UNC ONLY BASKETBALL 2024-25 SEASON

[donbosco]

Out of curiosity, 1997 was a PhD? That seems a long time between degrees. Not judging, just wondering. Was it in the history department or Latin American studies?

It is a long time - but I combined my schooling with tending bar and backpacking around Latin America (mostly). My doctorate is in LA History.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Oh. That was just an idle thought based on something I thought had been established. I was under the impression that everyone knew that was the deal. I literally don't know enough about any of this to be intending to propagate rumors or false news or anything else.

The joke here was a) whatever caused Belichick to take the job, his interest was almost manna from heaven in terms of the other options under consideration; and b) wouldn't it be sweet if something else happened along the same lines in hoops. What if UNC was employing the best coaches in modern NFL AND NBA history?

So, you were assuming it was true. Idk why you just didn't say that.

 

[duluoz]

You've explained that your definition of "earned" the position has almost nothing to do with Hubert as a coach and is essentially based on non-coaching accomplishments and on Roy's preference. And, as I've explained, it turns the phrase "earned" into an almost nonsensical term devoid of real meaning.

Everyone should prefer Roy Williams' preference/knowledge over my preference/knowledge when it comes to college basketball, but a rubric of hiring criteria largely eliminates concerns over preferences and sets objective data as the main determining factor in hiring. But you again either fail to comprehend what I'm saying or you assign an intent to me that isn't accurate.

I'm not challenging Roy's character as I don't think he acted in a malicious or unethical way. I have no doubt that he believed (and possibly still does) that Hubert was the best choice for HC when he retired. But even people folks acting in an ethical/non-malicious way can be very wrong, as it strongly appears that Roy was. Again, you've either completely failed to comprehend what I'm saying or you're so determined to attribute a false intent to me that you've created a strawman that doesn't represent my opinions or beliefs.

Good grief, you've reached the point of absurdity by suggesting that I'm presenting some kind of "personal opinion" when I say that a reasonable main criterion for hiring a college basketball head coach is previous experience and success as a head coach of a college basketball team. It is in no way, shape, or form a controversial criterion that one of the best indicators of future success is previous success in a similar position. And, as Carolina is a top 3 CBB program, there is no reason that Carolina Basketball should not be able to hold to that basic criterion when hiring a head coach.

And you're correct that we don't yet have all "proof" we'll eventually have regarding Hubert. But the evidence we do have spread across 3.5 seasons is that Hubert is not consistently succeeding as HC at Carolina. And right now there is little evidence that Hubert has the ability to turn this season around, although I readily concede that it could happen. Of course, I'm also not suggesting that Hubert be relieved of his duties this evening and a new coach hired tomorrow. He should certainly get through the end of this season to see what he can do. But the evidence over his entire time as HC at Carolina is that he's not up to the job. This isn't about 1 game or even 1 season, this is about the totality of the results he's accomplished in 3.5 seasons. Carolina Basketball has been unranked in literally half (34 of 68) of the AP polls during Hubert's time as HC and in 3 of the 4 seasons our highest ranking has been at or near the beginning of the season before we fall down and out of the rankings. That's not indicative of a successful program and that is the objective reality of Hubert's tenure, outside the top 25 teams in the country for half of Hubert's time here. (Caveat: I admit that the AP poll is not a perfect measurement of team success, but it does stand as a good general metric that Carolina Basketball should expect to be among the best 25 teams in the nation on a consistent basis.) We've essentially been a bubble team in 2 of 3 seasons so far under Hubert and we're obviously back there currently there in year 4. Again, a bubble team in 3 of 4 years is below the standard for Carolina Basketball and, while that's an opinion, it's again a fairly basic one that should in no way, shape, or form be controversial.

You are correct that if we had won more games then Hubert would have different results and those different results would lead to different conclusions. If only Hubert had coached the team to win the NC in 2022 then this would be a different conversation. If only we hadn't lost to Alabama in the Sweet 16 last year then this would be a different conversation. If only so many of our "moral victories" had been actual victories then this would be a different discussion. But when your best defense of Hubert as a coach depends on changing the results of actual games into pretend victories and championships, you've got a very, very flimsy defense of his performance.

