Voepel questions UNC/Banghart

[Vowelguy]

I almost was gonna say "trashes." It's not quite that harsh, but given how tepid WCBB analysis tends to be, this would qualify as trashing on a curve.

Which is not to say it's completely unfair. The lack of hoopla by UNC for a new coach is deplorable.

But the questions about Banghart seem a bit extreme. I think most had considered her a rising star, and so the fact that she got an elite job is not all that surprising. Granted I thought Smith would get it, but it's not like Banghart's resume is less impressive. She cites Banghart's lack of NCAA wins. How many does Smith have? (Hint, it's a nice round #.)

Is North Carolina really committed to returning women's basketball to the top?

 

[eebmg]

Was Voeple denied admittance to an Ivy?

 

[Undercovervol]

That was a harsh article. UNC doesn’t look good.

 

[triaddukefan]

I hate these types of articles that bash the college down in Chapel Hill

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Voepel this time makes a number of excellent points. Indeed, her logic is clear and devastating for UNC athletics. Big miss by the AD. And the university.

 

[sivad40]

Voepel this time makes a number of excellent points. Indeed, her logic is clear and devastating for UNC athletics. Big miss by the AD. And the university.

How was it a big miss?

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

How was it a big miss?

I think it is too early to make that judgement. I "know" that the RU fan base was panting for Banghart to succeed CVS when the day comes and are suitably heartbroken that she got taken early.

The questions are legit: Can she recruit and can she coach a more talented team (that isn't an idle question, although the inability of some coaches to handle "less" talented players is better documented). For UNC - it is an indictment of their quick search and complete lack of hoopla in introducing the new coach.

That said, if she is successful, a lot of other programs will be kicking themselves and my fellow RU fans will continue beating up on themselves.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

To be clear, having read the article multiple times, Mechelle Voepel asked questions about the process leading to Banghart’s hire and the circumstances surrounding it.

The questions were fair and should be asked. That is the job of a WCBB journalist/analyst.

 

[hjoerring]

To be clear, having read the article multiple times, Mechelle Voepel asked questions about the process leading to Banghart’s hire and the circumstances surrounding it.

The questions were fair and should be asked. That is the job of a WCBB journalist/analyst.

You might be right; however, it leaves me a bit uneasy. It's hard not to feel like Banghart's worth is in question. That, had they cast a wider net she would certainly be a small fish to be thrown back out (imagine fishing for sardines in your big expensive /polluting boat). Would she have written the same article were it to have been Smith or her chosen one? My only sin in this is that I like Banghart. Can she stay clean!

 

[Sifaka]

Unstated but implied by Voepel: This was a rushed search and hire.

Neither Voepel nor I really know this to be true; UNC may have been preparing to replace Hatchell long before the scandel became public, and may have conducted a thorough, wide-ranging search. Voepel conveniently neglects to even suggest who, among highly successful P5 coaches, might have been considered, and which of those might have considered UNC.

This was a hatchet job on the university for sure. That may or may not be justified.
I don't know. I do know that the cheap shots at Banghart were not.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

I think it is too early to make that judgement. I "know" that the RU fan base was panting for Banghart to succeed CVS when the day comes and are suitably heartbroken that she got taken early.

The questions are legit: Can she recruit and can she coach a more talented team (that isn't an idle question, although the inability of some coaches to handle "less" talented players is better documented). For UNC - it is an indictment of their quick search and complete lack of hoopla in introducing the new coach.

That said, if she is successful, a lot of other programs will be kicking themselves and my fellow RU fans will continue beating up on themselves.

Was this really a top-flight coach who had been successful in a top-flight program? No. Was this new coach a graduate of UNC? No. And as she points out, UNC thought so little of the program and of this coach that they didn't even hold a press conference at which to introduce her. Suggests that the AD didn't spend much time on this, and doesn't hold the WCBB program at UNC in high regard.

