University of North Carolina Athletics
Lucas: UNC Basketball Mailbag March 21
March 21, 2006 | Men's Basketball
March 21, 2006
By Adam Lucas
The last Mailbag of the season came too early this year. This is our last edition for the 2005-06 campaign. That doesn't necessarily mean we're going away--there will be consistent basketball-themed updates on the site throughout the summer--but we won't be here in our usual Tuesday space.
Two quick things to mark on your calendar: first, the basketball banquet is April 11. As you probably remember, Roy Williams has opened the banquet to the public as a way to let the team and the fans share one last evening together. David Noel and the rest of the seniors will make what promise to be epic senior speeches, there will be a video with lots of behind-the-scenes footage (the clip from after the Boston College loss in the ACC Tournament gives me chills just writing about it), and much more. We'll have more details on the site as April 11 approaches, but for now, mark off that evening on your calendar.
Also, it's our last chance to remind you about the Reece Holbrook Golf Classic on April 30 and May 1. There's been a recent addition to the auction on April 30--Triangle favorite (and occasional Roy Williams radio show guest) Liquid Pleasure will perform. Even if you can't play golf, check out the auction for the best variety anywhere of one-of-a-kind Carolina basketball memorabilia and autographs.
Our usual end-of-season thank-you list for people who make the Mailbag possible: Steve Kirschner and Matt Bowers in sports information; Jones Angell, Woody Durham, Eric Montross and Ben Alexander from the Tar Heel Sports Network; Eric Hoots, Jennifer Holbrook, Kay Thomas, Armin Dastur, and Loreal Andrews in the basketball office; Ken Cleary and J.D. Lyon, Jr. for the great images (moving and still) of a memorable season; and, of course, all the members of the 2005-06 Tar Heels.
Special thanks to Lauren Brownlow. If you liked the Mailbag even more this year than in years past, it's because of all the hard work she put into research and answering your questions. If you didn't like it more this year, then it's my fault. The hottest recruiting battle of the summer will be trying to retain Lauren at Tar Heel Monthly. If we're successful, she'll be back here with the Mailbag next season.
On with the questions...
I can't help but notice how the NBA early draft entries are affecting the college game. Especially in our case, when the graphic is given that more than 80+ percent of assists, points, and rebounds were lost with the seven players that graduated or were drafted last year. It isn't hard to imagine for other teams that are bigger schools in bigger conferences are losing to smaller schools in smaller conferences.
I wouldn't hesitate to agree the playing field is evening out for college basketball, but I would also make an argument that the majority of the powerhouses that turn out great kids are suffering the consequences of early entries. I believe that sometime in the near future cinderellas will barely exist and the term upset will be rarely used. We see the slow emergence of Gonzaga that has climbed its way through, and teams like Bucknell, Bradley and even Winthrop. Do you see the future of college basketball being leveled out slowly?
James Silver
That future may be here sooner than any of us think--and it might be here right now.
The first step for the "mid-major" programs, which is a label that is probably past its prime, is to be competitive in the early rounds. That day is here. There's no better evidence than George Mason's weekend in Dayton. Their win over Michigan State in the first round was no fluke: they simply played better than the Spartans. People watching across the nation might have been surprised when the score flashed up simply because of the names of the two teams, but inside the arena it was no surprise at all. The average margin of victory for the 1 seeds over the 16 seeds was 14.5 points this year. Five years ago it was 37 points per game. That's a startling stat. It used to be pretty simple: the 1 would always beat the 16. At some point in the next three years, a 16 is going to pull the upset. Everyone expected the "weakest" 1, Memphis, to have some problems this year, but even the trendy pick for the national title, Connecticut, had a dogfight (Huskies vs. Great Danes, get it? Hey, it's hard to be funny when the season is over) with Albany.
The next step will be for the smaller programs to be competitive in the regional round. Is that going to happen this year? I don't pretend to be a bracket guru, but is it so unreasonable to expect the winner of George Mason-Wichita State to give the winner of UConn-Washington a good game? It wouldn't be stunning. Another side benefit to the leveling of the playing field will come at contract renewal time. Coaches used to leave jobs like George Mason because they felt they couldn't win at "the next level" from that position in the basketball world. That's not the case anymore.
The word "upset" has been beaten into our sports vocabulary, and it's going to take some time to think of the way we perceive an upset. But the definition of what it means is changing.
The George Mason game just ended. What was today's point-per-
possession average compared to the rest of the season? Go Heels!
What a great team and season!
Tom Fogleman, Raleigh, NC
Carolina averaged 0.95 points per possession against George Mason. That's right in line with the season average. Elite teams in Tar Heel history usually push that figure closer to 1.0.
