PDA

View Full Version : Grantland.com College Hoops Preview



Billy Dat
10-17-2011, 01:39 PM
I know Bill Simmons is a polarizing figure here on the DBR, but his ESPN baby, Grantland.com, has been pumping out some really great content since its debut this summer.

They are doing a college hoops preview of sorts this week and Jay Kaspian Kang kicks it off with an ode to the Tar Heels and Kendall Marshall.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7114532/why-north-carolina-tar-heels-win-national-championship

He makes some interesting points, but, perhaps, goes a little far when he says, "When this system is firing on all cylinders, the Heels are unbeatable. Duke, Michigan State, Kentucky, and the rest of the NCAA can recruit whomever they want, but a well-run Carolina team dictates the game's pace to such a degree that the other team might as well not be playing."

Despite being a Heel homer, he is pretty reasonable when it comes to Duke. They are only previewing 5 teams and Duke is one, along with Ohio State (which I assume will be written by Club Trillion himself, Mark Titus), Syracuse and Kentucky. It will be interesting to see who writes each one.

superdave
10-17-2011, 02:26 PM
I know Bill Simmons is a polarizing figure here on the DBR, but his ESPN baby, Grantland.com, has been pumping out some really great content since its debut this summer.

They are doing a college hoops preview of sorts this week and Jay Kaspian Kang kicks it off with an ode to the Tar Heels and Kendall Marshall.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7114532/why-north-carolina-tar-heels-win-national-championship

He makes some interesting points, but, perhaps, goes a little far when he says, "When this system is firing on all cylinders, the Heels are unbeatable. Duke, Michigan State, Kentucky, and the rest of the NCAA can recruit whomever they want, but a well-run Carolina team dictates the game's pace to such a degree that the other team might as well not be playing."

Despite being a Heel homer, he is pretty reasonable when it comes to Duke. They are only previewing 5 teams and Duke is one, along with Ohio State (which I assume will be written by Club Trillion himself, Mark Titus), Syracuse and Kentucky. It will be interesting to see who writes each one.

I look forward to Dexter Strickland playing point guard occasionally and averaging about two full-steam ahead, head down charges per game. UNC will miss Leslie McDonald this year. I'm not sure how many teams have the depth and on-the-ball defensive prowess to harass Marshall, but Duke's got two guys in Curry and Thornton to make a good run at it.

Kedsy
10-17-2011, 02:48 PM
They are only previewing 5 teams and Duke is one, along with Ohio State (which I assume will be written by Club Trillion himself, Mark Titus), Syracuse and Kentucky. It will be interesting to see who writes each one.

Interesting that UConn is not among the five teams.

Mike Corey
10-17-2011, 03:05 PM
He ruins his best point by going over the top.

That point is as follows: "The point guard for North Carolina is the single most important position in college basketball. When Roy has a good one, the team wins national championships. When Roy has a bad one, the Heels are barely a tournament team."

The point guard is the most important position in college basketball. When any good coach has a good one, they become a threat in the postseason. Roy Williams, because his coaching is not malleable, requires more than a "good" point guard; he requires a fast-paced point guard that can break down defenses off the dribble or off a pass. That was indicated as much a year ago by dUNCe's BK/AK ("Before Kendall/After Kendall") season.

The superlatives are just irrelevant musings of fandom, which I suppose I can't begrudge the author since I'm a homer myself. :)

uh_no
10-17-2011, 03:14 PM
Interesting that UConn is not among the five teams.

so much gets written about Uconn on ESPN, and with their relatively small fan base I can understand eschewing them for someone else.

Duvall
10-17-2011, 04:12 PM
He ruins his best point by going over the top.

That point is as follows: "The point guard for North Carolina is the single most important position in college basketball. When Roy has a good one, the team wins national championships. When Roy has a bad one, the Heels are barely a tournament team."

That's something that would come as an awful surprise to Kansas, among others.

UNCleRod
10-17-2011, 04:32 PM
here is the latest article from grantland

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/6728/austin-rivers-seth-curry-and-unforeseen-drama-at-dukes-midnight-madness

this is summary of the curry vs rivers matchup in the scrimmage game

Duvall
10-17-2011, 04:34 PM
here is the latest article from grantland

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/6728/austin-rivers-seth-curry-and-unforeseen-drama-at-dukes-midnight-madness

So much for the promise of great content.

UNCleRod
10-17-2011, 04:43 PM
So much for the promise of great content.

I was wondering how you duke fans would take this article. I took it as a shot at Rivers and his attitude. Do any duke fans think Austin and Seth will have issues between each other if one or the other is getting more shots than the other? Seth has shown that he wants to take a bunch of shots and I think austin will demand the ball also, enough shots to go around to keep seth, austin, & andre happy? I feel for the plumlees cause if they want to take a shot they better be ready to rebound a long shot from one of the 3 gunners and hope for easy put backs

Kedsy
10-17-2011, 04:52 PM
So much for the promise of great content.

Actually, I thought it was a very entertaining article.


I was wondering how you duke fans would take this article. I took it as a shot at Rivers and his attitude.

It was definitely highlighting his attitude, but I wouldn't call it a shot. More like a question asking which side of the line he'll eventually end up. I expect our excellent coaching will prevail and he'll end up on the good side.


Do any duke fans think Austin and Seth will have issues between each other if one or the other is getting more shots than the other?

No.


Seth has shown that he wants to take a bunch of shots and I think austin will demand the ball also, enough shots to go around to keep seth, austin, & andre happy? I feel for the plumlees cause if they want to take a shot they better be ready to rebound a long shot from one of the 3 gunners and hope for easy put backs

I disagree with you and think there's a good chance that the bigs get their shots this year. Austin may be a bit of a gunner (based on what little we've seen), but it's hard to call Seth or Andre gunners (a word that carries a negative connotation) when they both hit 43% of their three-point shots last year and are both probably better this year. You want those guys taking those shots (well, maybe you don't since you're a UNC fan), and they can do it while still leaving plenty of shots for the other guys.

J_C_Steel
10-17-2011, 04:57 PM
So much for the promise of great content.

I thought it was entertaining and interesting. One observer's view of the scrimmage. What's your problem with it?

Duvall
10-17-2011, 05:00 PM
I thought it was entertaining and interesting. One observer's view of the scrimmage. What's your problem with it?

Aside from the self-indulgent psychobabble and obsession with image over substance, nothing really.

Billy Dat
10-17-2011, 05:03 PM
2,000 words on our Blue/White game...I'll take that kind of coverage every day.

Rivers is as interesting a freshman as we have had in some time because he is clearly a very cocky and confident kid who carries himself as if he is "The Man". However, he is also a very savvy and understands that he isn't going to have anything handed to him and has to earn that title. I would love to see how the coaches handle him in practices and such.

I think we can expect this kind of story and coverage of him this year. I missed the start of the ESPNU Midnight Madness coverage, but saw Gottlieb and Davis right after they left the Duke portion (which obviously kicked the night off) and Davis was saying, "Austin Rivers...slow down!" I think he's going to be a lightening rod for the media because he likes to shoot a lot and because he is so confident in himself...people are going to want to see that professional veneer crack.

CDu
10-17-2011, 05:06 PM
Despite being a Heel homer, he is pretty reasonable when it comes to Duke. They are only previewing 5 teams and Duke is one, along with Ohio State (which I assume will be written by Club Trillion himself, Mark Titus), Syracuse and Kentucky. It will be interesting to see who writes each one.

I don't know if "homer" is the right term. As far as college sports goes, he's a UConn fan (though like most New Englanders he's not as much a college sports fan as he is a pro sports fan). Maybe overly zealous in praise of UNC's team, but I'd not call him a Heel homer.

Billy Dat
10-17-2011, 05:10 PM
I don't know if "homer" is the right term. As far as college sports goes, he's a UConn fan (though like most New Englanders he's not as much a college sports fan as he is a pro sports fan). Maybe overly zealous in praise of UNC's team, but I'd not call him a Heel homer.

Here are the closing sentences...everyone can make up their own minds:

"So, my Carolina brethren, please join me in the following prayer for Kendall Marshall. Please, please, please let him be healthy. If he plays 35 games, the Heels will be cutting down the nets in March. If he plays 15, expect two losses to Duke, a quick out in the ACC tournament, and nothing past the second round of the NCAA.

There is very little middle ground here. But isn't that why we love Ol' Roy?"

DukieTiger
10-17-2011, 05:11 PM
I was wondering how you duke fans would take this article. I took it as a shot at Rivers and his attitude. Do any duke fans think Austin and Seth will have issues between each other if one or the other is getting more shots than the other? Seth has shown that he wants to take a bunch of shots and I think austin will demand the ball also, enough shots to go around to keep seth, austin, & andre happy? I feel for the plumlees cause if they want to take a shot they better be ready to rebound a long shot from one of the 3 gunners and hope for easy put backs

Usually, when teams have a number of guys worthy of taking shots- it's seen as a good thing; not a potential problem. Take UNC for example. How in the world are Zeller, Henson, McAdoo, Strickland, Barney, Bullock and Hairston all going to get enough touches? And yet, we see this not as a problem but as an embarrassment of riches- for good reason. Likewise, I choose not to worry about Seth, Austin and Dre getting enough shots to "stay happy" because from all accounts they are good kids (the Media's demonization of Rivers aside.) I think people should pay more attention to the fact that Duke has 3 of the most dangerous shooters in CBB, rather than the possibility of some kind of chemistry problem (before the season has even begun.)

Also, the person that wrote that article was reading a LOT into the Curry-Rivers and Upperclassmen-Freshmen dynamic. Not that I have any insight into the situation, but neither does the writer, which is kind of my point. But OF COURSE Dre and Seth are going to get their team fired up in the midst of a comeback. That's the competitive fire that you come to expect from Duke (and I have to give the writer credit for correctly highlighting that aspect of CTC.) Sure, Austin has shown some attitude at different times, but he will eventually outgrow his "attitude" and it's extremely overblown in the first place imo. And I'm referring to Austin Rivers- not "Austin Murphy," not sure who that is.

Finally, I shudder to think what this guy (Shane Ryan) would write if he went to a session of pick-up at Duke over the summer. I'm sure many of you have been to open pick-up sessions, but the guys go AFTER each other during these times- much more so than in the public forum of CTC. Players can go after each other's throats and play with a fire without there being any underwritten dynamic or drama.

