Feinstein Blog Post about his relationship with Duke [Archive]

CDu

01-22-2010, 10:36 AM

Some of what he says may very well be true. Alleva was probably not a terribly good AD. He may not have been the best choice at the time. Keohane was less interested in sports and more focused on building the academic and financial prestige of the university. She may have made a decision that had less to do with being the best candidate and more to do with appeasing her (and Coach K's) needs. I don't know enough about the facts, but those seem like reasonable possibilities.

But he's also pretty petty and whiny. Seriously - are you that full of yourself to complain about not being recognized as one of the university's distinguished journalists? Making snide comments about the fact that the school is asking a rich alum for money? ALL schools do that. And he sort of admits making his own bed with the university by publicly calling the head of the university a liar.

At this point, Feinstein is just a sour individual in general. He complains about everything and wants everything to go back to the way it was 20 years ago. He's annoying to me.

YourLandlord

01-22-2010, 10:49 AM

holy crap that man must live an absolutely miserable life.

OZZIE4DUKE

01-22-2010, 10:50 AM

"Duke – my relationship with the school, and the slipping standards of the program"
http://www.feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?id=3140784334407880929

Interested to hear people's reactions. It ends with yet another call for K to stop coaching Team USA because it's hurting the Duke program.
Good article. I didn't know most of the details of Feinstein's fight with Duke, although I knew about the Alleva hiring. Heck, I was ticked when they hired Alleva - I wanted the job! And I've always had a dislike for Nan, too - based on her anti-fraternity stance, but that's another story.

I disagree with John's conclusion that K shouldn't coach the Olympics. It's kept him fresh in both attitude and appearance, he's learned a lot (about the zone and other things) and it keeps him interested and enthusiastic about Duke basketball. How it plays out in the next 3 1/2 years remains to be seen, but with Kyrie Irving coming in next year to be our PG, and the other pieces in place (currently on the team and other recruits coming in), the "standards" have not slipped.

J.Blink

01-22-2010, 11:09 AM

And I've always had a dislike for Nan, too - based on her anti-fraternity stance, but that's another story.

Funny, that's why I liked Nan!

_Gary

01-22-2010, 11:10 AM

JG Nothing

01-22-2010, 11:13 AM

I disagree with John's conclusion that K shouldn't coach the Olympics. It's kept him fresh in both attitude and appearance, he's learned a lot (about the zone and other things) and it keeps him interested and enthusiastic about Duke basketball. How it plays out in the next 3 1/2 years remains to be seen, but with Kyrie Irving coming in next year to be our PG, and the other pieces in place (currently on the team and other recruits coming in), the "standards" have not slipped.

How Feinstein would probably respond (from his blog):

I remember in 1997 when he was still rebuilding after the ’95 disaster when his team lost a close game at Maryland. A couple days later with Carolina in town, Dick Vitale came into the locker room prior to the game and was giving a Vitale pep talk: “You guys’ll be fine,” he said. “You’ll win your 20, you’ll be in the tournament.”

When Vitale left, Krzyzewski turned to me. (I was there working on my book on the ACC that season). “I don’t care about winning my 20 or being in the tournament. We’ve let the standards slip around here. I want this team and this program to play to MY standards, not anyone else’s.”

During the next seven years, Duke went to three Final Fours and won a national title. Since then: no trips beyond the sweet sixteen. The standards have slipped. Mike needs to re-think HIS standards again.

CDu

01-22-2010, 11:18 AM

Good article. I didn't know most of the details of Feinstein's fight with Duke, although I knew about the Alleva hiring. Heck, I was ticked when they hired Alleva - I wanted the job! And I've always had a dislike for Nan, too - based on her anti-fraternity stance, but that's another story.

I disagree with John's conclusion that K shouldn't coach the Olympics. It's kept him fresh in both attitude and appearance, he's learned a lot (about the zone and other things) and it keeps him interested and enthusiastic about Duke basketball. How it plays out in the next 3 1/2 years remains to be seen, but with Kyrie Irving coming in next year to be our PG, and the other pieces in place (currently on the team and other recruits coming in), the "standards" have not slipped.

One thing about Feinstein is I think he focuses on one aspect of an issue and often fails to consider (or chooses to ignore) other factors. The Coach K Olympics thing is one of them. Yes, it takes time away from his focus on the Duke team. Yes, it could wear him out. But Feinstein ignores the possibility that it may re-energize him instead. He also ignores the possibility that national team exposure may help in recruiting.

Similarly, Feinstein has ranted against the ACC expansion, with his main argument being "I miss the balanced schedule," but ignoring the possible financial gain from expansion if we can start getting two BCS teams in football.

natedog4ever

01-22-2010, 11:20 AM

The root of the problem is that Duke and Coach K have only their own standard to be held up to. Right now they are having "Dean Smith" years when everyone expects "Coach K" years.

It's just like when Jordan came back to the NBA - still the best in the NBA, but not quite as good as he himself used to be.

So in many ways, the better you are over time, the tougher you make it on yourself, at least in the eyes of fans and media-types.

CameronBlue

01-22-2010, 11:33 AM

At this point, Feinstein is just a sour individual in general. He complains about everything and wants everything to go back to the way it was 20 years ago. He's annoying to me.

The 3 FFs in 7 years and an NC he references were less than 10 years ago, I don't think he's a sentimentalist pining for a return to a simpler more wholesome time. "Honest" opinions are in short supply and despite the self-aggrandizing remarks sprinkled through his editorial the basic point is a worthy topic of discussion and intended the serve the interests of the basketball program and those of Coach K. His treatment of the facts may be biased (and whose isn't?) but who would you rather have--a distinguised alumni who inserts himself into the conversation with presumably good intent or an apathetic fair-weather cheerleader? Apathy propelled the football program to its non-competitive depths. Annoying, yes--and clearly he was wrong about Duke's ability to mount a competitive effort in football--but his opinion is important to the conversation. Who outside the Duke community would really find value in the editorial anyway? It's not as if he's trying to ingratiate himself to the reader and build a wider audience.

_Gary

01-22-2010, 11:34 AM

He also ignores the possibility that national team exposure may help in recruiting.

But we haven't seen any real evidence of this during his tenure as head coach of USA Basketball. To the contrary, we've consistently missed out on key recruits that we both desperately needed and desperately wanted. No need to trot out the laundry list to prove that point. It's axiomatic.

Scorp4me

01-22-2010, 11:38 AM

"So, I did my, “Duke apologist,” thing and defended Krzyzewski."

Shouldn't that have been your journalistic integrity thing and told the truth and the facts. Silly me.

And I'm glad to see that losing to State means Coach K should quit coaching Team USA...but what does he think Roy should do? All joking aside lets face it, teams lose...we've lost 3...currently less than anyone else in the ACC.

Just a strange article.

CDu

01-22-2010, 11:51 AM

The 3 FFs in 7 years and an NC he references were less than 10 years ago, I don't think he's a sentimentalist pining for a return to a simpler more wholesome time. "Honest" opinions are in short supply and despite the self-aggrandizing remarks sprinkled through his editorial the basic point is a worthy topic of discussion and intended the serve the interests of the basketball program and those of Coach K. His treatment of the facts may be biased (and whose isn't?) but who would you rather have--a distinguised alumni who inserts himself into the conversation with presumably good intent or an apathetic fair-weather cheerleader? Apathy propelled the football program to its non-competitive depths. Annoying, yes--and clearly he was wrong about Duke's ability to mount a competitive effort in football--but his opinion is important to the conversation. Who outside the Duke community would really find value in the editorial anyway? It's not as if he's trying to ingratiate himself to the reader and build a wider audience.

Sort of thread hijacking here, but part of this is illustration of the luck involved in the tournament, and part of it is illustrating how big a couple of recruiting "misses" can be. Look at the talent we had in 2004-2009. A player or two made the difference in most of those seasons.

- 2004: if any of the other bigs (Randolph, Thompson, Boateng, etc) stepped up and became the players they were hyped to be coming out of high school. Maybe we have enough depth inside to hold off UConn and ultimately win the title in 2004.
- 2005: See above. Maybe we have enough size to get to a Final Four in 2005 as well. And if Nelson is healthy, maybe we have enough perimeter offense too.
- 2006: if Paulus had been the Hurley-type PG (or if Dockery had been a better PG) and if Nelson had been healthy. Perhaps we have enough balance to make it past LSU and get to a Final Four. Heck, if we beat LSU, there's a reasonable chance we win the title that year.
- 2007: if Paulus had been the Hurley-type PG and we had one more college-ready big guy to complement McRoberts. Maybe we go to another Sweet-16 or elite-8. Maybe we're even a Final Four team if Paulus is more like Hurley and could get in the lane and create offense for others.
- 2008: if Paulus was more like Hurley and McRoberts had stayed. That team has virtually no holes with Singler complementing McRoberts at the 4/5, Thomas/Zoubek/McClure providing depth, and Nelson, Scheyer, and Henderson providing wing scoring, and Paulus running the show. That's another deep run waiting to happen.
- 2009: with a senior, Hurley-like Paulus creating off the dribble, maybe we compete with Villanova.

