Maryland/Pitt and Bob Knight

[Faison1]

I'm watching the Pitt/Maryland game, and 2 things come to mind:

1. Bob knight is still the best Color Play Announcer.....not even close for second place. In fact, I can't think of anyone else I would rather listen to. It used to be Jay Bilas, but that guy has really turned a corner, IMHO. If you want to get some really good insight for the game of college basketball, plan on turning up the volume when Coach Knight is on tap.

2. There's actually quite a few good teams this year, and I haven't even watched KSU or MSU yet. I'm impressed with both Pitt and Maryland, not to mention OSU and Florida. I'm thinking this year is going to be a lot tougher than originally thought.

[BattierD12]

I really wish Bob Knight was assigned to all our games. He just shares the information well and you gotta love it whenever his humor shines through.

Remember how he always praised Scheyer last year for his ball protection, IQ, and free throw shooting? Based on all the turnovers and abysmal free throw % tonight, I think he wishes he could still watch #30.

[Deslok]

Not about Knight, who is of course a whole lot of awesome, but I'm trying to figure out what to make of Maryland from the box score only. They lose by 9 against the #4 team in the country, and if they hit 75% of their free throws, they win by 1. They hit only 44% of free throws, and 2-15 from 3 pt range, got outrebounded 31-18... and still kept it close with one of the purported best teams in the country. Am curious to see how this team ends up for Gary.

[DevilHorns]

Not about Knight, who is of course a whole lot of awesome, but I'm trying to figure out what to make of Maryland from the box score only. They lose by 9 against the #4 team in the country, and if they hit 75% of their free throws, they win by 1. They hit only 44% of free throws, and 2-15 from 3 pt range, got outrebounded 31-18... and still kept it close with one of the purported best teams in the country. Am curious to see how this team ends up for Gary.

I think this game was more of a reflection of Pitt. They have workable parts, but no real star power. Top 5 team? I think that won't last too long.

[ajgoodfella7]

I think this game was more of a reflection of Pitt. They have workable parts, but no real star power. Top 5 team? I think that won't last too long.

Pitt plays a style of basketball that keeps them in every game and they rely on making a few plays at the end to pull through. True, they don't have a true star, but they buy into Jamie Dixon's system about as well as any team in the country. I think they will be in the top 10 all year because there are a lot of teams that can't match them physically. The problem for them come tourney time is that tournament games are called differently then Big East games and they never get away with the same style of play.

[DevilHorns]

Pitt plays a style of basketball that keeps them in every game and they rely on making a few plays at the end to pull through. True, they don't have a true star, but they buy into Jamie Dixon's system about as well as any team in the country. I think they will be in the top 10 all year because there are a lot of teams that can't match them physically. The problem for them come tourney time is that tournament games are called differently then Big East games and they never get away with the same style of play.

I do agree that they have a good team, and I for one love Jamie Dixon. The guy is a flat-out winner that really gets his group of guys to dig into their roles and play hard every year. That said, is this Pitt team a top-10 team? This is the only game I watched them play and for me they don't really have that feel of a solid top-10 team (obviously this is a somewhat of a paper-thin statement as we are ridiculously early in the season, but hey, one can have predictions). I think they may stick around the top-10 area for the most of the year, but due to the target on their backs in the Big East, I think they'll likely be the victim of more than a few upsets.

[ajgoodfella7]

I do agree that they have a good team, and I for one love Jamie Dixon. The guy is a flat-out winner that really gets his group of guys to dig into their roles and play hard every year. That said, is this Pitt team a top-10 team? This is the only game I watched them play and for me they don't really have that feel of a solid top-10 team (obviously this is a somewhat of a paper-thin statement as we are ridiculously early in the season, but hey, one can have predictions). I think they may stick around the top-10 area for the most of the year, but due to the target on their backs in the Big East, I think they'll likely be the victim of more than a few upsets.