At this point, I'm not sure where to turn to find common ground with you. I get you've had an emotional response to my claim that Hubert didn't "earn" the HC role at Carolina or my contention that he's pretty much shown himself to not be up to the task, but you've presented very little other than "Roy knows more about college basketball than you" and "Hubert would be successful if the actual results of the games we've played were different" as evidence against my arguments. And, unfortunately, those are not terribly convincing counterclaims.

No we’re not going to find common ground, especially when you’re not recognizing or acknowledging how it would be offensive to accuse Roy, in your own words more than once, of a “nepo hire” and saying the hiring was like a new HS grad taking over daddy’s plant. This was the example you chose, of all examples imaginable. Nepotism by its very definition as well as its connotation is a slight, and attack on character and integrity, indicating unethical favoritism of a personal relationship over merit. There’s no debating that. You say:

I'm not challenging Roy's character as I don't think he acted in a malicious or unethical way. I have no doubt that he believed (and possibly still does) that Hubert was the best choice for HC when he retired.

If you’re not challenging Roy’s character, then USE BETTER WORDS. Because the words and examples you used *absolutely* indicate challenging character and is a slight on both of them. Whether or not we agree about Roy’s decision and HD’s qualifications, there is no way to deny that what you said is an attack on character. Period. The test? Ask yourself in a hypothetical if you would say that to their faces. “Roy, that was a nepo hire with no objective way to justify it, just like a new HS grad taking over daddy’s plant.” Because if he deigned to take you seriously, I guarantee he’d be highly, highly offended and feel that his character, integrity, and judgment were being attacked, while all the work and thought and consultation and time he’d put into that decision had been dismissed.

You think head coaching experience is the best way to evaluate a candidate for a position like that, which is reasonable. But it is not the ONLY way. To think that is unreasonable. Otherwise Roy would’ve never got the Kansas job. Was that nepotism too? Dean pulled strings Roy didn’t deserve on merit? So clearly, it’s ALSO reasonable to evaluate a candidate like HD based on life and comprehensive basketball experience at the highest levels of all facets of the game. Especially when he was by Roy’s side for a decade and owns a piece of all those successes. This is how Roy evaluated him. And if you don’t want to respect that, that’s on you. But own it, stop prevaricating. You said what you said, and those words you used have meaning that I won’t let you discount or revise.

Regarding defending HD as a coach, his record and successes in 3 full seasons far exceed most other coaches in their lifetimes. One championship game and nearly a title, and one ACC title and Sweet 16. We know that that bottom line belies the roller coaster it’s been, but that’s the bottom line nevertheless. And I’d call that “up to the task.” Anyone who wouldn’t is an idiot. That doesn’t mean there aren’t big problems currently in roster construction, recruiting misses, consistency in energy and effort… and I pointed out all of these things and more, earlier. Along with the challenges HD has faced. But if they tailspin and he’s gone at the end of this season, so be it. If he’s out after a mediocre or bad next season, so be it. But either way, he earned his shot.

 

[stankeylegjones]

No we’re not going to find common ground, especially when you’re not recognizing or acknowledging how it would be offensive to accuse Roy, in your own words more than once, of a “nepo hire” and saying the hiring was like a new HS grad taking over daddy’s plant. This was the example you chose, of all examples imaginable. Nepotism by its very definition as well as its connotation is a slight, and attack on character and integrity, indicating unethical favoritism of a personal relationship over merit. There’s no debating that. You say:

I'm not challenging Roy's character as I don't think he acted in a malicious or unethical way. I have no doubt that he believed (and possibly still does) that Hubert was the best choice for HC when he retired.

If you’re not challenging Roy’s character, then USE BETTER WORDS. Because the words and examples you used *absolutely* indicate challenging character and is a slight on both of them. Whether or not we agree about Roy’s decision and HD’s qualifications, there is no way to deny that what you said is an attack on character. Period. The test? Ask yourself in a hypothetical if you would say that to their faces. “Roy, that was a nepo hire with no objective way to justify it, just like a new HS grad taking over daddy’s plant.” Because if he deigned to take you seriously, I guarantee he’d be highly, highly offended and feel that his character, integrity, and judgment were being attacked, while all the work and thought and consultation and time he’d put into that decision had been dismissed.

