Many times, our world is complex. Unpaid mortgages lead to busted 401Ks, and gas prices can hit spikes and valleys based on the shrouded positions of Middle Eastern states.
But Monday night in Detroit, the world was pretty simple. The better team won.
No, North Carolina wasn't the top-seeded team entering the NCAA tournament. They cruised into the tournament under the radar in stark contrast to how they began the season in November. And, no, they didn't have dozens of journalists forcing a borderline-insulting storyline that their success was bringing relief to an economically ravaged region.
(Please excuse the digression, but take it from a Big Ten lifer: Detroit is as maize-and-blue a city as there is outside of Ann Arbor. If anything in this tournament made Detroit feel better, it was Michigan's win over Clemson in the first round. But regardless, I find it patently absurd that we're going to pretend a perennial top-10 program reaching the Final Four is even a temporary panacea for a city that's been impoverished much longer than the 2008-2009 basketball season. There's something nauseating about a bunch of six-or-seven figure earners who talk sports on TV for a living saying the poorest blue collar citizenry of a city should feel better because a sports team located remotely in its backyard can win some big games in the city limits. If those cushy gigs in Bristol, Connecticut, went bust, would the dominance of the UConn women make them feel better? Okay, I think Dennis Miller's spirit has left my body — rant over.)
At the beginning of the season, the question that earned TV and newspaper gab time wasn't who would win the title; instead, it was whether UNC would go undefeated. After all, this was a group that returned four could-have-been 2008 NBA draft picks from a Final Four team. When the season started, they were crowned as the undisputed most talented team. It's hard to argue anything is different now at the season's conclusion.
But a strange thing happened in between. A home loss to Boston College here, an 0-2 ACC start there, and the Tar Heels abruptly slid from their anointed throne. It seems talent doesn't matter quite as much in January as it does in November and April.
If we learned anything from these Heels, it should be how pointless the quest for perfection is. New rule: no more asking about perfect seasons until, say, Mardi Gras. It makes sense that coaches rebuff any thoughts of perfection in the early season and become jittery about them in the late season. If these UNC players had come back to school seeking perfection, they would have been deflated one game into their conference slate. If perfection is the stated goal, isn't anything accomplished after that first loss (even a championship!) a consolation?
And what else did we learn from UNC? I see two clear lessons:
First, Roy Williams is a really, really good coach. Sure, he had great talent, but he was responsible for that talent being in Chapel Hill (more on that in a minute). Most importantly, Williams managed the lofty expectations, kept that great talent focused, and had his team playing its best when it mattered the most. Most coaches have to build a team to believe that it's good; Williams had to find ways to challenge a team that knew it was good.
Secondly, it helps to have really, really good players, and Carolina had the best. For better or worse, the one-and-done fluidity of top collegiate rosters has placed an even greater emphasis on recruiting. Not that long ago, maybe even only a decade or two in the past, teams could be built upon a strong class that grew together over a few seasons. Not anymore. If a coach slips in his recruiting for even just a season, he knows that he'll be at a disadvantage. Rebuilding is for mid-majors; reloading with a bigger arsenal than before is for the big boys.
So good coaching and good players win championships. What, were you expecting more? Thankfully, sometimes the world is simple.
Leave a Comment