 

[bballnut90]

Really poor form from MV in my opinion. One of her worst articles and she is usually pretty good. Seems like she has a vendetta against Banghart.

Focusing on NCAA tournament wins as qualification is oddly specific and reaching, especially when she cites Charlotte Smith's accomplishments from 25 years ago as a player and highlights as an assistant from over 10 years ago. Smith has exactly zero wins as a head coach, Banghart has 1. You know who has 13 NCAA wins as a head coach and over 100 as an assistant/player?? Holly Warlick! Why wasnt she considered?!! Use better arguments and stats than NCAA wins as a player/assistant.


Voelpel also conveniently neglects that Elon went 9-21 this past year and Smith has just a 58% win percentage as head coach.

I get that UNC probably rushed this and doesnt take WBB seriously, but focus on that rather than building up Smith and cherry picking stats to put Banghart in a negative light. Or better yet, find a stronger example of someone who was overlooked.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Really poor form from MV in my opinion. One of her worst articles and she is usually pretty good. Seems like she has a vendetta against Banghart.

Focusing on NCAA tournament wins as qualification is oddly specific and reaching, especially when she cites Charlotte Smith's accomplishments from 25 years ago as a player and highlights as an assistant from over 10 years ago. Smith has exactly zero wins as a head coach, Banghart has 1. You know who has 13 NCAA wins as a head coach and over 100 as an assistant/player?? Holly Warlick! Why wasnt she considered?!! Use better arguments and stats than NCAA wins as a player/assistant.


Voelpel also conveniently neglects that Elon went 9-21 this past year and Smith has just a 58% win percentage as head coach.

I get that UNC probably rushed this and doesnt take WBB seriously, but focus on that rather than building up Smith and cherry picking stats to put Banghart in a negative light. Or better yet, find a stronger example of someone who was overlooked.

Actually, she did highlight another choice. An African-American coach who had a strong record, and who had played for UNC during their glory days. Have to look up the article to get the name. But the point was that there were other choices out there to take the helm of this program, one of the premier WCBB programs in the nation for decades. But instead, the AD rushed the decision, went with a coach at what is really a sub-division 1 program, and didn't even bother to properly introduce her to the university community, or to the players.

Sounds like a huge miss to me....

 

[Zanzman]

Actually, she did highlight another choice. An African-American coach who had a strong record, and who had played for UNC during their glory days. Have to look up the article to get the name. But the point was that there were other choices out there to take the helm of this program, one of the premier WCBB programs in the nation for decades. But instead, the AD rushed the decision, went with a coach at what is really a sub-division 1 program, and didn't even bother to properly introduce her to the university community, or to the players.

Sounds like a huge miss to me....

Charlotte smith who bbnut mentioned keep up

 

[Alydar]

I'd say Michele has a bit of a bias or else this article would have been about Tenn taking the safe (and cheap) path by hiring a minor league alumnus instead of an established and proven winner. But somehow I suspect that the Princeton coach isn't part of the good 'ol girl sorority.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the new coach can do with some real talent. I expect a year or 2 before she can get in players that fit her style.

To me it appears that Michele is upset about not being able to fly down to Chapel Hill for the news conference that never happened. Isn't it typical that the media is primarily concerned with things that have nothing to do with the sport they cover. The story should have been about whether the Princeton offense can work in the P-5. Instead it was about the sadness of Michele missing a buffet luncheon.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

To me it appears that Michele is upset about not being able to fly down to Chapel Hill for the news conference that never happened. Isn't it typical that the media is primarily concerned with things that have nothing to do with the sport they cover. The story should have been about whether the Princeton offense can work in the P-5. Instead it was about the sadness of Michele missing a buffet luncheon.

With all due, this is 100 percent inaccurate.

