Duke: living more on its faded glory than on current success

[dukie8]

I don't see anything that is at all untrue in the article. It isn't knocking on Duke, it's just telling us like it is. We're not a dominant team this year and we haven't been for a few years. Aren't we all aware of this?

clearly not. anything negative written about duke, no matter how true, is utter blasphemy and evil.

[TheDuke11]

why are articles like this not written about kentucky? What have they done lately?
what about maryland? what about uCONn? Hell, St. Johns is a storied program too, where are the articles tearing them down.

Its getting to be a bit pathetic to be honest. Every single sports page, website, newspaper, tv and radio show think it is their responsibility to tear down Duke and frankly its getting old.

[Misunderestimated]

clearly not. anything negative written about duke, no matter how true, is utter blasphemy and evil.

"I like criticism, but it must be my way."
- Mark Twain's Autobiography

[JasonEvans]

2 things--

1) The questions about why we do't see articles like this about Syracuse, UConn, Kentucky, Arizona, and others are sorta silly in my mind. For the better part of 2 decades, Duke has been THE signature team in college basketball. We don't see articles about these other teams precisely because they are not Duke. We should take it as a sign of respect that folks are writing about our "downfall." When Duke struggling is not a major story in colllege hoops, that is when I will really be worried.

2) Lets stop complaining about this stuff. There is one answer to it -- win. I know the team is sick and we face a very tough opponent in West Virginia (look at who they lost to this year and the scores, this is far and away the best #7 seed in the tourney and it probably more like a #4 seed), but the bottom line is that the best way to stop the "Duke has fallen" articles is to beat WVA and make the Sweet 16 again. Heck, the real best way is to march all the way back to the Final Four. Been too long since we've been there!

--Jason "sportswriters saying negative things about Duke is just not news people" Evans

[CDu]

why are articles like this not written about kentucky? What have they done lately?
what about maryland? what about uCONn? Hell, St. Johns is a storied program too, where are the articles tearing them down.

Its getting to be a bit pathetic to be honest. Every single sports page, website, newspaper, tv and radio show think it is their responsibility to tear down Duke and frankly its getting old.

Well, the answer is pretty simple. None of those teams were as dominant for as long. And none of those teams were as prominent in the national spotlight.

We've been THE program over the ESPN era. From 1986-2005, there was nobody with the sustained excellence we had. There was an aura about the program. We won a ton of ACC titles. We went to a ton of Final Fours. We've won more national championships than anyone else in that era.

It is a compliment that people are writing these things. They show how great Duke has been over the past 20 years. We're more relevant than UConn, and we're certainly more relevant than Maryland!

I think people are being WAY too sensitive about the truth.

[dukie8]

Well, the answer is pretty simple. None of those teams were as dominant for as long. And none of those teams were as prominent in the national spotlight.

We've been THE program over the ESPN era. From 1986-2005, there was nobody with the sustained excellence we had. There was an aura about the program. We won a ton of ACC titles. We went to a ton of Final Fours. We've won more national championships than anyone else in that era.

It is a compliment that people are writing these things. They show how great Duke has been over the past 20 years. We're more relevant than UConn, and we're certainly more relevant than Maryland!

I think people are being WAY too sensitive about the truth.

you know things are bad when people start comparing the duke program to st johns. have they been to more than 1 final 4 in the past 30 years?

[greybeard]

The article was cheap. Duke has played terrific basketball all season. Amazingly entertaining, innovative, skilled, and yes, successful.

They played poorly last night and either guys were slipping alot in the mid court area, or blowing a lot of cream puff lay ups that a sixth grade team could make regularly, or there were a lot of fouls that weren't called that made this thing close.

To win on a bad night, no one, not even the writer, would dare to say that Duke played even close to a good game last night, speaks to its superiority to this Belmont club. Ten games, Belmont maybe wins one. Sorry, that is my take, and this was the one, with the help of awful refereeing (don't get me started about the announcers, I had to turn on the mute button in the second half), only Belmont LOST.

The author does not say that Belmont was robbed, or that they didn't get every single call imaginable, only that somehow fate let the poor Belmont team down and deprived them of what she thinks that they earned. You earn a win when you score more points when the final buzzer goes off. Belmont did not do that.

Yes, unknown schools can beat the best teams in the college game on any given night. This season proved that. Why write an article that denegrates Duke but no other "big" school based on that reality when, unlike most of the others, Duke, hello, did not get beat?

Cheap shot, gossipy column written by someone who has no respect for the accomplishments and efforts of a terrific group of young men who, along with their coach, drive the bus that provides her and her ilk with the ability to make a living doing what they are not qualified to do.

