PDA

View Full Version : Doyell's column



goodchristian
03-06-2007, 10:57 AM
Is easy on henderson but not coach k.

http://www.sportsline.com/columns/story/10042792

oso diablo
03-06-2007, 11:28 AM
i won't click it. summarize please.

actually, after listening to Doyel on the Coach K conference, i don't care at all.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 11:39 AM
First of all, I think Doyell is a complete and utter hack who is still crying in his beer that Coach K wouldn't help him write a book back in the '90s.

That being said, I'm not really down with K's denial of the Laettner stomp. It was a stomp, and there's no reason to still be denying it was a stomp. Coach K got baited into a no-win situation, and he should have just ignored Doyell.

Drebly1
03-06-2007, 11:49 AM
First of all, I think Doyell is a complete and utter hack who is still crying in his beer that Coach K wouldn't help him write a book back in the '90s.

That being said, I'm not really down with K's denial of the Laettner stomp. It was a stomp, and there's no reason to still be denying it was a stomp. Coach K got baited into a no-win situation, and he should have just ignored Doyell.

A quick Google search of "Laettner stomp" reveals that K is in the minority. Most sane, rational folks consider Laettner's actions to be consistent with a stomp. This said, I wonder what K will label it when, at the conclusion of the 2007 season, Gregg Doyel asks for his commentary on the 1992 incident? I truly believe that the question will be asked, hopefully at the press conference immediately following the Blue Devils' loss in the NCAAs when K is at his most defensive. The ensuing answer would be legendary!

feldspar
03-06-2007, 11:52 AM
A quick Google search of "Laettner stomp" reveals that K is in the minority. Most sane, rational folks consider Laettner's actions to be consistent with a stomp.

Judge for yourself. At about the :10 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ2w_EqAkxU

Really disappoints me to still see Coach K rationalizing away this incident.

ChrisP
03-06-2007, 11:52 AM
First of all, I think Doyell is a complete and utter hack who is still crying in his beer that Coach K wouldn't help him write a book back in the '90s.

That being said, I'm not really down with K's denial of the Laettner stomp. It was a stomp, and there's no reason to still be denying it was a stomp. Coach K got baited into a no-win situation, and he should have just ignored Doyell.


Man, I wish people - especially supposedly informed and knowledgeable Duke fans - would stop referring to the Laettner incident as a "stomp". Webster's defines "stomp" as follows: "To tread or trample heavily or violently on".

So, for those of you who have actually seen the incident in the Kentucky game, does it fit with that definition? In my opinion, it does not. Laettner tapped the KU player pretty lightly with his foot. As has been mentioned here before, the Kentucky kid immediately jumped up and was laughing and applauding the refs' decision to hit Laettner with 'T'. Was it a stupid, childish, ugly incident? Absolutely! But, let's not forget, the refs saw it, gave Christian a technical foul, and that was it. While it is certainly one of my least fond memories of Duke basketball (along with Dock's shove of Hansbrough last year), it is really a very minor incident. If it hadn't happened in such a big game or if the two players involved were of the same race, I seriously doubt anyone would still be talking about it. Bottom line, it was handled during the game - end of story. What more did you want K to do about it?

WiJoe
03-06-2007, 11:53 AM
If I stomped on your chest, you would be rolling around in pain. Don't recall that was the case with the kentucky fellow. Poor choice of word. "stomp." Naw. Over the line. Yeah. Anything worse? No.

dcarp23
03-06-2007, 11:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ2w_EqAkxU

Having not seen the video in, oh, 15 years, I found it on youtube. While not knowing or really caring what defines a "stomp," this indiscretion seems tame, particularly considering the backlash.

Laettner got T'd up and the game went on. Like this weekend, the punishment was doled out and seemed reasonable to me.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 11:55 AM
You're both missing the point. Stop focusing on the semantics and focus on what Coach K always preaches, and that is holding players accountable for their actions. Coach is being duplicitous in this respect, IMHO.

dcarp23
03-06-2007, 12:00 PM
You're both missing the point. Stop focusing on the semantics and focus on what Coach K always preaches, and that is holding players accountable for their actions. Coach is being duplicitous in this respect, IMHO.

