WBB 138-32 victory

[CameronBornAndBred]

Last year this probably looked like a good matchup. Shaw won the Division II title last year, and this year is ranked 9th. But they lost 7 seniors (how does a team have 7 seniors?) and two of the current seniors sat out with injuries. The final result? A 138-32 beatdown in which Tricia Liston outscored the entire Shaw team. Haley Peters pulled down EIGHTEEN rebounds.
Someone on facebook asked "What did anyone learn from this game ? This is nothing to gloat about." Coach P answered that question.

“I was happy to see a nice, intense 40 minutes. I know it’s an exhibition, and I know we had outmanned them, but we’re still getting the rebounds and doing the things you need to do as a team. Once you create those habits in an exhibition, you can duplicate them in a game. If you never get 18 rebounds like Haley did, then you have no idea what it’s like to pull down 18 rebounds. By having those experiences, whether it is Tricia having 36 points or Haley’s rebounds, you get used to productivity and I think that is very important.”

http://www.indyweek.com/triangleoffense/archives/2012/10/30/liston-outscores-shaw-as-duke-wins-by-106-points
As far as "nothing to gloat about", I doubt anyone is gloating. This is obviously not us beating up on the Tarheels. There is so little parity in women's basketball; the cream really does rise to the top..luckily Duke is way up there. But my guess is if our men played the Div II champion it would also be a blowout. Maybe not a 100 point blowout, but it wouldn't be very close.

[Native]

But my guess is if our men played the Div II champion it would also be a blowout. Maybe not a 100 point blowout, but it wouldn't be very close.

Didn't we just play the defending DII national champs in Western Washington?

[CameronBornAndBred]

Didn't we just play the defending DII national champs in Western Washington?
Ahh..so they were. Well, that game wasn't very close, but it wasn't a 100 point victory either..so point proven!

[devilirium]

Yeah, well Western cut the lead to 9 with 13 minutes to go or so in the men's game. Did Shaw cut it to 85 late?

[sagegrouse]

Didn't we just play the defending DII national champs in Western Washington?

I thought we played in Cameron. -- sage

[tommy]

I don't care much about women's basketball, but I have to say that as a member of the Duke community, this score bothers me. I don't buy into that coach-speak about how good it was to see the team play hard for 40 minutes and learn what it feels like to bury another team or how good it feels to get 18 or 30 or 40 rebounds or whatever it was. Of course I didn't see the game, but was it really necessary to humiliate a team of college kids by beating them by over 100 points? I know you can't tell your team to not try, or to intentionally miss shots, but how about slowing it down and just getting the game over with, how about just dropping into a soft zone at a certain point (how bout when you're up, say, 50 points?) and letting up on any real intense pressure defense, how about calling off the dogs, how about letting your subs get substantial minutes -- real substantial minutes -- so the score doesn't get to this kind of absurd level. Or better yet, don't schedule games like this. I don't think it reflects well on Duke or its coach. At all.

[nocilla]

I don't care much about women's basketball, but I have to say that as a member of the Duke community, this score bothers me. I don't buy into that coach-speak about how good it was to see the team play hard for 40 minutes and learn what it feels like to bury another team or how good it feels to get 18 or 30 or 40 rebounds or whatever it was. Of course I didn't see the game, but was it really necessary to humiliate a team of college kids by beating them by over 100 points? I know you can't tell your team to not try, or to intentionally miss shots, but how about slowing it down and just getting the game over with, how about just dropping into a soft zone at a certain point (how bout when you're up, say, 50 points?) and letting up on any real intense pressure defense, how about calling off the dogs, how about letting your subs get substantial minutes -- real substantial minutes -- so the score doesn't get to this kind of absurd level. Or better yet, don't schedule games like this. I don't think it reflects well on Duke or its coach. At all.

If this were a real game I would agree. Once you have the win safely in hand, you call off the dogs. But this was an exhibition game. It doesn't count in the standings so the sole purpose is for practice. You practice hard to learn to play hard. This wasn't about getting the win and then not embarrassing the opponent. This was about practicing for a real game and working on fundamentals. I understand that the competetion being what is was didn't provide a good simulation of a real game. But they were the defending Div II Champs so they probably expected a little more from them when they scheduled it.

