Last summer after we finished up with the whole testing the waters business things got pretty slow around here so I thought it was be fun if I went through and ranked all of the UNC teams I had seen play which was 1982 to present. Now we have another edition of the Tar Heels in the books let us revisit that countdown and see where the 2009 team fits in.
First of all by way of review here was the top five:
1. 1982
2. 2005
3. 1993
4. 2008
5. 1998
According to the standard I used any national title team is ranked above any UNC team that failed to win the title. Of course had the 2000 team won the national title I would have great difficulty ranking them ahead of many of the other Final Four teams that came up short. In the case of 2009 we do not have any such issues. Based on this 2009 moves to at least #4 ahead of 2008.
The first question we have is whether 2009 is better than 1993? In my mind it is a clear yes. 2009 was simply better at almost every position. George Lynch probably trumps Deon Thompson. Wayne Ellington and Donald Williams are probably even. Tyler Hansbrough might have some issues dealing with Eric Montross’ height but I also think Hansbrough’s extended range would pull Montross out of the middle. Danny Green trumps Brian Reese and Ty Lawson is absolutely better than Derrick Phelps. 1993 did have a deeper bench but no one like Ed Davis coming off of it. In the end 2009 has too many weapons on the floor for 1993 to effectively stop.
So, that leaves us with the debate everyone has been wanting to have since the middle of the season. Is 2009 better than 2005 and therefore able to move up to #2 in the THF Countdown? The various places I have seen this debated always uses a position by position evaluation in an effort to declare a winner. I am not going to do that here because I think the personnel matchup is ultimately a wash. In my mind the pertinent question is whether the 2009 offense in all its glory can roll the 2005 defense? In fact that was pretty much the big question the 2009 team answered in winning the title. All season we heard about how the 2009 team’s defense was a problem without considering what might happen if the offense showed up for six straight games. Clearly they did and were quite dominant in doing it. If the 2009 team showed up with the same offense they won the title with I am not sure the 2005 team would have a sufficient answer. The major issue you have in stopping the 2009 team is if all the players are hitting shots, there is no weak link to exploit. With the 2005 team Jackie Manuel was a major offensive liability. There were clear weak spots in the offensive makeup of the 2005 team which did not exist for the 2009 team. Those deficiencies might be the difference between the two even though we are talking about inches.
Another factor in this discussion is the intangibles. While I want to refrain from extending this debate to consider the previous year’s incarnation of these respective teams as it pertains to evaluating them, both these teams operated with the same core of players for a period of at least two seasons. The 2004 and 2008 teams were very similar to the teams that won a title the next season. 2009 probably dealt with the most upheaval in losing Marcus Ginyard but at the same time received an upgrade in Ed Davis over Alex Stepheson. The 2008 team also went 36-3. The 2004 win 19 games then came back the next season and won 34 to take home the title. The question is does this matter? I think it is relevant. The 2009 was an extension of the 2008 team and at the end of the day they compiled a incredible 70-7 mark in two seasons. The reason I think this matters lies in the difficulty involved of maintaining a certain level of play. The 2009 came into the season having posted the most wins in UNC history during the previous year and was expected to win the national title. That is a tremendous level of pressure to deal with as well as maintaining a certain level of play. The 2005 team came in with expectations but coming off a 19 win season they were considered one of many contenders. Yes, they played at a very high level but in many ways I think it is easier the first time through to be really good. To be really good or great over a two year span is more remarkable. In terms of other intangibles 2009 was a more seasoned team and fueled by bitterness of losing to Kansas in the previous Final Four.
Ultimately we a splitting hairs here. In fact I could reasonably declare this a tie at #2 but that would be a cop out. In the end I think the intangibles and the manner in which 2009 ran through the NCAA Tournament gives UNC’s fifth NCAA title team the edge over the fourth. Without further ado here is the THF Countdown updated for 2009:
1. 1982
2. 2009
3. 2005
4. 1993
5. 2008
6. 1998
7. 1995
8. 1984
9. 1987
10. 1997
11. 1991
12. 2007
13. 1986
14. 1994
15. 1983
16. 1989
17. 1988
18. 1985
19. 2006
20. 2001
21. 1992
22. 1996
23. 1999
24. 2000
25. 2004
26. 1990
27. 2003
28. 2002
One more thing. Lest anyone suggest it 1982 is still #1 with a bullet. I thought at the beginning of the season that 2009 could eclipse 1982 but it would take something along the lines of 38-1 or 37-2 with the loss(es) being in the regular season. 1982 was just a great team. James Worthy, Sam Perkins and Michael Jordan are really all you have to say but also consider this: UNC went 4-1 against teams with the following players: Patrick Ewing, Ralph Sampson, Clyde Drexler and Hakeem Olajuwon. They also won a #1 vs #2 game against Kentucky, won the ACC Tournament and generally were awesome.
![[Bloglines]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
This team and the 1982 separate themselves on this list, based on their accomplishments in season, and in the season before. No two groups of UNC players can claim similar success over a two-year period as these two can.
For me, this is almost like saying which of your children do you like better. But it is interesting that the 1993 team is typically the step-child in anyone’s rankings. I suspect that is because that team didn’t have the true star power of the other three teams.
Of course, it is difficult to judge teams from different eras, but the goal in sports is to win, so you “are what your record is” to quote Bill Parcells.
1993 (34-4)
2005 (33-4)
2009 (34-4)
1982 (32-2) (this team would have been 33-2 but played one less NCAA game because of the format)
That said, I’d have to give the title to the 1982 team. Not coincidentally, they had the most prolific players of any of the teams.
The 1982 team was 32-1 in games that Sam Perkins played in.
On the other hand, they almost lost to Penn State and James Madison. Can you imagine what the current team would have heard if they had needed to go to overtime to beat say, Rutgers in the regular season, or had to go to the wire against LSU in the NCAA second round?
The 1982 team was also far from being “clearly” the best team in the country that year. They would have had to labor mightily simply to beat Georgetown or UVa 6 times out of ten. Yes, they beat number two Kentucky handily on a neutral court, but Sam Bowie was not available to play that game, which made it far less impressive as a victory.
UNC played UVa three times that year, squeaking by at home after trailing by a substantial amount and squeaking by in the ACC tourney. UVa annihilated UNC in Charlottesville, in a game Carolina was never in.
The 1982 team lacked depth and was relatively low-scoring.
It is a popular choice these days to anoint the 1982 Heels as the greatest team of all time, but I don’t remember anyone saying this in 1982 after UNC had beaten Georgetown. The memory of Indiana, NC State and UCLA’s undefeated teams from the early to mid-70′s was too fresh in people’s memories and no one was basing the notion of the best college team upon what the players would end up doing in the pro’s.
1982 was a great team, don’t get me wrong, but I think it is easy to look back and lose perspective. They certainly did not march through the NCAA tourney in the same impressive fashion as the current guys, but history treats them favorably because we know now that Houston and Georgetown and UNC all had so many guys that did great in the pro’s. History treats the 1976 Indiana team poorly because none of them did well in the NBA, which is true for the NC State guys, also, given David Thompson’s curtailed career.
With respect to the 1993 team, I think they will never be considered among the top echelon because they had two pretty ugly losses, at full strength, by 26 and by 14 on the road against Wake and Duke. The 1957 team had no such losses; the 1982 team had one; the 2005 team might have had one, depending on how you look at it.
I remember someone earlier this year thinking that Duke couldn’t get a number one seed because they had lost a game by more than 25 points; well, UNC in 1993 did the same thing and still got a number one seed.
The other thing that people probably don’t remember quite correctly is that I think many people see the huge comeback against Florida State in Chapel Hill as being sort of the turnaround that year where UNC stepped up and asserted itself as the top team. Actually, what that comeback did was to help UNC avoid three crushing defeats in a row. Right after the amazing win against FSU, UNC lost to Wake by 26 points.
