But a beautiful, joyful noise that gets us arguing. Read on:

This was obviously a weird game.

On the one hand, you have the Four Factors: Carolina shot better than Long Island (53 eFG% to 41.2%), rebounded better (54-39), got to the line at an insanely high rate, and was never seriously threatened in the second half despite some runs by a pesky underdog. Long Island wasn’t that good in spite of their pre-game smack talk, and Carolina dispatched them accordingly.

On the other, as Blue vs. Blue puts it, “fans are still biting their collective lip a bit because we like to think that a true champion, as evidenced by Duke’s performance early in the day, crushes the inferior competition from the start and never lets up.”

In the hours since the game ended, I’ve had some friendly discussion among friends on both sides of that argument. Instead of taking one side or the other here, I’m going to break down each talking point for the game, and then discuss them from the “sky is falling” perspective and the “chill out” perspective. HG reports. You decide!

Giving Up 87 Points

The case for not worrying: This is one of those times when you get a good idea of who understands the value of tempo-free stats and who doesn’t. If you look at the 87 points and say, “Wow, we got blitzted,” you’re the latter. Long Island’s 0.924 points per possession yesterday were, as Ken Pomeroy pointed out on Twitter, their second-lowest PPP 0f the season. Maybe Carolina didn’t play perfectly, but Long Island aren’t wallflowers, and UNC forced them into a poor performance.

The case for worrying: Did you see how many open shots Long Island missed, especially in the first half? Did you see how many layups they got because the Tar Heels didn’t get back on defense fast enough? And sure, LIU’s defensive numbers were the second worst of the season … but they should have been. They haven’t played anybody — their only two top-100 opponents in Pomeroy were Iona and Northwestern, and both of those teams held LIU to under 1 PPP, too.

Plus, defensive deficiencies are a mini-trend as of late. Clemson put up 1.13 PPP against Carolina in the ACC tournament. Duke, 1.08. Even the offensively inept FSU put up 1.04 during the game in Tallahassee.

The 19 Turnovers

The case for not worrying: Again, it’s a matter of tempo. Nineteen turnovers seems like a lot, but for a 94-possession game, it’s 19.1%, barely discernible from Carolina’s season-long number of 18.7%. No team is perfect; UNC can cut down on mistakes, but it seems ridiculous to get on the guys’ case when “the turnover problem” wasn’t even a real problem.

The case for worrying: It’s about decision-making. Who the hell does Z think he is, Kevin Love with those long — and intercepted — outlet passes? Harrison, too. It’s one thing if the defense is forcing you into coughing up the ball, another thing to hand it to them with the dinner check and a mint.

The 17.6% 3-Point Shooting

The case for not worrying: Sometimes, you shoot well. Sometimes, you don’t. It’s just the nature of the game. Nobody complained when UNC hit beaucoup threes against Miami or Clemson to get them back into the game — why complain now because Leslie McDonald (a 39% shooter) and Harrison Barnes (a 34% shooter) had off days when we didn’t really need them to make shots, anyway?

The case for worrying: It’s not so much about the misses as it is about the shot selection. Zeller and Henson got whatever they wanted inside. So, too, did Harrison (7-9 from two in the game). So why even take 17 three-pointers? And why take so many early in the shot clock — especially during the second half, when Long Island made their run after UNC got the lead to 21? If you need to chuck one up, chuck one up, but don’t do that until one of the big guys has been able to go to work.

The Final Score

The case for not worrying: It was harrowing at times, but a 15-point win in the NCAA tournament is a 15-point win. It’s not like UNC wildly underperformed expectations, either; Vegas had the line at -17.5, and UNC finished up 15. We are what you thought we were.

The case for worrying: UNC put up 1.08 PPP against a defense that Pomeroy ranks in the 200s. That’s just not good enough — the Pomeroy prediction expected the Tar Heels to put up 94 points in 79 possessions, or 1.19 PPP. That kind of offensive deficiency will kill the Tar Heels against a team that can play defense. So will all the mental mistakes. So will the inability to hit a three.

And that’s it for me. ‘Bout to enjoy this beautiful D.C. day. Do some cleanin’. Do some latte-sippin’. Livin’ the High Life. See y’all tomorrow.