CDu
10-17-2011, 05:32 PM
I was wondering how you duke fans would take this article. I took it as a shot at Rivers and his attitude. Do any duke fans think Austin and Seth will have issues between each other if one or the other is getting more shots than the other? Seth has shown that he wants to take a bunch of shots and I think austin will demand the ball also, enough shots to go around to keep seth, austin, & andre happy? I feel for the plumlees cause if they want to take a shot they better be ready to rebound a long shot from one of the 3 gunners and hope for easy put backs

Knowing that Simmons doesn't care for Duke (he's made that clear in past articles), I think there was somewhat of a shot at Rivers in the article. Rivers's on-court attitude makes it easy to take that angle, because he does have a surly on-court demeanor at all times. However, I think it was a case of seeking out more of a controversy/issue than was really there. Coach K coaches every game as though it matters, and he recruits competitive players who understand that philosophy. So of course Rivers and Curry and all took the exhibition seriously. That's the Duke way - if you're playing and they're keeping score, play hard and play to win.

The guys seemed to get along fine during the road trip to China/UAE, and they didn't seem to have any disdain for each other during the slam dunk contest following the exhibition. Simmons' question about Rivers's attitude and adjustment to college are legitimate. His concerns about its impact on team chemistry aren't.

To answer your question, I'm not worried about chemistry issues between Curry, Rivers, Dawkins, or anyone else. There'll be enough shots to go around. Curry and Dawkins are used to sharing the ball with two other prolific scorers (Singler, Smith, and briefly Irving). The Plumlees are used to not being the primary scoring options, as they don't have very developed offensive games to begin with. Having said that, I suspect they'll get their opportunities as well. They won't be the focal point of the offense (why would they be when we have such good perimeter players?).

airowe
10-17-2011, 06:11 PM
Despite being a Heel homer, he is pretty reasonable when it comes to Duke. They are only previewing 5 teams and Duke is one, along with Ohio State (which I assume will be written by Club Trillion himself, Mark Titus), Syracuse and Kentucky. It will be interesting to see who writes each one.

I'm guessing that Shane Ryan, owner of TobaccoRoadBlues.com, who also writes for Grantland will cover the Blue Devils. He is an objective Duke writer who had the site SethCurrySavesDuke.com before.

J4Kop99
10-17-2011, 06:22 PM
I thought it was a good article and actually asked some valid questions. I do not think I am alone in thinking that so far, Austin has seemed to be trying too hard and forcing it at times. He is also very emotional.

Duke does not usually have big-ego players like Rivers. Last big-ego player they had was Redick and he was easily "controlled" and matured into an unbelievable player and what seems to be an all-around good guy.

I think Rivers is putting way too much pressure on himself right now.

jimsumner
10-17-2011, 06:23 PM
Here are the closing sentences...everyone can make up their own minds:

"So, my Carolina brethren, please join me in the following prayer for Kendall Marshall. Please, please, please let him be healthy. If he plays 35 games, the Heels will be cutting down the nets in March. If he plays 15, expect two losses to Duke, a quick out in the ACC tournament, and nothing past the second round of the NCAA.

There is very little middle ground here. But isn't that why we love Ol' Roy?"

A couple of points. (no pun intended). The 2012 NCAA title game is on April 2. So, the only nets Carolina could cut down in March are in Atlanta.

I assume you meant something different. :)

Secondly. Even if Marshall is healthy and Carolina is the best team in the country by far, it is unwise to expect a title. No one is even money against the field. A one-and-done tournament is a crap shoot and upsets happen so often it's almost difficult to call them upsets. That's one of the major attractions of the tournament. And one of the major frustrations, if you're one of the favorites getting bumped off.

CDu
10-17-2011, 06:40 PM
Here are the closing sentences...everyone can make up their own minds:

"So, my Carolina brethren, please join me in the following prayer for Kendall Marshall. Please, please, please let him be healthy. If he plays 35 games, the Heels will be cutting down the nets in March. If he plays 15, expect two losses to Duke, a quick out in the ACC tournament, and nothing past the second round of the NCAA.

There is very little middle ground here. But isn't that why we love Ol' Roy?"

It's semantics. He's a New England guy, and has been a fan of UConn. He is really really on board with this UNC team, but he's not a UNC "homer."

slower
10-17-2011, 06:43 PM
I don't know if "homer" is the right term. As far as college sports goes, he's a UConn fan (though like most New Englanders he's not as much a college sports fan as he is a pro sports fan). Maybe overly zealous in praise of UNC's team, but I'd not call him a Heel homer.

Simmons, himself, is not necessarily a UNC homer as much as a Duke hater. Jay Caspian Kang, however, IS a self-avowed UNC homer.

Love the site (Grantland), though - great writing.

CDu
10-17-2011, 06:51 PM
Simmons, himself, is not necessarily a UNC homer as much as a Duke hater. Jay Caspian Kang, however, IS a self-avowed UNC homer.

Ah, my bad. Nevermind the "homer" discussion, as I was talking about Simmons. Carry on.

CDu
10-17-2011, 06:53 PM
Knowing that Simmons doesn't care for Duke (he's made that clear in past articles), I think there was somewhat of a shot at Rivers in the article. Rivers's on-court attitude makes it easy to take that angle, because he does have a surly on-court demeanor at all times. However, I think it was a case of seeking out more of a controversy/issue than was really there. Coach K coaches every game as though it matters, and he recruits competitive players who understand that philosophy. So of course Rivers and Curry and all took the exhibition seriously. That's the Duke way - if you're playing and they're keeping score, play hard and play to win.

The guys seemed to get along fine during the road trip to China/UAE, and they didn't seem to have any disdain for each other during the slam dunk contest following the exhibition. Simmons' question about Rivers's attitude and adjustment to college are legitimate. His concerns about its impact on team chemistry aren't.

To answer your question, I'm not worried about chemistry issues between Curry, Rivers, Dawkins, or anyone else. There'll be enough shots to go around. Curry and Dawkins are used to sharing the ball with two other prolific scorers (Singler, Smith, and briefly Irving). The Plumlees are used to not being the primary scoring options, as they don't have very developed offensive games to begin with. Having said that, I suspect they'll get their opportunities as well. They won't be the focal point of the offense (why would they be when we have such good perimeter players?).

I just re-read and checked the author, and it's Shane Ryan and not Simmons. So change "Simmons" to "Ryan" throughout, and ignore the first part of the first sentence. The rest I still think holds true. I think it was a bit of a shot at Rivers, and I think it was reading to much into the game with regard to concerns about chemistry.

slower
10-17-2011, 07:16 PM
This could be a remarkable year for Austin Rivers. I'm dead serious when I say that his freshman year seems tailor-made for a John Feinstein book.

Austin is used to the bright lights, but I don't think he realizes the FULL magnitude of what it means to be the most hated player on the most hated team in the country. He will be absolutely crucified for any weakness or errors this year. That's just the reality of what awaits him.

I love the kid. I hope he shoves it down the throats of the haters. I hope he stands over them and shouts at them while they choke. Whatever happens, I expect this to be a unique kind of spectacle, perhaps even more ridiculous than anything JJ or Greg Paulus had to endure. It could be Laettner-esque, yet turbocharged beyond even that by the advances in media over the past 20 years.

The haters are waiting, folks. They are sharpening their knives even now. You can see how this Grantland piece will be the template for the media monkeys to emulate ("Even his own teammates hate Austin Rivers..."). I hope I'm wrong. But I fear that I'm not.

Billy Dat
10-17-2011, 07:44 PM
Some housekeeping on on who wrote what...

Jay Caspian Kang wrote the Carolina preview for Grantland.com, and he is a Heel fan. It was his statement I quoted, about cutting the nets down in March.

Shane Ryan wrote the Blue/White scrimmage piece, and he blogs Tobacco Road hoops on TobaccoRoadBlues.com

Both write for Grantland.com, whose founder/EIC is Duke baiter Bill Simmons, who, despite being a Boston-homer, actually dislikes UConn hoops and Calhoun, and did a nice job skewering him on a podcast with his friend JackO this past March in the wake of the news of UConn recruiting improprieties
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=6267250

Lord Ash
10-17-2011, 08:11 PM
Aside from the self-indulgent psychobabble and obsession with image over substance, nothing really.

That might not be entirely fair. Attitude is key to performing as an athlete. Without the proper attitude, all the skill in the world cannot save you... See R. McCants for the perfect example. Balancing that killer, overbearing attitude enough to make it a benefit (ie Jordan) is a difficult thing to do... And often that attitude, and th required balance, are glaring evident in body language. Body language and the approach to the game is a HUGE part of sport and performance, and right now Austin's body language speaks of a player who has not yet found that proper balance to enhance his game. However, there are few men I trust more to help a player work on his sports attitude than K.

Atlanta Duke
10-17-2011, 09:54 PM
Simmons, himself, is not necessarily a UNC homer as much as a Duke hater.

Simmons may not like Duke but he does not deny K's greatness

This from before the Butler game

Also tonight: Coach K rightly takes his place as 2nd best college hoops coach ever behind Wooden. The man is money in big games. Book it.

http://poptweets.net/user/sportsguy33/status/11669612578

And this on Kevin Durant's game improving after his 2010 Team USA experience

You can't overstate how much the Team USA experience helped Durant: not just succeeding as The Guy and carrying the Americans those last few games but also just getting coached. Durant's rebounding and defense look to be miles ahead of where they were the previous couple of years; he's a legitimate 4 now in today's NBA. You could say he graduated from Coach K Camp

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/101015&sportCat=nba

slower
10-17-2011, 09:55 PM
Simmons may not like Duke but he does not deny K's greatness



The two are not mutually exclusive.

Atlanta Duke
10-17-2011, 10:24 PM
The two are not mutually exclusive.

Did not say they were - by way of example I despise one of the Sports Guy's favorite teams, the New England Patriots, but give Belchick and Brady credit for what they have accomplished

If Simmons does not want to cheer for Duke so be it - he has a lot of company but unlike many others does not denigrate what Duke has accomplished

slower
10-17-2011, 10:30 PM
Did not say they were - by way of example I despise one of the Sports Guy's favorite teams, the New England Patriots, but give Belchick and Brady credit for what they have accomplished

If Simmons does not want to cheer for Duke so be it - he has a lot of company but unlike many others does not denigrate what Duke has accomplished

If you read Simmons regularly, you know that he takes his shots at Duke as often as he can.