What would you suggest that Coach have done/do (and that's an honest question-not meant to come off as combative at all.) A technical was called and to me that seems appropriate. I didn't see this foul as being any worse then when, say, Redick shoved Chris Paul a couple of years ago out of frustration.

DukeDevilDeb
03-06-2007, 12:01 PM
Please explain... why duplicitous?

feldspar
03-06-2007, 12:02 PM
What would you suggest that Coach have done/do (and that's an honest question-not meant to come off as combative at all.) A technical was called and to me that seems appropriate. I didn't see this foul as being any worse then when, say, Redick shoved Chris Paul a couple of years ago out of frustration.

I don't have an answer to that. I'm not Coach K. But the overall point from Doyell I think is at least somewhat valid.

Coach K has been stressing ever since the incident on Sunday that he holds his players to a higher standard. Laettner's (insert adjective here) was VERY un-Duke-like. It wasn't your average, run-of-the-mill Technical Foul. He (insert adjective here) on a guy's CHEST while he was laying on the floor completely helpless. That's classless, it's petty, it's dangerous, and it's not Duke basketball. But, it went unpunished by K who claims he has a zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of things.

ChrisP
03-06-2007, 12:04 PM
You're both missing the point. Stop focusing on the semantics and focus on what Coach K always preaches, and that is holding players accountable for their actions. Coach is being duplicitous in this respect, IMHO.

I understand your contention that K is being duplicitous. I just disagree with it. There's obviously no way to know what he might have done if the refs hadn't caught it during the game. I would hope that he would have disciplined Laettner on his own, but again...who knows. My point is that the Laettner was penalized at the time and, in my opinion, the punishment fit the "crime". I don't think there was any more punishment to be meted out by K (or anyone else). Now, if Christian had kicked the kid or done something more malicious, I'd be singing a different tune.

Obviously, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue, but let me ask you one question - do you think that Coach K is in general, duplicitous? I don't and that's why I'm not buying it with regard to this incident.

bluebear
03-06-2007, 12:07 PM
Don't think K is being duplicitous..Laettner's foul was ridiculously stupid but the T that he got fit the crime given how soft of a "stomp" it was..If it were a harder foul (causing injury, etc.) and he still only got a T and K took no additional action, then he would be acting duplicitous..

jaimedun34
03-06-2007, 12:09 PM
I'm just glad that Timberlake is OK.

That stomp could have killed him. All that force coming down onto his chest?

That stomp is a million times more violent than Muhammed (sp?) from GT dragging Ewing down by his jersey on a breakaway layup (ACC Tournament). BTW, no flagrant foul was called on that Muhammed/Ewing exchange IIRC. Just a regular old foul.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 12:14 PM
That stomp is a million times more violent than Muhammed (sp?) from GT dragging Ewing down by his jersey on a breakaway layup (ACC Tournament). BTW, no flagrant foul was called on that Muhammed/Ewing exchange IIRC. Just a regular old foul.

Nice strawman. None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

In general, no, I don't think K is duplicitous. I think unfortunately because he allowed himself to get baited by a pernicious sports writer, he has been in this instance.

Look, you keep bringing up the fact that Laettner was given a T in that game. That's not the point. Coach K has said over and over and over that he holds his players to a higher standard. That is the point. The T that was issued has no bearing on how K disciplines (or chooses not to discipline) his players.

Zeb
03-06-2007, 12:17 PM
The question Doyel and others in this thread seem to be asking is: shouldn't K have done something further to punish Laettner? People seem to think that because Duke was in the midst of an absolute dogfight of a game, K conveniently refrained from benching his star player.

But just because it was in K's interest to not punish Laettner, doesn't mean he made the wrong decision. There is all sorts of objectionable behavior in basketball games. Think of how many times there is woofing and shoving after hard fouls. Often the refs break this up with just some calming words, sometimes it results in a T. In cases where behavior gets really out of line (punches are thrown), players get ejected/suspended. I can't recall in any of these incidents where a coach has been criticized for not doing more than what the officials thought was appropriate.

What was so egregious about Laettner's behavior that makes the ref's technical insufficient? Why is K expected to go beyond what the refs thought was appropriate punishment? This just seems ridiculous to me, and anyone who is buying into Doyel's baiting is basically doing an advanced form of terping--K needs to hold his players to a higher standard since the refs won't call the game fair.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Why is K expected to go beyond what the refs thought was appropriate punishment?

