University of North Carolina Athletics
Lucas: UNC Basketball Mailbag March 15
March 15, 2005 | Men's Basketball
March 15, 2005
By Adam Lucas
We're starting this week's mailbag with an apology. We're sorry, Tommy. And Mike and Cathy and Mark and Donald and anyone else who has emailed us over the past month. We are way behind on email. Not just a little behind. We're talking 8 points in 17 seconds behind. We're just waiting for Walter Davis, Bobby Jones, and the rest of the Tar Heels to swoop in and save the day. Unless that happens, don't get discouraged if you think we're ignoring you. We're not. And we'll get to your email eventually, even if it doesn't make any sense by the time we get to it. The good news is that we're going to expand the Crack Mailbag Research Team by one person starting as soon as this summer. We'll have details in a future mailbag but it's the perfect opportunity for the enterprising Tar Heel fans out there.
Now, who are you having dinner with tonight? If it's not Phil Ford, then we know a way you can improve the coolness quotient of your dinner companions. Our good friends over at Tar Heel Moments are giving away dinner with Phil Ford in Chapel Hill. How do you win? It's simple. Go to their site and tell them your favorite Tar Heel Moment (we know you've got `em, because you send them to us all the time) by clicking on the link at the top of the page. Hey, and keep in mind--it's dinner for TWO with Phil Ford, so you get to take along a guest...like, for example, your favorite mailbag columnist. We promise not to eat too much. They're going to make other prizes available (maybe even signed copies of Going Home Again--aka "that Roy Williams book") as the promotion continues in addition to the grand prize, so it's well worth your time.
It's Tuesday, which means in addition to being mailbag time it's also Tar Heel Talk time. You can listen online or over the air on 1090 AM. We've got a slight lineup change today--it's Jones Angell and Mick Mixon, as some other guy was told by his lovely and talented (not to mention committed, as it takes real dedication to the cause to schedule delivery around the ACC and NCAA Tournaments) wife that he was not allowed to go to Champp's and eat free food and do the show while she was giving birth to their son at the hospital. Some people do not have their priorities in the correct order. The good news is that we should have a point guard recruit for the class of 2023 by this afternoon. And no, we can't answer any questions about his recruitment, we don't have his school list yet, and we don't know if he will room with Justin Bohlander while at Chapel Hill.
Speaking of fathers, we do hope you'll make it a point to read this story on Eric Montross and his Father's Day basketball camp. It's a great event and any support you can give it goes a long way to helping make the UNC Children's Hospital an even more complete facility.
On to the questions...
For the past three games (Duke, Clemson, and GT) it seems that the Heels have been playing behind for the majority of the time. Do you think this a bad omen heading into the NCAAs? Are the players becoming tired as the season winds down?
Also...
I like to look at the GT loss in a positive way. By losing, UNC avoids another physically and mentally draining game against Duke, and still likely holds on to their #1 seed in the NCAAs. Do you agree with this assessment?
Taylor, Richmond, VA
We'd throw Florida State onto your list of recent performances--the Seminoles led that game 44-41 at halftime--and make it a four-game trend. One thing is certain: it's not a positive sign to be behind. Carolina is undefeated when trailing at halftime, so you want to have that advantage whenever possible.
It's hard to gauge player fatigue because no one ever wants to admit to being drained physically. But there's no doubt the Tar Heels are more banged up now than they were, say, a month ago. Marvin Williams has a lingering turf toe problem, Jackie Manuel played on a twisted ankle on Saturday (something Roy Williams said concerned him on his weekly radio show Monday night, saying Manuel will play this weekend but may not be 100%), Sean May spent some time with the trainer during Saturday's game for a variety of physical issues, and there's the well-documented Rashad McCants situation. That's a good example of why many coaches aren't necessarily in love with postseason conference tournaments. For a team like Carolina with nothing to gain (the Heels were going to be an NCAA top seed regardless of what happened in Washington) it's simply--from the perspective of a head coach--another chance to aggravate existing injuries or create new ones. Sure, it's a chance to win a title, but do you ever look back on the 1993 season and say, "Yeah, it was a great season, but if we'd only won that ACC Tournament title..." Of course not. And no one ever seems to believe that the 1994 ACC title soothed the disappointment of the loss one week later to Boston College.
