From the outside, watching UNC shift from Hubert Davis to Michael Malone is an entertaining spectacle, but if you’re viewing it through a partisan lens and by partisan, we mean from their side, not ours it’s genuinely difficult to gauge where things are headed.
The piece offers a gentle critique of Davis, suggesting he didn’t fully live up to the task of preserving the UNC legacy as effectively as he could have or should have.
That’s a fair observation. We’ve voiced similar concerns ourselves from time to time, particularly regarding our sense that while he comes across as a decent person, his interpersonal abilities and leadership instincts fall somewhat short of what’s needed.
Feel free to read the article and draw your own conclusions about whether the criticism holds water, though we’d hope you’d agree it hardly amounts to a brutal takedown of UNC’s former coach.
We came across this story initially on X, and what genuinely caught us off guard was the sheer intensity of the backlash in the replies. The critique wasn’t excessive or malicious in tone. It simply reflects a reality: Davis wasn’t an exceptional coach, and many people were dissatisfied with his performance, in terms of both on-court results and off-court management.
He’s certainly not in the same category as someone like Matt Doherty, but there was clearly something missing—some essential quality he needed to excel in that role. Highlighting that shortcoming isn’t inherently unfair.
Leave a Reply