PDA

View Full Version : Sportsguy podcast on Duke



gethlives
03-05-2010, 10:47 AM
Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman have a very interesting conversation about Duke and race. I think it starts about 11 minutes in. I think Klosterman makes some interesting points about reverse racism.

http://tinyurl.com/yhhbf3t

superdave
03-05-2010, 11:31 AM
Definitely worth listening to.

NashvilleDevil
03-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Agreed. Klosterman brings up some good points and it was surprising to hear Bill agree and show some love for Jon.

Billy Dat
03-05-2010, 11:55 AM
It's great. Klosterman is always a great foil for Simmons. He asks Simmons why he and others hate certain Duke players and calls him out for his stated reasons. A lot of it is based on race and the history of Duke having lots of white players. It's really interesting...the discussion starts at the 11:30 mark.

Chard
03-05-2010, 12:11 PM
My head hurts after listening to that guy.

UrinalCake
03-05-2010, 12:18 PM
Great discussion. I would like to have heard Klosterman ask Simmons what he thought would happen if a guy like Vasquez or Hansbrough had played for Duke.

flyingdutchdevil
03-05-2010, 12:19 PM
Agreed. Simmons's blog posts are sometimes interesting, but his podcast is so awful. He needs time to put thoughts on paper rather than just blurting them out.

Also agree with most people on this thread about Klosterman - great insight. One of the best I've heard about Duke.

superdave
03-05-2010, 12:20 PM
Great discussion. I would like to have heard Klosterman ask Simmons what he thought would happen if a guy like Vasquez or Hansbrough had played for Duke.

JJ Redick to the power of 3

Hansborough was inherently unlikable. Vasquez is not hated because people do not take Maryland very seriously. Too many NIT's lately.

CDu
03-05-2010, 12:22 PM
I'm not sure I would say that it's mostly due to race. Was Duke hated back in 1991 before we beat UNLV for our first title? If I recall correctly, we were more of the media darlings then. Do people hate Gonzaga? They're predominantly white. What about Creighton? BYU?

I think a small part of it is race, but I think it's a combination of a lot of factors. I think some of it comes back to the Laettner incident, which (right or wrong) helped in part to change our reputation to the evil empire. But I think the biggest part of it comes down to the fact that Duke has been really good for a really long time and is always on TV (people tend to turn sour on perpetual favorites after a while).

If you're good long enough, the bandwagon fans will eventually jump ship and cheer for the underdogs, and the true opposition will get even more angst. People like to see the elite suffer as well. And since we have a smaller core fanbase (as a small private university), it's easier to build a core of anti-Duke sentiment.

HaveFunExpectToWin
03-05-2010, 12:37 PM
I'm not sure I would say that it's mostly due to race. Was Duke hated back in 1991 before we beat UNLV for our first title? If I recall correctly, we were more of the media darlings then. Do people hate Gonzaga? They're predominantly white. What about Creighton? BYU?

I think a small part of it is race, but I think it's a combination of a lot of factors. I think some of it comes back to the Laettner incident, which (right or wrong) helped in part to change our reputation to the evil empire. But I think the biggest part of it comes down to the fact that Duke has been really good for a really long time and is always on TV (people tend to turn sour on perpetual favorites after a while).

Exactly, many people forget that we were the Buffalo Bills in the late 80s and first years of the 90s. Always getting close but never winning it all. No one hated us on a national level.

RoyalBlue08
03-05-2010, 12:50 PM
I'm not sure I would say that it's mostly due to race. Was Duke hated back in 1991 before we beat UNLV for our first title? If I recall correctly, we were more of the media darlings then. Do people hate Gonzaga? They're predominantly white. What about Creighton? BYU?

I think a small part of it is race, but I think it's a combination of a lot of factors. I think some of it comes back to the Laettner incident, which (right or wrong) helped in part to change our reputation to the evil empire. But I think the biggest part of it comes down to the fact that Duke has been really good for a really long time and is always on TV (people tend to turn sour on perpetual favorites after a while).

If you're good long enough, the bandwagon fans will eventually jump ship and cheer for the underdogs, and the true opposition will get even more angst. People like to see the elite suffer as well. And since we have a smaller core fanbase (as a small private university), it's easier to build a core of anti-Duke sentiment.

I agree that Duke hatred in general has little to do with race (or said in another way has nothing to do with race for most people). But the Duke players that basketball fans decide to single out and hate are always going to be white. Not quite sure I understand why. But can you imagine the entire crowd at Maryland chanting "F--- you Nolan". No chance. Even if Kyle leaves next year and Nolan is our leader and leading scorer, he won't be treated that way. Does anyone disagree with this?

flyingdutchdevil
03-05-2010, 12:52 PM
I'm not sure I would say that it's mostly due to race. Was Duke hated back in 1991 before we beat UNLV for our first title? If I recall correctly, we were more of the media darlings then. Do people hate Gonzaga? They're predominantly white. What about Creighton? BYU?

I think a small part of it is race, but I think it's a combination of a lot of factors. I think some of it comes back to the Laettner incident, which (right or wrong) helped in part to change our reputation to the evil empire. But I think the biggest part of it comes down to the fact that Duke has been really good for a really long time and is always on TV (people tend to turn sour on perpetual favorites after a while).

If you're good long enough, the bandwagon fans will eventually jump ship and cheer for the underdogs, and the true opposition will get even more angst. People like to see the elite suffer as well. And since we have a smaller core fanbase (as a small private university), it's easier to build a core of anti-Duke sentiment.

Would like to respectfully disagree.

