A Little Bit of Perspective, Folks

[Jumbo]

I’ve tried to read as much as possible on the board since the Wisconsin game. Due to those pesky things like “work” and “having a life,” I haven’t been able to read everything. But I’ve seen enough to be really disappointed and frustrated with much of what’s going on. It’s also enough to make me concerned about what will happen the next time Duke loses, because I think we can all agree that Duke – and everyone else in the country – will probably lose again this season.

What’s missing from some – not all, but some – of the posts is perspective. But it’s not just one kind of perspective. It’s historical perspective. It’s mathematical perspective. It’s plain old basketball perspective. I realize there’s always a healthy influx of new posters with each new season, and I know that losses tend to both bring some of those people out of the woodwork, in addition to bringing out the worst in other people. But this isn’t just an issue with new posters. It’s a mix. And while I’ve read a lot of stuff I respect, I really think this board is in trouble if we can’t dial down the tone and pump up the knowledge a bit.

I’d like to help, if you’ll indulge me for a longish post.

The biggest issue, among many, is the number of people who are drawing broad, sweeping conclusions based on one loss to a solid team in a really tough environment during the month of December. I hope, as the initial sting wears off, you can recognize things that are overreactions. If not, let’s start this way:

Historical Perspective
Two years ago, in the Big Ten/ACC Challenge, Duke destroyed Wisconsin in Cameron by 24 points in a game that wasn’t even that close. It came on the heels of the Maui Invitational title, made Duke 7-0 and left everyone here thinking big (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4966). And Wisconsin? Well, after watching them play that game, it was hard to imagine their even finishing in the top half of the Big Ten.

Wisconsin ended up reaching the Sweet 16 that season. Duke lost in the second round.

Clearly, it was wrong to jump to major conclusions after that game. So it should make even less sense to make declarative statements after a close loss at Wisconsin, right? Right?

If that’s not enough, look back to some of Duke’s best teams from this decade, like the 2003-04 team that lost to Purdue in Alaska, or the 2001-02 squad, which began January with a loss at a weak Florida State team. You can only tell so much from early-season games, and you really can tell very little from one early-season game. Why?

Mathematical Perspective
One game in basketball isn’t close to a representative sample size. I don't even think it's representative in football, so it certainly is not in hoops. I think we’d all know that if Derek Jeter were to go 0-for-4 in a game in May, including three strikeouts on sliders down and away, that we couldn’t conclude that Jeter can’t hit a slider. Those of you who are NBA fans would know implicitly that the Suns’ losing to the Knicks two nights ago doesn’t mean much, or that Shane Battier can still guard athletic wings even after Al Thornton went for 19 on him last night or that Amare Stoudemire can score against elite teams, despite his 5-for-14 shooting against the Cavs. Nor, for that matter, would anyone judge Blake Griffin’s NBA future based on 10 minutes of playing time in his first game back from injury.

Yet, when it comes to Duke, that’s exactly what’s going on. I know the college season is significantly shorter than that of the NBA, and I know it concludes with a one-and-done tournament. But that still doesn’t make one game a representative sample size. Just as Lance Thomas wasn’t a nightly double-double because he played great UConn, he shouldn’t/won’t fall out of the rotation based on how he looked against Wisconsin. Just because Jon Scheyer looked out of sync against Wisconsin doesn’t mean he struggles against small, quick guards; not with mountains of evidence to the contrary, including the most recent game against UConn, last year’s matchups against Ty Lawson and Toney Douglas, etc. And judging Mason Plumlee, a freshman, in his first game back from a month-long injury? Come on. And if the concept of sample size doesn’t work for you, just consider this avenue instead:

Basketball Perspective
Most of you have played the game, right? Even if you didn’t play in high school, you’ve probably played pickup ball. You know that sometimes you have it, and sometimes you don’t. Sometimes that friend of yours who is slow and small and not even worth guarding hits everything he chucks at the rim. Sometimes you can’t get your go-to move to drop. Well guess what? Elite-level players aren’t immune to the vagaries of a game based on a lot of randomness, either.

I went through a bit of the post-game threads from both the Wisconsin and UConn games. And in addition to being struck by the different crowds the two games drew in terms of posters who only replied to one or the other, I was even more interested to find the contradictory comments from a variety of posters, reacting totally differently after games that were separated by less than a week.

I don’t want to single people out, because there were tons of examples that fit what I said above. But, for instance, here’s what one person wrote after the Wisconsin game:

“I can't agree with the generally upbeat reaction here. We played horrible defense, and it seemed clearly to be poor play by us more than great play by them. The Badgers were patient (and many teams we'll play couldn't match them in this respect in a million years) however, we always delivered a path to the basket. We had a whole game to fix it, and did not. Both Plumlees and Dawkins appeared tonight to be not ready for big time defense. Very discouraging.”

Here’s what the same person wrote after the UConn game:
“We made UCONN look like a not very good team. We literally imposed our will on them, and did it without much offense, without scoring from Singler, and with no help from the Zebras (the third foul on Plumlee was the worst call I have every seen, anywhere, anytime). This is exactly the kind of poor shooting that has led to a Duke loss in non-conference games recently, particularly in the NCAAs. Not so tonight, and likely not so this season. This is really something to build on.”

It’s so easy to fly high after a big win and sink low after a tough loss. But, again, it doesn’t mean we should be jumping to conclusions in either situation. The above examples are tame compared to what was written after both games, which is actually why I picked them – no need to highlight some of the more extreme stuff written after last night.

Many people were pumped about Zoubek and Thomas after the showing against UConn. Now, many people (including some of the same people), don’t think they’re rotation-worthy. The truth, as always is probably somewhere in between.

What’s worse is the people making declarations that Duke “can’t win a championship” because of X, Y and Z that were on display last night.
Fact: This team is not close to fully developed.
Fact: Two freshmen are among Duke’s top seven players.
Fact: The team is still installing a new offense.
Fact: We’ve seen enough of Jon Scheyer over four seasons – including against teams much better than Wisconsin – to know that his performance last night was a complete aberration.
Fact: We’ve seen enough of Nolan Smith to know he’s better than he played against Wisconsin, too.

So those are just a few reasons, from a basketball perspective, to avoid viewing last night’s game as a proxy for March. But what’s even worse are statements like (and I’m paraphrasing a bit):
“Once again, Duke is a jump-shooting team, and we won’t win that way. In fact, that means another early-round flameout.”
“Coach K won’t play his bench enough and that will cost us in big games down the stretch.”
And, of course, “We can’t win with [Insert big man].”

Those are result-oriented fallacies, driven purely by the most recent thing we saw. Because, clearly Duke CAN beat a good team with its bigs, which we saw against UConn. Duke CAN win with a short bench late in the season, which we saw in the ACC Tourney last year, during three championship seasons, etc. Duke ISN’T just a jump-shooting team, which we also saw against UConn.

And that’s to say nothing of all the people who said “Andre Dawkins should have played more in the second half,” without realizing that he was on the floor for the final 16-plus minutes (and responsible for several of the defensive breakdowns, I might add). Or the people who ranted about Duke going away form the zone, without recognizing that we had trouble rebounding out of it and that the man-to-man D was actually better late in the game, and that Wisconsin just hit some tough shots. Or many of the other details people missed under a cloud of emotion.

Look, there are plenty of things to criticize after the loss. Duke didn’t execute its end-game scenarios well. The bigs didn’t play well in that game. Nolan needs to do a better job of kicking when he drives; that’s been evident in multiple games. Duke needs to integrate Mason Plumlee and have him reach his own potential for the team to reach its full potential. But any weakness that Duke displayed last night can be corrected. It just takes a bit of vision and a dose of faith.

And, finally, there is no clear recipe for a championship team. March involves a lot of things – including luck. If anyone tries to tell you that a team has to have a go-to scorer in the post to win it all, he/she is wrong. Just luck at the UConn team that beat us in 1999 – Jake Voskuhl wasn’t exactly the type of guy you run stuff through in the post. If anyone tries to tell you that a team needs an NBA-caliber, break-you-down point guard to win it all, he/she is wrong, too. Look at Syracuse in 2003. Or UConn in 2004 (Taliek Brown? Really?) Or even Taurean Green on Florida’s back-to-back champs. And if anyone tries to tell that this Duke team definitively can’t win a championship, he/she is wrong, too. We’re not the favorite, but as DBR has been fond of saying for more than a decade, the odds are against everyone. We have weaknesses, but we also have legit strengths that will enable us to beat anyone on the right day.

We can't keep doing this around here. We can't keep coming down so hard after every single loss. We can't become so emotionally invested that we lose sight of why we enjoy Duke basketball so much and only focus on what's wrong. We can't feel compelled to voice every frustration that pops into our head.

I know it’s tougher to see the good stuff and the potential of this team, or any team, after a loss. But sometimes you just need to take a step back to regain a sense of perspective.

[throatybeard]

Most of the Wisconsin thread could be boiled down to one-sentence repetitive arguments in the Handy Pocket Reference. I originally wrote that as a light-hearted parody, but I eventually came to realize I had told the truth about us, and it wasn't parody at all. Jumbo's post is very very good. We need to move away from this lack of critical thinking.

[BlueintheFace]

I agree with most of what Jumbo said about silly statements extrapolating from one game. I am guilty of this from time to time.

However, I believe there are a few systematic or strategic concerns that can bubble beneath the surface in wins, only to loom large when there is a loss. This may make it seem like people are focusing on one game, when in reality, the loss simply provides a seemingly appropriate time to finally stress the perceived problem. In fairness, the culture of the board discourages negative commentary during wins and Duke wins a lot. This pushes these concerns to the side until an unexpected loss (as most losses are under K) making the eruption of negative commentary seem misguided and specific to one game when it simply is not.

I will provide an example:

In the offseason Duke fans expressed great concern at the lack of post presence and K conceded that more balance was needed. In a post game conference early this season K spoke of a "go-to team" rather than a "go-to player". Meanwhile, buzz from the players and coaches grew regarding the play of both plumlees and a new style that might more heavily involve the post players. Duke has very seldom looked to feed the post early this season (for a variety of reasons that could fill a thread itself). In the wins this was noted but certainly not emphasized because... well, we won, so why dwell on negatives? However, against Wisconsin Plumlee, Plumlee, Zoubek, and Thomas took a total of 8 shots in a game where Duke took over 50 shots. Duke lost. Finally, concerns regarding the lack of post feeds and touches for the big men in the offensive flow could surface without a chorus of voices shouting the poster down. Is that the reason why Duke lost the game? Doubtful. But, the loss finally gave an opportunity for these concerns to be voiced, thusly making the post-game thread look like a post-apocalyptic eulogy.

Sometimes people aren't extrapolating from one loss, the loss just gives them the opportunity to extrapolate from the entire season, using the one loss as a means to voice a concern that has been pushed aside for awhile.

[Kedsy]

Thanks, Jumbo. I've been trying to figure out how to phrase this concept for more than a year. But now I don't have to, because you hit the nail on the head. I don't know how much it's going to help, but it's a great post.

[Jumbo]

I agree with most of what Jumbo said about silly statements extrapolating from one game. I am guilty of this from time to time.

However, I believe there are a few systematic or strategic concerns that can bubble beneath the surface in wins, only to loom large when there is a loss. This may make it seem like people are focusing on one game, when in reality, the loss simply provides a seemingly appropriate time to finally stress the perceived problem. In fairness, the culture of the board discourages negative commentary during wins and Duke wins a lot. This pushes these concerns to the side until an unexpected loss (as most losses are under K) making the eruption of negative commentary seem misguided and specific to one game when it simply is not.

I will provide an example:

In the offseason Duke fans expressed great concern at the lack of post presence and K conceded that more balance was needed. In a post game conference early this season K spoke of a "go-to team" rather than a "go-to player". Meanwhile, buzz from the players and coaches grew regarding the play of both plumlees and a new style that might more heavily involve the post players. Duke has very seldom looked to feed the post early this season (for a variety of reasons that could fill a thread itself). In the wins this was noted but certainly not emphasized because... well, we won, so why dwell on negatives? However, against Wisconsin Plumlee, Plumlee, Zoubek, and Thomas took a total of 8 shots in a game where Duke took over 50 shots. Duke lost. Finally, concerns regarding the lack of post feeds and touches for the big men in the offensive flow could surface without a chorus of voices shouting the poster down. Is that the reason why Duke lost the game? Doubtful. But, the loss finally gave an opportunity for these concerns to be voiced, thusly making the post-game thread look like a post-apocalyptic eulogy.

Sometimes people aren't extrapolating from one loss, the loss just gives them the opportunity to extrapolate from the entire season, using the one loss as a means to voice a concern that has been pushed aside for awhile.

Right, but I never said there was a problem with writing "Duke needs to feed the post more."
What is problematic is the next leap -- "Duke didn't feed the post and never will. And since we're not going to get any production out of our big men, we have no chance to win big in March." That's the key distinction.

[BlueintheFace]

Right, but I never said there was a problem with writing "Duke needs to feed the post more."
What is problematic is the next leap -- "Duke didn't feed the post and never will. And since we're not going to get any production out of our big men, we have no chance to win big in March." That's the key distinction.

So, what I am saying is that people might see 6 games, 10 games, 15... and believe that "Duke doesn't feed the post" has become a trend for the season. They won't say anything through those games as the trend develops because the culture of the board doesn't support pointing out negatives too much after wins. Then, when Duke loses they will say:

"We looked awful and we just don't ever feed the post and probably won't this season since we haven't thus far. This is bad news for when March rolls around."

Well, that looks an awful lot like a poster over-reacting to one game, right? Well, in reality, that poster might have been witnessing the negative trend (that they may rightly, or at least rationally, feel is bad news for March) throughout the season, but only feel comfortable or justified in expressing that opinion after a loss because that is when it seems like the appropriate time.

I'm with you however on the people who say, "we can't win with X".... just stupid

[BlueintheFace]

I also think this trend of overreaction is more or less a function of numbers. Think about how big this board was years ago vs now. Think about how many posts we get on some of the recruiting threads.

It used to be that contributors here were known quantities with a bit more accountability. Now we get a much bigger class of posters that only come around after losses or huge wins to celebrate or take out their frustration.

Just an observation...

[Jumbo]

I also think this trend of overreaction is more or less a function of numbers. Think about how big this board was years ago vs now. Think about how many posts we get on some of the recruiting threads.

It used to be that contributors here were known quantities with a bit more accountability. Now we get a much bigger class of posters that only come around after losses or huge wins to celebrate or take out their frustration.

Just an observation...

And with that comes another issue. Too many people are talking past each other, not with each other. That's why the post counts in threads climb so high, so fast. Lots of people are interested in being heard; not nearly as many care about discussing, debating and learning. If we all actually took the time to read a thread before posting, we'd all benefit.

[southgater]

I agree with Jumbo's comments. Another way to look at the Wisconsin game to put things in perspective is to suppose that on our next to the last play Singler had made his running layup and been fouled in the act, making the foul shot to put us up by 1 with about 5 seconds left. Although this didn't happen, it certainly isn't an unreasonable outcome of the play. We would then very likely have won the game. How would that 1 slightly altered outcome of 1 shot have altered the response to the game. Would the sky still be falling on the season? Or would we be celebrating a great comeback and win over a tough team and declaring our team ready for the final 4? The success of that one shot certainly doesn't change how we played the previous 39:55 minutes of the game, but I believe it certainly would have changed many of our responses to it. As Jumbo points out, based on 1 game and certainly based on 1 shot from the end of the game it isn't fair to conclude either the best or the worst about this year's team.

[BlueintheFace]

And with that comes another issue. Too many people are talking past each other, not with each other. That's why the post counts in threads climb so high, so fast. Lots of people are interested in being heard; not nearly as many care about discussing, debating and learning. If we all actually took the time to read a thread before posting, we'd all benefit.

.. and that is a cycle that feeds itself. The more posts with people just giving their impressions, the less you want to read through all of the tons of similar ones and the more likely you are to just give your own thoughts and move on. I have certainly been guilty of that in post-game threads. Often times I show up just looking for inconsistencies and overreactions to debate about, but sometimes I see all of the similar posts of proclamations about the game and think... "do I really want to invest my time in reading ALL of these repetitive posts?" It's a tough spiral.

[Saratoga2]

I agree with Jumbo's comments. Another way to look at the Wisconsin game to put things in perspective is to suppose that on our next to the last play Singler had made his running layup and been fouled in the act, making the foul shot to put us up by 1 with about 5 seconds left. Although this didn't happen, it certainly isn't an unreasonable outcome of the play. We would then very likely have won the game. How would that 1 slightly altered outcome of 1 shot have altered the response to the game. Would the sky still be falling on the season? Or would we be celebrating a great comeback and win over a tough team and declaring our team ready for the final 4? The success of that one shot certainly doesn't change how we played the previous 39:55 minutes of the game, but I believe it certainly would have changed many of our responses to it. As Jumbo points out, based on 1 game and certainly based on 1 shot from the end of the game it isn't fair to conclude either the best or the worst about this year's team.


To ignore the entire previous 39+ minutes because a shot is made in the last 5 seconds seems to be sweeping the issues under the rug. It is reasonable to talk about both the better and worse plays of the game and to suggest ways to improve. Isn't that what a fan site is about? If there is no learning from mistakes and if the fans are criticized for talking about the game in less than glowing terms, what value would this site provide?

[Lord Ash]

If I may, I think some of the reactions are not just to trends over a season that come up most glaringly during losses... I know for me, and I think for a number of people, some of the issues feel like they have been around for a number of years (say, five or so?) and have cropped up at the worst possible time in the last few years... namely, the first and second round (haven't gotten much further) of the NCAAs. I think a lot of fans, who still in their heart of hearts believe that Duke should make it further each and every year, are still extremely wary of the late-season flame-out on the biggest, most important stage of all, and are especially sensitive about seeing "trends" that have "doomed" us in the past (and had not been "fixed" then) seem to re-appear in losses even now, even this early in the season, because they are worried that this recent history will repeat itself.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Thanks, Jumbo. I said much the same thing to a prominent poster in a private email yesterday. I'm surprised there wasn't a thread that was titled

It's Over

Losses in December, January and February can (and will) be learned from. Losses in mid March (and April) are fatal. It's freakin' early December!

[moonpie23]

You provide the food, I'll provide the perspective !! thanks jumbo...