The final word on this team will be written in the next three weeks. If they advance deep into the postseason, everyone will say the extra rest and practice generated by the ACC Tournament performance was key. If they're eliminated early, the theme will be that the ACC Tournament marked the beginning of a downward trend.
What is the correlation between ACC tournament success and Final Four success for Carolina and the rest of the ACC? The conference tournament may not mean a lot to a team like Carolina who will probably get a #1 seed, but losing this game may be a big blow to their championship chances.
Arthur "Skip" Walker
This was a popular question, so we put the crack mailbag research staff to work (by the way, if you're interested in joining the crack research team, stay tuned in future weeks for details on how to do that).
We went back to Carolina's last national championship in 1993, which gave us an even dozen ACC Tournaments to consider. In that timespan, more ACC Tournament champions have been eliminated in the round of 16 or earlier (7) than have made the Final Four (4). The 12th team is the 1996 Wake forest squad, which lost in the regional finals. So two-thirds of the past dozen ACC champions have lost before the Final Four--not exactly great odds.
But we were curious about the teams that did make the Final Four. So much is made on Selection Sunday of "finishing hot." Does that really make a difference?
It doesn't look like it. We investigated the past 20 Final Four teams. Only five of them won their league tournaments and 12 of them lost in the conference tournament semifinals or earlier. A further nugget on that topic--none of Roy Williams's four Final Four teams at Kansas won the conference tournament but all of them won the league's regular season title. In the years when KU won the league tourney title, they never advanced past the Sweet 16.
Here's a look at the past five Final Fours:
2004 Final Four: UConn (won Big East tournament), Georgia Tech (lost in ACC Tournament semis), Duke (lost in ACC Tournament championship game), Oklahoma State (won Big XII title).
2003 Final Four: Syracuse (lost in Big East semis), Kansas (lost in Big XII semis), Marquette (lost in Conference-USA quarters), Texas (lost in Big XII quarters).
2002 Final Four: Maryland (lost in ACC semis), Indiana (lost in Big Ten semis), Kansas (lost in Big XII final), Oklahoma (won Big XII title).
2001 Final Four: Duke (won ACC), Arizona (no tournament), Maryland (lost in ACC semis), Michigan State (lost in Big Ten quarters).
2000 Final Four: Michigan State (won Big Ten tournament), Florida (lost in SEC quarters), UNC (lost in ACC quarters), Wisconsin (lost in Big Ten semis).
Following the Heels this year, I began to notice that there were some striking similarities between the 92-93 team and this year's team. The finale was when we lost to GT in the ACC tournament for our 4th loss of the season heading into the NCAA. Could you and the guys over there do a compare and contrast between the two teams? I have noticed a number of things, but I am sure you guys can find even more stuff.
Ben Hudson, Washington, NC (The REAL home of C.J. Hooker)
You're right, Ben, there are some similarities. Both teams lost two games in the conference. The '93 team lost their two games at Wake Forest and at Duke. This year's team lost...at Wake Forest and at Duke. Both teams suffered an early nonconference loss, with the '93 squad falling to Michigan and this year's team dropping the opener to Santa Clara. Both teams won the ACC regular season title with a 14-2 record and exited the ACC Tournament at the hands of Georgia Tech--77-75 in 1993 and 78-75 this year. The 1993 team was perfect at home, lost two games on the road, and lost two games on neutral courts. This year's team is perfect at home, lost two games on the road, and lost two games on neutral courts. Both teams took trips to Hawaii during the nonconference portion of the schedule--the 1993 squad played in the Rainbow Classic, whereas this year it was the Maui Invitational.
Eight players averaged double figure minutes for the 1993 team (Eric Montross, Derrick Phelps, Henrik Rodl, Pat Sullivan, Donald Williams, Kevin Salvadori, Brian Reese, and George Lynch), which was led in scoring by a center from the state of Indiana (Eric Montross, 15.8 points per game). This year's team has eight players averaging double figure minutes and is led in scoring by a center from the state of Indiana (Sean May, 16.5 points per game). Both teams include a senior forward who would be acknowledged by the players as the leader of the team (in 1993 it was George Lynch, who scored 14.7 points per game, this year it's Jawad Williams at 14.1 points per game). Outside shooters from the state of North Carolina play a major role on both teams (Donald Williams, from Garner, in 1993, and Rashad McCants, from Asheville, in 2005). A player with the last name of Williams wore jersey number 21 on both teams (Donald in 1993, Jawad in 2005) and backup point guards on both teams wore number 11 (Scott Cherry in 1993, Quentin Thomas in 2005). The lowest scorer among the regular 1993 starters? Henrik Rodl, number 5 (he started 26 games, Donald Williams started only 14). The lowest scorer among the 2005 starters? Jackie Manuel, number 5.