For your first point, if Duke was a predominantly black team that had a lot of success in the last 20 years, like Kansas, UCLA, Zona, UNC, Kentucky, would they still be hated as much? Even successful private schools that have had decent success, like GTown, Stanford, etc haven't been hated as much. And their key players are minorities as well (had to include the Lopez brothers in there, who are minorities). The schools you mentioned - Gonzaga, Creighton, BYU - may have had success in their own conferences, but aren't national powerhouses like Duke. I agree with you that being white isn't the only factor - continuous success and national attention are also needed, but being white is what predominantly makes people hate Duke, IMO.

Secondly, with regards to your Laettner situation, I think a lot of people who are semi-college basketball fans don't really know of the incident. A lot of my friends who hate Duke don't even know of the stomping incident. They hate Duke because we are successful and white.

Anyway, to sum up, I personal feel that success + race perception = hatred.

CDu
03-05-2010, 01:03 PM
Would like to respectfully disagree.

For your first point, if Duke was a predominantly black team that had a lot of success in the last 20 years, like Kansas, UCLA, Zona, UNC, Kentucky, would they still be hated as much? Even successful private schools that have had decent success, like GTown, Stanford, etc haven't been hated as much. And their key players are minorities as well (had to include the Lopez brothers in there, who are minorities). The schools you mentioned - Gonzaga, Creighton, BYU - may have had success in their own conferences, but aren't national powerhouses like Duke. I agree with you that being white isn't the only factor - continuous success and national attention are also needed, but being white is what predominantly makes people hate Duke, IMO.

None of these examples are good, because none of these teams have had nearly the level of prolonged success (and not least important the amount of prolonged success in this media-driven era). If they'd gone to anywhere near 10 final fours and won three championships in the last 25 years and were on TV all the time, I think they'd be hated too. The examples you listed haven't even combined to have that much success in the last 25 years.


Secondly, with regards to your Laettner situation, I think a lot of people who are semi-college basketball fans don't really know of the incident. A lot of my friends who hate Duke don't even know of the stomping incident. They hate Duke because we are successful and white.

Anyway, to sum up, I personal feel that success + race perception = hatred.

I didn't say race was irrelevant. I just said it wasn't the primary driver, in my opinion. Also, I said the Laettner stomp was just a part of it. Maybe a very small part.

I think the amount of success combined with the fact that we have a fairly small natural fanbase is the primary driver. There are other factors, and I'd include race in it. But I don't think it's the primary component.

jv001
03-05-2010, 01:10 PM
The New York Yankees. Some people hate winners and Duke has been one of the 2 or 3 most successful men's college basketball programs for two decades. Throw in the academic rating of Duke and you have the two biggest reasons for Duke hatred. Number three could very well be race but having some TV commentators bad mouthing(Duke gets all the calls) has not helped. I had rather be a winner and hated than a likeable loser. Go Duke!

Billy Dat
03-05-2010, 01:18 PM
Their discussion around JJ was interesting. Klosterman asked Simmons why people hate JJ Redick. Simmons basically said it is the perceived arrogance with which he carries himself on the floor. Klosterman said that those comments are similar to the same kinds of justifications people make when they dislike someone based on race...he called them code words/codified language. He pointed out that those same traits are celebrated in many black players.

What was interesting was that they discuss the impact of national Duke hatred on recruiting posing the question, does it make a difference? Simmons thought that it would because recruits now have grown up in a world that hates Duke. Klosterman agreed, but said that the Duke name and K himself still carry such weight that upon being contacted by the coaches and, if you are heavily recruited, having K lavish attention on you, would make any anti-Duke bias fall by the wayside..a good point that I agree with. Then, they started in with the Duke basketball/Notre Dame football comparisons and Kolsterman was quick to point out that Duke is still a top program while ND has slipped much further.

RoyalBlue08
03-05-2010, 02:40 PM
Their discussion around JJ was interesting. Klosterman asked Simmons why people hate JJ Redick. Simmons basically said it is the perceived arrogance with which he carries himself on the floor. Klosterman said that those comments are similar to the same kinds of justifications people make when they dislike someone based on race...he called them code words/codified language. He pointed out that those same traits are celebrated in many black players.

.

I don't buy the "JJ is arrogant" argument for a second. Was he any more arrogant than Gerald Henderson? I don't see it. (BTW, I don't believe either of them to be arrogant, but I do believe they played the game with a high level of confidence. For Gerald I am referring mostly to last season.) G didn't get any of the crap last year that Scheyer gets now or JJ or Paulus got in their career. Was Greg arrogant too? I don't know what this comes from, as a majority of the fans are white, but I think it is hard to swallow that all of Duke's most hated players being white is some sort of strange coincidence.

WillJ
03-05-2010, 02:43 PM
I actually just read and enjoyed his Book of Basketball, but his comments on Duke here come off as exceptionally lacking in self-awareness.

superdave
03-05-2010, 02:51 PM
But he backed it up (except for NCAA tourney performances unfortunately).

So I googled "JJ Redick arrogant" and clicked on Images. Here you go -http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/jj_redick.jpg

I think that explains a lot. Also, Wojo's hug off Coach K after beating unc in Cameron in 1998 is pointed out by a lot of people as annoying. Then the video of Paulus flopping without contact stick out too.

White Duke players have certainly added to the images of Duke as annoying white guys, whether that's fair or not. But take solace in the fact that if duke sucked no one would care.