One other interesting note from the Dean Smith school of stats: the boxscore shows Carolina had just 13 turnovers, which is significantly under the season average of 16.5 per game and appears at first glance to be a respectable figure. But George Mason did a good job of slowing the tempo and creating a low-possession game. Factoring in the low number of possessions (just 63 for the Heels in the game) Carolina's % loss of ball was 20.6%, a very high figure that goes a long way toward explaining the loss. For the season the Tar Heels were closer to 19%, but the figure was below 15% during the 7-game winning streak that closed out the regular season.
In the second half against Murray State, Coach Williams tossed in a half-court trapping defense that began outside the 3-pt. line with three Tar Heel players guarding the perimeter mostly to one side. It seemed to, for the only time in the game, shut down the MS offense--they had no idea how to attack the trap. The Heels began stealing the ball as well and starting the fast break.
Following a timeout, UNC went back to its mostly unsuccessful man-to-man and almost lost the game. Question: why on earth (and I really can't think of an answer) didn't Coach Williams use that defense again? MS had no idea how to handle it, but as they are superb athletes, it was fairly simply for them to go one-on-one and score against the man-to-man.
Mark E. Mitchell
One of the great things about working with a program like North Carolina is dealing with fans who really understand the game. A subtle thing like a new zone defense would have gone unnoticed at many programs, but not at UNC.
Carolina just installed the 1-3-1 you saw against Murray State three weeks ago. They played it for one possession against Boston College in the ACC Tournament (the Eagles shredded it--as they did most every defense on that day--for an easy basket) and then used it more liberally against Murray State.
Most incarnations of the 1-3-1 feature vigorous trapping keyed by the guard at the top of the defense. Carolina's version is a little different. If you watch it on tape, you'll notice that they actually don't aggressively trap out of it. The idea is twofold: give the offense a different look and try to entice them to throw over the top of the defense. It looks like the trap is coming hard, perhaps making a nervous guard pass the ball earlier than he might like, but then the middle and back lines of defense sag back to try and intercept the pass.
The Tar Heels didn't play the defense at all last season and used it very rarely in Roy Williams's first season at Carolina.
"We just wanted to have a different look to throw at people," assistant coach Joe Holladay said. "It's something different from what most teams see from us."
Carolina played it for one possession against George Mason. The Patriots had it scouted very well. As soon as the Heels dropped back into the 1-3-1, GMU called a specific set play and burned it for a layup.
I read that Roy Williams lost track of the score in the final minutes against George Mason because of a slow scoreboard. How could this happen in an NCAA Tournament game?
Jack Whitaker, Raleigh
Although Dayton Arena is getting on toward ancient in arena years and the age is showing, it wasn't a slow scoreboard that caused the scoring discrepancy. The officials wanted to review the previous basket, a three-pointer by David Noel that had tied the score at 54. Although the basket appeared to clearly be a three-pointer, one member of the officiating crew thought his foot might have been on the line. As they should do in that situation, the referees consulted the courtside monitor during the subsequent timeout. While they were reviewing the tape, the scoreboard never changed, as the operator chose to wait for the official word before putting up any Tar Heel points. The review did seem somewhat lengthy, but the points were finally added to the board during the timeout.
Williams, of course, blamed himself for the error. "I looked up to the clock and it still said 54-51," he said. "In my mind, I thought something was wrong. I called a press and we didn't do a very good job on the press. It was a bad call on my part. It's something as a coach that you hate to do to hurt your team...As a coach when you feel like you've not given your team the best chance to win that's something that's hard to put up with."
Because the team flies charter, they're usually whisked straight onto their departing flight after a game. But things were running behind on Sunday night and the Tar Heels had to sit at a gate for several minutes before boarding. Williams spent that time sitting in a chair, staring out the window. You could almost see the image of the scoreboard burned in his brain.
UNC has a great freshman class this year, and they look like they are
developing quite nicely. But of course, UNC has an even better freshmen
class coming in next year. How are these new recruits going to tie in
with the current team? Will they play behind the current freshmen who
have had time to grow? Or are some of these new recruits expected to
quickly step into the line up, and players like Ginyard remain more
role players for the team?
Chad Barber, Timmins, Ontario, Canada
After dodging this question all season, it's probably time to address it. Carolina has a terrific recruiting class coming in this summer. The new freshmen will be able to enroll for the second session of summer school, an important head start. I'd expect Wes Miller to be this summer's designated pickup game organizer, the role formerly held by Jawad Williams and David Noel as the person who plans each day's schedule and makes sure everyone understands the importance of being there. That's when we'll begin to see the first indication of where these players fit.
As soon as they enroll, the Tar Heels will go from a team lacking great height to one of the biggest teams in the country. That will come as welcome news for Tyler Hansbrough, who spent the end of his season fending off collapsing defenses and progressively more physical play. The Heels will also add a point guard adept at probing a zone defense with the dribble and a zone-busting shooter. They will, in short, have more of everything.