You think head coaching experience is the best way to evaluate a candidate for a position like that, which is reasonable. But it is not the ONLY way. To think that is unreasonable. Otherwise Roy would’ve never got the Kansas job. Was that nepotism too? Dean pulled strings Roy didn’t deserve on merit? So clearly, it’s ALSO reasonable to evaluate a candidate like HD based on life and comprehensive basketball experience at the highest levels of all facets of the game. Especially when he was by Roy’s side for a decade and owns a piece of all those successes. This is how Roy evaluated him. And if you don’t want to respect that, that’s on you. But own it, stop prevaricating. You said what you said, and those words you used have meaning that I won’t let you discount or revise.

Regarding defending HD as a coach, his record and successes in 3 full seasons far exceed most other coaches in their lifetimes. One championship game and nearly a title, and one ACC title and Sweet 16. We know that that bottom line belies the roller coaster it’s been, but that’s the bottom line nevertheless. And I’d call that “up to the task.” Anyone who wouldn’t is an idiot. That doesn’t mean there aren’t big problems currently in roster construction, recruiting misses, consistency in energy and effort… and I pointed out all of these things and more, earlier. Along with the challenges HD has faced. But if they tailspin and he’s gone at the end of this season, so be it. If he’s out after a mediocre or bad next season, so be it. But either way, he earned his shot.

How does his record and his successes in 3 full seasons stack up against the other UNC basketball head coaches in their lifetimes? Point being, "up to the task" means something different at UNC as opposed to, almost, anywhere else.

And, I'll ask again, do you think the program is headed in the right direction? If not, do you not think HD has had enough time to get it going in the right direction?

(This is ignoring the glaring inadequacies of HD and his staff.)

 

[donbosco]

It is a long time - but I combined my schooling with tending bar and backpacking around Latin America (mostly). My doctorate is in LA History.

Also finished up $0 in debt. My pace pissed off my advisors but staying out of hock was too important to me.

 

[SnoopRob]

No we’re not going to find common ground, especially when you’re not recognizing or acknowledging how it would be offensive to accuse Roy, in your own words more than once, of a “nepo hire” and saying the hiring was like a new HS grad taking over daddy’s plant. This was the example you chose, of all examples imaginable. Nepotism by its very definition as well as its connotation is a slight, and attack on character and integrity, indicating unethical favoritism of a personal relationship over merit. There’s no debating that. You say:

I'm not challenging Roy's character as I don't think he acted in a malicious or unethical way. I have no doubt that he believed (and possibly still does) that Hubert was the best choice for HC when he retired.

If you’re not challenging Roy’s character, then USE BETTER WORDS. Because the words and examples you used *absolutely* indicate challenging character and is a slight on both of them. Whether or not we agree about Roy’s decision and HD’s qualifications, there is no way to deny that what you said is an attack on character. Period. The test? Ask yourself in a hypothetical if you would say that to their faces. “Roy, that was a nepo hire with no objective way to justify it, just like a new HS grad taking over daddy’s plant.” Because if he deigned to take you seriously, I guarantee he’d be highly, highly offended and feel that his character, integrity, and judgment were being attacked, while all the work and thought and consultation and time he’d put into that decision had been dismissed.

You think head coaching experience is the best way to evaluate a candidate for a position like that, which is reasonable. But it is not the ONLY way. To think that is unreasonable. Otherwise Roy would’ve never got the Kansas job. Was that nepotism too? Dean pulled strings Roy didn’t deserve on merit? So clearly, it’s ALSO reasonable to evaluate a candidate like HD based on life and comprehensive basketball experience at the highest levels of all facets of the game. Especially when he was by Roy’s side for a decade and owns a piece of all those successes. This is how Roy evaluated him. And if you don’t want to respect that, that’s on you. But own it, stop prevaricating. You said what you said, and those words you used have meaning that I won’t let you discount or revise.

Regarding defending HD as a coach, his record and successes in 3 full seasons far exceed most other coaches in their lifetimes. One championship game and nearly a title, and one ACC title and Sweet 16. We know that that bottom line belies the roller coaster it’s been, but that’s the bottom line nevertheless. And I’d call that “up to the task.” Anyone who wouldn’t is an idiot. That doesn’t mean there aren’t big problems currently in roster construction, recruiting misses, consistency in energy and effort… and I pointed out all of these things and more, earlier. Along with the challenges HD has faced. But if they tailspin and he’s gone at the end of this season, so be it. If he’s out after a mediocre or bad next season, so be it. But either way, he earned his shot.