Bluedog
03-05-2010, 03:12 PM
I found the discussion quite interesting. While I do think there are a variety of reasons fans hate Duke, I do think race is a factor, although it's certainly not the only factor. What is the largest demographic of college basketball fans? White males. When they see somebody like JJ or Scheyer, it's like looking at themselves. Typical looking white guys that aren't especially athletic or ripped or anything. So, honestly, I think there's an element of jealousy. "Why do those players get so much attention?! They look just like me!"

Of the top teams in the nation, we have by far the most white players that actually get minutes. Compare the UK roster and ours and from a "look" standpoint, they couldn't be more different. I certainly don't think our recruiting is racist or anything; our recruits for next year are all black. But I do think Duke doesn't have as much street cred in recruiting circles as we'd like in order to get the inner-city black player. Certainly, there are exceptions like Dockery, but I'm sure all of Wall's peers were thinking "Duke?! Are you kidding? The academic school with a bunch of rich, white nerds?" And I think that despite our best efforts, that is the perception amongst a certain contingent, whether fair or not. (I realize Duke is only about 1/2 white and 40% on financial aid, but perception is reality).

I think bringing in somebody like Nate James was a great idea; not only for his abilities as a coach, but to establish some more credibility to attract certain types of players. I think we're kidding ourselves if we think it doesn't matter and people don't see it. We have and will continue to get great players from nice prep and private schools such as Kyrie, but Duke is a tough sell for a certain demographic that traditionally has a lot of top players.

Can you imagine if Scheyer had swatted Hansblahblah and made him bleed profusely? Yeah, G took some heat from UNC fans, but it wasn't a nationwide hate. If Scheyer did it, while Hansblahblah was also disliked, people would talk about it forever how he's a dirty player etc. Some still said that about G, but it was over by the next season. Yeah, Reddick did have a certain swagger that some saw as arrogant, but I don't think it was different than G or any number of players. Battier and JWill were leaders of our team and carried themselves with great confidence and seemed pretty well liked. In any event, can debate this for ever and never truly "know," but I do find it an interesting conversation. And of course our success on the court has a lot to do with it. Go Duke!

Spret42
03-05-2010, 04:05 PM
I think Blue Dog nailed it.

It is race and perception.

Duke is, fairly or unfairly viewed as the "country club" of college basketball.

A-Tex Devil
03-05-2010, 04:53 PM
I'll leave it at this... whenever someone explains to me why they don't like Duke, "white" and "annoying" are almost always two of the adjectives used.

Just got done with Klosterman's first novel "Downtown Owl." It held my interest but when I got done with it, realized it was a whole bunch of nothing. Kinda disappointing considering how humorous his essays are. If you like pop culture, and enjoy comedy, read his collection of essays "Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs." It's a little dated now as it's 6-7 years old, but it's great. As an example, he does a detailed analysis on the cultural significance of Saved by the Bell. If you are of that generation born between roughly 1973 and 1983, and have any kind of pop culture awareness, I think you'll enjoy it.

Chuck Klosterman IV has its moments but is not as good. I wish he was still writing for Esquire.

Memphis Devil
03-06-2010, 09:59 AM
It is certainly hard to ignore that the "hated" players at Duke have always been white. As my friend, who is a Memphis fan, always tells me, Duke cannot win in the tournament anymore because they don't recuit "thugs", i.e. inner city black kids.

Atlanta Duke
03-06-2010, 11:59 AM
Agreed. Simmons's blog posts are sometimes interesting, but his podcast is so awful. He needs time to put thoughts on paper rather than just blurting them out.

Also agree with most people on this thread about Klosterman - great insight. One of the best I've heard about Duke.

Definitely enjoyed hearing Klosterman's responses to Simmons' typical nonsense.

Simmons' online chats confirm he is out of his depth when he does not have time to think through his arguments or pontificates about the impact of sports on the outside world.

He recently stepped in it by claiming in an online chat that Tiger Woods is facing a far more hostile environment when he returns to the PGA tour than Muhammad Ali did when Ali returned to boxing in 1970. Any of the older posters on this board who were around during Ali's time know what a howler that is.

But Simmons is probably the most widely read writer who usually writes about sports these days so he obviously has an approach that appeals to a wide audience

Andre Buckner Fan
03-06-2010, 02:15 PM
I generally enjoy Simmons' stuff, but he's out of his depth in college basketball. He grew up a Celtics fan and what he truly understands is the NBA.

All his comments about Duke sound as if some friend made the comparison to him that "Duke = Yankees" and since he understands the Yankees, he also thinks he understands Duke.


His March Madness columns are entertaining but woefully under-researched. He generally only comments on two or three hyped teams and players. College basketball just isn't his specialty.

cspan37421
03-06-2010, 02:34 PM
Race is perhaps the most salient one, the one we can most easily point to as a double standard (why is a cocky JJ worse than a far cockier Danny Green?)

It's also that we're an elite private school that is priced way, way up there. It's very hard to get in Duke, and not many have the money or academic resume for it. Couple that with unparalleled on-the-court success, and what you get is something that is at first a cute story - "oh, isn't that something, an elite academic school is playing hoops with the big boys!" - and then becomes tiresome, "Time to get of the stage, Duke boys, it's not cute anymore."

People just can't identify with Duke. Most fans, if they attended college, went to public schools. If they didn't, most of the college-educated folks in their families probably did as well.

And none of that is going to change. That sets the context.

But it's good that someone calls out hypocrisy when they see it, and I'm glad someone is doing it.