Orange&BlackSheep
10-18-2011, 08:32 AM
I just re-read and checked the author, and it's Shane Ryan and not Simmons. So change "Simmons" to "Ryan" throughout, and ignore the first part of the first sentence. The rest I still think holds true. I think it was a bit of a shot at Rivers, and I think it was reading to much into the game with regard to concerns about chemistry.

I personally thought the Ryan piece was really, really well-written and interesting and a legitimate take of what he saw as an outsider looking in. I am sure it is a big overblown, but I have to say that his basic impression of where AR is at the moment matches with mine.

But the forest for the trees of this all is: how many teams could split up their rosters and create such a high-quality, intense game?? I don't know what others felt, but I am still amazed at how compelling the game was.

MChambers
10-18-2011, 09:46 AM
But the forest for the trees of this all is: how many teams could split up their rosters and create such a high-quality, intense game?? I don't know what others felt, but I am still amazed at how compelling the game was.

And how many other programs have the game be the actual focus, rather than a clown show?

Jaymf7
10-18-2011, 10:11 AM
I liked the article and felt it accurately identified an issue I will be interested to see unfold over the year. Rivers certainly has come in with an attitude commensurate with his hype. Not a bad thing in and of itself. He also is clearly not as "ready" to play in our system, at this level, as say Kyrie was. Curry did in fact teach him a lesson on Friday (or at least the lesson was there to be learned if he wanted it). Rivers can grow a lot in our system, and if he is as mature on certain levels as he appears, I suspect he came to Duke because he would be challenged and grow.

That said, I found Rivers' answer to a simple question during a BW game interview particularly interesting. He was asked what was the biggest thing Coach K had taught him so far. Not an easy question to answer, but I can think of some cliches that I have heard. Rivers' response (paraphrasing) was that Coach K told him to always be aggressive and play his game. Seems like the last thing he'd need to be told. By contrast, I think Rivers said his dad told him to just make the simple plays and worry about winning, then the accolades, etc. would follow. Is that really the message the Duke staff is emphasizing?

I can certainly see K encouraging Rivers as he has struggled to adjust. He does need to continue to be aggressive and confident. But I suspect he will learn that the theatrics are a waste of energy. Maybe reading this Grantland piece (and perhaps watching some McBob clips) might speed the process.

Kedsy
10-18-2011, 10:37 AM
That said, I found Rivers' answer to a simple question during a BW game interview particularly interesting. He was asked what was the biggest thing Coach K had taught him so far. Not an easy question to answer, but I can think of some cliches that I have heard. Rivers' response (paraphrasing) was that Coach K told him to always be aggressive and play his game. Seems like the last thing he'd need to be told. By contrast, I think Rivers said his dad told him to just make the simple plays and worry about winning, then the accolades, etc. would follow. Is that really the message the Duke staff is emphasizing?

I can certainly see K encouraging Rivers as he has struggled to adjust. He does need to continue to be aggressive and confident. But I suspect he will learn that the theatrics are a waste of energy.

In my mind, staying aggressive and playing his game are not related to the theatrics. He does need to stay aggressive and hunt his shot. He also needs to make the simple plays instead of the crazy ones. Of course he also needs to distribute the ball and play great defense. At his level you can't do just one thing.

I'm sure Coach K has told him many important things. The interviewer just asked Austin for one of them, and I guess that's the one that resonated most with Austin. Doesn't necessarily mean it's K's biggest priority, however (although maybe it is, for all I know). K is a master psychologist. Whatever he's telling Austin you can bet there's a good reason for it.

Sir Stealth
10-18-2011, 11:47 AM
The Duke preview by Shane Ryan is up:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7118197/why-duke-win-national-championship

It was hard to enjoy the article with Ryan throwing out so much red meat to Duke haters and bringing Duke students into it so unnecessarily. This kind of stuff is something that we all have to be used to shrugging off by now, but he did his fellow alumni no favors.

A lot of people won't like the way that he talks about our players. I don't have as much of a problem with this, college basketball players are going to be critiqued and even mocked as big time athletes will. I think the criticism and of Rivers is fair, though the angle he takes on it may be somewhat overblown for dramatic effect. Much of what he says is insightful.

Other than the Duke stereotype stuff, I feel like the guy has an interesting take. It's a large forum to give a Duke fan who certainly does not embody the section of Duke's fanbase that is represented here, so the negative stuff is frustrating when it's allowed that the article is from a "homer" perspective, as the UNC article was. I also get the sense that, from a basketball analysis standpoint, Coach K would probably say that this guy has no idea what he's talking about. One thing I agree on, it will be very interesting to see how everything plays out with this team this season, probably even more intriguing than most years.

Kedsy
10-18-2011, 12:24 PM
The Duke preview by Shane Ryan is up:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7118197/why-duke-win-national-championship

It was hard to enjoy the article with Ryan throwing out so much red meat to Duke haters and bringing Duke students into it so unnecessarily. This kind of stuff is something that we all have to be used to shrugging off by now, but he did his fellow alumni no favors.

A lot of people won't like the way that he talks about our players. I don't have as much of a problem with this, college basketball players are going to be critiqued and even mocked as big time athletes will. I think the criticism and of Rivers is fair, though the angle he takes on it may be somewhat overblown for dramatic effect. Much of what he says is insightful.

Other than the Duke stereotype stuff, I feel like the guy has an interesting take. It's a large forum to give a Duke fan who certainly does not embody the section of Duke's fanbase that is represented here, so the negative stuff is frustrating when it's allowed that the article is from a "homer" perspective, as the UNC article was. I also get the sense that, from a basketball analysis standpoint, Coach K would probably say that this guy has no idea what he's talking about. One thing I agree on, it will be very interesting to see how everything plays out with this team this season, probably even more intriguing than most years.

Wow, what an awful article. I thought the CTC Curry/Rivers one was really good, but I can't stand this one. The stuff on Duke fans is stupid, the bit about last year not being fair is petty, and his basketball analysis is pretty close to useless. His "probable" starting lineup (Curry-Rivers-Kelly-Plumlee-Plumlee) is a long shot to start even one game.

Billy Dat
10-18-2011, 12:40 PM
Wow, what an awful article. I thought the CTC Curry/Rivers one was really good, but I can't stand this one. The stuff on Duke fans is stupid, the bit about last year not being fair is petty, and his basketball analysis is pretty close to useless. His "probable" starting lineup (Curry-Rivers-Kelly-Plumlee-Plumlee) is a long shot to start even one game.

I don't know...a lot of his criticisms seemed like a summary of the talk that gets thrown around on this board all the time. I kind of felt like I was reading the thoughts of a critical DBR poster...I thought it was pretty good. Is the Curry-Rivers-Kelly-Plumlee-Plumlee line-up so outrageous? Seems like the emergence of Miles makes it more likely than it was at the end of last season.

airowe
10-18-2011, 12:45 PM
I can certainly see K encouraging Rivers as he has struggled to adjust.

Can you expand on this thought some more? I have seen nor heard anything to suggest that Rivers has struggled to adjust to college basketball. Maybe to college life as he spends nearly every minute of his free time in the gym, but point me to some semblance of information that would back up this point please. :confused:

Kedsy
10-18-2011, 01:01 PM
Is the Curry-Rivers-Kelly-Plumlee-Plumlee line-up so outrageous? Seems like the emergence of Miles makes it more likely than it was at the end of last season.

Do we really want Ryan Kelly guarding small forwards? Do we think Ryan/Mason/Miles will combine for more than 80 minutes a game (the available minutes at PF and C without any of them venturing over to SF)? With all the perimeter depth we have, does it make any sense to start all three of our bigs?

If I had to set the over/under for this lineup starting during the season, I'd put it at 1. And I'd take the under. Even if I'm wrong, no way it's the "probable starting lineup" like the article says.

Starter
10-18-2011, 01:33 PM
I thought both Ryan articles were pretty interesting. He could have done without the bit on the sex powerpoint and all that, but it wasn't as terrible as I thought it would be. I'm not sure about the Rivers stuff, whether that's overblown or not. Stranger things have happened than some young hotshot coming in and upsetting the old guard (so to speak, in this case). I think Rivers is an important player for Duke to have perception-wise, given his pedigree and skills. I have little doubt that's going to work out just fine, but the magnifying glass will definitely be on Rivers and his relationship with his backcourt mates, not to mention the rest of the college basketball community at large.

...I'm actually curious what Duke fans would think of Rivers if he were, for example, on Carolina or Kentucky. Because -- and I may get flamed for this, but I believe it -- he seems exactly like the sort of player the Duke fan base would typically despise if we didn't have him. (Note: I'm a huge Rivers fan already.) It kind of makes me wonder what we'd think of Barnes if he had skyped Duke. I'm far from a Barnes fan, but still. Food for thought.

Billy Dat
10-18-2011, 01:37 PM
Do we really want Ryan Kelly guarding small forwards? Do we think Ryan/Mason/Miles will combine for more than 80 minutes a game (the available minutes at PF and C without any of them venturing over to SF)? With all the perimeter depth we have, does it make any sense to start all three of our bigs?

If I had to set the over/under for this lineup starting during the season, I'd put it at 1. And I'd take the under. Even if I'm wrong, no way it's the "probable starting lineup" like the article says.

I concede this point, but I still think it is an interesting article that brought up a lot of relevant points that get debated on this board all the time.

Lid
10-18-2011, 01:46 PM
I thought it was a good article, but then I like his sense of humor. After reading the first couple of posts here complaining about the way he portrayed Duke students, I began to read the article and kept waiting... and waiting... for the bad part. I actually chuckled at the idea that Coach K's sex powerpoint would include better defense, and this part brought an audible AMEN!:


I am not a Duke stereotype. Neither are 90 percent of Duke fans. I know them. They're good people. They wear casual clothes and hold Wall Street in suspicion. They drink beers and treat strangers with kindness. They trip on ottomans and swear at the television. They have nothing to prove and nothing to defend.

What did I miss that upset people?

As for the important part, the basketball analysis part, I do think he goes a little wacky with his projected starting lineup, but isn't that what makes preseason articles more interesting? It's a defensible guess, and I think his player analyses were reasonable.

CDu
10-18-2011, 01:46 PM
I don't know...a lot of his criticisms seemed like a summary of the talk that gets thrown around on this board all the time. I kind of felt like I was reading the thoughts of a critical DBR poster...I thought it was pretty good. Is the Curry-Rivers-Kelly-Plumlee-Plumlee line-up so outrageous? Seems like the emergence of Miles makes it more likely than it was at the end of last season.

