UNC may have secured the win, but the first half exposed a glaring issue that fans and analysts refuse to ignore: Hubert Davis’ rotation choices. For the second straight game, the Tar Heels stumbled out of the gate, leaving many to question whether their early struggles were caused not by execution, but by who Davis chose to put on the floor.
From the opening minutes, UNC lacked rhythm, cohesion, and intensity. The offense sputtered, the defense looked disjointed, and momentum swung heavily to the opponent—all while several of the Tar Heels’ key contributors sat on the bench for unusually long stretches. Social media erupted almost immediately, with fans expressing confusion about why certain lineups were being used at all.
Many pointed out that the rotations seemed experimental, even chaotic, disrupting the flow of players who typically anchor UNC’s early-game identity. The lack of consistent pairings led to sloppy possessions, late defensive switches, and scoring droughts that could have buried the Tar Heels had their opponent capitalized fully.
Once Davis adjusted his rotation in the second half—restoring the usual core lineup—UNC suddenly looked like a completely different team. The pace increased, the ball moved, and the defense tightened, allowing the Tar Heels to claw their way back into control and ultimately pull out the victory.
While the comeback helped mask the early mistakes, the criticism remained loud and clear: UNC cannot afford to keep starting games with such unstable lineups. Fans worry that stronger opponents won’t allow the Tar Heels the luxury of recovering from these sluggish starts.
Hubert Davis has faced questions about his rotational decisions before, but given the visible impact on team performance this time around, the scrutiny is intensifying. With tougher matchups ahead, all eyes will be on how the third-year head coach manages his personnel—and whether he learns from the wake-up call delivered by UNC’s rocky first half.