ArtVandelay
03-06-2010, 03:13 PM
It was funny, it did seem like Simmons had never considered this whole Duke racial dynamic before because he was clearly grasping at straws when Kolsterman started confronting him. For instance, people disliked Trajan Langdon? Really? People liked (or maybe disliked, it was a bit unclear) Grant Hill because of his mom? I found it odd since Simmons is a) a big basketball fan, and b) generally more attuned to the social issues surrounding sports than your average sports writer.

I think you'd be crazy to discount the role race plays here on all sorts of weird conscious and unconscious levels that are very hard to articulate. No doubt some of the great Duke players were cocky (e.g. Laettner and Redick), but it's interesting how the "arrogant" label tends to stick with those guys more. For instance, I think J. Will is an arrogant dude (albeit a great guy), but he never really got stuck with that label. Greg Paulus was anything but arrogant, but people hated him anyway. There are plenty of players on other teams that gloat, taunt, etc. but don't get billed as arrogant.

In my view, Klosterman nailed it in terms of the racial code words we use when analyzing players (e.g. white = scrappy, gritty, "plays the game the right way," black = exciting, athletic, etc.). Sports is an an EXTREMELY interesting example of the way both our personal and collective racial views filter the way we see things.

Dr. Tina
03-06-2010, 07:36 PM
How about the way Simmons described Coach K? If I didn't know he was talking about Coach K and Duke, I would have thought he was talkin about Roy Williams first. He just seemed completely clueless in his analysis of Coach K that way.

Also, I agree with his other rather clueless comment regarding Langdon as someone a lot of people hated. Really? He's low on the totem poll of Duke guys people hated. He may not even make the list for me. Players like...Laettner, JJ, Paulus, etc. come to mind way before him...and I don't think the hate was all based on their actual personalities. I think people hated Paulus because he was a pretty average white guy running the point who also exhibited a lot of emotion.

It seems that as one hot white Duke player leaves, another one takes his place as the player Duke haters love to hate. Their discussion on Jon Scheyer really illustrates this because there simply is no reason to dislike and/or hate Jon Scheyer other than if you don't like Duke...or you base it on race in some way. He's a very even-keeled player on the court who leads by a mature example. He'll get fired up once in awhile, but it's certainly not in any arrogant way. He just comes across as a very likeable person.

UrinalCake
03-06-2010, 10:05 PM
The Yankees are a common example used for teams that are hated, but IMO they are an invalid comparison for Duke. The Yankees have more money than anybody else. They buy their players from other teams, taking away other fans' heroes to work for them. Duke has no such inherent advantage; I guess you could say they're on TV a lot and that gives them a recruiting advantage but that's about it.

Also I do think that JJ was really cocky his first two years, then he learned to cool it. People also don't like players who only shoot threes, and while that was definitely not true of JJ, there was the perception that that's all he did.

Billy Dat
11-18-2010, 09:19 AM
On yesterday's BS Report podcast, Bill Simmons' guest was Kevin Love. They spent at least 5 minutes discussing the World Championships. Simmons specifically asked Love to comment on what it was like playing for K. Love heaped on the praise, specifically focusing on K's ability to motivate a team. He said that every day, whether there was a practice or not, K spoke to them for 20-30 minutes and it really kept them hyped up. Simmons himself said that while he really enjoys goofing on Duke and K, he has to admit that his results speak for themselves and even said he may be the best coach of the last 30 years.

With the team we have and K's recent run plus the all time win record getting closer, the K praise machine may explode this year.

flyingdutchdevil
11-18-2010, 09:39 AM
On yesterday's BS Report podcast, Bill Simmons' guest was Kevin Love. They spent at least 5 minutes discussing the World Championships. Simmons specifically asked Love to comment on what it was like playing for K. Love heaped on the praise, specifically focusing on K's ability to motivate a team. He said that every day, whether there was a practice or not, K spoke to them for 20-30 minutes and it really kept them hyped up. Simmons himself said that while he really enjoys goofing on Duke and K, he has to admit that his results speak for themselves and even said he may be the best coach of the last 30 years.

With the team we have and K's recent run plus the all time win record getting closer, the K praise machine may explode this year.

Indeed. I'm in complete agreement. If K wins this year, what are the Duke haters going to say? Sure, the cracks about his hair, his voice, his appearance that resembles a particular rodent will probably continue, but those don't bother me at all (and, to be perfectly frank, a few of these types of jokes are funny). It's the ridiculous statements like K is significantly "worse" than Rupp, Dean Smith, etc that bother me.

ForkFondler
11-18-2010, 10:34 AM
There are other factors, and I'd include race in it. But I don't think it's the primary component.

Let's not forget the Vitale factor - I know people who hate Duke just because a disproportionate amount of his insipid gushing concerns them.

[OK, so I responded to a seven month old post, whatever]

rhcpflea99
11-18-2010, 12:08 PM
Reason people hate Duke is because of there success. Duke is successful year in and year out. Just like the Lakers, Yankees, Patriots if you don't like them your rooting against them. Nobody hated the Patriots when they were losing. Now that Patriots are winning consistently people love to see them lose.

Turk
11-18-2010, 12:18 PM
Well, here's an example for the "smug and arrogant" argument... I was getting the usual ribbing about Duke running up the score in their cannon-fodder games thus far, taking it all in stride as usual, and one of my buddies says, "oh by the way, check out Jon Scheyer's wikipedia page. Do you think his mom or his agent wrote it? Even Duke's wikipedias are obnoxious..."

As much as I love Jon's game and hope he finds a place in the NBA, my gast was truly flabbered...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Scheyer

wow...

