Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 120
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Mandel is a football writer who dabbles in hoops. That said, his point is accurate in the fact that Duke has "struggled" in recent tourneys. However, his comparisons of teams from 2002 to 2008 as if they are somehow the same in a sport where rosters turn over anywhere from 10 to 60 percent every year is nonsense. There is almost zero relevance. I get it, the teams have K and the staff as the common denominator but in a one-and-out situation such as the tourney, any school has largely this sort of record. Except Florida, and that's only if you count the last two years. Before 06, they were writing this kind of drivel about Billy Donovan, too. Recruits a million stars, can't win with them, blah, blah, blah. Now he's the greatest coach in history. Well, until the last two weeks, anyway.

    You can't compare Duke 2002 to Duke 2007. They shouldn't even be in the same data set. Duke 2007 was loaded with inexperience kids, many of them injured. Duke 2002 had three future pros. Duke 2003 had a young Redick/Williams and 2006 had a mature Redick/Williams. Each team needs to be considered on its own merits or lackthereof.

    Also, as has been said elsewhere on the board, this completely ignores other Duke accomplishments, such as ACC dominance in the regular season and tournament. Mandel is a football writer, and as such falls into the trap most American sports fans do-watch college basketball in March only, and really only from Selection Sunday on. Most non-hoopheads largely have no interest in college basketball until the football hangover evaporates in late February, or until they need something else to bet on until football starts again.

    Take nothing this guy (or most of his ilk) say seriously. If you're talking about Luke Winn, or Mike DeCourcy, or Seth Davis, or someone else who follows college hoops year round, that's something different entirely. This guy is just killing time before spring football. That's why he's wearing out easy comparisons and tired storylines.

    dukemsu

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dukemsu View Post
    There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Mandel is a football writer who dabbles in hoops. That said, his point is accurate in the fact that Duke has "struggled" in recent tourneys. However, his comparisons of teams from 2002 to 2008 as if they are somehow the same in a sport where rosters turn over anywhere from 10 to 60 percent every year is nonsense. There is almost zero relevance. I get it, the teams have K and the staff as the common denominator but in a one-and-out situation such as the tourney, any school has largely this sort of record. Except Florida, and that's only if you count the last two years. Before 06, they were writing this kind of drivel about Billy Donovan, too. Recruits a million stars, can't win with them, blah, blah, blah. Now he's the greatest coach in history. Well, until the last two weeks, anyway.

    You can't compare Duke 2002 to Duke 2007. They shouldn't even be in the same data set. Duke 2007 was loaded with inexperience kids, many of them injured. Duke 2002 had three future pros. Duke 2003 had a young Redick/Williams and 2006 had a mature Redick/Williams. Each team needs to be considered on its own merits or lackthereof.

    Also, as has been said elsewhere on the board, this completely ignores other Duke accomplishments, such as ACC dominance in the regular season and tournament. Mandel is a football writer, and as such falls into the trap most American sports fans do-watch college basketball in March only, and really only from Selection Sunday on. Most non-hoopheads largely have no interest in college basketball until the football hangover evaporates in late February, or until they need something else to bet on until football starts again.

    Take nothing this guy (or most of his ilk) say seriously. If you're talking about Luke Winn, or Mike DeCourcy, or Seth Davis, or someone else who follows college hoops year round, that's something different entirely. This guy is just killing time before spring football. That's why he's wearing out easy comparisons and tired storylines.

    dukemsu
    To be fair, he's a great college football writer.

    But your post is exactly what I meant when I said "why college football writers shouldn't write about college basketball."

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    your criticism is lazy -- not the piece. where are all of your stats and tables supporting your argument? i must have missed that post.
    Dude. You want me to post stats to show that his stats are selective and misleading? Will you then post stats about my stats about his stats? Maybe greybeard will jump in and post stats about your stats about my stats about his stats? That's great. I'm a fan typing on an internet message board for god's sake, not someone who gets paid to write articles like this. If you want me to write an article that's more complete and fair than Mandel's, send me a check for a couple hundred and I'll be glad to do it.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City

    No one can meet the criteria

    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    um. florida. the last 2 ncs with not a lot of prized recruits. uconn. a nc in 2004 with not a lot of prized recruits. okafur might have had a 4.0 in high school but he wasn't highly sought after. gonzaga. not a lot of prized recruits (any?) and plenty of ncaat upsets.
    Sorry, Florida would fail miserably under the criteria used in the article:

    Florida 2007-8 - make tourney?, 20-7, 18-3 Nov-Jan, 2-4 Feb (lost 4 of 5) - want to see a soft OOC schedule? Zero top 25 with ONE road OOC game.