I do think that the 1993 team had to play four of the toughest games, pretty much ever, from the round of 16 on. Cincy had its best team ever that year and Arkansas would win it all the next year. Kansas was Kansas, which presented a huge challenge besides just the on the court competition and then there was Michigan.
And yet, if they replayed the 1993 tournament some number of iterations, would UNC win it more times than Michigan or Kentucky?
I think the 1993 Heels probably were actually the third best team that year, or perhaps equal to Kentucky and Michigan, but they certainly were not the clear-cut best team that the 2009 or 2005 teams were.
I know we’ve discussed this before, but UNC was only out of one game this year (BC), and the other losses were games we could have easily won in the final minute (and probably should have). Additionally, the FSU loss was without Lawson, and we all know how important he became later in the post season.
That, coupled with the fact that we dominated the NCAA tourney, leads me to rank this team as a solid #2. I might even rank this team as a tie with 1982. william hits on several key points about the 82 team, and we do tend to treat that team differently because we know what those guys did in the NBA. The same can somewhat be said of the talent we played against, since those guys are household names now but not in 1982.
Also, as THF pointed out the expectations for the 2009 team were astronomical. I think they delivered, and that’s very difficult to do. Personally I think the 09 team gets some extra credit for that.
The 82 team will always hold such a special place for many reasons, but I think that if that team and the 09 team were both playing at 100%, the 09 team might just get the nod due to its offensive prowess. No matter what, I’m just glad to be having this discussion now!
Along the lines of my earlier post, the 1982 team was the only one of the four teams that was both the ACC Champion and the NCAA Champion.
The 1982 team had to win the ACC championship if it wanted to stay in the East, as I recall. This was due to the withering defeat that the 1982 team had suffered in Charlottesville. Plus, if you want to get into those minutiae, then the 1982 did not win the ACC regular season title outright, unlike the 1993, 2005 and 2009 teams.
I think it has clearly been proven that the ACC tournament has little or no importance anymore, anyway. Judging from the large numbers of empty seats and the fact that Duke always wins it and then goes up in flames, I tend not to put any real importance behind a team winning the ACC tourney after the NCAA tourney expanded in 1980 and really, it dwindled before that, after 1974 when the tourney started taking two teams per conference. Prior to that, the best team almost always won the tourney because they had to.
THF had so many interesting points that I am sort of hitting them separately, but one argument for 2005 would be the mention of the following names:
Chris Brust, Henrik Rodl and Bobby Frasor (with honorable mention to Scot Cherry)
These three guys all played significant minutes for the 1982, 1993 and 2009 teams, especially Rodl and Frasor, who were quasi-starters. Once the championships had been won, however, Rodl and Frasor’s names promptly disappeared from all of the player by player match-ups that Carolina and other sports fans like to do when comparing between seasons.
Notice that THF mentions Jackie Manuel as a weak offensive link for 2005. Of course, Jackie was an offensive demon compared to Bobby Frasor, whose 17 plus minutes per game have already gone up in smoke in people’s memories. Melvin Scott was far and away better in 2005 than Larry Drew II as a back-up. Frasor played more this year than either Scott or David Noel played back in 2005.
Drew was significantly better than poor Quentin Thomas, however, whose 2005 season is pretty much off the board in terms of comparisons, which is probably why he played so little that year.
I think it would be a fascinating game, though. 2009 had the better three-point game, while 2005 had the better break and more bulk down low.
2 trophies > 1 trophy. 1982 wins in my book.
I don’t know what the second trophy was, but if you mean the ACC tourney, then as I said, the 1982 team did not win the regular season title, which is something that all of the other teams mentioned accomplished.
That should count against them, as should the fact that they only played 14 conference games, compared to 16 for the other three titlists.
Only the 1982 team among all five of UNC’s national champions was unable to win the ACC regular season outright.
While the ACC tourney title can mean something some years for particular teams, in general, winning it for the best teams is probably a negative and may actually hurt a team’s chance’s for winning the national championship. No ACC team except for Duke has done so since 1982, so if that is the dividing point for excellence then Duke’s national title winners in 1992 and 2001 certainly have been better than our more recent ones.
Sure, there is no trophy for the ACC regular season title. There can only be one champion (and automatic bid), and as much as it pains me to say this, Duke was the ACC champion this year. Ugh.
http://www.theacc.com/championships/index.html#table
Duke got the ACC trophy. UNC got the NCAA trophy. Only the 1982 team got both trophies.
I think that, just as 1982 and 2009 may be elevated based on their performance over a two-year period, opinion of the 1993 team may be jaded by the team’s performance the year after.
Yeah, but you are summing them up as equals. One ACC title plus one National Title only equals 2, if the NCAA title equals 1.9999 and the ACC title equals the rest.
Furthermore, there is an officially recognized regular season champion in the ACC now and that counts more than the ACC tourney (even if you do get a trophy) in virtually everyone’s opinion.
This ain’t your grandfather’s ACC tourney anymore, when only the ACC and the Southern Conference had tournaments to decide their champions. Once the NCAA removed the limits on numbers of teams from a conference, around the end of the 70′s, guess what happened?
Every single conference decided to have a tournament to “crown” their champion because it meant more revenue and possibly an extra team from each conference in the NCAA tourney.
I see this confusion, over and over among some throwbacks, because once, yes, to be the conference representative in the NCAA tourney you had to win the tourney. I don’t think that is true any longer in any college sport. So, I don’t understand why some people pretend like it is still the case. Neither Dean Smith nor Roy Williams believes that the ACC tourney matters, unless a team needs to win it to get the top seed and the two of them have proven it over and over by losing (deliberately or semi-deliberately, it would seem) those years when they have already guaranteed themselves the number one seed.
And lastly, by the standards you have set up, obviously the 1957 team is the greatest of all time among UNC teams. They actually won the regular season title, the ACC tourney and the NCAA title, while going undefeated and beating Wilt Chamberlain in the finals, which is certainly much more impressive than defeating a mere mortal like Patrick Ewing.
I think that is a good point, C.Michael, as the 1994 squad was a huge, huge disappointment. I really did think they would go undefeated. People say it was because Lynch graduated but he was replaced by two guys each of whom was far better than he was. I think we all know what really happened with that team and it was Coach Smith’s biggest failure.
It was a huge smack in the face to see Duke playing for the national championship in our state, in Charlotte, where so many of us expected to be. I know THF says we don’t judge our program by Kansas or Duke, but I think a lot of UNC fans were rooting hard for Arkansas that night.
Also, Duke had won two straight and given our two huge recruiting years of 1990 and 1993, I think people sort of expected to finally win at least one title. In retrospect, Dean needed to do it for his reputation, although back then there still were not a lot of guys with multiple titles.
On the other hand, that 1993 team is somewhat more memorable than it might be otherwise because it defeated the Fab Five in a famous game that gets shown on television and mentioned a lot. The paradox here is that the 2009 UNC-MSU game will be shown much less on Classic because it was the most one-sided game overall in NCAA finals history in terms of play, although not final score.
William-
Two things:
1. I agree that 1994 was Dean’s biggest failure-no question. The way I saw it was that a new age of superstars came to play, but were forced into a regimented system, a system that has been emulated at times by nearly every major college program from the late 1980s on. Dean had guys like Montross who would go to the gates of Hell for him, while others, such as Brian Reese, were pissed at him due to lack of playing time. The infrastructure was fragile to begin with, but then Stackhouse and Wallace (both of whom could have gone pro out of high school) have to fight for minutes, and they become equally pissed. For guys like Montross, Dean could start a sentence by saying, “when we rotate on screens…” and then Montross would be able to finish the sentence, he’d simply been so immersed into the system. Say the same thing to an 18-year old Rasheed Wallace, and he’s gonna look at you like you’re wasting his time.
