Earlier on Friday, Some Other Kid’s mom took to Twitter with this celebratory tweet.

Happy February 3rd!!! Today is a Good Day! A date forever etched n #TeamDrewCrew memory! #ThankGod#FreedomFromEvil#NoMoreLies#PeaceAtLast

Of course had Sharon Drew stopped there it would have been worth an eye roll and maybe a good belch. But she didn’t, she followed that with a lot of talk about lies, deceit and alluding to the Penn State scandal because Roy Williams benching her pouty, selfish, turnover prone son is the same thing as covering up child rape. /sarcasm

You know what? That’s okay. Obviously she is enjoying living in her reality so instead of being angry at someone so delusional we should join her in celebrating. After all #Feb3rd, as she calls it, gave way to this:

and this:

and this:

oh and this too:

So we applaud you Mrs. Drew, for making Feb. 3rd(it was actually Feb. 4th Roy Williams was told but I guess they wanted to celebrate early) happen. By having your son leave and removing a major obstacle to team chemistry from the UNC locker room the rest of us actually enjoyed the remainder of the 2011 season. The Drew family is happy. We’re all happy!

Oh and I saw UCLA play last night. Have fun with that next year.

As a bit of background, let me say one of my major frustrations with the coverage of the entire NCAA fiasco has been the shoddy research and writing of journalists who ought to know better.  As such, I have written extensively about this topic, from reporters and others who continued to report the infamous Marvin Austin tweet as him having actually been in Club Liv long after that was proven to be a rap lyric, to Dan Kane’s “I’m not saying, I’m just saying” brand of “investigative journalism“, in which he lays out a premise but offers no proof and invites the reader to draw a conclusion.

In many ways, this seems to be the tack Landreth takes with his piece, relying heavily on innuendo and implication to make the case of some grand conspiracy to fire Butch Davis. The premise itself is ridiculous enough; never mind the misinformation and mangled facts he uses to advance that line of thought.

Still, I found it fun to deconstruct Landreth’s piece and took me about five minutes and a handful of Google searches to do so. So here goes:

The law firm of which Hargrove is a partner — Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. — represents the Raleigh News & Observer and Capitol Broadcasting. Either Hargrove himself or his law firm has represented the News & Observer at three times in court since the late 1980s.

These cases are a public record.

Both the News & Observer and Capitol Broadcasting had sued the university for all information in regards to the NCAA investigation of the football program recently before Hargrove became chair of the Board of Trustees.

There is no evidence the firm represented either party against UNC in this particular suit, but both remain clients, which is information Hargrove should have revealed.

There is no evidence the firm represented the N&O or CBC because the records lawsuit was filed by the firm of Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych. Hargrove’s firm of Brooks Pierce had nothing at all to do with the recent suit against UNC for the football records.

Brooks-Pierce-McLendon-Humphrey & Leonard Clients

(Read to the bottom of the page on this above link and you will see this firm still represents Capitol Broadcasting and the Raleigh News & Observer.)…

Whether Hargrove ever actually participated in any of the court proceedings against UNC is irrelevant in regards to the law. He is a member of the law firm that sued UNC on behalf of the Raleigh News & Observer in the past.

The link provided in the Landreth piece is to the Martindale Law Directory listing for Brooks Pierce. What is provided is a list of “representative clients”; I am not sure if these are active clients as Landreth asserts.

But if you follow his instructions and scroll to the bottom, below the listing of CBC and the N&O as clients, you will find another intriguing client listed: THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA. That’s right, in addition to CBC and the N&O, Brooks Pierce has also represented UNC! So Hargrove “is a member of the law firm that sued UNC” as well as of a firm that also represented UNC. Kind of inconvenient, isn’t it Eddy?

The minutes from the Board of Trustees on July 27, 2011, Willis P. Whichard, former associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, administered the Oath of Office to new and reappointed members of the Board:

Hargrove was made the chair, even though he had not been in line for the duty.

Landreth’s insinuation here is that there is something fishy about Hargrove becoming chairman of the board. Hargrove was not “made the chair”, he was elected as chair. In addition, the sitting vice-chair, Barbara Hyde, was re-elected vice chair for the upcoming term. Hard to believe Hyde would have remained as vice chair if there was a power play or Hargrove’s ascension was somehow suspect. This is not like the Rotary Club where the vice chair automatically moves up.

