The Tar Heels’ 2024-25 season started with hope, but by the time they reached the ACC semifinals, their margin for error had all but disappeared. Sitting at 22-13, UNC wasn’t just on the wrong side of the NCAA Tournament bubble—they weren’t even in the First Four Out, according to CBS Sports’ Jerry Palm. Then things got even worse.

Their last shot at making a statement ended in a loss to Duke, a team that was missing its best player. At that point, UNC’s tournament hopes seemed dead in the water. Yet somehow, against all odds, they still made the NCAA Tournament. The reason? The Selection Committee. But why did they make that call?

Why not hear from them directly? Facing mounting criticism, Bubba Cunningham addressed the controversy in an interview with CBS Sports. But instead of offering a detailed defense, he quickly passed the mic to Keith Gill, the vice chair of the selection committee. It was a strategic move—one that signaled the NCAA knew just how bad the optics were.

Gill stepped in to clarify, insisting that Cunningham had no role in UNC’s selection. “Our policies require the AD of any school to recuse themselves and actually leave the room for those discussions,” he explained. “And they’re not allowed to participate in any vote as well.”

“I was not in the room for any of that.”

Chairman of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Selection Committee and UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham explained the process behind the Tar Heels getting into the tournament. pic.twitter.com/vAD7qu4s3F

— CBS Sports College Basketball 🏀 (@CBSSportsCBB) March 16, 2025

According to Gill, had Memphis beaten UAB in their conference championship, the Tar Heels would be in. Had UAB won, UNC would have been the first team out. In other words, the fate of one of college basketball’s biggest brands wasn’t just in the hands of the committee but also dependent on an external game result.

The explanation did little to satisfy skeptical fans and reporters. CBS reporter Nicole Auerbach summed it up best on X: “Oh, this is smart. They’ve brought the vice chair out to answer questions re: UNC/the bubble since UNC AD Bubba Cunningham won’t be able to.”

She wasn’t alone. Brendan Marks of The Athletic pointed out that while UNC ranked among the best teams in the country right now, their overall body of work—especially a 1-12 record in Quad 1 games—made their inclusion surprising. It was a fair point.

Beyond that, they managed just two wins over NCAA Tournament teams, beating UCLA and American, but struggled mightily against strong competition overall, finishing 2-10 against teams in the field. Their woes continued in ACC play, where they went winless (0-5) against conference teams that made the tournament and posted a concerning 2-7 mark against ACC opponents with winning records.

But perhaps the most damning stat of all? Against elite competition, UNC simply couldn’t compete. They went 0-8 against teams ranked in the top 20 of the NET and just 1-10 against the top 40. But despite all those numbers working against Tar Heels, their inclusion still felt like history repeating itself.

A history of favouritism? Blue Blood Bias in the NCAA selection process for UNC.

The NCAA’s selection process has long been under scrutiny, with critics pointing to a pattern of favoritism toward blue blood programs. Schools like Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina seem to benefit from their legacy status, while smaller, less marketable teams are left on the outside looking in.

Simply put, UNC isn’t the first selection committee’s decision fans are disappointed about. Consider, that Syracuse in 2016 made the field with a 19-13 record and minimal big wins, while Michigan’s 17-14 record in 2022 raised questions, though they ultimately justified their inclusion with a Sweet Sixteen run.

UNC’s case follows the same script: an underwhelming season, a weak Quadrant 1 record, yet a brand too big to ignore. But is their inclusion truly unjustified, or is there more to it? Looking at the numbers, the Tar Heels do have a case. They finished the season on an 8-2 run, peaking at the right time.

If late-season momentum still carried the weight it once did, their selection wouldn’t be so controversial. During this stretch, they ranked in the top 15 on BartTorvik, signaling that they were playing at an elite level. Their only loss in the past month came against the No. 1 team in the country—hardly a reason to doubt them.

Compared to other bubble teams, UNC led six of the seven key NCAA selection metrics, reinforcing that they were statistically superior to many who missed the cut. Their non-conference schedule ranked seventh nationally, proving they challenged themselves more than most.

And while they only secured one win over another tournament team, they avoided bad losses, with just one unexpected defeat (Stanford, NET No. 81). Historically, teams ranked in the top 36 of the NET almost always get in, and UNC landed right at No. 36, making their inclusion less shocking than the outrage suggests.

Yet, the backlash remains. Critics argue that even if all protocols were followed, the optics still look bad. So, is this just another case of a blue blood getting special treatment, or did UNC genuinely deserve a spot?