I don't want this to come across as Paulus-bashing or big man bashing. That's far from my point, and it's not at all fair to them. I was just highlighting some of the expectations (however unfair) that some of those recruits had. It's just meant to illustrate that the margin of error between being a perennial Final Four team and just a perennial tournament team isn't necessarily all that great. In Duke's case, it can just take a key player or two each year reaching or exceeding expectations.

I think most people are willing to view next year's team as a strong candidate for a Final Four if Curry and/or Irving can step up and the Plumlees, Kelly and Hairston can be big factors at the 4/5. Perhaps if things work out, it starts another great Duke run.

JG Nothing

01-22-2010, 11:56 AM

CDu

01-22-2010, 11:56 AM

But we haven't seen any real evidence of this during his tenure as head coach of USA Basketball. To the contrary, we've consistently missed out on key recruits that we both desperately needed and desperately wanted. No need to trot out the laundry list to prove that point. It's axiomatic.

Well, we've had two big recruiting misses since Coach K won Olympic gold (Wall and Barnes). In both cases, they went to other elite programs - one who just won a national championship. We've also landed some really big-name prospects (Plumlee, Kelly, Dawkins, Irving). I'd say it remains to be seen whether the Olympic exposure will or will not have a big impact on recruiting.

JG Nothing

01-22-2010, 12:02 PM

Feinstein's "Duke apologist" comment was sarcasm. Also, Feinstein did not say the State lose was what prompted him to think that K should quit coaching Team USA.

Two corrections: Feinstein did not say the State loss was what originally prompted him to think K should quit coaching Team USA.

MChambers

01-22-2010, 12:05 PM

Well, we've had two big recruiting misses since Coach K won Olympic gold (Wall and Barnes). In both cases, they went to other elite programs - one who just won a national championship. We've also landed some really big-name prospects (Plumlee, Kelly, Dawkins, Irving). I'd say it remains to be seen whether the Olympic exposure will or will not have a big impact on recruiting.

We've always missed on some recruits. Just see the wonderful posts by Al Featherstone (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24202) and Jim Sumner (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24203) on this topic.

To say that coaching the Olympic team hurts (or helps) recruiting is purely conjectural. To me, it's also counterintuitive.

I'm in favor of Coach K coaching the Olympic team, by the way.

Lord Ash

01-22-2010, 12:11 PM

Well, we've had two big recruiting misses since Coach K won Olympic gold (Wall and Barnes). In both cases, they went to other elite programs - one who just won a national championship. We've also landed some really big-name prospects (Plumlee, Kelly, Dawkins, Irving). I'd say it remains to be seen whether the Olympic exposure will or will not have a big impact on recruiting.

I don't think we can consider Wall a big miss. We were not involved until the very end, and even then there were a number of reasons to think we WOULDN'T get him. Pat Patterson is a much bigger miss.

CameronBlue

01-22-2010, 12:15 PM

Sort of thread hijacking here, but part of this is illustration of the luck involved in the tournament, and part of it is illustrating how big a couple of recruiting "misses" can be. Look at the talent we had in 2004-2009. A player or two made the difference in most of those seasons.

- 2004: if any of the other bigs (Randolph, Thompson, Boateng, etc) stepped up and became the players they were hyped to be coming out of high school. Maybe we have enough depth inside to hold off UConn and ultimately win the title in 2004.
- 2005: See above. Maybe we have enough size to get to a Final Four in 2005 as well. And if Nelson is healthy, maybe we have enough perimeter offense too.
- 2006: if Paulus had been the Hurley-type PG (or if Dockery had been a better PG) and if Nelson had been healthy. Perhaps we have enough balance to make it past LSU and get to a Final Four. Heck, if we beat LSU, there's a reasonable chance we win the title that year.
- 2007: if Paulus had been the Hurley-type PG and we had one more college-ready big guy to complement McRoberts. Maybe we go to another Sweet-16 or elite-8. Maybe we're even a Final Four team if Paulus is more like Hurley and could get in the lane and create offense for others.
- 2008: if Paulus was more like Hurley and McRoberts had stayed. That team has virtually no holes with Singler complementing McRoberts at the 4/5, Thomas/Zoubek/McClure providing depth, and Nelson, Scheyer, and Henderson providing wing scoring, and Paulus running the show. That's another deep run waiting to happen.
- 2009: with a senior, Hurley-like Paulus creating off the dribble, maybe we compete with Villanova.

I don't want this to come across as Paulus-bashing or big man bashing. That's far from my point, and it's not at all fair to them. I was just highlighting some of the expectations (however unfair) that some of those recruits had. It's just meant to illustrate that the margin of error between being a perennial Final Four team and just a perennial tournament team isn't necessarily all that great. In Duke's case, it can just take a key player or two each year reaching or exceeding expectations.

I think most people are willing to view next year's team as a strong candidate for a Final Four if Curry and/or Irving can step up and the Plumlees, Kelly and Hairston can be big factors at the 4/5. Perhaps if things work out, it starts another great Duke run.

I don't disagree with a thing you've stated in this post, but I don't think it's exactly on topic either, your disclaimer noted. I may be wrong but Feinstein's basic point seems to be that the energy required of Coach K to rise to his own self-proclaimed standards may be compromised by his continued association with USA basketball and he cites a precedent to back up his point. Exhaustion was part of the reason for K's departure in 95 and contributed to his back problem, if the diagnoses I read in the press were accurate. I guess the implicit assertion here is that K may not be able to recognize when he's spread himself too thin which risks on-court results that are sub-standard. But as you say a trip to the FF this year or next, completely undermines Feinstein's argument.

We'll have to wait and see I guess. I will concede that it's difficult to imagine K's involvement with USA basketball somehow makes him ineffective as a recruiter. With the talent on hand it's pretty incredulous to think he has slipped and as the Plumlees have developed I'm less concerned with misses like Barnes.

CDu

01-22-2010, 12:20 PM

I don't disagree with a thing you've stated in this post, but I don't think it's exactly on topic either, your disclaimer noted. I may be wrong but Feinstein's basic point seems to be that the energy required of Coach K to rise to his own self-proclaimed standards may be compromised by his continued association with USA basketball and he cites a precedent to back up his point. Exhaustion was part of the reason for K's departure in 95 and contributed to his back problem, if the diagnoses I read in the press were accurate. I guess the implicit assertion here is that K may not be able to recognize when he's spread himself too thin and which risks on-court results that are sub-standard. But as you say a trip to the FF this year or next, completely undermines Feinstein's argument.

We'll have to wait and see I guess. I will concede that it's difficult to imagine K's involvement with USA basketball somehow makes him ineffective as a recruiter. With the talent on hand it's pretty incredulous to think he has slipped and as the Plumlees have developed I'm less concerned with misses like Barnes.

I fully admit the hijack potential. And yes, Feinstein's argument is that Coach K is wearing himself out and spreading himself too thin. My point is that Feinstein may be misinterpreting the problem or may just be shortsighted. It may be that the problem has not been spreading himself too thin but instead is simply a matter of a couple of players not being quite as amazing as their high school pedigree might have suggested.

CDu

01-22-2010, 12:23 PM

I don't think we can consider Wall a big miss. We were not involved until the very end, and even then there were a number of reasons to think we WOULDN'T get him. Pat Patterson is a much bigger miss.

I agree that Patterson (and Monroe) were bigger misses in terms of how much recruiting was done for those guys. But we missed on them before Coach K coached the Olympic team to the gold medal (in Patterson's case, it was LONG before).

Devilsfan

01-22-2010, 01:02 PM

Help me with some facts about the author. What degree did he earn from Duke? What sport did he play? How high in his class did he finish?

sagegrouse

01-22-2010, 01:05 PM

At the risk of destroying what little credibuility I have on this Board, I would like to leap to the defense of John Feinstein. I don't know John well, although we have had a number of conversations over the years. I have also read many of his books and hear him from time-to-time on radio.

He is a prolific and respected author and perhaps the preeminent sports writer of his era. We don't need to dwell on that, but it helps explain some of the controversy: he has a really big megaphone and is not shy about saying what he thinks.

At the same time, John is usually controversial and more than occasionally cantankerous. He wrote Season on the Brink as a young man on leave from the Post and stood Indiana University and the entire state on its head for a considerable period. That book was the cause of a falling out between K and Knight that endured for over a decade (K recommended that RMK cooperate with John's book).

As a result, he is candid to a fault. But don't think Duke is the only school he criticizes. I still giggle at the time he hosted a call-in show in DC, subbing for Kornheiser, and was besieged by Georgetown fans because of past statements about John Thompson, a patron saint there.

WRT the Alleva-Mickle controversy, anyone in his position would have been upset. John was asked to serve on an advisory board to select Tom Butters's replacement. The board came up with Mickle and Nan chose someone else most of the board thought was inferior. Moreover, to some, her reasons were suspect. (Actually, I thought she was just trying to placate K by appointing his friend, but John and others have a more involved explanation.)

Not anyone, however, would make it a public grudge, but then John has a radio show on NPR where the subject has come up more than once.

Many on this Board will agree with his opinion on Dick Brodhead (I don't actually) and still resent the fact that he voices it so openly. Well, with John F., what you see is what you get.