    Florida 2006-7 - Champs, 35-5, 20-2 Nov-Jan, 15-3 Feb-Apr, lost 3 of 4 in Feb

    Florida 2005-6 - Champs, 33-6, 19-4 Nov-Jan, 14-2 Feb-Apr, lost 2 straight in Feb

    Florida 2004-5 - lost in 2nd round, 24-8, 13-4 Nov-Jan, 11-4 Feb-Apr

    Florida 2003-4 - lost in 1st round, 20-11, 13-5 Nov-Jan, 7-6 Feb-Apr

    Florida 2002-3 - lost in 2nd round, 25-8, 17-2 Nov-Jan, 8-6 Feb-Apr - tumbled from #1, lost 3 straight.

    Florida 2001-2 - lost in 1st round, 22-9, 15-4 Nov-Jan, 7-5 Feb-Apr

    and talent?

    Pros: Brewer, Green, Horford and Noah started '04-5; Richard in '03-4; Lee in '01-02; Bonner '00-01; Haslem in '99-0; Miller in '98-99

    nonpro McD AAs, '97 Humphrey; '98 Dupay; '99 Nelson; '01 White; '02 Roberson; '07 Calathes


    As for UCon, they didn't make the tourney last year! And the '04 champions didn't have talent? SEVEN players from that team are in the pros, which doesn't include Ed Nelson, the 01-02 ACC freshman of the year. Under the criteria of the article, they've SUNK even more than Duke has.

    Gonzaga doesn't belong in the discussion, soft conference schedule and not the level of success.

  5. #45
    it's a poorly thought out argument.

    Compare it to EVERY other school over the last 6-7 years and show me how they stack up.

    Throw out last year and it's a 75% winning % in Feb and March. On top of a 90% winning % in Dec-Feb.

    Again show me the other top 10-15 schools and what their numbers look like in this era.

    SOS? Please! Look it up.

    # of tourney appearances, # of regular and post season titles, winning percentages, etc.

    of course the % will be higher earlier in the year:
    1. EVERYONE plays a weaker OCS than ICS,
    2. You're playing teams in your conf for the 2nd and 3rd time.
    3. The tourneys are one and done scenarios which basically make it impossible to have an 80-90% winning %, unless ur winning both every year.

    Again, I'm not blindly supporting Duke and K. I'd love to see them play more away games in tough environs, go to the elite 8 or ff every year, but those are unrealistic expectations. NO ONE does it every year.

    And if Duke did Mandel would have an article about how they don't win it all.

    Anyone with the time and energy to look at the stats he presented and compared it to any and every other school in the country would see the reality of it.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)

    But he doesn't omit the acc success

    Quote Originally Posted by SMO View Post
    The greatest omission of this piece is Duke's dominance of the ACC tournament. To accept that Duke's place among the top programs is overstated, one would have to accept that the ACC is not a top conference. Duke's dominance of the ACC tourney in recent years demonstrates that late in the season, Duke is the top team in one of the top conferences in the country.

    But let's forget that inconvenient truth and focus on February losing streaks. The facts Mandel presents are selective confirmation.

    From the article: One possible source of the discrepancy is the fact that Duke usually plays both editions of its home-and-home with archrival North Carolina in February and March. However, the Tar Heels have only been responsible for five of those 31 losses. The Blue Devils have lost more frequently to teams that failed to reach the NCAAs (seven).

    Rather than focusing on Duke's ACC foes, which the Blue Devils have no control over and which, for the most part, they've continued to dominate (including four ACC tournament titles during the six-year span), it's time to focus on a largely overlooked area that's contributed to both Duke's inflated rankings and postseason failures since 2002: Its relatively unchallenging nonconference schedule.