Well if you look at the top 10 teams of the last 5 years at seasons end, the one thing most of them have in common is they are upperclassmen built and have been together for multiple years. There are obvious exceptions like the uber-talented Kentucky team from last year but I'm just saying for the most part. Pitt fared really well last year when the Big East was stronger, and they themselves were weaker. I think if you take into account the last 5 years or so and where teams ended up, Pitt has the ingredients to be a legitimate top 10 team at years end. Their biggest problem is their style of play just doesn't translate well come tourney time. Which I suspect will be their downfall eventually once again.

[RoyalBlue08]

I do agree that they have a good team, and I for one love Jamie Dixon. The guy is a flat-out winner that really gets his group of guys to dig into their roles and play hard every year. That said, is this Pitt team a top-10 team? This is the only game I watched them play and for me they don't really have that feel of a solid top-10 team (obviously this is a somewhat of a paper-thin statement as we are ridiculously early in the season, but hey, one can have predictions). I think they may stick around the top-10 area for the most of the year, but due to the target on their backs in the Big East, I think they'll likely be the victim of more than a few upsets.

I bet there aren't three teams in the country that have a feel of a top 10 team at this point of the season. I wouldn't sleep on Pitt. In many ways, they remind me of Duke from last season. Might not be flashy, but I wouldn't really want them in my bracket come tournament time.

[shadowfax336]

I'm a longtime Pitt fan as well as a Duke fan, and for those of you who just watched Pitt tonight, you didn't get a real good read on them. Their best player, Ashton Gibbs, had a rough night, and their biggest strength (communication and discipline on defense) is still rounding into form as that is something that generally builds throughout the year. Pitt is definitely a top 10 team, and they'll show that throughout the year. Gibbs is the best shooter in the big east, and possibly in the country, especially in clutch spots, Wannamaker, Brown and Woodall are all topflight guards who can each sometimes be inconsistent on offense but are good defenders. And the forward rotation of Zanna, Robinson, Patterson, McGhee, and Taylor is very solid although its not yet clear exactly how thats going to work itself out.

Mark it down, Pitts headed for 30 wins and a very good season.

[ajgoodfella7]

I'm a longtime Pitt fan as well as a Duke fan, and for those of you who just watched Pitt tonight, you didn't get a real good read on them. Their best player, Ashton Gibbs, had a rough night, and their biggest strength (communication and discipline on defense) is still rounding into form as that is something that generally builds throughout the year. Pitt is definitely a top 10 team, and they'll show that throughout the year. Gibbs is the best shooter in the big east, and possibly in the country, especially in clutch spots, Wannamaker, Brown and Woodall are all topflight guards who can each sometimes be inconsistent on offense but are good defenders. And the forward rotation of Zanna, Robinson, Patterson, McGhee, and Taylor is very solid although its not yet clear exactly how thats going to work itself out.

Mark it down, Pitts headed for 30 wins and a very good season.

I agree, Pitt has had top 10 teams with worse teams in years that had stronger teams then this year. I'm not saying they won't have their share of bumps in the road, but at the end of the season I expect them to be right there as far as the polls are concerned.

[loran16]

Well if you look at the top 10 teams of the last 5 years at seasons end, the one thing most of them have in common is they are upperclassmen built and have been together for multiple years. There are obvious exceptions like the uber-talented Kentucky team from last year but I'm just saying for the most part. Pitt fared really well last year when the Big East was stronger, and they themselves were weaker. I think if you take into account the last 5 years or so and where teams ended up, Pitt has the ingredients to be a legitimate top 10 team at years end. Their biggest problem is their style of play just doesn't translate well come tourney time. Which I suspect will be their downfall eventually once again.

"their style of play just doesn't translate well come tourney time:" this is a bunch of crock. They came within a last second shot (by Nova) of making the final four in 09. That was their only truely top 5 contender in the last 10 years, and we all know how hard it is, even for top 5 teams, to carry that success through 6 straight games against increasingly tough competition.