Similarly, his opinions about Duke football have been controversial in these parts. It will be interesting to see if some modicum of gridiron success leads him to change it.

Despite the estrangement, John is fond of Duke and its athletic programs. When we had the 100th anniversary celebration for the Chronicle a couple of years ago. John organized an excellent panel discussion, which he showed up and chaired (Seth Davis was a no-show). His caring about Duke, although not necessarily its leadership, is obvious to most of us who know him even a little.

So, give it a rest: he is a good man that says controversial things out of conviction and not just to stir the pot -- although stir the pot he does.

sagegrouse

airowe

01-22-2010, 01:28 PM

flyingdutchdevil

01-22-2010, 01:50 PM

I thought the article was extremely interesting. I certainly agreed a lot with Feinstein on a bunch of points, especially the non-basketball ones: Duke football being the laughing stock of the NCAA for years, Broadhead's complete and utter failure to support his own kids during the lacrosse scandal (for the record, due to this incident, I have never been able to appreciate Broadhead as my President).

His basketball points can certainly be argued with, but, as we all love at DBR, he does bring some valid points using evidence :). You can make the argument that the Olympics has hampered recruiting as well as the argument that it hasn't. You can say that Duke has underperformed lately by K standards or say that we've had so much success.

It's a real shame that Feinstein had a falling out with the school - but, IMO, both parties are too blame. Duke athletics is far from perfect, but I feel that decisions and steps we have taken in the last few years (Kevin White, Cutliffe) have been great steps in the right direction.

Stray Gator

01-22-2010, 02:05 PM

Whenever I read or hear Feinstein, I am immediately reminded of the 1960 movie, "Inherit The Wind," and the E.K. Hornbeck character, a cynical reporter played by Gene Kelly, based on the real-life H.L. Mencken. In the final scene, the Henry Drummond character (a famous civil rights lawyer played by Spencer Tracy, based on the real-life Clarence Darrow) tells the E.K. Hornbeck character what a miserable, unlikeable SOB he is because all he does is focus on people's flaws and point a critical finger at others' shortcomings. Here's a portion of that dialogue from the script that I was able to find:

Henry Drummond: Hornbeck, I'm getting tired of you. You never push a noun against a verb without trying to blow up something. ... You poor slob! You're all alone. When you go to your grave, there won't be anybody to pull the grass up over your head. Nobody to mourn you. Nobody to give a damn. You're all alone.

While Feinstein is certainly a fine writer, and has valuable insights to offer regarding the human dynamics of sport, I believe he overspends whatever credit he's earned by behaving in a manner that can best be described as puerile--pouting and disparaging those who don't agree with him, as if anyone who doesn't acknowledge the superiority of his intellect deserves only scorn. Simply stated, I'd love to hear the stories he could tell and have a conversation with him over a beer, but I'm not sure I could bear sitting at the same table with him long enough to finish a short draft.

flyingdutchdevil

01-22-2010, 02:23 PM

Simply stated, I'd love to hear the stories he could tell and have a conversation with him over a beer, but I'm not sure I could bear sitting at the same table with him long enough to finish a short draft.

Doesn't everyone have a friend like that? Really bright, really interesting, but you can only enjoy yourself with him for 10 minutes before wishing someone would call your phone so you can act as if there is an emergency and bounce?

hurleyfor3

01-22-2010, 02:32 PM

As a result, he is candid to a fault. But don't think Duke is the only school he criticizes.

Oh, good Lord, check this out:

http://bigbluehistory.net/bb/detractors.html

It's rather creepy how much material that site has on him, as if he's being sued for Not Liking Kentucky or something. But that's Kentucky fans for ya.

-bdbd

01-22-2010, 02:57 PM

We've always missed on some recruits. Just see the wonderful posts by Al Featherstone (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24202) and Jim Sumner (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24203) on this topic.

To say that coaching the Olympic team hurts (or helps) recruiting is purely conjectural. To me, it's also counterintuitive.

I'm in favor of Coach K coaching the Olympic team, by the way.

Interesting piece by JF. I was only a hanful of years behind John at Duke and wrote a lot for the Chronicle myself, where JF was still held in high regard by the staff. It has been sad to me to see such a prominent, bright (and obvious sports fan) alum fall into such a state of dislike for Duke (at least for Duke athletics). I have spoken with John before and, at least as he relates it, he is well-connected with K, and they are very friendly. I suspect there is mutual respect.

One thing that doesn't come out in his article is that John was on the relatively small committee that was named to interview, review and recommend the new AD to follow Butters twenty years ago. His recommendation and enthusiasm/lobbying for Mickle was rejected by Nan, and she went with "Duke insider" (and Coach K racquetball buddy) Alleva. JF was furious. John's relationship with Duke athletics has been sour ever since that moment. But I think he builds up a "paper dragon/punching bag" in his description of Nan's decision. Would Duke have been better off if Mickle were selected back then? I think 90% would say 'yes,' now, given hindsight. But in fairness, there were some reasonable arguments against Tom as well (and not just b/c "he had ideas..." (Sheesh!) I say that as one who wanted to send flowers to LSU a couple years ago, and thrilled at the arrival of an apparently substantative AD in Mr. White.

"Duke and I had a major falling out when Duke President Nan Keohane named Joe Alleva to succeed Tom Butters as athletic director. I’m not going to go through the details AGAIN but this was one of the all-time stupid decisions made by any college president—which takes in a lot of ground. Anyone and I mean ANYONE who has been around college athletics for more than 15 minutes knew that Tom Mickle should have gotten the job. Keohane didn’t hire Tom for one reason: he had IDEAS, real ideas, about how to fix football and how to fund under-funded non-revenue sports better."

Just a couple years ago JF was still arguing that Duke FB ought to be dropped or at least reduced to a lower (non-BCS) level, essentially b/c it just couldn't compete or be successful in the modern College FB world. I'm really glad that Coach Cutcliffe seems to be proving that theory wrong (but to be fair, that ship isn't fully turned around yet...).

Back to the more pertinent discussion to current Duke BB: I wish John would give the question of whether K's USA activities help/hinder Duke BB a lot more honest discussion. The truth of the matter is that we don't know, really, if it helps or hurts Duke. I for one was thrilled that K was named to such an honor four or so years ago, but I think a little disappointed that he chose to go through it again for an additional four years after he had successfully re-estrablished the USA gold, following several years of poor management by Head Coaches from the UNC@CH family tree (Larry Brown, George Karl, etc). But that topic is worthy of greater analysis and discussion, and all JF seems to say is, "See, Duke hasn't met Mike's lofty standards for the last 7 years, ergo the Olympic gig must be bad for Duke." Not fair, and incomplete at best.

In the end, it would certainly be nice to see such an excellent writer and prominent alum rejoin the ranks of us proud to be associated with Duke and Duke athletics. I see no conflict between that and any "journalistic integrity." (Wouldn't that be an interesting conversation to hear, JF talking with Jay Bilas about how important it is to maintain distance from one's alma matter in order to maintain journalistic integrity/credibility? ....and, no, setting the record straight re the dirtiness around rumor-mongering, the biased NC media, and K's illness in 1995 is certainly NOT being an "apologist" or in any way showing pro-Duke bias -- it is simply calling a spade a spade, which is what honest/fair journalists do. (I've long been astonished at how many journalists seem affraid to do just that sort of thing...kind of like the old Gary Williams axiom, "Duke gets all the calls." Nobody south of Stewart Scott really seems to believe that one anymore.) I think the time has come to welcome John back into the Duke family, as fans, if he can only let some of that old "baggage" go, finally...

-BDBD

:D:confused::o;)

greybeard

01-22-2010, 03:04 PM

Feinstein was and remains to this DAY on the WRONG side of the LAX issue and actually functioned as an enabler of Brodhead's horrific handling of the situation from day one, in which he threw the entire LAX team, and basic elements of fairness, not to mention, justice under the bus. Feinstein would have hung these kids out to dry also. His blithe dismissal of Brodhead as a benign "Mr. Chips" tells me all I need to know about Feinstein.

As a guy who purports to enjoy sports for the purity of them--heck, he makes a living by writing about the littles--Feinstein seems to put an awful lot of stock on winning statistics, and how far in the tournament Duke has gotten these last few years.

I thought that K's radical change of Duke's offensive concepts after his first summer working with the Olympic Team--he adopted many D'Antoni concepts and put pressure on the rim through attacks from the wing--was as innovative as it was exciting to watch. Terrific for basketball, and I should think a real gas to have been a part of for players and real fans of the game and Duke. Seems that Feinstein is neither.

CDu

01-22-2010, 03:09 PM

CDu is making some very good points in this thread (as usual) but the biggest one is how far off Feinstein is in regards to K's Olympic commitment affecting K's longevity at Duke. We could very well be looking at a different head coach of Duke Basketball if K was not the Olympic coach.

Thanks for the kind words airowe! I admittedly was hesitant to the idea of Coach K coaching the Olympic team when we first found out he was going to do it. But I've been converted. It does seem to have revitalized him, and he's even added a few new tricks (occasional zone, weave offense, etc) along the way. To simply say "it's spreading him to thin so it's a bad idea" is a bit narrow minded.