You do realize that someone making a "nepo hire" can do so thinking that they're making the best decision, correct? A nepo hire certainly implies lack of merit - which is very valid in this case - but it doesn't inherently mean that the person making the decision is acting unethically. For instance, the factory owner could believe that his newly graduated HS grad son truly is the best hire for plant manager because, "He's seen how the plant has run since he was 5, he knows what to do!" It doesn't mean the son is qualified or the best available potential candidate, but it also doesn't mean that the owner is unethical for making the hire if he believes his son to be the best hire. I fully meant what a nepo hire means - a lack of merit taking priority in the hiring decision - but you're the one who inaccurately placed a derogatory ethical component to the description.

I'm glad you can agree that head coaching experience is the best way to evaluate candidates. I agree that it is not the only way, because obviously otherwise you'd have a closed system and never get new head coaches. Furthermore, there are certainly programs who do not have the ability to choose from coaches who have had success as a CBB HC and should be evaluating based largely on other criteria. However, what you seemingly seem incapable of recognizing is that Carolina Basketball, as a Top 3 program, should have the ability to use the best methods of candidate evaluation & selection and should never be put in a position where the HC is "learning on the job" as a first time head coach. For us to be in that position was a failure of leadership within the athletic department, including largely Bubba and Roy, as it shows that we didn't use the best evaluation & selection methods available to us and instead made a "nepo hire" based on Roy's preferences without fully considering the best qualified potential candidates.

Roy was not a nepo hire at Kansas because Dean did not have the position to get Roy the job based solely on his leverage. Dean certainly recommended Roy, but he wasn't in a position to coerce Kansas into making the hire. Now, to be very clear since you'll obviously fuck up understanding this if I'm not, I don't know how much Roy actually had to pull strings to get Hubert the job and how much Carolina went along willingly with the idea, but it is clear that Roy's preference for Hubert played a major role in the decision to hire him in a way that Dean didn't have the role at Kansas to accomplish. Either way, though, the failure to have a hiring process that evaluated all appropriate candidates and selected the best based on objective criteria - in our case, including success as a CBB HC - is indicative of a less-than-rigorous process that created a subpar hire.

You are correct that at many schools HD would be considered wildly successful. But what you again fail to either understand or recognize is that Carolina Basketball is not like almost any other school and what is considered succesful here is sigificantly higher than at nearly any other program in the nation. There are only a very small number of schools who are our peer institutions in basketball (UK, KU, dook) and our standards should be in alignment with that status. And by those lofty standards, Hubert has been thoroughly mediocre in his time as HC at Carolina and shouldn't be in line for continued employment unless he can correct the problems leading to such mediocrity. If you believe that the performance of Carolina Basketball over the last 3.5 seasons - with 3 NCAA bubble teams, including one that missed the tournament and another now in significant danger of doing so - thus far shows Hubert "up to the task" of being the HC at Carolina, then there is certainly an idiot in this discussion, but it clearly ain't me.

 

[duluoz]

You do realize that someone making a "nepo hire" can do so thinking that they're making the best decision, correct? A nepo hire certainly implies lack of merit - which is very valid in this case - but it doesn't inherently mean that the person making the decision is acting unethically. For instance, the factory owner could believe that his newly graduated HS grad son truly is the best hire for plant manager because, "He's seen how the plant has run since he was 5, he knows what to do!" It doesn't mean the son is qualified or the best available potential candidate, but it also doesn't mean that the owner is unethical for making the hire if he believes his son to be the best hire. I fully meant what a nepo hire means - a lack of merit taking priority in the hiring decision - but you're the one who inaccurately placed a derogatory ethical component to the description.

I'm glad you can agree that head coaching experience is the best way to evaluate candidates. I agree that it is not the only way, because obviously otherwise you'd have a closed system and never get new head coaches. Furthermore, there are certainly programs who do not have the ability to choose from coaches who have had success as a CBB HC and should be evaluating based largely on other criteria. However, what you seemingly seem incapable of recognizing is that Carolina Basketball, as a Top 3 program, should have the ability to use the best methods of candidate evaluation & selection and should never be put in a position where the HC is "learning on the job" as a first time head coach. For us to be in that position was a failure of leadership within the athletic department, including largely Bubba and Roy, as it shows that we didn't use the best evaluation & selection methods available to us and instead made a "nepo hire" based on Roy's preferences without fully considering the best qualified potential candidates.