My point? Dean’s teaching got lost in the translation. I usually don’t put any of K’s methodologies before Dean, but a Krzyzewski-style philosophy of “let the best five play” may have best served that team. A starting five of Phelps, Williams, Stackhouse, Wallace, and Montross would have been devastating. You would have had depth at all five positions with McGinnis, Calabria, Reese, Wenstrom, and Salvadori rotating in, along with Zwikker. Still, Dean remained consistent with his own philosophy of rewarding service, and the upperclassmen logged most of the important minutes, until Rasheed finally started some games by the end of the season.
2. Yes, the 2009 national championship was the most one-sided title game in NCAA finals history. It was over within five minutes. I know that several hoops fans would immediately counteract with the 1990 UNLV rout of Dook. While UNLV were clearly in another class for most of the first half, Dook were still able to hang around. UNLV throttled Dook out of the gate in the second half and just padded the final score. Actually, I would put the 2004 title game behind the 2009 contest. Sure, UConn won by nine, but they simply toyed with Georgia Tech for most of the first half. I believe at one point, UConn were up by more than thirty, and then they sloppily stumbled to the finish line.
william – totally agree with you about the 1957 team. they are the greatest UNC team.
as for the ACC regular season champion being officially recognized, that is not accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_Coast_Conference_men%27s_basketball_regular_season_champions
This is a list of Atlantic Coast Conference men’s basketball regular season champions. Please note that this “championship” is not official and merely determines the top seed in the ACC men’s basketball tournament, using tiebreakers when necessary. Since July 1, 1961, the ACC’s bylaws have included the phrase “and the winner shall be the conference champion” in referring to the tournament.[1] While it has become popular for the media (and fans of teams that finish first in the regular season but fail to win the tournament) to use the term “regular-season champions,” such usage is not borne out by league rules and is incorrect to the extent it is used to imply that the team in question is the (or an) ACC champion for a given season.
In addition, it should be noted that the aforementioned tiebreakers apply only to the tournament seeding. Because the “regular-season championship” is unofficial, the ACC does not break ties to determine a sole such “champion.”
There is someone who I often think about in the Rodl, Frasor, Hale mode, and that is Pierce Landry. I’m telling you, had the Heels won the title in 1995 he would be mentioned alongside those guys. Dean went on record saying he regretted keeping Landry at the JV level, in that he should have been a scholarship player from day one.
That 1995 team had a certain identity, and when they were on, they could have beaten any team that year. They were so hit-or-miss, with very slight middle ground. They beat #1 seed (and the SEC’s best team) UK one night by 13, then play poorly against defending national champ Arkansas in the first half (next game) and still take a lead into the locker room. I still think that Rasheed was hurt in that game, in that his ankle was still bothering him. Perhaps ULCA was playing so well it didn’t matter, but I don’t think they could have taken the early season 1995 Tar Heels.
Where’s John Wall-do?
As for the tourney championship, I will let THF chime in, because this came up earlier this year and I was trying to repeat what I thought his response was. One thing, regardless, it is a bit like when they used to include the U.S. Amateur as a major title in golf. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t but we all know it ain’t what it once ways, although it is still nice to win. But it is not the U.S. Open.
In terms of the 1994 team, take a look at the roster of that squad. It really is amazing. Pierce Landry was the worst player on that squad.
http://www.tarheeltimes.com/rosterbasketball-1993.aspx
Two seasons that still hurt to this day for me are 1984 and 1987. I still to this day can’t believe Carolina lost to Indiana. And I know everyone always brings up the Kenny Smith injury in relation to that team, but still, Carolina simply should have won that game hands down. Virginia making the Final Four that year out of Carolina’s bracket, sans Ralph Sampson, was a JOKE!!
1987 hurts as well. It was my senior year in High School. I think if Carolina and Syracuse played 7 times, Carolina would win six of them. That one and done thing.
The one year that gets lost when mentioning Carolina is 1983. That was a great team as well and really should’ve beat Georgia in the Elite 8. That would have set up a rematch with N.C. State in the Final Four.
As for the 4 Championship teams, only 2009 and 2005 had real serviceable benches. Dean hardly used the bench in 1982, but was able to get away with using only 5 players because of no shot clock. In 1993, Dean used Henrick Rodl and Kevin Salvadori off the bench. If I were ranking the teams I would go with:
1. 1982
2. 2009
3. 2005
4. 1993
I agree with roy and william that the acc regular season title is more meaningful than the tournament title. but if I were a player from the 1982 team, i’d say “I have 2 trophies, you have 1″
In my admittedly older and somewhat hugely BIASED opinion, I think the best Carolina team, NOT to win a title was the 1977 team. I LOVED THAT TEAM!!!
Phil Ford, Walter Davis, Tommy LaGarde, Mike O’Koren, John Kuester, Bruce Buckley and Tom Zaligaris…
The only thing that kept them from winning the title was injuries and Dean not calling a time out to get Mike O’Koren back in the game in the championship. Sound familiar? I wonder who Roy learned that from?
My favorite all-time player was Phil Ford. That’s why I’m glad Tyler Hansbrough was able to graduate with a title, because other than him, the one Carolina player who DESERVED to graduate with a title was Phil Ford.
Does anyone know the deadline for Wall to declare?
I dunno Keith, but I hope it’s soon. All this drama is starting to drive me crazy.
Wow, that was a lot to read but I had some of my own thoughts before I started and I feel pretty good about them now:
1957 – no loss, championship
2009 – domination
1982 – 2 trophies
2005 – 1993 – toss up
I do think that it’s odd that we don’t talk about 2008 being a tough year as it feels a lot like 1994. We shouldn’t have folded and I think we could have taken Memphis to the cleaners as well. I do think much of this falls to “what you remember” and time – the giver of perspective and healer of all wounds.
Again, this type of content and post is why I frequent THF almost every day. Thanks to everyone that posted and of course to THF for his commitment, time and effort.
Go Heels!
I give 1993 an extra nod, not because that team’s superior on a talent base but clearly no one outside of George Lynch had a serviceable NBA career. Coming into UNC the Montross-Reese-Phelps (etc) class received a deserved amount of hype, but those guys weren’t in the same class of athlete as the Michigan fab five Rose, Howard and Webber had quite serviceable NBA careers, and I think Webber might’ve averaged a double-double. BTW, jalen has a hideous tie collection on espn
Cold-blooded Donald Williams certainly helped the cause that year !
1. 1957
2. 2009
3. 2005
4. 1982
5. 1968
6. 1977
7. 1993
1. James Worthy
2. Lenny Rosenbluth
3. Phil Ford
4. tie–Larry Miller/Billy Cunningham
5. tie–Charlie Scott/MJ
6. Tyler Hansbrough
7. tie–Ty Lawson/Sam Perkins
52bgJ,
1. Phil Ford
2. James Worthy
3. Tyler Hansbrough
4. Michael Jordan
5. Walter Davis/Charlie Scott
6. Billy Cunningham/Sam Perkins
7. Larry Miller/Ty Lawson
Now, the all-time underrated team…
1. Kenny Smith
2. Antawn Jamison
3. Brad Daugherty
4. Mike O’Koren
5. Al Wood
The all-time unsung heroes team…
1. George Lynch
2. John Kuester
3. Donald Williams
4. George Karl
5. Ademola Okulaja
6. Jackie Manuel/Danny Green/Steve Hale
The all-time one and done team…
1. Bob McAdoo
2. Marvin Williams
3. Brandan Wright
4. John Wall (ha ha….)
good lists chuckheel85–good catch on Kuester! btw–he could almost pass for George Karl’s twin brother these days.
52bgJ,
Yeah, John Kuester is one of my favorites, along with Steve Hale. And yes, Kuester has put on the weight.
By the way, I still say you have the all-time greatest screen name in the history of blogs. I LOVED Big Game James. I just wished he could’ve worn 52 when he played for the Lakers. Jerry Buss should’ve made Jamaal Wilkes give up that number, to the MAN! (Even though I rooted for the Celtics back then, I still loved Worthy, and I think he would’ve won the MVP in the 1984 Finals if the Lakers would’ve won).