The 1993 team started NCAA play in the state of North Carolina (Winston-Salem) on March 18 and 20. This year's team begins NCAA play in the state of North Carolina (Charlotte) on March 18 and, if they win that game, March 20.
What does that mean? Absolutely nothing, but it's fun to compare. There are definitely some differences as well--this year's squad features a scoring point guard in Raymond Felton (12.7 points per game) whereas Derrick Phelps was mainly a defender and non-scoring floor general (8.1 points per game) in 1993. The '93 team had three seven-footers in Montross, Salvadori, and Matt Wenstrom; this year's team has May playing center at 6-foot-9. The '93 squad didn't have any freshmen in the regular rotation but Marvin Williams plays significant minutes for this year's squad. The '93 team included a late-season lineup change, as Donald Williams entered the starting rotation in place of Rodl, but this year's starters have been constant except in the case of injury. And the 1993 team lost to Georgia Tech largely because of an injury to Phelps, whereas this year's team lost largely because of a poor first-half effort.
Are there any other similarities? We'll find out in the weeks to come.
I'm just curious as to who determined and approved the set up of the brackets for the ACC Tournament? I know with 11 teams there's a need for some sort of play-in type round but I'm confused as to why things were laid out the way they were past the "play-in" round. Other tournaments are set up so that the top seed gets to play the lowest seed but that's not how this was set up. This was set up so that best case scenario the top seed played the 9 seed while the second and third seeds potentially get to play a 10 or an 11 seed, if there's an upset in the early round. This just seems to take away the advantage of the number one seed and put the advantage with the 2 and 3 seeds. In this year's tournament, the ultimate winner, played an 11 seed, a 7 seed and a 5 seed enroute to the Championship. This hardly seems like a good indicator of top dog in the ACC.
Why not reseed the teams once that first night is played according to who wins? What are the plans for handling the 12th team next year?
Tonja Kinsey, Virginia Beach
This has been a popular question. We're not aware of any major conference tournament (they do it in the Northeast, Big Sky, Southland, and Big West) that reseeds teams after the first round, and part of the reason is probably because head coaches wouldn't know how to prepare their teams. In a short-turnaround format like the ACC Tournament, scouting time is very limited. It's unlikely coaches would approve of a format where the top seed would have to play at noon on Friday but not know their opponent until 11:30 p.m. on Thursday. To a certain extent, you could say the same thing about the NCAA Tournament. What if Carolina has to play an 8 seed in the second round this weekend but the second seed in the Syracuse region gets to play a 10 seed? That's just the way the brackets work, and that's a big part of what makes college basketball's postseason so exciting.
Keep in mind that the bracket also has to be fair to the middle of the ACC finishers and it's always set up assuming the top seeds will win. So, in theory, the bracket works. Will the #11 seed eventually upset the #6 and create a seemingly unfair situation? Certainly. But that's part of the down side to an 11- or 12-team league, as the Big East and Big XII have discovered.
With 12 teams next year, there will be eight teams playing on Thursday. 5 will play 12, 6 will play 11, 7 will play 10, and 8 will play 9. Friday will feature 1 vs. 8/9, 2 vs. 7/10, 3 vs. 6/11, and 4 vs. 5/12. Assuming all the top seeds win, it will look very much like the 8-team ACC Tournaments we've known and loved in the past. One thing to keep an eye on, though, is whether it truly becomes an advantage for teams to get their feet wet on Thursday. Clemson, Virginia, and NC State all looked solid on Friday this year after playing a game on Thursday, while some of the Friday-only teams (Carolina, for one) looked rusty. Sure, a team would probably wear down from four games in four days by Sunday if they'd made it that far, but it might create some Friday upsets in the future.
Adam Lucas is the publisher of Tar Heel Monthly and can be reached at alucas@tarheelmonthly.com. His book on Roy Williams's first season at Carolina, Going Home Again, is now available in bookstores. To subscribe to Tar Heel Monthly or learn more about the book, click here.