Before the Board began to conduct its business, Vice Chair Barbara R. Hyde read the state law concerning ethics and conflicts of interest.

“As Chair of the Board of Trustees, it is my responsibility to remind all members of the Board of their duty under the State Government Ethics Act to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict of interest as required by this Act. Each member has received the agenda and related information for this Board of Trustees’ meeting. If any Board member knows of any conflict of interest or appearance of conflict with respect to any matter coming before the Board of Trustees at this meeting, the conflict or appearance of conflict should be identified at this time.”

There is no mention of anyone identifying any conflicts within the minutes. The minutes from the May 25-26, 2011 meeting were approved, and Hargrove was then elected chair.

Again, Landreth asserts his point by insinuation. Hyde read the ethics statement and no one raised a conflict. Landreth is trying to say without saying that someone should have pointed out Hargrove’s conflict, or that Hyde read the statement knowing there was a conflict. But a simple review of the minutes of the other UNC Board of Trustees meetings from 2011 (available online here) reveals this statement is read at the beginning of every BOT meeting. In other words, there is no ulterior motive to that statement; it is simply a standard part of every meeting.

Then Landreth makes a bizarre point about UNC vice chancellor (and former football player) Matt Kupec, which seems to have nothing to do with his railing against Hargrove’s conflict of interest:

It is also worth noting that university vice chancellor Matt Kupec attended the meeting that day.

He addressed the Board during one of its three closed sessions that day, sessions which the public and the media were prohibited from attending.

What is unusual is Kupec is a fundraiser who normally makes his reports during the open portion of the meetings. But on this day, the minutes read: “Matt Kupec presented naming recommendations to Committee of the Whole.”

Unusual, Eddy? There’s nothing unusual or worth noting about his attendance at the July meeting or any other meeting of the BOT. Again, just reviewing the minutes from the previous 2011 BOT meetings, Kupec attended every one and made the same reports in open and closed session at each meeting. At the July meeting, he made a fundraising report in open session and then addressed the board in closed session about “naming recommendations” (whatever those are, which is irrelevant for this discussion).  Landreth’s wording would imply that Kupec did not make a report in open session, but he did. He did the presentations in both open and closed sessions at the January, March, and May meetings as well; again, this is information easily accessed online.

I don’t know what Landreth was meaning to imply about Kupec’s participation in this meeting, but five minutes’ worth of research would have shown Kupec did the same this in the July meeting as he did every time the board met.

Sadly, Eddy Landreth has cleared out a niche in the moonbat section of the UNC fanbase and has posted to a supposedly legitimate site a rant that would barely be worthy of being posted by a board monkey. A disclaimer on Landreth’s post says that “This story is property of TarHeelIllustrated.com and Yahoo! Sports. Any use should credit both.” Given the fine work Yahoo has done on the ills of college football lately, I don’t believe they would want their name associated with this piece of junk.

As THF noted in his piece, this kind of low-rent writing on either the booger-eaters side by Chansky or the mouth-breathers side by Landreth does nothing to advance the dialogue about Carolina football and hinders the efforts of real journalists and others who seek to have thoughtful discourse and reporting about the program and its future.

This probably qualifies under much ado about nothing but it made for some interesting conversation on Twitter.Looking ahead to the season, CBS Sports’ Jeff Goodman posted his Wooden Award Top 50. The list the link points to includes Harrison Barnes, Kendall Marshall, John Henson and Tyler Zeller. No big deal right? Well, aarlier in the day that was not the case. Goodman’s first version of the list left Zeller off entirely.

If you are thinking that Tyler Zeller being excluded  is a major omission, you would be right. Goodman originally decided to leave Zeller off the list for reasons that pass all understanding. Predictably, UNC fans took exception to this as we probably should to which Goodman responded via Twitter.

North Carolina fans have the lunatics in Lexington beat today. Complaining no Zeller when I have 3 other guys from UNC on Wooden list.

Well okay then. Goodman eventually relented though it seemed to be based on people being pissed more than the fact he was wtong.

And yes, he was wrong.

For starters, let’s take a look back at C.Michael’s final Beyond the Box post of the 2011 season. In it you will find this neat little table comparing Zeller’s junior season with that of Tyler Hansbrough’s.