Roy was not a nepo hire at Kansas because Dean did not have the position to get Roy the job based solely on his leverage. Dean certainly recommended Roy, but he wasn't in a position to coerce Kansas into making the hire. Now, to be very clear since you'll obviously fuck up understanding this if I'm not, I don't know how much Roy actually had to pull strings to get Hubert the job and how much Carolina went along willingly with the idea, but it is clear that Roy's preference for Hubert played a major role in the decision to hire him in a way that Dean didn't have the role at Kansas to accomplish. Either way, though, the failure to have a hiring process that evaluated all appropriate candidates and selected the best based on objective criteria - in our case, including success as a CBB HC - is indicative of a less-than-rigorous process that created a subpar hire.

You are correct that at many schools HD would be considered wildly successful. But what you again fail to either understand or recognize is that Carolina Basketball is not like almost any other school and what is considered succesful here is sigificantly higher than at nearly any other program in the nation. There are only a very small number of schools who are our peer institutions in basketball (UK, KU, dook) and our standards should be in alignment with that status. And by those lofty standards, Hubert has been thoroughly mediocre in his time as HC at Carolina and shouldn't be in line for continued employment unless he can correct the problems leading to such mediocrity. If you believe that the performance of Carolina Basketball over the last 3.5 seasons - with 3 NCAA bubble teams, including one that missed the tournament and another now in significant danger of doing so - thus far shows Hubert "up to the task" of being the HC at Carolina, then there is certainly an idiot in this discussion, but it clearly ain't me.

Go look up the word nepotism. Please. It’s your word, you plagued this thread with it. But go look it up, because you clearly don’t know the definition nor the connotation. Or very possibly, you’re dancing away from what you originally said because you know it’s an embarrassing claim that you should be ashamed of. So you’re either ignorant, or you intended to call Roy unethical — you pick.

Hiring your son or daughter is not nepotism, nor is it unethical. Favoritism without merit is what’s unethical. Hiring a candidate by favoring them due to a relationship despite a shortcoming in merit, THAT is nepotism. I can’t make it any clearer for you, there is no such thing as “ethical nepotism.” Roy had zero part in any nepotism, because he based his decision on merit. Merit which is crystal clear to others, even if it will never be clear to you.

Go learn something and come back when you know which words to use.

 

[Peppers49]

How does his record and his successes in 3 full seasons stack up against the other UNC basketball head coaches in their lifetimes? Point being, "up to the task" means something different at UNC as opposed to, almost, anywhere else.

And, I'll ask again, do you think the program is headed in the right direction? If not, do you not think HD has had enough time to get it going in the right direction?

(This is ignoring the glaring inadequacies of HD and his staff.)

Yeah, honestly a lot of us are losing sight of the big picture. You have to balance the overall body of results with overall program trajectory.

Hubert has several very impressive accomplishments under his belt (2022 title game run, 2 of our biggest wins ever against Dook, 2024 regular season title and COY). Those obviously count for something. He also has a missed tournament in 2023 and is looking at another missed tournament in 2025 barring a massive midseason turnaround or miracle ACCT run. He’s had long stretches in 2022, 2023, and now 2025 seasons where his teams have looked poorly coached.

For me, the deciding factor here is future recruiting and roster building trends. If we had the stability of a strong nucleus of young players currently on the team + another crop of highly touted freshmen coming in from the HS ranks, I’d be fine with giving Hubert at least another season to get back on track. In reality, the current players who will realistically return to college (still have eligibility and aren’t surefire pro prospects) don’t collectively inspire much confidence, and we don’t have any true big time prospects in the upcoming class. That’s not even factoring in the potential of losing guys to the portal.

Hubert will likely have to build most of next year’s team from scratch from the portal. That’s a dicey situation that can have mixed results for even the best coaches who have experience building rosters that way. Should we expect Hubert to put together even a fringe tournament team going that route? I just don’t see it happening.

