Comments on: Behind the Numbers: Our Robot Overlords Think We Give UNC Too Much Credit

By: BBJones

BBJones — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 02:04:37 +0000

The thought experiment – The variable that you are not considering in your experiment is as follows.
1) North Carolina had a brand new starting PG, starting in JAN, who was a freshman! BTW – he was a freak!! Watch some games bro. He was only scraping the surface at the end of his half year of starting.
2) Barnes – No one has ever had the hype to carry into a freshman season that Barnes did. He struggled, but by the end of the year, the cream was rising. He is ONLY getting warmed up YO!
3) Last year was Junior Tyler Zeller’s FIRST full year of being healthy and owning his place in the post. This year he has added about 30 lbs of muscle and has the confidence to dominate. BTW, he’s 7’0″ tall and runs like a FREAKING Gazelle, again, watch the TAPE. :)
4)It’s funny that Henson is just making to number four. There should be a movie about this alien. They should call it I am number four, scratch that, already made. Seriously, which this guy is not, plays with the spirit of a 13 year old and swats like MUTOMBO. Not in this house. Henson will be a junior this year, yes, however, recognize that he got no minutes as a freshman and played SF. Consider this his SOPH campaign. He is confident, has added 20 lbs of muscle, his offense has improved several-fold.
5) Oh yeah, they got this guy named Dexter Strickland, he’s also a junior McDonald All-American. He can beat you up the court with the ball and is going to come out this year like a man on a mission.
6)James M McAdoo, PJ Hairston, Reggie Bullock…
See you in the BIG EASY Brothers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love be with you all!

By: KCarpenter

KCarpenter — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:06:45 +0000

Pramit:

Thanks for reading! The comment sections here have lots of intelligent, passionate fans. I like it a lot too.

Hawksfan:

I’d like to think that it’s only kind of illogical, but maybe I aim too high. Buford was a 44.2% and Craft a 37.7% three point shooter last season. While they will certainly miss Lighty and Diebler, this is a team that can still stroke it. The other thing to consider is that Sullinger routinely faced doubles and the occasional triple throughout last year. He’s quite good at passing back out to the perimeter. It’s possible that Ohio State’s system breaks down, but they have looked good so far in the early going.

As for why I value Kentucky’s freshman more than North Carolina’s, the reason is simply minutes: While Hairston might end up playing big minutes if Roy decides that they don’t need Strickland as much on defense, McAdoo is unlikely to break 20 minutes a game. For the most part, I’d say that’s a good thing: When McAdoo plays, that means that either Zeller and Henson aren’t. At Kentucky, the number 2,3, and 4 recruits in the nation are starting and playing 30+ minutes a game. It’s just a simple matter of opportunity: Kentucky’s freshmen will have a bigger opportunity to make an immediate impact.

By: hawksfan

hawksfan — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:31:49 +0000

The argument presented is very illogical. First, the computers rely on last year’s numbers to predict this year – I would definitely say OSU and UK had better years last year than UNC. Secondly – a HUGE factor that leads me to believe OSU will fall out of the top 10 this season is that you could NOT double Sullinger, because of OSU’s ability to hit the perimeter jumper. They lost a lot of that ability to graduation. They will miss that SO much more than people realize. Teams will double and triple team Sullinger this year and they will not be able to hit the jumper as consistently, so I take them out of the argument completely. Why did the author add Kentucky’s freshmen to the mix while basically ignoring the fact that UNC not only kept ALL of their starters but added 2 of the best prospects in the nation!? Kentucky may have broke even from last year with their class, but UNC ADDED talent.

By: Pramit

Pramit — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:46:23 +0000

After reading everyone’s comments, I have to say that it is very refreshing to read people’s opinions that are well thought out and coherent. It is a good change from the comment boards on ESPN where all anyone does is bash other teams and drop expletives.

As for my two cents, the reason UNC is media’s preseason #1 is because somebody has to be. If this was a ranking for the NCAAT, then there would be more than one team at the top. The talent level and experience (except UK, of course) is comparable for the top teams. As with most years, the eventual National Champion will come down to the team that can get it together for the last 6 games of the season that truly matter.

This season is going to exciting and one of the better ones we’ve had in a while. Heres to another title for Roy & co in Chapel Hill.

By: KCarpenter

KCarpenter — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:21:41 +0000

T Ganski:

Kentucky looked pretty good to begin the season; before conference play they only lost to Connecticut, the eventual national champs and North Carolina. The loss to North Carolina was a two-point loss in Chapel Hill, hardly a clear display of dominance. Meanwhile, Kentucky beat Washington, Louisville, and Notre Dame.

North Carolina lost to every quality team they played besides Kentucky during nonconference play: Minnesota, Vanderbilt, Illinois, and Texas. You can make a case that UNC is better because they eked out a two point win against Kentucky in Chapel Hill, but going into conference play, Kentucky looked to be, overall, the better team.

KMOB:

I agree with you that UNC’s players are projected to have a higher ceiling than Ohio State’s. In terms of proven performance, however, Ohio State’s players played better and more efficiently all last season. Aaron Craft was far better efficiency-wise than Kendall Marshall on the offensive end while also being an elite perimeter defender . And listen, I would take Harrison Barnes over Buford any day, but Buford simply had a more productive year than Barnes last year. Henson vs. Thomas undersells Thomas’s offense, but Henson is such a great defender that I’d call it a wash. No complaints about the rating of Lenzelle Smith below Dexter Strickland or Thad below Roy, but I do find the appraisal of Freshman classes a little dishonest: Ohio State brought in four four star prospects and have the best recruiting class in the Big Ten.

I think UNC definitely has the potential to blow Ohio State out of the water if every player reaches their full potential, but right now I think that people are forgetting just how incredibly well Ohio State played last year.

As I mentioned above in the comments, I think UNC is probably the best team in the country. My caveat is simply that I don’t I don’t think they are far and away the clearly most dominant team in the country. As the season rolls on? They could very well become a juggernaut. Right now? I think Ohio State and Kentucky are closer than most people think.

By: KMOB

KMOB — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:38:33 +0000

It’s pretty simple why the humans like UNC better. It’s because their players are better and their coaching is better. As a very young team last season, with a CANCEROUS point guard, they struggled, but once the tumor was excised they grew together into a real team, and a dangerous one. To wit:

Marshall > Craft – Kendall is projected as a first round pick after this season. Craft isn’t on anyone’s radar and will likely be a second rounder after 4 years.

Strickland > Smith – Strickland isn’t asked to carry much scoring load but he’s a handful in the open court and a lockdown defender. He projects as a 2nd rounder while Smith is a non-prospect.

Barnes > Buford – Barnes is a consensus top 5 prospect and getting better quickly while Buford is a 2nd-round prospect who is a known commodity.

Henson > Thomas – Henson is the best defensive big in the country and a terrific rebounder, as well as having vastly improved his offensive game. A likely Lottery pick. Thomas is an underwhelming defender and solid offensive player but not in Henson’s league overall.

Sullinger > Zeller – the one position where OSU has the endge, but we are talking about 2 first round NBA prospects here so the gap isn’t huge. In fact, Zeller averaged 26 and 9 in the tourney last season while Sully was at 17 and 11, so the Senior Tar heel may not be as far off as many might think.

UNC Bench > OSU Bench – High School 5-star recruitsand NBA prospects Bullock, McAdoo, and Hairston highlight a UNC bench that gets an easy edge over the Ravenal/Sibert led OSU reserves

Roy > Thad – While Thad has come on strong in recent years with some great recruiting classes, Roy’s titles and long track record of big-time success give him a big leg up.

The computers see the numbers from last year and project – thats their job. But you are severely downplaying the talent disparity and all but ignoring the fact that UNC didn’t lose anyone of importance while the other teams clearly did.

By: T Ganski

T Ganski — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:27:14 +0000

“The difference is starting position. Last year, Ohio State and Kentucky were both farther along than the Tar Heels. To put UNC ahead of these two teams, you have to project that UNC will improve at a much greater rate than either of these two teams. Why should that happen? What is it about North Carolina that says faster growth?”

