I quote Chuck Amato, not the best coach ever but he nailed this..."Statistics are for idiots".
On the other hand, you are underselling our tight ends. They are good (Copenhaver has a broken hand but plays anyway) and underutilized, IMO.
OOTB Carolina football discussion thread
- Thread starter gteeitup
- Start date
On the other hand, you are underselling our tight ends. They are good (Copenhaver has a broken hand but plays anyway) and underutilized, IMO.
Well yea there’s always room for improvement for sure but when your offense is avg 40 pts and over 500 yds/gm…..the problem ain’t your offense
a team could literally attain that average yardage without putting a single point on the board. I didn't say it was likely, but it should tell you that there's more to the picture. You also have to look at the quality of the teams we've played. You think playing Campbell might have helped those averages? This is why Chuck Amato said that stats are for idiots.
That our offense is much much better than our D is not in question. But when you stumble and stutter to narrow victories that shouldn't be contested and lose games that shouldn't have been in question, the offense shares the blame. I'm kind of chuckling at this even being argued after we just played a game where the score should have been 28-7 at the half but instead it was what, 16-14?
Don't forget that the offense controlling the ball and accumulating TOP is the best defense you can have. They can't score if they don't have the ball.
People are describing Nesbitt as 'decent'. I think he catches almost everything and runs great routes. I'd say he's the best receiving TE in the acc. His blocking could be better... Copenhaver would be a national name if he was ten pounds heavier.
Nesbitt definitely gets a shot at the NFL, Copenhaver maybe. Hard to say since he has been playing with a broken hand all season which was actually in a cast for a while. I think Copenhaver is as good all around as Nesbitt. They both were pre-season Mackey award possibilities.
Morales isn't terrible either, has made a lot of good plays. Maybe inconsistent. We are not TE poor. We are TE utilization shy, IMO.
Last edited:
Poor defensive play will make a great offense look average, because of field position, game pressure to score every time, and always playing to outscore everyone.
That actually reveals, along with almost every image of the football program, just how serious UNC takes its football program. At the very top, you see that logo. And, you see it everywhere. The argyle, is another.
UNC is a basketball school. It will never be a football powerhouse. It never has been. It's juuuuust competitive enough to give it a "next year" appeal. But, ya gotta be thankful for the basketball legacy. It's why UNC is more well known than 75-80% of the schools in the country. Those states need their professional teams for their identity.
Because we were doing so well before that logo and argyle? UNC football is historically average, at best. All five of our ACC championships came between 1963-1980. In 100+ years of football, we had an above average stretch of 17 years that brought us championships. That's 17 out of 100. Logos and argyle didn't cause that.
I don't mean that they are the "cause" of it. I just mean it's a present-day manifestation of its identity.
Not sure what that identity is. I think one of the problems with the program is that they don't really have an identity. They're just one more average program. You either have to be a good program or a bad program to have an identity. We're just stuck in the middle class, shouting "We're ordinary!"
Ordinary and paying homage to our basketball identity on our football uniforms, gear, etc..
It's done in every sport. I actually think it's pretty cool to have a department wide design detail. Can't think of another school that does that.
Don't forget that the logo is "Jordan Brand", and that brand is bigger than hoops. Mich, Florida and a few other schools are outfitted entirely by Jordan Brand too
The younger generations don't really associate the Jordan brand with just basketball. They obviously know he was a basketball player, but it's a lifestyle thing for them.Don't forget that the logo is "Jordan Brand", and that brand is bigger than hoops. Mich, Florida and a few other schools are outfitted entirely by Jordan Brand too
I know, I knowDon't forget that the logo is "Jordan Brand", and that brand is bigger than hoops. Mich, Florida and a few other schools are outfitted entirely by Jordan Brand too
I agree with @strummingram here because I too noted it as it happened. Adopting the argyle for football was almost like putting a billboard on top of the jumbotron that says "BASKETBALL SCHOOL with a side of football".
The common thread is or should be our color, which even that has been commercialized into something other than it is supposed to be. 'Carolina blue' is unique and it's one of the more widely recognized sport identities in all sports, and it doesn't identify with any particular sport as much as it does the school itself with all of its sports.
Football should not be promoted as BB's little sister. But then, football should not BE BB's little sister. That's the problem, IMO. Too many want it to be nothing else.