Bluedog
11-18-2010, 12:27 PM
Well, here's an example for the "smug and arrogant" argument... I was getting the usual ribbing about Duke running up the score in their cannon-fodder games thus far, taking it all in stride as usual, and one of my buddies says, "oh by the way, check out Jon Scheyer's wikipedia page. Do you think his mom or his agent wrote it? Even Duke's wikipedias are obnoxious..."

As much as I love Jon's game and hope he finds a place in the NBA, my gast was truly flabbered...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Scheyer

wow...

If you look at the history, you can see that that article was written by one person, Epeefleche, who has over 52,000 edits (!) on Wikipedia. I'm not sure his/her connection to Jon Scheyer, but it's obviously not his mom or agent...but definitely somebody who seems him in a positive light and spent lots of time writing about it in perhaps somewhat of the "obnoxious" manner. I actually tried to remove "Jewish Jordan" from his nickname (who the heck calls him that?!? Nobody at Duke that I know), but it got reverted repeatedly. Check out other Duke players' wikipedia pages; they're more "normal." So, because one person spends lots of time editing one page on Wikipedia while putting the topic in a super congratulatory tone that means all Duke fans are smug? Doesn't make much sense to me...

killerleft
11-18-2010, 12:45 PM
Let's not forget the Vitale factor - I know people who hate Duke just because a disproportionate amount of his insipid gushing concerns them.

[OK, so I responded to a seven month old post, whatever]

I've noticed that ESPN now has a Spinning Tasmanian Blue Devil that the network is showing on commercial breaks during Duke games. Are we the only team thus "favored"? It makes us look like the official team of ESPN. That won't go over real well with lots of fans.

I think the Spinner is cool, but everybody'll want their own little mascotty icon.

Bluedog
11-18-2010, 12:48 PM
I've noticed that ESPN now has a Spinning Tasmanian Blue Devil that the network is showing on commercial breaks during Duke games. Are we the only team thus "favored"? It makes us look like the official team of ESPN. That won't go over real well with lots of fans.

I think the Spinner is cool, but everybody'll want their own little mascotty icon.

It's simply because of the ESPNU All-Access special. They created it for that, I think. And it'll only occur when we're playing on ESPNU against teams that otherwise would not be on TV at all. So, their fanbases should be thankful that at least they get to watch. Duke is obviously the draw; happens in other situations where one team is clearly the "big dog." You can be sure it won't be appearing when we play Marquette on ESPN on Monday/K-St on Tuesday.

BattierD12
11-18-2010, 12:50 PM
I've noticed that ESPN now has a Spinning Tasmanian Blue Devil that the network is showing on commercial breaks during Duke games. Are we the only team thus "favored"? It makes us look like the official team of ESPN. That won't go over real well with lots of fans.

I think the Spinner is cool, but everybody'll want their own little mascotty icon.

I've seen the logos for a few other schools in this format, mainly while watching football. Can't remember which ones, but there's no preferential treatment for us here.

tbyers11
11-18-2010, 01:18 PM
I've noticed that ESPN now has a Spinning Tasmanian Blue Devil that the network is showing on commercial breaks during Duke games. Are we the only team thus "favored"? It makes us look like the official team of ESPN. That won't go over real well with lots of fans.

I think the Spinner is cool, but everybody'll want their own little mascotty icon.

As others have said it was because of the all-access special they did on us. There is a Florida all-access basketball special coming up and they have their own ESPNU mascotty thing as well

killerleft
11-18-2010, 01:21 PM
I've seen the logos for a few other schools in this format, mainly while watching football. Can't remember which ones, but there's no preferential treatment for us here.

Thanks. And to Bluedog for your info, too. I've been promising myself not to notice the hater stuff anyway, but still I see things that might fuel the flames of ignorance.

BattierD12
11-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Saw some of the analysts taking about their predictions on the season. It's pretty fitting that Gottlieb picked us to win the championship this year, despite Bilas, Digger, Hubert all against us. He defended us and mocking himself said that we were "alarmingly athletic."

DukieTiger
11-18-2010, 02:27 PM
Is Simmons the guy in the podcast with the horrible cold? He sounds sorta stopped up.

And LoL to Duke not getting the John Wall types anymore and not being as successful as they had been.

superdave
11-18-2010, 03:20 PM
I still cant believe Coach K won with Lamar Odom at center. He's so good as sizing up his roster and tweaking it for a few weeks until he knows what to do. I enjoy Kevin Love's story about K as motivator.

Billy Dat
12-17-2010, 09:40 AM
Yesterday, Simmons posted a two part NBA-discussion podcast featuring ESPN's Ric Bucher and Simmons' frequent podcast guest, his college buddy, Joe House. Part II of the podcast opens with Simmons posing the question of, based on his body of work and the job he did with this summer's World Championship team, is K the best basketball coach of the past 20 years?

He instantly gets shouted down by Bucher who argues for Phil Jackson - but it was interesting to see a K critic like Simmons having been swayed by what he's seen K do with the Team USA program. Simmons doesn't really follow college hoops very closely.

You can get the podcast for free on iTunes or ESPN.com. Again, it's part II of the 12/16/10 BS Report.

LSanders
12-17-2010, 12:52 PM
I think a small part of it is race, but I think it's a combination of a lot of factors. I think some of it comes back to the Laettner incident, which (right or wrong) helped in part to change our reputation to the evil empire.

I know there's a fair amount of this out there, but, honestly, how can you be a true college basketball fan and hate Laettner? The look in his eye ... The essence of clutch ... The NEVER give up approach ... The do whatever it takes to win. Those are things that separate college from the League.

Even if he wore the lesser shade of blue, you had to give Hansflop props for never taking plays off.