But be careful about assuming more means better. You can spend a long time in sports and not have a team crystallize the way this year's edition did. More talent means more egos and more competition for minutes. This year's team thrived on that competition. That's not always true. Remember when Roy Williams arrived at UNC? The general feeling was that it would be pretty simple: great coach plus quality players would equal terrific results. It didn't work out that way the first year. The biggest challenge for the returning players and the new recruits will be subverting the individual accolades they might want--everyone does--in favor of understanding what's best for the team.
Taking the long view, one of the most important things about the freshman that just completed their first year is that they blasted away the idea that next year's freshmen would just walk in and start from day one. They'll still arrive with plenty of prep accolades, some McDonald's All-American credentials, and gaudy high school statistics. Those impressive resumes will earn them exactly nothing beginning in mid-October.
Brownlow's Down Low
With the great accomplishment of this year's team-its possible that Roy Williams and Tyler Hansbrough could win national Coach and Rookie of the year respectively. A) Has this ever been done by any Carolina "duo" and B) has it ever happened in ACC history?
Carl Dise, Salisbury, MD
Lauren writes: This is the first time that a Carolina coach has done it. The ACC Rookie of the Year award was conceived in 1976 (two years after freshmen became eligible), and official ACC All-Freshman teams did not begin until 1993 (though the second and third place finishers were released the previous years). The last Carolina coach to win ACC Coach of the Year was Bill Guthridge in 1998, and the ACC Rookie of the Year that year was Robert O'Kelley of Wake Forest.
While Bobby Cremins was at Georgia Tech, he won ACC Coach of the Year three times - and all three times, he also coached the Rookie of the Year (Stephon Marbury in 1996, Duane Ferrell in 1985, and Mark Price in 1983). The only other three coaches to accomplish that are Pat Kennedy from Florida State in 1993 who coached Rookie of the Year Bob Sura; Dave Odom, who won the award in 1991 having coached Rookie of the Year Rodney Rogers, and former Duke coac! h Bill Foster in 1978, who coached Rookie of the Year Gene Banks.
Besides those exceptions, most ACC Coaches of the Year got at most one freshman on the all-freshman team, thus supplementing the notion that the best coaches with the best records have experienced upperclassmen who know and effectively implement their system better than the younger teams. Mike O'Koren finished third in the Rookie of the Year voting in 1977 when Dean Smith won the award. Tommy Amaker had the same finish in the voting for Coach K when he won the award in 1984. Danny Ferry finished tied for third when Coach K won the award again in 1986. Dave Odom won the award in 1994 and only freshman Tim Duncan placed (second) in the voting.
But it has become more common for the ACC Coach of the Year to have at least one freshman on the all-freshman team. Since 1999, every ACC Coach of the Year winner has had one freshman make the team. But the most freshman to make the ACC-All Freshman team! by an ACC Coach of the Year was three by Coach K in 2000 - Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy (though none were Rookie of the Year - that honor belonged to Carolina's Joseph Forte). Roy is in second with both Tyler and Bobby Frasor making the all-freshman team this year.
Even though Dean Smith won the Coach of the Year award eight times, only five of those times were after the Rookie of the Year was awarded (1976, 1977, 1979, 1988, and 1993). In those last five times, Mike O'Koren's second place finish in 1977 was the only time one of his freshmen made the list. He did, however, coach four Rookie of the Year's throughout his coaching tenure (Sam Perkins in 1981, Michael Jordan in 1982, J.R. Reid in 1987 and Ed Cota in 1997. Roy Williams already has two to his credit - Marvin Williams in 2005, and Tyler Hansbrough this year.
These changing numbers mean more than anything that the game of basketball is changing - early draft entries and lots of pre-college preparation mean these freshmen have to be - and are - ready to play, as we saw this year. But even with all of that, only six freshmen have ever made it on to the first-team All-ACC list - Skip Wise (Clemson) in 1975, Kenny Anderson of Georgia Tech in 1990, Joe Smith (Maryland) in 1974, Stephon Marbury (Georgia Tech) and Antawn Jamison in 1996, and now Tyler Hansbrough in 2006. Until 1999, only six had made second or third team All-ACC. Since then, six have made third team and just two have made second team. So even though it might seem like these younger players are taking over, the upperclassmen still dominated this year's team (three seniors, one sophomore and a freshman on first team; three juniors and two seniors on second team, and four seniors and two juniors on third team). So, as David Noel has shown us, people do stay and still have success.
Adam Lucas is the publisher of Tar Heel Monthly and can be reached at alucas@tarheelmonthly.com. He is the coauthor of the official book of the 2005 championship season, Led By Their Dreams, and 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 Going Home Again, click here.