52bgJ,
I’m partial to both the 1976 and 1977 Tar Heels teams. My dad ran the Hilton Inn in Burlington back then and Carolina stayed at the hotel for the ACC Tournament both years. I got all the players autographs.
Also, Phil Ford’s aunt taught at my elementary school in Gibsonville, so I got to meet him a lot.
Your heart is always partial to your childhood favorites and Phil Ford was THE MAN to me. Although my adult-self is going to miss Tyler Hansbrough a WHOLE BUNCH. Next season is going to be weird not seeing Tyler in a Carolina uniform.
I agree with the Roy/Dean position in that the regular season is the more meaningful way of determining a conference champion. That being said, since there is not a true round robin, even that has less meaning than it once did. The ACC Tournament is great and being ACC Champion is great but it is fairly obvious it seems to detract from the Heels ability to play well in the NCAA Tournament. Of course had Ty Lawson been healthy I think they would have rolled both tournaments.
I did find it interesting that during the Final Four intros Jim Nantz referred to UNC as the ACC Regular Season Champion.
wasn’t always that way though–the 83 NC state team being maybe the most notable, but there was a (reasonably consistent) period when winning the ACC Tourney was a strong harbinger of success in the NCAAT.
Yeah, I think it all changed in 1991 when Carolina rolled Duke by 21 in the ACC Finals, but Duke went on to win the National Title. Ever since then, it seems, with a few exceptions, winning the ACC Tourney is almost moot.
“I’m partial to both the 1976 and 1977 Tar Heels teams. My dad ran the Hilton Inn in Burlington back then and Carolina stayed at the hotel for the ACC Tournament both years. I got all the players autographs.
Also, Phil Ford’s aunt taught at my elementary school in Gibsonville, so I got to meet him a lot.
Your heart is always partial to your childhood favorites and Phil Ford was THE MAN to me. Although my adult-self is going to miss Tyler Hansbrough a WHOLE BUNCH. Next season is going to be weird not seeing Tyler in a Carolina uniform.”
I’m guessing you were a Jeff Crompton fan too then? One of my good HS Buds in Raleigh got to guard Phil Ford for a few minutes when he lit us up for 54 pts. I’m looking forward to the possibility of Tyler proving MANY peeps wrong about his pro potential.
52bgJ,
It’s funny you mention GEOFF Crompton. Go back and look at a picture his senior year in HS at Burlington Williams and then look at the 1979 team picture. He had to, and I’m not exaggerating, had to have put on at least 130 pounds if not more.
That leads me to another list the All-Time bust Carolina team in terms of hype coming in and what they produced…
1. King Rice
2. Clifford Rozier
3. Curtis Hunter
4. Kevin Madden
5. Dave Popson
6. Scott Williams
7. Geoff Crompton/Steve Krafcisin/Matt Wentstrom
On an aside, don’t you wish Carolina could’ve had the Bulls version of Scott Williams for one year instead of the one the Heels got?
Also, can you believe that Matt Wentstrom was rated ahead of Shaquille O’Neal coming out of High School.
I guess that leads credence to why Dean Smith said he hated High School rankings…
Also, one more thing on Geoff Crompton, and it is sad that he passed away a few years back..
But don’t you think that by his senior year he looked a lot like Rosey Grier?
It’s a shame the ACC can’t play a round-robin schedule and determine the champion that way. I guess there are too many teams for that even if they canceled the ACCT
wb3-
Can I email you to get the skinny on that Wall kid? Gracias, hombre.
The ACC tourney still has some meaning during years when it is not clear who is the top team in the conference and two teams are fighting to stay and play in state or in the region. This was the case in 1982, although Carolina won the ACC tourney in 1981 and still got sent out west, and this was the case in 1998, where UNC needed to win the tourney to get a top seed. UNC needed to win in 2007 also.
For UNC in 2009 and 2005 and 1993, it was meaningless, not to mention the fact that all three teams had injury issues to deal with.
The 1982 team might have one more trophy but they also have one fewer banner, that of ACC Regular Season Champion. Every season is different and the 1982 team can reasonably argue that they were confronted with the greatest team in ACC history not to win the NCAA tourney, in Sampson’s Cavaliers, who were number one or number two most of the season.
Nevertheless, the 1982 team was unable to show much superiority over their conference rival who tied them in the ACC regular season, unlike the other UNC champions, who were all pretty clearly the best in the ACC the years they won the title.
If 1982 wanted to talk trash, I guess 2009 can always say, “oh yeah, our NCAA tourney games were all over at halftime, we didn’t even know how many timeouts MSU had nor did we even have to worry about them throwing the ball away in the last 12 seconds, but if the fact that you won the ACC tourney by holding the ball the last 8 minutes makes you feel superior, well, more power to you! Our team feared no one.”
Sorry Dean. Email me at
heelsfan32@gmail.com
that would be awesome if the 2009 bashed the 1982 team for playing four corners. I’m not sure if anyone on the 2009 team would say that to MJ; that would take major guts.
But 1982 could come back and say, “We had to beat a team a team that had Eric “Sleepy” Floyd, Patrick Ewing, etc. who went on to play in two more Final Fours and won a championship in 1984 and should’ve won one in 1985. And the team was coached by John Thompson. We also had to play in a no-shot clock, no 3-point shot era.
And some of the players we beat that year include: Patrick Ewing, Eric Floyd, Dominique Wilkins, Ralph Sampson, Akeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, etc.
Top that 2009…
Well, they obviously don’t know who will be famous yet from 2009, but I can tell you that Hakeem was not much of a factor in 1982, although he was on Houston’s team. Larry Michaux and Rob Williams were Houston’s big stars that no one remembers.
We do know that 2009 beat Blake and Oklahoma, but I honestly don’t think that makes them any better. People just remember it more when guys go on to fame in the NBA. I honestly had no idea who Chauncey Billups was when we ripped Colorado back in 1997, nor do I think that somehow makes Dean’s win to set the record more meaningful.
William,
No, you’re right. But I think it is pretty safe to say that there were no Patrick Ewings, Ralph Sampsons or Dominique Wilkins’ playing on Michigan State this season.
Also, I was going to mention Rob Williams of Houston and Vern Fleming and Terry Fair of Georgia, but I didn’t think anyone would remember them. I forgot you were reading William, forgive me..
And how about some love for John Pinone of Villanova. And don’t forget Frank Johnson and Guy Morgan of Wake Forest.
Vern Fleming definitely ate us up in 1983. That was a maddening loss.
The 1983 team was a bit like the 2001 team. They started out slow, had a great middle and hit number one, and then had a pretty meager finish.
This is a fun topic and I am glad to see that all of our titlists are getting some support. I do think that people are forgetting what a monster Eric Montross was back in 1993. If he had gone out that year, he would have been a top 5 pick. He was not a particularly good free throw shooter but he had real presence down low and he could never have been manhandled the way our guys were against Kansas last year. It was far from a ridiculous argument to debate whether or not Montross was better than Webber, although I grudgingly gave a slight edge to Webber.
Based on college play only, if we were picking teams among the titlists from 1982 on, in an eternally young league and I had first pick and had to choose a center, I am not certain that I don’t pick Montross over May, Perkins and Hansbrough based upon their collegiate peaks.
If I had to pick a starting 5 from all titlists, how about this one..
F- James Worthy
F- Sam Perkins
C- Tyler Hansbrough
G- Michael Jordan
G- Ty Lawson
Reserves: George Lynch, Sean May, Eric Montross, Wayne Ellington, Raymond Felton, Rashad McCants, Donald Williams and Jackie Manuel.
Out of Ellington, McCants, and Williams someone has to be hot… Felton to spell Lawson… Lynch and Manuel for defense. And Montross to back up Hansbrough..
Now, who coaches… Roy or Dean…. I’m not biting….
