Originally Posted by
greybeard
Oh, The New York Times, that is different. Right. There has been in my time only one "the pre-eminent program" in college basketball and it was not Duke. It was UCLA.
K has been and is the preeminent coach in college basketball for some time. I expect that he will continue to be.
Has K fielded teams that were stronger than the current one. Who cares. The same people who went nuts when Bonds was hitting 73 and then went even more nuts when they discovered that he was using (not proven yet, thank you).
The article was written by a chick who used catty stuff instead of an appreciation for the game, the preeminent coach in the game, and a team that has played remarkable basketball this year, something in my mind and K's (he said so) that makes him extremely gratified and proud win or lose from here on out.
You think the chick deserves to be called what she pretends to be, a sports writer in the great tradition of NY Sports Writers, sorry, I don't. And, I don't think that the NY Times' track record of late is particularly hallowed in that regard, that is, they seem to in the last few years have fielded a slew of unprincipled wannabes who engage in schlock journalism. You disagree with that? Someone writes an article about one team that played a nice game but lost to a better team and uses it as a platform to bash the better team gets what she gets; in this case it is chick; a chick bringing tabloid journalism, gossip, to the sports pages, where it and she do not belong. If I could have thought of a more perjorative way to put her down, I'd have used it. Sorry, this is the best I could do.
Your analogy to the Yankees was cute but wrong headed. Duke played great, as in terrific basketball this year which is why I watched. I went to Cornell. I don't watch Duke if they are less than all that. I have been a basketball fan all my life. I was taken with K from before Johnny D. He impresses me. But, he don't play. If his team is not my cup of tea, I hit golf balls or go to the gym. Sadly, my workouts suffered this year. The chick and you think that this was some kind of downfall from greatness by the hallowed Duke program, I think you are nuts (in a kind and gentle way because Duke ain't UCLA, and there is no such animal except among schlock journalists when they want to tear something down).
In any event, even if Duke was the pre-eminent program, anybody who looks at this year's team and uses it as proof of a drop off in an article knows nothing about the game. Nothing.
As for Paterson, he didn't chose to go to Duke, so I don't count him. McRob did. IMO, he would still be there if he did not have a terribly flawed back. In my opinion, that means that K and his staff had succeeded in building the pre-eminent team in colleg basketball only to have it foiled by injury. They didn't lose McRob to the pros because of the big bucks. They lost McRob the same way they did last year; to a bad back. Had he played witha bad back for Duke, they are odds on Champs this year. They beat Carolina three times, not once. That is my view, and it is not the same as your lament about the one that got away.
Carolina lost Lawson to injury; if he had been out for the season, no way Carolina makes a serious run. Duke still can make that run, even though they lost McRob to a career (at Duke at least and maybe forever) ending injury.
Finally, you and the chick make the unexceptional point that there is greater parity in college basketball today than there was in bygone years. How many times does somebody write about that and build Duke up as a straw man to get torn down before you get tired of it? You know my feelings and thoughts on the matter.
I hope Duke plays well today. They have earned it. Go Duke!