 

[Charlotte1204]

For me, the deciding factor here is future recruiting and roster building trends. If we had the stability of a strong nucleus of young players currently on the team + another crop of highly touted freshmen coming in from the HS ranks, I’d be fine with giving Hubert another at least another season to get back on track. In reality, the current players who will realistically return to college (still have eligibility and aren’t surefire pro prospects) don’t collectively inspire much confidence, and we don’t have any true big time prospects in the upcoming class. That’s not even factoring in the potential of losing guys to the portal.

This. The outlook is not great...at all.

I don't mean to sound negative because I'm sure HD is a wonderful, kind man. But as someone mentioned a few pages ago, we just went through a "deadman walking" year with Mack. Do we really want to do that again in basketball? Especially when it appears it will be somewhat of a rebuild? And those really haven't gone our way with the exception on last season.

 

[donbosco]

@SnoopRob Wrote: ...Carolina Basketball is not like almost any other school and what is considered succesful here is sigificantly higher than at nearly any other program in the nation. There are only a very small number of schools who are our peer institutions in basketball (UK, KU, dook) and our standards should be in alignment with that status.

I really appreciate this conversation. I'm learning a lot and y'all are posing many good and diverse points for consideration. This is quite clearly a Carolina conversation in fact...imagine for a moment all of these points going into a topic such as this among a state college, a Clemson, or even a Kentucky fan base...frankly I cannot.

I keep coming back to the broadness of the consideration "what is considered successful here" and the loftiness (highness) of how that measure is taken. For me, and clearly for many, it can't just be wins but something more akin to "how you play the game." I'm not saying that we are singular but we are pretty damn close to it. For good or ill depending on a fan's own values, Hubert Davis appears to have bought into Coach Smith's already mentioned ethos so long ago that it is ingrained. Maybe we can't keep the more nebulous measures high if we win at the level previously established in this day and age? That would signal the death knell of college basketball for me. I doubt anyone would much care what I do anyway. I enjoy professional sports just fine anyway. The college games have always been a horse of a different color for me.

 

[bassydude77]

Roster building has become so incredibly important and difficult. dook is still doing it primarily through recruiting. That's not something we've been able to do for a while. Bama has done it through portal and recruiting.
HD put together a good group in 2022 (once the Dawson Garcia mess worked itself out). 2023 was dismal. The added pieces didn't work and the existing pieces fell off. Last year, they put together a great set of complimentary pieces and seemed to have an offensive system in place that took advantage of the roster in place.
This is year is clearly a disaster with the roster. Did they miss on a big-time 5 because of money? All indications point to no, so did HD not promise minutes to portal bigs because he was leaning too much on J.Wash and J.Whit stepping up? And the staff is clearly struggling with putting in place a system for these guys that put them in position to be succesful. With that said, we've made huge comebacks and been right there with a chance to win in all but 2 games...it's coaching and it's having guys with enough bball iq to execute in crunch time.

My fear for next year is who will we have? They might have to completely rebuild this team. RJ is gone. Ian and Drake are likely gone. Will Elliot and Seth stick around if things continue to go south? Will J.Brown stay with no playing time? Cade might not be cut out for P5 bball? Who's left?

 

[Peppers49]

This. The outlook is not great...at all.

I don't mean to sound negative because I'm sure HD is a wonderful, kind man. But as someone mentioned a few pages ago, we just went through a "deadman walking" year with Mack. Do we really want to do that again in basketball? Especially when it appears it will be somewhat of a rebuild? And those really haven't gone our way with the exception on last season.

With last season’s rebuild, Hubert at least had 2 guys that you knew were going to be able to provide a strong baseline level of production in RJ and Bacot, and then young guys that could serve more as role players whole also getting more experience in Washington, Trimble, and Cadeau. That was a great starting point, then you add in a couple of transfers with proven experience in Ryan and Ingram to round out the roster, and all of the sudden you have a high level team on your hands. Major props to Hubert and the coaching staff for that roster build.

Next season will be much more difficult. Our current 2 best players (in my opinion at least) are RJ and Ian Jackson. RJ is out of eligibility, and Jackson is probably going pro. Trimble, Washington, Cadeau, and Drake Powell are all fine pieces for a roster in a vacuum, but none of them have proven even remotely capable of shouldering RJ or Bacot levels of production. They are realistically all role player level pieces (maybe Powell becomes something more), and reading the tea leaves with the body language and results on the court, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least one of them transfers after this season.