--- North Carolina conducted an investigation into the former coach.
--- North Carolina's investigation led to the former coach resigning.
--- North Carolina made the announcement about the resignation just before midnight on April 18 (which was curious).
--- North Carolina's report from an independent investigation about Sylvia Hatchell still has not been made public.
--- North Carolina has a HC opening for the first time in over 30 years.
--- North Carolina hired another coach.
--- North Carolina did not have the new coach present for the announcement (which is incredibly rare).
--- North Carolina did not have any players present for the announcement of the new coach. And no cheerleaders, boosters, mascots, etc. were present, either.

Mechelle Voepel asked QUESTIONS -- questions that any good journalist should. To suggest that there was some personal vendetta over not being able to travel for an announcement is not only baseless, but to have conclusions stated as fact after a faulty premise is irresponsible.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I hate these types of articles that bash the college down in Chapel Hill

I'm sure you're simply beside yourself.

 

[Alydar]

With all due, this is 100 percent inaccurate.

--- North Carolina conducted an investigation into the former coach.
--- North Carolina's investigation led to the former coach resigning.
--- North Carolina made the announcement about the resignation just before midnight on April 18 (which was curious).
--- North Carolina's report from an independent investigation about Sylvia Hatchell still has not been made public.
--- North Carolina has a HC opening for the first time in over 30 years.
--- North Carolina hired another coach.
--- North Carolina did not have the new coach present for the announcement (which is incredibly rare).
--- North Carolina did not have any players present for the announcement of the new coach. And no cheerleaders, boosters, mascots, etc. were present, either.

Mechelle Voepel asked QUESTIONS -- questions that any good journalist should. To suggest that there was some personal vendetta over not being able to travel for an announcement is not only baseless, but to have conclusions stated as fact after a faulty premise is irresponsible.

Vendetta is a gross exaggeration of my post. And the questions she wanted to ask would have harmed the school's reputation. Just asking them is harmful. Does ESPN call a press conference to report sexual harassment cases in Bristol? Look, she made it clear that, because of everything you wrote, UNC was uncommitted to wcbb. I say BS. A news conference is just a media event. What was Michele going to find out that we didn't know? Nothing. It would be a dog and pony show where weeks of prep would be needed to insure the AD and the new coach dance around all the crap. All it would accomplish was to give ESPN's writers a juicy topic in the off-season. I also think her article was disrespectful and demeaning to the new coach, not directly but by inference. If UNC truly was shortchanging the program then that would include the choice of a new coach. Did Michele say one peep when either Summitt Jr or Harper were hired? That's Michele. Different standards.

I went on to point out that if you want an example of a school that went cheap and easy in choosing their next coach it was Tenn. A former star player for Pat Summitt who had her first trip to the dance and lands a plum job for the same reason as her predecessor. Nothing wrong with that except that the AD even admitted he was directed to limit his search to LV alumni. That's what I call short-changing women's athletics.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Vendetta is a gross exaggeration of my post.

You stated:
To me it appears that Michele is upset about not being able to fly down to Chapel Hill for the news conference that never happened. Isn't it typical that the media is primarily concerned with things that have nothing to do with the sport they cover. The story should have been about whether the Princeton offense can work in the P-5. Instead it was about the sadness of Michele missing a buffet luncheon.

Your initial comment certainly came across as characterizing Mechelle Voepel as someone with a personal axe to grind (at best) and a bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone -- a vendetta (at worst).

I feel safe in assuming that you do not personally know Mechelle Voepel when you made your initial post, but please let me know if I am incorrect (as an aside, I do know Mechelle Voepel personally and have for almost 12 years).

And the questions she wanted to ask would have harmed the school's reputation. Just asking them is harmful.

Should the media stop asking questions because of the potential harm to a school's reputation? Would that be responsible journalism?

Would asking questions about the hiring process be any more harmful than:

--- Two decades of academic fraud and paper/fraudulent classes which the university. According to the university-sanctioned Wainstein report — which was the university's own definitive investigation into the scandal—the fraud went on long before 2005, and as far back as 1993. According to former school learning specialist turned whistleblower Mary Willingham, it went as far back as 1988.