I am taking Frank McGuire as coach.
Neither Dean nor Roy has ever won a triple overtime game in the Final Four, let alone, two in two days. Neither of them ever beat a player as great as Wilt Chamberlain in the finals and obviously, neither of them ever went undefeated.
Both McGuire and Williams took separate schools to the Final Four, and took separate schools to the number one ranking.
McGuire knew how to deal with big egos. How well? Four years after dealing Wilt his biggest defeat ever, McGuire became Wilt’s NBA coach and was probably the only coach who ever was able to get good production out of Wilt, and the team, and at the same time, keep Wilt happy. Chamberlain would make recruiting calls for McGuire into the late 1970′s.
Try if you want, but you aren’t going to find another school that has had three coaches with the tenure and the caliber of McGuire, Smith and Williams.
As an aside, ultimately, without McGuire, there is no program. With the exception of that bizarre Helms thing, there really wasn’t much of one before he arrived. At that time, UNC was a football school.
While Roy Williams does spell out just how much he owes everything to Dean Smith, Smith has been much less forthcoming in thanking McGuire for his job, for making UNC at least partially a basketball school–a task Smith would completely finish– and for leaving Billy Cunningham and Larry Brown as players.
This may account for some of the reason that Donnie Walsh, Larry Brown and Billy Cunningham, and the 1957 team in general, have never fully fit in with the “Dean Smith” players.
Note Larry Brown’s rude comments just before the Final Four this year. Obviously, something is going on–what former player doesn’t root for his alma mater?
Nobody is perfect but just from what I have read in Adam Lucas’s books, I think Smith could have been more gracious. Then again, until 1982, Smith had no title, so maybe he really didn’t want to welcome the 1957 guys back to campus.
Thank goodness, Roy Williams finally recognized the 1957 guys a couple of years back and gave them their due. The 1957 team was a basketball treasure and even though things were not integrated yet, they did play integrated schools like Kansas, so I don’t think that fact impinges on their accomplishment.
Williams was also the coach at Kansas when they finally honored Wilt Chamberlain shortly before he died, so Williams gets kudos for his basketball historical reverence.
Here is a call out to LarryS.
Didn’t you calculate the winning margins in both the regular season and post-season for all five champs? Let’s hear from you.
William,
What exactly did Larry Brown say? I have tried looking all over the web and I can’t find the comments. Please tell me..
Thanks…
Since you mentioned 2004, I took a look back at that bizarre year, which probably finished about where we expected, but a bit short of what we all hoped, given the talent level.
First of all, UNC only played 30 games. What happened to the rest of them? One or two of the diminution was due to an early ACC tourney exit, but the rest?
Maybe this was a by-product of the coaching change but UNC apparently played no tournaments in the “pre-season” and didn’t add games to make up for them. In a way, this is sad for Williams because it broke his coaching streak of 20 win seasons, but maybe it is also illustrative as to why such streaks that the media love are often meaningless. Three easy games would have certainly given UNC a twenty win season or even a couple of consolation games in an early tournament would have done it.
Still, Pomeroy had them ranked 9th in the country, with only a 19-11 record. How? They were basically that season’s West Virginia. UNC played six games against Final Four teams, going 2-4, and they did upset UConn at home. They beat highly ranked Illinois at home and lost to highly ranked Kentucky on the road. There just wasn’t a lot of filler in the schedule that year. I think the fans would go crazy now if they didn’t get the maximum allotment of games but that year was still coming out of a down time.
UNC only ended up 8-8 in conference in 2004, but that was a real 8-8, based on the last real round-robin in ACC history. It was a good year for the ACC, the last time it sent two teams to the Final Four and with NC State and Wake both having pretty good squads.
Carolina had a couple of bad outings against Clemson and Virginia and blew a huge lead against Florida State that put them in a first round ACC tourney game against eventual Final Four team GIT that UNC blew at the buzzer.
So essentially, UNC only went 8-9 against ACC competition in 2004, with four of the losses to Duke and Georgia Tech, and three of the losses to bottomfeeders. They lost three games in overtime, winning no overtimes games that season.
So you can see where I am leading with this, that the 2004 team was way better than we remember, right? Well, I thought they looked pretty lousy the entire post-season that year, from the loss to GIT, to the creaky win over Air Force and to the embarrassing loss to Texas, who lost to Xavier in the very next round.
But, if you figure, on average, you win at least one of three overtime games, plus the three easy games they didn’t bother to schedule, the end result ends up as 23-10 with a loss in the second round of the NCAA tourney.
Nevertheless, they just didn’t quite have it in 2004.
All of the pieces were there, but they just didn’t quite have it. It is a good thing Williams has seemingly always had NC State’s number or they might have missed the NCAA tourney without those two wins over a highly ranked opponent.
I don’t think anyone thinks that Roy Williams had an especially successful year as a coach in 2004, apart from what happened in 2005, which is always a tricky linkage. Many analysts were picking UNC as a darkhorse Final Four team in 2004, even after going out in the first round of the ACC. Clearly, everyone knew the talent was there. Maybe Marvin Williams was the difference in 2005.
This situation with the 2004 team is different from the 2008 team that did have it together pretty much from the get go, only faltering when Lawson went down and then against Kansas. I think Roy made a bad decision playing so few games that year. It could only have helped given May’s lack of experience and in terms of integrating the guys into Williams’ mindset(since the system was probably not all that different from Doherty’s).
In terms of expectations, well, probably no UNC team since 1994 has had so much expected as the 2009 team.
That being said, I am not sure that the reality of the difference is so great. UNC was picked as number one by SI in 2005 and got the cover, at least here in the Mid-Atlantic. The Felton suspension and fluke loss may have tempered some expectations but they were clearly back in time for that team to then lose at Wake and at Duke. The 2005 team had Roy Williams’ reputation riding on their backs, which was probably enough pressure to actually make me say that their burden was greater than the 2009 squad, which admittedly had the Kansas debacle to make up for.
No matter how you look at it, there isn’t a lot that separates the 2009 team from the 2005 team in terms of the pressure they faced or the types of motivations they shouldered.
Addition regarding Larry Brown: I saw a quote where he said he was basically rooting for Villanova against UNC. It didn’t make much sense since he has coached professionally in both Pennsylvania and North Carolina, but especially since he is a former assistant and player at UNC.
Have we ever seen former UNC player and current NY Knicks President Donnie Walsh at UNC gatherings? Even Cunningham does not seem especially close to the program.
wow—don’t know if I’ve ever seen such a stretch as that–Larry Brown is part of the posse that makes the golfing pilgrimage to Pinehurst every year. Glad to see someone carrying the martyr torch for Frank McGuire, even if they have to distort reality.
Well, can you explain it? Why would a former coach and player say this:
“So even though Brown is a North Carolina Tar Heel through and through, part of him, maybe even all of him, will be cheering for Wright’s Villanova Wildcats tomorrow night when they play in the Final Four. Sounds crazy, yes. But that’s vintage Brown.
“I admire Roy, but I’m going to be pulling for . . .,” Brown said, his voice trailing off. He couldn’t come right out and say it, not about his alma mater, the school that broke his heart several years ago when it hired Roy Williams, not him, to replace Matt Doherty as head coach.
“Nobody bleeds Carolina blue more than me, and no one’s as proud of them as I am, but I don’t think there’s one bit of difference in how I feel about Villanova.”
Is it simply because Larry Brown is self-centered and narcissistic, or is there not possibly some other reason? I guess he truly is the ultimate hired gun, the man without any loyaties whatsoever.
And obviously, Brown was never in the running to replace Matt Doherty. That ship had sailed and it was entirely Brown’s fault for refusing to even interview to replace Guthridge. Larry Brown makes me wonder whether or not Art Heyman was actually such a bad guy.