I don't doubt that Feinstein truly believes what he writes. And I am completely in support of voicing your opinion even if it is controversial. But it appears to me that he doesn't fully consider all the factors when forming these opinions.

Duvall

01-22-2010, 03:12 PM

All I know is this quote from Coach K at the end of that article hit me like a ton of bricks:

“I don’t care about winning my 20 or being in the tournament. We’ve let the standards slip around here. I want this team and this program to play to MY standards, not anyone else’s.”

Whether or not coaching the US team hinders that concept only Coach K can say for sure. But I agree with Feinstein that it at least bears thinking about because he's spot on correct that the high standards Mike has set over the course of his tenure have slipped in recent years. I can't argue with that, although I guess others here will roast me for saying it.

I won't roast you for saying that, but I will object to the use of the already tired passive aggressive "I know people will attack me for this" trope. People need to cut that out.

Also, I'll roast you and Feinstein for taking a comment made after an 18-win season and accusing Krzyzewski of being inconsistent for not feeling the same way after a 30-win season.

CrazyNotCrazie

01-22-2010, 03:14 PM

DukeBlueNikeShox

01-22-2010, 03:47 PM

I thought Nan was awesome! Duke had its highest academic rankings under her tenure, highlighted by being ranked #4 in the country in 2003. Under Brodhead, Duke's rankings have steadily dipped, including being surpassed by UPenn, Chicago, and Columbia. This year, Duke is ranked #10, which is the lowest ranking Duke has had in the past 22 years. Also, Nan was very supportive of the teams, cheered with the Crazies, and even painted her face!

As for the Duke basketball coaches, it is what it is. For the life of me, I can't figure out how Nate James got the job, considering he had absolutely zero experiece in coaching.

hurleyfor3

01-22-2010, 03:50 PM

Maybe we should get to ranking the Duke presidents over our collective experience. Number one is probably undisputed (Uncle Terry). I probably give Brodie more credit than most here. Certainly thought he was better than Nan.

As for the Duke basketball coaches, it is what it is. For the life of me, I can't figure out how Nate James got the job, considering he had absolutely zero experiece in coaching.

He has Chuck Norris-level experience in being a badass. And we needed to be more badass.

Duvall

01-22-2010, 03:56 PM

I thought Nan was awesome! Duke had its highest academic rankings under her tenure, highlighted by being ranked #4 in the country in 2003. Under Brodhead, Duke's rankings have steadily dipped, including being surpassed by UPenn, Chicago, and Columbia. This year, Duke is ranked #10, which is the lowest ranking Duke has had in the past 22 years.

Would be more troubling if the ranking weren't basically arbitrary.

As for the Duke basketball coaches, it is what it is. For the life of me, I can't figure out how Nate James got the job, considering he had absolutely zero experiece in coaching.

As opposed to all the other assistants over the last twenty years? The career track for a Duke assistant coach is basically this: staff job with basketball program, assistant coach, associate head coach. Why single James out?

Duvall

01-22-2010, 03:58 PM

I probably give Brodie more credit than most here.

I've been associated with Duke for about seventeen years now, and I think this may be the first time I've heard anyone express an opinion about H. Keith H. Brodie.

Nan brought in reams of cash, which is Job #1 for the head of a major research institution. Picking a competent athletic director is like Job #1000.

CDu

01-22-2010, 04:05 PM

Nan brought in reams of cash, which is Job #1 for the head of a major research institution. Picking a competent athletic director is like Job #1000.

Exactly. Nan did her job, which was to raise money for Duke and work to improve the prestige of the school. She succeeded mightily on both fronts.

Feinstein is focusing on her decision to hire Alleva (a yes-man for Coach K) rather than the guy he recommended. He appears to have taken huge offense to that, and seems to have burned bridges specifically because of that. I don't know (and will never know) all the specifics behind Keohane's choice of Alleva. But to admittedly call someone a liar in public is a good way to damage a relationship, and Feinstein doesn't seem interested in taking responsibility for that.

hurleyfor3

01-22-2010, 04:06 PM

I've been associated with Duke for about seventeen years now, and I think this may be the first time I've heard anyone express an opinion about H. Keith H. Brodie.

Nan brought in reams of cash, which is Job #1 for the head of a major research institution. Picking a competent athletic director is like Job #1000.

I'm well aware of your latter point. At worst, Brodie didn't screw anything up that I can think of and successfully navigated Duke's finances through the early 1990s recession (worth noting if you know what went on within the UNC system). At best he significantly expanded Duke's resources in the hard sciences, engineering and most notably computing, although it did take him a few years to realize this was a need in the first place. Anyway, I'm going off-topic.

Maybe he was the Millard Fillmore of Duke presidents, but that makes him better than the Warren Harding.

sagegrouse

01-22-2010, 04:16 PM

I actually tend to agree with a lot of what Feinstein says, but I think his tone and attitude are horrible. I think that it was great for Coach K to coach the Olympic team once, but he shouldn't have re-upped, and I agree that the hiring of Alleva was an absolute disaster. But I think he would do a lot better making these comments in a constructive, positive way rather than sounding so bitter and angry and trying but failing to be witty. Especially in today's era of sensationalist journalism, sports writers have a very difficult job trying not to be considered homers, but Feinstein has now gone way too far in the opposite direction.

This is John being John and saying exactly what he thinks. He is not trying to "lean into the wind" by criticizing Duke to avoid the "homer" label.

The funniest thing I ever heard (and I heard it live) was when he dropped an F-bomb on air during a Navy football game, complaining about an interference call in the end zone that went against Navy. JF has (or had) been a color commentator for Navy football for a number of years -- Navy attracted to him probably by his book (A Civil War) on the Army-Navy rivalry. And he was complaining about a call in a game against Duke! He resigned, but the USNA refused to accept it so he stayed around.

sagegrouse

miramar

01-22-2010, 04:34 PM

I found Feinstein's generally interesting, although I was surprised by his comments on Brodhead: "He completely blew the entire lacrosse situation."

Takes one to know one, I guess.

As far as the recruiting, I have to go with CDu on this one. Duke has consistently recruited highly rated players, but unfortunately they don't always work out for any program. I think we were spoiled for a long time by an incredibly high percentage of big-time recruits who turned out as expected, with a few exceptions such as Joey Beard and Chris Burgess. Unfortunately, the number of disappointments increased dramatically for a few years, but I'm not convinced that is related to the Olympics. If the performance of the class of 2009 (McRoberts, Paulus, Marty, Boateng, and Boyken) had been anywhere as good as expected, we would not be having this conversation, but that has nothing to do with the Olympics.

That recruiting perception has also taken root because of the inevitable comparison to UNC, where ol' Roy seemed to have the magic touch for a few years. But now we see this year that he too is human, as is Billy Donovan and every other coach in college basketball.

CLT Devil

01-22-2010, 04:46 PM

I fully admit the hijack potential. And yes, Feinstein's argument is that Coach K is wearing himself out and spreading himself too thin. My point is that Feinstein may be misinterpreting the problem or may just be shortsighted. It may be that the problem has not been spreading himself too thin but instead is simply a matter of a couple of players not being quite as amazing as their high school pedigree might have suggested.

CDu hits the nail on the head right here...to me, this is all there is to the past few years. A bunch of our guys have not panned out as well as advertised and thus we haven't had the kind of talent that other schools (especially ones 8 miles down the road) have had. Their pedigrees might suggest otherwise, but a lot of the guys we thought were going to be starts did not pan out, whether they just weren't ready for the big time (Chris Burgess, Michael Thompson, McBob to an extent) or injuries hampered their career (Markie), or they were so good they left early or never evenb came (Deng, Livingston, Hendo.)

OTOH, just about every one of Carolina's players's have met or exceeded expectations during this same time period. We get McBob, the higher ranked player, they get Hansbrough. We get Paulus, they get Lawson. Etc, etc. Let's face it, the only reason we are having this discussion is because of the success of the guys down the road. If we have our 2001 title and their latest one is from 1993 we aren't even talking about this.

Now, look how this year is playing out. Their recruits aren't doing as well as they have hoped, including Hensen, Drew II, Wear Twins and McDonald. As much as anyone can predict how good someone is going to be out of HS (wasn't Burgess rated above Brand, Battier and Avery?) you never really know until they hit the big time. Our guys are going to start working out for us...it's probability...as long as we keep getting so many good players we are bound to get a group of great players all playing at the same time, and that's not holding anything against this current team, which I think is vert talented.

Sooner or later Carolina's recruits were going to not as good as advertised, and ours will be as good or better. Then they will be the ones hand wringing about what to do with their program...heck, just look at them this year.

My 2cents

roywhite

01-22-2010, 05:07 PM

CDu

01-22-2010, 05:07 PM

CDu hits the nail on the head right here...to me, this is all there is to the past few years. A bunch of our guys have not panned out as well as advertised and thus we haven't had the kind of talent that other schools (especially ones 8 miles down the road) have had. Their pedigrees might suggest otherwise, but a lot of the guys we thought were going to be starts did not pan out, whether they just weren't ready for the big time (Chris Burgess, Michael Thompson, McBob to an extent) or injuries hampered their career (Markie), or they were so good they left early or never evenb came (Deng, Livingston, Hendo.)

