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

[feldspar]

I don't understand all of the whining about this article. While it isn't terribly inventive, it's also pretty accurate. We aren't the same team we were in the early-90s or the late-90s/early-00s. We're vulnerable, and we have distinct weaknesses. Teams don't step on to the court fearing this team like they have previous teams. It seems that some are not able/willing to admit that.

Agreed.

It says something when Duke is "relieved" to have won a 2/15 matchup in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.

Anyone who says this program hasn't lost some of its mystique...not all, but some, is really fooling themselves.

[RelativeWays]

At this point I'd say almost everyone hates Duke, and almost nobody respects Duke, not like they used to.

[bluebear]

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

I'm not overly worked up about this thing because I think you are in general correct that nothing lasts forever but I also think the article was just another trendy hack at Duke. You are correct that Duke had 2 runs of dominance but the general spin of these articles is that Duke has fallen after a 20+ year run of dominance. This article could have been written in 98 and it would have turned out to be completely wrong. Who knows what will happen over the next few years...Duke may never have a run like 86-94 but no one outside of UCLA had such a run in the past. It's hard to make the final four every year. It's amazing that Duke did what it did during that stretch. Duke's continued existence in the Top 5-10 every year is something that very few teams can match (look at Florida this year)...We'll have to fall a lot further and for a lot longer before it's rational to say that Duke is no longer one of the top programs in the country.

[feldspar]

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).

A telling stat: if Duke doesn't make the Elite 8 this year, it will be the longest drought without an Elite 8 appearance since Coach K began his tenure at Duke.

That's the kind of thing that these sportswriters (and the general public) are paying attention to. Bottom line is that we're not getting the job done when it comes to the NCAA Tournament. It's not something that's just made up, it's not something that their just pulling out of thin air. It's real.

The solution? Just as others have said, we have to get the job done. It's up to Duke to remedy this.

[Classof06]

Dana O'Neill has been taking shots at Duke through her articles for a couple of months now. It's pretty clear that whenever ESPN wants someone to write a polarzing article about Duke, O'Neill gets the nod.

When the whole Coach K/Roy Williams "Injurygate" thing came about, she was probably the most vocal ESPN personality, saying she thought what K said was petty and snide. When it came to the surface that Krzyzewski actually didn't say it, she still didn't buy it. She's had it out for Duke ever since. It's strange too because she was one of the few ESPN people that gave Duke respect at the beginning of the season when nobody really thought we'd be that good. Oh well.

[jdscrilla]

When people write these type of articles and say they haven't won a title since 2001 and haven't been to the final four since 2004 I always want to ask them which team has had a better decade? Florida because they won 2 championships would be the only one that I would say has definitely been better. UNC? They won 1 championship this decade (same as Duke). UCLA has been to 2 final fours but haven't won anything. So who?

[dynastydefender]

I am beginning to understand ALL about faded glory as opposed to recent success.

[mapei]

Maybe some of these articles overreach, but we all know there is some truth to it. The way to prove the observers wrong is to starting beating good teams by good margins in March games that count. If we can't do that, they will be proven right.

[Philadukie]

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 this is correct. I didn't find the articles hack jobs at all. As someone who went to Duke and a long time fan, I've been thinking these things recently myself. I think we should feel honored that these things are being said about us and also concerned. We have to look at ourselves clearly, I think, in order to understand where we've been and where we're going. Honest appraisals are necessary.

I think these particular issues (the diminishing aura, the lack of fear from opponents, the endemic hatred), are, in fact, stongly relevant, interwoven and even symbiotic with internal, systemic issues (recruiting, end of season fatigue, poor recent post-season performances).

I love this team. I love Duke. And that's why I want to discuss these isssues openly and honestly. Not to get political, but I think it's similar to the debates about this current presidential administration. Criticism is considered unpatriotic from supporters, when many of those criticizing claim to be doing so because they love America.

We're all fans together, and I think we should allow for honest debate and discussion. Not personally destructive comments, but not all positive either. One can be intelligent, accurate, and also make assessments that appear negative.

[mapei]

I think this is correct. I didn't find the articles hack jobs at all. As someone who went to Duke and a long time fan, I've been thinking these things recently myself. I think we should feel honored that these things are being said about us and also concerned. We have to look at ourselves clearly, I think, in order to understand where we've been and where we're going. Honest appraisals are necessary.