[Oriole Way]

If I may, I think some of the reactions are not just to trends over a season that come up most glaringly during losses... I know for me, and I think for a number of people, some of the issues feel like they have been around for a number of years (say, five or so?) and have cropped up at the worst possible time in the last few years... namely, the first and second round (haven't gotten much further) of the NCAAs. I think a lot of fans, who still in their heart of hearts believe that Duke should make it further each and every year, are still extremely wary of the late-season flame-out on the biggest, most important stage of all, and are especially sensitive about seeing "trends" that have "doomed" us in the past (and had not been "fixed" then) seem to re-appear in losses even now, even this early in the season, because they are worried that this recent history will repeat itself.

I completely agree with this.

I see some trends in all of Duke's losses since Greg Paulus' sophomore season, coinciding with a drop-off in the talent of Duke's teams. I am worried that Coach K isn't making proper adjustments to help offset the lack of talent and depth the team has dealt with compared to the Final Four teams of the past 20+ seasons.

I'm not simply worried that we lost against Wisconsin (after all, they shot well and always play extremely well at home), I'm worried more about why we lost. I saw some problems which are similar to the problems that the team has had in other seasons, both early and in season-ending losses in the NCAA tournament, so that's why I think some fans are concerned. I just hope Mason and the team get acclimated with each other successfully, and that coaching adjustments are made. I am hopeful that both will occur.

[walras]

Some of this goes to the issue of what any fan site is, and that there are lots of answers. For me, I simply enjoy watching this beautiful game, from seats in CIS now held for over 30 years, and seeing the kids grow up and develop and learn and succeed. Since only one good team ends the final season with a win, I try to take joy in the process, not the final outcome. As I am not on the floor playing, my contribution is my delight in it all. Pollyannish? Chacun a son gout.

[airowe]

I've never been around this board for a Duke loss before but I've come to a realization from just one.

A Duke loss is like castor oil, only the stuff comes out the other end.

I don't generally participate in the In-Game Threads, I'd rather watch the game intently than be concentrating on the computer, but for the one that I did it seems like a lot of the overreaction and hyperbole present in the Post-Game Threads carries itself over from the In-Game ones. Because of the frantic nature of a game, and the snap judgments that come from it, it seems like a lot of people are trying to "Keep up with the Joneses" so to speak.

[DukieInBrasil]

It seems like i have read shortened versions of Jumbo's post after a loss in each of the last few seasons.

i thought of this but didn't post it prior to the Wisconsin game that i thought it was a dangerous game because a) Duke's 1st true road game b) UW is good at home c) emotional "hang-over" from a big win over UConn. Pretty much all of Jumbo's comments also apply, so I was pretty surprised to see so much "sky is falling" whining. We lost to a good team on their court, it happens.

[Indoor66]

I've never been around this board for a Duke loss before but I've come to a realization from just one.

A Duke loss is like castor oil, only the stuff comes out the other end.

I don't generally participate in the In-Game Threads, I'd rather watch the game intently than be concentrating on the computer, but for the one that I did it seems like a lot of the overreaction and hyperbole present in the Post-Game Threads carries itself over from the In-Game ones. Because of the frantic nature of a game, and the snap judgments that come from it, it seems like a lot of people are trying to "Keep up with the Joneses" so to speak.

Good thoughts. I have stopped looking at In-Game threads and stopped looking at the Chat during games. I find the commentary to be mostly childish, inane and almost cruel. There is no perspective, only diarrhea of the mouth. I agree that the same thoughtless approach seems to carry over into post-game commentary.

Sometimes I long for the old board when thought was required before submitting a post. If the post did not have a reasonable level of considered presentation, it did not appear on the board. When this issue of thoughtful posting is raised now the young set replies that this is the nature of the Internet. I guess there are two practical choices available: accept the ongoing noise or stay away. The latter is becoming more and more attractive.

Jumbo, in his usual clear, reasoned manner, points out the fallacy in much of the thinking or non-thinking attendant to many of these noisy posts. I am just afraid that the only result will be more of the same because the noisy posters seem only interested in throwing bombs and voicing their rampant, absolutist statements of negativity. I always hope for better and try to search out the reasoned posts for presentations with analysis with perspective.

Maybe another day the sun will shine brighter....

[chrisheery]

I'll just offer my perspective. I am one of the posters who felt strongly that Wednesday's game was more of an indication of a trend than just one event.

I, for instance, even wrote a post that said that Wisconsin played a great game and I was not so much worried that we lost this game. I was more concerned that we didn't use it as an opportunity to grow toward the goal of a great team at the end of this year.

Instead of using a motion offense and getting the ball inside, we resorted to a dribble/drive offense with a bunch of one-on-one garbage when the game got close. My point, and the point I think many others agree with, is that if we resort to that type of play in a game in December when there is very little meaning for the overall outcome of the season, it is unlikely we will have the ability to stick to our game plan later when we are in a close game.

I also pointed out that we need to make a conscious effort to feed the post and give Miles (and Mason when the time comes) chances to succeed (and fail) so they learn what can and will work in the future. My posts happen to have come after a loss, but I (and I am sure many others) have been thinking these things even in the wins this year. I agree with the point that it might be better to discuss these things when people are less fired up over a loss.

I wouldn't changed out (in?) Dawkins as a starter because we have our 1-3 spots being filled by our best players. It might be interesting to separate Nolan and Scheyer at times (while Dawkins is in) just to give the opposition a different look, but I still think our 1-3 is the best we have, even if they didn't play well on Wednesday. That different look would be the threat of a (JJ-esque) shooter coming off screens all over the court and making his man trail him on defense. Making a guy work that hard on defense to trail a shooter of screens is great for the other four guys even if he never gets a shot off. However, the fact that Dawkins was in for the last 16 minutes of the game and people can say, "He should have played more," only indicates the issue with his current level of play. He didn't make his present felt for 12 of the 16 minutes he was in. We didn't even know he was on the court. Part of that is the fault of our dribble/drive one-on-one garbage and poor ball movement. The other part is that he wasn't making any plays of note (rebounding, defensive, etc). If he can go unnoticed that long, he probably doesn't need more playing time. He just needs to be used effectively when he is in the game (maybe like the senario I offered, maybe another way).

Lastly, I did not agree that our defense was "horrible." I though Hughes made a bunch of shots he never makes. I thought their big guys made a lot of threes that we could not have expected. When a team shoots like that, it is almost impossible to guard them. The only issue I had with our defense was our perimeter guys letting their guys get into the lane so easily. Again, though, that might have been a reaction to Wisconsin's incredible outside shooting. I thought Nolan, who is a leader for us on defense, was particularly suspect. I know everyone says Dawkins has defensive lapses, but his do not stand out to me nearly as much as Nolan's did on Wednesday. To clarify, I am not saying Nolan isn't a good defender, just that he had a bad game.

[airowe]

Two other things.

1) Thanks for the post Jumbo.

2) TDD has an Ignore This Member function. It makes the board a lot more readable. Any chance we could get this here?

[whereinthehellami]

DBR has changed alot over the years to rid the site of negative critiscm relatating to Duke and to develop a community of Duke fans. That was admirable and seemingly worked for awhile. But IMO they have gone too far. I recently recieved infractions for saying that Duke would not win a championship, get past the Sweet 16, and would finish 2nd in the ACC. I also said that I liked this team. I have never recieved infractions before and don't come to sports site to be handed out infractions because I'm too negative.

The discussion and discourse at DBR has been in decline for awhile and i can't help but feel that i'm posting on egg shells all the time unless I see Duke through DBR's blue glasses. I no longer feel a part of this community, which has started to feel more like a Duke glee club. Its too bad because there aren't really any better sites for Duke basketball out there.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think that this is an excellent thread and a reality check for the board. I seriously doubt that anyone had anticipated that Duke would go undefeated this season, and in the grand scheme of things the Wisco game is a "good loss."

What people seem to be conveniently forgetting is that for the first 35+ minutes of this game, Duke was out-muscled, out-hustled, and yes even out-smarted. Nothing in the first 3/4 of the game suggested that we would win.

BUT, then the team fought back gamely and had themselves in a position to win. A few rolls on the rim go the other way and we are celebrating how gritty the team fought back after being seemingly out of the game from tipoff.

This team is going to win a lot of games. I predict that later in the season the team play this sort of game, the ball will roll the other way, and we will take some very tight contests.

Losing to Wisco, at Wisco, in December is not the end of the world. We fought hard and have nothing to hang our heads about.

Now, let's focus on the next 35 games.

[Newton_14]

And with that comes another issue. Too many people are talking past each other, not with each other. That's why the post counts in threads climb so high, so fast. Lots of people are interested in being heard; not nearly as many care about discussing, debating and learning. If we all actually took the time to read a thread before posting, we'd all benefit.

Amen to that. And the original post was dead on. I did not even bother to post in the Wisconsin post game thread as most of it read like that loss ended our year and Mason is a bust. Were we expecting a 20 and 10 night from a freshman big in his first game back after losing a month in the early season due to an injured wrist? I sure wasn't.

Wisconsin played really well. We came out a tad flat, played poor defense and never got into a good rhythm on offense. Yet on my tv, there we were with a minute left, with the ball, and a chance to tie or take the lead. So I was disappointed but not going insane. Props to the Badgers, and our guys have a learning experience to draw on the next time they are in a game of that nature..

[bird]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Historical Perspective
Two years ago, in the Big Ten/ACC Challenge, Duke destroyed Wisconsin in Cameron by 24 points in a game that wasn’t even that close. It came on the heels of the Maui Invitational title, made Duke 7-0 and left everyone here thinking big (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4966). And Wisconsin? Well, after watching them play that game, it was hard to imagine their even finishing in the top half of the Big Ten.

Wisconsin ended up reaching the Sweet 16 that season. Duke lost in the second round.

Clearly, it was wrong to jump to major conclusions after that game. So it should make even less sense to make declarative statements after a close loss at Wisconsin, right? Right?

If that’s not enough, look back to some of Duke’s best teams from this decade, like the 2003-04 team that lost to Purdue in Alaska, or the 2001-02 squad, which began January with a loss at a weak Florida State team. You can only tell so much from early-season games, and you really can tell very little from one early-season game. Why?



My benchmarks are the 1990-91 and 1991-1992 teams. Those were the best teams of my Duke fandom era. (1999 didn't win it, sorry; 2001 was great, and won, but didn't have the malicious edginess of the Laetner-Hurley-Hill teams). The 1990-91 team lost seven games, including three early: Arkansas (NY), Georgetown (away) and UVA (away). I particularly remember the UVA game, because I was there. Duke lost 64-81, and U-Hall was rocking. Duke was run out of the gym -- easily the worst loss I personally witnessed until last year's Villanova tourney game. Anyway, I left the UVA game glum, the UVA fans were estatic, and the rest, as they say, was history.

[Jumbo]

If I may, I think some of the reactions are not just to trends over a season that come up most glaringly during losses... I know for me, and I think for a number of people, some of the issues feel like they have been around for a number of years (say, five or so?) and have cropped up at the worst possible time in the last few years... namely, the first and second round (haven't gotten much further) of the NCAAs. I think a lot of fans, who still in their heart of hearts believe that Duke should make it further each and every year, are still extremely wary of the late-season flame-out on the biggest, most important stage of all, and are especially sensitive about seeing "trends" that have "doomed" us in the past (and had not been "fixed" then) seem to re-appear in losses even now, even this early in the season, because they are worried that this recent history will repeat itself.

I bolded the part above for emphasis, because it's at the core of the problem. As I said, I have no problem with figuring out what went wrong in the game, and even looking for early patterns. The problem is one game does not a trend make -- not even two or three games is sufficient. And even an early trend isn't indicative of what a team will look like come March. I remember two years ago, how great our D looked in the early part of the season, while later in ACC play, the offense was much better and the D was shaky. Again, it's about avoiding sweeping conclusions.


I completely agree with this.

I see some trends in all of Duke's losses since Greg Paulus' sophomore season, coinciding with a drop-off in the talent of Duke's teams. I am worried that Coach K isn't making proper adjustments to help offset the lack of talent and depth the team has dealt with compared to the Final Four teams of the past 20+ seasons.

I'm not simply worried that we lost against Wisconsin (after all, they shot well and always play extremely well at home), I'm worried more about why we lost. I saw some problems which are similar to the problems that the team has had in other seasons, both early and in season-ending losses in the NCAA tournament, so that's why I think some fans are concerned. I just hope Mason and the team get acclimated with each other successfully, and that coaching adjustments are made. I am hopeful that both will occur.

Two things. First, this isn't a situation where every person needs to personally justify their own actions. You've been consistent in your analysis after wins and losses; I distinctly remember your saying after the UConn win that, while Thomas and Zoubek played well, the key to this team reaching its potential would be the development of the Plumlees inside (in addition to Dawkins). And while you can be a bit edgy at time, I don't recall your saying that Duke can't win a title with X, Y and Z, etc.

Secondly, as far as patterns go, you can see patterns in the way almost every team loses. Why? A) When most teams lose, they haven't played well. That means they've missed certain shots they normally make in wins, allowed certain bad things to happen on defense, etc. B) Duke has a signature style, and even though it has been tweaked this year, K hasn't exactly reinvented the wheel. So, of course a lot of losses feel/look the same. A lot of wins feel/look the same too. A lot of Maryland's losses, for instance, bear a haunting resemblence to one another (sweaty coach on the verge of strangling someone, angry fans ready to grab pitchforks, players missing shots, you know, all that good stuff). Again, we just need to avoid declaratory, sweeping judgment. It's one thing to observe a trend. It's another to declare one as the indicator of an inevitable outcome.

[brevity]

I suspect there won't be much disagreement with Jumbo in this thread, but (echoing an earlier response) I wonder if it will matter.

To take a different approach... if Duke is going to lose, I look forward to the fan meltdown. It's not my first choice -- I'd prefer some jubilation from a satisfying win any day -- but it's a silver lining in an otherwise blah evening.

For those that follow golf, even casually, this is kind of a Greg Norman situation: the best story is a triumphant major tournament win, no doubt. But the second best story is another major tournament collapse.

Bear in mind that I'm comparing Greg Norman to Duke's fans, not its team. The team is strong, both mentally and physically, and learns from its wins and losses. The fan collective is not, and does not, despite the wise words of a select few. Of course, volatility is a key element of fandom. Some may choose to be embarrassed. I try to be entertained.

"The sky is falling" fans vs. the "next play" fans. Which cliché will win?

[roywhite]

Two other things.

1) Thanks for the post Jumbo.

2) TDD has an Ignore This Member function. It makes the board a lot more readable. Any chance we could get this here?

There is a way to Ignore certain users if you choose. On the left side of the screen is a heading for "User CP"; if you click that, and then go to Settings and Options, there is a topic for "Edit Ignore List" where you can indicate user names. If you choose to look at an individual post from an "Ignore" listed user, it's not difficult and you can bring them back from "Ignore".

There may be other ways to get to this feature, but this is one way.

[camion]

Someone once said that during a typical basketball season the team will play about 5 great games, 5 stinkers and the rest somewhere in between. I think that's a decent rule of thumb.

As I watched the Wisconsin game I thought, "This is one of their five great games." Most of their players had better than average days, they were focused, they had the fans behind them. It all came together. I thought we had one of our average games. I don't think it was a stinker, but it wasn't great. The result wasn't a big surprise since Wisconsin is a pretty good team.

In any event, I was disappointed, but not disheartened by the loss. I think this team will be very good. It's not perfect, but we have shown that we can compete with just about anyone. We have a lot of room for growth and I think we will be better in March than we are now.

I'll save my spoiled, spoiled, spoiled rant for later. ;)

[flyingdutchdevil]

DBR has changed alot over the years to rid the site of negative critiscm relatating to Duke and to develop a community of Duke fans. That was admirable and seemingly worked for awhile. But IMO they have gone too far. I recently recieved infractions for saying that Duke would not win a championship, get past the Sweet 16, and would finish 2nd in the ACC. I also said that I liked this team. I have never recieved infractions before and don't come to sports site to be handed out infractions because I'm too negative.

The discussion and discourse at DBR has been in decline for awhile and i can't help but feel that i'm posting on egg shells all the time unless I see Duke through DBR's blue glasses. I no longer feel a part of this community, which has started to feel more like a Duke glee club. Its too bad because there aren't really any better sites for Duke basketball out there.

I think that this is a great point, and a point that needs to be reiterated. While this is a Duke bball forum, criticism should be allowed as should our personal opinions. If some had there way, they would lynch me for saying that Duke is unathletic (which I personally don't think, but you get my point). Every time I post, I too have to thread carefully as not to receive an infarction for speaking my mind. If people are upset, argue with them reasonably. No need for minor infarctions or creating threads to tell guys to calm down. I can assure you - we aren't as bad as some of the other forums.

[SupaDave]

So, what I am saying is that people might see 6 games, 10 games, 15... and believe that "Duke doesn't feed the post" has become a trend for the season. They won't say anything through those games as the trend develops because the culture of the board doesn't support pointing out negatives too much after wins. Then, when Duke loses they will say:

"We looked awful and we just don't ever feed the post and probably won't this season since we haven't thus far. This is bad news for when March rolls around."

Well, that looks an awful lot like a poster over-reacting to one game, right? Well, in reality, that poster might have been witnessing the negative trend (that they may rightly, or at least rationally, feel is bad news for March) throughout the season, but only feel comfortable or justified in expressing that opinion after a loss because that is when it seems like the appropriate time.

I'm with you however on the people who say, "we can't win with X".... just stupid

And this is precisely what we are trying to discourage. We want knowledgable discourse - not just your opinion. The threads are not designed to be your personal blog.

If you can't provide facts, quotes, links, or any other kind of credible data to help make or break your cause then you're just spouting unnecessary rhetoric that gets looked right over. It creates more fodder to look through when actually looking for detailed analysis of the actual game, the players, the recruits, the coaches, and the season's journey.

Enjoy the season. If you want to talk about past "failures" then search for that thread - it's been done already. Otherwise, take heed to what Jumbo is saying - you just might learn something about Duke basketball.

[SupaDave]

I think that this is a great point, and a point that needs to be reiterated. While this is a Duke bball forum, criticism should be allowed as should our personal opinions. If some had there way, they would lynch me for saying that Duke is unathletic (which I personally don't think, but you get my point). Every time I post, I too have to thread carefully as not to receive an infarction for speaking my mind. If people are upset, argue with them reasonably. No need for minor infarctions or creating threads to tell guys to calm down. I can assure you - we aren't as bad as some of the other forums.