OTOH, just about every one of Carolina's players's have met or exceeded expectations during this same time period. We get McBob, the higher ranked player, they get Hansbrough. We get Paulus, they get Lawson. Etc, etc. Let's face it, the only reason we are having this discussion is because of the success of the guys down the road. If we have our 2001 title and their latest one is from 1993 we aren't even talking about this.

Now, look how this year is playing out. Their recruits aren't doing as well as they have hoped, including Hensen, Drew II, Wear Twins and McDonald. As much as anyone can predict how good someone is going to be out of HS (wasn't Burgess rated above Brand, Battier and Avery?) you never really know until they hit the big time. Our guys are going to start working out for us...it's probability...as long as we keep getting so many good players we are bound to get a group of great players all playing at the same time, and that's not holding anything against this current team, which I think is vert talented.

Sooner or later Carolina's recruits were going to not as good as advertised, and ours will be as good or better. Then they will be the ones hand wringing about what to do with their program...heck, just look at them this year.

My 2cents

I completely agree with your added point about Carolina's recent successes. It's just amazing what a few guys exceeding expectations can do, and what a few guys not quite reaching expectations can do. I'm not suggesting in any way that our recruits haven't become good players. But the expectations for Paulus and McRoberts (for example) were so high (perhaps too high), and they didn't quite meet those expectations.

I really like your reference to this year's UNC team, and will expand on it. Let's say Barnes is just a really solid player and not the world-beater everyone expects. And let's say that Marshall isn't the PG to fill Lawson's shoes and that Drew and Strickland don't get there either. Let's say Davis leaves early, too. Then, let's say that Irving lives up to the hype, and Singler stays. Maybe we're in the Final Four next year and UNC is a Sweet-16 team. Are people still questioning Coach K at that point?

Obviously there are a lot of "ifs" in that hypothetical, and I'm not suggesting that this will be how it plays out. But it just shows how quickly things can change if a couple of recruiting classes don't quite pan out how you'd hoped.

RelativeWays

01-22-2010, 05:12 PM

I've aired my grievances on JF a few times on DBR, particularly the issue I take with his flip flopping on the LAX case (and still wouldn't admit he was wrong, trying to cover himself with the flimsly "they guilty of everything but rape" accusation) and the absolute glee he takes in throwing Duke football under the bus, despite its improvement over the past two seasons. When asked about it, his responses always amount to little more than a rolling of eyes. I like the Naval academy, maybe because of my ties to Pensacola, and anytime they don't play us I'll pull for em. This season, knowing that a Duke victory in Annapolis would irritate JF to no end, I hope we destroy them. Then again, JF will just lie about how the team and fans were entirely disrespectful to the Navy crowd like he lied in 2008. I was at the game and the team nor the fans did anything to disrespect the Naval Academy. Misanthrope!

rsvman

01-22-2010, 05:13 PM

Would be more troubling if the ranking weren't basically arbitrary.

I'm no expert on the rankings, and I'm not going to specifically look up the criteria right now, but I'm pretty sure the rankings involve more than just "reputation" (which I would consider to be arbitrary). If I'm not mistaken, they place a lot of stock in research, publications, government grant funding, and the like.

And if they are mostly based on "reputation," then how could Duke avoid continuing to drop over the next few years, as these rankings form a large part of the reputation they are "measuring"? I guess it would become circular pretty quickly......

hurleyfor3

01-22-2010, 05:29 PM

cspan37421

01-22-2010, 05:30 PM

I'm no expert on the rankings, and I'm not going to specifically look up the criteria right now, but I'm pretty sure the rankings involve more than just "reputation" (which I would consider to be arbitrary). If I'm not mistaken, they place a lot of stock in research, publications, government grant funding, and the like.

And if they are mostly based on "reputation," then how could Duke avoid continuing to drop over the next few years, as these rankings form a large part of the reputation they are "measuring"? I guess it would become circular pretty quickly......

IIRC reputation/peer esteem counts or counted for 25%, plenty large enough to be a huge fudge factor. Should this not produce the desired result, the weights of other factors change annually to produce USN&WR's pre-determined conclusions. The only ranking that matters is that of the individual student or applicant.

cspan37421

01-22-2010, 05:32 PM

Glad to be in agreement with hurleyfor3 ...

imo the rankings business is an intellectual fraud of the highest order. Well, maybe I shouldn't rank intellectual frauds....

greybeard

01-22-2010, 05:35 PM

JF put out a provocative thought in all of this--that K's decision to sign on for a second stint with the Olympics was somehow improvident given Duke's failure to live up to his standards the previous four years with the current group of assistants, whom John says are lacking. This belies the larger question of just what role Chris and HoJo play in how this team presents week-in and week-out, how players develop or don't, and how well the team meshes.

I haven't seen a book that examines this dynamic (how the successes and failures of a program depend on the performance of assistants) with respect to any big time basketball program. If John has insights about how it works at Duke, he is just teasing us with the unsupported assertion that K, having taken on the Olympic role, needs an assistant with shall we say more gravitas than his current crop possess. Is a book coming, or is this just another old man yodeling? Interesting.

cspan37421

01-22-2010, 05:46 PM

I have been one of those who wondered, if cross-pollination of coaching ideas has been a benefit through the Olympic job, why isn't it a good idea for who we hire as assistant coaches?

CDu

01-22-2010, 05:57 PM

I have been one of those who wondered, if cross-pollination of coaching ideas has been a benefit through the Olympic job, why isn't it a good idea for who we hire as assistant coaches?

I think this is a reasonable question. Obviously, it's easier to feel comfortable with a hire if you hire from within. And you're less likely to have unexpected turnover if you hire guys who are loyal to you. So while you may lose out on getting a different viewpoint on strategy by hiring from within, you may gain in terms of continuity, loyalty, and understanding of the "Duke way." Which one outweighs the other is a question that I don't think any of us can answer.

Duvall

01-22-2010, 06:04 PM

I think this is a reasonable question. Obviously, it's easier to feel comfortable with a hire if you hire from within. And you're less likely to have unexpected turnover if you hire guys who are loyal to you. So while you may lose out on getting a different viewpoint on strategy by hiring from within, you may gain in terms of continuity, loyalty, and understanding of the "Duke way." Which one outweighs the other is a question that I don't think any of us can answer.

And it's worth noting that Duke has done a lot of winning with homegrown assistant coaches over the last fifteen years or so.

JF put out a provocative thought in all of this--that K's decision to sign on for a second stint with the Olympics was somehow improvident given Duke's failure to live up to his standards the previous four years with the current group of assistants, whom John says are lacking. This belies the larger question of just what role Chris and HoJo play in how this team presents week-in and week-out, how players develop or don't, and how well the team meshes.

Feinstein didn't say that; his moronic commenters did.

cato

01-22-2010, 06:14 PM

. . . HoJo . . .

http://www.jetsandmets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/1989-topps-howard-johnson3-200x300.jpg

CDu

01-22-2010, 06:17 PM

And it's worth noting that Duke has done a lot of winning with homegrown assistant coaches over the last fifteen years or so.

Yes, this is true. But in fairness, the question is whether or not Duke would have had even more success with some non-homegrown coaches sprinkled in. I believe we had some non-homegrowns during the late-80s/early-90s, no?

Obviously, the fact that we've had success with or without exclusively homegrown coaches doesn't really answer the question.

roywhite

01-22-2010, 06:20 PM

-jk

01-22-2010, 06:27 PM

Hmm... This thread is wandering all over the place.

H Keith - I think he did sow a lot of the seeds Nan reaped. It's a tough job, and not for the feint of heart.

Alleva - he may has screwed football and baseball, but overall the rest of sports at Duke did fairly well. I'm not sorry to see him gone, though.

I think the Olympic gig correlates remarkably closely with One-and-Done, and I'm not sure K has figured out how to recruit in that world even yet.

-jk

pfrduke

01-22-2010, 06:36 PM

If the performance of the class of 2009 (McRoberts, Paulus, Marty, Boateng, and Boyken) had been anywhere as good as expected, we would not be having this conversation, but that has nothing to do with the Olympics.

Their pedigrees might suggest otherwise, but a lot of the guys we thought were going to be starts did not pan out, whether they just weren't ready for the big time (Chris Burgess, Michael Thompson, McBob to an extent) or injuries hampered their career (Markie), or they were so good they left early or never even came (Deng, Livingston, Hendo.)

The 2003-2005 HS classes really hurt us (relatively speaking, since we've never really been worse than a top 25 team). We got 3 collective seasons out of our four best recruits - Deng, Livingston, McRoberts, and Humphries. And Paulus turned out not to be Hurley, Jr. After that, the classes have really been strong, even with the misses. Scheyer and Henderson developed into stars, and Zoubek and Thomas into ACC-quality role players. The Singler/Smith combo keeps improving, and at this point look to be all-ACC level players for us for multiple seasons. Losing Williams to family issues was a bit of bad luck, but we've also brought in Miles, Mason, Dawkins, and Curry in the past 2 years. And next year's class is strong as well. I think we've had some more highly publicized recruiting misses than usual, but since 2006, our recruiting has been at a level consistent with all other periods in Duke history but the insane 97-99 run.

pfrduke

01-22-2010, 06:41 PM

Now, wait...Coach K recently brought in that outsider Chris Spatola from Army. :)

Actually, I rarely criticize Coach K, but I think the composition of his staff should more often include outsiders.