I think these particular issues (the diminishing aura, the lack of fear from opponents, the endemic hatred), are, in fact, stongly relevant, interwoven and even symbiotic with internal, systemic issues (recruiting, end of season fatigue, poor recent post-season performances).

I love this team. I love Duke. And that's why I want to discuss these isssues openly and honestly. Not to get political, but I think it's similar to the debates about this current presidential administration. Criticism is considered unpatriotic from supporters, when many of those criticizing claim to be doing so because they love America.

We're all fans together, and I think we should allow for honest debate and discussion. Not personally destructive comments, but not all positive either. One can be intelligent, accurate, and also make assessments that appear negative.

Post of the Week.

[throatybeard]

A telling stat: if Duke doesn't make the Elite 8 this year, it will be the longest drought without an Elite 8 appearance since Coach K began his tenure at Duke.

No, he didn't go to a region final in his first five seasons, 1981 to 1985. (Nor even a S16). A S16 or 2R loss this year would make four years, because we were in the FF in 2004.

But I'm agreed that all the whining about how much the media hates us is getting old.

[weezie]

I'm sorry to sound like a bluestocking (heh, blue) but if we step back and take a good look at ourselves, come on folks. We love our Devils, we love our Coach, we love our school but geez, can we stand up straight and stop the navel gazing? Heads up, cheer loudly, hope for strength for the team but bear in mind that those kids are out there trying their very, very best. They're playing with their hearts on the outside of the jerseys. They're playing sick and sore...they would die for K and vice versa. They hear the boos, they hear the threats and they take the heat, not us!

With so much misery and pain in the world around us, with war, hatred, famine and poverty, thank God we've got a game to watch. Let's go Duke!

[greybeard]

A telling stat: if Duke doesn't make the Elite 8 this year, it will be the longest drought without an Elite 8 appearance since Coach K began his tenure at Duke.

That's the kind of thing that these sportswriters (and the general public) are paying attention to. Bottom line is that we're not getting the job done when it comes to the NCAA Tournament. It's not something that's just made up, it's not something that their just pulling out of thin air. It's real.

The solution? Just as others have said, we have to get the job done. It's up to Duke to remedy this.

Bottom line is that Duke is the premier program in the country, whether they win a playoff game or not. People watch Duke play because it is fun, interesting, entertaining. It is all those things because of what this team brings to the game. Not the teams of the past, this team.

When they play well, they take your breath away, not by startling dunks, or unbelievable thises or thats, but by how they play the damn game.

Memphis, UCLA, Florida of the previous two years, yawn. Double yawn.

This year's Duke team sets the standard. A team like Belmont comes closer to that standard than lets say Memphis, UCLA, yawn, and probably most other.

If Duke goes beyond tomorrow, I'd love to see the Neilsons or whatever they are that shows who watches what game. Even with UCLA's large market, the entire state of Kansas being into KU, more people will watch Duke than those other two. I'd bet on it. If they don't they are idiots (blame Kornheiser, I'm not calling anyone here an idiot, poetic license or plagerism, not meant to insult!).

I think Boeheim is correct and that there are no great teams anymore. So what. I have said it before and I'll say it again; I have enjoyed watching this Duke team play more than any other team I've seen that I can remember (I don't do that too good anymore about most things, remember that is, but basketball ain't one of them).

[Kdogg]

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.

There are a lot of reasons. Take your pick.
- Duke is a small, private, elite school.
- It has a true national following. Stories like these sell in every region.
- We became the big bad wolf. Outside of their fans, no one cares about UK, Maryland, UConn, Mich, Georgetown, etc...All have hit hard times but nationally, it's not news. The only other program to get similiar treatment is Carolina. Even there though, you would not see articles from the NYT or Washington Post.
- No school has had the level of success as Duke in the last 22 years. Every class has been to a Sweet Sixteen. All (not including Paulus's class) have been to an Elite Eight. All but one (not including this year and Paulus's class) has been to a Final Four.
- The only thing the public likes more that a winner is a winner's fall from grace.

I can go on but you get the picture.

[greybeard]

I think this is correct. I didn't find the articles hack jobs at all. As someone who went to Duke and a long time fan, I've been thinking these things recently myself. I think we should feel honored that these things are being said about us and also concerned. We have to look at ourselves clearly, I think, in order to understand where we've been and where we're going. Honest appraisals are necessary.