Except that it weakens us defensively. Kelly isn't quick enough to be regularly lined up against opposing wings. When we have 3 feasible options to consider at the 3 (Dawkins, Murphy, Gbinije), it doesn't make sense to go with a guy really out of position in terms of quickness.

Further, on the offensive end, it does terrible things for floor spacing. We've tended to prefer to have 3-4 guys who can play effectively from the perimeter so as to clear space for cutters/drivers. The Plumlees simply aren't a credible perimeter presence and Kelly's perimeter value is more associated with being a stretch 4/5 (pulling bigs away from the basket). Playing those three guys together would allow teams to sag toward the lane and make life more difficult for any dribble penetration.

I really don't think that a lineup of Curry/Rivers/Kelly/Plumlee/Plumlee makes sense - especially given the perimeter depth we have.

Where the emergence of Miles does benefit is that we now potentially have a very solid/strong 3-man rotation at the 4/5 spot rather than being concerned about filling the extra 25-35 mpg at the 4/5 off the bench.

Kedsy
10-18-2011, 02:06 PM
I concede this point, but I still think it is an interesting article that brought up a lot of relevant points that get debated on this board all the time.

Yeah, but that's sort of my problem with it. On message boards, things like the Plumlees fouling all the time and not getting good rebounding position continue to get debated long after the original point becomes moot and untrue. Mason's foul rate was almost exactly the same as Tyler Zeller's in 2010-11 and Mason was one of the five best defensive rebounders in the conference. But the article goes on and on about the Plumlees' fouling while also saying they are poor rebounders. Then he says Miles is breaking out of this "mold," despite the fact that three of the six points describing the "mold" involve excessive fouling and in China and in Blue/White Miles committed plenty of fouls.

Too much of the article was like that. It's like he wrote an article to highlight stereotypes and ignore reality.

CDu
10-18-2011, 02:15 PM
Too much of the article was like that. It's like he wrote an article to highlight stereotypes and ignore reality.

And on top of that, gave bad basketball analysis anyway.

The discussion of Rivers' on-court personality (and his ability to not let his gesturing affect his focus on defense) is relevant. But he takes it a bit too far in the concern about his teammates continuing to get along with him.

CDu
10-18-2011, 02:24 PM
...I'm actually curious what Duke fans would think of Rivers if he were, for example, on Carolina or Kentucky. Because -- and I may get flamed for this, but I believe it -- he seems exactly like the sort of player the Duke fan base would typically despise if we didn't have him. (Note: I'm a huge Rivers fan already.) It kind of makes me wonder what we'd think of Barnes if he had skyped Duke. I'm far from a Barnes fan, but still. Food for thought.

Oh I think he'd absolutely be despised - probably moreso than Barnes. That's the one interesting thing discussed in that second Ryan article: the degree to which Rivers will take the mantle of the hated Duke player and how he'll handle that.

I think there's a VERY high likelihood that he'll be that guy this year, and perhaps moreso than most previous Duke guys (especially if he's really good). I hope he's ready for it. But just as importantly, I hope he can avoid causing him to go rogue on the court to "show the haters."

I'm not terribly concerned that Rivers won't get along with his teammates. In that sense, I think Ryan took it too far. But I do think the concern about the "macho" attitude could lead him to overdo it in an attempt to prove to opposing fans/media/everyone how good he is. I'm not sure how concerned I am about it yet considering how little I've seen of him, but from what little I've seen I've consistently gotten the impression that it could be an issue.

Thankfully, Coach K is pretty good at handling personalities. If any coach can keep problems from developing, it's Coach K.

Duvall
10-18-2011, 02:27 PM
...I'm actually curious what Duke fans would think of Rivers if he were, for example, on Carolina or Kentucky. Because -- and I may get flamed for this, but I believe it -- he seems exactly like the sort of player the Duke fan base would typically despise if we didn't have him. (Note: I'm a huge Rivers fan already.) It kind of makes me wonder what we'd think of Barnes if he had skyped Duke. I'm far from a Barnes fan, but still. Food for thought.

If Rivers were at UNC Duke fans would hate him - that's what UNC players are for. If he were at Kentucky I doubt Duke fans would pay much attention to him - there's been plenty of bile for Calipari, but not much for individual UK players.

hurleyfor3
10-18-2011, 02:27 PM
Let's see: Whining about Sweet 16 losses... appealing to Pomeroy stats... paranoia over other people not liking us... bringing up the fast start/late collapse and big man issues. What's his handle here?

slower
10-18-2011, 02:38 PM
This could be a remarkable year for Austin Rivers. I'm dead serious when I say that his freshman year seems tailor-made for a John Feinstein book.

Austin is used to the bright lights, but I don't think he realizes the FULL magnitude of what it means to be the most hated player on the most hated team in the country. He will be absolutely crucified for any weakness or errors this year. That's just the reality of what awaits him.

I love the kid. I hope he shoves it down the throats of the haters. I hope he stands over them and shouts at them while they choke. Whatever happens, I expect this to be a unique kind of spectacle, perhaps even more ridiculous than anything JJ or Greg Paulus had to endure. It could be Laettner-esque, yet turbocharged beyond even that by the advances in media over the past 20 years.

The haters are waiting, folks. They are sharpening their knives even now. You can see how this Grantland piece will be the template for the media monkeys to emulate ("Even his own teammates hate Austin Rivers..."). I hope I'm wrong. But I fear that I'm not.

Looks like the Rivers hate is gearing up, even among our own (see the Rivers vs. Curry thread). No matter the degree of the legitimacy of the concerns about Austin, my point (which I made before the Grantland Duke preview) is that THIS will be the script for Austin this year. Just as media monkeys kept pushing and pushing the greatness of Barnes during the early part of last season (because that was THEIR ESTABLISHED SCRIPT and that's how much of media works, even if reality tends to contradict their script), they will keep pushing Austin's "issues" no matter what he does. Gonna be quite a ride for the young man.

Starter
10-18-2011, 02:41 PM
If Rivers were at UNC Duke fans would hate him - that's what UNC players are for. If he were at Kentucky I doubt Duke fans would pay much attention to him - there's been plenty of bile for Calipari, but not much for individual UK players.

Yeah. I was just thinking of the extent he'd be hated. Most of us don't hate every player on UNC indiscriminately. I think everyone's pretty much fine with Kendall Marshall, for example, he's just really good.

I think you're right about Kentucky, in general.

slower
10-18-2011, 02:53 PM
If you read Simmons regularly, you know that he takes his shots at Duke as often as he can.

"Our resident I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ie whines about Zona, talks up Austin Rivers, and engages in general Duke-baggery"

How much do you want to bet that Simmons personally wrote this line at the top of Shane Ryan's preview?

Faison1
10-18-2011, 03:16 PM
Let's see: Whining about Sweet 16 losses... appealing to Pomeroy stats... paranoia over other people not liking us... bringing up the fast start/late collapse and big man issues. What's his handle here?

I thought the article was pretty funny. Especially this part about the Plumlees:

First, they play terrible help-side defense, arriving just in time to foul a guy as he's dunking. Second, they commit stupid fouls (these come in two varieties: the unnecessary arm slap inside, and the clumsy-aggressive hedge on the perimeter). Third, they lack any post move outside of what John Wooden calls "the dunk shot."

However, his analysis of the starting lineup leads me to wonder how clued in he is about Duke Hoops.

superdave
10-18-2011, 04:55 PM
Too much of the article was like that. It's like he wrote an article to highlight stereotypes and ignore reality.

My first thought when Shane Ryan went on about Gbinije rather than Alex Murphy and Cook over Thornton while poo-pooing Seth Curry, as well as his projected starting lineup, was the he watched none of the games in China and Dubai. It also sounds like he has not been paying attention to what Coach K has said about his players since this summer. Disconnect.

superdave
10-18-2011, 04:57 PM
Most of us don't hate every player on UNC indiscriminately.

In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

chrisheery
10-18-2011, 05:14 PM
I just re-read and checked the author, and it's Shane Ryan and not Simmons. So change "Simmons" to "Ryan" throughout, and ignore the first part of the first sentence. The rest I still think holds true. I think it was a bit of a shot at Rivers, and I think it was reading to much into the game with regard to concerns about chemistry.

Sorry, but Shane Ryan is pretty clearly and out and out Duke fan. I think his comments reflect the fears of many Duke fans about things that can readily be seen from footage of the China trip and the Blue-White game. Whether people agree or not is a different issue, but accusing the writer of being anti-Duke is just flat out wrong.

chrisheery
10-18-2011, 05:22 PM
My first thought when Shane Ryan went on about Gbinije rather than Alex Murphy and Cook over Thornton while poo-pooing Seth Curry, as well as his projected starting lineup, was the he watched none of the games in China and Dubai. It also sounds like he has not been paying attention to what Coach K has said about his players since this summer. Disconnect.

I know he watched the China games, he tweeted about that. While Shane may not be a perfect "basketball mind," I think he tries to diffuse Duke hate with humor and self-deprecation (of Duke) because he knows how we are all perceived.

wilko
10-18-2011, 05:29 PM
I know he watched the China games, he tweeted about that. While Shane may not be a perfect "basketball mind," I think he tries to diffuse Duke hate with humor and self-deprecation (of Duke) because he knows how we are all perceived.

Sometimes having an A-hole on the team challenges the group. I remember this guy named Laettner, that worked out OK.
AR is a frosh and has a lot to learn. Hes also got a lot to OFFER... but 1st things 1st..

Mcluhan
10-18-2011, 06:05 PM
The article was fine. If it were about UNC we'd all be stroking our chins at the suggestion of turmoil, saying "very interesting."

That said, we have no idea if there are genuine chemistry issues with this team. It's probably way too early for that, and I imagine in the past there have been times when chemistry issues came to a head at important parts of the season, and either made us better or worse.

We should also assume that every team has had players who didn't click for whatever reason. It's 12 dudes.

Then there's the inevitable seniority system, with some degree of hazing/intimidation usually a part of the process of establishing leadership. Again, 12 dudes.

Austin reminds me a lot of a young Kobe: a young man very much in a hurry, and with a degree of focus, ambition, and self-regard that can be a bit alienating, even from a distance.

But we really don't know what these people are like, and I'm thus inclined to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. For example, I've always thought talk of Barnes' cockiness has been blown out of proportion.

I'm really excited for this season, and this team. With so much up for grabs-- roles, playing time, leadership, the go-to man-- it should be fascinating.