Q: What’s the team’s mind-set headed into tonight’s game?

A: The reward for the Fight Club-type beating Carolina gave itself in the ACC tournament was a morose trip home and a tournament bracket that the Tar Heels are unlikely to survive without serious luck. How is the team facing down this monumental task? Depending on who you ask, the Tar Heels are either in high spirits … or completely haunted by their Duke loss, thus leading us to ponder how something can be a wave and a particle at the same time.

Q: Should we be scared about Long Island?

I need to start this answer by offering a disclaimer. I’m not the type of person you’d call … confident. About anything, ever.

But I think we should be concerned about Long Island. Not scared — it’s ridiculous to suggest that a 17-point favorite should be scared — but concerned. As you can see on their Pomeroy page, Long Island does a few things with aplomb. They shoot well. They get to the line at an exceptional rate. They rebound 38.6% of their misses. If Long Island starts tomorrow night hitting 3s, rebounding misses, and shooting free throws …

Of course, there’s a flip side to this argument. The point spread, for one, suggests a blowout. So does the reality of the tournament — #15 seeds have won four games, ever. As far as matchups go, Long Island isn’t good at keeping opponents off the glass, which means they don’t have a good chance of neutralizing the Tar Heels’ best offensive weapon. Also, Harrison Barnes is taller than their starting center. Carolina should dominate. But should doesn’t mean they will.

Q: More realistically — should we worry about Washington?

Yes. Like, hell yes.

First. Washington is underseeded. Look at their computer rankings — 17th in Pomeroy, 12th in Sagarin’s “predictive” rankings, 8th in the LRMC (one of the ratings that Nate Silver used to put together his bracket for the New York Times). Or, if you’re a wins-and-losses guy, consider that four of Washington’s losses this year came by a combined six points. Yes, in the end, they lost those games, but think about it: This team was four lucky bounces away — four, out of the thousands of shots taken over a season! — from being 27-6, the 14-4 Pac-10 regular-season champions, the Pac-10 tournament champions, and (probably) a top-3 seed.

Plus, this isn’t a good matchup for UNC on paper. I’d burn a small village to keep Kendall Marshall in Chapel Hill for four years, but do you want him guarding Isaiah Thomas? Especially with Carolina’s wings needing to stick to their own assignments (UW’s starting wings are 6’6 Terrence Ross and 6’6 Justin Holliday)?

I mean … check out this Gus-gasm.

That’s scary. So is the idea of playing a team with size, like all-conference forward Matthew Bryan-Amaning – an efficient scorer, rebounder & shot-blocker. Washington can also run with the Tar Heels (#16 tempo in the country) and put points on the board (#9 adjusted offensive efficiency). It’s weird: Carolina goes all Fundamentals of Defense on us this year, and then our likely second-round opponent is basically a poor man’s version of the Felton- or Lawson-era teams. (Or, perhaps more accurately, Washington is back to where it was when Nate Robinson was there: quick, athletic, fast, strong outside but inside-first, mildly indifferent defensively).

Also, I know you’re wondering: yes, they can play a zone.

The saving grace for Carolina in this game, if it happens, is (obviously) Charlotte. 27-1 records don’t just appear out of thin air. Still, though it was nice for the committee to give UNC a 2 seed and a game close to home, it was equally unkind to match us up against one of the tournament’s grossly underseeded teams. Temple, Texas A&M, and UCLA are all good teams that could play a good game and do their thing to the Tar Heels. But they’re actual 7 seeds. Washington is a 3 with a Groucho Marx mustache.

Q: What about Georgia?

Travis Leslie is one of a very limited number of people on this planet who can make DeMarcus Cousins look small:

His game isn’t just the hops, though. Leslie, along with Trey Thompkins, is a potential first-round pick.

The problem for Georgia is that Thompkins, a junior, has been less productive this year than in his sophomore season. This is thanks to a baffling regression from 3 (just 29.2% this year after pushing 40% his first two years) that might have something to do with nagging injuries. (It appears that Leslie was the better teammate this season, but Thompkins got the second-team All-SEC nod; good to know that Kyle Singler isn’t the only one getting legacy votes on all-conference teams.)