The common thread is or should be our color, which even that has been commercialized into something other than it is supposed to be. 'Carolina blue' is unique and it's one of the more widely recognized sport identities in all sports, and it doesn't identify with any particular sport as much as it does the school itself with all of its sports.
Football should not be promoted as BB's little sister. But then, football should not BE BB's little sister. That's the problem, IMO. Too many want it to be nothing else.
Disagree. It’s more we’re “using what we have to leverage the marketing on lesser programs” thing versus “we’re a basketball school with a side of football school”. No one gives a shit about Carolina football. Or any other sport for that matter. Except Carolina fans. Anyone that becomes a Carolina fan becomes one originally because of our basketball program. So of course we’re gonna do our best to associate any program within the athletic department with the basketball program. It’s logical.
I didn't say it wasn't logical, given the reality. And I indicated, or I tried to, that we in fact have leaned on the argyle, e.g., to identify with our well known BB program. But I also tried to say it shouldn't be that way because football at our school has every right to be known on its own merits.
So beyond that, please imagine “we're using what we have to leverage the marketing on lesser programs” on a billboard on the jumbotron, and tell me how that's any different from one saying “we’re a basketball school with a side of football school”.
agree…the argyle influence was an unnecessary move and wasn’t even part of the athletics program until 1991-92.
carolina as a brand was already established as a basketball program
Last edited:
The difference from my perspective is your term insinuates that we're proud to be a "basketball school with a side of everything else" whereas my phrasing makes it seem the athletic department is simply being wise in how they market the programs and attract viewership/fandom. Yours gives the appearance of the motive being anti-other sports. Mine gives the benefit of the doubt to those in leadership.
If I made that up and that wasn't your intent, then my B. That's just how I read it.
A proud UNC alum became one of the greatest and most famous athletes of all time, is vocal about his love for our program and legendary coach, AND then went on to create one of the most widely recognized athletic brands in the world. The notion that we would NOT want our athletics department to take advantage of that association (one that no other school has anything that really compares) to the greatest degree possible across all sports seems utterly absurd.
LOL, I don't know how you determine any particular undercurrent of meaning beyond what it says but there's no reason that your version and my version aren't equally applicable. There's no reason to not read the same message in either.
Let me try it this way. The sign says.."We're proud to be a basketball school with a side of everything else so we thought it wise to market the everything else by relating the everything else to basketball. So we put basketball's argyle on the football field and the uniforms."
I just see it, regardless of original source or reasons for status, as being one of THE most recognizable brands in all of sports. From a marketing perspective, they'd be crazy NOT to plaster it on everything they could. Don't think it ultimately matters what status of any given program holds. It's universally gonna be recognized as Carolina.
I see the argyle and I think, 'what was wrong with the foot with a black heel?' That was even more iconic, for several reasons; one being it was a Heel with Tar on it. Get it? Tar Heel?
What the hell does an argyle pattern have to do with us, other than the fact that a grad came up with it? And of course our (supposedly) unique color that a lot more people recognize as us than any argyle does.
Don't get me wrong, if that's what fans want it's acceptable to me. It's a lot classier than a lot of other looks out there. I just wish that it would stay with BB and that football be given the attention it deserves on its own so that it doesn't have to borrow anything else for recognition.
I know plenty of moo fans that absolutely hate the argyle. For that reason alone we should put it in as many places as possible.
Also, people keep talking about football and basketball uniforms, out baseball team might have the best uniforms on campus. It's certainly the best baseball uniforms in the country.
And, ya gotta love the tire treads that are emblazoned on their shoulder pads. Looks like a jeep ran over them.
adidasAnd, ya gotta love the tire treads that are emblazoned on their shoulder pads. Looks like a jeep ran over them.
sure, but then they hate anything colored blue or spelled with a capital C. They just hate anything even remotely associated with us. We'll be reminded soon.
I can't argue with the bolded, if you mean this one...but we've had football uniforms that IMO have been the best uniform of any sport pro or college.
it’s a soft look and always has been…the “foot” and the “tar heel” look and represent much better than a sock pattern.
in fact, i see more carolina gear represented with the interlocking n/c, unc, jumpman, ramses, and the foot than anything else.
It's relatively new, so it would make sense that you wouldn't see it as much. Plus, they mostly keep it to the PE merchandise.
it's been factually almost a third of a century. What are you comparing it to when you say relatively new, the Civil War?
