...and also for anybody here who wants to smugly (and blindly) deny the palpable anti-UNC bias out there, here's a sampler for ya... enjoy:
Bulletin Board material...
- Thread starter gary-7
- Start date
Every year there is a team put in and a team left out that everyone is up in the air about this year it happens to be us.
My Carolina blue vision says we should have been in because we took the initiative to actually play a tough OOC schedule but my logical said says we got a wink because of our name, but we have earned it.
With that said I don't think it's anti Carolina bias as much as it's a hot talking point, and it makes news.
Now we need to win at least 2 games to justify it and make them look like fools.
My Carolina blue vision says we should have been in because we took the initiative to actually play a tough OOC schedule but my logical said says we got a wink because of our name, but we have earned it.
With that said I don't think it's anti Carolina bias as much as it's a hot talking point, and it makes news.
Now we need to win at least 2 games to justify it and make them look like fools.
Listening to a lot of sports talk radio this morning while running my errands. The anti UNC talk is everywhere, it’s comical. It’s like there’s a script out there. The hate is real, yet nobody has mentioned that our NET was higher (or lower, whichever is better) than all the other bubble teams.
Precisely. Even the chuckleheads down here on ATL sports radio are doing it, and they normally treat college hoops like an afterthought to football season or the Braves.
And yeah, not one of these haters seems to get that the NET and other metrics used actually include all the "Quad" junk.
UNC is good for business. Whining about it gets a ton of exposure and clicks and watchers and hits.
"UNC can't possibly be in this NCAA Tournament field. This is an example of why we don't need to expand the tournament."
I don't get that comment. I would have said that's an argument FOR expanding the tournament.
Wink wink! We may have lost a lot of quad 1 wins, but we were in A LOT of those games. Just one bone head play away from having a chance to win...This team does have potential...but also have some glaring weaknesses.
Well, at least their "logic" is nothing if not consistent
I was gonna post this exact thing. I would plaster this everywhere and point this out to the players more than once. This is fantastic motivation and would give me a giant chip on my shoulder to prove every one of these jerks wrong.
Drink all the haterade and use it as fuel!
Correct. I don't think the people criticizing UNC getting in have "anti-UNC bias". Sure we played a super-tough schedule, but only won one or two games worth noting.
People who are lifelong UNC fans look at the process as if all deciders / fans look at the scenario and records and results from a UNC point of view (like we obviously non-objective fans do) instead of a neutral basis.
If you just put up the results of team A (West Virginia) and team B (UNC) - without knowing the names, and just looking at who the teams beat, and few if any bad losses.....there is no way a rational person can make an argument that team B deserves a bid over team A. Unless it doesn't matter who you BEAT, only who you schedule to play, which is insane. I hope wins matter more than "scheduled games you lose".
But reality is: the name UNC draws more $ and viewers, and in the end makes more money for NCAA and for UNC and Bubba himself (I heard he / the college gets like $100K+ for making the tourney).
Then I wonder a bit if Bubba wanted UNC in, to take some of the heat off of him and his (Roy's?) bad decision - handing the job to a bad hire in Hubs... missing the tourney in two out of three years...once as pre-season #1, other time (this year) as pre-season mid teens national ranking.
Those idiots should be hating on Xavier more than us. Heels were 36 in the NET, Xavier was 45 (1-9 in Q1 games).
Also, of the 7 metrics used by the committee, Carolina was 1st in 6 of them when compared to the other bubble teams. So suck it haters. You're gonna look foolish when the Heels make the Sweet 16.
Also, of the 7 metrics used by the committee, Carolina was 1st in 6 of them when compared to the other bubble teams. So suck it haters. You're gonna look foolish when the Heels make the Sweet 16.
Here's my latest thinking on this nonsense.
We're an 11-seed. If not for conference complications and whatnot, the 11 seeds should be teams ranked 41-44 by whatever ranking system they decide to use.
So the worst we could be is #44 to get our 11-seed..
Without play-in games the NCAAT field is 64 teams.
So if you are saying UNC doesn't belong in the NCAAT, what you are claiming is that the 44th best team doesn't belong in the field of the 64 best teams.
How does that make sense?
Yeah, yeah, I know. That doesn't take into account the crappy teams that only get in because they belong to a crappy conference.
That's one reason why the argument to expand the tournament should not be dismissed out of hand, imo. But that's a discussion for another thread.
We're an 11-seed. If not for conference complications and whatnot, the 11 seeds should be teams ranked 41-44 by whatever ranking system they decide to use.