Because he says he does.

Fish80
03-06-2007, 12:34 PM
Does anybody remember this incident and have a clip? NCAA tournament game, UCONN player on top of Laettner banging his head up and down on the floor, nothing called. Laettner got up, shook it off and continued playing.

WeepingThomasHill
03-06-2007, 12:34 PM
There you go again, Feldspar. Why in the world are you tarnishing Laettner's name now? He is the greatest Blue Devil of all time - he is in the Duke Pantheon. There was no stomp - at best, a light tap. Just like Hansborough's face hit Henderson's elbow, Timberlake's fat chest got in Laettner's way as he was trying to climb over the clumsy oaf and get back in the play.

Clearly, if you think Laettner "stomped" on Timberlake and deserved a punishment from Coach K, you are really not a Duke fan. Perhaps Inside Carolina is more to your liking.

ChrisP
03-06-2007, 12:35 PM
Because he says he does.


I know that K takes pride in recruiting "good" kids who go to class, do their own work, and play hard, but "clean" basketball. I have read a couple of his books and am a lifelong fan and graduate, but I honestly don't recall K saying that he holds his players to this "higher standard" you keep bringing up. If you're saying that, in general, Duke basketball has higher standards than a program run by say a Huggins or a Calhoun, then, yeah, I agree with you. But, you seem to be citing some specific instance(s) where K has vehemently and proudly proclaimed/boasted that he expects his players to be better than everyone else.

With regard to the latest "incident" this past Sunday, all I heard him say - and I was really happy that he did say it - is that "That's not the way he (Henderson) plays and it's not the way we play". Am I missing something here?

dcarp23
03-06-2007, 12:36 PM
Because he says he does.

When has he said that? Again, not accusing, just curious.

devilsadvocate85
03-06-2007, 12:37 PM
Because he says he does.


Not that this justifies Laettner's reaction, but it may explain Krzyzewski's feeling about the situation --

The "inside" story that I heard about the Kentucky game, and the infamous Laettner/Timberlake issue, was that Kentucky had it in their gameplan to try and get in Laettner's head. According to the "insider", throughout the game, Laettner was subject to all manner of cheapshots, hard fouls, trash-talk, etc (including having his legs taken out from under him and other marginal type of stuff). In watching the tape at the time, as someone who has played the game, I understood what the "insider" was telling me and I think (remember, just my opinion) that one reason Coach K may have been easier on Laettner was just that. The kid had been taking abuse (physical and verbal) from Kentucky the entire game and was sending a message to Kentucky that he'd had enough.

A knock on Duke over the years is that we play very hard, but clean basketball and that teams can get the best of us by playing extremely physically and daring the officials to call enough fouls to make a difference. (e.g. LSU last year, Maryland, etc) I don't have any doubt that Rick Pitino could have been in that camp.

killerleft
03-06-2007, 12:48 PM
Thanks for the cool link, Feldspar. Ah, the aura of Laettner. I judged for myself, and can only laugh at the outrageous outrage shown then (and apparently now) over this non-incident. I guess they had to give him a "T", though. Deserved for the thought, not the result of it. May all of us get "stomped" no worse than that in our lives.

crimsonandblue
03-06-2007, 12:49 PM
Link to Feinstein Article on Tony Skinn Suspension and K's Comments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030601713.html)

Larranaga's decision [to suspend Tony Skinn for a below the belt punch during a conference tournament game] drew responses from other coaches yesterday that were far from neutral.

"It sends chills through my entire body to hear what Jim did," Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski said. "Honestly, if he was here right now, I'd give him a big hug. We need more coaches to have the courage to step up in situations like this and say to our kids, 'That's wrong; I'm not making excuses for you.' If I were in the same situation, I hope I'd be gutsy enough and strong enough to do the same thing, but I can't swear to you that I would. If a big-name coach did something like that, people would be fitting him for sainthood by tomorrow.

Whatever Jim does the rest of his career, any championships he might win, this is as good and as important a thing as he'll ever do as a coach. I can't tell you how much I admire him for doing this."