To this point I’ve loved the way that Hubert has used the portal by bringing in guys like Manek, Ryan, Ingram, etc. to round out specific needs for rosters that already have a structure in place. He’s brought in some dud transfers along the way, sure, but overall I like the approach. For next season’s roster he will have to rely on transfers to make up for much more production than in previous seasons. Getting enough players that have enough talent to do that on the roster in the first place will be difficult, and then getting all of those pieces to gel in one offseason would probably be equally challenging.

 

[superrific]

It is a long time - but I combined my schooling with tending bar and backpacking around Latin America (mostly). My doctorate is in LA History.

Were you doing that while you were enrolled (i.e. were you ABD for an eternity) or was the backpacking and bartending between undergrad and grad school?

BTW I have utmost respect for the PhD degree. It's the one degree where failure is a real option for everyone. People tell me, "you should be proud of graduating from a top law school." I say, "I guess I am proud of getting into a top law school, maybe, but almost everyone at law school graduates. You have to really try to fuck up to fail out." That is not true of a PhD. Isn't the "graduation rate" for incoming PhD students less than 50%? At one point, I thought it was considerably less. It's just a much harder degree, that requires a lot more work and a lot more rigor.

 

[superrific]

So, you were assuming it was true. Idk why you just didn't say that.

Because I didn't even know it was in dispute. I thought you were asking me about Popovich.

 

[donbosco]

Were you doing that while you were enrolled (i.e. were you ABD for an eternity) or was the backpacking and bartending between undergrad and grad school?

BTW I have utmost respect for the PhD degree. It's the one degree where failure is a real option for everyone. People tell me, "you should be proud of graduating from a top law school." I say, "I guess I am proud of getting into a top law school, maybe, but almost everyone at law school graduates. You have to really try to fuck up to fail out." That is not true of a PhD. Isn't the "graduation rate" for incoming PhD students less than 50%? At one point, I thought it was considerably less. It's just a much harder degree, that requires a lot more work and a lot more rigor.

It must be around 50% or so. Lots of people that began with me were gone before the third year as I recall, a couple by mid-point of the spring semester in their first year. I'm in touch with a good number of those folks as well as the ones that continued on. At UNC in History after you complete the MA you are either invited to continue or not. I'm only aware of one person that was not invited to continue that went on somewhere else and completed their PHD.

 

[donbosco]

As for tending bar and backpacking...I often worked full-time or close to it tending during school. I managed the bar in a couple of places along the way too. The backpacking was also mixed in there...one of the things that irritated my advisors the most was that I "dropped out" a few times and was gone for 6 months to a year and spent the time traveling as well as doing archival research.

 

[SnoopRob]

Go look up the word nepotism. Please. It’s your word, you plagued this thread with it. But go look it up, because you clearly don’t know the definition nor the connotation. Or very possibly, you’re dancing away from what you originally said because you know it’s an embarrassing claim that you should be ashamed of. So you’re either ignorant, or you intended to call Roy unethical — you pick.

Hiring your son or daughter is not nepotism, nor is it unethical. Favoritism without merit is what’s unethical. Hiring a candidate by favoring them due to a relationship despite a shortcoming in merit, THAT is nepotism. I can’t make it any clearer for you, there is no such thing as “ethical nepotism.” Roy had zero part in any nepotism, because he based his decision on merit. Merit which is crystal clear to others, even if it will never be clear to you.

Go learn something and come back when you know which words to use.

There it is, straight from Merriam-Webster.

It is literally hiring your family. There’s nothing about it being ethical/unethical.

Of course, I was using it a bit figuratively as we all know Roy & Hubert aren’t related.

You just told me to look up a word because I didn’t know the meaning while making it clear you don’t know it.

I can’t even say anything sarcastic at this point, you just made yourself look dumber than anything I could have done.

 

[SnoopRob]

I really appreciate this conversation. I'm learning a lot and y'all are posing many good and diverse points for consideration. This is quite clearly a Carolina conversation in fact...imagine for a moment all of these points going into a topic such as this among a state college, a Clemson, or even a Kentucky fan base...frankly I cannot.