Also, once you get past the two pack-leader Bulldogs, there’s not much there; no one’s a particularly dominant rebounder or defender or scorer, and they don’t have much in the way of a point guard who can facilitate the offense.

Still, I don’t think we can just assuming that Carolina will play Washington on Sunday. First-round picks don’t grow on trees.

Q: Ultimately, what are the odds of Carolina coming out of this weekend?

Nate Silver says 66%. Ken Pomeroy says 52%.

Maybe it’s whatever small sliver of optimist is in me, maybe not, but I tend to err toward Silver. If this were a neutral site, I could get behind the idea that the Tar Heels have just a coin flip’s shot at coming out of the bracket — Washington is good, Georgia has strengths, and Carolina — while good — is far from a juggernaut.

But in Charlotte? With that crowd? Two-thirds seems about right.

Q: Did you see the story Bob Knight told about Michael Jordan?

Sure did. He’s the G.O.A.T. for a reason. Michael, I mean.

Q: Would you spend $170 on these shoes?

Without thinking twice.

Q: You’re just going to ignore the whole Kyrie Irving thing, aren’t you?

Q: Would you like to say a few words about our fallen friend, Nate Dogg?

I would. I’d like to thank you, Nate Dogg, for your contributions to the science of the Eastside Motel. Also, there was that one time my best friend drunk-dialed me while waiting for the metro, singing the entirety of “Regulate.”

In fact, let’s bow out in style:

Recently, Sporting News’ Mike DeCourcy — otherwise, a good college basketball reporter — has been taking to the Twittersphere and to the pages of his publisher’s website in defense of the RPI. And not just in defense of the RPI. He’s also railed against other systems, such as Ken Pomeroy’s.

The thing is, he’s wrong. Like, real wrong. Like, “can’t make a good argument so I set up straw men and knock them down like Shawn Kemp at the Bunny Ranch” wrong.

And Pomeroy has a great article in Slate explaining why. Go ahead, click it, skim through it, then come back and get prepared to be really, really pissed off.

Here’s why this matters for Carolina: In recent days, both Florida State and Clemson dropped below the “RPI top 50″ threshold. Other borderline top-50 opponents, Maryland and Virginia Tech, were already below it. So going into today’s game, UNC is 2-4 against the top 50 in the RPI.

That could spell disaster. At least one major bracket creator (“bracketologist” is not a word) already has us as a four seed, in part, no doubt, because of that less-than-illustrious record.

Except it’s not ACTUALLY a less-than-illustrious record — if you use any system other than “RPI Top 50 wins.”

• UNC’s record against the top 50 in Pomeroy is 9-4 going into today’s game.
• But let’s say you don’t want to use Pomeroy because you’re like DeCourcy and think margin of victory shouldn’t count in making up a ranking system. Well, we can use the Sagarin rankings, which don’t take into account strength of schedule (DeCourcy’s biggest pet peeve with Pomeroy). UNC’s record there? 9-4 against the top 50.
• Carolina’s strength of schedule — compiled from the RPI itself! — is No. 15 in the country. (Compare that with San Diego State, which is competing with UNC for a 2 seed or a 3 seed. SDSU has a 7-2 record against the RPI Top 50, comprising three wins against UNLV, two against Colorado State, one against a Brandon Davies-less BYU, and one against No. 50 Saint Mary’s. But it has a No. 35 strength of schedule.)

Here’s the bottom line. If the committee decides to seed teams based on “how good are they,” I feel good about UNC getting a 2 or a 3 even if they lose to Duke today.

But if the committee decides to use a pointless, arbitrary system that’s been in use since Galaga came out? We could well be looking at a four seed, a dangerous first-round opponent (Belmont, the team Jerry Palm has us playing in the first round, is a nightmare scenario), and a completely unjustified Sweet 16 game against a one seed.

Don’t think today’s game matters? It does.

I know, I know: This year, that gets you a slap on the ass and an 11 seed. But if the Heels are half as careless as they were yesterday, Clemson (second in the ACC in defensive turnover percentage) will make them pay — and, as against Miami, there are plenty of shooters on the floor for the opponent who will be happy to take those unguarded transition three-pointers. Also, unlike Miami, Clemson can D up, so we can’t count on ugly defensive lapses to let UNC back into the game if it falls behind.