So the worst we could be is #44 to get our 11-seed..
Without play-in games the NCAAT field is 64 teams.
So if you are saying UNC doesn't belong in the NCAAT, what you are claiming is that the 44th best team doesn't belong in the field of the 64 best teams.
How does that make sense?
Yeah, yeah, I know. That doesn't take into account the crappy teams that only get in because they belong to a crappy conference.
That's one reason why the argument to expand the tournament should not be dismissed out of hand, imo. But that's a discussion for another thread.
Not quite. There are 37 at-large teams. 31 bids go to auto qualifiers, however quite a few of them are from smaller conferences and they are the ones mostly getting 13 - 16 seeds. The lowest rated at-large teams like us, Texas, etc get slotted as 11's
Least we're getting alot of attention ... maybe it will help us on the recruiting & portal trail !!
No WVU either, FWIW. I think they had the biggest / best argument for taking that last slot in front of us.Looks like Indiana (and Wake) are too butt hurt or think they are too good to give their fans a chance to see them play in the NIT. Pussies.
Good for SMU and Georgia Tech for accepting their NIT bids.
If my eyes aren't deceiving me there are only 4 of the 32 teams from power conferences. I'm guessing Indiana, OSU, Cincy, etc all turned down the NIT. Wake and Pitt both did.Looks like Indiana (and Wake) are too butt hurt or think they are too good to give their fans a chance to see them play in the NIT. Pussies.
Good for SMU and Georgia Tech for accepting their NIT bids.
TBH, I can't really blame any bubble team like WV if they don't want to play in the NIT. In the current era, they probably have dudes already hitting the portal, and they need to start re-stocking. Carolina would likely be in the same position if we didn't make the dance this year just like 2 years ago.
I hear what you're saying, but this isn't the attention we had been used to. "come here and play for a team that underachieves and ekes its way in on some sketchy logic" does not equal....
what we've come to expect: "come to UNC and play in prime time TV all the time during regular season and almost always is in the top 4 (16) NCAA tourney seeds, and has the most one seeds, final fours in history."
Right now the UNC program is a LONG WAY from promoting that second comment with this year's team and coaches.
Temporarily, there are 6 11s instead of 4. Even if you want to argue that we are technically a 12-seed (since there can only be 4 11-seeds, so we must therefore be a 12) that doesn't change the argument that ANY 11 (or 12) seed is well within the 64 best teams in the country.
I would argue that the 64 best teams in the country should be in the tournament. And if you have to expand the tournament, don't just arbitrarily stop at 68. Expand it enough to include all the other teams that get in for special reasons - like membership in a crappy conference, or pulling an upset in a conference tournament.
Personally, I think a 96-team field is the best compromise. The top 32 get a 1-round bye while the rest play to cut the bottom 64 to 32.
The idea that teams can't be working on next year while playing a couple more games seems weak to me. Especially now that schools are hiring GMs and other support personnel. Surely these highly paid folks can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Not accepting the bid is an insult to fans. Teams/coaches/schools who don't care about fans might someday find fans caring less about them.
Don’t forget we declined a NIT bid not to long ago…Looks like Indiana (and Wake) are too butt hurt or think they are too good to give their fans a chance to see them play in the NIT. Pussies.
Good for SMU and Georgia Tech for accepting their NIT bids.
Not sure I’d call Indiana pussies… why play those meaningless games with a head coach who is leaving and a roster that’s likely overhauling?Looks like Indiana (and Wake) are too butt hurt or think they are too good to give their fans a chance to see them play in the NIT. Pussies.
Good for SMU and Georgia Tech for accepting their NIT bids.
Seems like a smart business decision for beginning the process of moving their program forward. Making sure fans are happy is definitely a secondary priority in my opinion.
Also, I’m assuming then that means you thought we were pussies as well 2 years ago?
Over the years I've tried to deny the negative media bias towards UNC bball but what we are witnessing at the moment is complete bias against this team. You should rethink your position on that one. There is bias AND its a hot talking point as you put it.
I agree they could be working both at the same time. But what if 3 or 4 of your top 6, 7 players hit the portal? Sure they could go play with what they have, but like we found out two years ago the team voted not to play in the NIT (we had 6 guys hit the portal that year, IIRC). I was kind of ticked off at the time that we didn't get to see anymore Heels games that year, but in hindsight I can't blame them.
I think the anti-media bias is conjured up solely by the fanbase. Thinking that refs, commentators, media, NCAA all hate us is crazy.