I keep hoping that one day I'll log on to this site and see that Duke has retained Bob Knight in a special-advisor-to-the-head-coach position. Someone who K really respects (and would listen to), who won't worry about pulling punches if he has a different opinion about how K is doing something, and who knows one heck of a lot about basketball.

greybeard

01-22-2010, 07:12 PM

And it's worth noting that Duke has done a lot of winning with homegrown assistant coaches over the last fifteen years or so.

Feinstein didn't say that [criticize WoJo and Chris]; his moronic commenters did.

Seems to me that you are picking nits here, Duvall. Feinstein said that K can't afford the time, energy and attention he puts into the Olympics because his own house is not in shape to meet K's own self-professed standards." Now, I know that WoJo and Chris help out with the Olympic duties over the summer, and agree with those who think that that experience can only help them improve their perspectives on the game.

That said, it remains that Feinstein thinks "team K" cannot get both done. If John's dissatisfaction stems from numbers and championships I think it a bit hypocritical of Feinstein and said so. On the other hand, if John's dissatisfaction is with how Duke has been presenting as a team, with how players have developed or not, how well a team meshes, etc., then the roles and competency of K's assistants are necessarily on the table. I have to say, I know nothing about the roles played by WoJo and Chris since Dawkinss' departure (or before for that matter) or how they have performed. Have I thought about it? "Not exactly a soup question now is it."

weezie

01-22-2010, 08:15 PM

Very interesting. Just as I had given up on Feinstein as a complete boob, here he comes with some entertaining observations. Whatever anyone believes, he has made a living off of sports reporting.
The Nan/Alleva comments are satisfying, since a mere mortal like myself could never understand how that guy managed to get/hold onto his job. Ozzie, with all due respect, I think I could have done the job in my sleep.

Perhaps the Coach K observations are a tad histrionic, no doubt Feiny was on the receiving end of many a K needling comment, and K has always been known as a stand-up guy but one hell of an adversary. In any event, who cares what Feiny's opinions are now...kind of funny that he hold a grudge about not being invited to speak at historically boring Duke alumni events.

Perhaps a book about golf caddies/carts/shoe designers/mystery murdering women golfers is about to be launched.

_Gary

01-22-2010, 09:18 PM

Also, I'll roast you and Feinstein for taking a comment made after an 18-win season and accusing Krzyzewski of being inconsistent for not feeling the same way after a 30-win season.

Are you insinuating that Coach K has been and will continue to be happy with Sweet 16 standards as opposed to Final Four/Championship standards? If so, I'll roast you because there's just no way he's been satisfied with the way Duke has performed in March over the last 5 years. In that sense I think Feinstein has an excellent point.

MChambers

01-22-2010, 09:20 PM

I keep hoping that one day I'll log on to this site and see that Duke has retained Bob Knight in a special-advisor-to-the-head-coach position. Someone who K really respects (and would listen to), who won't worry about pulling punches if he has a different opinion about how K is doing something, and who knows one heck of a lot about basketball.

Let's get DBR to raise money to hire Bobby!

;)

chrisheery

01-22-2010, 09:21 PM

Newton_14

01-22-2010, 10:35 PM

Feinstein was, for a time, perhaps the best sports journalist/author out there. Now, he is a publicity hog who is making a mockery of himself. I am just so tired of hearing his self-motivated "observations." If he wants to disown Duke, I'm more than happy to disown him right back.

Totally agree. Are there any forms/paperwork we need to have completed to make the divorce official? I can start drafting them up if needed. I mean how many times does he need to publicly state that Nan did not choose his pick for AD and he feels K should not be the Olympic coach?

I used to hold JF in high regard but you captured my current feelings very nicely in your post. He has destroyed his credibility and at this point just needs to go away or never write another piece on anything Duke related.

killerleft

01-22-2010, 11:59 PM

Totally agree. Are there any forms/paperwork we need to have completed to make the divorce official? I can start drafting them up if needed. I mean how many times does he need to publicly state that Nan did not choose his pick for AD and he feels K should not be the Olympic coach?

I used to hold JF in high regard but you captured my current feelings very nicely in your post. He has destroyed his credibility and at this point just needs to go away or never write another piece on anything Duke related.

So true. John Feinstein is no friend of Duke University. When he jumped feet first on Duke Lacrosse (for which he has never apologized) with no investigative knowledge of any wrongdoing on the players' part, he lost any respect that I once had for him.

Please let me know when his tar-and-feathering is about to become reality. I'll help.

Maybe he could be appeased if Duke would announce plans for the Feinstein Library and Museum to be located at the former Chapel site.

Devilsfan

01-23-2010, 11:17 AM

Greybeard's post was very insightful. Duke's academic ranking after peaking in 2003 is on the wrong side of the bell curve. What could possibly be wrong? I suggest everyone go back and read his post.

Vincetaylor

01-23-2010, 11:32 AM

Are you insinuating that Coach K has been and will continue to be happy with Sweet 16 standards as opposed to Final Four/Championship standards? If so, I'll roast you because there's just no way he's been satisfied with the way Duke has performed in March over the last 5 years. In that sense I think Feinstein has an excellent point.

I agree with you. Anyone who watched K's press conference after the Nova game knows that his comments after the game indicated frustration over much more than the loss to Nova. He was frustrated with the last several tourneys.

SoCalDukeFan

01-23-2010, 11:49 AM

I used to be a huge fan of JF and think "Forever's Team" was one of the most enjoyable books I have ever read. I found some of his later books to be repetitious and have not read him for a while.

He lost a lot of credibility with me with I perceived as a flip flop on the Duke lacrosse case. Then he somehow figured out that if Duke had had better ADs and football coaches then it would have succeeded in football but should drop to a lower level. Which I find inconsistent. Why not get a better AD and coach (which I think we have).

His ego seems overblown. Despite what many of us may think the choice of Duke's AD is not really one of the major decisions made by a college President. I am very sorry for John that Nan did not his advice but she is gone and Mickie has passed away so MOVE ON.

Having said the above, I do think that Brodhead handling of the lacrosse case was extremely poor. For the life of me I can not figure out the value to Duke or Coach K or anyone except USA Basketball in 2012 in having K coach the Olympic team again. I would rather have him than anyone else coaching Duke so will have to accept that this is what he is going to do.

Regarding Nate James and the Duke assistants. With a staff of former players K does not have to coach the coaches. They know what is expected. I would guess that Nate as a player showed K that the characteristics that K wants in assistants and there was an opening when Nate was available.

SoCal

CameronDuke

01-23-2010, 01:11 PM

I enjoyed reading this article and think Feinstein hit the nail on the head suggesting that Coach K not coach the Olympic Team. It is apparent that this was the bulk of his article and the rest of the Duke politics that goes on with Feinstein, Alleva, etc. are just minor grievances he wanted to get off his chest. I totally agree, though, about Coach K and the Olympic Team. Just say no...

What benefits to the Duke Basketball program does coaching the Olympic Team in the upcoming Olympic Games present? Coach K already has done what he set out to do with the USA Basketball Team, and that is to bring the gold back to the United States. Mission accomplished. Did it help our recruiting? I am willing to say it might have made Coach K appear more distinguished, prolific, prestigious, etc. We signed big recruits before he became the Olympic Coach (Battier, Jason Williams, Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, Chris Duhon, Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, etc. etc. etc. all of whom played or play in the NBA). We also signed 5-star recruits after he became the Olympic Coach (Singler, Plumlee, Irving, etc.) If we base the fact that we want our recruiting to improve because our coach is the USA Coach...I think that is flawed. It seems to me that if you want your recruiting to improve, then recruit harder on the homefront at your school, representing your school and program, not the USA Basketball program. Roy Williams, John Thompson III, Jim Calhoun, Tom Izzo, etc. all recruit the same players that Duke recruits and they aren't the USA Coach...

Coach K already has his gold, trying to get two in my opinion exerts too much stress and pressure on him. Rather than a 2nd gold, I want Duke to win a 4th National Championship and distinguish themselves as one of the best college basketball programs. Were we elite? Yes, we were a dynasty in the 1990s and early 2000s. But let's not sweep under the rug the fact that we are and have been an average basketball team in the ACC regular seasons and more importantly NCAA Tournaments since 2005. This, in my opinion, is a minor result of recruiting, but we still have had the teams to do it. I think that as seasons go on, Coach K wears down due to the long years he is putting in to USA Basketball and the dedication he has to Duke. On the sidelines, his demeanor and appearance simply look tired towards the end of seasons. We all know what a warrior he is, but I really believe he is putting too much on his plate by being dedicated to two teams. He obviously can do what he wants and has infinitely more knowledge/power/prestige than me, but the results in the NCAA Tournaments the past 6-7 years speak for themselves. He, and his teams, wear down towards the end of seasons.

roywhite

01-23-2010, 01:15 PM

Coach K has already decided to coach the USA basketball team for the 2012 Olympics.

Whatever case can be made against that is academic at this point. I wish Coach K and his team the best at London.