Zeller’s numbers were comparable with Hansbrough’s which is not to say we should put them in the same class but it does mean Zeller is pretty darn good.  Zeller’s offensive rating was tops on the 2011 team and it wasn’t close. Also consider UNC’s offense is run through the post and Zeller runs the floor as well as anyone on the team.  Zeller is versatile, consistent and depending on the situation, he is either the #1 or #2 offensive option on the floor.

This is why simply including three Tar Heels doesn’t make up for the fact Goodman so grossly missed the point. I love Kendall Marshall’s game and he is a crucial cog. John Henson is a great defender and a freakish athlete. However neither one of them go on any list ahead of Zeller which speaks to just how underrated Zeller is in the minds of some people. His production is not flashy nor does it blow you away but Zeller easily had the most reliable offense on the team last season.

Now you could argue that improved offensive production from Marshall and/or Henson plus Barnes being all the thing we assume he will be might reduce Zeller’s prominence in the offense. I would argue the opposite to some extent. Marshall and Henson being legitimate threats on offense means Zeller won’t see any double teams. That only serves to boost his scoring potential. Barnes’ increased production might take some opportunities from Zeller however in most of the games UNC will play, Zeller will overmatch the interior players he faces. Zeller will produce, as will most everyone on the floor in a Tar Heel uniform. That is why this team will be so good.

The bottom line here is not the list so much as the fact Goodman ignored tons of compelling evidence proving Zeller’s worth including four straight NCAA Tournament games last March scoring 21 points or more. When he was confronted with excluding such a quality player, Goodman’s response is to call UNC fans “lunatics” and whine we didn’t thank him for including three Tar Heels. It would be one thing if fans complained because Goodman excluded Reggie Bullock or Dexter Strickland.  Neither of those deserve consideration for obvious reasons. In Zeller case, this is a player who was the co-leading scorer on the 2011 team and returns for his senior season after being a near lock for the first round of the NBA Draft last season.

Based on that you tell me who the lunatic is?

Thank you Fred Thompson, that about sums it up.

I suppose it is inevitable after the sheer tonnage of feces hitting an infinite number of fans in Chapel Hill, at some point the whole thing devolves into some type of pseudo civil war.  The latest? A group of donors who contributed to the Blue Zone expansion at Kenan Stadium are exploring possible legal action against UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp for misrepresentation and fraud because he fired Butch Davis following a year of public support. To the get the ball rolling, the attorneys representing the donors, led by Don Brown, have filed public records request for Thorp’s emails, including ones he already deleted. Who needs the media asking for this stuff when we have the fan base doing it for them? Oh and if you don’t recognize the law firm bringing the suit that means you probably don’t watch TV after 11:30 PM.

At this point what do we need ABCers for? Looks like we are hell bent on destroying ourselves without their help.

Via Tar Heel Illustrated

The NCAA, as with religions of antiquity, requires a sacrifice in cases such as the one that lay before Carolina with the official Notice of Allegations released this week.

This would be the ideal time for UNC to make that sacrifice and render a strong statement that it has learned from its errors and will act in concert with the image it strives so hard to portray.

There is no better way to accomplish this than for Dick Baddour, director of athletics, to retire gracefully.

He should make a statement that he has done his best for the school he loves so dearly and is ready to spend more time with his family.

Now is no time for stubborn pride.

He has served the university longer than many of its alumni have been alive.

There is no need to take cheap shots at him on the way out the door, either. Throw him a party; congratulate him on a retirement well-earned and then get down to the business of finding an AD who can finish what Baddour has guided the school through so carefully in the last year.

But it is important that he walk out that door.

His retirement and then a strong statement from a new AD could go a long way in Carolina’s favor. UNC has already done plenty by suspending players later found to be innocent, and by losing players who were guilty of accepting improper benefits and academic improprieties.

The NCAA wants its pound of flesh.

UNC appears to an easy target for making an example, unlike Auburn and the rest of the Southeastern Conference, which the officials at NCAA headquarters clearly fear.

Doc pointed out to me via email that this is not necessarily the craziest idea in the world. A high level member of the current athletic administration would be a nice bone to toss the NCAA(whether it would actually matter is another discussion.) Dick Baddour, for various reasons which have nothing to do with the scandal, is looking pretty wooly. Baddour has been at UNC for 40 years and director of athletics for the past fourteen. His age and tenure makes him an ideal candidate for retirement at this point. Since it is probably going to happen within the next year why not do it now as a quasi-offering to the angry enforcement gods in Indianapolis?