This has been bandied about a bunch following the Henderson thing. It fits somewhat with what feldspar is saying. But I would say there's a substantial difference between a groin shot and what Laettner did (which I think has to fit the definition of a stomp, unless you're going to call it a "particularly hard - or at least harder than a tap or simple step - intentional bringing down of the foot on another's chest").

I think his comments outline his ideal standard. But then he notes that he might have trouble living up to that standard. I'd bet if Paulus gave a guy a punch to the groin, K would have a few interested people lined up to try and help him stick to his ideal standards.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 12:50 PM
When has he said that? Again, not accusing, just curious.

From yesterday's teleconference:


"If I thought (Gerald) did that intentionally, I would have suspended him for longer than a game"

and


"My feeling, I would have suspended him...or not him, ANY player who would do that, for longer. Because you would never want that. That's just unacceptable. That's why you have a one-game suspension, but I would hope that we would have higher standards than that.

These quotes apply to the GH incident, not the Laettner incident, but they go to the point that Coach K does hold his players to a higher standard in regards to punishment for egregious unsportsmanlike conduct.

ETA: As CB pointed out above, even Coach K doesn't know if he can hold himself up to the higher standard he has set for himself. I applaud him for making that confession, but it only serves to prove a small part of Doyell's overall point.

Skitzle
03-06-2007, 12:53 PM
Mostly playing devil's advocate here, given that I personally am not a fan of how K has handled this situation but...

I think Coach K's point was that IF Henderson had gone up with a clear intent to physically harm TH and the refs not suspended him and just ejected him, K would have taken further action.

The key point here is a specific intent to do harm. Henderson didn't have that, and neither did Laettner. Granted Laettner's step (and it was a step. A STOMP is significantly more violent and would have seriously injured some innards) was classless and deserving of a T, but there was obviously not intention to harm.

FishStick
03-06-2007, 12:53 PM
The point being that K obviously didn't think Laettner was guilty of "egregious unsportsmanlike conduct."

feldspar
03-06-2007, 12:54 PM
The point being that K obviously didn't think Laettner was guilty of "egregious unsportsmanlike conduct."

Point taken. But therein lies the question. With this so-called "higher standard," just what exactly is Coach K willing to put up with from his players? If (insert adjective here) on the chest of a player on the ground is a minor offense in Duke basketball, what's a major one? It's a scary thought.

phaedrus
03-06-2007, 12:55 PM
Because he says he does.

i'm not addressing the laettner incident in particular, feldspar, but "holding to a higher standard" does not mean coach k has to punish his players markedly more harshly than the rules warrant after every transgression. should he suspend his players after every technical, bench them after every foul? clearly not. he can have high standards and still think ncaa rules are appropriate in most cases.

therefore it's not logically necessary for him to punish laettner or henderson more harshly.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 12:58 PM
but "holding to a higher standard" does not mean coach k has to punish his players markedly more harshly than the rules warrant after every transgression.

Your points are all well-taken. As I said before, I think Doyell is a hack, but he has, IMO, a teeny weeny smidgen of a point. I'm mostly trying to play devil's advocate (no pun intended) here.

I'm going to personally drop this subject, cause I don't want to come across as a K-basher. I love Coach K, I think he's honorable, but I also think he is human.

I appreciate the well-thought-out responses and arguments.

Duvall
03-06-2007, 01:00 PM
Point taken. But therein lies the question. With this so-called "higher standard," just what exactly is Coach K willing to put up with from his players? If (insert adjective here) on the chest of a player on the ground is a minor offense in Duke basketball, what's a major one?

Punching another player in the nuts, as we saw from his comment on the Skinn affair.

FishStick
03-06-2007, 01:02 PM
Point taken. But therein lies the question. With this so-called "higher standard," just what exactly is Coach K willing to put up with from his players? If (insert adjective here) on the chest of a player on the ground is a minor offense in Duke basketball, what's a major one? It's a scary thought.

I bet the intent as well as the extent of injury is huge. Should Dre have been suspended for shoving Doh? What about Dockery last year with Hansbro? I'd argue that what Laettner did was less egregious than these two.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 01:03 PM
What about Dockery last year with Hansbro?