    You can argue that he gave it short shrift because it didn't support his thesis, but you can't say he ignored it. He mentions it explicitly and with facts to support it.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Sorry, Florida would fail miserably under the criteria used in the article:

    Florida 2007-8 - make tourney?, 20-7, 18-3 Nov-Jan, 2-4 Feb (lost 4 of 5) - want to see a soft OOC schedule? Zero top 25 with ONE road OOC game.

    Florida 2006-7 - Champs, 35-5, 20-2 Nov-Jan, 15-3 Feb-Apr, lost 3 of 4 in Feb

    Florida 2005-6 - Champs, 33-6, 19-4 Nov-Jan, 14-2 Feb-Apr, lost 2 straight in Feb

    Florida 2004-5 - lost in 2nd round, 24-8, 13-4 Nov-Jan, 11-4 Feb-Apr

    Florida 2003-4 - lost in 1st round, 20-11, 13-5 Nov-Jan, 7-6 Feb-Apr

    Florida 2002-3 - lost in 2nd round, 25-8, 17-2 Nov-Jan, 8-6 Feb-Apr - tumbled from #1, lost 3 straight.

    Florida 2001-2 - lost in 1st round, 22-9, 15-4 Nov-Jan, 7-5 Feb-Apr

    and talent?

    Pros: Brewer, Green, Horford and Noah started '04-5; Richard in '03-4; Lee in '01-02; Bonner '00-01; Haslem in '99-0; Miller in '98-99

    nonpro McD AAs, '97 Humphrey; '98 Dupay; '99 Nelson; '01 White; '02 Roberson; '07 Calathes


    As for UCon, they didn't make the tourney last year! And the '04 champions didn't have talent? SEVEN players from that team are in the pros, which doesn't include Ed Nelson, the 01-02 ACC freshman of the year. Under the criteria of the article, they've SUNK even more than Duke has.

    Gonzaga doesn't belong in the discussion, soft conference schedule and not the level of success.
    how many of florida's and uconn's pros were mcd aas? how many were top 25 recruits? you can't point to lowly rated high school players that donovan and calhoun developed into pros and claim that he has talent. that's exactly the point that mandel is making about duke. was joey beard talent? boykins? you completely missed that point of the article.

    also, you failed to include florida's seeds in your "stats." how does florida "fail miserably" when they upset duke in 2000 (a lower seed beating a higher seed) and won 2 ncs the last 2 years. that's 3 of the last 8 years meeting or exceeding expectations according to its seed. prior to its ncs, florida did often choke in the tournament but it has done quite well. moreover, why are you listing losses in february? why does that have any relevance particularly when you don't include records from earlier in the year. mandel's point was that duke wins a ton of games in nov-jan (and doesn't lose many then) and then starts losing in feb-march much more so than earlier in the year. his data strongly supports his conclusion. he never claims that other teams DON'T lose games in feb. in fact, florida usually plays a joke occ schedule and i am sure loses more games in feb than earlier in the season (don't most teams anyway?)

    it would behoove some of you to spend a little more time reading his article before yapping away without understanding what he is trying to explain.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by SMO View Post
    Ah, the 3-year trend analysis. Let's take this useful analysis one step further. Duke just lost its last two games to teams significantly inferior, therefore, this is a major problem negating 22 wins and clearly indicative of a season in decline and perhaps an overall program on the verge of collapse. I love stats.

    You know, it's supposed to snow where I live tonight. Global warming must not be real.

    By this reasoning, I assume you would be posting a similar remark had someone posted after the 1990 season that things looked great for duke's future because we had been to 3 final fours in a row? Or perhaps not.

    My point is that this a knee-jerk, dismissive response that comes for no other reason that to snuff out a negative comment. As someone else noted in this thread, we should attempt to rise above this sort of behavior and try to evaluate things fairly. Mr Mandel has done precisely what so many on this board accuse others who are critical of not doing -- he has backed up all of his points with facts. Maybe we should attempt to glean some truth, whatever we may determine that is, from those facts, rather than try to flush them down the john because they don't make us happy.

    FWIW, I think Mandel's point is that duke's regular-season success and rankings of late have not been constructed in the same manner as our success during the 7-of-9 years, and that in examining those construction differences, we can can to some conclusions about duke's tourney underachieving (by seeding) in recent years.

    I think it's hard to read and consider this article objectively without judging Mandel's theory and conclusions to be, at the very least, plausible.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by dbb03 View Post
    it's a poorly thought out argument.