--- In responses to the NCAA's Notices of Allegations, the university shifted the focus/blame to Sylvia Hatchell, the women's basketball program and women’s basketball players, and WBB's former academic adviser, Jan Boxill. UNC itself, to protect football and men's basketball, threw Coach Hatchell and her program under the proverbial bus.

--- Launching an investigation into Coach Hatchell and WBB by hiring an outside law firm to look into allegations of player mistreatment, ignoring player injuries, making racially insensitive comments, etc. -- the findings of which led to Sylvia Hatchell's resignation.

Would asking questions about UNC's hiring process be any more "harmful" to the school's reputation than any of the aforementioned things?

Did Michele say one peep when either Summitt Jr or Harper were hired? That's Michele. Different standards.

Actually, Mechelle had a lengthy article (punished on ESPN on April 10, 2019) asking questions when Kellie Harper was hired, asking whether Harper was the right hire and whether she would have secured this job had she not been a former TN player.

In addition, Kellie Harper (TN) was not hired under the same circumstances and with the same recent history of scandals as Courtney Banghart (UNC).

It is a bit difficult for me to understand your "different standards" attack on Voepel when the statements you made in support of your position are not factually accurate.

Voepel's article certainly was a critique about UNC's process, in that she asked questions about the process in the article. That is certainly the role of a responsible journalist.

@triaddukefan
@EricLA
@ucbart

 

[Alydar]

You stated:
To me it appears that Michele is upset about not being able to fly down to Chapel Hill for the news conference that never happened. Isn't it typical that the media is primarily concerned with things that have nothing to do with the sport they cover. The story should have been about whether the Princeton offense can work in the P-5. Instead it was about the sadness of Michele missing a buffet luncheon.

Your initial comment certainly came across as characterizing Mechelle Voepel as someone with a personal axe to grind (at best) and a bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone -- a vendetta (at worst).

I feel safe in assuming that you do not personally know Mechelle Voepel when you made your initial post, but please let me know if I am incorrect (as an aside, I do know Mechelle Voepel personally and have for almost 12 years).



Should the media stop asking questions because of the potential harm to a school's reputation? Would that be responsible journalism?

Would asking questions about the hiring process be any more harmful than:

--- Two decades of academic fraud and paper/fraudulent classes which the university. According to the university-sanctioned Wainstein report — which was the university's own definitive investigation into the scandal—the fraud went on long before 2005, and as far back as 1993. According to former school learning specialist turned whistleblower Mary Willingham, it went as far back as 1988.

--- In responses to the NCAA's Notices of Allegations, the university shifted the focus/blame to Sylvia Hatchell, the women's basketball program and women’s basketball players, and WBB's former academic adviser, Jan Boxill. UNC itself, to protect football and men's basketball, threw Coach Hatchell and her program under the proverbial bus.

--- Launching an investigation into Coach Hatchell and WBB by hiring an outside law firm to look into allegations of player mistreatment, ignoring player injuries, making racially insensitive comments, etc. -- the findings of which led to Sylvia Hatchell's resignation.

Would asking questions about UNC's hiring process be any more "harmful" to the school's reputation than any of the aforementioned things?



Actually, Mechelle had a lengthy article (punished on ESPN on April 10, 2019) asking questions when Kellie Harper was hired, asking whether Harper was the right hire and whether she would have secured this job had she not been a former TN player.

In addition, Kellie Harper (TN) was not hired under the same circumstances and with the same recent history of scandals as Courtney Banghart (UNC).

It is a bit difficult for me to understand your "different standards" attack on Voepel when the statements you made in support of your position are not factually accurate.

Voepel's article certainly was a critique about UNC's process, in that she asked questions about the process in the article. That is certainly the role of a responsible journalist.

@triaddukefan
@EricLA
@ucbart

You make good points but also miss my point, which is my fault.