Heck, I'm still upset about that.

goodchristian
03-06-2007, 01:25 PM
My only problem with this situation is that coach K said "its a shame those starters were in the game" essentially saying he had it coming, or it wouldn't have happened if hansborough was not in the game. There was no reason to bring that up and link that and the incident together. Could have taken the high road.

devilsadvocate85
03-06-2007, 01:35 PM
My only problem with this situation is that coach K said "its a shame those starters were in the game" essentially saying he had it coming, or it wouldn't have happened if hansborough was not in the game. There was no reason to bring that up and link that and the incident together. Could have taken the high road.

Coach K said that about himself as well as Coach Williams and I believe he has been treated unfairly and misquoted on this.

In my opinion, the bigger issue, is why were the Carolina players trying to get an offensive rebound at that time? I would bet that if you went and watched video tape of games where the team is ahead by double digits with less than 20 seconds remaining is shooting free throws, that there are no offensive players on the lane except for the shooter in at least 90% of those situations. Normally, the offensive players are at mid-court discussing their dinner plans. Why were the Carolina players fighting for a rebound in that scenario? All they have to do is let Duke rebound, come down the floor, fire up a 3 and the game ends. Instead, you had big bodies and star players battling over a meaningless possession.

tamu88
03-06-2007, 01:35 PM
I listened to the teleconference; the other reporters were polite, business-like yet did not seem to worship K, and definitely did not to want to argue with him; they just wanted an answer to their questions. Doyle came out of the gate seeing how combative he could be; maybe get K to (Bleep)! I've never heard him before; seems like a real jerk.

I think I'll listen to the other coaches that day and see what Doyle asked them.

tamu88
03-06-2007, 01:37 PM
Hey! the guy is human!! and flawed like the rest of us!

FishStick
03-06-2007, 01:38 PM
Heck, I'm still upset about that.

Should it have been a flagrant? A technical? There was no intent to hurt and hansbrough didn't get hurt so I think Coach K made the right decision. These are kids and they make mistakes - I'm sure that K rides the crap out of them in practice when they do.

goodchristian
03-06-2007, 02:01 PM
I just hope Hendo's rep is not ruined, because we all know he is a good person who is level headed.

RepoMan
03-06-2007, 02:48 PM
Judge for yourself. At about the :10 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ2w_EqAkxU

Really disappoints me to still see Coach K rationalizing away this incident.

Here's the thing, and I know this won't be popular, but I don't care if it was a stomp. First, not being on the court the whole game, we don't know what provoked the act, and I am pretty sure it was not gratuitous. Second, sometimes, when you play with an extreme level of competitive intensity, you are going to have acts like that. It's just a natural byproduct.

Laettner was a hyper-competitive tough and hard-nosed SOB. I think that personality was a direct contributor to the extreme success that the team enjoyed during his career. Frankly, we would be fortunate if we saw some more of that competitive fire from the leaders of this team. That's one of the things that was most promising about Henderson's play. He wasn't about to let Hansb dunk in our face.

Sometime, you have to take the bad with the good. I have no problem with that.

FewFAC
03-06-2007, 02:57 PM
I have less of a problem with the "rationalizing away" than with the favoritism regarding who on the team deserves "rationalizing away."

jhmd2000
03-06-2007, 03:45 PM
Guys, I think you're being a transparent homer on this one.

When Dockery intentionally shoved T last year, ****fan says "No biggie, intent but not force." In that case, insufficient force was the difference between the presence or absence of any K imposed punishment.

When Henderson chicken-wings T this year, ****fan says "No biggie, force but not intent." Now we are told that insufficient intent is the difference between the presence or absence of any K imposed punishment.

Either there is a rule or there isn't a rule. Pretending there's a rule, but redefining it to fit just outside the present facts does not help K's credibility when he preaches his leadership sermons atop Mt. Accountability.

dball
03-06-2007, 03:50 PM
I'm not really down with K's denial of the Laettner stomp. It was a stomp, and there's no reason to still be denying it was a stomp. Coach K got baited into a no-win situation, and he should have just ignored Doyell.

Coach K is not denying anything. He is correcting misinformation. Laettner tapped Aminu and nothing more. If you look at the game tape, you can see it better, but it is far from a stomp. Only after the fact did Kentucky fans begin to suggest it was a stomp. He barely touches the guy and he got a technical foul. What more needed to be done?

Getting the T was sufficient for the action committed.

Troublemaker
03-06-2007, 03:56 PM
feldspar, Coach K draws the line at malice, i.e. the intent to physically harm another.