Ahhhhh, the old "we aren't as bad as them" argument... Nope. We are not and we'd like to keep it that way.

Think of the boards like double dutch - you shouldn't jump in until it's your turn and the timing is just right - and then you perform brilliantly while putting your own words in rhythm with the thread.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

This thread seems to be very divisive and is seems to underline a schism between types of fans. Some fans want or expect their team to dominate every opponent every night. Anything less than a 20 point victory is cause for concern.

Myself, I very much enjoy watching a Duke team come together over the course of a season. As the freshmen mature, roles take shape, leadership emerges, and the players learn the system, the team begins to coalesce into true team and forge an identity.

Of course Andre Dawkins doesn't know his defensive role in the scheme yet - he's played seven games and by all rights should be starting point guard on a high school team. Mason Plumlee has missed the last few weeks of practice, it's going to take some time for him to find his hands and make his mark.

My favorite season of Duke basketball in the last ten years was the 2001 Championship team - not because of the trophy, but because of the way the team and the coaching staff made changes after Boozer went down late in the season.

This team has got lots of talent and lots of youth. It's going to take some growth, maturity, and learning for them to reach their potential. But to me, watching that process is a huge part of the fun.

GO DUKE

[NSDukeFan]

DBR has changed alot over the years to rid the site of negative critiscm relatating to Duke and to develop a community of Duke fans. That was admirable and seemingly worked for awhile. But IMO they have gone too far. I recently recieved infractions for saying that Duke would not win a championship, get past the Sweet 16, and would finish 2nd in the ACC.
Part of the problem I find in some posts is the negative proclamations, such as we won't win a championship and the poster can then feel vindicated if we don't. Congratulations, you have a great chance of being right, but wouldn't it be a lot more enjoyable as a fan if you went along for the ride with a great team that has about as good a chance to win as anyone else, even though we lost a game in early December? As Jumbo said, mathematically you will probably be proven correct, but you could say that for all but one team.



And, finally, there is no clear recipe for a championship team. March involves a lot of things – including luck. If anyone tries to tell you that a team has to have a go-to scorer in the post to win it all, he/she is wrong. ... And if anyone tries to tell that this Duke team definitively can’t win a championship, he/she is wrong, too. We’re not the favorite, but as DBR has been fond of saying for more than a decade, the odds are against everyone. We have weaknesses, but we also have legit strengths that will enable us to beat anyone on the right day.


I also said that I liked this team. I have never recieved infractions before and don't come to sports site to be handed out infractions because I'm too negative.The discussion and discourse at DBR has been in decline for awhile and i can't help but feel that i'm posting on egg shells all the time unless I see Duke through DBR's blue glasses. I no longer feel a part of this community, which has started to feel more like a Duke glee club. Its too bad because there aren't really any better sites for Duke basketball out there.

Is it really that bad to get an infraction if you make a statement that cannot be defended? This may go on your DBR record, but I think you can still function in society with that and won't affect you in a court of law, or for future job prospects. I have had an infraction or two, and I feel I have recovered nicely. I do try to post less needlessly than the post that received the infraction and try to have some contribution when posting.
I think this post makes a good point about what the board will tolerate through blue glasses, but it is a fan site, and I get frustrated reading about a player on the team I am cheering for being called useless, or other sweeping statements on the basis of an individual game. I am certainly not saying the above post or poster has made those kind of statements.


Most of the Wisconsin thread could be boiled down to one-sentence repetitive arguments in the Handy Pocket Reference. I originally wrote that as a light-hearted parody, but I eventually came to realize I had told the truth about us, and it wasn't parody at all. Jumbo's post is very very good. We need to move away from this lack of critical thinking.
Your light-hearted parody, much like the best parody, offers a lot of truth.

I'll just offer my perspective. I am one of the posters who felt strongly that Wednesday's game was more of an indication of a trend than just one event. ...

I think you are in the wrong thread.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18195

I really like this thread and think the discussion between Jumbo and BlueintheFace has brought out some great points.
Maybe there should be a "I want Duke to win so badly that if I see anything wrong in the game that makes it possible that they won't win the championship or at least make the final four, I want to bash that player or type of play or strategy and vent" site, but I think part of what makes this site superior to some others is that thought and perspective is encouraged.

[BlueDevilCorvette!]

"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced" (James Baldwin). Coach K will make the Wisconsin game a learning experience and make the necessary adjustments. I support Duke win or lose with my head held high...the last thing I need is for a UNC fan to rag on me with my head held down! The sun has come up each day after the Wisconsin loss, thus Duke has another chance to improve.

[dw0827]

Jumbo talked about perspective . . . and I agree. In fact, let me add another category of perspective.

Life perspective.

This thing we call Duke basketball is a game, people. A game.

It is a game played by kids, really. 18 years old. 19. 20.

I love Duke basketball as much as anybody. But give me a break. I'm more worried about putting food on the table. I'm concerned about making sure I stay spiritually connected with my 15 year old son. I'm concerned about the health care debate. I anguish over the 18 year old kids in Iraq and Afghanistan who are getting killed . . . or maimed . . . and for what?

Duke lost to Wisconsin. I watched the game. I cussed at the TV. I yelled and scared the dog (he hates it when I watch games). And for about 15 minutes after the game, I was in a crappy mood.

But that's it. Enough.

These kids are doing the best they can. Under enormous pressure. When I was that age, I was a blithering idiot and would have folded like a cheap tent under this kind of pressure. As would most of you.

The coaches. They are doing the best they can.

Duke will win. Duke will lose. Duke will win more than it loses. Life will go on. To me, it isn't about the result. At the end of each year . . . after that inevitable final loss, I give silent thanks to the team. For the journey they've taken me on during the year. The exhilaration of an especially good win . . . or good play . . . the agony of a bad loss . . . or a stupid play.

It's real. It's life. It's all about the journey and it is all good. Enjoy it.

[DU Band Prez 88]

I don't post here too often & have been following Duke hoops for 25 years since my first game in CIS in 1984 when we beat Washington...and I just wanted to send a short reply.

Great points all by Jumbo. Rather than being pessimistic and dissecting every aspect of a 4-point loss against a Wisconsin team that (like Duke) hardly ever loses at home... let's just enjoy watching Duke basketball for the next few months, and let's appreciate a team that will be a work in progress and that I think will be an excellent/dangerous team by March.

I think the 09-10 season is very wide open as far as who will end up winning 6 straight games in the NCAAs, and I would think that most of the readers of this board would agree. In the meantime, we have December through February to enjoy, so let's cheer Duke on to two (or more!) wins over Carolina, an ACC title, and then hopefully a long run in March (& April).

[smklin]

Let me start by saying that I agree with this thread. I think it's important for people to read, whether or not they agree with it, because it's a sentiment that can often be overlooked.

However, when I read some of the 1000+ posters' comments, I can't help but think of a bunch of old men sitting in rocking chairs on a porch saying, "Remember back when...?" or, "All these youngsters just don't understand!"

[feldspar]

I haven’t been able to read everything. But I’ve seen enough to be really disappointed and frustrated with much of what’s going on. It’s also enough to make me concerned about what will happen the next time Duke loses, because I think we can all agree that Duke – and everyone else in the country – will probably lose again this season.

Let's hold on just one second.

I, personally, grow just as weary of this vein of thinking after a Duke loss as you do about people who complain about the loss.

Every time we lose, there are multiple posters who rant and rave about how many posters out there are saying the sky is falling.

Personally, I didn't read all that much banter after the Wisconsin game about people thinking our season was in the toilet. It was a frustrating game. It was a bang-your-head-against-the-wall kind of game. I yelled at the TV multiple times as Duke's players forced shots and lost their man on defense.

None of this translates into a general feeling of utter despair among the posters on this board. There may be a few, random (ie, not regular) posters who express these kind of concerns, but I don't think it's representative at all.

In another thread, Kewlswim complained about the same thing, but didn't provide any sort of example.

Maybe I'm wrong and I just haven't read enough. But I'd love to see a sample of some of our regular posters claiming that the sky is falling and whether or not that truly justifies an all-out blitz on criticism of this basketball team.

Here's the problem with threads like this. Its natural effect is to squelch criticism. Not harsh or overbearing criticism like "X sucked it up last night" or "this team is horrible" or "Y shouldn't even be playing, he's awful." I didn't see much of that at all after Wednesday's game. I saw a lot of constructive criticism like "Nolan forced the ball too much" or "that last play wasn't drawn up very well."

When you squelch that type of debate, what, really, is the board all about other than a defacto cheerleader for the basketball program?

I say, let us debate. Let us constructively criticize. Don't paint it as if the board as a whole is going down a road of negativity, because it really is not.

Let's take the example Jumbo used:



“I can't agree with the generally upbeat reaction here. We played horrible defense, and it seemed clearly to be poor play by us more than great play by them. The Badgers were patient (and many teams we'll play couldn't match them in this respect in a million years) however, we always delivered a path to the basket. We had a whole game to fix it, and did not. Both Plumlees and Dawkins appeared tonight to be not ready for big time defense. Very discouraging.”

I don't see the problem with a post like this. Sure, it has negative tones to it. But guess what? We had a negative outcome on Wednesday night. That's the nature of the beast.

But here's the important thing: note how the poster does not make sweeping generalizations, but sticks to the specific game, what happened in that game and how it affected the outcome.

"We played horrible defense" - Even Coach K agreed with that.

"We always delivered a path to the basket" - Yes, some hyperbole, but largely true

"We had a whole game to fix it, and did not" - Again, true

"poor play by us more than great play by them" - This one is debatable, but again, there's nothing over the top about this comment.

So how is this comment "viewing last night's game as a proxy for March"? It's not. So why was this comment singled out? I don't know.

As for the other examples:


“Once again, Duke is a jump-shooting team, and we won’t win that way. In fact, that means another early-round flameout.”

Okay, I agree with this one. But did you really see this theme played out overall on the post-game thread? Because I didn't. You're good at making these kind of posters defend their posts, Jumbo, so stick to that, rather than calling out the board as a whole.



“Coach K won’t play his bench enough and that will cost us in big games down the stretch.”

Okay, I'm sorry, but there is some historical perspective to be had here, and I think we all know it. You may not agree with the argument, but there is an argument to be had about K's lack of using bench depth.


And, of course, “We can’t win with [Insert big man].”

That's a lazy argument of course. But, again, I never saw this as a theme play out in the post-game threads. I think you're making mountains out of molehills.

I guess I just don't get it. I'm all for not being...what's the term....destructively negative. But I really haven't seen a lot of that around here lately. Personally, if you don't like fans commenting and criticizing their team, I suggest you find a different hobby other than primetime team sports and their respective message boards.

[feldspar]

Rather than being pessimistic and dissecting every aspect of a 4-point loss against a Wisconsin team that (like Duke) hardly ever loses at home... let's just enjoy watching Duke basketball for the next few months, and let's appreciate a team that will be a work in progress and that I think will be an excellent/dangerous team by March.

Here's the thing I think posters like you and Jumbo fail to understand.

Some people like dissecting every aspect of a 4-point loss against a Wisconsin team that (like Duke) hardly ever loses at home. It's fun for some people. I don't know why. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a college basketball expert. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a little bit more a part of the team. I know you may not understand that, but if it is not destructively negative, there's no reason why it can't be part of the board.

If you (or Jumbo or anyone else) don't enjoy that kind of thing, that's fine, you don't have to participate in that type of discussion.

[Jeffrey]

IMO, perspective is a two way street. If a DBR resident expert boldly states something like our team has tremendous upside and a realistic chance of winning a national title, then I think it's beneficial to DBR if some express sincere disagreement and offer support for their belief. A realistic comment is sometimes interpreted as negative strictly due to one's perspective.

[SupaDave]

I guess I just don't get it. I'm all for not being...what's the term....destructively negative. But I really haven't seen a lot of that around here lately.

There are reasons why you haven't seen them. It's magic.

[MChambers]

Here's the thing I think posters like you and Jumbo fail to understand.

Some people like dissecting every aspect of a 4-point loss against a Wisconsin team that (like Duke) hardly ever loses at home. It's fun for some people. I don't know why. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a college basketball expert. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a little bit more a part of the team. I know you may not understand that, but if it is not destructively negative, there's no reason why it can't be part of the board.

If you (or Jumbo or anyone else) don't enjoy that kind of thing, that's fine, you don't have to participate in that type of discussion.

I'm fine with people dissecting every aspect of a game, win or lose. It's why I read the threads.

But the posts that say "we can't win with X" playing 20 minutes drive me crazy, especially when Duke was 6-0 with X playing 20 minutes a game.

[Reddevil]

It's all about the journey and it is all good. Enjoy it.

True. It's about the journey, not the destination, and certainly not one game. That said, most feel that the Badgers played very well, and Duke did not play so well, and yet it was a very close game at their place. This team - this program is sometimes remarkably underappreciated. Can you imagine this being a Clemson board after Wednesday?! BTW, I think they will be just fine also. Lessons learned in early December are the kind coaches relish. Here's to the journey!

[roywhite]

Here's the thing I think posters like you and Jumbo fail to understand.

Some people like dissecting every aspect of a 4-point loss against a Wisconsin team that (like Duke) hardly ever loses at home. It's fun for some people. I don't know why. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a college basketball expert. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a little bit more a part of the team. I know you may not understand that, but if it is not destructively negative, there's no reason why it can't be part of the board.

If you (or Jumbo or anyone else) don't enjoy that kind of thing, that's fine, you don't have to participate in that type of discussion.

It's not the dissection of a loss that seems inappropriate.

It's drawing conclusions from the loss that are not in evidence----things like "same old Duke team, we don't have a decent point guard, we don't have anybody inside that's worth a darn, here goes again, early exit from the NCAA tournament is going to happen again, why can't we get players, the coaches don't know what they're doing", etc. etc. etc.

Frankly, there is enough of that kind of conclusion jumping and Duke-bashing in the national media. I can see why a Duke fan forum is not the place for it.

Just my .02

[MChambers]

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I did not watch the game Wednesday night, but I really do find the doom and gloom to be surprisingly overdone.

Jumbo's post was close to perfect. I can only imagine what many of the posters here would have said following the 1991 loss to UVA, or especially the 1991 loss in the ACC finals.

[Spam Filter]

When you see the word "we can't win", replace with "we can't get to the FF".

For many Duke fans, winning is not about winning against Radford or the pre-season NIT, it's about winning in March.

[feldspar]

There are reasons why you haven't seen them. It's magic.

Yes, Dave, I'm well aware of the fact we have moderators. Thanks for the ever-needed reminder. Oh, that we all paid more homage to our tireless, self-sacrificing moderators. All hail, and all that jazz...

[Spam Filter]

It's not the dissection of a loss that seems inappropriate.

It's drawing conclusions from the loss that are not in evidence----things like "same old Duke team, we don't have a decent point guard, we don't have anybody inside that's worth a darn, here goes again, early exit from the NCAA tournament is going to happen again, why can't we get players, the coaches don't know what they're doing", etc. etc. etc.

Frankly, there is enough of that kind of conclusion jumping and Duke-bashing in the national media. I can see why a Duke fan forum is not the place for it.

Just my .02

The problem is that is hasn't been Duke bashing, it has been reality. They say that about Duke every year the last 5 years, and every year they are right. That's why even Duke fans on Duke forums are talking about it.

Had Duke consistently proven the sentiment wrong in March the last few years Duke fans wouldn't be constantly fretting and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[Greg_Newton]

Here's the thing I think posters like you and Jumbo fail to understand.

Some people like dissecting every aspect of a 4-point loss against a Wisconsin team that (like Duke) hardly ever loses at home. It's fun for some people. I don't know why. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a college basketball expert. Maybe it makes them feel like they are a little bit more a part of the team. I know you may not understand that, but if it is not destructively negative, there's no reason why it can't be part of the board.

If you (or Jumbo or anyone else) don't enjoy that kind of thing, that's fine, you don't have to participate in that type of discussion.

I think the post you quoted there was misrepresenting Jumbo's point. I don't think Jumbo was saying we shouldn't analyze the intracacies of Duke's play at all; rather the opposite, that we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations that we don't back up with specific evidence. Like others have said, it's not about squelching discourse, it's about elevating the scourse...

[Jeffrey]

When you see the word "we can't win", replace with "we can't get to the FF".

Jumbo appears prone to do the exact opposite. By doing such, he appears to be trying to paint comments negative.

[feldspar]

I think the post you quoted there was misrepresenting Jumbo's point. I don't think Jumbo was saying we shouldn't analyze the intracacies of Duke's play at all; rather the opposite, that we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations that we don't back up with specific evidence. Like others have said, it's not about squelching discourse, it's about elevating the scourse...

And I took Jumbo's prime example and showed that there were no sweeping generalizations in the example he used. It failed the smell test of what is inappropriate for the board.

The three paraphrased phrases he cited, sure, there was an argument to be made there. But I disagree that those type of sentiments, by and large, are dominating the discussions around here.

I've said for a long time that the only way to keep everyone around here happy is to create one board for the people who want to criticize, dissect, whine, etc, and create a separate board for those who only want to say nice, uplifiting, happy-sunshiny things about Duke basketball.

[roywhite]

The problem is that is hasn't been Duke bashing, it has been reality. They say that about Duke every year the last 5 years, and every year they are right. That's why even Duke fans on Duke forums are talking about it.

Had Duke consistently proven the sentiment wrong in March the last few years Duke fans wouldn't be constantly fretting and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I'm not an owner or moderator of this site, but I think if you insist on expressing the view that an early season loss means same old tournament problems as in previous years, haven't addressed any problems, etc...---you'll run into problems here.

[SupaDave]

The problem is that is hasn't been Duke bashing, it has been reality. They say that about Duke every year the last 5 years, and every year they are right. That's why even Duke fans on Duke forums are talking about it.

Had Duke consistently proven the sentiment wrong in March the last few years Duke fans wouldn't be constantly fretting and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

"They say" - "They say"? And just WHO are they? Sounds like you are worried about the wrong people. (insert Doug Gottlieb joke here)

Well then, I guess it's a bad thing then that the program has been playing basketball since 1906. Those 5 years have been the worst!!! Have we even fielded a team? I'm sure there has been absolutely nothing to enjoy the last five years. Hmmm, there are like 300 OTHER programs who haven't done jack in 5 years either. I guess we should just give up on Duke basketball altogether.