The answer is that it makes more sense for the man responsible for the football program be held accountable. And Eddy Landreth is very quick to tell you just how wrong you are for thinking that.

Of course, by now many of you reading this are saying, maybe even screaming, that Coach Butch Davis is the one who should go.

You are wrong.

Davis is at fault for hiring John Blake. But no coach in America can keep a player from taking money from a runner or agent if the kid wants to do it.

As Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski said, ‘It only takes one kid to do it.’

Also, Davis does not oversee the tutoring program. That falls under the leadership of Chancellor Holden Thorp and Baddour.

With the tremendous investment in the football program at the moment and Davis’ public relations skills, he can lead the football program out of this mess, back to respectability and to more wins on the field.

As for Thorp, he is relatively new to the job and would be better off learning from his mistakes than resigning. His departure would be an unnecessary sacrifice.

So while I agree with Doc that is not necessarily a crazy idea given the ease at which Baddour could retire. What I do find completely nuts is the logic Landreth employs here. It is as though Landreth has a conclusion he wants to reach and twists the logic to get there. That means downplaying anything that might make Davis look worse and playing up the angles that you can pin to Baddour. Such maneuvering is not uncommon that is until you get to this line.

The sacrifice must come from the man whose direct responsibility was to see that these kinds of mistakes did not occur in the athletic department.

Wait…what?

If I said to you which UNC athletic department employee has the most in the way of “direct responsibility” for the current scandal who’s name would you utter? I have little doubt it would the initials BD and not the reverse. Yes, you can make an argument the tutoring issues are more of a Baddour/Thorp problem than a football program issue. Except the only academic issues which were discovered were with the football team and it was one tutor who was let go according to procedure in 2009. Hardly the stuff of a massive academic scandal and certainly not playing on the same level as the Blake allegations. To say Baddour has more direct responsibility than Davis is simply ridiculous, especially in light of a defense which heavily insulated the head coach. If Davis escaped culpability in the notice of allegations how much more so is Baddour covered? The passion in which Landreth pursues his case against Baddour can only lead to one conclusion.

Eddy Landreth really hates Dick Baddour.

I mean really hate him not to mention Landreth’s fan boy homerism is enough that even Bob Harris thinks it’s excessive.  Landreth is apparently invested in Butch Davis and really believes what he writes when he says Davis can be the guy who brings UNC out of this. Who knows, he might be right but in all of Landreth’s rush to push Baddour out the door he conveniently ignores that at some point Davis too should be held accountable.  This is a football only scandal with nine major infractions involved. The man running that program, regardless of the absence of his name in the allegations, probably should have a standard of some sort applied to him. Is that a suspension of X number of games? Forfeiture of a  year’s salary? Cleaning up trash at Kenan Stadium? I don’t know the answer. Short of Davis being fired or resigning, other actions will be seen as ultimately meaningless. That doesn’t mean the effort shouldn’t at least be made.

At this point Davis enjoys enough support where it counts to stave off any serious consideration he will lose his job between now and the end of this calendar year. Baddour, on the other hand, is soundly disliked by UNC fans in general for the mishandling of past major hires. Any suggestion he should leave would be considered the best idea in the world by most. However letting Baddour go as some kind of sacrifice offered to angry deities is “for all the wrong reasons.” There are numerous reasons one might come up as grounds for Baddour to step aside. What Landreth offers up here should not among them. Earlier I indicated most of the actions that could be taken against Davis would be seen as meaningless. Having the athletic director step aside while not touching the coach overseeing a football program with major infractions pending will look far worse.

Note: I correct a fair amount of typos because I wrote this at midnight last night and actually may have been half asleep when I did it.

If you would rather reserve brain cells for this weekend when copious drinking might be required, I will summarize most of the piece written by The Daily Tar Heel’s Jonathan Jones.

Last week on senior day at NC State, the Wolfpack opted to honor Russell Wilson along with the rest of the seniors despite the fact Wilson is technically a redshirt junior and has an additional year of eligibility left. Wolfpack coach Tom O’Brien said that they missed the chance to honor RB Toney Baker last season when he had a year left and did not want to make the same mistake with Wilson. Seems perfectly logical to me and since I don’t spend too much time(read: zero time) thinking about how NCSU runs their Senior Day activities for football games, I blew it off.

