Tuesday, December 9, 2008


Yesterday, we described both UNC and WVU’s football teams as “under achievers” and that generated some ire from a few Heels fans. Both on TAH, and on Bleacher Report, we were admonished.

Here’s the comment on TAH left by our old friend “Anonymous.”

UNC "underachieved" by winning 8 games???? Their first 8 win season since 2001?? After 8 losses last year??? Gimme a break.

OK, UNC suffered injuries to their first string quarterback and their big playmaker and still had a great year. But, here’s where the underachieving kicks in: After another ugly loss to the Hoos in C’ville (we know, we were there), they rallied to beat good teams in Georgia Tech and Boston College, and were in contention to win the division and head to the Dr. Pepper Bowl. The Heels then promptly lost to a very mediocre Maryland team and were routed by instate rival N.C.State. That Wolfpack loss was not as close as the 41-10 final would indicate.

Never mind what they did last year – last year was last year last time we looked. UNC started the season 7-2 with wins over 2007-'08 bowl teams Rutgers and UConn and Miami, Georgia Tech, Boston College and Notre Dame. Then they finished up 1-2 beating only instate rival and perennial doormat Duke (that should fire up the Dookies!).

They finished the year eighth in total offense in the conference and next-to-last (11th) in total defense. All things considered, after winning seven of the first nine, the Heels could have finished better...

We'll wager they’d tell you the same story.

(Photos by Zeke Smith/CarolinaBlue.com)


  1. You guys are hilarious. You correctly mentioned that losing a starting QB and the biggest playmaker in the ACC hurt this team, yet they won 8. Then you do a 180 and say they underachieved by losing at Maryland and getting blown out at home vs State.

    Which is it guys? You go from 8 losses to 8 wins, overcome injuries to the two most key guys on offense....and they underachieve? This team is still a year or two away with all the young guys they're playing - you've noticed that right?

    Oh, and by the way they finished 1-2, not 1-3.

  2. Thank you. Yes, we are hysterical. That's our point. The Editor not so funny or accurate. Thanks for the catch on 1-2. Duly noted and repaired.

    Actually, the point is that it is "both." Even without thier two key guys, they won and won against good teams. But when they could have won out and done big things, they lost to Maryland and State. Yes, they are young, and yes they are gonna be good next year. But, it is what it is...

  3. OK...upon further review I'll grant you they did lay eggs vs. Maryland and State. Maryland was more understandable because it was on the road and with the up and down Sexton at QB. Who was down...

    But the State loss definitely was abominable. Losing like that was inexcusable. But again, sometimes a young team still learning how to win just doesn't bring it. And they didn't that day.


Blog Archive