Anyway, IMO race is not a direct factor. Consistent winning is number one on the list. The elitist image of an academically challenging private school is number two. In the old days when the huckleberries down 15-501 weren't going to the NIT, they didn't get Duke hate because it's a public school. That's where Jethro and Ellie Mae go. Duke is for Mr. Drysdale's kids. Race is a byproduct of all that.

Regarding the Phil comparison ... Only an idiot would suggest that Jackson's not a terrific coach. But, it's apples and oranges. How much teaching does he have to do with Kobe and Gasol? Maybe some in the beginning to teach them the system. Now, they're on autopilot, which is what happens when you have the same veterans year in, year out. K has to remake his teams every year. To win as consistently as he has with a revolving door at the player's entrance of CIS is extraordinary.

You often hear the, "... But could he win in the NBA ..." argument. What about the reverse? Could Phil win in college? How many rings would he have if he only had MJ and Kobe for a year and had to rebuild, reload, and re-teach every season? My guess is way less than four.

Billy Dat
12-17-2010, 01:28 PM
Regarding the Phil comparison ... Only an idiot would suggest that Jackson's not a terrific coach. But, it's apples and oranges. How much teaching does he have to do with Kobe and Gasol? Maybe some in the beginning to teach them the system. Now, they're on autopilot, which is what happens when you have the same veterans year in, year out. K has to remake his teams every year. To win as consistently as he has with a revolving door at the player's entrance of CIS is extraordinary.

You often hear the, "... But could he win in the NBA ..." argument. What about the reverse? Could Phil win in college? How many rings would he have if he only had MJ and Kobe for a year and had to rebuild, reload, and re-teach every season? My guess is way less than four.

The point you make is where Simmons started to go...he was saying that he thought K could win at the pro and college level but that Jackson might not make a great college coach. As often happens, though, the conversation got side-tracked and they didn't come to any conclusions. I think the other point you make is key...rebuild/reload can also be stated as RECRUIT and that is the aspect of the college game that I think most pro coaches have no patience for. Granted, it does put you in the role of GM so you can try and control your destiny when it comes to the talent at your disposal, but it also involves heaping a lot of flattery upon, sometimes, 15 year olds and their entourages. Ugh.

NSDukeFan
12-17-2010, 01:42 PM
The point you make is where Simmons started to go...he was saying that he thought K could win at the pro and college level but that Jackson might not make a great college coach. As often happens, though, the conversation got side-tracked and they didn't come to any conclusions. I think the other point you make is key...rebuild/reload can also be stated as RECRUIT and that is the aspect of the college game that I think most pro coaches have no patience for. Granted, it does put you in the role of GM so you can try and control your destiny when it comes to the talent at your disposal, but it also involves heaping a lot of flattery upon, sometimes, 15 year olds and their entourages. Ugh.

One interesting point that Ric Bucher brought up in the conversation is his (Phil's and Popovich's and Doc Rivers' and other good NBA coaches') ability to manage a 100+ game season. This is something that coach K doesn't have to do and why some fiery coaches sometimes burn out quickly. I'm not saying they are better coaches than coach K because they know not to get too worked up about games in November and December while looking at the big picture. Maybe coach K would do that better than any of them. I thought it was an interesting discussion topic though.

superdave
12-17-2010, 04:17 PM
They also discuss how K has no ego and is more than willing to steal ideas from other coaches if he thinks they'll work for him. I think one way we've seen this the past 2-3 years is more exploitation of matchups which is a very NBA thing to do rather than just running your offense. Kyle and Kyrie have found favorable matchups and gone after them over and over. Not sure we saw that nearly as much. Additionally, we played some zone last year that was said to have been borrowed from Boeheim. I do recall K also saying (years ago) a big thing he learned from Dean was to build a program and trust that it creates a team with an identiy, as opposed to designing a new strategy for each opponent.

CEF1959
12-17-2010, 04:34 PM
I do recall K also saying (years ago) a big thing he learned from Dean was to build a program and trust that it creates a team with an identiy, as opposed to designing a new strategy for each opponent.

If Dean had been following his own philosophy in 1979, UNC-CH wouldn't have come out in the four corners offense to try to neutralize the Duke fans, might not have been down 7-0 at halftime, and might not have lost 47-40. It was a trick offensive gimmick that probably cost him an important game.

Billy Dat
12-17-2010, 04:40 PM
On a slight tangent, I heard an interesting critique of how playing for K can potentially impair a player's pro potential and the source was ESPN's David Thorpe who runs one of those academies where players go to prepare for the NBA draft tryout process.

http://whotheman.com/blog/114699/The-great-DUKE-fallacy-why-is-it-that-Duke-players-cant-cut-it-in-the-NBA

(Disclaimer - this article was not published in a newspaper, but Thorpe is quoted extensively)

According to Thorpe, who worked with both C-Well and McClure in this capacity, K can be bad for players because they become too dependent on his motivation to keep themselves sharp. He noted that so much of a player's ability to succeed in the NBA comes from them being self-motivated - to get better, to train, to play hard. He felt that K was so effective at getting his players to peak performance that when they are away from him, they have a hard time doing it for themselves. Definitely some kind of backhanded compliment - but I had never heard that critique before.

Another thing Thorpe said, which I don't agree with, is that K's team first focus can impair the potential of a kid like McClure who is asked to screen and rebound instead of develop his scoring. Bottom line, if McClure wanted to be "The Man", he wouldn't have come to Duke. He could have gone to a much lower caliber D1 school and been an offensive star and tried to woo pro scouts that way.