Not so for Mr. Jones who decides three days before a big rivalry game would be a great time to post something so absolutely out of left field and quite frankly a little offensive that I am sure it is hanging up in the home team’s locker room at the Wendell Murphy Football Center as we speak. Jones’ argument is it was wrong for NCSU to honor Wilson. Wilson was not technically a senior and he should not be rewarded if he choose to bail out on his team and play professional baseball next season rather than use his final year of football eligibility. Jones reasons:

Senior Day is a celebration meant for seniors, not just for those who may not be around next season. Hell, if that were the case, most members of a John Calipari team would take the court before the final home game.

and

If you aren’t a senior, you shouldn’t be treated like a senior.

Allow me to anticipate a Wolfpacker’s argument: Wilson already completed his degree, so academically he’s a senior and should be congratulated for such an accomplishment.

The point of Senior Day is not to applaud student athletes for their four years in the classroom. It’s to celebrate their four years in class and on the field.

First of all, why should anyone at UNC care what NCSU does on their Senior Day?

Secondly, seriously why should any Tar Heel patron care about this or quite frankly anything that goes on at NC State, Duke, St. Aug’s etc, etc, etc. At the present time I am pretty darn sure UNC fans have much bigger concerns than whether Russell Wilson is getting an applause on Senior Day as a redshirt junior. You know that whole business about taking care of the plank in your eye before worrying about the speck of dust in your brother’s? In fact I would think The DTH has bigger concerns such as stalking honor court proceedings or joining on a lawsuit in an effort to engage in a fishing expedition of your own school in an effort to dredge up something that could be used build a flashy bombshell story. Instead The DTH is rendering opinions on things no one outside of West Raleigh gives a crap about.

As for the Jones’ argument, I would say that it fails to recognize a couple of key points. First of all, Wilson is a redshirt junior which means he has been on the football team for four years. Yes, he has only played three years but his first year he did his share of hard work and contributing to the team the way most redshirt freshman do. Secondly, the current reality of college athletics means you will have players who leave early. Now I am not in favor of honoring players for one or two years, but someone who has contributed three years and has either graduated or is about to graduate, I have less issue with honoring them. In some cases juniors get to come back and have their jerseys honored which happened for Wayne Ellington and Ty Lawson. You could argue that was potentially a better route for honoring Wilson but even then there are possibly restrictions to what you can do depending on the player. Mainly, O’Brien felt they missed the boat with Baker and did not want to do it with Wilson. It doesn’t sound like a big deal to me.

Oh, just to piece the argument even further. On Senior Day for UNC basketball, all the seniors on the team are honored. Not just the four year scholarship players but the walk-ons who may have only played one year with the varsity. Interesting that Jones’ fails to mention that UNC is in the habit of recognizing players who spent less than four years on the court while lambasting NCSU for doing the same.

This piece strikes me as utterly pointless, exceptionally inflammatory in that bulletin board material sort of way and feels just plain wrong. I am not sure what purpose it serves other than bringing UNC and NCSU fans together in a week where we would much rather hate each other as much as possible. Not only is it somewhat disrespectful to Wilson but it is making it more difficult for me to let the hate flow since I have to spend time defending a rival during the period of time I am supposed to be breathing fire at them.

Hate week ruined.

Week #1:
Thursday/Friday(traditional start): 1st round(i.e. bottom 64 teams)
Saturday/Sunday: Round of 64(32 1st round winners vs 32 bye teams)

Week #2:
Tuesday/Wednesday: Round of 32
Thursday/Friday: Sweet Sixteen
Saturday/Sunday: Elite Eight

Week #3:
Saturday: Final Four
Monday: National Championship

Everyone assumed that the NCAA would simply play the new 1st round on Tuesday/Wednesday and then have round of 64 start on the Thursday it normally starts.  Not so. The plan is to have teams play three games in five days during the 2nd week. Feinstein’s point, which Shaheen dodged like it was going to hurt him, was that teams advancing to the 2nd week could miss a whole week of class.  Granted that would happen if they did it the first week but when you consider top 32 seed would miss half the first week then potentially all of the 2nd week after having done a conference tournament the previous week then you are basically having players out of class for most of 2-3 weeks. Also, by putting the three games in one week in the middle of the tournament you are ensuring a high seed like UNC(in most seasons) would play Saturday, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday with travel from one site to the next mixed in there somewhere.