When I read the article my impression was that whomever wrote it had a bigger ax to grind than missing a press conference. She went on and on about it and it made no sense. But what I thought was uncalled for, she openly insulted the new coach by suggesting that the school couldn't have looked very hard if she was the best they could find. She even mentions a former player, Smith, as a likely replacement. Now in the article she wrote about the Tenn hire she criticized the "former player" requirement and then in her UNC article she criticized going outside.

My opinion, and I admit I know neither Michele or Banghart, is that Banghart is an outsider. She went to school at Vermont. Coached at small New England schools and then got the Princeton job. No NCAA appearances as a player, no ties to a P5 school, no pro experience. IOW, not in the old girls' sorority.

First a backhanded slap at the Ivy League:

Then Tuesday, via teleconference, UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham announced that Courtney Banghart is the new coach. She's gone 245-103 in 12 years at Princeton. That's in the Ivy League, which has a 2-28 all-time record in the NCAA tournament.

Then insinuates strongly that Banghart's resume wasn't strong and then has the gall to tout her own pick (and the pick of unnamed "others")

Could this turn out well for the Tar Heels? Sure. But it's fair to ask: Was this the very best résumé UNC saw? Did the Tar Heels pursue successful coaches from any major conference? Or were they not willing to pay top dollar for a coach with a more extensive track record?

Also, how much consideration was given to Elon's Charlotte Smith, the former Tar Heels player and assistant coach many thought would one day be Hatchell's successor? Smith, a native of North Carolina, made the 3-pointer that won the 1994 NCAA title for the Tar Heels and was an assistant to Hatchell for UNC's two subsequent trips to the Final Four in 2006 and '07. A source with knowledge of the situation said that Smith was interested in the position but that the job was not offered to her.

Please notice how fair Michele is to make a point of the Ivy League's record in the NCAA's but then forgets to include her candidates NCAA record representing the Colonial Conference. Nor is Elon's 9-21 record this past year laid at the feet of Smith.

Michele wants it both ways.

Tenn- "Why hire a former player"

UNC- "why not hire a former player"


Now I may meet Michele some day if she visits Bristol. And I'm sure she's a delightful person. But she missed the boat in this article and my biggest piece of evidence for it being a shoddy propaganda piece and not journalism is that nowhere in an article about the hiring of a new coach does Michele mention the fact that that new coach had won the Naismith Coach of the Year a couple of years ago. I guess it just slipped her mind.

Next time you see her ask her that?

 

[willtalk]

It does seem to me that Voepel is not being that objective in respect to this article. She is viewing it from the perspective of a news person in need of a story, rather than from the NC administrations perspective. Considering all the negative PR that NC has been subjected to in respect to the " fake class scandal" and now the shadow that Hatchel resignation came under, it is very understandable that, for the time being, they might want to keep as low a profile as possible. Ether Voeple does not understand this, or she just doesn't care about their perspective. If one looked at it logically from the NC perspective then not publicizing the announcement probably would have little to do with a lack of commitment to restoring the program.

Her character aside, being a good person or a sportswriter ( or any writer for that matter ) does not automatically imbue you with insight in respect to others intent in respect to their own best interests. . Sports news being her business, she might naturally look at this story from that motivational perspective. Which is that in an off sports month a story was not made available to write something about, so she was left with the option of making a story based on what she had to work with. Writers seem to do this more often than not in today's world.

All in all, this sort of alines itself with Alydar's take sans the hyperbole in that she was ticked off that she missed a free dinner. To be clear, she was motivated more by her own professional self-interest rather than maintaining objectivity. That's what they will often do in order to put out an interesting story. You might be surprised how often they are pushed by the agencies they work for to do so.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

It does seem to me that Voepel is not being that objective in respect to this article. She is viewing it from the perspective of a news person in need of a story, rather than from the NC administrations perspective. Considering all the negative PR that NC has been subjected to in respect to the " fake class scandal" and now the shadow that Hatchel resignation came under, it is very understandable that, for the time being, they might want to keep as low a profile as possible. Ether Voeple does not understand this, or she just doesn't care about their perspective. If one looked at it logically from the NC perspective then not publicizing the announcement probably would have little to do with a lack of commitment to restoring the program.