If Henderson had intentionally tried to physically harm Hansbrough, K would suspend him.
If Laettner had intentionally tried to physically harm Timberlake, K would suspend him.

Bad conduct is not the line being drawn. Physical malice is. Otherwise you could've said K should've suspended Dahntay Jones for his pushups after a dunk or Jason Williams for his ballfake taunts. It's physical malice that is the line. It's very easy to understand, and I'm very disappointed by you in this thread, feldspar. We don't need Duke fans to take up the enemy's cause.

Lord Ash
03-06-2007, 04:15 PM
I think you are misreading the "higher standards" bit to be honest.

I don't think he is just talking about Duke or the Duke program. I think he may be using "we" to describe NCAA basketball as a whole.

mapei
03-06-2007, 05:17 PM
I don't think Laettner's action was a "stomp," in the usual sense of the word. But I think it was atrocious sportsmanship and embarrassing to Duke basketball. Up until right about then, we were seen as the good guys. Laettner showed that was not always the case, on a very big national stage. It was made all the worse because a star player from another team (Syracuse?) was suspended just days before, I think for fighting, and CL wasn't, throwing up charges of favoritism toward white players and towards Duke. I think that was a turning point in the way Duke basketball was regarded by the general public, and one that was really unfortunate.

I don't think GH's hard foul with unintentional consequences was anywhere near as bad as Laettner's taunt-with-the-foot. Whether K holds Duke to a higher standard or not, I wish he did.

mph
03-06-2007, 05:30 PM
I don't think Laettner's action was a "stomp," in the usual sense of the word. But I think it was atrocious sportsmanship and embarrassing to Duke basketball. Up until right about then, we were seen as the good guys. Laettner showed that was not always the case, on a very big national stage. It was made all the worse because a star player from another team (Syracuse?) was suspended just days before, I think for fighting, and CL wasn't, throwing up charges of favoritism toward white players and towards Duke. I think that was a turning point in the way Duke basketball was regarded by the general public, and one that was really unfortunate.

I don't think GH's hard foul with unintentional consequences was anywhere near as bad as Laettner's taunt-with-the-foot. Whether K holds Duke to a higher standard or not, I wish he did.


I agree completely. Whether Laettner's move was a "stomp" or not is beside the point. It was intentional and it was bush league. It's unfortunate K took Doyle's bait. It was a lose-lose situation, and whatever you call it, I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to defend Laettner's action.

Reasonable people can make arguments in defense of Henderson's foul, but you'd have to throw all objectivity out the window to defend Laettner.

DU82
03-06-2007, 06:04 PM
Coach K said that about himself as well as Coach Williams and I believe he has been treated unfairly and misquoted on this.

In my opinion, the bigger issue, is why were the Carolina players trying to get an offensive rebound at that time? I would bet that if you went and watched video tape of games where the team is ahead by double digits with less than 20 seconds remaining is shooting free throws, that there are no offensive players on the lane except for the shooter in at least 90% of those situations. Normally, the offensive players are at mid-court discussing their dinner plans. Why were the Carolina players fighting for a rebound in that scenario? All they have to do is let Duke rebound, come down the floor, fire up a 3 and the game ends. Instead, you had big bodies and star players battling over a meaningless possession.

A correction here. Hansbrough wasn't on the line trying to get a rebound, he was the shooter. After the shot, the ball went through (or above) other's hands, and he wound up with it close to the basket. Instinct, I'm sure, kicked in, and he went to put it back. Just as instinct kicked in for Gerald, who went up to block it.

If Coach K hadn't had a walk-on (Steve Johnson) in, then Hansbrough wouldn't have been pulled down and the ball knocked loose, putting him in an awkward position when Henderson came down. So, it's obvious the fault of K for not having all his available starters and key reserves in, just like Roy did.

(Just to be clear, the first paragraph's serious, the second isn't. Some people here take things too literally.)

Nittany Devil
03-06-2007, 06:24 PM
If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that Gregg Doyel is a master baiter.

GDT
03-06-2007, 06:32 PM
I don't think Laettner's action was a "stomp," in the usual sense of the word. But I think it was atrocious sportsmanship and embarrassing to Duke basketball. Up until right about then, we were seen as the good guys. Laettner showed that was not always the case, on a very big national stage. .