If she thinks that she would have a job without Duke having had the season that it has had she is less clever then she seems. A new type of bottom feeder who can tell no one with a whit of knowledge about the game anything that they might find fresh, interesting, insightful, or even dramatic.

This is the kind of nonsense one used to only see in the tabloids. Gee, and now we get to read it in the sports pages. America, is this a great country or what?

[1Devil]

It's all pretty ridiculous. We're certainly not playing well, but damn, we're 28-5. Do we have to be undefeated?

[wisteria]

I may sound arrogant. But ever since the first appearance of such anti-Duke articles ( wake loss ), I've been saying this: Let's go deep in March first. Before that, the media can say whatever they want. We are Duke. We aim at excellence and greatness. We should not be content about being merely good. So let them criticize. To shut them up, we ourselves need to be much better.

[johnb]

We have had a lot of Final Fours, but we've only been really dominant during ''92 and '99 (and we lost the title in one of those years). The Laettner years are best known for miracles (either last second shots or beating an admittedly better team in UNLV). We've only been dominant in retrospect.

We have an allure because we've won our share, been consistently in the top 5, have kept the same coach, and have fans and athletes who can be seen as smart/rich/upscale/articulate/funny/thoughtful/snobbish (depending on your point of view).

Oh, and I don't see any reason why we can't stay in the top 10 indefinitely, especially if we can keep getting more high school all americans than just about anyone else. And everyone wants that to happen (especially CBS and ESPN)

[dukie8]

We have had a lot of Final Fours, but we've only been really dominant during ''92 and '99 (and we lost the title in one of those years). The Laettner years are best known for miracles (either last second shots or beating an admittedly better team in UNLV). We've only been dominant in retrospect.

We have an allure because we've won our share, been consistently in the top 5, have kept the same coach, and have fans and athletes who can be seen as smart/rich/upscale/articulate/funny/thoughtful/snobbish (depending on your point of view).

Oh, and I don't see any reason why we can't stay in the top 10 indefinitely, especially if we can keep getting more high school all americans than just about anyone else. And everyone wants that to happen (especially CBS and ESPN)

what about '86? that team was uber dominant.

[CDu]

is that I'm pretty sure there was a thread (or DBR front page article) regarding one of Dana O'Neill's previous articles, saying something to the effect of how refreshing her work was and that it was nice to see someone not write a "hater" piece about Duke. But now that she writes a piece that isn't pro-Duke, she's a hack? Come on.

We didn't play well. We haven't played well in the NCAA tournament the past two years. Small conference schools no longer fear us, and openly say so. These are facts. Why do people complain about the facts?

It is a COMPLIMENT that people are writing about Duke losing its aura. We've been so good for so long that people expect us to do great things. When we struggle against the "nobodies" of the world, it is a story. The fact that the nobodies now think they can beat Duke is completely relevant, in my opinion.

[TheDuke11]

kentucky was at least as dominate as we were in our "glory days" and uCONn was arguably MORE dominate than we were from 94 through 06.

its just the "in" thing to trash Duke. yeah, its a sign of respect, but its also a sign of disrespect as well.

also, I really dont remember anything being said about unc's 2 consecutive no tourney appearances either, and they have probably been the standard in college basketball since day 1.

Lets win.

[dukie8]

kentucky was at least as dominate as we were in our "glory days" and uCONn was arguably MORE dominate than we were from 94 through 06.

its just the "in" thing to trash Duke. yeah, its a sign of respect, but its also a sign of disrespect as well.

also, I really dont remember anything being said about unc's 2 consecutive no tourney appearances either, and they have probably been the standard in college basketball since day 1.

Lets win.

please provide some facts to back up your claims that kentucky and uconn were at least, if not more, dominant than duke during duke's glory days. from '86 to '92, we played in 6 final fours (in 7 years), won 2 ncs and made the finals in 2 other ffs. if you want to extend out to '94, you can tack on another ff and another nc game. fire away.

[CDu]

kentucky was at least as dominate as we were in our "glory days" and uCONn was arguably MORE dominate than we were from 94 through 06.

its just the "in" thing to trash Duke. yeah, its a sign of respect, but its also a sign of disrespect as well.

also, I really dont remember anything being said about unc's 2 consecutive no tourney appearances either, and they have probably been the standard in college basketball since day 1.

Lets win.

This is incorrect. Since 1986 (which is the beginning of our heyday), we've made more final fours than Kentucky and UConn COMBINED. We've won nearly as many championships (4 to 3) as the two schools combined. We've been the final regular season #1 team more times than either of those teams. And more importantly, we've been the face of college basketball for the last 20-25 years.

And not remembering articles about UNC's two-year collapse is probably due to a memory failure in that regard. People are naturally more sensitive to remembering negative comments about something important to them rather than negative comments about their enemies. It's natural. I'm quite sure people wrote about the demise of UNC when it was happening, too. You just don't remember them because they didn't bother you like these articles do.

