North Carolina lost at home tonight. Again. This time, it was to Wake Forest and it was not a close game. You might not remember, but UNC started the season ranked sixth in the country. They are ranked 24th now, but that is too high. No team with seven losses deserves to be close to being ranked. Sure, they've played a brutal schedule. They've had a couple impressive wins, such as Michigan State and Ohio State. Losses to Syracuse, Texas, and Kentucky are certainly understandable. But to lose to the College of Charleston? That should never happen.The struggles have continued into conference play. They got demolished by Clemson. Towards the end of the game, I saw the following graphic on the screen: "UNC: 26 field goals, 25 turnovers. First time tonight that UNC has had more field goals than turnovers." They then lost at home to Georgia Tech in a heartbreaker. They were down twenty, came back to take the lead, and finally fell. Now, they are unable to stop the bleeding. Wake Forest simply manhandled the Tar Heels tonight.
If anything, we have learned that the pre-season hype was a little ridiculous. And that is an understatement. People were comparing this team to the 2005-2006 team that also incorporated a new roster after a championship season. There was, however, one crucial difference. Nobody respected that team at the start of the season. That team overachieved and finished the season ranked tenth. Now, everyone is expecing a new lineup to be a Final Four team. That's not going to happen. UNC should have had to prove themselves in the rankings.
So, what's going wrong? Ben G. thinks that UNC has chemistry issues. That would certainly be understandable, considering UNC's dependence on freshman. That group includes the Wear twins, Jersey boy Dexter Strickland, John Henson, and Leslie McDonald (who went to the same school as Michael Oher). That group will eventually make a fine squad. And by fine, I mean amazing. It's just going to take time. It took a couple years for the Hansbrough team to develop. Give the new group that same amount of time.

0 comments:
Post a Comment