I think these particular issues (the diminishing aura, the lack of fear from opponents, the endemic hatred), are, in fact, stongly relevant, interwoven and even symbiotic with internal, systemic issues (recruiting, end of season fatigue, poor recent post-season performances).

I love this team. I love Duke. And that's why I want to discuss these isssues openly and honestly. Not to get political, but I think it's similar to the debates about this current presidential administration. Criticism is considered unpatriotic from supporters, when many of those criticizing claim to be doing so because they love America.

We're all fans together, and I think we should allow for honest debate and discussion. Not personally destructive comments, but not all positive either. One can be intelligent, accurate, and also make assessments that appear negative.

Personally, not to put too fine a line on things, but I think that this type thinking is nuts.

If McRob did not have as bad a back as he does, he would have been back, in which case this team would be far and away the odds on to win it all. If McRob had not been constrained to leave early to get whatever money there was left on the table and whatever more he could have out of his back, Duke would have had one of the premier shot blockers in the country in the middle, a guy who could defend on the ball and help, and pass and catch and finish off lobs with the best of them. Even assuming that the rest of his offensive game would not have been vastly better without the bad back (it would have been), this team would have been awesome.

McRob, in my view, would not have left after his sophomore year had it not been for his back. I also think that his "attitude" would have much different had it not been for his back.

We have not spoken of the loss of that kid to Cal, who would have helped provide minutes and fouls when needed, and the injury to Zoubek.

But, you add McRob to this group, particularly a healthy one, and this team might have been surreal. Drop off, really? I think you need to rethink this, or maybe let K worry about such matters. From where I sit, Duke is doing more than fine.

The article was a complete gossip column. She could have written a column that did a service to the Belmont team, which was no different than a hundred Princeton teams of yore, who put the fear of G-d into such teams as Pat Ewing's Georgetown team when JTIII the player came within a point or two of sticking it to Pops big time. She chose instead to make the in my mind indefensible case that this year's Duke team is somehow overrated. It is not, and in fact has had one of the more remarkable seasons I have witnessed.

[dukelifer]

there's just a slight difference there -- unc had doherty as its coach and duke has k. that article would have been written about unc if deano still were the coach there during that stretch (or if unc BARELY beat a 15 seed that had notched losses to not 1 but 2 sub 300 teams during the season).

The point was about the article (an its implications affecting recruiting). If anything, UNC's bad stretch with Doherty as the coach would have even caused bigger problems in recruiting- but it did not. Also are you saying Duke lost to 2 sub 300 teams this season - Pitt (Big East Tourney Champ), Wake (not a good team), Miami (NCAA team), UNC (ACC Champs x2) and Clemson ( NCAA team)?

[marsblackman]

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.

But who is? That's the thing. The distance between the "have's" and "have not's" - the power conferences and everyone else - has narrowed significantly since the mid-90's. I saw several articles today talking about how "the Duke mystique is gone". Well, yeah, but why is that news? That shouldn't surprise anyone. "Upsets" occur every year in the tournament. Seeding means less and less each year. George Mason was in the final four two years ago - beating MSU, UNC and UConn along the way. If that didn't signify the end of big conference schools intimidating smaller conference schools, then I don't know what will. Is it really worthy of an article at this point, just to say "Duke isn't as dominant as they once were?" Nobody is. To quote Hurley from last night's Lost, "Uh, we kinda like knew that forever ago."

[Philadukie]

Personally, not to put too fine a line on things, but I think that this type thinking is nuts.

Thanks, I won't call your way of thinking "nuts" but I will respectfully disagree with it. And there seem to be a number of other Duke fans (and, yes, non-Duke fans) who think that there may be something larger occuring here based on a number of interplaying factors. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but what I do know are the facts, as some others here have stated, regarding our recent post-season performances relative to MOST of the K era.

You can say it was Josh's back. Maybe that's it. But maybe it was some other factors, too -- some larger issues occuring that maybe an intelligent discussion could illuminate.

The fact that we agree with such articles and want to discuss our concerns and possible reasons for this doesn't make us "nuts." And if we can do so respectfully and thoughtfully, then why can't we have a forum where this conversation can occur without being aggressively dismissed by being called "nuts."

[greybeard]

Thanks, I won't call your way of thinking "nuts" but I will respectfully disagree with it. And there seem to be a number of other Duke fans (and, yes, non-Duke fans) who think that there may be something larger occuring here based on a number of interplaying factors. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but what I do know are the facts, as some others here have stated, regarding our recent post-season performances relative to MOST of the K era.

You can say it was Josh's back. Maybe that's it. But maybe it was some other factors, too -- some larger issues occuring that maybe an intelligent discussion could illuminate.

The fact that we agree with such articles and want to discuss our concerns and possible reasons for this doesn't make us "nuts." And if we can do so respectfully and thoughtfully, then why can't we have a forum where this conversation can occur without being aggressively dismissed by being called "nuts."

Maybe it's just my age, but today's basketball, pro or college, in the main bores me. If I see another highlight dunk that does not involve a glass of milk and a doughnut, ugh.

So, this year I find something remarkably interesting in the game--intelligent, creative, exciting, skilled, coordinated, to go on top of the usual things that people here have come to expect from K teams, which I won't even try to enumerate, all of which contribute to winning, which also bores me, but that's another matter.

I see the elegant game that basketball was in my youth squared; it left me agape--never saw such stuff in my life. You have someone who wants to argue otherwise, I'd love to hear it. Certainly, I'd just love it if that chick who wrote that article would try to take this issue on.

So, you think that Duke has lost something when they don't have Brand, Boozer and JWill, not to mention a host of other pro or pro caliber players on the same team, and I think that none of those teams have captured the game the way this one has. One of us is nuts then, right, you with me so far. Now, if I began by saying it was me, no one would have read one word, because for the first time in history everyone on this board would have been on the same page. Who, I ask you, would have wanted that? So the est of you are nuts and me, I am sane. Now we got us a discussion, right?

From my perspective, the star qualify of Duke or any other team is far less interesting, exciting, stimulating, then when I see a Hall of Fame Coach throw away the play book of so many past years, learn from his peers, and have a group of high quality players who are new or relatively new to the college game deploy like they were the freakin NY Knicks of 1969, only more creatively.

If Dave Debushere (spelling ugh), may he rest in peace, could see Kyle play, he would envy him his grace, his good looks, and see in this kid a modern version of himself, only Kyle is just 19 and Dave would be seeing with the eyes of a seasoned pro, the best at what he did, which was just about everything, on one of history's greatest teams.

Now maybe Kyle will never get to win two championships in the pros the way David did. But, Kyle is the smartest, most versatile, most even tempered, most fearless, most talented 6'8" player you will see. No, no he does not have LeBron's body, nobody does, but come on, if you don't think that you've been watching something extraordinary in Duke history in watching Kyle then, how can I put this nicely, one of us is nuts.

And, if you watched DeMarcus this year and were not stone cold in awe of all that he brought to the court against anybody and everybody, then ditto.

Scheyer, what are they going to say about Scheyer that has not been said before. Gerald, Greg, have they not left you completely stunned? I don't mean excited, I mean stunned?

Then you see a guy like Zman, playing on one foot, living to get out on the court and contribute, even while he is severely hamperedl; and a warrier like McClure, the best defender in the ACC last year, recovering, playing a lesser roll, and he too contributes. Smith, this kid could well be a pro; he sits and watches guys from Belmont who you will never hear about again and who if their coach had to choose would choose Smith 10 out of 10 times over them as they play and he sits.

Me, I live in today's world, which for the most part disappoints. Not Duke basketball, not this year it hasn't. Not by a long shot. Call me "nuts," if you like Phillie, but this year's team was great; win, lose or draw they set the mark by which the game is to be judged. That, sir, is my position, and I am sticking to it.

Shane, Boozer, Brand, JWill, Grant, and maybe even Christian, you ask them; why do I think that none would disagree.

[Atlanta Duke]

Duke's continued existence in the Top 5-10 every year is something that very few teams can match (look at Florida this year)...We'll have to fall a lot further and for a lot longer before it's rational to say that Duke is no longer one of the top programs in the country.

I think what the NYT writer is saying is that Duke is no longer the pre-eminent program, which is not an unjustified conclusion. These things ebb and flow - for now Carolina appears to have returned to the top of the roost in the ACC as it did during Dean's last surge post-1992 and we know that did not last.

But just because nothing lasts forever does not mean it will not come back.

As someone who had his initial exposure to Duke basketabll during the grim 1972-76 years, it appeared after 1980, 1986, and the dark times of 1994-95 that Duke might be heading back into the early 70s abyss and rallied.

As long as K is the coach Duke will be in the mix