To echo what others are saying above, I think the Team USA gig has really helped K improve as a Coach. In addition to the mismatch exploiting, you can also see him juggling line-ups a lot more, looking for effective combos like he did this summer with Team USA...which our current depth allows for. One knock on K was always that he didn't run a pro-style offense. I don't think that was ever true, but it's certainly less true now then ever.

Namtilal
12-17-2010, 05:31 PM
I still cant believe Coach K won with Lamar Odom at center. He's so good as sizing up his roster and tweaking it for a few weeks until he knows what to do. I enjoy Kevin Love's story about K as motivator.

I believe we won because of Odom and AI filling Battier-type roles, not because Westbrook and Durant put up numbers. It was such great basketball. I really want to see Iggy get a better situation where he can be a Bill Russell type, being the clear leader of a great team without dominating on offense.

-bdbd
12-17-2010, 05:43 PM
On a slight tangent, I heard an interesting critique of how playing for K can potentially impair a player's pro potential and the source was ESPN's David Thorpe who runs one of those academies where players go to prepare for the NBA draft tryout process.

http://whotheman.com/blog/114699/The-great-DUKE-fallacy-why-is-it-that-Duke-players-cant-cut-it-in-the-NBA

(Disclaimer - this article was not published in a newspaper, but Thorpe is quoted extensively)

According to Thorpe, who worked with both C-Well and McClure in this capacity, K can be bad for players because they become too dependent on his motivation to keep themselves sharp. He noted that so much of a player's ability to succeed in the NBA comes from them being self-motivated - to get better, to train, to play hard. He felt that K was so effective at getting his players to peak performance that when they are away from him, they have a hard time doing it for themselves. Definitely some kind of backhanded compliment - but I had never heard that critique before.

Another thing Thorpe said, which I don't agree with, is that K's team first focus can impair the potential of a kid like McClure who is asked to screen and rebound instead of develop his scoring. Bottom line, if McClure wanted to be "The Man", he wouldn't have come to Duke. He could have gone to a much lower caliber D1 school and been an offensive star and tried to woo pro scouts that way.

To echo what others are saying above, I think the Team USA gig has really helped K improve as a Coach. In addition to the mismatch exploiting, you can also see him juggling line-ups a lot more, looking for effective combos like he did this summer with Team USA...which our current depth allows for. One knock on K was always that he didn't run a pro-style offense. I don't think that was ever true, but it's certainly less true now then ever.


Interesting article that makes some good points. However I find the initial argument about K hurting the ultimate pro success of his players b/c he's such a good motivator to be pretty far-fetched. What he's essentially arguing is that these eventual pro's would be better off if they chose to play college ball for a coach who is a POOR motivator. Really?!? Seems kinda silly when you think about it, and pretty insulting to the players. You could just as easily argue the opposite -- that b/c K is such a great motivator then Duke has great success, ergo more exposure (such as in the NCAAT), and hence a player's visibility/draft prospects/path-to-success also improves. The same goes for the argument about kids going to a lesser college school and being "the man," as opposed to playing against quality competition every night (in practice and games) and learning to play in the fishbowl/pressure-cooker that is Duke BB.

But I do think that the explanation offered is right in some ways -- there are several intertwined reasons for the perception of former Devils as relatively underperforming pros.

(1) For example, the argument that these players are over-rated coming out of HS simply because they committed to Duke has real merit, as those of us who have followed recruiting for many years have seen many recruits' ratings go up 10+ spots after they commit to Duke, UK or UNC.

(2) Perception is everything. I often make the point that the perception of Duke players "failing" in the NBA is an erroneous one for several reasons. First, there are those who have a vested interest in perpetuating that perception, for example I have heard one Michael Jordan making that argument more than once, Stu Scott as well. Second, even though Duke literally has as many NBA players as anyone, there hasn't been a Duke-grad "NBA superstar" a la MJ out of UNC or maybe the "Fab-5" out of Mich, or Duncan and Paul out of Wake, Okafor or Hamilton and others out of UCONN, etc. Third, that goes also to the 'bad luck' point, as some of Duke's most promising pro's have had early-career injurues like Hurley, Jay Wil, Laettner, Brand and Hill. I for one hope Irving and Rivers can change that perception.

(3) Not all McD AA's are created equal. This might have been more true 15-20 years ago than today, but for most of his tenure K has NOT had the same talent level as, say, Dean Smith/D'oh/Roy. Michael Jordan and J. Scheyer were both AA's out of HS, but anybody who would have predicted equal pro success would have to have been on drugs. In my day the comparison was Mark Alarie, Jay Bilas, Johnny Dawkins and Amaker versus Perkins, Worthy, Smith and MJ. I believe all were McD AA's, but not equally ranked -- i.e. #1's > #20's, even if both are playing in the Golden Arches game... A more current example might be Ray Felton and Hansblah versus Paulus and Sheldon Williams. (BTW, the assertion of C-Well and McClure as "sure-fire" pro ballers is hyperbole at a minimum.)

(4) And obviously Duke's over-achieving in college (usually, relative to player rankings) is very hard to match in the pros, even if the players are actually somewhat successful there.

turnandburn55
12-17-2010, 06:33 PM
The discussion of K "not producing NBA players other than Grant Hill" is one that's just taken on a life of its own until we can produce another mega-star. One has to wonder why this argument is only used to belittle Coach K... for example...

"Yeah, Bobby Knight may be the all-time winningest coach, but other than Isiah Thomas, who did anything in the NBA?"