I keep coming back to the broadness of the consideration "what is considered successful here" and the loftiness (highness) of how that measure is taken. For me, and clearly for many, it can't just be wins but something more akin to "how you play the game." I'm not saying that we are singular but we are pretty damn close to it. For good or ill depending on a fan's own values, Hubert Davis appears to have bought into Coach Smith's already mentioned ethos so long ago that it is ingrained. Maybe we can't keep the more nebulous measures high if we win at the level previously established in this day and age? That would signal the death knell of college basketball for me. I doubt anyone would much care what I do anyway. I enjoy professional sports just fine anyway. The college games have always been a horse of a different color for me.

I very much agree with you that a part of Carolina Basketball that we need to keep is "The Carolina Way" and that success at Carolina is about more than just wins & losses. (It's why I said before I can't imagine us hiring Nate Oats despite his on-the-court success because of his off-the-court problems.)

I do think that in an age where most players don't stay 4 years, The Carolina Way is going to have to change from what it was under Dean (and even Roy). I think it will have to shift to include players from the transfer portal who may only stay one year, much like it has done for OAD freshman. It will have to evolve to include players getting NIL money and, soon, money directly from the school. It will have to figure out how to empower players in the modern era in a similar way to what Dean did in his era.

But I think there can be continuity, as well. We can continue to point to the passer to recognize that the scorer is only as good as the person who sets up that score. We can recruit players who care about academics and are willing to be part of the greater Chapel Hill community rather than those who are simply basketball players. And we can continue to stress team success as equally important as individual success and seek players who strongly desire both.

If we can do those things, I think we can keep The Carolina Way alive going forward and keep what many of us find special about Carolina Basketball.

 

[Heelsandeers]

Agreed. Unless we fall apart completely I definitely think he'll get another year (whether he deserves it or not is a separate question that will no doubt be debated on this board for the rest of 2025, probably).

Count me as deserves 1 more year

HD hasn't shown improvement in some of the areas I'd hoped by now and is NOT getting the most out of this group. But I still think most of the issues of this season fall on roster construction, which we've known was a major problem since the summer

And yes, 6 losses by Jan. 1 is terrible but the caveat is still playing the toughest schedule to date of any high major program. Louisville was a pretty bad loss in form, but probably not a bad loss looking back in March if they finish how they're supposed to

As to why the roster is the way it is, and to what degree HD is solely to blame, I have no idea. But I would say another off season and opportunity to build a roster from scratch would give us a pretty good indication whether he is capable

We are coming off a year where he added 3 vital pieces in the off-season, won the ACC, clobbered Duke 2x, and earned a 1 seed in the NCAAT. Don't think he deserves to lose the job because he couldn't land a big in a finicky NIL-era

Like you said, given our failures in the transfer portal last year I am concerned that next year might be at least as bad or even worse.

Maybe, maybe not, but without knowing exactly what went wrong it's anyone's guess. The decision makers likely have a pretty good idea. If they believe it was because of missteps on HD's part, he very well may not get another opportunity

 

[donbosco]

I very much agree with you that a part of Carolina Basketball that we need to keep is "The Carolina Way" and that success at Carolina is about more than just wins & losses. (It's why I said before I can't imagine us hiring Nate Oats despite his on-the-court success because of his off-the-court problems.)

I do think that in an age where most players don't stay 4 years, The Carolina Way is going to have to change from what it was under Dean (and even Roy). I think it will have to shift to include players from the transfer portal who may only stay one year, much like it has done for OAD freshman. It will have to evolve to include players getting NIL money and, soon, money directly from the school. It will have to figure out how to empower players in the modern era in a similar way to what Dean did in his era.

But I think there can be continuity, as well. We can continue to point to the passer to recognize that the scorer is only as good as the person who sets up that score. We can recruit players who care about academics and are willing to be part of the greater Chapel Hill community rather than those who are simply basketball players. And we can continue to stress team success as equally important as individual success and seek players who strongly desire both.

If we can do those things, I think we can keep The Carolina Way alive going forward and keep what many of us find special about Carolina Basketball.

We see very much eye-to-eye Snoop. Reading what you have written tends to lead me to some deep thinking about the possibility that a man like Hubert Davis might be exactly what we need to make the transitions that you outline. I admit that I was originally a Wes Miller guy and I still believe that he'd be a great choice to lead the program. Indeed, a young man like Marcus Paige is also cut from the cloth that we ought to sew our Way Forward from.