CameronDuke

01-23-2010, 01:18 PM

Coach K has already decided to coach the USA basketball team for the 2012 Olympics.

Whatever case can be made against that is academic at this point. I wish Coach K and his team the best at London.

I wish him the best, too, but cannot say I agree and would be willing to suggest the time he puts into the USA coaching job would do Duke a LOT better if it were spent in Durham coaching Duke.

What do I know though?

CLT Devil

01-23-2010, 01:26 PM

Kedsy

01-23-2010, 02:15 PM

But let's not sweep under the rug the fact that we are and have been an average basketball team in the ACC regular seasons and more importantly NCAA Tournaments since 2005.

We've discussed our NCAAT performance on these boards ad nauseam, so I won't get into that, but here's our conference record in the ACC regular seasons since 2005:

2005: 11-5 (3rd)
2006: 14-2 (1st)
2007: 8-8 (6th)
2008: 13-3 (2nd)
2009: 11-5 (2nd)

That's a mean record of 11.4 wins and 4.6 losses over 5 years. In what way is that "average"? How can you make that kind of statement with a straight face? (Not that I can see your face...)

CameronDuke

01-23-2010, 02:27 PM

We've discussed our NCAAT performance on these boards ad nauseam, so I won't get into that, but here's our conference record in the ACC regular seasons since 2005:

2005: 11-5 (3rd)
2006: 14-2 (1st)
2007: 8-8 (6th)
2008: 13-3 (2nd)
2009: 11-5 (2nd)

That's a mean record of 11.4 wins and 4.6 losses over 5 years. In what way is that "average"? How can you make that kind of statement with a straight face? (Not that I can see your face...)

Well, first and foremost, I stated "more importantly" our NCAA Tournament performance has been average, and there are no arguments from you there, no? NCAA Basketball teams are judged in large part by their NCAA Tournament performance, certainly at elite schools like Duke, no?

But, I stand by my point with a straight face in saying that we have been average by our own standards in the ACC regular seasons. Before 2005, look at these records:

1997- 12-4
1998- 15-1
1999- 16-0
2000- 15-1
2001- 13-3
2002- 13-3
2003- 11-5
2004- 13-3

Those numbers are certainly higher than the ones you posted and are certainly before Coach K became the Olympic Coach. Compared to those years, our records since 2005 are average by our very own standards. That's what I mean. I'm saying, since the time he took the job as the USA Coach, Duke has taken a step back in ACC regular season play and NCAA Tournament play given their win loss records. He has managed to still be an amazing ACC Tourney coach, to his credit.

Mike Corey

01-23-2010, 02:35 PM

I think the Olympic gig correlates remarkably closely with One-and-Done, and I'm not sure K has figured out how to recruit in that world even yet.

-jk

I think this is absolutely right.

K's recruiting machine was chugging along with Deng, Humphries, Livingston, etc., and when those three situations changed, so did Duke's fortunes for the next several years. Things are always evolving in college basketball, and such is true for Duke now.

We've got a pretty darn good team right now--with oodles of potential and oodles of things to improve on--and the makings of one final elite run before K hangs it up.

My sense with Feinstein is that he's not of the opinion that K would have already retired had he not found rejuvenation and inspiration in the Olympic work.

SoCalDukeFan

01-23-2010, 02:39 PM

K Himself has said that the experience does nothing but energize him, as well as give him new ideas about coaching. I think it also serves two very important personal needs for K.

1. K is a patriot. His family came here with basically nothing, and K's story truly is one of the American Dream. West Point, Team USA both lead me to believe that he feels he has an obligation to give back to the country that has given so much to him. I know, pure conjecture, but worth a thought.

2. It gives K a chance to coach NBA players, some of which he recruited (Kobe.) We all are aware of his flirtations with the Celts and Lakers...if him coaching Team USA gives him his fix and keeps him at Duke forever I am all for it.

I see nothing but good from his coaching the olympic team, as far as K opening himself up to new coaching ideas, coaching the best players in the world, giving back to something that has given so much to him...and I certainly don't think it hurts recruiting when LBJ or Kobe publicly state how much they like playing for him.

In the end, it all comes back to recruiting busts...I think our misses have been more publicized because everything is on the internet. Bottom line is we still get a lot of the players we go after. As CDu said, look at Billy Donovan and Roy, who appeared invincible a couple of years ago and who raised the expectations at their respective programs (maybe not UNC's who have always been high) and now are 'paying the price for their own success through demands of continued success.'

I would like to agree with RoyWhite
"Coach K has already decided to coach the USA basketball team for the 2012 Olympics.

Whatever case can be made against that is academic at this point. I wish Coach K and his team the best at London."

and we should just move on I do need to point out that neither LBJ or Kobe are eligible to play college basketball. While we have recruited some fine players it has been a while since we have recruited a superstar, a national poy candidate.

While correlation does not mean causation, there is no statistical evidence that I have seen to indicate that K coaching the Olympic team has helped Duke and plenty that it has hurt.

K's decision has been made. Lets move on.

SoCal

Kedsy

01-23-2010, 02:47 PM

Well, first and foremost, I stated "more importantly" our NCAA Tournament performance has been average, and there are no arguments from you there, no? NCAA Basketball teams are judged in large part by their NCAA Tournament performance, certainly at elite schools like Duke, no?

But, I stand by my point with a straight face in saying that we have been average by our own standards in the ACC regular seasons. Before 2005, look at these records:

1997- 12-4
1998- 15-1
1999- 16-0
2000- 15-1
2001- 13-3
2002- 13-3
2003- 11-5
2004- 13-3

Those numbers are certainly higher than the ones you posted and are certainly before Coach K became the Olympic Coach. Compared to those years, our records since 2005 are average by our very own standards. That's what I mean. I'm saying, since the time he took the job as the USA Coach, Duke has taken a step back in ACC regular season play and NCAA Tournament play given their win loss records. He has managed to still be an amazing ACC Tourney coach, to his credit.

Well, first of all, there are plenty of arguments from me about the conclusions you can draw about our NCAAT performance, and whether such performance should be what teams are judged upon, but as a group we've hashed and re-hashed these so many times it's not worth going into again.

Second, I have no idea what "average by our very own standards" means. Because if we're performing to the average of what we performed before, then it's the same, isn't it? Ignoring this, however, my response to you is we had an amazing 3-year run where we lost a total of 2 games in three years, which is unprecedented by any team in the history of the ACC. We had an off-year (8-8) in 2007. If you take out those outliers, our ACC record the past five years (not counting 2007) is pretty much the same as our record the previous years (not counting 1998-2000).

If you're saying 2007 had anything to do with him being Olympic coach, or that we'd continue to have undefeated or 1-loss seasons if he'd never been Olympic coach, my simple answer would be I don't believe you and neither would most reasonable people. And if you accept that those years were outliers having nothing to do with K's Olympic commitment, then since the records are so close the facts seem to refute your contention.

CameronDuke

01-23-2010, 03:28 PM

Well, first of all, there are plenty of arguments from me about the conclusions you can draw about our NCAAT performance, and whether such performance should be what teams are judged upon, but as a group we've hashed and re-hashed these so many times it's not worth going into again.

Second, I have no idea what "average by our very own standards" means. Because if we're performing to the average of what we performed before, then it's the same, isn't it? Ignoring this, however, my response to you is we had an amazing 3-year run where we lost a total of 2 games in three years, which is unprecedented by any team in the history of the ACC. We had an off-year (8-8) in 2007. If you take out those outliers, our ACC record the past five years (not counting 2007) is pretty much the same as our record the previous years (not counting 1998-2000).

If you're saying 2007 had anything to do with him being Olympic coach, or that we'd continue to have undefeated or 1-loss seasons if he'd never been Olympic coach, my simple answer would be I don't believe you and neither would most reasonable people. And if you accept that those years were outliers having nothing to do with K's Olympic commitment, then since the records are so close the facts seem to refute your contention.

I'll try to explain what I mean by saying that our recent play is average by our own standards. I'll use an easy example for you with easy numbers. If Team A had a run from Year 0 to Year 5 where they were 45-5, they have established a solid win loss record, have built credibility as a program, and have raised the bar for their very own standards. Let's say that same team, from year 6 to year 10 goes 35-15. Judging by the very standards that they built from their amazing success from Year 0 to Year 5, they have had a less than average run from years 6-10 by their own standards, and pretty much an average run by a normal person's standards. Duke ain't normal...

If you've hashed and re-hased about NCAA Tourney appearance, I really don't care about it and don't care to hear about it. I was taught that sports are about winning championships and ultimate goals of most teams are to win in the NCAA Tourney. We have the coach with the most all-time wins in the NCAA Tourney, but lately, we haven't won as much as I would like to win in the big dance. I don't know about you and can't speak about you, but early exits in the Sweet 16 agitate me, especially watching it happen year in and year out. ACC regular season and tournament championships are very commendable and worthy of respect, but coming from me, I want NCAA Championships. Again, I don't know about you, so it's suffice to say you can have your opinion on that and I will have mine...

That off year you speak of (2007), I'm interested to hear your opinion on this question. If Coach K had devoted his time, resources, and energy completely to the Duke Basketball program and none of it to the USA team, could Duke have been better than 8-8? My thinking is that they could have won a few more and lost a few less had this been the case.