This year they once again have top 5 talent. Once again, they're having a game built upon strong rebounding. Remember how Duke was built upon that? Well the only player in the last ten years to have a better offensive rebounding percentage than Zoubek was a Pittsburgh player (Dejuan Blair), and there are signs they have such players again this year.

The tourney is a tough tough thing, one that is driven by luck as well as talent. If you have top 5 talent a lot, you'll still make the final four very infrequently due to luck and the difficulty of facing top competition for 4 games in a row. If you have top 5 talent ONCE in the last ten years, your odds of making the F4 are low. And they came damn close.

[4decadedukie]

I'm watching the Pitt/Maryland game, and 2 things come to mind:

1. Bob knight is still the best Color Play Announcer.....not even close for second place. In fact, I can't think of anyone else I would rather listen to. It used to be Jay Bilas, but that guy has really turned a corner, IMHO. If you want to get some really good insight for the game of college basketball, plan on turning up the volume when Coach Knight is on tap.

2. There's actually quite a few good teams this year, and I haven't even watched KSU or MSU yet. I'm impressed with both Pitt and Maryland, not to mention OSU and Florida. I'm thinking this year is going to be a lot tougher than originally thought.


After watching this evening's Pitt/UMd contest, I strongly concur with everything in your original post -- especially the comments re Coach Knight -- with one exception: I never -- and I do mean never -- thought that this year would be anything but extremely difficult, in fact considerably harder than last year.

Duke ALWAYS has a "target on its back," due to our program's enduring results and the University's superb stature; this year will that phenomenon will be accentuated, since we are the National Champions and expectations from all constituencies are so unrealistically elevated. Add to this that last year's team -- due to continuous improvement (think post-Georgetown) , synergy, leadership, selflessness, cohesion, and so forth -- played "above" its general "talent level," whereas this year's squad has such potential and depth that EVERYONE'S expectations are almost ridiculously high (IMHO).

Obviously, this does NOT mean that I am not ardently hoping that we EARN a repeat Championship; rather, it strongly suggests that so many things can go wrong -- think of Butler's final shot, or a multi-month injury any to the "three S's or Z" or perhaps the loss of Kyle, Jon, Brian and/or Nolan for even a single half in the Baylor or the Butler games (among others), due to a flu's lingering impact -- and in a single-elimination tournament format, the SLIGHTEST deficiency can easily lead to that season-ending NCAA loss.

[Saratoga2]

I'm watching the Pitt/Maryland game, and 2 things come to mind:

1. Bob knight is still the best Color Play Announcer.....not even close for second place. In fact, I can't think of anyone else I would rather listen to. It used to be Jay Bilas, but that guy has really turned a corner, IMHO. If you want to get some really good insight for the game of college basketball, plan on turning up the volume when Coach Knight is on tap.

2. There's actually quite a few good teams this year, and I haven't even watched KSU or MSU yet. I'm impressed with both Pitt and Maryland, not to mention OSU and Florida. I'm thinking this year is going to be a lot tougher than originally thought.

Maryland didn't show much from the free throw line and didn't do much from the three point line. I don't see them as an upper echelon team.

[Faison1]

After watching this evening's Pitt/UMd contest, I strongly concur with everything in your original post -- especially the comments re Coach Knight -- with one exception: I never -- and I do mean never -- thought that this year would be anything but extremely difficult, in fact considerably harder than last year.

Duke ALWAYS has a "target on its back," due to our program's enduring results and the University's superb stature; this year will that phenomenon will be accentuated, since we are the National Champions and expectations from all constituencies are so unrealistically elevated. Add to this that last year's team -- due to continuous improvement (think post-Georgetown) , synergy, leadership, selflessness, cohesion, and so forth -- played "above" its general "talent level," whereas this year's squad has such potential and depth that EVERYONE'S expectations are almost ridiculously high (IMHO).