It's not simply the "in" thing to do. It's not trashing Duke. It's reality - we aren't feared by the little guys like we were for the past 20 years.

[SMO]

is that I'm pretty sure there was a thread (or DBR front page article) regarding one of Dana O'Neill's previous articles, saying something to the effect of how refreshing her work was and that it was nice to see someone not write a "hater" piece about Duke. But now that she writes a piece that isn't pro-Duke, she's a hack? Come on.

We didn't play well. We haven't played well in the NCAA tournament the past two years. Small conference schools no longer fear us, and openly say so. These are facts. Why do people complain about the facts?

It is a COMPLIMENT that people are writing about Duke losing its aura. We've been so good for so long that people expect us to do great things. When we struggle against the "nobodies" of the world, it is a story. The fact that the nobodies now think they can beat Duke is completely relevant, in my opinion.

I think you're correct, and what that tells me is that O'Neill writes over-the-top articles based on which way the wind is blowing. Duke beats UNC and they're perhaps the best team in the nation. Duke plays a close 1st round game and their image is tarnished forever. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the picture. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. I'm not sure if journalism is so much about the truth as it is about stirring up controversy.

[HoopsFan]

The article was cheap. Duke has played terrific basketball all season. Amazingly entertaining, innovative, skilled, and yes, successful.

They played poorly last night and either guys were slipping alot in the mid court area, or blowing a lot of cream puff lay ups that a sixth grade team could make regularly, or there were a lot of fouls that weren't called that made this thing close.

To win on a bad night, no one, not even the writer, would dare to say that Duke played even close to a good game last night, speaks to its superiority to this Belmont club. Ten games, Belmont maybe wins one. Sorry, that is my take, and this was the one, with the help of awful refereeing (don't get me started about the announcers, I had to turn on the mute button in the second half), only Belmont LOST.

The author does not say that Belmont was robbed, or that they didn't get every single call imaginable, only that somehow fate let the poor Belmont team down and deprived them of what she thinks that they earned. You earn a win when you score more points when the final buzzer goes off. Belmont did not do that.

Yes, unknown schools can beat the best teams in the college game on any given night. This season proved that. Why write an article that denegrates Duke but no other "big" school based on that reality when, unlike most of the others, Duke, hello, did not get beat?

Cheap shot, gossipy column written by someone who has no respect for the accomplishments and efforts of a terrific group of young men who, along with their coach, drive the bus that provides her and her ilk with the ability to make a living doing what they are not qualified to do.

If she thinks that she would have a job without Duke having had the season that it has had she is less clever then she seems. A new type of bottom feeder who can tell no one with a whit of knowledge about the game anything that they might find fresh, interesting, insightful, or even dramatic.

This is the kind of nonsense one used to only see in the tabloids. Gee, and now we get to read it in the sports pages. America, is this a great country or what?

Slipping a lot at midcourt? Awful refereeing? I think you had your blinders on.

[Scorp4me]

You can replace Duke with just about any elite school and write the same article. The story isn't about Duke(or UNC or Kentucky or UCLA) it's about the little schools stepping up. But of course that wouldn't sell lol!

[Atlanta Duke]

Actually, this article in the NJ Star-Ledger takes the same approach and, IMO, is even more annoying.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/pol...190.xml&coll=1

New York Times also runs the same theme

Duke Escapes, but Is Exposed by Belmont

Duke lost in the first round last season to Virginia Commonwealth, and this narrow victory was yet another sign that the days of the Blue Devils being college basketball’s pre-eminent men’s program appear to be fading.

No need to be defensive about it; Duke had 2 runs of dominance (1986-1994; 1998 -2006); nothing lasts forever

[KandG]

is that I'm pretty sure there was a thread (or DBR front page article) regarding one of Dana O'Neill's previous articles, saying something to the effect of how refreshing her work was and that it was nice to see someone not write a "hater" piece about Duke. But now that she writes a piece that isn't pro-Duke, she's a hack? Come on.

Her preview article for ESPN on the last Duke-Carolina matchup, and her rehash of the Roy-K "injuries" spat, didn't distinguish itself as "objective" or "refreshing" either.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/column...ana&id=3279289

I am really not one to look for anti-Duke bias in the average columnist's piece, but O'Neil's article seemed pretty overheated and alarmist to me. It looked like she already had the piece penned assuming Belmont was going to win; when the favored team stole the game away (and this sort of thing *does* happen in tournament play), she couldn't be bothered to change her narrative about the big, bad giant crumbling before our very eyes, no longer earning respect or inspiring fear in opponents.