UNC ONLY BASKETBALL 2024-25 SEASON

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 71K
  • UNC Sports 
CFordUNC said:
The worst part to me about Carolina basketball now is that I'm simply apathetic. If I happen to watch the game, fine. If I don't watch the game, fine. If we win, nice. If we lose, oh well. I miss the days of being much more emotionally invested. Apathy sucks, but so does the current landscape of college sport as a whole. I'd much rather be in the days where a loss like the ones to Stanford or Wake Forest would have royally pissed me off instead of meriting a half-shrug.
Click to expand...
Same here. I used to never miss a game.

Now I record them and typically need to know they won before watching. I made a mistake last night and watched live.

I hate commercials.
 
Heelsandeers said:
It is amazing how many players come into the program and lose or never gain the ability to shoot

As much as I love what Seth brings to the table on defense and in transition his inability to create or shoot really limits the offense and the pairing next to other non-shooters is dreadful

If HD is going to continue to run the type of offense he has been he HAS to find better shooters
Click to expand...
Seth, like others, seems to do better when we are passing and spreading the floor.

I get sick of watching players drive, knowing that when the double or triple team comes, they will not pass.

That's the perfect time to pass.
 
Heelsandeers said:
IIRC the 2022-2023 team rated some ridiculously low percentile from corner 3's which are a staple look in HD's offense and the easiest shots to make

Think shots going to Leaky, Nance, Puff, Dunn, etc mostly off drive and kicks or when the help side defender leaves his man to defend the roller. I'd say those are usually pretty good looks but there has to be more to it
Click to expand...
I agree those are good looks if they're going to the right folks. A corner 3 by Leaky wasn't a good look no matter how open it was because he was unlikely to hit it. But we can't say that the issue is that we recruit only/mostly bad shooters, because we seemingly have some decent shooters who don't do that well at shooting.

I also don't know that we do well at getting 3 point shooters, even those who are open, the ball in a way that gets them into their shooting position. Some of the passes I see aren't exactly precise.

And our offense often seems to devolve into pounding the leather off the ball and then trying to get something up as the clock runs down, which are obviously not typically great shots.

I'm not saying that Hubert's offense is terrible at all times, but i don't think it does a consistent job of getting the right players the ball in a position to score that plays to their strengths.
 
SnoopRob said:
I won’t comment on international soccer as that doesn’t relate to US laws that govern American sports.

For everything else in the US, the key is that every significant pro sports league has a player union that agrees to a collective bargaining agreement. Without that, all the other leagues would have similar chaos to college sports & NIL.

For whatever reason, college presidents (who ultimately represent their colleges to the NCAA and determine the NCAA rules) are loath to admit the players are employees so that the players can create a union and collectively bargain. I don’t think there is a simple reason for this, instead different schools at different levels have different reasons, but the takeaway has been that there’s little movement on the NCAA side to take this needed step. And without the NCAA pushing for it, the players are no longer interested as they now largely have the power. And without a union & CBA, there is little the NCAA can do concerning rules regarding NIL & transfers.

I do think that eventually the NCAA (or some other collective of colleges regarding athletics) will end up admitting the players are employees leading to a union & CBA. The unknowns are how long it will take, who ends up at what levels, and the chaos we’ll all have to endure to get there.
Click to expand...
1. You are right about the US players' unions. Well, almost right. Baseball has antitrust immunity for some reason. It's an odd quirk in the law. But that aside, you are correct. However, that doesn't mean the collective bargaining aspect is necessary.

2. I was an antitrust attorney, and I will summarize how I see the issues presenting in this case. This is a logical progression, not a temporal one.

A. The first inquiry is: does this sports league violate antitrust law in any way? If clearly no, then nothing else is needed. It's just a joint venture (more or less).
B. If you answer yes, maybe or even probably not, it means the sports league has possible legal exposure. So the leagues find it advisable to rely on the safe harbor of the Norris-LaGuardia Act that exempts labor union contracts from antitrust scrutiny. It's not necessary, but it is sufficient.
C. If a league can't recognize a union for whatever reason, it can still fight any antitrust case brought against it.

Here's where the nature of antitrust comes into play. Essentially, antitrust laws only prescribe "unreasonable" restraints of trade. If an economic arrangement is reasonable, it is valid even if it has anti-competitive effects. In evaluating the reasonableness of a sports league's restraints, the court will naturally look to other sports leagues. If all other sports leagues have these kinds of rules, it suggests strongly that the rules are reasonable and indeed even required for a sports league to succeed. So it doesn't matter what law is applied in European football. It's the economic details that matter.

As for why universities don't want players to unionize, I think there are a lot of potentially valid reasons. First, if a public university recognizes the players as employees, they might get covered under state public employee laws. Changing the sports administration from a system enrolling students (so to speak) to enrolling students and employees would seem to have some potential to go sideways. Are the players also going to be students? Well, suppose they do something wrong. Are they subject to the Honor Code as students, or a different code of conduct as employees? What procedural protections do they get in each forum? Do they get to choose the forum?