Obviously, this does NOT mean that I am not ardently hoping that we EARN a repeat Championship; rather, it strongly suggests that so many things can go wrong -- think of Butler's final shot, or a multi-month injury any to the "three S's or Z" or perhaps the loss of Kyle, Jon, Brian and/or Nolan for even a single half in the Baylor or the Butler games (among others), due to a flu's lingering impact -- and in a single-elimination tournament format, the SLIGHTEST deficiency can easily lead to that season-ending NCAA loss.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that I ever thought this season would be a cake-walk. But I have seen quite a few threads, both here and on other boards, openly asking who would beat Duke this year.

What I meant to say in my OP is rather than there being only a couple of teams that had a chance, I think there's quite a few. Especially the ones that have strong frontcourts.

[MCFinARL]

I'm watching the Pitt/Maryland game, and 2 things come to mind:

1. Bob knight is still the best Color Play Announcer.....not even close for second place. In fact, I can't think of anyone else I would rather listen to. It used to be Jay Bilas, but that guy has really turned a corner, IMHO. If you want to get some really good insight for the game of college basketball, plan on turning up the volume when Coach Knight is on tap.

2. There's actually quite a few good teams this year, and I haven't even watched KSU or MSU yet. I'm impressed with both Pitt and Maryland, not to mention OSU and Florida. I'm thinking this year is going to be a lot tougher than originally thought.

A special treat for Duke fans in Knight's coverage of last night's game--at the tip-off, Knight noted that "the best basketball player in the building" was Dick Groat [2-time All American basketball player at Duke, class of '52, before switching to the baseball career that included a 1960 world series win with the Pittsburgh Pirates, for the youngsters out there]--who is now the radio color guy for the Pitt basketball broadcasts.

[ajgoodfella7]

"their style of play just doesn't translate well come tourney time:" this is a bunch of crock. They came within a last second shot (by Nova) of making the final four in 09. That was their only truely top 5 contender in the last 10 years, and we all know how hard it is, even for top 5 teams, to carry that success through 6 straight games against increasingly tough competition.

This year they once again have top 5 talent. Once again, they're having a game built upon strong rebounding. Remember how Duke was built upon that? Well the only player in the last ten years to have a better offensive rebounding percentage than Zoubek was a Pittsburgh player (Dejuan Blair), and there are signs they have such players again this year.

The tourney is a tough tough thing, one that is driven by luck as well as talent. If you have top 5 talent a lot, you'll still make the final four very infrequently due to luck and the difficulty of facing top competition for 4 games in a row. If you have top 5 talent ONCE in the last ten years, your odds of making the F4 are low. And they came damn close.

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that not making the final 4 makes Pitt a nonsuccessful tourntament team. The point that I am making is that 4 of the last 5 years, Pitt has lost to a team with a lower seed then them. If you are trying to say that this is purely based on luck then it is your opinion that is a crock. Pitt's problem doesn't only stem from its physicality at tourney time, but also in the fact that historically, they get almost no easy buckets. Their transition game is virtually nonexistent. When their half court offense stalls out in tough games, they have nothing to turn to. Which is another reason why they have struggled to beat teams in the tournament. Whatever you think about how good Pitt's previous teams have been is your opinion. But, there is a reason why they have been ranked so high and have had such high seeds the past 5 years.

[trinity92]

Pitt plays a style of basketball that keeps them in every game and they rely on making a few plays at the end to pull through. True, they don't have a true star, but they buy into Jamie Dixon's system about as well as any team in the country. I think they will be in the top 10 all year because there are a lot of teams that can't match them physically. The problem for them come tourney time is that tournament games are called differently then Big East games and they never get away with the same style of play.

I watched this game and the refs called it tight-- more like the tourney-style officiating you talk about above. I was very impressed with Pitt. Remember this is early season. They will be a tough matchup for us if we meet in the tourney.