Duvall
10-18-2011, 06:23 PM
I know he watched the China games, he tweeted about that. While Shane may not be a perfect "basketball mind," I think he tries to diffuse Duke hate with humor and self-deprecation (of Duke) because he knows how we are all perceived.

Because if there was one thing missing from Ryan's mix of feeble humor and vapid analysis, it was shameless pandering.

Mike Corey
10-18-2011, 07:03 PM
Shane Ryan is an '05 Duke alum, a huge Duke fan, and a writer with his own unapologetic style. Challenge him on the merits, not his allegiance.

CDu
10-18-2011, 08:49 PM
Sorry, but Shane Ryan is pretty clearly and out and out Duke fan. I think his comments reflect the fears of many Duke fans about things that can readily be seen from footage of the China trip and the Blue-White game. Whether people agree or not is a different issue, but accusing the writer of being anti-Duke is just flat out wrong.

I never accused Ryan of being anti-Duke. I just said he was reading more controversy into the scrimmwge than was really there. I accused originally accused Simmons of being anti-Duke (which he is), but the post you responded to was the one where I specifically stepped back from the anti-Duke comment (when I realized it was Ryan who wrote the piece). I think you misread my post if your take-home was that I was saying Ryan is anti-Duke.

chrisheery
10-18-2011, 08:56 PM
I never accused Ryan of being anti-Duke. I just said he was reading more controversy into the scrimmwge than was really there. I accused originally accused Simmons of being anti-Duke (which he is), but the post you responded to was the one where I specifically stepped back from the anti-Duke comment (when I realized it was Ryan who wrote the piece). I think you misread my post if your take-home was that I was saying Ryan is anti-Duke.

You are right. Your next post you made said to replace Bill Simmons' name in your original post with Shane Ryan's, but I didn't realize you said to just eliminate the part about being Anti-Duke. My bad.

CDu
10-18-2011, 09:25 PM
You are right. Your next post you made said to replace Bill Simmons' name in your original post with Shane Ryan's, but I didn't realize you said to just eliminate the part about being Anti-Duke. My bad.

No sweat. It was my bad in the first place for not realizing the articles (both the Duke ones and the UNC one) weren't written by Simmons at all. That created a fair bit of confusion in several of the subsequent posts.

weezie
10-18-2011, 09:48 PM
Did anyone see today's WSJ, Jason Gay's column in sports about the new Iphone 4S, etc, etc and Suri?
He asks it a particular question,

Gay: "Do you find Duke annoying?'
Suri: "Now there's a good question. Now, where were we?"

I cracked up.
I also find Ryan's writing to usually be pretty solid, just my 2cents.

DukieTiger
10-18-2011, 09:57 PM
"Seth Curry and Andre Dawkins staged an intense comeback that seemed to hint at a deep desire to beat Team Rivers."

Really? It didn't simply hint at a deep competitive desire? Between bringing up the "Duke starts fast" angle, penciling in Ryan Kelly as our starting SF, neglecting the potential Gbinije and Murphy bring as WINGS (not forwards, Shane,) penciling Rivers in as a problem child before he has even played a game- while neglecting his repeatedly stated desire to learn and grow... I think he did a bang up job painting a picture of Duke's team this year.

#sarcasm

Jaymf7
10-18-2011, 10:05 PM
Can you expand on this thought some more? I have seen nor heard anything to suggest that Rivers has struggled to adjust to college basketball. Maybe to college life as he spends nearly every minute of his free time in the gym, but point me to some semblance of information that would back up this point please. :confused:

I guess the word "struggled" is relative and open to debate. After watching the China tour games, I felt that Rivers was having a somewhat difficult time adjusting to playing at this next level and within the team concept at Duke (surrounded by elite-level talent), which is understandable. I do not have the box scores handy, but I recall some very poor offensive efficiency numbers as "back up" (missed shots, turnovers). Coach K's public comments suggested that Rivers was developing and adjusting (if not indirectly read struggling). This is probably typical for most incoming freshmen, but our most recent experience with a top-tier frosh (Kyrie) was smoother. After making this comparison (and noting Rivers commented about Coach K pumping him up), I suggested that these struggles may have explained Coach K's focus on encouraging Rivers to keep his edge and continue to attack (which was a bit surprising to me because I preferred Doc's apparent approach of suggesting that his son let the game come to him).

Rivers' comment about the advice he received was interesting to me regardless of whether that message was the foremost one delivered by Coach K, or that was the one that resonated most with Rivers (or both). In any event, I am sure that Rivers will work hard, adapt quickly, and look better when playing alongside Curry and Dawkins rather than against them.

Ultrarunner
10-18-2011, 10:32 PM
Let's see: Whining about Sweet 16 losses... appealing to Pomeroy stats... paranoia over other people not liking us... bringing up the fast start/late collapse and big man issues. What's his handle here?

You forgot to include his complaints against stall-ball. Makes him a virtual lock for the board.

OldPhiKap
10-18-2011, 10:59 PM
Did anyone see today's WSJ, Jason Gay's column in sports about the new Iphone 4S, etc, etc and Suri?
He asks it a particular question,

Gay: "Do you find Duke annoying?'
Suri: "Now there's a good question. Now, where were we?"

I cracked up.
I also find Ryan's writing to usually be pretty solid, just my 2cents.

Artificial intelligence has always hated Duke.

Authentic, organic intelligence is a whole different matter.

hurleyfor3
10-18-2011, 11:21 PM
Did anyone see today's WSJ, Jason Gay's column in sports about the new Iphone 4S, etc, etc and Suri?
He asks it a particular question,

Gay: "Do you find Duke annoying?'
Suri: "Now there's a good question. Now, where were we?"

Interesting question, considering how several WSJ reporters over the years have been Duke grads. Including one who posts here.

hurleyfor3
10-18-2011, 11:22 PM
You forgot to include his complaints against stall-ball.

And Plumlee bashing. We mods would have a field day with all that "content".

OldPhiKap
10-18-2011, 11:24 PM
Interesting question, considering how several WSJ reporters over the years have been Duke grads. Including one who posts here.

WSJ -- where there ain't enough room for two Jasons.

dukeballboy88
10-19-2011, 07:17 AM
I havent seen anything from Rivers I dont like. I love the Im the man get in line attitude. If I were his teammate it would make me work harder. It would make practices tougher and blue white games would be more intense. If someone has a problem with it they are jealous. That was the best blue white game ive been to and ive been to a few and I love any competition that may go on in house as long as they keep it professional. Rivers has swag and he didnt come to Duke to sit the bench and if teammates dont like it then work harder and put him on the bench.

These unc fans are coming up with this stuff trying to justify them saying that roy didnt want rivers anyway. UNC fans cant take a loss so they conjure up stuff like this to make excuses for losing a recruit to K. All I hear now is we didnt want rivers and his bad attitude to mess up the chemistry. From what Ive heard and seen, Rivers has done nothing but work hard and say the right things so if he would only stomp on a Kentucky or UNC players chest now I would really like him.

Rivers=best guard in the country

CDu
10-19-2011, 10:47 AM
I havent seen anything from Rivers I dont like. I love the Im the man get in line attitude. If I were his teammate it would make me work harder. It would make practices tougher and blue white games would be more intense. If someone has a problem with it they are jealous. That was the best blue white game ive been to and ive been to a few and I love any competition that may go on in house as long as they keep it professional. Rivers has swag and he didnt come to Duke to sit the bench and if teammates dont like it then work harder and put him on the bench.

It's not a matter of whether or not he should be benched. It's a matter of not losing focus every time he doesn't get a call. It's a matter of learning how to mesh his talents within the team concept. "Swag" only has so much value. If he's too busy glaring at the ref after not getting a call that he doesn't get back on defense, that's a problem. If he's too busy trying to force a play that's not there (resulting in a turnover), that's a problem.

I've seen quite a few examples of these issues from Rivers in the China/UAE trip and in the scrimmage. That doesn't mean they will continue to be problems once the season starts. But I definitely wouldn't say "I haven't seen anything from Rivers I don't like."


Rivers=best guard in the country

As has been said in other threads, there's just no reasonable basis to make this statement. It's like saying Harrison Barnes was the best SF in the country at this time last year. It's possible that he is the best guard in the country right now. It's possible that he isn't there yet, but ends up the best guard in the country. It's possible that he doesn't end up the best guard in the country as he works to adapt to the college game. Right now, there's just no evidence from which to make such a statement about where he ranks among college basketball guards.

J4Kop99
10-19-2011, 11:28 AM
It's not a matter of whether or not he should be benched. It's a matter of not losing focus every time he doesn't get a call. It's a matter of learning how to mesh his talents within the team concept. "Swag" only has so much value. If he's too busy glaring at the ref after not getting a call that he doesn't get back on defense, that's a problem. If he's too busy trying to force a play that's not there (resulting in a turnover), that's a problem.

I've seen quite a few examples of these issues from Rivers in the China/UAE trip and in the scrimmage. That doesn't mean they will continue to be problems once the season starts. But I definitely wouldn't say "I haven't seen anything from Rivers I don't like."



As has been said in other threads, there's just no reasonable basis to make this statement. It's like saying Harrison Barnes was the best SF in the country at this time last year. It's possible that he is the best guard in the country right now. It's possible that he isn't there yet, but ends up the best guard in the country. It's possible that he doesn't end up the best guard in the country as he works to adapt to the college game. Right now, there's just no evidence from which to make such a statement about where he ranks among college basketball guards.

E.g. Antoine Walker

Billy Dat
10-19-2011, 11:34 AM
The Kentucky preview is up, written by Matt Jones of Kentucky Sports Radio who says he went to Duke for grad school:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7121706/why-kentucky-wildcats-win-national-championship

It's clear now that these pieces are not meant to be objective, which I think makes them even more fun. The Kentucky piece makes the self-congratulatory Carolina piece seem humble, which, to me, makes it very entertaining. The author takes some well aimed shots at Duke but, again, I thought they were funny.

Some highlights (or, you may feel, lowlights):

"It is an NBA star-system mentality that Calipari has imported into the one-and-done era, flying in the face of the sacred team-first mentality of college basketball. Purists of the game (a.k.a. people who love players who smack the floor on defense and sprint to the sideline to be berated by a coach making millions) argue that this is not a successful recipe for a national title, and that simply assembling masses of talent does not work in the college game. They contend that the only way to win a championship is to build a "program" via "leadership" found from upperclassmen not good enough to be desired by teams in the NBA draft and who return to school to chase championship glory. In this view, talent succumbs to teamwork as the "molders of men" on the sideline work their individual magic. This, of course, is all nostalgic jabberwocky.