"Sure, Roy Williams may have had a great run the last few years, but none of his players other than Paul Pierce are all that in the league"

"Jim Boeheim? He had Carmelo Anthony for a year, but other than that, everyone else was pretty much mediocre at best once they moved on."

superdave
12-17-2010, 06:50 PM
The discussion of K "not producing NBA players other than Grant Hill" is one that's just taken on a life of its own until we can produce another mega-star. One has to wonder why this argument is only used to belittle Coach K... for example...

"Yeah, Bobby Knight may be the all-time winningest coach, but other than Isiah Thomas, who did anything in the NBA?"

"Sure, Roy Williams may have had a great run the last few years, but none of his players other than Paul Pierce are all that in the league"

"Jim Boeheim? He had Carmelo Anthony for a year, but other than that, everyone else was pretty much mediocre at best once they moved on."

Better yet, Dean Smith had more talent than anyone but Yaweh himself and Coach K has twice as many titles. K will surpass him wins soon too! So the reverse is also true.....doing more with less.

sagegrouse
12-17-2010, 07:21 PM
Interesting article that makes some good points. However I find the initial argument about K hurting the ultimate pro success of his players b/c he's such a good motivator to be pretty far-fetched. What he's essentially arguing is that these eventual pro's would be better off if they chose to play college ball for a coach who is a POOR motivator. Really?!? Seems kinda silly when you think about it, and pretty insulting to the players.
...........................

(2) Perception is everything. I often make the point that the perception of Duke players "failing" in the NBA is an erroneous one for several reasons. First, there are those who have a vested interest in perpetuating that perception, for example I have heard one Michael Jordan making that argument more than once, Stu Scott as well. Second, even though Duke literally has as many NBA players as anyone, there hasn't been a Duke-grad "NBA superstar" a la MJ out of UNC or maybe the "Fab-5" out of Mich, or Duncan and Paul out of Wake, Okafor or Hamilton and others out of UCONN, etc. Third, that goes also to the 'bad luck' point, as some of Duke's most promising pro's have had early-career injurues like Hurley, Jay Wil, Laettner, Brand and Hill. I for one hope Irving and Rivers can change that perception.

................................

(4) And obviously Duke's over-achieving in college (usually, relative to player rankings) is very hard to match in the pros, even if the players are actually somewhat successful there.

The Thorpe argument that K holds players back because he is such a good motivator is so utterly preposterous as to not merit a response. I would offer a counter argument: K gets more out of some players than their talent would normally support because of the emphasis on intensity and defense at Duke. And who ever said McClure was an NBA prospect?

And WRT the old chestnut that Duke players don't thrive in the NBA; well, that is so 1990s. Who from Carolina since Jamison and Carter have done anything in the NBA? The only guys averaging 20 mins. per game are Felton, Haywood (just barely), Lawson (just barely) and Marvin Williams. None of them are stars, although I thought Felton and Ty Lawson would be. Not too impressive compared with Duke's list: Brand, Maggette, Battier, JWill (only one year), Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon and Deng. JJ and Dahntay just miss. And how is Hansbrough doing?

sagegrouse

ice-9
12-18-2010, 05:59 AM
(2) Perception is everything. I often make the point that the perception of Duke players "failing" in the NBA is an erroneous one for several reasons. First, there are those who have a vested interest in perpetuating that perception, for example I have heard one Michael Jordan making that argument more than once, Stu Scott as well. Second, even though Duke literally has as many NBA players as anyone, there hasn't been a Duke-grad "NBA superstar" a la MJ out of UNC or maybe the "Fab-5" out of Mich, or Duncan and Paul out of Wake, Okafor or Hamilton and others out of UCONN, etc. Third, that goes also to the 'bad luck' point, as some of Duke's most promising pro's have had early-career injurues like Hurley, Jay Wil, Laettner, Brand and Hill. I for one hope Irving and Rivers can change that perception.

Winning is the most important variable to changing this perception. We have plenty of players in the NBA putting up All-Star numbers: Boozer, Brand, Maggette, Deng, Dunleavy before his injury, and perhaps Hill.

But what we don't have is any of those players on elite NBA teams -- and thus the low exposure/awareness. Boozer was probably the closest with the Utah Jazz, but can you imagine what it would've been like if he was Pau Gasol on the Lakers playing with Kobe Bryant? Or KG on the Celtics? He would be a name on everyone's lips, someone talked about constantly and the association with Duke will come to the fore.

As soon as one of our guys becomes a top 2, top 3 player on an NBA elite team, i.e. one that can win a championship, that is when perceptions will slowly start to change.

So far I think Boozer and Deng have the best chance of that happening with the resurgent Bulls.

BattierBattalion
12-18-2010, 10:33 AM
And WRT the old chestnut that Duke players don't thrive in the NBA; well, that is so 1990s. Who from Carolina since Jamison and Carter have done anything in the NBA? The only guys averaging 20 mins. per game are Felton, Haywood (just barely), Lawson (just barely) and Marvin Williams. None of them are stars, although I thought Felton and Ty Lawson would be. Not too impressive compared with Duke's list: Brand, Maggette, Battier, JWill (only one year), Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon and Deng. JJ and Dahntay just miss. And how is Hansbrough doing?

sagegrouse

I bring this up every time a Carolina fan tells me that Duke players underachieve in the NBA. There hasn't been a single NBA all-star from Carolina since the Dean Smith era. That is incredible to think about. Despite two National Championships and a bevy of talent, they haven't produced one all-star. Even McRoberts is doing way better than Hansbrough.

In all fairness though, Felton is playing really well this year and deserves to be an all-star.