Do you see how that sounds? Some of you have skewed the definition of fan. If some of you were on the team you'd be kicked out of the locker room. I've said it before and I'll say it again - some of you are more fans of winning than the actual team - and it really needs to be checked.

[Kedsy]

The problem is that is hasn't been Duke bashing, it has been reality. They say that about Duke every year the last 5 years, and every year they are right. That's why even Duke fans on Duke forums are talking about it.

Had Duke consistently proven the sentiment wrong in March the last few years Duke fans wouldn't be constantly fretting and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

This is the part that gets me. The 1990 team was 24-8 going into the NCAAs; the 2006 team was 30-3 (with the #1 schedule strength in the country, according to RPI). By focusing exclusively on March, you imply that the 1990 team was a better team because it made the NCAA finals and the 2006 team had an off-game in the Sweet 16. How is that "reality"?

Just because a team lost a game in a one-and-done tournament doesn't mean it had glaring holes. I'm not sure which category of perspective this falls into, but it ought to be in one of them.

[Reddevil]

- some of you are more fans of winning than the actual team - and it really needs to be checked.

Yes you did, and thank you. That sums it up perfectly.

[feldspar]

If some of you were on the team you'd be kicked out of the locker room.

I don't think I need to remind you that we're not on the team, so I don't get your point. We have to conduct ourselves in the same manner as if we were on the team? Really? Do you seriously believe this??


I've said it before and I'll say it again - some of you are more fans of winning than the actual team - and it really needs to be checked.

Why? Why does it need to be checked? Do you, Dave, get to decide what kind of Duke "fan" I am going to be? Does DBR decide what kind of "fan" I'm going to be? You can regulate speech under the moderating guidelines, but I think you're really overstating the importance of this board.

[Spam Filter]

"They say" - "They say"? And just WHO are they? Sounds like you are worried about the wrong people. (insert Doug Gottlieb joke here)

Well then, I guess it's a bad thing then that the program has been playing basketball since 1906. Those 5 years have been the worst!!! Have we even fielded a team? I'm sure there has been absolutely nothing to enjoy the last five years. Hmmm, there are like 300 OTHER programs who haven't done jack in 5 years either. I guess we should just give up on Duke basketball altogether.

Do you see how that sounds? Some of you have skewed the definition of fan. If some of you were on the team you'd be kicked out of the locker room. I've said it before and I'll say it again - some of you are more fans of winning than the actual team - and it really needs to be checked.

First of all, I am not worried at all about what "they" say. I'm not the one who brought up the issue of "Duke bashing by the media". I was responding to claims that it happen. I am not concerned about what "they" say. I'm concerned about what Duke has done on the court. I just find it ridiculous that what has been said about Duke is considered "bashing" even though they have proven true every year for the last 5 years.

And yes, I am a fan of winning. In the sense that I'd like to see the team I pull for win. I thought that was why the games are played at all, so we can see who wins. Ultimately sports is about winning, otherwise why keep score?

[Chard]

DBR has changed alot over the years to rid the site of negative criticism relating to Duke and to develop a community of Duke fans. That was admirable and seemingly worked for awhile. But IMO they have gone too far. I recently received infractions for saying that Duke would not win a championship, get past the Sweet 16, and would finish 2nd in the ACC. I also said that I liked this team. I have never received infractions before and don't come to sports site to be handed out infractions because I'm too negative.

The discussion and discourse at DBR has been in decline for awhile and i can't help but feel that I'm posting on egg shells all the time unless I see Duke through DBR's blue glasses. I no longer feel a part of this community, which has started to feel more like a Duke glee club. Its too bad because there aren't really any better sites for Duke basketball out there.


I think that this is a great point, and a point that needs to be reiterated. While this is a Duke bball forum, criticism should be allowed as should our personal opinions. If some had there way, they would lynch me for saying that Duke is unathletic (which I personally don't think, but you get my point). Every time I post, I too have to thread carefully as not to receive an infarction for speaking my mind. If people are upset, argue with them reasonably. No need for minor infarctions or creating threads to tell guys to calm down. I can assure you - we aren't as bad as some of the other forums.

On a certain level I feel your pain, guys. I rarely log in anymore. I could delve into the subject but that would just turn into something bad. I know where you are coming from.

But, you should read carefully before posting. You should consider your words before posting or replying. You should be able to be negative but not in a destructive way.


I know it’s tougher to see the good stuff and the potential of this team, or any team, after a loss. But sometimes you just need to take a step back to regain a sense of perspective.

Without someone like you stepping up and giving some perspective to these posters, especially the newer and younger ones, they aren't going to get it. For me, your entire post could have been summed up in that last sentence I just quoted. Well done. For others, they just don't understand the intricacies of the game, a new year, new team new players, etc. and they'll need the entire post. You and I and other old timers may tire of it but it needs to be done. Then one day, they'll have that perspective and it can be their turn.

Having said all that, I'm not sure you knew just how many subjects regarding the board and the culture here you were touching on with your original post. As you've read posters reactions many differing opinions and gripes have been raised and expressed with I'm sure more to come. But again, that's a discussion for another day and for folks who still give a dang.


Right, but I never said there was a problem with writing "Duke needs to feed the post more."
What is problematic is the next leap -- "Duke didn't feed the post and never will. And since we're not going to get any production out of our big men, we have no chance to win big in March." That's the key distinction.

Please, folks. Try to see what Jumbo is trying to get at. There is a difference between those two statements. One is a clear and concise statement that is open for discussion. The other is a proclamation based on conjecture.


I also think this trend of overreaction is more or less a function of numbers. Think about how big this board was years ago vs now. Think about how many posts we get on some of the recruiting threads.

It used to be that contributors here were known quantities with a bit more accountability. Now we get a much bigger class of posters that only come around after losses or huge wins to celebrate or take out their frustration.

Things change, my friend. I've been around since the juliovision days and the internets has changed in a big way since then. I like this board much better than the old verification days.

When things go bad there are more bad things to talk about and vice verse. If you find something objectionable please do voice your opposition to that point of view if you feel the need. Otherwise, move on to something more worth your time and attention. You state as much in your other post in this thread.


.. and that is a cycle that feeds itself. The more posts with people just giving their impressions, the less you want to read through all of the tons of similar ones and the more likely you are to just give your own thoughts and move on. I have certainly been guilty of that in post-game threads. Often times I show up just looking for inconsistencies and overreactions to debate about, but sometimes I see all of the similar posts of proclamations about the game and think... "do I really want to invest my time in reading ALL of these repetitive posts?" It's a tough spiral.

Choose your battles! I only read certain threads that I find worthy of my attention. It is liberating to just read what I like, comment when I feel I can add something and ignore the chaff. Hold your cursor over the thread titles and you'll get the first few sentences of the original post. That really helps me decide if I even want to click on the link.



i thought of this but didn't post it prior to the Wisconsin game that i thought it was a dangerous game because a) Duke's 1st true road game b) UW is good at home c) emotional "hang-over" from a big win over UConn. Pretty much all of Jumbo's comments also apply, so I was pretty surprised to see so much "sky is falling" whining. We lost to a good team on their court, it happens.

Well said. I was happy to see Duke battle back to within two points. They lost and I wasn't surprised or even mad once the clock hit zeros. I was cheering and cussing at the good and bad but once it was over I just shook my head and that was that. This was only possible after years of perspective. With basketball, sometimes that other team can't miss and it is just not your team's night. To be in position to tie and possibly win with everything that had gone against them says a lot about this team.

Enjoy the season folks, even the not so great games. We won't get to see this version of Duke again.

[SupaDave]

Why? Why does it need to be checked? Do you, Dave, get to decide what kind of Duke "fan" I am going to be? Does DBR decide what kind of "fan" I'm going to be? You can regulate speech under the moderating guidelines, but I think you're really overstating the importance of this board.

Noone is trying to dictate what type of fan you should BE but we are trying to tell you what kind of fans we WANT. If that is too hard for a person then it's probably best to find a new site. The owners of this site have let this be known on many occasions.

[SupaDave]

And yes, I am a fan of winning. In the sense that I'd like to see the team I pull for win. I thought that was why the games are played at all, so we can see who wins. Ultimately sports is about winning, otherwise why keep score?

Really? I guess all that stuff about teamwork and building up young men is just a bunch of horse patooey right? Come on guys, this just sounds so bandwagon...

[Spam Filter]

This is the part that gets me. The 1990 team was 24-8 going into the NCAAs; the 2006 team was 30-3 (with the #1 schedule strength in the country, according to RPI). By focusing exclusively on March, you imply that the 1990 team was a better team because it made the NCAA finals and the 2006 team had an off-game in the Sweet 16. How is that "reality"?

Just because a team lost a game in a one-and-done tournament doesn't mean it had glaring holes. I'm not sure which category of perspective this falls into, but it ought to be in one of them.

No, I'm implying that a loss early season in 1990 wouldn't have brought up the amount of fretting by Duke fans, because they saw that in 86, and 88, and 89, their teams got to the FF. So they can look at a loss early in 1990 and say, Coach K will get the team ready by March, no reason to panic.

Whereas in 2009, Duke fans have no such recent success to point to. All their recent reference points have been teams who wilted in March. So anything that happens early in the season that is reminiscent of what has happened in the recent past dredges up all the bad memories.

It's called confirmation bias.

[feldspar]

Noone is trying to dictate what type of fan you should BE but we are trying to tell you what kind of fans we WANT. If that is too hard for a person then it's probably best to find a new site. The owners of this site have let this be known on many occasions.

So now it's gone from you can't be destructively negative to you can't be constructively critical? Seriously, when does it end? And where exactly does it explain that in the decorum rules?

[Spam Filter]

Really? I guess all that stuff about teamwork and building up young men is just a bunch of horse patooey right? Come on guys, this just sounds so bandwagon...

So the popularity of the Duke basketball program is based on "teamwork" and "building young men" and not on the FFs and the NC and the wins? Really?

So if Coach K had a .500 record every year since he was hired in 1979 he'd still be here? Even if he taught great teamwork built great young men?

[jipops]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - some of you are more fans of winning than the actual team - and it really needs to be checked.

Excellent comment here btw. Something that should probably always be kept in mind.

[roywhite]

No, I'm implying that a loss early season in 1990 wouldn't have brought up the amount of fretting by Duke fans, because they saw that in 86, and 88, and 89, their teams got to the FF. So they can look at a loss early in 1990 and say, Coach K will get the team ready by March, so reason to panic.

Whereas in 2009, Duke fans have no such recent success to point to. All their recent reference points have been teams who wilted in March. So anything that happens early in the season that is reminiscent of what has happened in the recent past dredges up all the bad memories.

It's called confirmation bias.

Or "unrealistic expectations" "a sense of entitlement" "spoiled fans"

There's more to a season than the NCAA tournament.

I happen to think that last season with 30 wins, the ACC title, and a showing in the Sweet Sixteen was a very good season. And I enjoyed following the team. I'd love to see this season, or any other season, be that good and, yes, better.

[jipops]

So the popularity of the Duke basketball program is based on "teamwork" and "building young men" and not on the FFs and the NC and the wins? Really?

So if Coach K had a .500 record every year since he was hired in 1979 he'd still be here? Even if he taught great teamwork built great young men?

would you still be here?

[Lord Ash]

Can I ask a question; while this does not accurately reflect my personal views, would this be an okay thing to say post-Wisconsin?

"I've noticed over the past three or four years that Duke teams have often resorted to scoring using the jumpshot, rather than having an effective driver or a developed post game. In the major losses in this time fame, including those season-ending tournament losses, this trend has hurt us, as the jump shots have not fallen and the Duke team had not, during the year, developed the other ways to score, leaving it unable to make up the difference in the score.

Now, having watched the Wisconsin game, I felt that we again were resorting to mainly jumpshots to score, and did not attempt to develop/use the post game and had no effective drivers outside of Kyle in the first half.

I would like to see some growth from the team in this respect during the regular season of this year. However, I did not see very much growth in these respects in the team during the regular season in the last few years, and do not see any particular evidence that growth in these areas will be shown this year, which leads me to feel that the outcome at the end of the year will be similar to the last few years; a loss where the team resorts to the jump shots, and when those do not fall the team is left with no other realistic way to score."

Now, this reflects a lot of the more negative feelings that some Duke fans have felt over the last few years, and which I think are at the root of some of the over-reaction to the Wisconsin loss. However, is the tone and way it is presented suitable for posting?

[Spam Filter]

would you still be here?

I'd be here talking about why we need a better coach who can win.

[SupaDave]

So the popularity of the Duke basketball program is based on "teamwork" and "building young men" and not on the FFs and the NC and the wins? Really?

So if Coach K had a .500 record every year since he was hired in 1979 he'd still be here? Even if he taught great teamwork built great young men?

If our program was based solely on National Championships then I would say that we've not only had a bad 5 years but the program as a whole is a disaster having not achieved double digit championships.

See this is what we are talking about? Coach K was hired in 1980 - and his first four years he was 62-57 but we still kept him. Not to mention, you make the mistake of boiling the program down to ONLY Coach K. Are you a fan of the program - or just hoping to get to brag about a national championship?

[kinghoops]

just from someone that has lived in the triangle all my life, of course all fans want a program that is run right, that graduates its players and doesnt cheat to win, but the bottom line is we measure our team with the one down the road and vice versa.

[feldspar]

Or "unrealistic expectations" "a sense of entitlement" "spoiled fans"

There's more to a season than the NCAA tournament.

I happen to think that last season with 30 wins, the ACC title, and a showing in the Sweet Sixteen was a very good season. And I enjoyed following the team. I'd love to see this season, or any other season, be that good and, yes, better.

You just completely contradicted your argument with those last three words.

99% of the "constructive criticism" that goes on here is out of a desire to see "and, yes, better" happen. What people think it will take to have it happen, etc etc.

[Spam Filter]

We kept him because we believe in the long run he can win. Had the .500 record continued eventually he'd been let go.

And I'm not going to apologize for wanting to win. No matter how you want me to.

[MChambers]

Can I ask a question; while this does not accurately reflect my personal views, would this be an okay thing to say post-Wisconsin?

"I've noticed over the past three or four years that Duke teams have often resorted to scoring using the jumpshot, rather than having an effective driver or a developed post game. In the major losses in this time fame, including those season-ending tournament losses, this trend has hurt us, as the jump shots have not fallen and the Duke team had not, during the year, developed the other ways to score, leaving it unable to make up the difference in the score.

Now, having watched the Wisconsin game, I felt that we again were resorting to mainly jumpshots to score, and did not attempt to develop/use the post game and had no effective drivers outside of Kyle in the first half.

I would like to see some growth from the team in this respect during the regular season of this year. However, I did not see very much growth in these respects in the team during the regular season in the last few years, and do not see any particular evidence that growth in these areas will be shown this year, which leads me to feel that the outcome at the end of the year will be similar to the last few years; a loss where the team resorts to the jump shots, and when those do not fall the team is left with no other realistic way to score."

Now, this reflects a lot of the more negative feelings that some Duke fans have felt over the last few years, and which I think are at the root of some of the over-reaction to the Wisconsin loss. However, is the tone and way it is presented suitable for posting?

I think this is fine.

[feldspar]

If our program was based solely on National Championships then I would say that we've not only had a bad 5 years but the program as a whole is a disaster having not achieved double digit championships.


Everyone has different standards, Dave, and you know that. Internally, a 30-win season every few years and a stretch of Sweet-16 (or less) runs is great, but nationally, it's not good enough to be an elite basketball team. It affects recruiting, which affects our long-term chances at success.

Is anyone here saying they would abandon the team if we never got to a Final Four again? I haven't seen anyone say that. But we all want to see Duke basketball succeed. And to have success, you need Final Fours and National Championships. Welcome to reality.

[feldspar]

What’s missing from some – not all, but some – of the posts is perspective. But it’s not just one kind of perspective. It’s historical perspective.

Historical perspective?

Hmmm....how about this for historical perspective:

Duke basketball is currently in its longest drought without a Final Four appearance since the first five seasons under Mike Krzyzewski.

That's historical perspective for you. Can we talk about that??

[SupaDave]

So now it's gone from you can't be destructively negative to you can't be constructively critical? Seriously, when does it end? And where exactly does it explain that in the decorum rules?

I've never said such a thing. It actually should begin and end with you. We shouldn't have to police you - you should want to make sure you are adding value to a community full of people that not only have ties and connections to the program but that are actually INVOLVED with the program.

It is much to easy to predict doom and gloom. A trained eye - or even someone working on it - looks for all of the other things going on and how that will help the team - a team that's growing.

The players know when they mess up - it doesn't happen in a bubble. They don't point fingers at each other. They build off of it. They look at film the next day and see what can be improved. I come here to see excellent game breakdown analysis as if getting ready for the next game myself - not stuff like "such and such sucked tonight!" It's pointless and if that's all you have to say then we are telling you to save it!

[jipops]

Historical perspective?

Hmmm....how about this for historical perspective:

Duke basketball is currently in its longest drought without a Final Four appearance since the first five seasons under Mike Krzyzewski.

That's historical perspective for you. Can we talk about that??

We're also the winning-est team in this decade.

[feldspar]

It is much to easy to predict doom and gloom.

Again, I dispute this argument that this "predicting doom and gloom" as an overall theme is dominating the boards. 90% of the posters after Wisconsin were either okay with the loss or frustrated with it. There was not an overall, general cry that the season is over, so stop painting it that way.

[SupaDave]

Historical perspective?

Hmmm....how about this for historical perspective:

Duke basketball is currently in its longest drought without a Final Four appearance since the first five seasons under Mike Krzyzewski.

That's historical perspective for you. Can we talk about that??

I'd rather talk about the 70's when we only made the tourney one time.

[BlueintheFace]

Again, I dispute this argument that this "predicting doom and gloom" as an overall theme is dominating the boards. 90% of the posters after Wisconsin were either okay with the loss or frustrated with it. There was not an overall, general cry that the season is over, so stop painting it that way.

Feldspar, a lot of posts disappeared pretty quickly. Do you have any guesses as to why?