It's not that I think these questions are necessarily difficult. In many cases, they just entail a choice. The point is, though, that a change of that magnitude can often create a lot of problem in other areas. It's hard to predict all interaction effects between a fundamental change in athletic department organization and everything else at the school. And I don't consider it surprising that universities don't want to open these cans of worms. It doesn't make that a good decision, but it seems not ridiculous to me.
 
superrific said:
1. You are right about the US players' unions. Well, almost right. Baseball has antitrust immunity for some reason. It's an odd quirk in the law. But that aside, you are correct. However, that doesn't mean the collective bargaining aspect is necessary.

2. I was an antitrust attorney, and I will summarize how I see the issues presenting in this case. This is a logical progression, not a temporal one.

A. The first inquiry is: does this sports league violate antitrust law in any way? If clearly no, then nothing else is needed. It's just a joint venture (more or less).
B. If you answer yes, maybe or even probably not, it means the sports league has possible legal exposure. So the leagues find it advisable to rely on the safe harbor of the Norris-LaGuardia Act that exempts labor union contracts from antitrust scrutiny. It's not necessary, but it is sufficient.
C. If a league can't recognize a union for whatever reason, it can still fight any antitrust case brought against it.

Here's where the nature of antitrust comes into play. Essentially, antitrust laws only prescribe "unreasonable" restraints of trade. If an economic arrangement is reasonable, it is valid even if it has anti-competitive effects. In evaluating the reasonableness of a sports league's restraints, the court will naturally look to other sports leagues. If all other sports leagues have these kinds of rules, it suggests strongly that the rules are reasonable and indeed even required for a sports league to succeed. So it doesn't matter what law is applied in European football. It's the economic details that matter.

As for why universities don't want players to unionize, I think there are a lot of potentially valid reasons. First, if a public university recognizes the players as employees, they might get covered under state public employee laws. Changing the sports administration from a system enrolling students (so to speak) to enrolling students and employees would seem to have some potential to go sideways. Are the players also going to be students? Well, suppose they do something wrong. Are they subject to the Honor Code as students, or a different code of conduct as employees? What procedural protections do they get in each forum? Do they get to choose the forum?

It's not that I think these questions are necessarily difficult. In many cases, they just entail a choice. The point is, though, that a change of that magnitude can often create a lot of problem in other areas. It's hard to predict all interaction effects between a fundamental change in athletic department organization and everything else at the school. And I don't consider it surprising that universities don't want to open these cans of worms. It doesn't make that a good decision, but it seems not ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...
1. Despite having an antitrust exemption, MLB players still have the MLBPA and there is still a CBA between the players' union and the teams.

2. While I think not having students declared as employees was a issue back in the day for universities, I'm not convinced that is the case now. Most universities hire students as employees (even beyond work-study positions) and so I think they likely know how to handle that process. And given that players are now getting paid, I think that concern has been largely removed.

My hunch is that the NCAA's inaction has more to do with its structure and the inherent lack of consensus across the member institutions as to how to proceed. (I also think it has a lot to do with different visions for college sports among different levels of schools in the NCAA.)

The ability to pay players and how to handle this issue almost certainly varies a lot depending the the position of the school. There are clear differences between Charlotte and ECU and UNC...much less adding in the Bamas and tOSUs of college football. (And those are all FBS level schools, there also has to be some understanding between the FCS, D2, and D3 schools.) But even just focused on FBS schools, I would imagine it would be hard to get the majority of these schools to agree to a common plan for athlete pay as the circumstances at the wide variety of schools are so different.

I also would guess that the idea/threat of the largest P4 (or P2 + a few ACC schools and maybe a couple B12 schools) schools breaking away from the NCAA or the current FBS structure also is throwing a wrench into figuring out how to move forward with student-athlete pay. I could see the SEC/B1G schools not favoring any formal agreements right now that could later be an obstacle into them breaking away from the current structure to create a unified nation-wide football conference for the largest schools.

I also think that a lot of university presidents know that paying players, at least at the levels we're now seeing, is unpopular among a number of their faculty. It was one thing when the football or basketball coach was making significantly more than most professors, how do they handle it when the starting QB or PG is out-earning them, as well.

For those reasons, I think a lot of university presidents - and thus, the NCAA - may be taking a "let the courts figure it out" position before the NCAA eventually takes action. One, whatever the NCAA tries to create is going to be difficult to gain agreement between themeselves, much less the players in a union with a CBA. The more the NCAA allows the legal process to occur now, the more that some basic parametera have been established that might make the eventual process easier. Two, my hunch is that the university presidents (and, therefore, the NCAA) are working a bit of a "blame it on the courts" angle with the faculties/stakeholders at their universities, whereby they can pass the buck for these changes and not be fully responsible for them.

Also, as an aside, one place where schools may have come out ahead, in a way, is in the House settlement with regard to revenue sharing. The four major leagues in the US (MLB, NBA, NFL, & NHL) each pay about half of their revenues to players via salaries (all are between 48% and 51%). The House settlement calls for the NCAA to "share" 22% of revenue with players, a much lower percentage than what the major leagues are doing via CBAs.
 