William,
If you bothered to read the rest of that article, it says that Larry Brown developed a friendship with Wright while he was out of coaching and helped Wright coach offense to his players. He didn’t come out and say I hate Carolina and Roy Williams. Or even that he wasn’t rooting for Carolina. He just said he felt a strong connection to Wright and the Villanova team that he spent a lot of with and became friends with.
And you are wrong about Brown and the coaching vacancy after Guthridge retired.
Brown was interviewed by Dick Baddour, and Brown said Baddour spent more time telling why he shouldn’t take the job instead of offering him the job. And, even though Dean wanted Brown, Baddour eventually with Doherty.
Basically Brown said that the interview with Baddour was a waste of time and he felt offended. There is bad blood to this day between Brown and Baddour, but not Dean, Roy and Larry Brown. In fact, Brown was at Roy’s Hall of Fame induction.
I was never convinced Brown was a good choice for UNC. NCAA troubles followed him in both his college stints at UCLA and Kansas, the latter one Roy ended up fixing. Of course Roy also had to come and fix the mess created by Doherty so I am thinking Ol Roy is pretty good when it comes to rebuilding a program.
William,
When Dean Smith was honored in 1998 at the ESPY Awards, who was on stage with him? I’ll tell you, Charlie Scott, James Worthy and BILLY CUNNINGHAM!!!
When the Dean Dome opened in 1986 who was at all the hoopla fest and were the two coaches for the Carolina All-Star game?
BILLY CUNNINGHAM and DOUG MOE (Former McGuire player by the way..)
In Dean’s book he does thank Frank McGuire for giving him the Carolina job. The foreward to the book honoring the 1982 Championship is written by Frank McGuire.
Who was present in Chapel Hill when Dean announced his retirement?
LARRY BROWN, BILLY CUNNINGHAM, DOUG MOE among many others.
Who was present at the UNC-Colorado game when Dean broke the record… Larry Brown and BILLY CUNNINGHAM…
GIVE ME A BREAK……
I also guess Billy Cunningham ran off the bus in 1965 and pulled down the effigy of Dean Smith because he couldn’t stand his guts and because he didn’t FIT IN..He was PINING AWAY for Frank McGuire.
Same with Larry Brown… You know DEAN had NOTHING to do with the numerous early jobs Brown got. He came back to be an Assistant Coach to Dean because he hated him. He comes to the annual gathering of coaches with Roy, Gut, Dean, Eddie Fogler, etc. because he hates all their guts…
I hope you can tell this is LACED with sarcasm!!!!!!
With respect to the hiring after Guthridge, perhaps people are quibbling over the meaning of the word “interview.” You can choose your sides but at least some believe that Larry Brown expected to be coronated without going through the same process as others being considered.
I wish Cunningham had been considered but his name never came up. I have heard nothing negative about Cunningham and he is one of my all time favorites, but I don’t see him around as much as some others.
Back to Larry Brown, you may have forgotten the Ed Manning hiring and all the rest, but I have not. I think we needed someone more stable than Larry and things have turned out far, far, far, better with Williams than they would have with Brown, I suspect.
Also, while I think it is great that Larry likes Jay Wright and Villanova (and obviously I read the rest of the article, since someone asked me to post it,) but who cares if he wants Villanova to win or not? He could have just kept his mouth shut and said he was looking forward to a great game. Instead, Larry decided to make himself part of the story. It was rude to Roy Williams and to the University, but then again, Larry Brown has never appeared too worried about how people feel as he flits from place to place.
With respect to Doug Moe, I specifically left his name out, because he is definitely close to Smith. Smith helped Moe get his job in Europe playing professionally after Moe was banned from the NBA due to gambling associations. Moe was also close to Smith when Moe was a player and Dean was his math tutor, and called him “Dean.”
With respect to Smith’s relationship to McGuire, it has always been formal and respectful but never effusive in the way that Roy Williams has been. I understand that Dean Smith is not a lawyer, but there were definitely conflict of interest problems in his relationships with McGuire and the Dean(whose name I can’t remember) looking into the program’s possible NCAA violations. A lot of these conflicts were there because of McGuire’s request that Smith handle a lot of the nuts and bolts of the program, but they were there.
I don’t blame Smith for this, but this was not necessarily a prudent position for most people to negotiate. Smith came out of it with a recommendation from both McGuire and the Dean for the position of head coach and McGuire tried to get Smith to go to the NBA with him, but reading between the lines, I believe that Smith learned things in the investigation that made him think less highly of McGuire.
I don’t think Smith particularly admired McGuire as a coach and I think he had fairly strong misgivings about the way that McGuire recruited (although McGuire was more honest than Kansas’s program had been with respect to the recruitment and retainment of Wilt).
As was true with Al McGuire, with whom Smith was perhaps more friendly, I think it bothered Smith that guys like the McGuires were often able to beat him without seeming to put in as much coaching effort. Frank McGuire was a player’s coach. And yet, at the same time, he has not received his due for things like points per possession analysis, which Smith would later popularize.
Frank McGuire was a larger than life individual, sort of a Knute Rockne of basketball, who always dressed immaculately and had a keen sense of style and dominated the room. Bobby Cremins will tell you what kind of man he was and how he adored him.
It is a shame that the rivalry with South Carolina turned as bitter as it did. Some of that is just the Gamecock way. South Carolinians have a chip on their shoulders. It was a similar situation to the Louisville-UK situation, but much more bitter from what I have read.
But that is water under the bridge.
What is unfortunately undeniable is that Smith and the Program never took any steps to properly honor the 1957 team, and regardless of who is at fault for that, it was a terrible lack of appreciation for a great group of guys. Some of the 1957 guys themselves said that they had always felt like step-children to the UNC program.
I asked someone fairly close to the program about this and I won’t give his name because he didn’t authorize it, but he said a lot of it was due to bad blood between McGuire and former UNC alumnus Donnie Walsh (whom you never address), his assistant at South Carolina, and the North Carolina program. Well, the 1957 guys didn’t have anything to do with that. They should have been honored back in 1982 and if that was still too much, then in 1987.
By the time someone at UNC manned up and took care of this, Frank McGuire was gone. As a fellow alumnus and great admirer of the 1957 team, I thank Roy Williams sincerely for making it happen.
Next season is going to be the 100th year of UNC basketball so I think we will see even more in the way of honoring past teams, 1957 included.
I do think there is a bit of separation for many fans like me because 1957 was so long ago and also because it came during a era before the NCAA Tournament became March Madness. It was still an impressive feat and I place them as the top UNC team of all time but it does not reside as much in the general Tar Heel fan consciousness which really seems to only remember Phil Ford and everything after him. There is also an element of fans today in my generation and the subsequent ones having fairly short attention spans as well as locking into Michael Jordan because of he became such an iconic figure. The result is many UNC fans focus on the late 70s into the early 80s as the beginning of UNC’s basketball dominance even though UNC was a perennial power long before that.
Exactly.
That is why it would have been tremendous to have honored that team back in 1987 when they were still much more in North Carolinian’s minds and McGuire was still alive. Remember the ACC was an infant in 1957 and McGuire’s Miracle would carry the league’s reputation until 1974 and begin to make ACC basketball what it is today.
I think we all know the difference between being merely respected and being honored. The 1957 team has always been respected by UNC and its fans, but like all humans, they wanted to hear that we loved them.
Dean Smith has always been a dutiful “son” to Frank McGuire. He was there when McGuire’s house burned down and he never said anything bad publicly about McGuire. He even said he was happy for Coach McGuire after the 1971 ACC tournament debacle, one of Smith’s lowpoints. Strangely enough, though, Smith may never have gotten over the loss by Kansas, whom he was rooting for.
I do think Roy Williams has a bit more of the Irish in him and he does not problems getting emotional and giving public tribute and I know Lennie and the other surviving guys really were thrilled to finally have their day.
I know that Kansas people are very happy that Wilt finally came back and shouted, “Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk,” shortly before he passed. Coach Williams has a real knack for these ceremonies and I really think he deserves a great deal of credit.