The stat of choice, if you’re Carolina: Six of Clemson’s seven losses in conference were on the road. I’m not sure that means a whole lot, because the Tigers were competitive in all of them — their biggest margins of defeat were 10 at UNC and 11 at Duke — and could easily have picked up a few of those games. But if it does mean anything, the chances of the Coliseum rocking today (especially with a potential WW3 looming against Duke) are high.

The Heels are favored by five. That sounds about right. Expect a barn-burner.

Some games are normal. Some games are weird. Some games are like that episode of X-Files with the Flukeman.

How weird was this game? 

• First-half Blue Steel sighting (#feelthesteel)
• Roy making an in-game coaching adjustment that actually worked (going small)
• Carolina posting its highest turnover % of the year: 31.2%. (On average? 18.2%.)
• A 32.3% three-point shooting team going 10-21, or 47.6%. One of those 11 misses was a heat check by Kendall Marshall (though maybe we shouldn’t be surprised; Marshall picks his spots, and he’s now shooting 40% from three on the season).
• Meanwhile, Carolina shooting 41.3% on its twos. Miami did even worse, at 38.2%.

For what it’s worth, I think there’s a pretty strong correlation between that last factoid and this one: For the game, the teams combined for 27 fouls — and two of those came on Carolina’s last possession because Miami had two fouls to give and was trying to run the clock out. So let’s say 25 fouls in this game. The average number of fouls in a Carolina game this year? 36.

I’m not saying UNC did a good job against the zone — it didn’t. And I’m not saying Miami found much success playing against Carolina’s bigs — it didn’t. But maybe teams are a combined 25 for 63 from two in a game because referees are letting cats mug each other, hmm? Some of that trash would’ve gotten called “foul” in my pickup games, and we call about a foul an hour.

There’s plenty of other interesting stuff to cover, but it’s Friday evening, Duke’s about to tip off, and none of y’all are gonna read this. So fuggit. Survive and advance. On to Clemson.

Can’t be there this year, and despite the ignominy that took place when I attended last year (seriously, Paul Hewitt, get thee to a nunnery), I’m kinda bummed about that. Nothing like waking up on Friday, hitting the early games, cruising down Battleground to the “other” Stamey’s, and rushing back before evening tip. G-burrah. You’re missed. (And no, neither the city nor the Coliseum isn’t to blame for poor attendance. I mean, what’s the alternative, Charlotte? Have you been to Charlotte? The place is a bank with a few bars in the basement. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, Greensboro without end, amen.)

Anyway. Given that Carolina has never played well at an ACC Tournament game I’ve attended, it’s probably for the best.

A few thoughts on the tournament writ large. 

1. It’d be nice if Duke didn’t win the entire thing, but we all know they’re going to. Coach K cares about this stuff. Roy doesn’t, “we’re going to win the thing” aside. It also helps that Duke is better than UNC, though I’d say only by a point or two on a neutral floor.
2. I’d love to be proven wrong about (1).
3. For (2) to be accomplished, first things first: knocking off Miami.

Remember that our previous tussle with the Hurricanes ended in one of the first activations of Barnesbot:

But that was ages ago, back when He Who Shan’t Be Named still roamed the floor like a wild hyena (and playing as effectively). So let’s begin afresh.

The vitals on Miami are thus.

• They’re not terrible offensively — and, always fun against Carolina, a they’re good three-point shooting team (38.7% on the year). Lead guards Malcolm Grant and Durand Scott lead the way on that 3-point barrage, but you knew that.
• They’re not so hot defensively, and most of the deficiency lies in the play of the very same He’s On Fire backcourt: Miami opponents shoot 35% on threes, which is ninth in the conference. Neither Scott nor Grant is particularly adept at forcing turnovers, either, and the team as a whole ranks in the 200s nationally in both offensive and defensive turnover percentage.
• Interior player/Goliath Reggie Johnson cannot stay out of foul trouble (scroll to the bottom). But when he does, hot damn. Most offensively efficient player on the team, one of the best rebounders in the country (5th in OR%, 14th in DR%), a good shot-blocker.
• They have some other players. Now that I’ve said this, one of them is bound to go off.

