No, UNC was not a sham. Sham is a very strong word. IMO they were one of the top four or five teams in the country. Like any team in the tournament this year they had weaknesses. They were beatable and they were beaten.
Keep in mind that Lawson was out against Florida State (Q's first game with real minutes), Duke, Clemson (game 2) and Virginia.
A healthy UNC team only had 3 close games and 1 loss:
Clemson (game 1)
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Virginia Tech
Davidson and Clemson can play with any team in the country so I wouldn't consider close games with them to be soft.
Thus, I'd say they only had 3 "soft" games (GT, Mary, VT) and they won all 3.
No, UNC was not a sham. Sham is a very strong word. IMO they were one of the top four or five teams in the country. Like any team in the tournament this year they had weaknesses. They were beatable and they were beaten.
I think the idea that originates this thread is based in wishful thinking by those among us who hope that somehow UNC has not become something we should be greatly concerned about as fans. But they have. This UNC team had two weakness, and both formed a join Achilles Heel for this team. They were inconsistent on defense and as a three point shooting team. Against Kansas the two weaknesses occurred at the same time as the team they were playing was on a roll.
Even then, they tightened their defense and managed a few threes to get back into it, but ran out of gas. I think it's telling that the key play that helped Kansas stave off a monumental collapse was Graves losing the ball after rebounding Green's almost in three. Graves and Thomas were on the floor because the main guys were exhausted. Williams was trying to steal rest for his big guns.
So I'm afraid UNC is here to stay. And I am afraid that this loss will make Hansbrough come back (at least he can't really get any more determined), and may well have reduced Lawson and Ellington's draft status enough to keep them in school for another year. Although, my UNC friends are saying there is a lot of talk about Ellington being under a lot of financial pressure to bolt for the league. We have that going for us.
Actually, they lost the Maryland game.
I think think the Clemson games should have been a sign for the Kansas game. Clemson's athleticism and depth inside gave UNC troubles. Kansas doesn't press like Clemson, but they have the athletes both inside and on the perimeter to play with UNC. And they have more talent.
I agree with the poster that said Williams tends to coach to talent, not so much to strategy. To a degree, he gets great players and teaches pushing the tempo constantly. In a game against a team with similar (if not better) talent, he was outcoached and his players were outplayed.
I don't know how many times Kansas would win if they played 10 times, because I don't know what adjustments UNC would make and what counteradjustments Kansas could make. But I have to believe, based on the way that Kansas made Lawson look ordinary and more or less neutralized Hansbrough (held him to "only" 17 and 9), that Kansas would win more than half of the games.
That doesn't make UNC a sham. They were certainly one of the four best teams in the country this year. They just happened to face a team that was more ready and potentially more talented.
The beauty of it all is that the fact remains, they are watching the rest of the season, just like we are.
I think what makes the NCAA Tournament so special is that ANYONE can win or lose on any given night.
Yes, you did say that earlier in the post. But after editing for games in which they weren't healthy, you provided this statement:
So while they may have only had three "soft" games, they most certainly did not win all three. Which is why I said they actually lost to Maryland.