William,
I don’t want to argue with you. But, in 1986 when they were dedicating the “Dean Dome” all the former teams were honored in a week long celebration.
They had a REUNION GAME which ABC televised by the way and at least 5 to 6 members of the 1957 team played in the game including Lennie Rosenbluth.
I also just got through reading “North Carolina Tar Heels Where Have You Gone” and in the chapter about Donnie Walsh, he has nothing but praise for Dean Smith and says that Dean gave him his first job as a graduate assistant and talks about how much he learned from Dean.”
I think you are trying to make WAY TOO MUCH HAY out of this…
As for Carolina fans and the remembering, you have to remember PEOPLE GET OLDER… I’m mean look, I’m 40, I fondly remember the 1970′s teams when I was a kid, but I wasn’t alive in 1957. A lot of the fans of that generation have died off.
But, I will not by any of this Dean and Frank didn’t get along jazz or Dean never praised Frank.
READ DEAN SMITH’S OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY!! He devotes about 3-4 chapters to his lifelong friendship with Frank and his wife. He defends Frank for the NCAA violations and says that it boiled down to basically bookkeeping errors and Frank McGuire’s stubbornness and temper.
“It is a shame that the rivalry with South Carolina turned as bitter as it did. Some of that is just the Gamecock way. South Carolinians have a chip on their shoulders.”
I have no problem honoring the 1957 NC team, as I’m sure many others don’t either, but the Roche/Riker teams were a bunch of thugs, plain & simple. Doesn’t take much imagination to see that style of play was at the far end of the philosophical spectrum from Dean Smith.
I too recall Donnie Walsh having nothing but praise for Dean and UNC.
There is a guy who goes to my gym who played for Carolina in the early 40s. He has such unique perspective, he basically says that the team wasn’t any good when he played, and that he is glad the program got turned around after he left.
I am glad if Walsh is fully supportive of his alma mater. I know that Art Chansky goes a lot into the rivalry between UNC and USC prior to 1972 and apparently it was bitter, but USC did not get along with Duke or Maryland either and 30 plus years have passed. It certainly does seem strange that the rivalry would have gone to the levels some speak of, with a former coach and alumnus at the head of USC.
With respect to Smith’s statements, I think I stated CLEARLY that Smith has NEVER to my knowledge said anything negative about Frank McGuire in public. Obviously, I have read Smith’s autobiography. I have it and the Chansky’s books about UNC and that is what I was talking about when I said I was reading between the lines.
One of the major points that Chansky makes about Smith is that basically Dean Smith has never said anything negative about anyone associated with the UNC program, ever, at any time. Thus, he tries at times to read between the lines, as do I.
If you can find me somewhere where Dean Smith publicly says that Frank McGuire is one of the greatest coaches of all time, and that he owes him almost everything, I will be the happiest to see it. This is basically what Roy Williams has said about Dean.
What I saw in Dean’s book was an appreciation for McGuire’s larger than life persona and his ability to out-recruit him at times. I also saw subtle digs at McGuire’s coaching methods and recruiting methods. Some of these may have been more from Chansky than from Dean’s book, but I do remember some of it coming from Dean’s book.
Coming from someone as positive as Smith generally is, these subtle digs ring much more loudly. Don’t get me wrong, I want the truth in a biography or autobiography and I don’t expect Smith to say something he didn’t believe.
But what I came away with is that Smith saw McGuire the coach as basically Lefty Driesell with a better haircut.
I also think that people have a lot invested in hero worship and that was one thing that Chansky took aim at. And after all the negative Chansky could did up, it wasn’t much. Dean did cuss a couple of times. He did want athletic directors who favored basketball, not football. He was not particularly personable and was considered to have a prickly personality until he became “El Deano.” He was also a brilliant man and he would go to the end of the world for people within his universe. But unlike McGuire and Roy Williams, he wasn’t a lot of fun on campus or warm with people outside the program.
With respect to the 1957 team, you can read Adam Lucas’s book and some of the other things he has written on the site and make your own impression about whether the 1957 team felt properly recognized.
You seem to be saying that you think it was enough, which is not quite the same thing.
What they did as a team was even more amazing than what Michael Jordan and the 1982 team did. People will never stop talking about that Kansas game, which comforted me last year, knowing that no matter what Kansas did they could never top the disappointment Frank McGuire laid on them in 1957.
I would expect that UNC would have had a celebration in 1967 and 1972 and 1977 and 1982 and 1987 for that group. I was interested enough in this to ask people who know and this was not some simple oversight. People at the University were still mad about the accounting issues and the rivalry at USC. Kansas never had any problem bringing Larry Brown back for something more substantial than McGuire’s NCAA issues, but those are the facts.
The 1957 guys were thrilled when Roy finally honored them in a proper fashion and once again, I thank Roy for doing something that desperately needed to be done. Sometimes, I get annoyed at “ol Roy” but no one can deny that the man has a heart of gold.
Here is Adam Walsh’s write-up of the event, which makes clear, just as Bobby Cremins has said, just how much McGuire’s players loved and idolized him. It is pretty special when guys hunger to do that after fifty years:
“The day’s earlier events included the unveiling of a new banner honoring the perfect 32-0 record of the ’57 team and head coach Frank McGuire. To some fans, it might have been simply another banner. But to the ’57 Tar Heels, it was recognition they had been seeking for decades. Not for themselves, but for McGuire.
“Frank McGuire meant everything to us,” said the night’s second speaker, ’57 reserve Bob Young. “Getting him the recognition he deserved was the highlight of the day.” ”
http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/021007aad.html
“But unlike McGuire and Roy Williams, he wasn’t a lot of fun on campus or warm with people outside the program.”
he’s a Midwesterner–what do you expect? Each of the 3 coaches in discussion here are almost a caricature archetype of the geography of where each grew up. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Really, this could almost be a discussion of which area of the Country’s personality one likes best. Each has it’s positives and negatives. Worth noting however that both McGuire and Valvano (and Heyman for that matter) all took the paranoid “us vs the world” view when confronted with their own fallacies/indiscretions.
btw–I met the man in the Chinese buffet line one time and he was both warm and funny.
They are all great coaches and very human, perhaps better than many of us, but surely flawed, each in his own way. There is only one person who ever lived who is an exception to this rule, but Vince Lombardi passed away a long time ago.
They should make a movie about Frank McGuire, though:
McGuire was the youngest child of 13 born to an Irish policeman who died when Frank was two years old. I mean, come on. That is great stuff.
McGuire’s son is ill, so he has to leave one of the best coaching jobs in the country to move South for his son’s care, and takes his “Catholic and Jew” (the media’s words, not mine) players down to North Carolina and unleashes them on the unsuspecting Bible-belt, telling the boy’s parents that their jobs will be to play basketball and to evangelize as Catholics in the South. Who could get away with that kind of delicious schtick anymore?
McGuire’s Miracle astonishes the basketball world, especially people in Kansas.
McGuire’s assistant coach succumbs a second time to alcoholism in spite of McGuire’s loyal attempts to keep him working. McGuire has no choice but to hire another man as his assistant?
Whom does he hire?
McGuire leaves to coach in the NBA and whom does he end up coaching in the 100 point game?
He comes back to USC and after excruciating heartbreak in 1970, wins a miracle game in the ACC Finals against guess who?
Can you imagine Frank McGuire coaching Al McGuire? Or Bobby Cremins? Or Alex English? What were those practices like?
South Carolina makes Donnie Walsh resign and so begins the slow descent of the great man’s profession, the underground railroad a thing of the past.
Where is Hollywood on this?
William,
You have to understand, DEAN and FRANK McGUIRE were two totally different people and two totally different coaches, and both of them admitted that.
McGuire admitted that Dean was an X and O’s kind of coach. McGuire was more about recruiting and motivation.
McGuire admired Smith’s innovation and minutae and Smith admired McGuire’s ability to get along with everyone and treat everyone with respect.