[kinghoops]

I'd rather talk about the 70's when we only made the tourney one time.

ill disagree with this statement, if im not wrong duke made the tourney twice in the 70s

[Reddevil]

And I'm not going to apologize for wanting to win. No matter how you want me to.

Nor should you, or anyone else, but the coaching staff, and the yound men are winners on the court, and in life - that big picture should always be kept in mind. This is really their journey. We are along for the ride. Their winning is only one way to enjoy that ride.

[SupaDave]

ill disagree with this statement, if im not wrong duke made the tourney twice in the 70s

Yes indeed - 1978 and 1979.

[roywhite]

You just completely contradicted your argument with those last three words.

99% of the "constructive criticism" that goes on here is out of a desire to see "and, yes, better" happen. What people think it will take to have it happen, etc etc.

Well, that may be a point of disagreement we won't solve.

In my view, 99% of the "constructive criticism" that goes on here does not reflect an appreciation of what is being accomplished with a desire to see better things happen.

I do appreciate and love the program for the last 5 years, and of course back way further than that. A lot of the criticism I see I would characterize as "this just isn't good enough and we deserve better".

At any rate, I'll bow out of this discussion and wish all concerned the best.

[airowe]

Again, I dispute this argument that this "predicting doom and gloom" as an overall theme is dominating the boards. 90% of the posters after Wisconsin were either okay with the loss or frustrated with it. There was not an overall, general cry that the season is over, so stop painting it that way.
And again, as Dave told you before, but you mocked it. A number of posts were deleted from that thread so maybe you didn't see them.

[Spam Filter]

Nor should you, or anyone else, but the coaching staff, and the yound men are winners on the court, and in life - that big picture should always be kept in mind. This is really their journey. We are along for the ride. Their winning is only one way to enjoy that ride.

See, here is the thing, I know I'm along for the ride, that these player owe me nothing.

But just because I'm along for the ride doesn't mean I can't comment on the direction I'm heading. I want to head to the winner's circle.

[VanDuk]

I know this is only my 2nd post, but I have read these boards for a long time without posting.

Jumbo, while the theme of your post, which is to be an informed poster on these boards, is well taken and accurate, I don't believe you have to be a history or math buff in your perspective to look at the landscape of college basketball and see that there are legitimate criticisms that can be made about Duke's program and players. Such as, for example, the fact that our lack of ability to recruit an inside presence for the last 4 years has killed us. When someone says that players like Zoubek are not the answer, I don't think you have to have much mathmatic or historic perspective to see that, which is just my opinion, but I should be able to voice that opinion without feeling like the ban hammer is coming.

As whereinthehellami stated in his post, a lot of times some of the people that run the site make this place feel like not a discussion forum.. but a glee club. And to honor one of the points you made in your post, I believe that there is an in between, a balance that has to be made.

Just my opinion. :)

[SupaDave]

See, here is the thing, I know I'm along for the ride, that these player owe me nothing.

But just because I'm along for the ride doesn't mean I can't comment on the direction I'm heading. I want to head to the winner's circle.

Understood. Just remember that wanting and expecting are two different things.

In the meantime I'd pay a lot more attention to your posts if they focused on things like Nolan's improved jump shot which could be very helpful when Zoubek is screening off a team's best shot blocker or detailing Andre's movement without the ball or making sure he's going above picks against good shooters.

[Spam Filter]

Understood. Just remember that wanting and expecting are two different things.

In the meantime I'd pay a lot more attention to your posts if they focused on things like Nolan's improved jump shot which could be very helpful when Zoubek is screening off a team's best shot blocker or detailing Andre's movement without the ball or making sure he's going above picks against good shooters.

Yes, but I hope you'll understand if after a loss I tend to mostly focus on the negatives of what we did wrong.

[crimsonandblue]

I KNOW why. Which is why I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that we're even talking about this.

It's like:

"We don't tolerate negative comments. We'll delete comments that are negative."

Awesome, go for it.

"But we're still going to complain about other comments we don't like (ie, agree with)."

Huh?

"All comments are created equal. Some are just more equal than others."

Ahh....

Right. And Jumbo's first post seemed to stem from the posts that remain post-"cleanup" not from those cleaned up.

I’ve tried to read as much as possible on the board since the Wisconsin game. Due to those pesky things like “work” and “having a life,” I haven’t been able to read everything. But I’ve seen enough to be really disappointed and frustrated with much of what’s going on. It’s also enough to make me concerned about what will happen the next time Duke loses, because I think we can all agree that Duke – and everyone else in the country – will probably lose again this season.

Anyway, as an outsider and coming largely from a Kansas scout board that is pretty wide open in terms of moderation, I think the gnashing of teeth over criticism here is pretty over the top. It's not my board, but good lord, when Kansas was flaming out under Roy's watch year after year in the sweet sixteen, or two first round losses under Self, the boards were flat out vicious and teetered each year (all year) on a roiling pot of insecurities over March failure. I understand not wanting to reach anything close to those levels of vitriol, but you all are miles away from anything like that. And some posts like Jumbo's also seem intent on stifling debate of the season writ large, your tournament prognosis and the bigger national horse race to the final four, which just seems silly. We're way past that as a national college basketball community. We've got bracketology posted immediately following the final four. You don't have to like it, but that's kinda where things are as a modern college basketball discussion forum. If you're not projecting, you're out of step.

Maybe that's what you want. It's a quaint and somewhat attractive idea to wait and see what happens before jumping to or projecting conclusions. But at the same time, there's that whole definition of insanity being doing something over and over again expecting different results...

Anyway, carry on. I love these meta-discussions.

[SupaDave]

I know this is only my 2nd post, but I have read these boards for a long time without posting.

Jumbo, while the theme of your post, which is to be an informed poster on these boards, is well taken and accurate, I don't believe you have to be a history or math buff in your perspective to look at the landscape of college basketball and see that there are legitimate criticisms that can be made about Duke's program and players. Such as, for example, the fact that our lack of ability to recruit an inside presence for the last 4 years has killed us. When someone says that players like Zoubek are not the answer, I don't think you have to have much mathmatic or historic perspective to see that, which is just my opinion, but I should be able to voice that opinion without feeling like the ban hammer is coming.

As whereinthehellami stated in his post, a lot of times some of the people that run the site make this place feel like not a discussion forum.. but a glee club. And to honor one of the points you made in your post, I believe that there is an in between, a balance that has to be made.

Just my opinion. :)


Sure you could criticize - but where does that get you? Seriously? This is not a place for gripe fests. There isn't a program in America that cannot be criticized for one thing or another - especially if you are looking for it.

[VanDuk]

Sure you could criticize - but where does that get you? Seriously? This is not a place for gripe fests. There isn't a program in America that cannot be criticized for one thing or another - especially if you are looking for it.

Where does criticism get me? It gets me discussion with other fans who can then either refute, or confirm my same criticism. It gets me discussion, which is why I come to a discussion forum. Criticism is not the same as griping. Griping is what my grandfather does to my grandmother just to get under her skin, criticism is a legitimate evaluation of the situation at hand.

I do agree, there is not a program in America that can escape criticism, and even being big Duke fans as most of us are, Duke falls in to that category as well. Which is why, again in my opinion, I feel there is unecessary moderation of threads and posts anytime it looks as though someone has a "negative" comment to make.

[crimsonandblue]

And you're probably missing a lot of basketball in the process...

Maybe. But you root for the team in the conference that even when they had a round robin, bestowed the conference championship on the team that won a three game tourney.

I don't think projecting ahead to the tournament(s) is at all odd. If you're passionate about your team, you enjoy the journey, but also worry about the destination. And when you've gone through a tournament dry spell, it's more than natural to question even the best tour guide.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

would you still be here?

You win this thread.

I think you cut to the schism I was referring to earlier... The difference between "fans of Duke basketball who would like to see them win" and "fans of winning who like to watch Duke basketball."

Yes, we are overjoyed at the success the team has had for the last several decades and we have undoubtedly become jaded to some degree. BUT, we are not fans because of the winning.

I understand that there are lots of "bandwagon" fans - that goes along with having sustained success. People like to watch winning teams and Duke has earned the right to be on television twice a week during the season, so there are plenty of opportunities to watch them win.

The way I see this site (I've only recently been posting, but I have been following for many, many years) is it is a site for supportive fans of Duke basketball. There are literally dozens of other websites that cater to different categories of Duke fans that might better suit those of you who want to rants and rave. Please, feel free to pick up stakes and head out.

And yes, I AM a fan because of the "creation of men," the integrity of the program, the history, the players, the coaches, Cameron Indoor, the fans, the emotion - etc. etc. etc. I've been watching Duke basketball since I was three years old. I remember begging my parents to let me stay up on school nights to watch the Duke Carolina 9pm tip off and watching the first half before being sent to bed, and then sneaking back out to catch the final score. I've been fortunate to attend a handful of games and I have enjoyed every minute and always cheered my heart out.

The winning is a nice benefit and something that I enjoy, but it's not why I watch Duke.

[ncexnyc]

I'd like to thank all of you who have participated in this thread. It's been a most interesting and entertaining read.

However, maybe it's time for all parties involved to agree to just disagree, because it's obvious to me that this thread has split like a number of DBR threads have in the past.

Call it the glass half full vs the glass half empty crowd or the Duke tinted glasses crew vs those without glasses. I don't think anyone involved is going to change their point of view. Have a nice day one and all.

[Ultrarunner]

I'm not living in the past. We are in the middle of the longest drought in the Coach K era in terms of Final Fours. That's a fact. That's a NOW fact.

Have I complained about this fact? No. I've loved the last 4 years of Duke teams, and I love this years team. I am, however, concerned at the impact this has on Duke basketball. I think it affects recruiting, I think it affects confidence, and I worry (yes, this is extremely trivial) that it will affect the number of games that will be on TV in the coming years.

That's not griping. That's being concerned about the program and not sticking your head in the sand.

And I do enjoy each season. But I'm also not a robot.

I'm not sure that your NOW fact is indeed a relevant fact to the NATURE of the Duke program. While I would agree that we're in a FF drought, I look at the quality of men the program is turning out (Greg Paulus being a prime example) and feel comfortable that this is very much a successful and even elite program.

I don't see the lack of presence in the FF as having hurt our recruiting nor do I project the last several years onto the next five. The changing nature of the NBA eligibility rules (jumping straight to NBA and the one-and-done culture) had a much greater impact in determining the talent level of our squad and this is declining as the coaches build their program of recruiting to fit the current circumstances. In fact, next year we have an excellent class of student-athletes inbound, several of whom will provide a great deal of immediate help while the others will have the time to grow into their respective roles. That would belie the argument that a lack of participation in FF's adversely affects recruiting.

While this thread has focused on the possible negativity of the participants toward the program, what really is dismaying is the negativity shown toward individual players. The last several games, the in-game thread and chat have been highly disrespectful of several individuals on the team to the point where I feel the comments are corrosive to the atmosphere of DBR.

And to the person who said that he wouldn't apologize for wanting to win, that winning was ultimately the purpose of the game: Calipari is an example of a man who would never apologize for winning and, to all appearances, considers it the only reason to play the game. I think that we can and should have higher expectations for our program.

[Troublemaker]

Nice post Jumbo. Your points about mathematical perspective and sample size interest me the most.

My take on Duke this season is that it is an elite team (let's define that as 30 wins, ACC conference favorite, Elite 8 and beyond capability) until proven otherwise. And it would take a lot of proof for me to be swayed from this opinion. Much more than one game in Madison, Wisconsin for example.

Why is that? Because,

In 2007, Duke won 22 games, finished 6th place ACC, 1st round ACC tourney, 1st round NCAA tourney

In 2008, Duke won 28 games, finished 2nd place ACC, 2nd round ACC, 2nd round NCAA

In 2009, Duke won 30 games, finished 2nd place ACC, ACC champs, Sweet 16

There is an obvious trend here and it is upwards. Duke is a veteran team and these seniors and juniors have overseen improvement each of the past two seasons, and so it makes sense to project another incremental improvement for this season, which would place Duke into the category of an "elite" team as defined above.

Some would argue that the loss of Gerald Henderson (16.5 ppg, 4.9 rpg) disrupts that trend. Maybe, but I doubt it. The trend survived the loss of Demarcus Nelson (14.5ppg, 5.8rpg) from the '08 team and the loss of Josh McRoberts (13 ppg, 7.9 rpg) from the '07 team. Players come and go and their losses are offset by the improvements of returning players and the influx of talented freshmen. Gerald was a good player, but his loss isn't like losing a Battier or Jwill.

If you accept the trend, as I do, then we basically have 100+ games of data telling us that Duke is an elite team this season. Are projections and trends always accurate? No, but it will take more than one game to make me a non-believer in it.

I can tell you that my attitude as a fan this season is to trust the 100+ games of data, sit back, relax, watch the maturation into an elite team unfold, let the season breathe, don't overreact to an occasional bad game, be confident, cool, collected. You are free to choose your own approach but I can tell you that mine is quite enjoyable.

[Jeffrey]

My take on Duke this season is that it is an elite team....

Some would argue that the loss of Gerald Henderson (16.5 ppg, 4.9 rpg) disrupts that trend.

And some of them would argue that the loss of Elliot Williams should not be totally ignored (as you have).

IMO, if one of our guards cannot play (injury, frequent foul trouble, etc.) we're not likely to be an "elite team this season". IMO, if Nolan is inconsistent (like last season) then we're not likely to be an "elite team this season".

[Troublemaker]

And some of them would argue that the loss of Elliot Williams should not be totally ignored (as you have).

IMO, if one of our guards cannot play (injury, frequent foul trouble, etc.) we're not likely to be an "elite team this season". IMO, if Nolan is inconsistent (like last season) then we're not likely to be an "elite team this season".

Actually, I also didn't mention Greg Paulus or Dave McClure. I wasn't trying to anticipate every possible argument against, just the major one.

Yep, the guards have to stay healthy and out of foul trouble. That's true for a lot of teams, too. And players have to improve for the team to improve. Yep yep. Seems to go without saying.

[IFUSTABMEDOINOTBLEEDBLUE]

I am an avid reader of these boards and I enjoy all viewpoints and have learned to ignore those posts I feel to be in my opinion "patently untrue" and instead concentrate on those expressing both a combination of opinion and facts. Moderation is needed to eliminate the worse of the negative thought mongering that occurs, but it should not be used to squelch differing opinions which at times I feel does occur and needlessly so. We all have opinions on the greatness which is Duke Basketball and facts can be a combination of both positive and negative history. As long as the criticisms or 'hints on improving the final results' don't become personal and or cruel in regards to any of these young men and staff, I think we should be allowed to hear more dialogue such as what I am reading and this all stems from Jumbo's post which I firmly agree with almost 100 percent, but not all of it. If we become so attached to a quagmire of battling statistics then we are losing that emotional spark which Duke has and which I am reminded of everytime I see the crazies. I would love to post more and perhaps I am thinking wrongly from what I am allowed to on here, but in the end my moniker explains what is truly in my heart and I consider all fans despite my agreeing with them to be brothers.

[Jumbo]

I think that this is a great point, and a point that needs to be reiterated. While this is a Duke bball forum, criticism should be allowed as should our personal opinions. If some had there way, they would lynch me for saying that Duke is unathletic (which I personally don't think, but you get my point). Every time I post, I too have to thread carefully as not to receive an infarction for speaking my mind. If people are upset, argue with them reasonably. No need for minor infarctions or creating threads to tell guys to calm down. I can assure you - we aren't as bad as some of the other forums.

If you believe that criticism is not allowed here, you didn't read my post at all.

[Jumbo]

I think the post you quoted there was misrepresenting Jumbo's point. I don't think Jumbo was saying we shouldn't analyze the intracacies of Duke's play at all; rather the opposite, that we shouldn't make sweeping generalizations that we don't back up with specific evidence. Like others have said, it's not about squelching discourse, it's about elevating the scourse...

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for the post.


Jumbo appears prone to do the exact opposite. By doing such, he appears to be trying to paint comments negative.

Jeffrey, enough already. If you want to continue this trivial little battle about whether Duke does, or doesn't, have a chance to win a title, or if you're sore at me because I don't think you did a good job of defending your points, let's do it over e-mail. This isn't about me, and this isn't about you. This isn't about criticism -- criticism is fine. This certainly isn't about analysis and dissective games -- I love those aspects of basketball! It's about, as "Greg" said, elevating the discourse and maintaining a level of perspective.

[Jeffrey]

And some of them would argue that the loss of Elliot Williams should not be totally ignored (as you have).

IMO, if one of our guards cannot play (injury, frequent foul trouble, etc.) we're not likely to be an "elite team this season". IMO, if Nolan is inconsistent (like last season) then we're not likely to be an "elite team this season".


Actually, I also didn't mention Greg Paulus or Dave McClure. I wasn't trying to anticipate every possible argument against, just the major one.

Yep, the guards have to stay healthy and out of foul trouble. That's true for a lot of teams, too. And players have to improve for the team to improve. Yep yep. Seems to go without saying.

I think you're missing my point. The major issue I'm addressing is how many true guards (after the loss of G, Elliot, and Greg) we have on this team and the issues that creates. I'm not sure that trend supports your belief that we have an "elite team this season".

[MChambers]

I would have to agree 100%. Basically unless you believe Coach K and the Duke program are infallible, it's best not to post here.

I really don't think that's what Jumbo, SupaDave, and others are saying. I think it's about tone.

It's okay to say, for example, that Duke really needs a credible low post threat to be a final four contender, and that right now the team doesn't have that.

I don't see why this is so hard.

[Spam Filter]

I really don't think that's what Jumbo, SupaDave, and others are saying. I think it's about tone.

It's okay to say, for example, that Duke really needs a credible low post threat to be a final four contender, and that right now the team doesn't have that.

I don't see why this is so hard.

Because when people say that, they get a response implying they have no "historical perspective", and a dissertation on how UConn won in 1999 with Voskul or how the 1990 Duke team had 7 losses.

Neither of which is very relevant to the discussion, or nearly as relevant as, say, the 2008-2009 Duke team, or the 2007-2008 Duke team, etc, all of which share much more similarities with this current team than those others teams, and hence the ultimate fate of the recent Duke teams are much more relevant to the discussion of where the 2009-2010 journey will lead us.