[Turtleboy]

I know you can't tell your team to not try, or to intentionally miss shots, but how about slowing it down and just getting the game over with, how about just dropping into a soft zone at a certain point (how bout when you're up, say, 50 points?) and letting up on any real intense pressure defense, how about calling off the dogs, how about letting your subs get substantial minutes -- real substantial minutes -- so the score doesn't get to this kind of absurd level. Duke dressed 8 players, 7 of which played at least 21 minutes. The 8th, seldom used, (non scholarship) Jenna Frusch, played 9. That sounds pretty substantial to me.

From reading several accounts of the game, it seems clear that the team had several things to work on, and they worked on them; among them were defense, rebounding, and transition. That's pretty much what exhibition games are for.

[Duvall]

I don't care much about women's basketball, but I have to say that as a member of the Duke community, this score bothers me. I don't buy into that coach-speak about how good it was to see the team play hard for 40 minutes and learn what it feels like to bury another team or how good it feels to get 18 or 30 or 40 rebounds or whatever it was. Of course I didn't see the game, but was it really necessary to humiliate a team of college kids by beating them by over 100 points? I know you can't tell your team to not try, or to intentionally miss shots, but how about slowing it down and just getting the game over with, how about just dropping into a soft zone at a certain point (how bout when you're up, say, 50 points?) and letting up on any real intense pressure defense, how about calling off the dogs, how about letting your subs get substantial minutes -- real substantial minutes -- so the score doesn't get to this kind of absurd level. Or better yet, don't schedule games like this. I don't think it reflects well on Duke or its coach. At all.

Well, it's important to remember that Duke was already playing its subs, given that only seven scholarship players dressed for the game. Every healthy player for Duke was going to log heavy minutes in this game regardless. And Duke had no way of knowing that Shaw would also be missing multiple starters when this game was scheduled.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem likely that any tactical changes would have made much difference in a game that Duke opened with a 30-0 run. The gap between Division I and Division II women's teams is just that big, and since schools can't schedule professional traveling teams any more, it's hard to see what else Duke could have done.

[uh_no]

I don't care much about women's basketball, but I have to say that as a member of the Duke community, this score bothers me. I don't buy into that coach-speak about how good it was to see the team play hard for 40 minutes and learn what it feels like to bury another team or how good it feels to get 18 or 30 or 40 rebounds or whatever it was. Of course I didn't see the game, but was it really necessary to humiliate a team of college kids by beating them by over 100 points? I know you can't tell your team to not try, or to intentionally miss shots, but how about slowing it down and just getting the game over with, how about just dropping into a soft zone at a certain point (how bout when you're up, say, 50 points?) and letting up on any real intense pressure defense, how about calling off the dogs, how about letting your subs get substantial minutes -- real substantial minutes -- so the score doesn't get to this kind of absurd level. Or better yet, don't schedule games like this. I don't think it reflects well on Duke or its coach. At all.

I defend Geno when his women do it, and I'll defend P when her team does it.

The goal is to win championships. If the coach feels the best way to prepare a team to do that is to go hard for 40 minutes, then so be it. I expect Geno, P or anyone else to care more about how they can make their team better every minute of every game than they do about the other team getting thoroughly beaten.

Furthermore, Duke was playing subs...if your subs can beat up the other team, then that's on the other team to get better. It doesn't do the team any good to play easy for 20 minutes. You only get so many games a year. You use every minute of that you can.

Coach P indicated exactly how their in game coaching decisions would be beneficial to the team down the road. I'd much rather hear that than "yeah we got no benefit out of this game, but we didn't want to hurt the other team's feelings"

this is college sports....not little league

[Jim3k]

Do coaches such as P, in that situation, confer with the opposing coach and tell him/her that for the rest of the game we will be running certain types of plays? That they aren't going to be secretive about it? And thus avoid an opponent's claim about running up the score. Something like, "We are going to run these options off the 4 out, 1 in set. Feel free to set your defense accordingly. That way we'll both accomplish some practice reps." Maybe changing the drill at timeouts and so advising? "We are now going to a high stack!" That way you don't embarrass the other coach and you can both say win, win situation.

[CameronBornAndBred]

For those pitying poor Shaw and wondering if Duke should have toned down their game, let's see what happens next Monday. They get to face Baylor..that should make for an interesting comparison.

[tommy]

If this were a real game I would agree. Once you have the win safely in hand, you call off the dogs. But this was an exhibition game. It doesn't count in the standings so the sole purpose is for practice. You practice hard to learn to play hard. This wasn't about getting the win and then not embarrassing the opponent.