"In college basketball, only three programs consistently matter: North Carolina, Duke, and Kentucky. The two Triangle schools have the unfortunate burden of being located where the citizenry has the most college degrees per capita in the nation. We in Kentucky don't have that distraction. North Carolina's wine-and-cheese crowd (as Sam Cassell so aptly termed them) has the Panthers, the Hurricanes, NASCAR, and the best college town in America to divert their attention, while Duke's nerdy, elitist-chic student body is too focused on entering our nation's top tax bracket to truly replicate our obsession with one college basketball team. I don't care what ESPN, its announcers or HBO documentarians try to tell you … we care more than they do, and it isn't even close. I went to grad school at Duke and lived in Chapel Hill, expecting that my neighbors would share my passion for the greatest sport in the land. I was wrong. North Carolina and Duke fans care in the moment, but they don't live and breathe basketball 24/7, 365 days a year like we do. Triangle fans don't camp out for three days simply to attend a glorified practice (Krzyzewskiville is extremely overrated)"

Duvall
10-19-2011, 11:38 AM
The Kentucky preview is up, written by Matt Jones of Kentucky Sports Radio...

So the question of how Grantland.com will cover college basketball has been answered, and the answer is "poorly."

slower
10-19-2011, 11:49 AM
So the question of how Grantland.com will cover college basketball has been answered, and the answer is "poorly."

Remember, though, that Grantland is Simmons' brainchild and, as such, will reflect his "style", for better or worse. I think these team previews were intended more as subjective pieces of entertainment than nuts and bolts, objective analyses. And I think that's what we'll get from Grantland, because that's what Simmons does. It will be equal parts entertaining and infuriating.

Grantland aspires to be more "literary" than the traditional media-monkey sites, such as SI and ESPN. Are there good writers at these other sites? Yeah, there are a few. Joe Posnanski at SI is great. Having said that, I'd read Grantland 100 times out of 100 if I had to choose.

MChambers
10-19-2011, 12:47 PM
Remember, though, that Grantland is Simmons' brainchild and, as such, will reflect his "style", for better or worse. I think these team previews were intended more as subjective pieces of entertainment than nuts and bolts, objective analyses. And I think that's what we'll get from Grantland, because that's what Simmons does. It will be equal parts entertaining and infuriating.

Grantland aspires to be more "literary" than the traditional media-monkey sites, such as SI and ESPN. Are there good writers at these other sites? Yeah, there are a few. Joe Posnanski at SI is great. Having said that, I'd read Grantland 100 times out of 100 if I had to choose.

Maybe I started the Duke preview at Grantland with the wrong attitude, because I wanted to read some real analysis, and instead I got pure snark. I felt about like I do when I click on a seemingly interesting link and find myself at Bleacherreport. So I won't be going back anytime soon, and if I do I'll have a better sense of what to expect.

Starter
10-19-2011, 01:26 PM
If this makes sense, Grantland has value and is a disappointment at the same time. I think there's a definitive place for intelligent long-form writing on the Internet, and Grantland shares that belief. I read a lot of it when it first started, then progressively less, and now I just stop in once in a while to see what they've been doing. They have some very good writers on there doing some very good writing; hence, it's nothing like the majority of Bleacher Report. They also have Simmons, and people who write like Simmons, and I don't usually read much of either. There's also some specific pop culture pieces that are flat-out cringe-inducing, and they really force it with that, hence the disappointment. They have good profile writers like Chris Jones from Esquire, then make him write about baseball. It'd be like having a second-half-of-senior-year Brian Zoubek and having him play shooting guard.

You have to pick your spots with Bill himself; Simmons knows his stuff, especially with NBA basketball and the Red Sox, but he'll bog you down with references to the Karate Kid and 90210. (And I LIKED the Karate Kid and 90210.) I'd tell you not to turn yourself off to an entire site with limited but definitive merits, but one with great potential that's still finding itself, based on one Duke article with a strident tone and some out-there assessments, but when it comes down to it, everyone is fit to make their own decisions.

I don't like everything Shane Ryan does, by the way -- I didn't regularly read his blog, not usually my style, though he has talent -- but if you like wrestling at all, maybe you should check out this Ric Flair piece: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6891795/the-wrestler-real-life

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Simmons has a real college hoops analyst or three on the site by the time the season kicks into full gear. He likes wrestling, so he lured the guy who does those great obits on Deadspin. He also has Bill Barnwell, a fantastic analyst from Football Outsiders, and Jonah Keri, possibly the best pure baseball writer. These are legit talents, and since ESPN has been experiencing record profits -- citing Grantland as a traffic-driver -- I believe they'd put some money into it if he wanted to go out and get someone really good for NCAA basketball, especially with the NBA in disarray.

Mike Corey
10-19-2011, 03:03 PM
Mr. Jones of KSR attended Duke Law School.

He and Tucker Max are both popular people that put words on the page (I refuse to call them writers) and that, regrettably, have an official Duke affiliation.

Among other oddities, Mr. Jones is on record as calling Duke "lily white" while describing Kentucky a more inviting campus to minority basketball players, even after being confronted with the fact that Duke's student body is twice as diverse as Kentucky's.

Duvall
10-19-2011, 03:09 PM
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Simmons has a real college hoops analyst or three on the site by the time the season kicks into full gear. He likes wrestling, so he lured the guy who does those great obits on Deadspin. He also has Bill Barnwell, a fantastic analyst from Football Outsiders, and Jonah Keri, possibly the best pure baseball writer. These are legit talents, and since ESPN has been experiencing record profits -- citing Grantland as a traffic-driver -- I believe they'd put some money into it if he wanted to go out and get someone really good for NCAA basketball, especially with the NBA in disarray.

I agree that Barnwell and Keri are excellent. That's why it's such a shame that Grantland has apparently decided to go the cheap and facile route with its college basketball coverage.

Billy Dat
10-21-2011, 01:10 PM
Despite being privately accused of working for Bill Simmons and being given some negative posting points for my contributions to this thread (thanks oh brave anonymous poster), I thought the final Grantland piece would be appreciated by a majority of DBR readers

Why UConn Will Not Repeat as National Champions
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/7252/why-uconn-will-not-repeat-as-national-champions

sagegrouse
10-21-2011, 01:22 PM
Despite being privately accused of working for Bill Simmons and being given some negative posting points for my contributions to this thread (thanks oh brave anonymous poster), I thought the final Grantland piece would be appreciated by a majority of DBR readers

Why UConn Will Not Repeat as National Champions
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/7252/why-uconn-will-not-repeat-as-national-champions

Funny article. He enumerated the reasons he hates UConn, even -- or especially -- while living in Connecticut. He didn't give one basketball reason why UConn would not win the NCAAs.

sage

Billy Dat
10-21-2011, 01:39 PM
He didn't give one basketball reason why UConn would not win the NCAAs.

sage

Indeed - it's a tough argument to make. The team looked great last year when Napier ran the point. Lamb should be the star. If you assume year-to-year improvement by Oriakhi and Smith and that Drummond and DeAndre Daniels will be effective freshmen, they are going to be a real force.

slower
10-21-2011, 01:50 PM
Funny article. He enumerated the reasons he hates UConn, even -- or especially -- while living in Connecticut. He didn't give one basketball reason why UConn would not win the NCAAs.

sage

The Syracuse article is even funnier.

hurleyfor3
10-21-2011, 02:06 PM
Indeed - it's a tough argument to make.

Well, two arguments are that they got an extremely fortunate draw and peaked in March to an extent not precedented in any other Calhoun team.

Anyway, we should be inured to the "Team X won't win because I don't like Team X" argument considering how often X = Duke.

CDu
10-21-2011, 06:00 PM
Well, two arguments are that they got an extremely fortunate draw and peaked in March to an extent not precedented in any other Calhoun team.

A third argument would be that they also lost their only consistent scoring threat from last year, and they weren't a good offensive team even with Walker.

And I'd add to your fortunate draw point was that they were fortunate not to lose three very close tourney games (1-pt game against SDSU with under 2 minutes to go; 2 pt win over Arizona; 1 pt win over UK).

It's not like this was some sort of juggernaut last year. They lost 9 games during the season7 of their last 11 regular season games.

They appear to have a really talented, dangerous team. But there are absolutely questions regarding their title chances this year.

uh_no
10-21-2011, 06:48 PM
A third argument would be that they also lost their only consistent scoring threat from last year, and they weren't a good offensive team even with Walker.

And I'd add to your fortunate draw point was that they were fortunate not to lose three very close tourney games (1-pt game against SDSU with under 2 minutes to go; 2 pt win over Arizona; 1 pt win over UK).

It's not like this was some sort of juggernaut last year. They lost 9 games during the season7 of their last 11 regular season games.

They appear to have a really talented, dangerous team. But there are absolutely questions regarding their title chances this year.

This is a phenomenally accurate post. To win those 3 games against SDSU, AZ, and UK were extremely fortunate, especially with the situations they were in and the mistakes they made. Being down <3 with the other team having the ball and the shotclock off? by all rights they should have lots one of those games, and it still amazes me that they didn't.

I vehemently disagree with jim calhoun's creed of not fouling up 2, but it is what it is, and they got lucky. Their path was by no means easy, (or any "easier" than duke's path by any means). They beat everyone who they faced, which included a couple teams who were playing as good as anyone in the country at the time in AZ and UK (who was probably the second best team in the tournament and had already knocked off both UNC and OSU). they got lucky, its true. duke got lukcy that the shot at the buzzer didn't fall. It takes a bit of luck to win the national championship, that's just how it is. Uconn got lucky. They got lucky in the big east tournament, they got lucky in the NCAA tournament, but they had been putting themselves in positions to win those games, something they hadn't done in the big east regular season (and this can be attributed to several reasons....the emergence of lamb, better defensive play...etc)

someone has got to be nuts to say that uconn doesn't have huge question marks this year...if they don't, then perhaps they missed the fact that uconn was hapless last year without kemba...I would argue that uconn has just as many questions as duke is. The difference is (in my opinion) that oriakhi established that he can hold his own night in and night out, while the plumlees were less consistent. Otherwise, both teams are making huge changes in the backcourt, and have questionmarks underneath. I think that drummond has been slightly overhyped due to his late signing, but he is every bit the questionmark this point that austin is. He should be very very good, but may take time to get into the game.