And of course when I bring up this point, which is a fact that cannot be refuted, I then get the lecture about how "it's not about winning". Which is where the "everything is fine" people always hide behind once the discussion about actual facts is brought up.

[Greg_Newton]

So, I thought Jumbo's post was very well put and on target. However, it seems like some folks are really getting on their high horses here on this tanget about winning. What do you think is the far and away, number one, overarching goal of every player on the Duke basketball team? To win a national championship. Ask 'em! And just because that's the ultimate goal they're working towards doesn't mean they're arrogant, entitled, immoral, or not appreciative of the ride. Similarly, it's okay for us posters to analyze our teams in the context of being title contenders, which is different than dismissing any non-championship team as worthless. It seems like some posters are trying to imply that these are one and the same when they are not.

Obviously, as Duke fans we take great pride in the Rashad McCants-less way our program is run and the type of men it produces. But realistically, that's far from the be-all end-all sole objective of the program. These kids pour their absolute hearts and souls into the game of basketball for four years. Some posters seem to be confusing competitive fans that care passionately about the players succeeding and achieving their goals (i.e. winning in March) with bandwagon fans that have no real attachment to the program. IMO, that's unfair and condescending, and probably pretty hypocritical if everyone is honest with themselves.

And the (sic) "You're spoiled, we were terrible in the 70's" argument is also a little ridiculous, IMO. I mean... the Dow Jones hovered around 500-1,000 during the 70's, so did you find it perfectly reasonable and acceptable when the market lost half it's value last year? No, because we've become "spoiled" (even when inflation is adjusted for)... institutions and expectations change over time. It's the nature of progress. People shouldn't be ridiculed for simply daring to suggest that the past few years have been less than complete success in the context of what Duke basketball has become, and discussing how to improve upon them.

All that said... clearly, many posters take negativity too far, and it would be my guess that pretty much everyone on this specific thread would be in agreement if we all got in a room and hashed it out. Many points and counterpoints have been eloquently made, and I doubt we're actually seeing many big offenders in this thread... I think some fiery/well-spoken fans have inadvertently taken on the mantle of defending the mass of frustrated/knee-jerk negative posters the OP was intended for. It's just the semi-relevant little holier-than-thou jabs at them that kind of rub me the wrong way....

[BlueintheFace]

This thread is taking an ironic turn...

[Jeffrey]

I really don't think that's what Jumbo, SupaDave, and others are saying. I think it's about tone.

It's okay to say, for example, that Duke really needs a credible low post threat to be a final four contender, and that right now the team doesn't have that.

I don't see why this is so hard.

This is so hard, because that's not the way it appears to all of us.

For example, I stated something like, IMO, Duke really needs an elite PG to win a national title.

Jumbo's response:


Geez. Do you watch much basketball?

I address Jumbo's posting style and I'm told:


Jeffrey, enough already. If you want to continue this trivial little battle about whether Duke does, or doesn't, have a chance to win a title, or if you're sore at me because I don't think you did a good job of defending your points, let's do it over e-mail. This isn't about me, and this isn't about you. This isn't about criticism -- criticism is fine. This certainly isn't about analysis and dissective games -- I love those aspects of basketball! It's about, as "Greg" said, elevating the discourse and maintaining a level of perspective

IMO, elevating the discourse goes both directions.

[MChambers]

This is so hard, because that's not the way it appears to all of us.

For example, I stated something like, IMO, Duke really needs an elite PG to win a national title.

Jumbo's response:



I address Jumbo's posting style and I'm told:



Sometimes it seems like the kettle is calling the coffee black.

Elsewhere, I think Jumbo promised to say "I respectfully disagree" rather than "what a silly idea". Guess he forgot. . .

I was defending his original post that started this thread. I still think it was excellent.

[Troublemaker]

I think you're missing my point. The major issue I'm addressing is how many true guards (after the loss of G, Elliot, and Greg) we have on this team and the issues that creates. I'm not sure that trend supports your belief that we have an "elite team this season".

I don't think I missed it. I agreed with you that the guards have to stay healthy and out of foul trouble. Obviously. I just don't think that disqualifies Duke from being one of the top teams, but you can disagree, and that's fine.

I'm well aware of your opinion that Duke isn't Final Four caliber. The first dozen times you stated it made me aware. I disagree, and that's fine.

[Jumbo]

You need look no further than the 7 pages of this thread to see how criticism (even constructive) of the Duke basketball program is received by and large by the board and its moderators.

I'm not saying it's not allowed. But it is certainly discouraged and/or looked down upon and posters are made out to be "inferior" fans when they do bring criticisms up.


I would have to agree 100%. Basically unless you believe Coach K and the Duke program are infallible, it's best not to post here.


That is certainly not what I'm saying; in fact, I've gone to great lengths to explain otherwise. I realize one other moderator -- one -- has expressed things in a slightly different fashion than I have in this thread. But -- and here's some irony -- to draw conclusions that criticism makes a poster "inferior" based on that one set of sample size is as wrong as determining that Duke is not a Final Four contender after one loss.

[6th Man]

For me I want to talk Duke basketball. But after the Wisconsin game, why can't I be upset that Ryan Kelly didn't play? Or upset at K that after a timeout and 25 seconds on the clock, the best he could do is give Singler the ball at the top of the key and have him go one on one? Or that we can't even throw a ball inbounds with 4.9 seconds left down by 3? Granted these will hopefully be learning experiences. I was at the game in LJVM in '92 when Duke tried the Kentucky play against Wake and failed and we lost. I hated the loss, but it was best in the long run as we got it right when it really mattered. But these are relevant points and if you discuss these things you are condemned. It would be cool to openly discuss ideas on this board and see all of the differing opinions. For example, I think not playing Kelly is a big deal. Sure he has a long ways to go, especially physically, but so does Henson at UNC. He's a Mickey D. He needs to take his lumps and get better. I firmly believe when you keep a guy on the bench, he tries too hard when he gets in the game for the fear of a quick hook. Never develops and then scares off potential recruits for fear of being "that guy" on the bench. I'd just like hearing people's thoughts. Get their opinions. Maybe someone will change mine. For me, constructive criticism is a great thing. I would hate for everyone in my life to tell me my "$#@! don't stink". I'd never get better. But, I get the sense that unless you post how you might think Ward Cleaver would while singing Duke's praises...you shouldn't bother. It's DBR's choice not mine. If I don't like it I don't have to post. I just wish it wasn't that way.

[Jumbo]

Because when people say that, they get a response implying they have no "historical perspective", and a dissertation on how UConn won in 1999 with Voskul or how the 1990 Duke team had 7 losses.

Neither of which is very relevant to the discussion, or nearly as relevant as, say, the 2008-2009 Duke team, or the 2007-2008 Duke team, etc, all of which share much more similarities with this current team than those others teams, and hence the ultimate fate of the recent Duke teams are much more relevant to the discussion of where the 2009-2010 journey will lead us.

And of course when I bring up this point, which is a fact that cannot be refuted, I then get the lecture about how "it's not about winning". Which is where the "everything is fine" people always hide behind once the discussion about actual facts is brought up.

I can and will refute your point, if you so desire, although I find your tone to be extremely off-putting and not at all in the spirit of these boards. But I'll find some time later, perhaps. And it will have nothing to do with things "not being about winning."

[Jumbo]

Elsewhere, I think Jumbo promised to say "I respectfully disagree" rather than "what a silly idea". Guess he forgot. . .

I was defending his original post that started this thread. I still think it was excellent.

I didn't forget. Jeffrey is still harping on something I said more than a month ago. I wish he'd let it go. Not sure what I can do about it at this point, though.

[Spam Filter]

And that's exactly my problem, this idea that this is a "one game sample".

It's not.

I don't think when I look at the team from last year, and how they did, is irrelevant to this year. Particularly when you look at the WISC game, when 168 of the 200 possible minutes in a game were played by players who were on last year's team, and where in the SW-16 we got ran out of the building by Villanova.

And the other 32 minutes, we replaced Elliot Williams and Gerald Henderson with Andre Dawkins and Mason Plumlee. Given Henderson's stature as a First Team All ACC player, I think you'd have to be generous to say the trade off is even. But let's be generous and call it even.

Still, this is largely the same team. Now you say "they're much better", but I look at the WISC game, and I see plenty of evidence that maybe not. It's not one game, the history of what largely the same group of player has done in the past matters.

[Jumbo]

For me I want to talk Duke basketball. But after the Wisconsin game, why can't I be upset that Ryan Kelly didn't play?
You can be, especially if you express yourself in a reasonable manner.


Or upset at K that after a timeout and 25 seconds on the clock, the best he could do is give Singler the ball at the top of the key and have him go one on one?
See above; heck, I would've liked a more creative play, too.


Or that we can't even throw a ball inbounds with 4.9 seconds left down by 3?
Again, no one is saying that you can't write any of those things. You just need to do it a) without ranting and b) without drawing dramatic conclusions, such as "Ryan Kelly should have played and if he doesn't in future games, Duke has no chance to make the Final Four, period." (Which I doubt you'd do, btw.)
Now, I might not agree with you about Kelly, and I might point out that in the previous games, I was concerned about his defensive abilities and his strength, which might have made things even more difficult in a game where Duke needed its weakside bigs to be able to react quickly and to be able to protect the basket. And then we'd have a good-natured debate going, which we all enjoy.


Granted these will hopefully be learning experiences. I was at the game in LJVM in '92 when Duke tried the Kentucky play against Wake and failed and we lost. I hated the loss, but it was best in the long run as we got it right when it really mattered. But these are relevant points and if you discuss these things you are condemned. It would be cool to openly discuss ideas on this board and see all of the differing opinions. For example, I think not playing Kelly is a big deal. Sure he has a long ways to go, especially physically, but so does Henson at UNC. He's a Mickey D. He needs to take his lumps and get better. I firmly believe when you keep a guy on the bench, he tries too hard when he gets in the game for the fear of a quick hook. Never develops and then scares off potential recruits for fear of being "that guy" on the bench. I'd just like hearing people's thoughts. Get their opinions. Maybe someone will change mine. For me, constructive criticism is a great thing. I would hate for everyone in my life to tell me my "$#@! don't stink". I'd never get better. But, I get the sense that unless you post how you might think Ward Cleaver would while singing Duke's praises...you shouldn't bother. It's DBR's choice not mine. If I don't like it I don't have to post. I just wish it wasn't that way.

I don't know why you think you are "condemned" for those sentiments. You're not. You'll be challenged, though. I don't agree with a lot of your points in the example you used, and if this were a thread about Ryan Kelly, I'd elaborate. I wouldn't comdemn you, but I'd try to convince you that you might need to look at things differently and I'd try to convince other posters/readers that my perspective makes more sense. That's what we want from a message board, rather than angry rants, right?

[6th Man]

I wouldn't comdemn you, but I'd try to convince you that you might need to look at things differently and I'd try to convince other posters/readers that my perspective makes more sense. That's what we want from a message board, rather than angry rants, right?

I agree completely. The debate makes it fun.

[JD79]

I am an alum from '79 when we started what would be the turn around of Duke basketball (with Spanarkel, Gminski, Banks, Dennard, Harrell, Bender, et al). I was the first play-by-play Basketball (and Football) announcer for the cable 13 TV network at Duke and I find all of these great discussions to be amazing and frustrating.

The fans from that late 70's era knew we were witnessing a historic change for Duke Basketball while Bill Foster was there and our recruiting became competitive with the rest of the ACC. Tate Armstrong was the BMOC back then and if only Tate hadn't broken his wrist his senior year we would have been even better before the Banks and Dennard teams started. Those of you who think you appreciate someone who wanted to take the last shot to win the game have never seen Tate take a whole team on his shoulders and tell them, "Give me the ball and get out of the way". We just knew he would make the shot. And he did make the shot - repeatedly.

Fast forward to now. The Coach K era is a gift and a delight to watch. I know many alums who have had to watch UNC and State beat us in the 70's have taken particular delight in 3 national championships and a head coach who is considered the finest mind in the game today.

The comparison to the late 70's where winning was new and appreciated is palpable. I live vicariously through the Devils as much as most fans. Most teams learn from losses and challenges and become more dangerous as those lessons are absorbed and managed and I think the current Devils will do the same. I trust the management of the program to make that happen.

My point in writing was to temper some analysis by younger fans and to help the perspective so there is a little more appreciation for the standards we are all dealing with now versus the past. "Anything less than a National Championship is unacceptable" is something none of us could have imagined in the past and frankly none of us could expect. For 18-22 year old kids to do everything we expect to succeed is a bigger challenge than all of us remember or can imagine.

Jim Spanarkel told me once that when another one of Duke's players dribbled the ball off his leg during a game (that went out of bounds as a turnover) that the fans had no idea how much pressure and how difficult it is to be perfect for the fans and for your teamates. These kids are trying their best and they probably take the losses harder than you do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - future Duke recruits are watching this board and they will make decisions that will be affected by the tone of the fans that they see as critics of current players, fairly or unfairly.

As a former Duke athlete myself, I know the lows of losing for myself, my teamates and the fans. I also know the absolute pinnacle of my career in sports was beating Carolina one year.

I am not suggesting we all ignore losses or candy coat our opinions. I just think we owe ourselves the position of a more mature and rational discussion than what seems to be taking place today.

[Lord Ash]

As a former Duke athlete myself, I know the lows of losing for myself, my teamates and the fans. I also know the absolute pinnacle of my career in sports was beating Carolina one year.



Heh, in my particular sport it was my own match that beat Carolina, after we were tied all the way to that point, for the first time in Duke history, so I appreciate that feeling:) They actually mentioned it during the mens basketball game that was going on at the time across the way in Cameron. Coach later reminded me that I had said, when I first committed to Duke, that we would beat Carolina for him; I had forgotten that!

[Faison1]

Wow! What a thread. I've read it pretty much throughout the day. I just noticed it has shortened from 7 to 6 pages, so there must be some juicy submissions that were deleted.

My take on the incredible emotions everyone is displaying is that we have all been put through the wringer over the past 6 months. From missing on Boynton, missing on John Wall, Seth Curry enrolling, G leaving, E-Will leaving, landing Kyrie Irving, missing on Barnes, then beating UConn only to follow with a big and noticeable loss to Wisconsin, while UNC looked pretty good beating MSU. To tell you the truth, I'm exhausted.

Add that to the fact that my wife, and pretty much all my neighbors and friends around here are UNC fans, Duke Basketball takes on a whole new form of me vs. the world......and for the past 5 years, it's been challenging.

I can remember feeling the tide changing in 1997 when K landed the Killer B class. I suspect many people, including myself, felt like a Barnes with Irving commitment would be comparable. Heartbreak ensues. Angry posts to the DBR follow. It's understandable.

Things don't always seem positive, but it will get better. I think that once Kyrie shows up and plays like a bada*s, we'll get a few more stud commitments. Until then, we have a pretty good set of players who are obviously of high moral character......couple that with the fact that they are going to win at least 80% of their games, things could be a lot worse.....

[Kedsy]

Because when people say that, they get a response implying they have no "historical perspective", and a dissertation on how UConn won in 1999 with Voskul or how the 1990 Duke team had 7 losses.


The 1990 Duke team had 9 losses.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)



Neither of which is very relevant to the discussion, or nearly as relevant as, say, the 2008-2009 Duke team, or the 2007-2008 Duke team, etc, all of which share much more similarities with this current team than those others teams, and hence the ultimate fate of the recent Duke teams are much more relevant to the discussion of where the 2009-2010 journey will lead us.


I don't agree with most of this, but as Jumbo pointed out, that's OK. Rational debate is what the boards are about.

I've been thinking about it, and the person who said it best is MChambers:


I think it's about tone.

That's really the bottom line here.

[jv001]

The 1990 Duke team had 9 losses.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)



I don't agree with most of this, but as Jumbo pointed out, that's OK. Rational debate is what the boards are about.

I've been thinking about it, and the person who said it best is MChambers:



That's really the bottom line here.

I agree in it's the tone of what you say. I was blessed to be Manager of a successful Mortgage Company for over 20 years. And the Vice President of my company explained to me; it's not what you say, but how you say it. That advice served me well for all the years I worked in that industry. I firmly believe this is true in the discussion on this board. If you are one of the posters that feels strongly about some of the negative things going on in the Duke Basketball program. If you are one of the posters that's firmly behind Coach K, the players and the program itself. Then watch the tone of your post. I like the debates but not at the expense of calling out players in a way that would be hurting if that player or players read your post. The same for moderators responding to posts, it's how you say it not what you say. This is my opinion and probably doesn't mean a hill of beans to anyone, but it is my opinion. Go Duke!

[flyingdutchdevil]

If you believe that criticism is not allowed here, you didn't read my post at all.

I've been reading posts on this board for a very long time, and I would have to say that any criticism isn't allowed here. I can easily say "Duke is the best program this year with 5 dominant starters who should be All-ACC" without evidence and few would rebut against that statement. If I were to say "Zoubek is hurting this team more than he is helping," then I'll have a plethora of comments coming my way and may receive an infarction. In my opinion, both statements are hyperbolas with the first, IMO, being an even great hyperbola.

I love Duke basketball - my girlfriend often states that focus more on Duke basketball and reading this site than I do with her (while not true, there is definitely some truth to the fact that I read A LOT of Duke basketball news). But what's also sad is I no longer post after a) a recruiting loss or b) a loss because I know that any negative thing I say may lead to an infarction or a moderator shutting me down. Am I over-exaggerating? Of course I am! But that's exactly how I feel. One poster suggested keeping all the negatives and only removing those that are disgustingly negative. I agree with this - but I feel that so many negative statements, some that even have truth to them, are removed. Just my opinion.

[hughgs]

I love Duke basketball - my girlfriend often states that focus more on Duke basketball and reading this site than I do with her (while not true, there is definitely some truth to the fact that I read A LOT of Duke basketball news). But what's also sad is I no longer post after a) a recruiting loss or b) a loss because I know that any negative thing I say may lead to an infarction or a moderator shutting me down. Am I over-exaggerating? Of course I am! But that's exactly how I feel. One poster suggested keeping all the negatives and only removing those that are disgustingly negative. I agree with this - but I feel that so many negative statements, some that even have truth to them, are removed. Just my opinion.

Every year we go through this and every year it's the same arguments. I think this post perfectly sums up the feelings for a lot of posters. Unfortunately I also think this post conveys an entitlement about posting that ultimately leads to the current discussion.