Key to the game is pretty simple. Get Johnson in foul trouble. Go inside. Continue to go inside until all other gladiators lie convulsing on the dirt, spear wounds in their sides. When you’re not doing that, pressure their turnover-prone backcourt, get out and run until you’ve left the ‘Canes in the dust like that time Usain Bolt raced some bros at ESPN headquarters.

This is a sneaky big game. You don’t want to give the committee an excuse to bump you down a seed line by losing to an inferior team. So here’s to hoping the butter’s spread, the Falcon flies, the Muppet muppets, Zeller flops a few times, and Dexter yams on Garrius Adams. See y’all in a few.

Whatever. This post is really an excuse to post about the Twitter meme that blew up this morning in response to Drew’s better-or-worse-than-Shaq? rhymes: #LarryDrewLyrics. They appear to have begun with Friend of Heels Geek @Joey_Powell and spread from there.

Among Mr. Powell’s chestnuts:

“If you’re having Roy problems, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 Turnovers, but mom counted 1.”
“I drink a Boost for breakfast, an ensure for dessert. But when I order pancakes, my mommy pours the syzzurp.”
“Stop, collaborate and listen. Larry’s back, but he can’t run transition.”
“My parents think I’m bred for NBA Hoops. I can’t throw an alley, but I’ll sure say ‘oops.’”

Others got into the act as well. Our own entries were of varying quality; I’d say this is the best one.

I hope that Larry Drew finds peace. I really do. But if you want to step, son, it’s on. If you want a laugh today, check out #LarryDrewLyrics.

Today’s news + notes

• The announcement is a formality at this point, but kudos are still due: Roy Williams is ACC Coach of the Year, John Henson ACC Defensive Player of the Year, and Harrison Barnes ACC Freshman of the Year.
• Speaking of Larry Drew … efforts to find a suitable backup for Kendall Marshall next year have taken Roy to Wilmington, where he’s recruiting a kid named Stillman White. In a spectacular confluence of name and religion, White is a skinny Mormon kid who would, most likely, play a year as KM’s backup before taking his two-year mission (and then, presumably, either returning to UNC or transferring somewhere where he’d get more PT).
• This James McAdoo kid might be pretty good.
• Roy tells radio listeners that he expected his players to split the all-ACC voting and, thus, fall short of the first team.
• Speaking of all-ACC … this ballot is so profoundly unbelievable, it makes this guy look credible.

Version 1, from the TV broadcast:

And version 2, from the risers:

Sick.

ACC media: not winning.

But oh, it gets worse.

The initial reaction, of course, is that this probably happened because our three guys split the vote. And thanks to Robbi Pickeral @ the N&O, we have confirmation: Henson got 27 first-team votes, Zeller got 23, Barnes got 21. OK, whatever. But a couple things.

Complaint the first: Assuming Ms. Pickeral doesn’t have a typo in her list, eight voters failed to put John Henson on any of the three all-ACC teams.

Repeating. Eight voters. Failed. To put John Henson. On any of the three all-ACC teams.

Eight. Out of 75. That’s 11%.

One out of every 10 people whose professional obligation it is to be knowledgeable about Atlantic Coast Conference basketball do not think John Henson, just today named the best defensive player in the country by multiple publications, is one of the league’s 15 best players.

Just gonna put that down on the table and walk away.

Complaint the second: Less of a big deal … but Singler? Really? Sure, he was fifth in the conference in points per game … but he played the second-most minutes (for a fast-paced team, at that) and took the second-most field goal attempts. His eFG% was 28th in the conference. His ORtg of 112.3 isn’t bad, but it’s 17th in the conference … and if you look at conference games only, which voters seem to say they do, he was 29th with a 104.6. I mean, he gets credit for putting up those numbers as Duke’s clear #2 option, and he’s a decent rebounder and a good defender; I’m not saying he shouldn’t be all-ACC. But ahead of Z? Ahead of Henson?

Also, 6-31.

Also, for real.

Yet Henson is not even an honorable mention for Yahoo’s all-America teams (though Tyler Zeller picks up that honor).

I’ve gone on the record as saying that people might be overlooking Henson’s offensive troubles a bit. But how can you be the best defender in the country and not be one of its 30 best players? Preventing points from being scored is just as important as scoring them.

(EDIT: FoxSports.com, same thing now. This genuinely baffles me.)