Atrocious? I disagree. Embarrassing, maybe. I think Division One basketball is a rough sport and gamesmanship happens in most games. I don't see how the footie was substantially worse than an emphatic forearm shiver. Or a moving pick with a hip that throws a defender to the ground. Atrocious would have been to fall on him with the full force of a knee to the groin, or on the knee itself. Maybe if we had taped the games of all the great players in college basketball, as many games as Duke has televised a season (95%?), with all the attendant scrutiny that Duke gets, we might notice that they (18-20 year-olds) occasionally do things we (as a fan base) wouldn't prefer. And maybe a few of those greats wouldn't have ever committed a hard foul, or a hard charge or any bad thing. But I think that's a small minority. But I have no empirical evidence to prove that.


It was made all the worse because a star player from another team (Syracuse?) was suspended just days before, I think for fighting, and CL wasn't, throwing up charges of favoritism toward white players and towards Duke. I think that was a turning point in the way Duke basketball was regarded by the general public, and one that was really unfortunate.

Well, I doubt Laettner was considering the implications of his skin during the game. He had no control over the official's decision. And I definitely don't think that the 'stomp' had anything to do with the opinions of the general public. That opinion has been shaped predominantly by losing to Duke at some point over the last decade or so. While some equate Duke with the Yankees, obviously Duke cannot outspend anyone; in fact, they recruit their players from a much smaller pool than most schools. It's not Duke's winning, imo, it's losing to Duke that fuels the fire. And that's what fuels the general public.

devilsadvocate85
03-06-2007, 07:06 PM
A correction here. Hansbrough wasn't on the line trying to get a rebound, he was the shooter. After the shot, the ball went through (or above) other's hands, and he wound up with it close to the basket. Instinct, I'm sure, kicked in, and he went to put it back. Just as instinct kicked in for Gerald, who went up to block it.

If Coach K hadn't had a walk-on (Steve Johnson) in, then Hansbrough wouldn't have been pulled down and the ball knocked loose, putting him in an awkward position when Henderson came down. So, it's obvious the fault of K for not having all his available starters and key reserves in, just like Roy did.

(Just to be clear, the first paragraph's serious, the second isn't. Some people here take things too literally.)

The reason Hansbrough even had a chance to get the ball was because Carolina had two other players on the lane going for the offensive rebound. If you want to get really picky the reason the ball was loose at all was because the Carolina player to Hansbrough's right commited an over the back foul to tip the ball free. What were those guys doing there in that situation? There is no reason for that.

weezie
03-06-2007, 07:16 PM
If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that Gregg Doyel is a master baiter.

You got that right Nit! w-i-n-k

He's also a sanctimonious boob.

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 07:27 PM
You're both missing the point. Stop focusing on the semantics and focus on what Coach K always preaches, and that is holding players accountable for their actions. Coach is being duplicitous in this respect, IMHO.

What Laettner did, imo, amounted to taunting. He received a technical for it -- rightly so -- and that was it. If he had actually stomped with any amount of force whatsoever and done damage or potentially could have done damage, then K is being hypocritical. That's not what happened. Laettner was in complete control, landed his foot squarely on Aminu Timberlake's midsection and didn't even come close to doing any physical harm. You can't even make the case the Laettner's actions incited a fight or other confrontation that led to physical harm to other players or loss of control of the game. The entire incident was over and done with in a matter of seconds.

It was a punk move, to be sure, but I think K and the officials handled it perfectly.

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 07:31 PM
Well, I doubt Laettner was considering the implications of his skin during the game. He had no control over the official's decision. And I definitely don't think that the 'stomp' had anything to do with the opinions of the general public. That opinion has been shaped predominantly by losing to Duke at some point over the last decade or so. While some equate Duke with the Yankees, obviously Duke cannot outspend anyone; in fact, they recruit their players from a much smaller pool than most schools. It's not Duke's winning, imo, it's losing to Duke that fuels the fire. And that's what fuels the general public.

Overexposure also gets us a bunch of haters. We are on US tv all the time. If you are not a fan then you are naturally going to resent "getting Duke shoved down your throat" all the time. We also have had several white star players over the years and for some ignorant people -- of many skin tones -- this makes it much, much tougher to stomach our success.

gus
03-06-2007, 07:55 PM
I don't have an answer to that. I'm not Coach K. But the overall point from Doyell I think is at least somewhat valid.

