I'd love to see another Cal-coached team choke one away at the line here.

RiverRat13 wrote:

HeathAlum21 wrote: I missed most of this game because of the other sporting events that are on television. From what I have seen, I don't think you can make an argument for Kentucky being the best team in the nation. Don't get caught up in the moment. Syracuse beats Kentucky by 10 in my opinion.

No kidding. Syracuse carved up Carolina.

Was in response to the argument others were having about Kentucky being the best in the nation. Syracuse was just one team that happened to come to mind that is much better than Kentucky. I haven't seen Kansas play much this year, but Kentucky doesn't belong in the same conversation, at least at this point.

LOL! Thompson was a foot away from the in-line!

Deon Thompson played waaaayy too shaky in the 2nd half imo...

UNC showed some great will coming back, down by 19, but it looks like UK is going to hold on...

As a Carolina fan I'm pretty pleased overall. This was Kentucky's Super Bowl. Their first chance to show they are back. It was Carolina's first true road game but fourth "big" game overall. No chance UNC was going to be able to match UK's emotional advantage. But the Heels battled back despite not shooting well from the field and the foul line and only lose by two. I'd definitely like the Heels' chances if there was a re-match in March.

LTrain23 wrote: Deon Thompson played waaaayy too shaky in the 2nd half imo...

UNC showed some great will coming back, down by 19, but it looks like UK is going to hold on...

Ed Davis wasnt much of a factor in this game either, he rebounded well but thats bout it. He really needs to be able to dominate games sometimes he just doesnt have that killer instinct yet

Agree with ya Riverrat. I was pleased to see UNC fight back and make it a game rather than packing it in after half. There is a lot to learn from this game and it was a good game to learn from for later in the season.

It's a great day when you don't even post.

k_boogy wrote:

LTrain23 wrote: Deon Thompson played waaaayy too shaky in the 2nd half imo...

UNC showed some great will coming back, down by 19, but it looks like UK is going to hold on...

Ed Davis wasnt much of a factor in this game either, he rebounded well but thats bout it. He really needs to be able to dominate games sometimes he just doesnt have that killer instinct yet

Yeah, but at least he came up with rebounds... Seemed like every time Deon got his hand on the ball he lost it. Tyler Zeller really impressed me though, he brought it down the stretch.. Too bad they didn't go down to him more often.

But, I'm pleased with the effort.. I believe we were down 30-11 at one point? So making a 2 point game is nothing to be down about, especially, as others have said, since this was UK's "Super Bowl" of sorts..

Wall definitely wasn't the same player in 2nd half after the cramps. Great fight by UNC. Very impressed with their young players. Both teams will get a lot better.

UK wasnt the same team in the 2nd half, maybe they all had cramps. No legs and a lot less energy in the 2nd stanza. If Bledsoe and Cousins play a little smarter down the stretch this is going to be a team that you will have to play your A+ game to beat

UNC wore them down. Any time you can interchange 10-12 players and you play a fast pace, you're going to wear down the other team... Congrats to UK for holding on though.

Yep. Carolina has depth and uses it. Only natural that the opponent is going to wear down to some extent.

LTrain nailed it in his last post. That is what will once again spell Duke some trouble when the Blue Devils travel to Chapel Hill in early February.

And thanks, SportsAndLadies. I'll forever be indebted to you and hank for that one. Outside of a Duke game, that was the most fun time I've ever had watching a college basketball game.

Wasn't around here during the game today, but I did get to watch it. Very competitive game, but a little sloppy on both sides. Both Carolina and UK showed that they're still young, but they also showed how talented they are.

I'm disappointed that Carolina lost, but they never quit fighting, so I'm happy with that. Too many turnovers for the Heels and I was disappointed that they didn't go inside to Davis and Thompson more in the second half. They kind of fell in love with the outside shot at the most crucial time in the game and it cost them.