When I was taught that one important characteristic of good sportsmanship is never embarrassing your opponent (when possible to avoid it), there was no distinction made between exhibition games, real games, or any other type of games. You just shouldn't do it, period.


this is college sports....not little league

There are reasons that college sports are divided into divisions. One reason is because of size and resources, and commitment to the program, some schools are simply going to field much, much stronger teams than are others year-in and year-out, no matter what. If the gulf between Divisions I and II in Women's Basketball is that great, and apparently it is, then a top, top tier program like Duke should not be scheduling Division II teams, as it sounds to this admittedly non-watcher of women's basketball that Division II Women's hoops may be more akin to high level high school women's hoops than it is to high-level Division I women's hoops.

[Bluedog]

It doesn't count in the standings so the sole purpose is for practice. You practice hard to learn to play hard. This wasn't about getting the win and then not embarrassing the opponent. This was about practicing for a real game and working on fundamentals.

I agree, but it seems like actual practices against the male scout squad (which just beat (http://heraldsun.com/bookmark/20641060) them in the Blue-White scrimmage) would be much more beneficial to expose weakness and improve on. Why not just play another game against the scout team that they play against every day in practice rather than schedule an exhibition against a clearly outmatched team? Perhaps it's the element of playing in front of a crowd, simulating a game experience, etc. moreso than practicing the actual basketball moves against competition, so I could see the logic behind that. And you don't want to play against the same group of guys everyday, so having somebody else perhaps makes sense, but obviously they aren't even close to on the same level. Can't take too much from the game, I'd imagine. But I agree with always playing hard, especially in practice/exhibition situations.

Edit: And just to back up my thought process, Chelsea Gray agrees that it's nice to play somebody else:

"We play [the scout team] everyday in practice," Gray said. "I’m personally excited to go out there and play someone different."
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke-womens-basketball-falls-scout-squad-annual-bl

[jimsumner]

This game looked more competitive when it was scheduled. Four of Shaw's projected starters missed the game because of injury.

There are also some structural reasons why Duke appeared to have run up the score. Since women practice against the men, women's teams don't need a lot of walk-ons. Durham native Jenna Frush is a walk-on, the first Duke has had in some time. Even with Frush, Duke only had eight players suited up. Duke has five injured players also. But that meant Duke had to have at least two starters on the court. So, it was hard to empty a non-existent bench.

Is trying not to score more or less embarrassing to an overmatched opponent than playing your regular game? This is a point of legitimate discussion.

[Duvall]

There are reasons that college sports are divided into divisions. One reason is because of size and resources, and commitment to the program, some schools are simply going to field much, much stronger teams than are others year-in and year-out, no matter what. If the gulf between Divisions I and II in Women's Basketball is that great, and apparently it is, then a top, top tier program like Duke should not be scheduling Division II teams, as it sounds to this admittedly non-watcher of women's basketball that Division II Women's hoops may be more akin to high level high school women's hoops than it is to high-level Division I women's hoops.

What are you suggesting be done, then? That Duke not schedule exhibition games aside from intra-squad and practice squad scrimmages? Because I think Division II opponents are the only other options allowed stateside.

[Dukehky]

As someone who used to play on that scout team during the Coach G era and from seeing the team recently, they are not a D3 team, very far from it, a good high school team more like. There's just a huge difference in the physical abilities/stature of men and women, and basketball is a sport that highlights those differences. For instance, I'm 6'2, I play point guard. It's hard for a 5'7-5'10 girl to guard a 6'2 person who can pull up (with a girls ball) 5 feet beyond the 3 pt. line. It's just a different game. Again, we're not there to do anything but to help them get better, and I would assume that most scout teams would beat the girls' teams at most bigger schools, but most schools would NEVER let them play in public outside of practice for just this reason, what happens when they lose. I remember my little brother was on the scout team when they played the whole game in the blue/white scrimmage in the fall of 2009. The referees made the game get out of hand in favor of the girls in the first 10 minutes. They were allowed to foul relentlessly without getting called and the boys got a bunch of phantom calls against them in order to get the score lopsided enough that the scout team couldn't win. This would have been the way I would have gone in the blue white scrimmage this year, especially without many of their best players available for heavy minutes. I think that the loss to the scout team was worse for the game of women's basketball than Duke winning by 100. It just adds to the belief that women's sports aren't as good as men's, and the girls losing to 8 kids who come to practice when they can doesn't help that stigma, even if it might be true.