The other issue is the simplicity of the bracket and the schedule as it stands now is ruined but none of that matters.  Not to mention the difficulty for fans to be able to follow their team through the tournament seeing they would have to take a week off of work to do so as pointed out by ESPN’s Dana O’Neil. The more I see of this monstrosity, the worse it looks from the diluting of the regular season to an incredibly tough schedule to win a tournament which is already difficult to win in its current form. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of all is the fact a money hungry NCAA is willing to screw with something everyone loves(the NCAA Tournament) while refusing to address the postseason everyone hates(the BCS) all while making the opposite arguments to justify both.

Crossposted in part at Thee Sports Blog

Hailey starts out by saying that last season when Marcus Ginyard got injured it was a benefit to UNC since it allowed the more offensive minded Danny Green on the court and UNC would be better off having another weapon on the floor. I won’t argue with that too much.  On one hand, yes UNC was near impossible to stop when everyone was hitting.  On the other hand, UNC got lit up by players Ginyard might have been able to stop the likes of  Greivis Vasquez and Jeff Teague. At the end of the day UNC figured out how to play defense when it counted so you can argue that Ginyard was not really missed.  Then Hailey drives the bus right off the cliff.

So here we are a year later and Ginyard is back.  The senior is a tremendous leader off the court, but he has always been touted as a defensive stopper.  Well six games into the season I still don’t see it.

With only four games against true competition the opposing players top perimeter player has gone off against the Tar Heels.  Brandon Wood of Valpo went for 30, Evan Turner of Ohio State 23 points, Wesley Johnson had 25 for Syracuse, and here is the capper, little Grayson Flittner who came in averaging just 7 points per game went for 32 and tied the Smith Center record with nine three pointers.  These are not the kind of performances you would expect against a fifth year senior defensive stopper.

Well first of all, it has only been six games which is a really difficult point to drop an opinion like this. And mind you it is all opinion because things like box scores and numbers often get in the way of a good rabble rousing. Haily points to four players who had pretty good scoring nights against the Heels and uses just their point totals as evidence against Ginyard’s individual defense.

Brandon Wood, Valpo, 30 points:  It is true Ginyard and the rest of the Tar Heels let off the gas in this game, were not focused and as a result Roy Williams chewed out Ginyard after the game.  So for this one you can say Ginyard(and his teammates) did not do a great job but one game is hardly worth trashing Ginyard’s defense.

Evan Turner, OSU, 23 points: Read the rest of the stat line Josh. It also says 10 turnovers next to Turner’s name.  Ginyard’s defense was so good Luke Winn, who actually watches games and you know, reads box scores, wrote about it in-depth.

Wesley Johnson, Syracuse, 25 points: Wesley Johnson is listed as a forward and is 6-7. I am not sure Ginyard was even assigned to Johnson though it is possible.  I was not paying much attention to the matchups especially when I started having Kansas Game flashbacks. I do know watching the highlight video on ESPN.com Johnson scores seven points with someone else guarding him besides Ginyard. So without further evidence I am not sure you can hang Johnson’s performance on Ginyard.

Grayson Flittner, Gardner-Webb, 32 points: Yeah, I actually think Ginyard did all he could.  When a player is pulling up from Efland and shooting then that is tough to defend.  Also, Roy Williams said in his press conference than Flittner ended up getting open on two occasions because Ed Davis screwed up. There were other times when someone had a hand in the guy’s face and still others where he just pulled up from some ridiculous distance which is impossible to guard.  Then there is the issue of Ginyard doing what a veteran defensive specialist does: rotating off his man in help defense which ends up leaving the guy open.  Was that a mistake? Depending on how you look at it.  Ginyard was basically doing what he has done for four years and when a team gets penetration(someone else’s fault) and Ginyard rotates over to help leaving Flittner open then pray tell what do you expect him to do?

You can say that all the points haven’t been on him, but a lot of them have.  And if you’re the best defender on the team you move onto the hot hand even if he is lighting someone else up.  There have been plenty of times that he has played well, but he is still not a complete player.