    Compare it to EVERY other school over the last 6-7 years and show me how they stack up.

    Throw out last year and it's a 75% winning % in Feb and March. On top of a 90% winning % in Dec-Feb.

    Again show me the other top 10-15 schools and what their numbers look like in this era
    you nicely left out the last, and most important part of his point -- that duke then does poorly in the ncaat as compared to its seed. his point is NOT that duke pumps up its record in nov-jan and then loses more games in feb-march. you are correct in stating that nearly every team does that. it's that the trend continues into the ncaat. show me which top 15 teams also have had such a pronounced drop off from the fall to the ncaat. it is astounding how difficult it has been for some of the posters to comprehend what mandel wrote.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    you nicely left out the last, and most important part of his point -- that duke then does poorly in the ncaat as compared to its seed. his point is NOT that duke pumps up its record in nov-jan and then loses more games in feb-march. you are correct in stating that nearly every team does that. it's that the trend continues into the ncaat. show me which top 15 teams also have had such a pronounced drop off from the fall to the ncaat. it is astounding how difficult it has been for some of the posters to comprehend what mandel wrote.
    so to be clear, as a #1 or 2 seed in the tourney, if they don't make the FF or at least elite 8 they have underachieved, right?

  11. Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Article that at first seems overly critical, but gains perpsective.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1
    While as a Duke fan, we certainly don't appreciate the tone of the article, one has to admit that he brings up some valid points. Other than a string of ACC Tourney Titles, we have had very little post-season success. And when you think back, we have really had no marquee names on any of those teams (excluding J Williams from 02 and Luol Deng from 04).

  12. #52

    hmmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by dbb03 View Post
    so to be clear, as a #1 or 2 seed in the tourney, if they don't make the FF or at least elite 8 they have underachieved, right?
    Good point. It's kind of tough to have upside when you're a #1 seed. Especially when you're a #1 seed overall.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Thumbs down Palpable Nonsense

    This is an utterly ridiculous piece wrapped in the integument of falsified statistics.

    First: What's his point? Is is that Duke has been totally overrated since 2002 because the players are no good? Or that the weak non-conference schedule doesn't prepare the team for the NCAAs? It's not clear either to me or to the author. And, of course, for three decades columnists were opining that the tough ACC tournament made it impossible to win the NCAA championship. The Duke-Duke-UNC run from 1991 to 1993 muted those voices.

    Second: He fudged the data. Of the 17 Duke McD's, nine are still in college (53%). Of the 159 from other schools, only 60 are still in college (38%)! Looking at the proportion in the NBA of those having left college, Duke has four of eight (according to his data). The others are 60 out of 99 (61%). This is not a statistically meaningful difference, if his data were correct -- which they aren't. There are actually five Duke NBA roster players from the McD sample since 2003 -- Luol, JJ, Shelden, Shav and.... Josh, who is listed on the Trailblazers roster.

    WRT to the number of starters lets note that Shav is injured and the others (except Luol) are in their first two years.

    Third: Probably the biggest problem from a statistics standpoint (he is not a professional statistician, and I wouldn't recommend it) is that he picked the pinnacle of 2001 and 2002 and then used it to compare with the (inevitable) valley that followed. Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, JWill (if uninjured) were tremendous NBA players and Duke went 4 for 4 in turning McD AA's into NBA starters. This is selectivity bias of the worst kind. For example if used some fixed time interval (2000s or last ten years), he would get a totally different answer.

    The reasonable conclusion from the data I see is that the McD AA's who left Duke between 1999 and 2002 did phenomenally better than their peers who went to other schools. The ones since than have done just about average -- that is, average for McDonald All-Americans.

    Ugh! Double ugh!

    sagegrouse

  14. #54

    the main point

    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    By this reasoning, I assume you would be posting a similar remark had someone posted after the 1990 season that things looked great for duke's future because we had been to 3 final fours in a row? Or perhaps not.

    My point is that this a knee-jerk, dismissive response that comes for no other reason that to snuff out a negative comment. As someone else noted in this thread, we should attempt to rise above this sort of behavior and try to evaluate things fairly. Mr Mandel has done precisely what so many on this board accuse others who are critical of not doing -- he has backed up all of his points with facts. Maybe we should attempt to glean some truth, whatever we may determine that is, from those facts, rather than try to flush them down the john because they don't make us happy.