And if you need any more proof as to the friendship between the two, look at the friendship between Dean and Bobby Cremins.
Also, there are different circumstances between Roy and Dean. One, Roy spent 10 years as an assistant to Dean Smith. Dean Smith got Roy Williams the interview at Kansas and basically the job.
Dean Smith was an assistant to McGuire for 2 to 3 years. Chancellor Aycock has basically said in past interviews that McGuire didn’t promote Dean for the job and that he basically would have hired Dean anyway because of their work together on the sanctions.
Also I have met and talked to Dean Smith several times over the years, from when I was a little kid to as an adult and each time he WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to be warm, friendly and outgoing.
He also has a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY, I mean it is scary.
When I was talking to him in 1995 about a time I had met him back in 1982, he remembered our encounter, VERBATIM. I mean he knew everything about the event and what we said to each other and this was 13 years later. It was incredible.
I don’t think I have any issues here. I have been adamant about the fact that Roy Williams owes much, if not all of what he is achieving due to what took place before him.
I have never said that Smith did anything unethical, merely that to a lawyer, he was in a precarious position between McGuire and Aycock–thank you for his name.
I never said I didn’t admire both Smith and McGuire.
I said two main things, one about Larry Brown and what I and many on the IC boards thought was an unnecessary, if not idiotic statement that he made about Williams and the Final Four, and two, I stated that members of the 1957 team did not feel that their contingent was aptly honored until Roy Williams did that in 2007.
I understand what you are saying and I don’t expect Smith to falsely act impressed if he wasn’t by McGuire’s X’s and O’s. Somehow McGuire managed to defeat Kansas in Kansas without a lot of X’s and O’s, and I think it was Chansky who made pretty clear that McGuire thought Smith overemphasized X’s and O’s.
There certainly have been periods in basketball history where analysts thought that Smith focused on the trees and lost sight of the forest, particularly in the mid-70′s when he was losing to Sloan 9 times in a row and then to Mcguire in 1977, both of whom were minimalists.
And as I do my psychoanalysis here, I clearly remember Smith saying he wished that Kansas had defeated North Carolina back in 1957 and he thought that might have cost him the job but actually McGuire respected him for it. I wonder if Dean Smith is glad now that UNC won in 1957?
But anyway, I think Dean Smith should have had some sort of ceremony similar to the one that Roy Williams staged in 2007. I don’t know why it didn’t happen. People make mistakes, and the program clearly made one here, as it obviously it meant a lot to McGuire’s men.
William,
What got me upset was that you suggested that Larry Brown, Doug Moe, Donnie Walsh and Billy Cunningham and basically anyone who played for Frank McGuire had a beef with Dean Smith.
And each time I prove to you otherwise, either from events in history or from their own mouths, you mention the 1957 team.
Fine and good. But don’t try to tell me that Larry Brown, Doug Moe, Donnie Walsh and Billy Cunningham don’t like Dean Smith or love Dean Smith. That’s RIDICULOUS.
And by the way, please tell me what is rude about LARRY BROWN’s comments? He didn’t say one bad thing about Roy Williams. All he said was that he was very good friends with Jay Wright, from having spent a lot of time working with his team.
I’ll give you something else to make hay about. At the 2008 Final Four he said he had a team in every corner and couldn’t lose. Being that he played for and coached at Carolina, coached at UCLA, coached at Kansas and his former assistant John Calipari was coaching Memphis. He said he felt bad because only one of someone he cared about was going to be happy and that the other three were going to come home sad.
Does this make him a bad person? Or as you’re trying to make out, a PO’d alum?
You say that as though it is something, Larry Brown should be proud of, having coached every team in the USA. Everybody in the U.S. knows that Larry Brown has issues, apparently except for you.
I remember when when UNC was preparing to play Illinois back in 2005 and several former Illini players started saying that the Illinois team from 1989 was better. This was just before the Final Four and I was thinking, thank goodness, UNC doesn’t have these kinds of egonmaniacs who feel the need to take the spotlight away from those who deserve it.
You said that you didn’t know how to find the article and I found it for you so you go read it again and ask yourself if that is a proper thing for an alumnus and former coach to be saying, I am tired of debating this with you.
The proper thing was to keep his mouth shut.
You have probably convinced me that the transitional players were not as much on the outs with Dean as it seems, although there is no real explanation for the bad blood with USC.
You haven’t convinced me one iota about the refusal to honor the 1957 team and to be honest, there simply is no excuse for Dean Smith’s not making it happen and you know that. If there was time and energy to plan the little Dean Dome party, they certainly could have found time before McGuire died to honor him. It never happened and I am very sorry for McGuire and the guys on that team.
Finally, if you think that UNC would have won 6 out of 7 against Syracuse back in 1987, you really know very little about basketball. Those teams were very well matched to begin with and the Syracuse guys had just as much or more pro success. Carolina would have done quite well to win four or five out of seven against Syracuse.
you’re right, that would be great material for a movie, but there are stories about Bones that would make your hair curl. I would throw Bones into the script too.
Did you ever hear about the time they had to close the gym to the public in the little town of Wake Forest (before Wake moved to W-S), so UNC and Wake could play the basketball game without public violence?
William,
Let’s say for the sake of argument, that in 1998 Carolina, Kansas, South Carolina and Appalachian State all made the Final Four.
Dean would have 4 former players and/or assistants coaching at the Final Four (Guthridge, Williams, Fogler and Buzz Peterson), plus the former school he himself coached at for over 30 years and his alma mater.
You know as well as I do, Dean is going to be interviewed. And, wanting to be politically correct and not pick favorites because someone is going to be hurt.
Should Kansas fans get upset if he says that he is not rooting for Kansas, even though KU is his alma mater and his former assistant Roy Williams is coaching the team.
Should Carolina fans be upset if he doesn’t come out and say he is outwardly rooting for Carolina?
I think right-minded people would understand the pickle Dean would be in, and give him an out. Dean would be in a no-win situation.
Which is the reason I had no problem with Roy wearing a Jayhawk sticker at last year’s NCAA Championship. This is a school Roy coached for over 14 years and still had some ties to. Which is also the reason he will never schedule KU for a game.
The same people who were upset at Roy for the sticker, forget that in 1993, Roy Williams actively rooted in the stands for Carolina in the championship game.
Now, let’s bring this to Larry Brown. Who was it that hired Guthridge’s staff after Matt Doherty took over Carolina? Dave Hanners and Pat Sullivan still work for Larry Brown in his current position with the Bobcats. Who hired him for that job? Michael Jordan.
Who has every ex-Carolina player in the NBA, said is always giving them encouragement and says, “How is it going, Carolina?” Larry Brown.
When I had you look up the article, I thought you saw quotes different from that article and that’s why I wanted you to find them, because I read these and had no problem with them. I didn’t take them as a slight to Carolina or Roy Williams.
Also, it wasn’t like Larry Brown ran around looking for a writer to write this story. The story appeared in a Philadelphia newspaper, where Brown coached for years and is the home to Villanova, which is the reason he was interviewed.
Also to follow up on 1987….
Here are the rosters…
Syracuse
F-Derrick Coleman
F-Howard Triche
C-Rony Seikaly
G-Greg Monroe
G-Sherman Douglas
Carolina
F-Joe Wolf
F-Dave Popson
C-J.R. Reid
G-Jeff Lebo
G-Kenny Smith
Reserves: Scott Williams, Steve Bucknall and Ranzino Smith.
Carolina went undefeated in ACC play and finished 32-4. Syracuse went 31-7 and lost 4 games in Big East play.
As for the game, Carolina lost by four points. The difference was Jeff Lebo had a horrible game, going 0-fer from the field and scoring only 2 points. Only Rony Seikaly had a big day for the Orange scoring 26 points, as the held Coleman to 2-for-10 shooting and 8 points.
Jeff Lebo had the flu IIRC.