No, I can’t say a lot of the points have been on Ginyard because I don’t have access to the defensive grading Roy uses. In fact you know what might have been a better idea? Having someone ask Roy about Ginyard’s defense and how he has rated out against the four individuals you mentioned before going of half cocked, writing this kind of garbage in a public forum and making people dumber for having read it.

The liability that he is on offense will make it tough on the inside bigs trying to score as the season moves along.  As important as guard play is in the college game, there isn’t a whole lot of room on the court for wings who can’t shoot.

Let’s see what those pesky stats say again. So far this season Ginyard is averaging 11.7 ppg, 4.2 apg, 3.3 rpg, 2.0 spg. Ginyard is also shooting 47% from three point range, 60% overall and 88% from the foul line. His points per shot is 1.56 which is 3rd best on the team behind Ed Davis and Tyler Zeller. During the two games in New York, Ginyard had excellent offensive games. Against OSU Ginyard scored 13 points and hit 3-5 three pointers. He followed that up with a 15 point performance versus Syracuse. Last night versus Gardner Webb, Ginyard scored eight points and dished out six assists which is at least 20 points he had a hand in creating. The only complaint thus far about Ginyard on the offensive end is his turnovers which is not bad enough to declare him an offensive liability.

For North Carolina to have any chance in March they will have to get more out of Ginyard on both ends of the court, because he will most certainly be out there for his leadership.

Ya think, Dinozzo? For my money I think Ginyard has played up to expectations, maybe even beyond them.  He is in great physical shape, is leaner than he was at any point in career. Ginyard has shown some aggressiveness on the offensive end as well as some explosiveness going to the basket. Time will tell whether his three point shooting stays at a fairly high level though if he settles in the 40% range that is still great.  Implying that he is an overrated defender and liability on offense is short sighted at best and journalistic malfeasance at worse based on the evidence. At this point I am not sure how Ginyard’s season will go but I do know there is nothing I have seen so far to make me think he is playing worse than we thought he would.

Offensive MVP: Greg Little. He entered the season as the Tar Heel’s most experienced wide receiver with just 24 career catches. He ranks sixth in the league with 4.5 receptions per game and leads the team with 27 catches for 230 yards and one touchdown. He’s been a leader on an offense that has struggled this year, and has helped the younger receivers around him learn quickly.

No. No. No. A thousand times no.  He’s been a leader?  Really? Little has had two personal fouls called on him in six games.  He has one freaking TD and his longest reception all season was 34 yards against ECU. Not that there are many choices.  Frankly, had Dinich put NONE by Offensive MVP, I may have considered lifting the linking ban just for the sheer cleverness of it.  But Greg Little?  Really?

If you must name someone I am more apt to go with Ryan Houston who does have 15 fewer yards than Little(well not really if you count Little’s penalty yards) and Houston also has seven TDs. For my money, Houston has been good and under utilized. Erik Highsmith might have nine fewer receptions than Little but he averages eight more yards per catch and has one more TD.  In my opinion Highsmith and Houston have had a greater impact on the UNC offense than Little. Heck, Zach Pianalto almost singlehandedly beat UConn so he is probably a candidate ahead of Little as well.

I just think this kind of stuff is lazy analysis. Anyone who has watched UNC this season(and there is a good chance Dinich hasn’t) knows Little continues to be a huge disappointment and some of his actions on the field have had negative consequences. Granted the offense is terrible so even naming an offensive MVP is laughable.  In this case it is hysterical.

Let me just go on record now and say on one hand, I understand that with close to 100 guys ranging between the ages of 18-22 years old living attending a major college that has over 20,000 students, this sort of thing is bound to happen.  On the flip side, I really wish they would cut this kind of crap out.  Three Heels over the past three months have run afoul of the law, though Donte Paige-Moss gets a semi-pass since his incident was with a teammate and really should have been an internal matter.  Kevin Bryant went ahead and fell on his own sword apparently by asking for a leave of absence then deciding not to come back(or was told not to which is fine.) In Elzy’s case there really is no excuse and he should have exercised better judgment.  Whatever discipline Davis handed down, I am hoping it was substantial enough to make a point to both Elzy and his teammates.

Of course if The Coach Who Shall Not Be Named was still around, Elzy would have been toast.