I think I've said in the past, but i forget if I actually have, that I think Uconn is much closer to SU and Duke than they are to UNC and UK.

Lets get the games started already!

Des Esseintes
10-21-2011, 08:31 PM
I vehemently disagree with jim calhoun's creed of not fouling up 2, but it is what it is, and they got lucky. Their path was by no means easy, (or any "easier" than duke's path by any means). They beat everyone who they faced, which included a couple teams who were playing as good as anyone in the country at the time in AZ and UK (who was probably the second best team in the tournament and had already knocked off both UNC and OSU). they got lucky, its true. duke got lukcy that the shot at the buzzer didn't fall. It takes a bit of luck to win the national championship, that's just how it is. Uconn got lucky. They got lucky in the big east tournament, they got lucky in the NCAA tournament, but they had been putting themselves in positions to win those games, something they hadn't done in the big east regular season (and this can be attributed to several reasons....the emergence of lamb, better defensive play...etc)

Duke was not lucky the shot at the buzzer rimmed off. Duke would have been extraordinarily *unlucky* had a desperation hurl from midcourt (made possible by an illegal pick) gone in. It was a great, close contest--I felt almost sick watching it at times--but Duke led throughout. And aside from that final, they had only one game decided by less than double digits, a 7-point victory over Baylor. The run included blowouts of West Viriginia and a hugely overqualified #8 seed in Cal. Duke played on average higher-seeded teams than Connecticut did, and beat them far more soundly. Also, the bracket is supposed to be easy for a #1 seed; that's why people covet #1 seeds.

UCONN's championship luck is not comparable to Duke's. All credit for the achievement. You win the NCAA title, you deserve it. But good fortune played a much stronger role in 2011 than it did in 2010.

DukieTiger
10-23-2011, 02:50 AM
Duke was not lucky the shot at the buzzer rimmed off. Duke would have been extraordinarily *unlucky* had a desperation hurl from midcourt (made possible by an illegal pick) gone in. It was a great, close contest--I felt almost sick watching it at times--but Duke led throughout. And aside from that final, they had only one game decided by less than double digits, a 7-point victory over Baylor. The run included blowouts of West Viriginia and a hugely overqualified #8 seed in Cal. Duke played on average higher-seeded teams than Connecticut did, and beat them far more soundly. Also, the bracket is supposed to be easy for a #1 seed; that's why people covet #1 seeds.

UCONN's championship luck is not comparable to Duke's. All credit for the achievement. You win the NCAA title, you deserve it. But good fortune played a much stronger role in 2011 than it did in 2010.


As further support to this point, in 2010 Duke only snuck up on people because of their own perceptions... Duke was #1 in Pomeroy's ratings even before the tourney. On the other hand, even after winning it all (and higher ranked teams losing) UConn wasnt ranked as the best team- I cant remember how they ended up in kenpom but pretty sure not even top 3- even after winning 11 straight to end the yr.

Kedsy
10-23-2011, 10:45 AM
I cant remember how they ended up in kenpom but pretty sure not even top 3- even after winning 11 straight to end the yr.

Easy enough to check (http://kenpom.com/). UConn finished 10th in KenPom.

NSDukeFan
11-04-2011, 02:36 PM
I realize that Bill Simmons and Grantland can be quite polarizing on this board. I like almost all of Simmons' NBA writing and some of the other stuff on Grantland. Lists are always ways of getting hits and generating interest and Chuck Klosterman has his personal list of greatest college players of all time according to his specific criteria (talent, more of an impact in college than pro, etc.) I thought he had some good lines and it made for an entertaining read for this college basketball fan:


45. Danny Ferry (Duke, 1985-1989): He was at least as good at basketball as Jay Bilas is at Twitter.

12. J.J. Redick (Duke, 2002-2006): Thousands of Americans despise Redick. His crime? Playing for Duke and not missing enough jump shots. If you drain 22-footers so successfully that it makes total strangers hate you, you've done something right.

8. Christian Laettner (Duke, 1988-1992): Oddly, I've always felt Laettner was slightly overrated as a collegiate and slightly underrated (and vastly underutilized) as a pro. But the guy made the most memorable shot of all time and played in 23 NCAA tournament games over a span of four years. At the time, the maximum number of tournament games anyone could play in a given season was six. The math is not complicated.

JasonEvans
11-04-2011, 02:52 PM
Klosterman's list is a joke. Check out his criteria. He lists "talent" as the #1 thing -- ok, I am cool with that. Makes sense though I would probably put on-court success as my first overall marker and talent would be second.

Klosteman's #2 criteria? "The individual's college career must be more meaningful than his pro career."

Uhhhh... really? How is that any kind of criteria? Is this a list of guys who wasted their talent or something? Since when it being a pro bust a sign of greatness? Using that criteria, how is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, arguably the most successful pro basketball player of all time (hey, he is at least in the conversation) at the top of your list?

As a result of that insane criteria, the list includes such head scratchers as:


Walter Berry at #6?!? Really?!?! He wasn't even the consensus player of the year the one year he was really good. The Johnnies lost in the round of 32 his senior year. Sure, they made a Final Four with him in 1985, but that was Chris Mullin's team. I would have bought Mullin at #6 a lot easier than Berry.

Jerome Lane at #19 -- guess how many times he was a first-team All-American? None, zero, nada. His best season, he averaged 15ppg. His team never even sniffed the Final Four.

Khalid el-Amin as the #22 best college basketball player of all time. This is a joke, right? I dare anyone to make a legit case for him to even be in the top 100. I am not even certain he was ever a 1st team all Big East player?

Dereck Whittenburg at #26 - is there any argument that can be made that he was a better college player than Johnny Dawkins? JD is nowhere to be found on the list.

This article and list are junk. I would expect more from a Bleacher Report list. There is no logic or consistency in his rankings.

-Jason "I beg you, do not bother to click on the link and read the article, it ain't worth your time or click" Evans

elvis14
11-04-2011, 03:03 PM
I think Jason is being much to kind to this article. I'm not kidding it's really not good at all. As a friend of mine used to say "I wish it sucked".

slower
11-04-2011, 03:10 PM
I think Jason is being much to kind to this article. I'm not kidding it's really not good at all. As a friend of mine used to say "I wish it sucked".


Klosterman isn't looking to be "accurate". The subhead clearly states that it will be an infuriating list. And, taken in the context of his STATED parameters, it's an interesting list. Klosterman's a very good writer, and he's looking more toward (humorous and somewhat ironic) literary content than accurate basketball analysis.

And in Klosterman's defense, Jabbar never dominated pro ball as he did in college. Nobody did.

Here's the money quote: "You can disagree with the logic of my argument, but it's not really based on logic, so your argument will fail."

Best thing about the list - NO JORDAN!!!!!

NSDukeFan
11-04-2011, 03:13 PM
Klosterman's list is a joke. Check out his criteria. He lists "talent" as the #1 thing -- ok, I am cool with that. Makes sense though I would probably put on-court success as my first overall marker and talent would be second.

Klosteman's #2 criteria? "The individual's college career must be more meaningful than his pro career."

Uhhhh... really? How is that any kind of criteria? Is this a list of guys who wasted their talent or something? Since when it being a pro bust a sign of greatness? Using that criteria, how is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, arguably the most successful pro basketball player of all time (hey, he is at least in the conversation) at the top of your list?

As a result of that insane criteria, the list includes such head scratchers as:


Walter Berry at #6?!? Really?!?! He wasn't even the consensus player of the year the one year he was really good. The Johnnies lost in the round of 32 his senior year. Sure, they made a Final Four with him in 1985, but that was Chris Mullin's team. I would have bought Mullin at #6 a lot easier than Berry.

Jerome Lane at #19 -- guess how many times he was a first-team All-American? None, zero, nada. His best season, he averaged 15ppg. His team never even sniffed the Final Four.

Khalid el-Amin as the #22 best college basketball player of all time. This is a joke, right? I dare anyone to make a legit case for him to even be in the top 100. I am not even certain he was ever a 1st team all Big East player?

Dereck Whittenburg at #26 - is there any argument that can be made that he was a better college player than Johnny Dawkins? JD is nowhere to be found on the list.

This article and list are junk. I would expect more from a Bleacher Report list. There is no logic or consistency in his rankings.

-Jason "I beg you, do not bother to click on the link and read the article, it ain't worth your time or click" Evans


I think Jason is being much to kind to this article. I'm not kidding it's really not good at all. As a friend of mine used to say "I wish it sucked".

So, what did you think of the article? :confused:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7185970/the-50-greatest-college-basketball-players-all-time

brevity
11-04-2011, 04:31 PM
Klosterman's list is a joke.

-Jason "I beg you, do not bother to click on the link and read the article, it ain't worth your time or click" Evans

Expecting objectivity in a subjective list is a joke.

Klosterman did the work, and the list is worth reading. If it amuses you, then it did its job. If it infuriates you, then it also did its job. For me, it delivered: he mentioned Pearl Jam in connection with Mookie Blaylock, Sarah Palin in connection with Glen Rice, and Tim Tebow in connection with Tyler Hansbrough (summing up the points I would have made in that off-topic thread). That's exactly what you want from a pop culture writer.

If anything, I would have thought he'd concentrate on people who made names for themselves in the NCAA Tournament, because that's how most casual (read: lesser) fans see college basketball. Klosterman seems to be better informed than that.

This isn't your list. This isn't my list. But I felt that someone else's list was such a failed execution, I'd feel compelled to create my own.

-jk
11-04-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm still trying to figure which box to file grantland. I'm thinking with Jon Stewart and The Onion. Timely, snarky, and unapologetically and wholly without journalistic pretension or expectation.

A space to occupy for amusement only. Even if sponsored by a news wannabe.

-jk

JasonEvans
11-04-2011, 06:04 PM
Expecting objectivity in a subjective list is a joke.

Klosterman did the work, and the list is worth reading. If it amuses you, then it did its job. If it infuriates you, then it also did its job. For me, it delivered: he mentioned Pearl Jam in connection with Mookie Blaylock, Sarah Palin in connection with Glen Rice, and Tim Tebow in connection with Tyler Hansbrough (summing up the points I would have made in that off-topic thread). That's exactly what you want from a pop culture writer.

If anything, I would have thought he'd concentrate on people who made names for themselves in the NCAA Tournament, because that's how most casual (read: lesser) fans see college basketball. Klosterman seems to be better informed than that.

This isn't your list. This isn't my list. But I felt that someone else's list was such a failed execution, I'd feel compelled to create my own.