Here's the sentence that, to me, describes the gist of the problem: "But that's exactly how I feel." While that's a perfectly valid sentiment the idea that anyone can post simply because they feel that way is completely wrong and is still not grasped by a large percentage of the posters on the this board.

The owners of this board have created an experiment in which no one needs approval to post. They may get their post removed but the requirements to start a post are almost null. As the owners say it's like a neighborhood diner, anyone can walk in and start or partake in a discussion. The problem is that some posters think that means they can come in whenever they feel like it. If they feel that Duke played great they should stop by and say so. If they feel that Duke played lousy and they should stop in and say so.

And that's the type of behavior that the owners don't want. The owners want discussion about WHY you feel that Duke played great. The owners want discussion about WHY you feel that Duke played lousy. And discussion on this board doesn't mean that some posters disagree with your sentiment. Discussion means that you bring facts to can mold those facts into an argument that supports your feelings. And if others disagree with you they also need to put facts in their post.

There was a recent thread where a set posters disagreed with each other about some aspect of the season and someone proclaimed that it was a great discussion. Unfortunately, most of the posts consisted of statements such as "I think that X is true, therefore Y is true". If you base your argument on "I feel" then you aren't including facts and in the context of this board you aren't participating in the discussion.

And so what should be done? Do we continue blithely onward and hope that people begin to take responsibility for how their posts contribute to the discussion? I would argue that the fact that we have to go through this every year indicates that the idea of an open-door policy for this board has failed. And the only recourse is to return to pre-approved posts. No one wants that because it makes it seem that the owners don't trust the posters. However, by virtual of this yearly discussion there isn't much evidence that the posters can uphold their end of the bargain.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The owners of this board have created an experiment in which no one needs approval to post. They may get their post removed but the requirements to start a post are almost null. As the owners say it's like a neighborhood diner, anyone can walk in and start or partake in a discussion. The problem is that some posters think that means they can come in whenever they feel like it. If they feel that Duke played great they should stop by and say so. If they feel that Duke played lousy and they should stop in and say so.


There have been countless times when someone criticised the way that Duke has played and they got completely shot down for it. What's the point of writing these posts if they may get removed / smacked down for speaking your mind, even if you provide proof? I personally find it absolutely astonishing. I hate writing about why Duke played poorly or why I think that this year's Duke class just isn't that good - few listen and, if you say something truthful (with evidence) but it goes against the majority, then you get whipped for it. It makes no sense whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I like DBR a lot and I like posting, but I have stopped speaking my mind 100%, especially when I have something negative to say. It's just not worth it anymore.

[Stray Gator]

The recurring complaints about "suppression of dissent" on this board are both ironic and tiresome. They are ironic because a principal feature of this forum that makes it attractive to posters, and distinguishes it from many other message boards, is the quality of the discourse--i.e., the people who regularly participate here (a) are relatively knowledgeable and rational about the game, and the Duke program, and its history; and (b) value the fact that the substance of the analysis and commentary appearing on this board tends to be more enlightening and less incendiary than on many other message boards. Yet every year we hear the same persistent complaints from people who want to post messages here that do not constitute quality discourse or sensible analysis adding anything useful to the discussion, but are nothing more than emotional outbursts--or, if you prefer, an "expression of how I feel." Some might characterize it as angst-babble.

That stuff is tiresome because "how you feel" doesn't tell us anything we don't already know--in fact, most Duke fans I know, including long-time and highly respected posters in this forum, experience the very same feelings of frustration and disappointment whenever Duke loses. But they exercise a reasonable amount of restraint and respect for this community--and for the reputation of Duke fans generally--by screening out the worthless stuff before they post. So when those repetitive rants about the same perceived deficiencies of Duke's players and coaches predictably show up after each loss, what does it do? Not to mince words here, it "dumbs down" the whole board--making it appear that Duke fans are not mature, intelligent fans with a sense of reasonable perspective or understanding of the game or appreciation of the program, but just another bunch of spoiled whiners who take it as some sort of personal affront when the team fails to deliver the satisfactory results to which those fans "feel" entitled.

Here's my suggestion: If you find yourself compelled to express your "feelings" after a loss, just send a private message to your friends or find another message board where that kind of expression fits. Then, once you get that out of your system and can articulate an incisive thought or observation that you will be proud to share with the other knowlegeable Duke fans here--including constructive criticism that has always been welcomed on the DBR boards--come join and add to the conversation.

[Kimist]

And this is precisely what we are trying to discourage. We want knowledgable discourse - not just your opinion. The threads are not designed to be your personal blog.

If you can't provide facts, quotes, links, or any other kind of credible data to help make or break your cause then you're just spouting unnecessary rhetoric that gets looked right over. It creates more fodder to look through when actually looking for detailed analysis of the actual game, the players, the recruits, the coaches, and the season's journey.


With all due respect, this observation somewhat rubs me the wrong way.

I enjoy reading the comments on the DBR as they are generally civil and informative. Many posters here have a great knowledge of Duke basketball - its history, future possibilities, positives/negatives of the current season, and etc.

However, I really see nothing improper (even from DBR standards) of voicing in a mature way some opinions or personal observations, i.e. something other than If you can't provide facts, quotes, links, or any other kind of credible data as cited above and then referred to as "unnecessary rhetoric."

If it comes to the point where a reader has to provide an Excel spreadsheet or bar graph before being able to say something here like "I really don't think it's in the best interests of the team for using player x to run play y during the z portion of the game," then we have truly lost something fundamental.

The "Basketball on The Brink" blog cited on another thread relates well to this issue. Some comments in the blog are not necessarily flattering to the Duke Nation, but they are written without malice and quite frankly to many Duke fans do have some merit. Those who wear the royal blue glasses 24/7 may wish to realize that even their own favorite team may have some legitimate shortcomings which can be addressed. There is really no need for the constant imbibing of any "dark blue" KoolAid as perhaps now seems to be an unwritten requirement of the DBR boards.

Thanks for the time!

k

[allenmurray]

I would argue that the fact that we have to go through this every year indicates that the idea of an open-door policy for this board has failed.
I sense the current mods would agree.

And the only recourse is to return to pre-approved posts.
Or it could be a private club with pre-approved admission. Then the open posting could be kept, but only among those who met the pre-screening background check (I'd be out for sure - but I've been kicked out of other clubs and survived).

No one wants that because it makes it seem that the owners don't trust the posters.
Are you sure no one wants that? I sense there is gathering momentum for it - perhaps not by the owners, but by others.

However, by virtual of this yearly discussion there isn't much evidence that the posters can uphold their end of the bargain.
True dat.

[roywhite]

Frankly, I think some trolls have observed the controversies going on, and "contributed" posts, which have further aggravated the problems.

[devil84]

I've been reading posts on this board for a very long time, and I would have to say that any criticism isn't allowed here. I can easily say "Duke is the best program this year with 5 dominant starters who should be All-ACC" without evidence and few would rebut against that statement. If I were to say "Zoubek is hurting this team more than he is helping," then I'll have a plethora of comments coming my way and may receive an infarction. In my opinion, both statements are hyperbolas with the first, IMO, being an even great hyperbola.

I love Duke basketball - my girlfriend often states that focus more on Duke basketball and reading this site than I do with her (while not true, there is definitely some truth to the fact that I read A LOT of Duke basketball news). But what's also sad is I no longer post after a) a recruiting loss or b) a loss because I know that any negative thing I say may lead to an infarction or a moderator shutting me down. Am I over-exaggerating? Of course I am! But that's exactly how I feel. One poster suggested keeping all the negatives and only removing those that are disgustingly negative. I agree with this - but I feel that so many negative statements, some that even have truth to them, are removed. Just my opinion.

("You" used in this post means, "you who are reading this post," not just FDD, but FDD's quote is what distilled this thought for me.)

I'm finding that the discussion of how negative comments are handled on this board really has two distinct aspects that are kind of being lumped together. The first aspect is destructively negative posts. The moderators take care of these (and other posts that violate the rules). There are things that wouldn't be said to the players, staff, fans, or sometimes even uttered out loud in public. Those are the posts you don't see.

The second aspect pertains to replies and rebuttals to posts that paint Duke in a negative light. Any replies to posts that you do see that rebut negative comments are from posters in the community (occasionally moderators, yes, but who are posting as members of the community rather than in an official moderating capacity). Therefore, the discussion that you do see is the community requesting posters to back up their assertions with facts. Yes, you'll see that mostly with negative posts, but there are also very positive assertions for which facts are requested. That is the community that DBR is looking for: a great place for intelligent conversation about Duke basketball.

Back to the concept of just how moderated the boards are, I did a little checking (y'know, that whole "backing up my statements with facts" concept :)). From the period of Nov. 1 to right now, there have been 67 infractions given. During that period, there have been three very negative events that brought out a significant need for moderation: Barnes committing to UNC, Duke's lackluster win against ASU, and the loss to Wisconsin. With all that, it has averaged just two infractions a day. Only 8 members received 2 or more infractions, just two received 3 or more (which is the first month I can remember anyone getting 3 infractions or more). There were 57 individual posters with one infraction (again, far more than I can remember!)

Here's the breakdown of the infractions handed out:

18 Destructively Negative
11 Lack of Civility
11 Rational Sounding but Trolling
10 Needless Posts
6 Copyright Infringement
5 Inappropriate Content
4 Insane and Trolling
1 Scalping
1 Spamming

Given that there were about 13,500 posts in that time period, that's an infraction rate of 0.5%. Many more posts than that are deleted, as replies to those posts are deleted because the reply doesn't make sense without the initial post. Y'all are a prolific bunch, and can rattle off replies very quickly. We TRY to let you know when it's happened, but during high periods of activity, sometimes it gets tough to let 15 people know their reply to a deleted post was deleted while still moderating the other posts.

So, when you feel that the moderators are overbearing in their official capacity, remember that very, very few posts are given infractions and removed. The resulting discussion is what the community wants, guided, of course, by what the owners of DBR want for their board.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Given that there were about 13,500 posts in that time period, that's an infraction rate of 0.5%. Many more posts than that are deleted, as replies to those posts are deleted because the reply doesn't make sense without the initial post. Y'all are a prolific bunch, and can rattle off replies very quickly. We TRY to let you know when it's happened, but during high periods of activity, sometimes it gets tough to let 15 people know their reply to a deleted post was deleted while still moderating the other posts.

So, when you feel that the moderators are overbearing in their official capacity, remember that very, very few posts are given infractions and removed. The resulting discussion is what the community wants, guided, of course, by what the owners of DBR want for their board.

Hi devil84,

I wanted to thank you for your civility in your post. After reading it, it gave me a little more perspective. I really have nothing against the moderators, just the way that a few, not most or even many, situations are handled. I appreciate that post - this will be my last post on this subject ;).

Anyway, I'm gonna be moving on to Duke basketball for a little while (and hopefully little recruiting or Duke 2010-2011 chatter for me).

As always, Go Duke!

[allenmurray]

(moderators) who are posting as members of the community rather than in an official moderating capacity.

What an incredibly fine line to try to walk.

[NSDukeFan]

(moderators) who are posting as members of the community rather than in an official moderating capacity.


What an incredibly fine line to try to walk.

But most of the time those posts are among the most rational, reasoned, posts and the board would be less without them, IMO.

[cspan37421]

... then I'll have a plethora of comments coming my way and may receive an infarction. In my opinion, both statements are hyperbolas with the first, IMO, being an even great hyperbola.

I have some sympathy for your point of view, but infarction and hyperbola have meanings that differ from those I think you intended to convey. I think you meant infraction and hyperbole.

go duke!

[Indoor66]

I have some sympathy for your point of view, but infarction and hyperbola have meanings that differ from those I think you intended to convey. I think you meant infraction and hyperbole.

go duke!

I don't know. Some of these posts put me close to an infarction. :o

[Lord Ash]

What an incredibly fine line to try to walk.

If I may, having had years and years of experience moderating and admining forums, including at least one of which is about has strict as DBR (no such thing as an "off topic" forum... stick to the topic at hand or be banned) moderators are not regular members of the community. It just cannot be. When you have role of enforcing the rules of the board, the ability to regulate speech, and the job of punishing members who overstep the boundries, you are no longer a regular member of the community. Tough, maybe, on the moderator who wants to still be a "regular guy," but if you can't accept that new role, I think maybe the role of moderator is not one that you would want.

On another note; you know something that always felt a bit odd about when people, especially vets, spoke about DBR? Well, often the analogy was used that DBR is like a hometown bar... everyone knows your name, and your behavior is usually good, because you wouldn't storm into an old, familiar bar and start trouble.

However, bars are famous for being places you can unwind, vent, and generally show emotion without anyone really caring and without having to have any sort of "facts" to back it up... they are ideal for that. When the guy at the local bar complains about his wife, the other guys don't say "Well wait a second; I won't accept your complaint until can you give some examples of her behavior." Nope; the friendly local bar is exactly the place where you DON'T need to do that.

Maybe rather than use the old "local pub" analogy, DBR moderators should encourage a different one: that DBR is like a grad school course on Duke Basketball. I think that probably is a LOT more along the lines of what the owners actually want here at DBR... lots of rational, fact-based discussion with a lack of serious emotional outburst... mature behavior is expected and, if you do not conform to the rules, you'll be kicked out of class, with no refund on your tuition.

On a purely personal aside... despite having been around DBR since 1998, I still sometimes feel like I am viewed as somewhat of an "outsider" or "newbie" by some of the "higher ups" here, which has always struck me as strange. This has always been particularly strange to me especially since I was a varsity athlete at Duke (as well as a club athlete and intramural supervisor) which is what the forum basically exists to discuss in the first place. Just an observation:)

[Chard]

If I may, having had years and years of experience moderating and admining forums, including at least one of which is about has strict as DBR (no such thing as an "off topic" forum... stick to the topic at hand or be banned) moderators are not regular members of the community. It just cannot be. When you have role of enforcing the rules of the board, the ability to regulate speech, and the job of punishing members who overstep the boundries, you are no longer a regular member of the community. Tough, maybe, on the moderator who wants to still be a "regular guy," but if you can't accept that new role, I think maybe the role of moderator is not one that you would want.

On a purely personal aside... despite having been around DBR since 1998, I still sometimes feel like I am viewed as an outsider by some of the "higher ups" here, which has always struck me as strange. This has always been particularly strange to me especially since I was an athlete at Duke, which is what the forum basically exists to discuss in the first place. Just an observation:)

Those two sentences that I highlighted are big problems with this board in my view.

I see certain moderators who get away with things that just aren't allowed by the lower class. If a moderator is going to get into a tit-for-tat with another poster (as seen in this thread) it is unbecoming. Moderators should rise above that.

There definitely is a clique here that seems to include several moderators. Also, the handy pocket reference to me is just a clear example of what I think makes folks like Lord Ash feel out of place here. Is it funny and somewhat true? Probably but I've never really read it. I don't think it needs to have a sticky at the top of the board. The board decorum rules should be enough.

All in all they (the mods) do a good job and should be appreciated. There is always room for improvement though. If your customers are telling you they don't like something, it is generally a good idea to address the problem if you want them coming back.

[Jumbo]

Hey FDD. I'm glad to see that Devil84's post help matters and -- as we want most discussions to go around here -- the give-and-take has led to a positive outcome. I did want to address some of your concerns, though, because they are among the most common ones that have been made over the years, and I want to clear up any confusion.


There have been countless times when someone criticised the way that Duke has played and they got completely shot down for it. What's the point of writing these posts if they may get removed / smacked down for speaking your mind, even if you provide proof? I hate writing about why Duke played poorly or why I think that this year's Duke class just isn't that good - few listen and, if you say something truthful (with evidence) but it goes against the majority, then you get whipped for it. It makes no sense whatsoever.

As we've mentioned, it's all about tone/how you say things. Putting aside the truly nasty stuff that gets dealt with through moderation, let's deal with the "smackdown" side of things for a moment.

I think the first thing to realize is that if you write something, you have to do it with the understanding that some people might not agree with it and will challenge you. And that's what you and I want, right? Good, thoughtful debate. Now, obviously the responses to strongly worded posts sometimes are overblown as well. A pet peeve of mine is when someone questions how "good" of a Duke fan you are as a way to refute a point. Me? I'd rather just explain why I think someone is wrong.

Sometimes I fail. Sometimes I'm snarkier than intended. Sometimes I don't even realize how someone else might read something I've posted until I get a few responses that I didn't expect.

But what's the point of posting? To encourage/engage in debate. If you're posting without the understanding that you might be challenged on your points, or are unwilling to be challenged, than you are just posting to be heard. And that's not good for anyone, because this isn't a personal blog; it's a community. We want people to comminicate with each other, not past each other. Finally, your definition of "proof" might not be the same as someone else's. Again, that's what fosters good debate.


Don't get me wrong, I like DBR a lot and I like posting, but I have stopped speaking my mind 100%, especially when I have something negative to say. It's just not worth it anymore.

Here's the thing -- I don't think it's smart for anyone to speak his/her mind 100% on a public forum. There are plenty of things that I observe or think about Duke basketball that I don't share on this forum, because I don't want them appearing in public. Not only do I not want to -- for instance -- bash an individual player simply because I'm frustrated with what he's doing on the court, I certainly don't want him, or his family, to read my rant. But, also, it's not just his family. I really don't think the whole world needs to know what I think 100% of the time. So I post on some topics, ignore quite a few topics, and try to contribute on a thoughtful basis when I do post.

Also, I really wish we can get away from the whole general concepts of "negative" and "positive." Again, anyone who thinks you can't post something that is "negative" just isn't paying much attention. I'll give you three "negative" thoughts about the team right now, but phrase them constructively. I doubt anyone will object to my posting them, but I also expect some people will disagree with my arguments, in which case I might have to defend them further. But, for the sake of example, try these:

1) I'm concerned about the fact that Nolan Smith is driving with his head down too often. I advocated his adopting an "attack mode" at length before the season, and I still believe that's incredibly important for the team to succeed. But, it's really important that he drive not just to score, but to create, and there's a difference. Nolan needs to keep his head up and be more aware of where his teammates are -- both big men floating to the basket when help rotates and open shooters on the perimeter, waiting for kickouts. If he can make this change, we'll be much, much more dangerous on offense. If he doesn't, we're in danger of bogging down against teams where we need to drive and kick to break down the defense.

