Duke article in washington times

[MarkD83]

The article in the Washington Times that is linked in DBRs main page is the best argument against "Duke-hating" I have ever read. (Sorry I did not link it here but I am in a rush tog et to work.)

It would be nice to give this article a little more publicity by putting it in a separate section of its own.

When I get more time I will add a link.

[Deladev]

Tom Knott has a column in this morning's Times on Duke Hatred. It is really
a good article about Duke--Entitled "Hating Duke is Devilish this Year"
His logic and understanding of this hatred is excelllent and he has some very nice things to say about Coach K and the program.

Link - http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/23/hating-duke-is-devilish-this-year/

[miramar]

The Washington Times has articles like this and the Washington Post has John Feinstein. I don't necessarily like their politics, but score one for the Times.

[Duvall]

Tom Knott has a column in this morning's Times on Duke Hatred. It is really
a good article about Duke--Entitled "Hating Duke is Devilish this Year"
His logic and understanding of this hatred is excelllent and he has some very nice things to say about Coach K and the program.

Link - http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/23/hating-duke-is-devilish-this-year/

Knott is a long-time Duke hater, so I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say. The fact that he's defending Duke now raises some troubling questions, but it's probably not worth the slapfight that mentioning them would start.

[COYS]

Knott is a long-time Duke hater, so I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say. The fact that he's defending Duke now raises some troubling questions, but it's probably not worth the slapfight that mentioning them would start.

The article, in my opinion, basically says Duke's current team is not a scary, dominant team but a workingclass team that plays better than it should . . . I wouldn't say it's the most glowing article. It's basically like saying Duke really isn't that good so don't hate them. I think he underestimates Duke's athletic ability, as a team, and more or less implies that K never recruits inner-city kids, which just isn't true.

[gumbomoop]

Knott is a long-time Duke hater, so I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say.

I don't live near DC, so I'm clueless about Knott's Duke-hating. But his analysis of this team seems mostly correct, abetted by just a very few friendly amendments.

To wit: This Duke team, which advanced to the Sweet 16 for the first time since 2006, is neither athletic nor imposing. These Blue Devils do not outmuscle opponents. They do not outrun opponents. And their interior defense is sometimes nonexistent. Well, more athletic than he says, but surely not "imposing." We do ok rebounding [save on infuriating free-throw line non-block-outs], but we neither "outmuscle" nor "outrun" opponents, so he's right here. I'd amend his comment about our interior defense to say it's "inconsistent" rather than "nonexistent," the latter misleadingly hyperbolic.

Next: So this is what they do: They play a scrappy sort of defense. They are more pugnacious under the backboards than they look. They also spread the floor on offense. Their spacing on offense is usually impeccable. Every point here seems accurate, and a good list of strengths to compensate for above-listed weaknesses. Coach Knight, I'm sure most of you will have heard more than once on ESPN, and again last night, says Duke's spacing is easily best in country. And thankfully they are somewhat more "pugnacious" than they look, under the boards and elsewhere.

Finally: It is not a great team. It is a team that maximizes what it has and is able to overcome a tough stretch in a game. Again, seems spot on to me, and a rough enough characterization of Duke's toughness.

I'm clueless about Knott, but I'm not (totally) clueless about the team's strengths and weaknesses, so I'd say his analysis in above-statements is mostly solid. Others see more flaws than do I in his take on these specific nuts-and-bolts?

[MarkD83]

As the title says, thank you Deladev.

When I read this article the comments about the current team seemed to be fair but the comments that resonated most for me were these.

"Coach K does things the right way at Duke, and somehow that is a negative.

That is symptomatic of the upside-down logic that permeates America today. It is the kind of class warfare that politicians employ to exploit the American electorate. Bad is good, and good is bad in this environment. Reward the unsuccessful. Penalize the successful."

In a separate article posted on the main page, Coach K mentions all of the accomplishments of Duke BBall this decade (7-10 ACC Championships; 8 Sweet 16s, 2 Final Fours; 1 NCAA championship, etc.) With that much success the only explanation for hating Duke is "Penalize the succesful". I know this sounds arrogant but at least this article gives me some closure as to why some writers and fans of other teams don't like Duke.

[dball]

Knott is a long-time Duke hater, so I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say. The fact that he's defending Duke now raises some troubling questions, but it's probably not worth the slapfight that mentioning them would start.

Agree. Some of his past columns have been filled with the sort of nonsensical Terping that is past annoying, descending into attacking.

Made the mistake of glancing at the article. Curious about the description of team as nonathletic. Wouldn't John's behind the back left handed heave down court be considered athletic? Aren't G, Elliot and Nolan exceptionally athletic? Don't Lance and Kyle get some athletic "points" for excellent rebounding and good D

Deciding to go back to my usual habit of ignoring what Knott says, even the rare mostly positive one he may post.

[KandG]

Weirdly written piece, almost like he was forced at gunpoint to write it. With that said, it made a lot of nice points about this year's team, and though the "unathletic" angle was probably overplayed, I liked the column.