Her character aside, being a good person or a sportswriter ( or any writer for that matter ) does not automatically imbue you with insight in respect to others intent in respect to their own best interests. . Sports news being her business, she might naturally look at this story from that motivational perspective. Which is that in an off sports month a story was not made available to write something about, so she was left with the option of making a story based on what she had to work with. Writers seem to do this more often than not in today's world.

All in all, this sort of alines itself with Alydar's take sans the hyperbole in that she was ticked off that she missed a free dinner. To be clear, she was motivated more by her own professional self-interest rather than maintaining objectivity. That's what they will often do in order to put out an interesting story. You might be surprised how often they are pushed by the agencies they work for to do so.

My biggest argument with both of you is that Voepel is paid ultimately to write opinion pieces. In her opinion UNC should have done otherwise - whether in who they hired or how they conducted the process. As to Smith - the fact she was not hired is really shocking. She has had success at Elon, but is unproven. But she was probably the "heir apparent" had things gone down differently.

The only thing in all the posts that galls me (besides the hyperbole you mention) is the idea that Voepel is part of some "old girls" network. Not so much. If I was going to look to insult her, I would call her a Big 12 homer. That's about it. She is a fine writer.

Her opinion may (or may not) be wrong - but faulting her for doing a piece she was probably asked to do is just silly to me.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

It does seem to me that Voepel is not being that objective in respect to this article. She is viewing it from the perspective of a news person in need of a story, rather than from the NC administrations perspective. Considering all the negative PR that NC has been subjected to in respect to the " fake class scandal" and now the shadow that Hatchel resignation came under, it is very understandable that, for the time being, they might want to keep as low a profile as possible. Ether Voeple does not understand this, or she just doesn't care about their perspective. If one looked at it logically from the NC perspective then not publicizing the announcement probably would have little to do with a lack of commitment to restoring the program.

After UNC threw Hatchell and WBB under the bus to the NCAA and after Hatchell resigned after an investigation, there is no press conference with the coach in person, no players, no mascot, no cheerleaders, no nothing (except a telephone call).

Why wouldn’t UNC — after all that happened — want to have a big event to counteract all of the negative publicity? NOT doing so is the illogical extension.

Instead of an event to highlight a new coach, the announcement is done to generate as little positive press as possible. Logically, that makes no sense. And it can be seen as an extension of UNC’s continued non-commitment, which is exactly what Mechelle Voepel questioned in the first place.

 

[sivad40]

Maybe UNC should have had a presser. Georgia Tech did and they had a coach that fired due to allegations that were similar to allegations that wares levied to Hatchell. I know the AD went in depth on those allegations in the presser and the Georgia media did its job too. I know they had to because they has been no criticism for the WBB press and the purity crowd.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

With all due, this is 100 percent inaccurate.

--- North Carolina conducted an investigation into the former coach.
--- North Carolina's investigation led to the former coach resigning.
--- North Carolina made the announcement about the resignation just before midnight on April 18 (which was curious).
--- North Carolina's report from an independent investigation about Sylvia Hatchell still has not been made public.
--- North Carolina has a HC opening for the first time in over 30 years.
--- North Carolina hired another coach.
--- North Carolina did not have the new coach present for the announcement (which is incredibly rare).
--- North Carolina did not have any players present for the announcement of the new coach. And no cheerleaders, boosters, mascots, etc. were present, either.

Mechelle Voepel asked QUESTIONS -- questions that any good journalist should. To suggest that there was some personal vendetta over not being able to travel for an announcement is not only baseless, but to have conclusions stated as fact after a faulty premise is irresponsible.

I can’t say I can definitively remember cheerleaders or mascots being present at any initial press conference for a coach in any sport at USC.

Lou Holtz did have a big pep rally introduction on the horseshoe shortly after being hired at Carolina, but that was football and he had a formal presser a few days before.