    FWIW, I think Mandel's point is that duke's regular-season success and rankings of late have not been constructed in the same manner as our success during the 7-of-9 years, and that in examining those construction differences, we can can to some conclusions about duke's tourney underachieving (by seeding) in recent years.

    I think it's hard to read and consider this article objectively without judging Mandel's theory and conclusions to be, at the very least, plausible.
    The main point of my criticism is that the amount of prognostication that goes on is absurd in itself, then on top of this people try to support these assertions with "stats" or "facts" that are wholely based on confirmation bias. Mandel's article is a good example although he does put out more support for his argument than most sports writers. It just happens that his supporting facts are selective.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Third: Probably the biggest problem from a statistics standpoint (he is not a professional statistician, and I wouldn't recommend it) is that he picked the pinnacle of 2001 and 2002 and then used it to compare with the (inevitable) valley that followed. Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, JWill (if uninjured) were tremendous NBA players and Duke went 4 for 4 in turning McD AA's into NBA starters. This is selectivity bias of the worst kind. For example if used some fixed time interval (2000s or last ten years), he would get a totally different answer.
    Good point, but try explaining regression to the mean to Mandel.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    how many of florida's and uconn's pros were mcd aas? how many were top 25 recruits? you can't point to lowly rated high school players that donovan and calhoun developed into pros and claim that he has talent. that's exactly the point that mandel is making about duke. was joey beard talent? boykins? you completely missed that point of the article.

    also, you failed to include florida's seeds in your "stats." how does florida "fail miserably" when they upset duke in 2000 (a lower seed beating a higher seed) and won 2 ncs the last 2 years. that's 3 of the last 8 years meeting or exceeding expectations according to its seed. prior to its ncs, florida did often choke in the tournament but it has done quite well. moreover, why are you listing losses in february? why does that have any relevance particularly when you don't include records from earlier in the year. mandel's point was that duke wins a ton of games in nov-jan (and doesn't lose many then) and then starts losing in feb-march much more so than earlier in the year. his data strongly supports his conclusion. he never claims that other teams DON'T lose games in feb. in fact, florida usually plays a joke occ schedule and i am sure loses more games in feb than earlier in the season (don't most teams anyway?)

    it would behoove some of you to spend a little more time reading his article before yapping away without understanding what he is trying to explain.
    Nice - real nice. "Yapping". I take it you are the standard bearer of civility around here huh? You certainly aren't the leader in reading comprehension or forensics.

    The title of the article is:

    Dissecting Duke: Why the Devils have sunk down stretch since 2001

    Mandel then breaks down Duke's winning % the last 7 seasons into Nov-Jan (92.4%) and Feb-Mar (69.0%) as evidence of the "sinking". I questioned whether any team would be successful under such a standard and you replied Florida and UCon.

    I then broke down Florida's record in the same time period to illustrate they similarly "sink" from Nov-Jan (82.7%) to Feb-Mar (68.1%) despite 2 championship seasons that at least finished 6-0.

    Mandel cites the decline in talent at Duke as a reason for the recent "sinking", and argues that McD AA status isn't necessarily an indicator of talent but that NBA status is, thus our glut of McD AAs the last 7 seasons isn't a true measure of talent compared to our seasons prior to 2001 when we had so many future NBA players.

    You implied that Florida and UCon did not even have the talent that Duke had post 2001. Using Mandel's standard, I refuted that statement by listing the future NBA players UCon and Florida had. Are you now saying that because some players weren't McD AAs they weren't talented even though they made the NBA?

    Maybe you could spend some time reading, and thinking, before you reply.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    This is an utterly ridiculous piece wrapped in the integument of falsified statistics.

    First: What's his point? Is is that Duke has been totally overrated since 2002 because the players are no good? Or that the weak non-conference schedule doesn't prepare the team for the NCAAs? It's not clear either to me or to the author. And, of course, for three decades columnists were opining that the tough ACC tournament made it impossible to win the NCAA championship. The Duke-Duke-UNC run from 1991 to 1993 muted those voices.