Kentucky fans all think this too. Alabama football fans probably think this too. Aside from opposing fans, no one hates your program as much you think they do… that’s because they don’t care about your program as much as you think they do.
Replace us with Kentucky or Kansas in this team #68 scenario and the media would all be going just as crazy today. Any premier program in as #68 is gonna draw national ire. If West Virginia had gotten in over us, nobody would be saying anything today. Everybody would be happy that one of the big boys got the short end of the stick. It’s the scenario… not UNC specific.
But I know the “they hate us cuz they ain’t us” crowd feeds off of this manufactured hatred.
Kentucky fans all think this too. Alabama football fans probably think this too. Aside from opposing fans, no one hates your program as much you think they do… that’s because they don’t care about your program as much as you think they do.
Replace us with Kentucky or Kansas in this team #68 scenario and the media would all be going just as crazy today. Any premier program in as #68 is gonna draw national ire. If West Virginia had gotten in over us, nobody would be saying anything today. Everybody would be happy that one of the big boys got the short end of the stick. It’s the scenario… not UNC specific.
But I know the “they hate us cuz they ain’t us” crowd feeds off of this manufactured hatred.
Did any of those reporters look at the 7 metrics used by the committee where UNC was the best in the majority of them? They focus on QUAD 1 and dismiss the SOC with a bare mention. Fools all. UNC deserved to be in and maybe NOT even as the LAST team in. F 'em!
I generally agree with most of your posts & think you bring quality to the board, but I could not disagree more with this take. There is absolutely an anti UNC bias, & as far as the refereeing goes, it may not be everybody but it is certainly a select few. If you don’t agree, go back & watch the calls Michael Stephens makes in the 2016 National Championship game.
Very much appreciate the kind words!
I 100% agree with you when you break it down to individuals. I definitely think there are specific refs, commentators, media etc that don’t like UNC. I also think there are specific ones for Kentucky, Kansas, or even whole conferences.
I just don’t think there’s some broad industry wide “let’s stick it to UNC” master plan going on.
I just dont see it as bias I see it as the people on both side have a legit argument for us being in and not being in.
I have never seen the Carolina hate that everyone is speaking of, sure there are some games that we don't get calls and some poorly refereed games amd i always felt like Billy Packer hate Carolina and Dean even more but for year when Dean was coached we got the benefit of the doubt ALOT, just like we seen K get it for a lot of years after Dean retired.
Also there was no way they was going to allow the ACC to only get 2 teams in and we was the only option. ACC getting only 2 teams would be devastating to college basketball, as a whole the ACC is the Bible belt of college basketball and there are alot of eyes that need to see Carolina in the dance.
Long story short we deserve alot of the crap we are taking because of the complete lack of winning EVERYONE expects from Carolina year in and year out, we stunk all year on the weakest year the ACC has ever seen.
I have never seen the Carolina hate that everyone is speaking of, sure there are some games that we don't get calls and some poorly refereed games amd i always felt like Billy Packer hate Carolina and Dean even more but for year when Dean was coached we got the benefit of the doubt ALOT, just like we seen K get it for a lot of years after Dean retired.
Also there was no way they was going to allow the ACC to only get 2 teams in and we was the only option. ACC getting only 2 teams would be devastating to college basketball, as a whole the ACC is the Bible belt of college basketball and there are alot of eyes that need to see Carolina in the dance.
Long story short we deserve alot of the crap we are taking because of the complete lack of winning EVERYONE expects from Carolina year in and year out, we stunk all year on the weakest year the ACC has ever seen.
Not likely. And I've seen it mentioned multiple places where the committee usually doesn't just look at Q1, as they typically lump Q1 & Q2 together. When you do that, our record was very similar with most of the other bubble teams.
Last edited:
You’ld understand if you listened to sports talk radio on Sirius XM this morning. Everybody was railing on the Heels, it’s like it was blasted out to all stations as their agenda for the day.
You’re correct gary-7! And I might add that I don’t understand how the SEC got so many teams in. Texas with 19 wins? Georgia? What’s wrong with SMU? Wake? I’m just not buying into the ACC hate. And ESPN lost my respect the other night by showing Cooper Flagg every 10seconds! It was disrespectful to the kids on the floor busting their tails! The Heels deserved to be in it- they played very well at the right time!
the lazy hack media colluding and parroting the same pushed out talking points! I am shocked, shocked I say! (Its same with all sorts of media)
