Here's Wednesday's Dear Gary ...
Dear Gary: You seem to have forgotten that Duke beat North Carolina by 11 points when UNC didn't have Ty Lawson while UNC only beat Duke by eight points when UNC had Lawson. There is still a minus-3 difference. Your point in why they could have been undefeated is not justified. What a poor excuse for a national reporter.
Seriously, Brad, what the hell are you talking about?
I can't even make sense of your email.
Are you arguing that because North Carolina (without Lawson) lost to Duke by 11 and North Carolina (with Lawson) only beat Duke by eight that somehow we are to conclude that ... what, exactly? What does an 11-point loss to Duke without Lawson compared to an eight-point win over Duke with Lawson have to do with any point I was making? My point -- while explaining how close the Tar Heels were to entering the NCAA tournament undefeated last season -- was that it's reasonable to assume UNC would've beaten Duke in February had Lawson been available given how the Tar Heels won at Duke in March when Lawson was available. You follow that logic, right? That the Tar Heels beat Duke on the road when Lawson played suggests they probably would've done the same at home if Lawson would've played in that game, too. Again, my theory is based on UNC having Lawson, which makes everything that happened without Lawson irrelevant to the theory. I honestly don't know how to make it any simpler for you, Brad. And, by the way, you are a poor excuse for a national reader.