In response to this game with Shaw, what do you want them to do? There's a 30 second shot clock, they can't just hold the ball. It would be more embarrassing to the other team to just intentionally miss or turn the ball over, and if you're somebody who wants those girls to not work hard on defense, then you don't understand basketball, let alone Duke basketball. It's a mentality that has to be honed at literally all times. What happens when we get up by 20 to a decent team and then somebody decides, it's okay to let off. That's when we get in trouble. Had E been healthy and she played the whole game, I'd not be pleased with that, but they have to play.

Also, due to the nature of high level college basketball, especially women's basketball with Title IX, there are relatively few walk-ons in the game because there a lot of scholarships to give out. Jenna is the first walk-on since at least Coach G's time at Duke. We do a good job of recruiting; therefore, we don't have any scrubs on the team, and you have to get them their work in too, just because our back-ups are waaaaayyyyy better than Shaw, doesn't mean they don't get to play and play hard.

[Turtleboy]

When I was taught that one important characteristic of good sportsmanship is never embarrassing your opponent (when possible to avoid it), there was no distinction made between exhibition games, real games, or any other type of games. You just shouldn't do it, period.First, ask Shaw if they were embarrassed. I haven't seen anyone, here or anywhere else, assert this besides you. Second, exactly how could the outcome have been avoided? Please be as specific as possible. As noted above, there is a shot clock. Should they just dribble for 30 seconds and just hand the ball over? Should they not defend? Not box out on rebounds? Not attempt steals or blocks? How would this work without embarrassing them even more?

[tommy]

First, ask Shaw if they were embarrassed. I haven't seen anyone, here or anywhere else, assert this besides you. Second, exactly how could the outcome have been avoided? Please be as specific as possible. As noted above, there is a shot clock. Should they just dribble for 30 seconds and just hand the ball over? Should they not defend? Not box out on rebounds? Not attempt steals or blocks? How would this work without embarrassing them even more?

Are you kidding? People on this board are embarrassed when our mens team gets blown out by a top-5 Ohio State team by 20 points on the road. How do you think they'd feel losing by 100?

But I'm not going to get into the substance of the rest of your post. When I made an utterly reasonable post on this thread yesterday, somebody who for no other apparent reason than that they disagreed with me, decided to flame me, and was too chicken to attach his name to the flaming. If that flaming was meant to stifle conversation, it worked. I thought these boards were supposed to be a space that welcomed respectful disagreement, and flaming was to be reserved for those situations where one wanted to communicate that a post was destructively negative, uncivil, offensive, obvious trolling, or other clearly over-the-line expression. Hard to believe, but I guess some people just don't get the difference.

[Dev11]

Are you kidding? People on this board are embarrassed when our mens team gets blown out by a top-5 Ohio State team by 20 points on the road. How do you think they'd feel losing by 100?

People on this board are embarrassed when our men's team loses by 20 to any other D-1 team because for 25+ years, that just hasn't happened much. The Shaw women playing the Duke women is about the same as the Duke men playing the Miami Heat, or maybe the Eastern Conference All-Stars as far as division of talent. They know exactly what they are getting into when they sign the contract, and I would imagine that the Shaw coach and/or athletic director have a pretty good idea of how the talent shakes out in women's basketball.

As far as Duke not scheduling such lowly opponents, unfortunately, you can't have preseason games against D-1 teams. The preseason must be against other divisions, so it's the difference between playing 30 games and playing 32 (not sure what the maximum is for women's hoops), and I'm sure no coach or player is going to scoff at the opportunity to play more games. On the men's side, it would be like if Duke just decided not to play the 'play-in' games associated with those preseason tournaments that we get in Cameron most years.

I think that going into these games, everybody realizes what it going to happen. If either side felt uncomfortable about it, the powers that be for the side that was comfortable would find another opponent. As I understand, these D-2 teams do backflips over themselves to get these games with big time programs. I don't think we need to spend any time feeling sorry for them.

[Lid]

Second, exactly how could the outcome have been avoided? Please be as specific as possible. As noted above, there is a shot clock. Should they just dribble for 30 seconds and just hand the ball over? Should they not defend? Not box out on rebounds? Not attempt steals or blocks? How would this work without embarrassing them even more?

