Comments on: The Mountain Ahead

By: LarryS

LarryS — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:43:59 +0000

There is still somewhat of a mystique about what the selection committee values when it really gets down to deciding between a very few bubble teams. They say that it’s still about wins and losses, but you know they have to be swayed somewhat with “good losses” (I actually hate that term) from a really tough schedule. And although they don’t dismiss the total body of work from a teams’ season, I do believe they give a lot of weight to how a team is playing over the last 10-12 games; they kind of have to allow injury-plagued teams to heal and inexperienced teams to improve, for example .

The part of the process that involves subconciously (even conciously) deferring to a tradtional “glamor” team, one whose presence makes the tournament much more attractive, will generally be denied by the committee and vigorously debated by the public. I don’t doubt this is one of the things that may benefit us, come tournament time , should we reside squarely on the bubble. We still have to take care of a certain amount of business though.

By: william

william — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:21:40 +0000

They looked good, especially in the second half against VPI and NCSU. Some of these other teams that have looked so good early, are fading. I don’t think the NCAA committee bases selections on point differential, on on significant wins, so somebody correct me, if I am wrong. Pomeroy gives extra points for blowing out insignificant opposition, which is making Maryland look like a powerhouse, but who have they really beaten?

By: LarryS

LarryS — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:25:14 +0000

It is hard to see if one envisions them continuing to play like they have played in some games lately. Why can’t it be just as easy to envision them improving, like the State game, and playing more and more up to their potential? Or do they just not have that potential? To my eyes they certainly do. I just can’t imagine writing off the whole year with 11 games plus the ACCT left. If we improve game by game, the NCAA tournament will take care of itself. It will be a difficult task but I wouldn’t call it a pipe dream.

By: keithunc

keithunc — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:29:03 +0000

I find it really really hard to see us winning 17 to 18 games and making the tourney. That is a pipe dream. What we need to concern ourselves with is improving game by game and hoping that translates to next year being a pretty good team. I belive this year is a loss (tournament wise). I’ll continue to watch and hope but…..all I can say is GO HEELS.

By: AZACCFan

AZACCFan — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:01:16 +0000

I don’t quite know what to think when we are looking at quality non-conference losses. Maybe we could just play a few NBA games.

It is interesting that COC are doing well.

Some of the other teams we have lost to though have fallen a bit. Like Texas.

By: uncgirl50

uncgirl50 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:52:10 +0000

Marcus will not let us lose at dook. That is not even fathomable.

By: william

william — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:47:35 +0000

Because we have never played in the first round of the ACC tourney since expansion, it is easy to forget that that could provide another easy win or two against ACC competition.

I think that 19-14 or 20-14 or 21-14 should probably all get us in.

22-14 will mean we win the tourney.

CoC is leading their league and all of UNC’s other losses were to high quality teams. Few teams will have played five non-conference games against the likes of Syracuse, Ohio State, Michigan State, Kentucky and Texas.

Maryland, for instance, may look good now, but they lost to William and Mary, which is not that different from losing to CoC. Maryland also lacks any good non-conference wins.

Strangely enough, it is UNC which has the most impressive wins out of conference. This is not to diminish the extreme urgency that UNC faced with a road game at NCSU, but at the same time, we are seeing all the idiots in the media (even Pomeroy’s ratings seem out of wack) falling for the idea that schedule strength at the top doesn’t matter.

By: scl11

scl11 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:39:06 +0000

Let’s visit this discussion next Friday. Sitting at 4-3 with continued improvement off of Tuesday night the mountain is not as daunting. Where as 3-4 or 2-5 and the mountain will look like climbing Everest in flip flops.

By: Heel To The End

Heel To The End — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:46:21 +0000

Sheed probably wasnt ever a guard, like Henson, and he was naturally pretty agressive. Henson would have to learn to mix it up inside. he might, but i doubt we’ll see it this year.
Sam was pretty skinny. heck, eveyone was back in those days. but no one is as skinny as Henson. i believe our PG recruit for next year, Marshall, already weighs more than Henson.

By: Heels Perspective

Heels Perspective — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:41:31 +0000

I don’t remember Sam Perkins being so skinny. There is hope for Henson.

Sam had no issues then because most of the other players were all tall skinny guys too, so Henson would have been fine comparatively in the 70′s and 80′s. The problem now is that most of the post guys are bulked up.