Luka Bogavac commits to UNC!!

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I understand both sides, but I lean towards not telling much.

More data isn't necessarily helpful, but it often is. In this case it should be. But how helpful remains to be seen.

We'll be looking at several UNC players playing on different teams, for different coaches. There will be lots to compare.

Most here have opinions about why certain players seemed to under-perform last season. So one outcome might be that we see much the same at their new schools. In which case, some may want to reconsider whether the coaching staff was the main problem (a fairly common view at present).

If players do better, it may be harder to tease apart. Were they coached better or was it their own natural maturity that we would also have seen if they had stayed? Is Elliot better, for example, because he had a better front line to pass to; and would he have done as well or better with Veesaar and Wilson?

So . . . it could turn out a bunch of different ways, but we'll have the data and we will be able to decide for ourselves.

Moreover, I think it could be important. Not so much what we anonymous fans decide after looking at the data, but because it may factor into whether Hubert continues to coach here. Obviously if our 2025-26 team has a great year, that decision is made. But suppose it's a better season but not a great season? In that case, how Hubert's players fared at different schools might be something the PTB will scrutinize. As they should.

 

[UncTwinz]

Cadeau would have racked up the assists passing to Veeaar and Wilson.

 

[dtodd4475]

More data isn't necessarily helpful, but it often is. In this case it should be. But how helpful remains to be seen.

We'll be looking at several UNC players playing on different teams, for different coaches. There will be lots to compare.

Most here have opinions about why certain players seemed to under-perform last season. So one outcome might be that we see much the same at their new schools. In which case, some may want to reconsider whether the coaching staff was the main problem (a fairly common view at present).

If players do better, it may be harder to tease apart. Were they coached better or was it their own natural maturity that we would also have seen if they had stayed? Is Elliot better, for example, because he had a better front line to pass to; and would he have done as well or better with Veesaar and Wilson?

So . . . it could turn out a bunch of different ways, but we'll have the data and we will be able to decide for ourselves.

Moreover, I think it could be important. Not so much what we anonymous fans decide after looking at the data, but because it may factor into whether Hubert continues to coach here. Obviously if our 2025-26 team has a great year, that decision is made. But suppose it's a better season but not a great season? In that case, how Hubert's players fared at different schools might be something the PTB will scrutinize. As they should.

Possibly, but I won't put as much weight to it. Dawson Garcia, Styles, Puff, Walton, Dunn all had very different casts of characters and roles with their new rosters, and I do not think their roles at UNC should have been featured as such at the time they were here. Their results except for Dawson, I think showed why, but they played very different roles. Dawson would have been a feature as a player of that level if he stayed, and was seen as such. Walton played a similar role as well at Texas Tech.

EC was/is a featured player, and his new cast, and Jr. year maturity improvement will be vital for him. The guys coming in, it ain't Colorado State, very different ask for him now. Veesaar from Zona is a similar move, but with more of a feature role now and maturity as well, as a vet. Wouldn't hold improved numbers against his Zona coaching, or credit to Hubert necessarily either. Same with Ingram, Cormac and Manek, they were vets with a very different cast for teammates at UNC.

 

[JimmyinVA]

Cadeau would have racked up the assists passing to Veeaar and Wilson.

I think you're right. lack of inside scorers doomed EC at UNC.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Possibly, but I won't put as much weight to it. Dawson Garcia, Styles, Puff, Walton, Dunn all had very different casts of characters and roles with their new rosters, and I do not think their roles at UNC should have been featured as such at the time they were here. Their results except for Dawson, I think showed why, but they played very different roles. Dawson would have been a feature as a player of that level if he stayed, and was seen as such. Walton played a similar role as well at Texas Tech.

EC was/is a featured player, and his new cast, and Jr. year maturity improvement will be vital for him. The guys coming in, it ain't Colorado State, very different ask for him now. Veesaar from Zona is a similar move, but with more of a feature role now and maturity as well, as a vet. Wouldn't hold improved numbers against his Zona coaching, or credit to Hubert necessarily either. Same with Ingram, Cormac and Manek, they were vets with a very different cast for teammates at UNC.

Let me agree, again, that things change. But that's the point, not a reason to think we can't learn by comparison.

Suppose a player does about the same at his new school. There might be lessons to learn, but there probably isn't a lot of incentive to drill down. Whereas if a player does noticeably better or worse, then we can ask why. We can drill down and see if there are lessons to be learned.

What lessons? Mainly about coaching. The players are gone, after all. They can't help our team. But how they do next can help us identify what our coaching staff may have done well or poorly. And that's useful for our team.

I think that's worth doing. Moreover I think it would be a mistake not to do it. Whether that exercise generates useful information remains to be seen, but the effort makes sense.

 

[DSouthr]

I think you're right. lack of inside scorers doomed EC at UNC.

Being so small at every position was the THE problem last season and we all knew that before the first game was played. That one problem was directly involved in everything else we saw. If you are going to totally fail in the portal as we did then you must adapt an approach that allows you a chance to win, means last thing you want to settle for is a lot of half court games and why in the world would you go even smaller than you had to or base everything on outside shooting when you had only 1 outside shooter that defenses had to worry about? It was stacking failure on top of failure on top of failure?

 

[DSouthr]

While I am not as blown away with Luca as many seem to be I do wonder, can he be a factor for us as a PG? That isn't a question of can he play the point like Cadeau but more, can he play the point as well or better than Evans, Dixon, or Seth? I don't know that he can defend ACC PGs but he has nice size and the handles to play over a lot of defenders at the point and should be able to get his shot off over them. He does play with his head up so he should be able to see over most defenders and he has a nice hesy handle game, at 6'5"he would be harder to trap because he could see over many of his defenders.

If Luca could handle the point his value to me would explode upward ! Clearly for me the most glaring need is for a back up for Veesaar but outside of that ball handles at the point is my other area of concern.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

While I am not as blown away with Luca as many seem to be I do wonder, can he be a factor for us as a PG? That isn't a question of can he play the point like Cadeau but more, can he play the point as well or better than Evans, Dixon, or Seth? I don't know that he can defend ACC PGs but he has nice size and the handles to play over a lot of defenders at the point and should be able to get his shot off over them. He does play with his head up so he should be able to see over most defenders and he has a nice hesy handle game, at 6'5"he would be harder to trap because he could see over many of his defenders.

If Luca could handle the point his value to me would explode upward ! Clearly for me the most glaring need is for a back up for Veesaar but outside of that ball handles at the point is my other area of concern.

I know you're a fan of playing Wilson at SF. Others favor playing Stevenson at SF.

If either of those turns out to be a good option, then where does Luka play? Your thought that he might play PG is one option. I've heard others suggest that his handle - though good - isn't good enough to play PG. Who knows?

Another possibility, if Luka isn't our starting SF, is that he moves to SG. I hope this will be Seth's year to shoot well AND keep shooting well throughout the season. If he does, I assume he's our starting SG. But if his shooting never gets there or begins to fade, and Luka's shooting is as-advertised, might we see Seth relegated to the bench until his D is needed?

Hubert could have lots of options, but I guess we'll have to wait to find out which are actually viable.