SnoopRob said:
I agree those are good looks if they're going to the right folks. A corner 3 by Leaky wasn't a good look no matter how open it was because he was unlikely to hit it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my point with all the non-shooters. He uses them mostly in the corners and at that point they're contributing nothing. If he wants to continue to play this style floor spacers have to be prioritized

SnoopRob said:
But we can't say that the issue is that we recruit only/mostly bad shooters, because we seemingly have some decent shooters who don't do that well at shooting.
Click to expand...

Cade is obviously the prime example of good shooters not shooting. The whole situation really set this team back

Freshman Nickel comes to mind in a small sample. Withers year of good shooting at Louisville didn't translate. Jwash finally getting an opportunity has not been close

It turns out Puff just wasn't a good shooter. For all the fuss about Cormac's %s last year he ended up in line with his career average. Ingram was a pleasant surprise and Ian/Drake have been so far. I worry about the potential of a Cadeau/Trimble back court next year

SnoopRob said:
I also don't know that we do well at getting 3 point shooters, even those who are open, the ball in a way that gets them into their shooting position. Some of the passes I see aren't exactly precise.

And our offense often seems to devolve into pounding the leather off the ball and then trying to get something up as the clock runs down, which are obviously not typically great shots.

I'm not saying that Hubert's offense is terrible at all times, but i don't think it does a consistent job of getting the right players the ball in a position to score that plays to their strengths.
Click to expand...

Agree with this
 
I just noticed that Vandy is 16-4 with recent wins over UK and Tenn.

They start 5 guys from the portal (including Tyler Nickel) with a Frosh and 3 more portal guys making up their top 9.

UNC needs to invest heavily in the portal this spring.
 
UNCatTech said:
Same here. I used to never miss a game.

Now I record them and typically need to know they won before watching. I made a mistake last night and watched live.

I hate commercials.
Click to expand...
and to think we are paying tyson 600k to sit the bench and 1.2 mil to rj to shot under 30% from 3.

to make things worse we are going to pay a skinny unproven non shooting 4 a cool 3 million next year, that is if he sticks to his commitment.

i might could grasp 3 mil to a top ranked center which we sorely miss, but not to this wilson kid who could very easily be another miss in college.

i wish we could go back to money under the table instead of this stupid NIL garbage.
 
OGtruthhurts said:
and to think we are paying tyson 600k to sit the bench and 1.2 mil to rj to shot under 30% from 3.

to make things worse we are going to pay a skinny unproven non shooting 4 a cool 3 million next year, that is if he sticks to his commitment.

i might could grasp 3 mil to a top ranked center which we sorely miss, but not to this wilson kid who could very easily be another miss in college.

i wish we could go back to money under the table instead of this stupid NIL garbage.
Click to expand...
You don’t object to paying players, but you’d prefer it was illegal?
 
Geisterfahrer said:
You don’t object to paying players, but you’d prefer it was illegal?
Click to expand...
where there is big money to be made in america there is corruption. im apathetic when it comes to our so-called legal system and what it considers as legal and illegal. its full of corruption just like most everything else in our capitalistic society. so yes id prefer it go back to being 'illegal' under the table like it used to be. at least it was somewhat regulated then.
 
OGtruthhurts said:
where there is big money to be made in america there is corruption. im apathetic when it comes to our so-called legal system and what it considers as legal and illegal. its full of corruption just like most everything else in our capitalistic society. so yes id prefer it go back to being 'illegal' under the table like it used to be. at least it was somewhat regulated then.
Click to expand...
ok GIF
 
Half the portal bigs who got $$$ have been bums anyway. I'll take my chances with a potential top 10 draft pick

I think it was Trillydonovan that said Kentucky's NIL offer was higher than UNC's for Caleb

Doesn't mean it will work out but if true says a lot about what Caleb is committed to
 
Heelsandeers said:
Half the portal bigs who got $$$ have been bums anyway. I'll take my chances with a potential top 10 draft pick

I think it was Trillydonovan that said Kentucky's NIL offer was higher than UNC's for Caleb

Doesn't mean it will work out but if true says a lot about what Caleb is committed to
Click to expand...
The reporting is UNC’s offer was bigger. He committed to Uk. Went in a trip to UNC and liked it. Got the UNC offer and it was more. UK was given option to match. They did not.
 
I have a feeling Wilson was a make or break recruit for Hubert. When was the last time we got a commitment from a top 10 recruit? Its been a while.

Really pulled a victory out of our ass yesterday. A loss right there would have snuffed out any Tourney hopes.
 
CRHeel94 said:
I have a feeling Wilson was a make or break recruit for Hubert. When was the last time we got a commitment from a top 10 recruit? Its been a while.

Really pulled a victory out of our ass yesterday. A loss right there would have snuffed out any Tourney hopes.
Click to expand...
Ian Jackson. He was ranked no. 2 when he committed in January 2023.

Drake eventually made his way into the top 10 but wasn’t there when he committed (and finished his high school career just outside of it).

Elliot Cadeau was top 10 in his original high school class (Class of 2024, before he reclassified) when he committed.

And GG Jackson didn’t end up coming here, but he was no. 1 in his original high school class (before he reclassified) when he committed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top