I think this is a great question, and one I wish people would answer. I've been a fan at games where the women's team put up gaudy numbers (although never quite this extreme), and it can feel uncomfortable, definitely. At the same time, I don't know what else can be done -- it's not like Duke has some giant bench that they elected not to use, and it would be insulting for the players to just stand there. The women were working on what they were supposed to work on, and it was an exhibition game that Shaw chose to schedule (knowing they were losing 7 seniors, at least).

[sagegrouse]

I think this is a great question, and one I wish people would answer. I've been a fan at games where the women's team put up gaudy numbers (although never quite this extreme), and it can feel uncomfortable, definitely. At the same time, I don't know what else can be done -- it's not like Duke has some giant bench that they elected not to use, and it would be insulting for the players to just stand there. The women were working on what they were supposed to work on, and it was an exhibition game that Shaw chose to schedule (knowing they were losing 7 seniors, at least).

Here's one quote from years gone by.

When Billy Tubbs was coaching at Oklahoma back in the 1980's, he was famous for running up the score. After a 130-50 shellacking, a reporter asked Billy, "What do you say to the opposing coach."

"Can you come back next year?"

Ba-da-BOOM!

sagegrouse

[Turtleboy]

Are you kidding? People on this board are embarrassed when our mens team gets blown out by a top-5 Ohio State team by 20 points on the road. How do you think they'd feel losing by 100?My mistake. I thought you were referring to the Shaw team being embarrassed, not Shaw message board posters.


But I'm not going to get into the substance of the rest of your post. When I made an utterly reasonable post on this thread yesterday, somebody who for no other apparent reason than that they disagreed with me, decided to flame me, and was too chicken to attach his name to the flaming. I'm a bit confused. You aren't referring to me, are you?

I think part of the problem stems from the reference to these games as "exhibitions." They aren't exhibitions the same way that, say, some tennis, matches, or boxing matches, or soccer friendlies are exhibitions, where two more or less equally matched opponents engage in a contest but don't really play as hard as possible. Duke pre-season games, at least from Duke's standpoint, are intended to simulate actual games, where every possession is important, and the players and team are evaluated critically by the staff. Would it be fair to them to throw a freshman into second half action and tell him not to try hard, when in every practice he is being told that maximum effort is the minimum standard? These kids are trying to show the coaches what they can do and how well they have learned the system. Game minutes are at stake.

I assume that teams like Shaw, or Central, or WS State receive a benefit as well, or they would not schedule the games.

[-bdbd]

For those pitying poor Shaw and wondering if Duke should have toned down their game, let's see what happens next Monday. They get to face Baylor..that should make for an interesting comparison.

So, if Baylor "only" beats them by 75, then by the communicative property of basketball that'll make us 30 points better than Baylor. Wow. Throw away the schedule - we've got the natty already wired!! ;)

[jimsumner]

So, if Baylor "only" beats them by 75, then by the communicative property of basketball that'll make us 30 points better than Baylor. Wow. Throw away the schedule - we've got the natty already wired!! ;)

We'll never know.

http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/110212aaa.html

[CameronBornAndBred]

We'll never know.

http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/110212aaa.html
Well that's probably a very smart move on Shaw's part. You don't want to start off the season down 200+ points between the two games that you played. Best of luck to Tarleton State, I'll be curious about that score too.

Thanks for the update, Jim

[DukeBlueNikeShox]

I don't know how it works in men's basketball, but in women's, teams have the options of playing DII teams or closed, officiated games vs. other DI programs. Playing games against DII teams are open to the public, which you are able to sell tickets and take in gate receipts. Games vs other DI teams are not allowed to sell tickets and aren't open to public. Games vs. DII teams can generate fan interest for your program and you make money. Games vs. other DI teams allows you to get an early gage to where your team is against a team of DI athletes. Rather than playing an open game vs. Shaw, Duke could've considered a closed scrimmage vs. Richmond, ODU, Elon, App State, Furman, etc.

[Newton_14]

Are you kidding? People on this board are embarrassed when our mens team gets blown out by a top-5 Ohio State team by 20 points on the road. How do you think they'd feel losing by 100?

But I'm not going to get into the substance of the rest of your post. When I made an utterly reasonable post on this thread yesterday, somebody who for no other apparent reason than that they disagreed with me, decided to flame me, and was too chicken to attach his name to the flaming. If that flaming was meant to stifle conversation, it worked. I thought these boards were supposed to be a space that welcomed respectful disagreement, and flaming was to be reserved for those situations where one wanted to communicate that a post was destructively negative, uncivil, offensive, obvious trolling, or other clearly over-the-line expression. Hard to believe, but I guess some people just don't get the difference.