Kudos to the OP for his take on Coach Knight. I came away from the game appreciating his insight and style too.

[superdave]

How good is he? Will he eat us alive unless we game-plan for him? Is he better than Smith at NCSU? I have not seen him play yet this year, but his #s look good. Anyone got any insight?

[PumpkinFunk]

How good is he? Will he eat us alive unless we game-plan for him? Is he better than Smith at NCSU? I have not seen him play yet this year, but his #s look good. Anyone got any insight?

Jordan Williams is certainly good, but having watched him, he's not a dominant player, he's just the best on their team. I think our big guys can go toe-to-toe with him easily, but it'll take some game-planning. He's no Tracy Smith, that's for sure.

[ThePublisher]

Bob Knight is a genious. I mean look at who he coached and how he has influenced the game. I would much rather listen to him than anyone else. Especially Dicky V, that guy is like the older version of Madden was to football. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah baby blah blah yeah baby blah blah. Classic or not, he annoys me.

Maryland has a decent squad this year but their best asset is Gary Williams. I really have a lot of respect for him. I consider him to be the second best coach in the ACC. (Ol' Roy is only good if he has players who want to play the one style he knows how to coach). If Gary had someone who could really recruit for him, watch out. I think he would be up with the elite.

Jordan Williams is excellent. He was trashed by everyone Pitt had and still produced. If he says for his senior season after next year he will be a hard assignment for anybody.

I have now seen KSU, Michigan St., Pitt, Ohio St., Florida, Illinois and Texas play out of the stop teams. There are some good teams. Some teams that will match up with Duke pretty tough, in certain parts. I really don't see anyone who is even close to complete of a team as we are. Not at this point in the season, and we have a lot of growth to do. We will find out in the next stretch after tonight's tune up.

[Billy Dat]

I was at the games last night.

In regards to Pitt, it is interesting that folks are hyping their frontline because I saw them as a completely perimeter oriented team. They run very little offense through their bigs and really focus on creating 3 point shots for their extremely-solid-but-not-NBA level guards. They reminded me of Duke in how they space, take care of the ball, and defend. Plus, their offense was very balanced, everyone doing their part. Still, they didn't feel like a #4 ranked team to me.

Maryland was so bad from the charity stripe that it was laughable. Jordan Williams has the talent and the size to be an NBA player, but the kid needs to get in much better shape and needs to assert himself more out there. He seemed like a sleeping giant out there. Cliff Tucker was much more of a presence. I thought the back court was very average.

When Texas hit the floor, the talent level rose significantly. The freshman, Tristan Thompson, is an NBA athlete, and really made his presence known...20 points, 7 boards, 5 blocks, 4 assists, 1 turnover, 40 minutes. Despite all that, he's raw, but he was the guy who stood out, to me, of all the players on the court in either game last night. If it clicks for him, watch out. Texas has some players, but they are typically impulsive and inconsistent.

Illinois was solid, too. They've got a 7 foot, 3 point shooting big man, Mike Tisdale, who was a really interesting player, too bad he had foul trouble. They kind of reminded me of Pitt in their perimeter oriented, guard dominant style.

Honestly, though, I feel like we're much better than any of them. It doesn't mean we can't lose to any of them, but I feel like our squad is head and shoulders above anything I saw last night.

[loran16]

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that not making the final 4 makes Pitt a nonsuccessful tourntament team. The point that I am making is that 4 of the last 5 years, Pitt has lost to a team with a lower seed then them. If you are trying to say that this is purely based on luck then it is your opinion that is a crock.

Lets go back down the memory train hmmm?
Duke 04-05 #1Duke loses to #5MSU
Duke 05-06 #1Duke loses to #4LSU.
Duke 06-07 #6Duke loses to #11VCU
Duke 07-08 #2Duke loses to #7WVU
Duke 08-09 #2Duke loses to #3NOVA

Huh! Duke lost 5 straight years to worse seeds, including 4 times as legit top 8 seeds! Clearly their stuff doesn't work in the tournament!