This author lost me right there because he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. While I would say KY obviously was further ahead on UNC by tournament time, to say they were there earlier in the year is complete rubbish. I wonder if the author realized that UNC handily beat KY in Chapel Hill last year in December. Yes, it was at UNC, but lets remember that UNC still had Larry Drew as a starter, and Harrison Barnes was a shell of what he was later to become.

Oh, by the way, the other statement that renders this article a waste of bits and bytes is the Pomeroy ranking that has Duke in its top 4. All props to “K”, but have you seen Duke play yet? Duke has no handle, none.

By: KCarpenter

KCarpenter — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:38:12 +0000

Jerry:
I think UNC is probably the best team in the country. I don’t think they are overwhelming favorites that the polls seem to think. The gap between Ohio State and UNC is fairly narrow and I think that you have to consider North Carolina the underdog when they play Kentucky at Rupp. North Carolina is a great team, but they aren’t streets ahead.

James:
You are right, I’m probably giving Kentucky too much credit. Ohio State works with the “consistently great” argument much better.

By: James

James — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:25:46 +0000

Kentucky was not “consistently great” last season. At all.

They lost to a terrible UNC team in December and were atrocious on the road in the SEC.

They didn’t put things together until mid-February.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:12:03 +0000

In reply to Jerry Hollingsworth.

I picked UNC #4 in my ballot, the only RTCer to not have the Heels #1. Here’s my logic. I won’t pick UConn to have a better regular season, but I like how that team is built for and plays in March in one-and-done situations. Kemba is obviously a massive loss, but I expect big leaps from Lamb and the other sophomores as well as Andre Drummond to figure things out and become a force by March. #2 Kentucky – more talent than God and UNC. They won’t figure out how to play together until February, but when they do, the only thing that can beat them will be a team that plays smarter (see: UConn). #3 Ohio State – I expect the Buckeyes to have another great regular season, something along the lines of 3-4 losses at the most. But I don’t like how they’re built for March – in a one-game scenario, I feel like they are susceptible to exactly the kind of team that beat them last year — an athletic and talented UK team. #4 UNC – Everyone is back, but I guess I remain less than impressed with “everyone.” Outside of Duke, the ACC was not strong at the top again last year. The UNC run was impressive, but everyone forgets the beat-down by Duke in the ACCT finals, and Kentucky, a team starting three freshmen and Josh Harrellson, was able to beat them in the 8s. They were lucky to escape Washington in front of a home crowd, and even Clemson nearly got them in the ACCT. They were not dominant, but everyone thinks that adding a single offseason to that team will make them so. For them to become dominant, Barnes needs to turn into Carmelo Anthony. I don’t see him doing that, so again I see UNC as one of four strong teams to win the title, but consensus? Give me 1991 UNLV, 2002 Duke or even 2007 Florida — those teams were and should have been consensus picks to win the title. Why? Because they’d already done it.

By: Jerry Hollingsworth

Jerry Hollingsworth — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:28:31 +0000

It is easy to understand why non-algorithm polls favor UNC to win the NCAA championship.

First, surely the preseason polls are predicting the eventual champion, not suggesting which team is best on opening day. Else, why bother?

Looking at rosters, UNC has more proven players that had demonstrated individual and team excellence than any other outfit. Since new recruits do not always pan out either as individual talents (Selby) or as team players (Selby), extrapolating college success for a team relying on an infusion of talent is unwarranted (unless you are remembering Lew Alcindor and his freshman fellow recruits at UCLA, and Lew & company did play freshman ball together).

Ohio State could be preseason rated over UNC on the basis of the sheer excellence of their returning sophomores, but I consider it wise to value the UNC sophomores at least the equal of the Buckeyes, UNC’s senior post higher than Buford, and Henson’s skills better than TOSU’s counterparts even without the likely serious skills jump for Henson during the year.

We all should understand that luck plays a major role in determining the eventual NCAA champion. Rarely does the best team win out. Does anyone really think UCONN was last year’s best team? Surely not Kentucky fans.

I’ll stick with UNC for its combination of skilled and experienced players, Roy Williams’ dedication to scoring a lot of points, and my 1970 diploma.