 6 regular season losses max. If the ACC ends up tougher and 7+ losses still gets us a top 4 seed, great.
Not calling you out in particular but curious why, with the portal chaos and last season as an example of the chaos it has created, anyone can look at a schedule and have any sort of real insight on how easy or difficult it will be. There might be people who can keep up with the roster deletions and additions but I'm more that skeptical that they can do that And predict how they are going to fit together. How many teams would they have to even moderately misjudge to be fairly off in their predictions?
I was thinking that, too. Really need to beat Kansas at home. That would take a lot of pressure off of us, IMO, to beat Kentucky on the road. Think we also need to at least split the neutral site games with Michigan State and Ohio State. If we can get through the OOC schedule 10-2 at worst, the ACC schedule sets up nicely for us to stack a bunch of wins. We'll need to take advantage of the Q1 opportunities we will have against Duke x2, @Virginia, @NC State, and vs. Louisville, but it's there for the taking for us to have a season that is a lot closer to typical Carolina basketball historical standards than most of the last 6 or 7 years have been.
Granted, I haven’t paid much attention to our OOC schedule, but the ACC isn’t much worse (if at all worse) than it was in 2024, when we finished 25-6, #7 in the final AP poll, and got a # 1 seed. Also, unless most of those 7 losses were to come in ACC play, a 24-7 overall record likely means a top-3 finish in the ACC. And while our OOC schedule my be relatively weaker for us compared to previous years, it’s likely not bad relative to other teams with Kansas, Kentucky, and Michigan State in the mix.
Seemed that the minutes that Boskovich got were probably somewhat experimental...but they turned out well and I suspect he earned more...He, Mboup, and Kostic are, it appears, battling for court time as frontcourt reserves. Kostic probably lost out versus us and the other two did well. So if there was experimentation going on it was fruitful.
If the talent is bad, then the onus is more on operations instead of HD. I get the feeling the poster isn't completely comfortable about that. I kinda get it but I'm not sure I think it's fair.
While far off the highs of the ACC glory days, in 2024 the ACC was, in fact, statistically much stronger (per KenPom, +13.02 adjusted net rating required to go .500 in conference) than either 2023 and 2025 (probably the two worst ACC seasons ever - +8.58 and +9.16, respectively). If the ACC this year is more like 2024 than 2023 and 2025 - which is actually what KenPom projects right now, so fingers crossed - then 24-7 may not look that bad, but I would be really surprised if that got us higher than a 4 seed unless several teams on our schedule turn out to be better than expected. Right now, our hardest 10 games are these, roughly in order based on win probability from KenPom:
Last year’ 4 and 5 seeds averaged right at 9 losses each.
It seems that, at least in recent years, the quality of the ACC has been somewhat contingent on the success of UNC.
Difference is that this year there's only 4 games against quality opponents in the non-conference schedule. Assuming they go 3-1, or 2-2, in those games then you're lookin at 5-6 conference losses. 5-6 losses in recent ACC games is not going to look good to the committee.
I definitely don't think there's as much talent as last year's roster, that is for sure. Still, given the schedule, this year's roster is better than 24-7.
I don't think anything will matter this year outside of the record and tournament run. If it's because of lack of talent or lack of coaching, or both, it won't matter. Short of a good seed and tourney run, HD will be gone - and quite frankly, should be.
Well, getting players cleared doesn't seem to be on the coaching staff.
Yes, assuming they actually did get everything cleared before offering a scholarship and a contract.