Overall, not too bad from Carolina. It was a road game in a tough atmosphere against one of the most talented teams in the country and they ended up losing by a bucket. There's plenty to work on, but plenty to build off of as well. One thing is for sure, no one is gonna want to play Carolina or UK later this season.

Great game by 2 storied programs. Wall is the best player in America,the kid can flat out play some hoops.

UNC will get exposed in the ACC this year. The best they can do in conference is 3rd in my mind.

slingshot4ever wrote: UNC will get exposed in the ACC this year. The best they can do in conference is 3rd in my mind.

I totally disagree. Who exactly is going to expose them? The ACC is as weak as it has been in years. I think UNC will once again win the conference and be right in the hunt come March.

I don't think anyone will necessarily "expose" UNC -- the Heels are going to be a dangerous team come about February, as usual -- but, in terms of winning the ACC championship, the Heels haven't had much success with that for over a decade. Carolina only has two ACC titles since 1998.

I think with its experience, and potential All-American duo in Kyle Singler and Jon Scheyer, Duke will gut out a ninth ACC championship in the last 12 years during the ACC Tournament -- aka the Duke Invitational -- in Greensboro in March. Carolina will probably take Duke out in Chapel Hill, but I don't see the Devils dropping the ACC championship. It's theirs to lose.

But, no, there will be no exposing. Look at Carolina's 2006 team as a prime example of this. After losing almost everyone from the championship team of '05, the Heels still finished 12-4 in the ACC.

The only time UNC got exposed is when Matt Doherty was the head coach.

We may have lost Ellington, Psycho T, Lawson, etc... But we still have capable players who can compete with ANYONE in the nation.

I expected to take some early bumps this season, so everything is going as I thought it would...

"exposed"? No, not even close.

reclegend22 wrote: I don't think anyone will necessarily "expose" UNC -- the Heels are going to be a dangerous team come about February, as usual -- but, in terms of winning the ACC championship, the Heels haven't had much success with that for over a decade. Carolina only has two ACC titles since 1998.

I don't want to get into a debate about who the true champion of the ACC is because I completely agree that the winner of the ACCT is the true champion. However, I think your statement is somewhat misleading. It's not like Carolina hasn't had much success in the ACC since 1998, which is how many people would probably interpret that statement. Just seems like an odd point to make when talking about Carolina's chances at competing in the ACC this season.

slingshot4ever,

As for being exposed by the ACC, I'll have to disagree like everyone else. If anything, Carolina will have been "exposed" as an inexperienced, but talented team by teams like UK, MSU, Texas, OSU, and 'Cuse, even though they have a chance to win 3 out of 5 games in that OOC stretch. I'm not saying that they won't lose games in the ACC, including at least a couple that they shouldn't, but I would look for them to certainly challenge Duke for the title. I could definitely be wrong, but as others have said, Carolina should be pretty damn good by February/March.

ironman02 wrote:Just seems like an odd point to make when talking about Carolina's chances at competing in the ACC this season.

The only reason I bring this point up is because most people don't understand the history of the ACC and who is determined the actual conference champion each year. Many people on here mention that UNC will "again" win the ACC title, when that's not a true statement, because that implies that UNC won the ACC title the previous season and most of the years before that. When, in reality, UNC did not win the ACC last year and has only twice since '98.

This will undoubtedly sound like a trivial point to many, but, as an ACC fan, it's just a small pet peeve of mine when people mixup the regular season award winner and the true ACC champion.

(Damn, we need a national championship. My goodness.)

I'll take our two national titles in the last 4 years, thanks.

I see what you mean now, rec. I honestly didn't notice that azubuike mentioned Carolina "winning the ACC again" until just now. I was too focused on what slingshot4ever had said.

I'm well aware, LTrain. Well aware.

Hence my parenthetical at the end. Although, at the same time, the ACC Tournament has always been something I've held close to me. I love it, and love winning it year after year.

But, I'm also all too self-aware.