Or.....not.

Yep, your statement is still full of crock. The Tournament is an unpredictable thing, and the best team doesn't always win; in fact more often than not that's what happened. This is due to luck (opposing team gets hot from behind the arc, your team goes cold) or perhaps style differences (no one is arguing Pitt was such a dominant team that they could beat any other team; like every other non-dominant teams, certain styles produce good or bad matchups). It DOES NOT MEAN that a team's style doesn't work in the tournament. That is a load of bull.

[ajgoodfella7]

Lets go back down the memory train hmmm?
Duke 04-05 #1Duke loses to #5MSU
Duke 05-06 #1Duke loses to #4LSU.
Duke 06-07 #6Duke loses to #11VCU
Duke 07-08 #2Duke loses to #7WVU
Duke 08-09 #2Duke loses to #3NOVA

Huh! Duke lost 5 straight years to worse seeds, including 4 times as legit top 8 seeds! Clearly their stuff doesn't work in the tournament!

Or.....not.

Yep, your statement is still full of crock. The Tournament is an unpredictable thing, and the best team doesn't always win; in fact more often than not that's what happened. This is due to luck (opposing team gets hot from behind the arc, your team goes cold) or perhaps style differences (no one is arguing Pitt was such a dominant team that they could beat any other team; like every other non-dominant teams, certain styles produce good or bad matchups). It DOES NOT MEAN that a team's style doesn't work in the tournament. That is a load of bull.

Your comparison of Pitt and Duke is unfair to Duke as well as unfair to Pitt. And the most ridiculous thing is that you are trying to say that teams with higher seeds lose in the tournament simply by having bad luck. I live in Pittsburgh and have seen 90% of their games over the last 10 years and I can tell you for a fact that their style of play has hurt them multiple times in the tournament in that time period. Of course, you are clearly an expert on every team since you can just say that higher teams that lose are just unlucky. That is bogus. In fact, you have made my point for me. Pitt is a team that can't adjust to some teams STYLES because they simply cannot score with them. Their offense historically has been purely in the half court and when they have an off-night they simply have no answer for some of the tougher tournament teams. And the reason they are so successful in the Big East is because most of the teams play a similar style of game and they are allowed to be much more physical with each other then at tournament time. What in any of that leads you to believe they are unlucky? If someone gets a tough bracket and doesn't make it through it then they simply weren't good enough to make it. And all I've been saying all along is that Pitt will remain in the top 10 this year because they play in the Big East and they match up very well with the other teams and will rack up a lot of wins as usual.

[ajgoodfella7]

And furthermore, even though we are on a Duke board I figured I'd give my opinion to the OP since, you know, I might actually be able to add something since I watch most of Pitts games. You call my OPINION a crock when clearly you don't even have the knowledge of Pitts recent history to even make a valid argument for yourself. I'm done arguing about this with you though so have a good one.

[loran16]

Your comparison of Pitt and Duke is unfair to Duke as well as unfair to Pitt. And the most ridiculous thing is that you are trying to say that teams with higher seeds lose in the tournament simply by having bad luck. I live in Pittsburgh and have seen 90% of their games over the last 10 years and I can tell you for a fact that their style of play has hurt them multiple times in the tournament in that time period. Of course, you are clearly an expert on every team since you can just say that higher teams that lose are just unlucky. That is bogus. In fact, you have made my point for me. Pitt is a team that can't adjust to some teams STYLES because they simply cannot score with them. Their offense historically has been purely in the half court and when they have an off-night they simply have no answer for some of the tougher tournament teams. And the reason they are so successful in the Big East is because most of the teams play a similar style of game and they are allowed to be much more physical with each other then at tournament time. What in any of that leads you to believe they are unlucky? If someone gets a tough bracket and doesn't make it through it then they simply weren't good enough to make it. And all I've been saying all along is that Pitt will remain in the top 10 this year because they play in the Big East and they match up very well with the other teams and will rack up a lot of wins as usual.