    Second: He fudged the data. Of the 17 Duke McD's, nine are still in college (53%). Of the 159 from other schools, only 60 are still in college (38%)! Looking at the proportion in the NBA of those having left college, Duke has four of eight (according to his data). The others are 60 out of 99 (61%). This is not a statistically meaningful difference, if his data were correct -- which they aren't. There are actually five Duke NBA roster players from the McD sample since 2003 -- Luol, JJ, Shelden, Shav and.... Josh, who is listed on the Trailblazers roster.

    WRT to the number of starters lets note that Shav is injured and the others (except Luol) are in their first two years.

    Third: Probably the biggest problem from a statistics standpoint (he is not a professional statistician, and I wouldn't recommend it) is that he picked the pinnacle of 2001 and 2002 and then used it to compare with the (inevitable) valley that followed. Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, JWill (if uninjured) were tremendous NBA players and Duke went 4 for 4 in turning McD AA's into NBA starters. This is selectivity bias of the worst kind. For example if used some fixed time interval (2000s or last ten years), he would get a totally different answer.

    The reasonable conclusion from the data I see is that the McD AA's who left Duke between 1999 and 2002 did phenomenally better than their peers who went to other schools. The ones since than have done just about average -- that is, average for McDonald All-Americans.

    Ugh! Double ugh!

    sagegrouse
    The best part is discounting Duke's annually strong non-conference schedule strength by claiming it's never a "true" road game.

    Who cares? It's still a road game; they still have to play these good teams.

    You could argue that with all the bandwagon UNC fans, UNC never plays a "true" road non-conference game.

  18. #58

    Who is the dominant team?

    If it is not Duke as Mandel says, then who? Only three teams have been to the Final Four more than Duke's 04 appearance since the 2002 Final Four: Kansas (02, 03), UCLA (06, 07), and Florida (06, 07). From 2002-2005, Florida couldn't get past the 2nd round. UCLA had a sweet sixteen appearance in 2002, didn't make the tournament in 03 or 04, and lost to Texas Tech in the first round in 05. Kansas has made two regional finals and lost in the first round twice since its last FF appearance in 02. Are these teams more dominant than Duke?

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by SMO View Post
    The main point of my criticism is that the amount of prognostication that goes on is absurd in itself, then on top of this people try to support these assertions with "stats" or "facts" that are wholely based on confirmation bias. Mandel's article is a good example although he does put out more support for his argument than most sports writers. It just happens that his supporting facts are selective.

    Maybe this demonstrates a lack of understanding on my part but aren't the supporting facts in anyone's argument selective? Mandel starts looks at a trend that has developed over the last 6 or 7 years, coming right up to the present day. He identifies a trend, then offers some ideas on some of the factors that may be behind that trend. Anyone else is certainly free to try to come up with their own stats but how else can you possibly make any argument? And if he doesn't use any stats he will be criticised for that, correct?

    It seems to me that in analyzing the argument it is unfair and unproductive to slam someone for attempting to support their statements or for being "selective". Our job is to weigh the quality of the argument, based on the validity of the premise and quality of the supporting details, both in light of what is there and what isn't. In this case, I think the writer's premise and details are drawn from facts and his (rather cautious, i think) conclusions are reasonable. That doesn't mean he has come up with a universal truth but I do think that dismissing his case as irrelevant because it is "flawed" is closed-minded.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    The best part is discounting Duke's annually strong non-conference schedule strength by claiming it's never a "true" road game.

    Who cares? It's still a road game; they still have to play these good teams.

    You could argue that with all the bandwagon UNC fans, UNC never plays a "true" road non-conference game.

    How many of those folks do you think were in Rupp Arena when unc played there? Or, even better, how many of Duke's OOC opponents wouldn't feel their chances for a win had increased greatly if they played the blue devils in charlotte, or greensboro, or even in the meadowlands, rather than have to play them at Cameron? There is a HUGE difference between playing near somebody's home floor and playing in their regular home arena -- especially when it's on-campus. Let's be honest about this.

Similar Threads

  1. Musician John Stewart dies
    By jimsumner in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 10:04 PM
  2. Just a comment
    By trueblue in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2007, 11:41 AM
  3. A Comment about the Front Headline
    By duke86 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 09:55 PM
  4. A Lost Comment
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 06:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •