The Sporting News' Mike Decourcy tackles UNC's loss to Charleston in one of his regular columns and basically says it was equivalent to a #12 seed knocking off a #5.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how shocking was College of Charleston's upset of North Carolina?
DeCourcy: I've got a better scale for you. How about the NCAA Tournament upset scale: a 1 vs. 16, a 2 vs. 15, and so on?
Given that the game was played at Charleston, that Carolina was without starting wings Marcus Ginyard and Will Graves, it was about a 5 vs. 12 upset, which isn't that uncommon.
Charleston beat Stephen Curry's Davidson twice last season, and guards Tony White and Andrew Goudelock were double-figure scorers. The Cougars haven't been as good this year, but they've got winners on their team, they were playing at home before an audience aware their team rarely gets such opportunities and fully invested in the possibilities.
To me, the upset remains that Carolina agreed to schedule the game. And if the Heels do this sort of thing again, that would be a 1 vs. 16 upset.
I am not sure why people are so hung up on UNC taking this game. It is a good experience to play in a really, really hostile environment against a team making the most of their 15 minutes. Playing in a 5100 seat arena is probably tougher than playing at Hansbrough Indoor. This is something UNC does. They did it last season when they played UCSB on their way to Maui. USCB was ranked #169 by Pomeroy. Charleston is presently ranked #176.
I understand the game is risky but not as risky as UNC playing Davidson in Charlotte to open the 2008 season. I was under the impression this sort of thing was good for college basketball yet college basketball folks are complaining about it. As I said that night, I give Roy Williams a ton of credit for taking the gamble unlike Duke who cannot even bother themselves to play Iowa St. in Ames but opts for Chicago and a neutral court instead. Speaking of which, I wonder if Mike Kryzyzewski thought Harrison Barnes would be coming up for that game(snicker.)