I think my problem with it is that he titled it The 50 Greatest College Basketball Players of All Time. But, it is nothing like that. If he had titled it The 50 Best College Basketball Players Who Never Made it as a Pro or The Don't Pay Them To Play All-Stars or something like that, I would have had no problem with the list. **

As for me creating my own, I don't feel like putting in the effort and am not even sure what kind of list I would be making. Would I be following Klosterman's title and looking at the greatest college basketball players or would I be following his instructions and looking for the greatest college basketball players who were not very good as a pro?

--Jason "the confusion I have seen on dozens of sites today who think Klosterman's list is simply 'the greatest' is kinda unforgivable for a journalist" Evans

**- Aside from putting Kareem at the top of his list. Kareem was a 19-time NBA all-star, a 6-time NBA MVP, a 2-time MVP of the playoffs, wears 6 NBA championship rings, and has scored more points than any player in NBA history. His inclusion on the list at #1 renders the list utterly void of any logic.

hurleyfor3
11-04-2011, 06:18 PM
Any Top 50 list that leaves off BOTH starring members of Phi Slamma Jamma is inherently noncredible.

JasonEvans
11-04-2011, 06:29 PM
Any Top 50 list that leaves off BOTH starring members of Phi Slamma Jamma is inherently noncredible.

But Drexler and Hakeem were good as pros, thereby negating their eligibility for the list.

-Jason "reconcile that with Jabbar being on the list... impossible" Evans

slower
11-04-2011, 06:48 PM
Klosterman's list is for literary hipsters, not hoops junkies. He's NOT primarily a sports writer. Don't get all bothered by it - it's just a literary lark for him.

davekay1971
11-04-2011, 08:46 PM
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7185970/the-50-greatest-college-basketball-players-all-time

Even after reading Klosterman's criteria, aside from his admission that this is a subjective list (duh, what ranking list of this kind isn't subjective?), I can't figure out any rational reason for some of his omissions.

At first I thought, well, maybe he's looking for college guys who didn't do much as much in the pros and are, therefore, remembered purely as college guys. But the number one guy on the list is Lew Alcindor, arguably one of the greatest NBA centers ever. So that goes out the window.

Which begs the question...how is Grant Hill not on this list? All he did in college was play a crucial role in winning 2 national championships as an underclassman, and, then, his senior year, put a deeply flawed team on his back and absolutely CARRY them to within a bucket of another national championship. He was Majic Johnson for that 1994 team, except much better on defense. Yes, Grant went on to great success in the pros, but his college career is among the best four year careers of all time. And, if you want college hoops defining moments...Grant was the passer on Laettner's "The Shot" and the recipient on "The Alley Oop", two annual One Shining Moment...er...moments.

Second question...where is Bobby Hurley? The NCAA career assists leader, a two time national champion, and the only possible reason not to consider him the best point guard in ACC history is that a guy named Phil Ford played the same position in the same conference. (Granted, Ford came in number 38 on this same list. That's not helping the list's cause any...)

There are arguments for Jay Williams, Shane Battier, Johnny Dawkins, as well. Down the road they probably have a name or two that doesn't bear repeating around here. But I kept reading down the list, waiting for the obvious names of Hurley and Hill to come up. I got past Dereck Whittenburg (love the guy, fine player, State never wins the 1993 title without him, but, uh, top 50 of all time?), Khalid El-Amin (seething), Jimmer Fredette (give me one reason Fredette is on this list and Steph Curry isn't), and Mookie Blaylock, without seeing Hill or Hurley mentioned. Never did see 'em.

Thoughts, please. Worst list ever? Am I being too harsh? Any non-Dukies that are as egregious leave-offs as the guys I mentioned above? (Patrick Ewing? Larry Bird? The Big O? Jerry Lucas?). FWIW, his top 10 aren't terrible. I'd have my top 10, in no particular order, as Phil Ford, Pete Maravich, Christian Laettner, Alcindor, Walton, David Thompson, Grant Hill, Patrick Ewing (yes...dominant center, controlled the lane on defense with intimadation, won the 1984 title, and came within a Freddie Brown and a wtf performance from Villanova from winning 3), Len Bias, and Oscar Robertson. Forget the no particular order thing. David Thompson is number 1.

OK: didn't even think to look in the Grantland.com College Hoops preview thread before posting this. Several people beat me to dissecting this. Apologies for redundancy!

UrinalCake
11-04-2011, 09:13 PM
I think he was trying to include a lot of obscure, lesser-known players, perhaps to show off his breadth of knowledge. He includes el-Amin because he was short, fat, and slow, which I guess qualifies as a "unique skill". The omission of Steph Curry is laughable. I would have also included Wally Sczerbiak (sp?), I think there was a tourney game where he scored like 55 of his team's 60 points.

Sir Stealth
11-05-2011, 01:35 PM
I think you guys kind of aren't getting it. Calling the list a joke is accurate in that it doesn't appear to be meant to be taken seriously. College basketball fans should appreciate it as a celebration of "college" type players - Klosterman makes it fairly clear that he's not really trying to make any kind of definitive ranking here. There are many players who Klosterman admits were not even among the best on their own teams. Klosterman's championing of college athletics both in his past comments and here is a quality any Duke fan can get behind, and I'm sure if anyone wanted to talk players like Hurley, Hill, Battier, or Williams then he'd praise these "college" type players. Silly to get bent out of shape about it.

dukeballboy88
11-07-2011, 10:54 AM
Looking at the top 10 it seems this guy is serious. He should never be allowed to write about basketball again.

slower
11-07-2011, 11:18 AM
Looking at the top 10 it seems this guy is serious. He should never be allowed to write about basketball again.

Look, once you see David Rivers at #49 and DEFINITELY once you see Michael Graham at #42, you know that Klosterman isn't going for a statistically/historically accurate list. But the list makes perfect sense within the Simmons/Grantland context, which is to get people to take notice and create a buzz (and to entertain, even if they aim primarily to entertain themselves). In that context, it's a successful list.

But to say that "He should never be allowed to write about basketball again." is kind of silly. Klosterman is a FAR better writer than most sportswriters can even approach. Just because YOU don't get it, doesn't mean nobody else does.

Nugget
11-07-2011, 04:44 PM
Look, once you see David Rivers at #49 and DEFINITELY once you see Michael Graham at #42, you know that Klosterman isn't going for a statistically/historically accurate list. But the list makes perfect sense within the Simmons/Grantland context, which is to get people to take notice and create a buzz (and to entertain, even if they aim primarily to entertain themselves). In that context, it's a successful list.

But to say that "He should never be allowed to write about basketball again." is kind of silly. Klosterman is a FAR better writer than most sportswriters can even approach. Just because YOU don't get it, doesn't mean nobody else does.

Also, those of you slamming Klosterman ought to go back and listen to some of the podcasts he and Simmons have done over the last several years -- Klosterman regularly defends college hoops and it is clear from listening to him that he's plenty knowledgeable about basketball.

And, regardless of it's "accuracy," some of that material was just too good not to use (in particular, the fantastic quotes from David Rivers).

dukeballboy88
11-08-2011, 09:23 AM
When you put great/best in the same sentence as basketball and list and MJ, Bird or Magic aint on it, whoever you write for should fire you immediately.

slower
11-08-2011, 10:24 AM
When you put great/best in the same sentence as basketball and list and MJ, Bird or Magic aint on it, whoever you write for should fire you immediately.

To quote the great Walter Sobchak, you are out of your element.

davekay1971
11-08-2011, 04:47 PM
Look, once you see David Rivers at #49 and DEFINITELY once you see Michael Graham at #42, you know that Klosterman isn't going for a statistically/historically accurate list. But the list makes perfect sense within the Simmons/Grantland context, which is to get people to take notice and create a buzz (and to entertain, even if they aim primarily to entertain themselves). In that context, it's a successful list.

But to say that "He should never be allowed to write about basketball again." is kind of silly. Klosterman is a FAR better writer than most sportswriters can even approach. Just because YOU don't get it, doesn't mean nobody else does.

Nope, I'm not buying it. Klosterman is a good writer, and his writing talents are evident in the piece. However, he seems to be attempting to make some sort of ranking of top 50 (maybe most memorable 50 or most impactful 50) players in the history of college hoops. But he fails (something even really good writers can do).

Why do I say he fails? My evidence:
1) The title implies something that isn't even remotely delivered.
2) He either doesn't adhere to his own rules in the list or he makes selections based on those rules that are baffling.

I expect he either intentionally made baffling selections to stir up people and thus increase hits on the article (success on that, anyway); or he simply made errors writing the piece and had omissions. Either way, to judge this list based on what it is advertised to be within the context of the author's own rules, his selections are poor, at best. Fail.

williamsdevil
11-09-2011, 08:32 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster. I just read Mark Titus' (Club Trillion) ACC preview for Grantland - the Duke criticism is a little harsh, but still an interesting read.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/9308/club-trillions-only-partially-biased-acc-college-basketball-spectacular

UrinalCake
11-09-2011, 08:45 PM
A few valid points of criticism in there, but mostly an extremely biased opinion piece. He thinks our starting lineup has Kelly and both Plumlees, which is just wrong. Then he essentially paints a "worst case scenario" of Duke and a "best case scenario" for UNC. You could very well go the other way if you wanted.

Duvall
11-09-2011, 08:57 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster. I just read Mark Titus' (Club Trillion) ACC preview for Grantland - the Duke criticism is a little harsh, but still an interesting read.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/9308/club-trillions-only-partially-biased-acc-college-basketball-spectacular

It's good to see that Grantland is committed to maintaining the level of keen insight and sophisticated analysis in its college basketball coverage to which we have quickly become accustomed.

devildeac
11-09-2011, 09:33 PM
It's good to see that Grantland is committed to maintaining the level of keen insight and sophisticated analysis in its college basketball coverage to which we have quickly become accustomed.

And the Three Stooges were all Oscar award winning actors. Another 2 minutes of my life that I shall never get back. What smartassery drivel. Sigh.

dcdevil2009
11-09-2011, 11:26 PM
And the Three Stooges were all Oscar award winning actors. Another 2 minutes of my life that I shall never get back. What smartassery drivel. Sigh.

I don't understand all the hatred for the Grantland college basketball stuff. It's not meant to be a traditional sports analysis website, so getting angry when the guy that made this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V6FCitvRUM) doesn't give you an unbiased and in depth ACC preview is unfair.