And you're reasoning is flawed in my humble opinion because I don't accept those years as outliers in your argument. I accept them as Coach K getting after it every day on the homefront, not coaching the USA team. It's all about time, energy, and resources.

sagegrouse

01-23-2010, 04:15 PM

But, I stand by my point with a straight face in saying that we have been average by our own standards in the ACC regular seasons. Before 2005, look at these records:

1997- 12-4
1998- 15-1
1999- 16-0
2000- 15-1
2001- 13-3
2002- 13-3
2003- 11-5
2004- 13-3

Those numbers are certainly higher than the ones you posted and are certainly before Coach K became the Olympic Coach. Compared to those years, our records since 2005 are average by our very own standards.

The problem I have with citing Duke during 1997-2004 is that no one can figure out how Duke dominated the ACC for such a long period of time. The miracle year was 2000, where Duke won all but one conference game after losing NPOY Brand, All-ACC Trajan, Avery, Maggette and Burgess. And five years in a row -- 1999-2003 -- Duke won the ACC tournament.

This is by far the best run in the history of the ACC (as usual, Jim Sumner will correct my assertion). It isn't fair to compare any team with that record. Nevertheless, is anyone really claiming that Duke since JJ and Shel has performed as well as in the decade prior?

While you didn't go this far, it is sort of like the dyspeptic Johnny Miller pompously asserting in 2002 that Tiger Woods would never be as good as he was in 2000-2001 (the "Tiger Slam"). Really? How many other times has any golf pro won four Grand Slam events in a row? Never? Going out there on a limb, aren't we, Johnny boy?

sagegrouse
'I would like to see Johnny Miller vs. Len Elmore for the Sage Grouse Curmudgeon Award!'

jv001

01-23-2010, 04:42 PM

CameronDuke

01-23-2010, 05:02 PM

The problem I have with citing Duke during 1997-2004 is that no one can figure out how Duke dominated the ACC for such a long period of time. The miracle year was 2000, where Duke won all but one conference game after losing NPOY Brand, All-ACC Trajan, Avery, Maggette and Burgess. And five years in a row -- 1999-2003 -- Duke won the ACC tournament.

This is by far the best run in the history of the ACC (as usual, Jim Sumner will correct my assertion). It isn't fair to compare any team with that record. Nevertheless, is anyone really claiming that Duke since JJ and Shel has performed as well as in the decade prior?

While you didn't go this far, it is sort of like the dyspeptic Johnny Miller pompously asserting in 2002 that Tiger Woods would never be as good as he was in 2000-2001 (the "Tiger Slam"). Really? How many other times has any golf pro won four Grand Slam events in a row? Never? Going out there on a limb, aren't we, Johnny boy?

sagegrouse
'I would like to see Johnny Miller vs. Len Elmore for the Sage Grouse Curmudgeon Award!'

Maybe it is just me, but growing up watching Duke in the early 90s and into the early 2000s, I grew accustomed to dominance and an elite team year in and year out...(I'm showing my age a bit here). Maybe I'm "spoiled" to remember the 1991, 1992, and 2001 teams like the back of my hand and I am just comparing out recent "mediocre" (and I use that term loosely) teams of the past five years to the hayday years of the early 90s and 2000s. But, darn it, we are better than the last few years have showed (early sweet 16 exits, losing to VCU, 8-8 in 2007). We have too much of a dedication to excellence to not be better than we have been recently. That's the point I'm trying to make, I reckon. Too much money is pumped into the program, Duke works too hard, and we have the best coach we will ever see in our lifetimes. It's time we win more in the NCAAs like we did in the hayday years.

-jk

01-23-2010, 05:24 PM

Maybe it is just me, but growing up watching Duke in the early 90s and into the early 2000s, I grew accustomed to dominance and an elite team year in and year out...(I'm showing my age a bit here). Maybe I'm "spoiled" to remember the 1991, 1992, and 2001 teams like the back of my hand and I am just comparing out recent "mediocre" (and I use that term loosely) teams of the past five years to the hayday years of the early 90s and 2000s. But, darn it, we are better than the last few years have showed (early sweet 16 exits, losing to VCU, 8-8 in 2007). We have too much of a dedication to excellence to not be better than we have been recently. That's the point I'm trying to make, I reckon. Too much money is pumped into the program, Duke works too hard, and we have the best coach we will ever see in our lifetimes. It's time we win more in the NCAAs like we did in the hayday years.

Yep. You're spoiled. ;)

-jk

Kedsy

01-23-2010, 05:28 PM

I'll try to explain what I mean by saying that our recent play is average by our own standards. I'll use an easy example for you with easy numbers. If Team A had a run from Year 0 to Year 5 where they were 45-5, they have established a solid win loss record, have built credibility as a program, and have raised the bar for their very own standards. Let's say that same team, from year 6 to year 10 goes 35-15. Judging by the very standards that they built from their amazing success from Year 0 to Year 5, they have had a less than average run from years 6-10 by their own standards, and pretty much an average run by a normal person's standards. Duke ain't normal...

Well, first of all I don't think winning 70% of your games (35-15) is "average by a normal person's standards." Second of all, I don't accept your idea that if you succeed at an abnormally high rate for a few years then you should expect to continue that pace forever. We were 34-2 and won the second of back-to-back national championships in 1992 -- and have never done as well since -- does that mean every year since 1992 has been a letdown?

If you've hashed and re-hased about NCAA Tourney appearance, I really don't care about it and don't care to hear about it. I was taught that sports are about winning championships and ultimate goals of most teams are to win in the NCAA Tourney. We have the coach with the most all-time wins in the NCAA Tourney, but lately, we haven't won as much as I would like to win in the big dance. I don't know about you and can't speak about you, but early exits in the Sweet 16 agitate me, especially watching it happen year in and year out. ACC regular season and tournament championships are very commendable and worthy of respect, but coming from me, I want NCAA Championships. Again, I don't know about you, so it's suffice to say you can have your opinion on that and I will have mine...

Well, you may want them, but national championships aren't so easy to get. Dean Smith coached 20 seasons and (after Wooden retired) was considered the best coach in the NCAA, before he even won one championship. It's a one and done tournament. Since the tourney expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been 100 #1 seeds and 100 #2 seeds, but only 44 of the #1s and 22 of the #2s have made the Final Four -- meaning it's only a 1 in 3 chance even if you're a #1 or #2. I don't like losing either, but your expectations are unrealistic.

You're complaining about a five year stretch of not making the Final Four. Based on our seeding those years and the overall percent of success from those seeds, an average expectation would have been 1.4 Final Fours instead of the zero we attained. Putting aside the miniscule sample size, a lot of it comes down to luck. In 2006, LSU beat #12 seed Texas A&M by 1 point on a loooong 3-pointer at the buzzer. The guy who shot it was 1 for 7 on threes before that shot, and hadn't taken any nearly as long as the game-winner. If it clanks off the iron, and Duke got to play a #12 seed instead of the one team in the region that really matched up with us, I think we win. We would then have played Texas, who we'd thrashed by 30 points earlier that year. And that's what happened to the one Final Four appearance that statistics suggest we could have expected over the past five years.

That off year you speak of (2007), I'm interested to hear your opinion on this question. If Coach K had devoted his time, resources, and energy completely to the Duke Basketball program and none of it to the USA team, could Duke have been better than 8-8? My thinking is that they could have won a few more and lost a few less had this been the case.

My opinion is the Olympic commitment had nothing to do with the off-year in 2007, and the team's record would have been the same. He wasn't working on the national team during the college season, so the only possible argument is he didn't recruit as well as he could have prior to 2007. Except according to RSCI he had top three recruiting classes in both 2005 and 2006 -- how much better should he have been?

And you're reasoning is flawed in my humble opinion because I don't accept those years as outliers in your argument. I accept them as Coach K getting after it every day on the homefront, not coaching the USA team. It's all about time, energy, and resources.

Well, if you expect (as opposed to hope -- hoping's OK) the team to go undefeated in the league and win a national championship every year, because the team's done those things once or twice or three times in the past, then you're going to be disappointed an awful lot, whether K coaches the Olympic team or not. To me, it's all about rooting for the team and having reasonable expectations.

CameronDuke

01-23-2010, 06:13 PM

Ah, I see, you were a former attorney. Having a sister that just earned her JD and knowing the general perception/mindset that most attorneys have, I digress. You guys will fight till the death! I commend you on that, it's not the butt of a joke!

I think we're getting a bit off topic anyway as this thread was about Feinstein, who I still agree with in his analysis that Coach K should coach one team, not two. And for your information, that one team should still and always be Duke.

I do see some of your logic but totally disagree with you nonetheless. I have too bad a taste in my mouth when we lose to teams like VCU, West Va, Villanova, (this season NSCU and Wisconsin, which REALLY upset me), but hey man, like you said, support your team like you want to. I personally think we could do much better than we have recently (and this season), but I am not the coach and never am saying I would be good enough to be in Coach K's position. Let's just hope we win tonight and then the next game and so on and so forth right on into the Final Four. I think and "hope" we can both whole heartedly agree on that.