I agree with your point here about civility. People should debate the point and not attack the poster. They certainly should not flame a poster due to disagreeing with the stance.

As for the debate itself, I feel playing hard is reasonable. I was raised just like you to respect your opponent and not embarrass them. That said, the circumstances in this particular game played a role. I don't think Coach intended to embarrass Shaw or run up the score. I did not see the game so I can only comment in theory, other than knowing the facts about injuries on both sides, and Duke only having 8 players available. Given it was just an exhibition, and given both teams recognized the circumstances, I would hope there would not be hard feelings. I do think it would be appropriate to not press full court after it gets out of hand, and maybe use a little more clock than normal before shooting, but trying to score, and playing hard on defense is fully acceptable to me.

Ironically, I have defended K many times over the years with local fans who insist he "runs up the score on cupcakes" by playing normal rotation players and starters late in blowouts. The thing is, he is not doing that at all. He is using those situations as live practice situations to work on getting better. In the case of Duke teams w/o much depth, K is also conditioning the starters to play heavy minutes because he knows they will have to play heavy minutes all year. Ironic that this is K's approach to AVOIDING tired legs in March, and I agree 100% with his approach there too. If you are used to it, you will perform better. But that is another debate altogether. :)

I respect your opinion here Tommy, but I do think the circumstances played a huge role, and I do believe there was no intent to run up the score, or humiliate anyone. As an athlete, were I on the wrong end of a score like that, I would be pissed off if the opponent started taking it easy on us, and I would be pissed at myself and my teammates for not being able to stop the bleeding.

[DukeBlueNikeShox]

Shaw had 7 seniors because their roster is virtually all DI transfers. They rarely recruit freshmen, who will grow in the program and stay 4-5 years.

[jimsumner]

FWIW, the Clemson women lost the other day to the Anderson women. 72-65.

[sagegrouse]

I respect your opinion here Tommy, but I do think the circumstances played a huge role, and I do believe there was no intent to run up the score, or humiliate anyone. As an athlete, were I on the wrong end of a score like that, I would be pissed off if the opponent started taking it easy on us, and I would be pissed at myself and my teammates for not being able to stop the bleeding.

Coaches are in a tough position. In another circumstance 40 years ago, Arkansas played Wichita State in football after one-half of the Wichita State team was killed in an airplane crash. "Play like you have been coached," Frank Broyles told his Razorback team.

In this case doesn't the decision of the Shaw president to cancel the next exhibition match against top-ranked Baylor suggest that Shaw should have backed out of the game against Duke?

I also agree with you that the players are resilient -- certainly more resilient than the fans (and coaches).:D

sagegrouse

[chrishoke]

Duke 61
Queens 12

At the half

[johnb]

I'd hate to think that we take our life lessons from Billy Tubbs or any coach from Connecticut.

Winning by 100 is embarrassing for both sides, especially when one team is down 4 starters and was undermanned to begin with. Want to reduce the scoring differential? tell the players to pass 5 times and not angle toward the basket until 10 seconds is left on the shot clock. Switch to zone on defense and focus on closing down the middle rather than go for steals. Etc. Yeah, yeah, it's messing with game conditions, but surely coaches have ways to make it an interesting teaching moment. And is winning by 100 in November really going to help us when/if we're losing to Baylor by 15 in March?

By the way, Stanford, Florida State, and Clemson all slowed things down against our football team. Having watched those games, I am reasonably sure they each could have hung 70 points on us if that'd been their goal--and we're a bowl-eligible team that is supposed to be in their league. One reason they didn't do so is--I'd guess--respect for Cutcliffe but also because our players would likely get chippy if they felt they were being humiliated, and the last thing those teams need would be injuries in a by-then meaningless game. OTOH, I was a big Oklahoma fan as an adolescent in the 70's, and I loved those games in which they routinely beat teams by 60. And, as I look back on it, I'd emphasize that it's an adolescent pleasure, not one we should be encouraging. If we were up by 50 in bball against Chapel Hill, however, I'd say pour it on (which is partly a joke but also related to the fact that Chapel Hill is truly our equal, more or less, and not a school without any players who can effectively compete against us).