No offense, but this is ridiculous. Of course there's luck involved in single game events. If you play the best defense possible, there is still the chance that your opponent will make shots. Not because you were poor, but because luck of the draw. Remember, Good teams make say...50% of their shots (I just pulled this # out of my arse.) That's not a fixed number, because human beings can't simply repeat perfectly the same event every time. Each shot varies slightly from the last, not just because of the defense, but because of our own skill and because of just random variation. That's why a 50% FT shooter can go 10-10 in a game, and a 90% FT shooter can miss 4 in a row. This happens at a team level too.


Of course, you are clearly an expert on every team since you can just say that higher teams that lose are just unlucky. Oh not every time. Sometimes teams are overrated, sometimes they're underrated, etc. But often that's the case. Duke was a BETTER TEAM than LSU in 05-06. I'd say they were a better team than WVU in 07-08 too. They still lost. It happens. (Put it this way, Duke almost lost to Belmont in round 1 of 07-08. Belmont. Would that mean Belmont was the better team? No.)


If someone gets a tough bracket and doesn't make it through it then they simply weren't good enough to make it.
Or no? Put it this way: Lets say a team is a team, and has issues with zone defenses. However, they CRUSH Man defenses. In their side of the bracket are 4 teams that are full-time zone defense teams, who they might have problems with.

Now, all the zone teams are upset by man teams. What happens? The small team easily makes the Final 4! But But, there were teams in the bracket who would've beaten them! How does that make sense?

The answer is that teams generally aren't absolutely better than other teams...in basketball different styles result in different matchups. To win the NCAA Tournament you need not just great skill and talent, but some good luck in regards to matchups as well as random variance in games. Unless a team is clearly dominant, every team has a "weak matchup" and a matchup that is a good one for them. These are huge. You can't simply say a style doesn't work because it is weak against certain other styles....because on the other hand it could be strong against many other often-used styles.
----



And furthermore, even though we are on a Duke board I figured I'd give my opinion to the OP since, you know, I might actually be able to add something since I watch most of Pitts games. You call my OPINION a crock when clearly you don't even have the knowledge of Pitts recent history to even make a valid argument for yourself. I'm done arguing about this with you though so have a good one.

I don't need to have "knowledge of recent history..." your reasoning is silly and it's just a dumb statement to make (and I've seen this made in various sport situations, such as baseball, where it's just as silly).

The Duke comparison is really quite fine...your argument was that Pitt's style doesn't work, as seen by the fact that they kept losing to lower seeds. As I showed, so did Duke. So your reasoning would therefore suggest that Duke's style didn't work.

Seriously dude, in the late 80s and 1990, would you say Coach K's style didn't work? No. He ran up against some better teams every now and then (UNLV 1990), and there's some luck involved. The fact that they didn't prevail doesn't mean the style doesn't work.

[MartyClark]

To turn the discussion back to Bob Knight, I never liked him when he was a coach at I.U or Texas Tech. I was probably influenced by the Feinstein book but he just did not seem like a good person, certainly not the type of guy that I would want my sons to play for. I agree that he is an excellent color commentator and brings a lot to any broadcast.

Parenthetically, I live in Denver. We have a local radio sports talk guy named Irv Brown. Irv was a highly regarded NCAA basketball referee who refereed a number of final four games in the 70's and 80's including the Indiana win over Michigain in 1976 or 1977. Bob Knight calls in to Brown's radio show several times a year and it is highly entertaining radio. The mutual respect is obvious but Knight, in a very humorous way, jabs Brown about missed calls from 30+ years ago. Knight is clearly a complicated, talented, funny guy. He and Coach K do seem to be a bit of an odd couple and it would be very interesting to learn the details of how their relationship was strained and then mended.