2) While Duke's big men have taken a lot of heat for missing easy shots around the hoop, turning the ball over, etc., I think it's important that we still get them touches, particularly early. I don't think we have true back-to-the-basket scorers, nor do I think we need them to win. But I think when the ball goes inside, it invigorates the big men. Even if they miss shots, they seem to perk up in other areas of the game (witness the UConn game). In short, our guards need to trust them, even while understanding that a few dump-downs might lead to missed shots/forced shots/turnovers. Because I think the benefits will manifest themselves in other ways throughout an individual game and the whole season.

3) I worry that as fans become intoxicated by the sweetness of Andre Dawkins' jump shot, they will lose sight of the work he still needs on the defensive end. Numerous times against Wisconsin, he got lost in switches off the ball, didn't provide help D and struggled to guard the ball within the team concept. Given that he missed the whole summer, and is learning on the fly, I think he can improve as the season progresses. Because we need to be able to use him both as a sub for our perimeter trio and in smaller lineups, given the weapon he provides from deep. But that can't happen if he's not up to snuff defensively.

Hopefully that helps. None of those points required charts, graphs and a video breakdown to write. But, and I think you'll agree, they're quite different from "we can't win with Player X" or "We can't play man-to-man. Use a zone!!!!"

Of course, in this thread, I think I'm preaching to the choir. One of my concerns is that everyone who is reading this thread, or posting in it, cares about DBR on some level. And while we might disagree about details, we all value the community. What do about "drive-by posters" -- the one who only seem to come out of the woodwork after something bad happens -- is a big issue, and one that can't be solved if they aren't participating in discussions like this. So I hope that everyone who considers himself/herself to be a part of the community can set a good example for those particular posters.

[allenmurray]

However, bars are famous for being places you can unwind, vent, and generally show emotion without anyone really caring and without having to have any sort of "facts" to back it up... they are ideal for that. When the guy at the local bar complains about his wife, the other guys don't say "Well wait a second; I won't accept your complaint until can you give some examples of her behavior." Nope; the friendly local bar is exactly the place where you DON'T need to do that.

Maybe rather than use the old "local pub" analogy, DBR moderators should encourage a different one: that DBR is like a grad school course on Duke Basketball. I think that probably is a LOT more along the lines of what the owners actually want here at DBR... lots of rational, fact-based discussion with a lack of serious emotional outburst... mature behavior is expected and, if you do not conform to the rules, you'll be kicked out of class, with no refund on your tuition.



It has always been a bad analogy. I am a member of a group of guy friends who meet regularly in a neighborhood bar here in Durham. Sometimes we tick each other off, sometimes we say things we shouldn't have, and sometimes we act out of frustration, bad, days, etc. We don't keep score, instead we forgive, forget, and buy the next round. We don't give infractions.

Keeping score, and giving infractions may be necessary here. But it is not neighborhood bar behavior. It has always been a bad analogy.

[allenmurray]

But most of the time those posts are among the most rational, reasoned, posts and the board would be less without them, IMO.

I wasn't being critical when I said it was a fine line to walk, - I was being serious (and somewhat appreciative - though not participating and moderating in the same posts might be a good rule of thumb),

[Jumbo]

though not participating and moderating in the same posts might be a good rule of thumb),

That's still our standing "policy". We don't moderate threads in which we've posted.

[allenmurray]

On a purely personal aside... despite having been around DBR since 1998, I still sometimes feel like I am viewed as somewhat of an "outsider" or "newbie" by some of the "higher ups" here, which has always struck me as strange.

My guess is that feeling is shared by all but about 7 or 8 people here.

[devil84]

...moderators are not regular members of the community. It just cannot be. When you have role of enforcing the rules of the board, the ability to regulate speech, and the job of punishing members who overstep the boundries, you are no longer a regular member of the community."

When I wrote that moderators post as members of the community, I meant that we offer up our opinions and post not at a moderator ("This discussion has gone far enough" or "focus on the post, not the poster") but as someone expressing our ideas as other posters do.

It is very difficult. We try to be role models for the community, but we're also human, and sometimes emotions get the better of us. Believe me, we chew each other out behind the scenes and delete other moderators' posts. We try to contribute in the fashion that the owners want, and many moderators were selected because their posts contribute significantly to the community.


However, bars are famous for being places you can unwind, vent, and generally show emotion without anyone really caring and without having to have any sort of "facts" to back it up... they are ideal for that. When the guy at the local bar complains about his wife, the other guys don't say "Well wait a second; I won't accept your complaint until can you give some examples of her behavior." Nope; the friendly local bar is exactly the place where you DON'T need to do that.

Agreed. When you're out with your friends (and by "you," I mean anyone reading, not just Lord Ash), you have a general idea of the conduct. You might be out with the "guys" to talk about nothing while sampling the libations at the bar. You might be out as a group of co-workers, where you keep the discussion light, but avoid religion, politics, and possibly keep your mouth shut about negative opinions on, oh, Carolina fans to keep the peace. Maybe you're at a wine tasting, book club, or other event where there is something topical to discuss, and you do so civilly (and maybe sometimes entertain a digression or two).

This little pub here has a code of conduct. We talk about Duke Basketball, and we challenge each other to a high level of discourse. Instead of a bunch of guys venting about their wives, we're a bunch of basketball geeks, challenging each other to a lively debate that does include giving informed opinions (not just spewing either fluffy superlatives or slamming negatives about the team).

When having these discussions in person, when someone begins to step out of line, others can shoot the person speaking a sideways glance, cough suggestively, or cut the person off before the person says something out of line. It's easy to gather whether the speaker says "you should try this," that the speaker means the guy who just made a pointed comment, the subset of the group that was discussing a topic, or simply anyone who was listening. In a message board, the reader of the term "you" takes it to mean "me personally" as opposed to "everyone who reads this." The "me personally" meaning elicits more emotional reaction that wouldn't happen in public. In this respect, any "real-life" metaphor will fail when describing any message board. But I think it's pretty clear what is meant when we talk about DBR using the "pub" analogy.


Maybe rather than use the old "local pub" analogy, DBR moderators should encourage a different one: that DBR is like a grad school course on Duke Basketball. I think that probably is a LOT more along the lines of what the owners actually want here at DBR... lots of rational, fact-based discussion with a lack of serious emotional outburst... mature behavior is expected and, if you do not conform to the rules, you'll be kicked out of class, with no refund on your tuition.

We're actually working on another metaphor. Look for it soon. ;)


On a purely personal aside... despite having been around DBR since 1998, I still sometimes feel like I am viewed as somewhat of an "outsider" or "newbie" by some of the "higher ups" here, which has always struck me as strange. This has always been particularly strange to me especially since I was a varsity athlete at Duke (as well as a club athlete and intramural supervisor) which is what the forum basically exists to discuss in the first place. Just an observation:)

I, too, sometimes have felt treated by other posters as an outsider, newbie, or uninformed soul despite being a fan since '76, around the boards since the mid '90s, a moderator, and a Duke basketball team member. I have had a number of PMs and posters I know in real life express the same sentiments. Generally speaking, these posters are well seasoned veterans of the board. Why is that? Perhaps it's because it's really easy to respond to the text of the post without looking above at who said it. Even if someone does look at it, our username and post count don't tell the whole story of who we are, whether we are Duke students, alumni, or fans, whether varsity, club, or non-athlete. And with thousands of members at DBR, it's difficult for any one person to know everyone. It's a great equalizer, and sometimes, that's a really, really good thing (regardless of how crushing that can be to our egos when someone responds as if we're a newbie).

[hughgs]

Are you sure no one wants that? I sense there is gathering momentum for it - perhaps not by the owners, but by others.

Well, "no one" is a bit of hyperbola (hyperbole if you like). I, for one, would love to have codes back. The discussion was much better. Heck, I used to constantly recommend DBR to people who were interested in Duke basketball when the boards used codes. I don't recommend this site anymore, simply because the "discussion" doesn't offer that much more than the rest of the web. The tone may be better, but when when you compare better against nothing it's not very hard to be better.

[DukieBoy]

Typically after a loss, I will wait until the next morning/day before posting anything on here. That way, I don't let my emotions get a hold of me and I write something stupid or get into a meaningless argument about something. I think some people should take this advice into mind when they get on here.

[SupaDave]

If a moderator is going to get into a tit-for-tat with another poster (as seen in this thread) it is unbecoming. Moderators should rise above that.

This is true and I apologize for being guilty of that in this very thread. I allowed myself to get a little too involved and hope that you can understand my passion.

[allenmurray]

Well, "no one" is a bit of hyperbola (hyperbole if you like). I, for one, would love to have codes back. The discussion was much better. Heck, I used to constantly recommend DBR to people who were interested in Duke basketball when the boards used codes. I don't recommend this site anymore, simply because the "discussion" doesn't offer that much more than the rest of the web. The tone may be better, but when when you compare better against nothing it's not very hard to be better.

You liked the codes. so did I. That makes two of us. My guess is two may be the total.

[Duvall]

Well, "no one" is a bit of hyperbola (hyperbole if you like). I, for one, would love to have codes back. The discussion was much better. Heck, I used to constantly recommend DBR to people who were interested in Duke basketball when the boards used codes. I don't recommend this site anymore, simply because the "discussion" doesn't offer that much more than the rest of the web. The tone may be better, but when when you compare better against nothing it's not very hard to be better.

I'm not sure that that the lack of codes are the problem, though. For one thing, there was plenty of angst and strife in the old days, too. The first "It's Over" thread wasn't posted ironically, and the bitterness in the summer of 1999 was worse than most of what we've seen in recent years. But a bigger difference is that it was just easier to be a Duke fan in the early days of the site, because Duke won all the time, and Carolina didn't.

[hughgs]

I'm not sure that that the lack of codes are the problem, though. For one thing, there was plenty of angst and strife in the old days, too. The first "It's Over" thread wasn't posted ironically, and the bitterness in the summer of 1999 was worse than most of what we've seen in recent years. But a bigger difference is that it was just easier to be a Duke fan in the early days of the site, because Duke won all the time, and Carolina didn't.

Yes, there has always been "plenty of angst and strife" on this board. But, that's not the issue that's being discussed. The problem as stated plenty of time in this thread, is the tone of those postings. There seems to be a high correlation between the open-door posting and the number of times that the moderators/owners have to start threads like this.

And, ultimately, we need to solve this problem. How Duke and Carolina do relative to each other is going to change over time and can't be controlled. But, what can be controlled is the ability of people "speaking my mind 100%" on this board.

[91_92_01_10_15]

Nice post Jumbo. Your points about mathematical perspective and sample size interest me the most.

My take on Duke this season is that it is an elite team (let's define that as 30 wins, ACC conference favorite, Elite 8 and beyond capability) until proven otherwise. And it would take a lot of proof for me to be swayed from this opinion. Much more than one game in Madison, Wisconsin for example.

Why is that? Because,

In 2007, Duke won 22 games, finished 6th place ACC, 1st round ACC tourney, 1st round NCAA tourney

In 2008, Duke won 28 games, finished 2nd place ACC, 2nd round ACC, 2nd round NCAA

In 2009, Duke won 30 games, finished 2nd place ACC, ACC champs, Sweet 16

There is an obvious trend here and it is upwards. Duke is a veteran team and these seniors and juniors have overseen improvement each of the past two seasons, and so it makes sense to project another incremental improvement for this season, which would place Duke into the category of an "elite" team as defined above.

Some would argue that the loss of Gerald Henderson (16.5 ppg, 4.9 rpg) disrupts that trend. Maybe, but I doubt it. The trend survived the loss of Demarcus Nelson (14.5ppg, 5.8rpg) from the '08 team and the loss of Josh McRoberts (13 ppg, 7.9 rpg) from the '07 team. Players come and go and their losses are offset by the improvements of returning players and the influx of talented freshmen. Gerald was a good player, but his loss isn't like losing a Battier or Jwill.

If you accept the trend, as I do, then we basically have 100+ games of data telling us that Duke is an elite team this season. Are projections and trends always accurate? No, but it will take more than one game to make me a non-believer in it.

I can tell you that my attitude as a fan this season is to trust the 100+ games of data, sit back, relax, watch the maturation into an elite team unfold, let the season breathe, don't overreact to an occasional bad game, be confident, cool, collected. You are free to choose your own approach but I can tell you that mine is quite enjoyable.

I've been rereading this thread today, and I'd like to nominate this for the POTY. A very nice bit of reasonable, evidence-based prognosticating, if you ask me.

[airowe]

Earlier this year, Kedsy did a breakdown of seasons in 5 year blocks (I believe) during K's tenure. It proved basically the same, but was a much larger sample size. I wonder if someone could find it?

[Kedsy]

Earlier this year, Kedsy did a breakdown of seasons in 5 year blocks (I believe) during K's tenure. It proved basically the same, but was a much larger sample size. I wonder if someone could find it?

Is this the post you mean?


Interestingly enough, if you take a very close look at the past 25 years (actually 27) it doesn't stand out as much as people think.

A huge part of the perception issue is 2006, but in my mind that was mostly due to a piece of bad luck. I recently detailed this in another thread so I'll abbreviate it here: LSU won their game before Duke by one point against a #12 seed on a last second desperation three-point heave. If they don't make that shot, we're playing #12 Texas A&M and we almost certainly win, and the next game would have been against Texas, who we matched up well with and blew out earlier in the year. So, imagine that we made the Final Four in 2006 and look at the following set of 12 year patterns:

1983 -- DOWN year (11-17)
1984 -- Rebuilding year; #14 in final AP poll but probably overrated; lost first NCAA game.
1985 -- Frustrating year; solid #10 in final AP poll. Lost 2nd game in NCAAT.

and then nine golden years:
1986 -- #1 in final AP poll, NCAA final game
1987 -- #17, lost in Sweet 16 to eventual national champion
1988 -- #5, Final Four
1989 -- #9, Final Four
1990 -- #15, final game
1991 -- #6, national champs
1992 -- #1, national champs
1993 -- #10, upset in 2nd round of NCAAT
1994 -- #6, final game

-------------------------------

1995 -- DOWN year (13-18)
1996 -- Rebuilding year; unranked; lost first NCAA game
1997 -- Frustrating year; #8 in Final AP poll; barely beat Murray State before losing to Providence in 2nd round of NCAAT

and then nine golden years:
1998 -- #3 in Final AP poll; Elite Eight, with only a late game collapse against eventual national champion kept us from the Final Four
1999 -- #1, final game
2000 -- #1, upset in Sweet 16
2001 -- #1, national champion
2002 -- #1, upset in Sweet 16
2003 -- #7, lost in Sweet 16
2004 -- #6, Final Four
2005 -- #3, upset in Sweet 16
2006 -- #1, see above

---------------------------------

2007 -- Down year; not nearly as awful as the previous down years, but still...
2008 -- Rebuilding year; #9 in Final AP poll; barely beat Belmont before losing to West Virginia in 2nd round
2009 -- Frustrating year; #6 in Final AP poll; lost in Sweet 16

and then nine golden years? We can only hope, but this year's team is in the best position to do it than any since 2006 and we have a great recruiting class coming in next year...

Obviously if you look hard enough you can find patterns almost anywhere, but at least the above covers the entirety of K's tenure at Duke and doesn't really leave anything out. And it looks like a pretty solid pattern to me. If you accept 2006 as an "up" year that ended with some bad luck, then the supposed five year negative pattern is not an outlier compared with the previous 22 years but instead becomes a three year recovery cycle that we've seen a couple of times before.

I hope so, anyway.

In part because of this pattern I have been convinced all year that we were going to the Final Four this season. My theory being it takes a Coach K team a certain amount of time to "recover" from the down year and be able to play with enough confidence to advance in the NCAAT. With this year's experience and the new players we have coming in next year, here's hoping we've started another nine year run.

[airowe]

Is this the post you mean?



In part because of this pattern I have been convinced all year that we were going to the Final Four this season. My theory being it takes a Coach K team a certain amount of time to "recover" from the down year and be able to play with enough confidence to advance in the NCAAT. With this year's experience and the new players we have coming in next year, here's hoping we've started another nine year run.

That's the one! (Well really your first one, but...) I didn't remember the 9 golden years part, but I'd love it if that were the case. It'd almost certainly mean K going out on top. Not to mention, it would fly in the face of all those pesky Mayans and Nostrodamus and have the world living past 2012. Maybe the resurgence of Duke Basketball will be what keeps the natural order and sustains life on Earth as we know it?

[Kedsy]

Not to mention, it would fly in the face of all those pesky Mayans and Nostrodamus and have the world living past 2012. Maybe the resurgence of Duke Basketball will be what keeps the natural order and sustains life on Earth as we know it?

I think that's plausible, since Duke gets all the calls...

[NSDukeFan]

This is a funny thread to look back on. I just looked at a few posts, and it reminded me of posters who knew for sure that Sweet 16 or Elite 8 was the absolute highest this team could possibly get to, if it got lucky with matchups. Of course, statistically it is always improbable to make the final four, but it now seems foolish that people were saying that it was impossible for this team, before the team had even gotten half way through ACC play.
Mind you, I am on the optimistic side and felt we were going to beat Villanova last year. I also think we would have beaten them 3-6 times out of 10 last year. :)

[Mudge]

Is this the post you mean?

In part because of this pattern I have been convinced all year that we were going to the Final Four this season. My theory being it takes a Coach K team a certain amount of time to "recover" from the down year and be able to play with enough confidence to advance in the NCAAT. With this year's experience and the new players we have coming in next year, here's hoping we've started another nine year run.

You sure you're not a stock charter/technical analyst on the Street? Good stuff-- I would like to be looking back 10 years from now (probably around the end of Coach K's Wooden-like career) and be talking about 9 championships in 10 years-- and the wisdom of Kedsy... ('cause Kyrie Irving sounds to me-- having never seen him play-- like the kind of player that can return Duke to the level of its Golden era from 1998-2006... if as advertised, he is exactly what we have been lacking for 5 years now.)

[cnote]

as a fan of Baylor, I have to tell you... that your 'down years' and 'rebuilding years' look pretty awesome to a majority of the rest of the programs in the sport.

towards the future-

I can't even begin to imagine what your front court will look like in 2011 (saying Mason stays) with all of the Plumlee's and Hairston.... and a backcourt with Kyrie Irving leading the charge... wowie