Coach K has been stressing ever since the incident on Sunday that he holds his players to a higher standard. Laettner's (insert adjective here) was VERY un-Duke-like. It wasn't your average, run-of-the-mill Technical Foul. He (insert adjective here) on a guy's CHEST while he was laying on the floor completely helpless. That's classless, it's petty, it's dangerous, and it's not Duke basketball. But, it went unpunished by K who claims he has a zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of things.

1) I think you mean "gerund" and "verb" (respectively) not "adjective".
2) How do you know the incident went unpunished by K?

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 08:07 PM
I don't have an answer to that. I'm not Coach K. But the overall point from Doyell I think is at least somewhat valid.

Coach K has been stressing ever since the incident on Sunday that he holds his players to a higher standard. Laettner's (insert adjective here) was VERY un-Duke-like. It wasn't your average, run-of-the-mill Technical Foul. He (insert adjective here) on a guy's CHEST while he was laying on the floor completely helpless. That's classless, it's petty, it's dangerous, and it's not Duke basketball. But, it went unpunished by K who claims he has a zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of things.

He claimed to hold his players to a higher standard with regards to fighting. Laettner didn't throw a punch or do anything else that could have caused physical harm (as i said earlier, he landed his blow and it was, physically, harmless). It also did not start a fight, so I don't see how it could be classified as fighting. Was it combative? yeah I guess but not really any moreso than trash talking, and i think the result bears that out.

Laettner received his technical. I think that was appropriate.

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 08:12 PM
I agree completely. Whether Laettner's move was a "stomp" or not is beside the point. It was intentional and it was bush league. It's unfortunate K took Doyle's bait. It was a lose-lose situation, and whatever you call it, I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to defend Laettner's action.

Reasonable people can make arguments in defense of Henderson's foul, but you'd have to throw all objectivity out the window to defend Laettner.



Laettner's stomp, or whatever you want to call it, was a bush-league, punk play. No doubt about it. I just think it was handled appropriately as far as the penalty. He did no physical harm. Not because he missed or the blow he landed was deflected or something. His foot came down squarely, exactly where he wanted to put it and the impact was next to nothing. Therefore, the only way I would've said Laettner deserved an ejection or suspension would have been if his actions started a fight.

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 08:16 PM
feldspar, Coach K draws the line at malice, i.e. the intent to physically harm another.

If Henderson had intentionally tried to physically harm Hansbrough, K would suspend him.
If Laettner had intentionally tried to physically harm Timberlake, K would suspend him.

Bad conduct is not the line being drawn. Physical malice is. Otherwise you could've said K should've suspended Dahntay Jones for his pushups after a dunk or Jason Williams for his ballfake taunts. It's physical malice that is the line. It's very easy to understand, and I'm very disappointed by you in this thread, feldspar. We don't need Duke fans to take up the enemy's cause.


he/she is arguing against what he/she perceives as hypocrisy within the program and its leader. This is a cause we should all champion, the same way that we should not tolerate hypocrisy within our government. Dramatic, I know, but true nonetheless. I happen not to agree with feldspar in this instance. I don't think there is any hypocrisy on display here but I have absolutely no problem with duke fans and alumni calling out Coach K or anyone else wearing Duke blue if they think they are being hypocritical. Doublespeak makes the program look bad and is an insult to all of us.

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 08:18 PM
I have less of a problem with the "rationalizing away" than with the favoritism regarding who on the team deserves "rationalizing away."

Seriously, would you?

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 08:23 PM
Because he says he does.

Yes, but in what instance? He didn't say he always doles out heavier punishment than the refs do any time one of his players is involved in an altercation, and since Laettner's actions certainly didn't amount to fighting, that is what you seem to be suggesting.

mph
03-06-2007, 08:47 PM
Laettner's stomp, or whatever you want to call it, was a bush-league, punk play. No doubt about it. I just think it was handled appropriately as far as the penalty. He did no physical harm. Not because he missed or the blow he landed was deflected or something. His foot came down squarely, exactly where he wanted to put it and the impact was next to nothing. Therefore, the only way I would've said Laettner deserved an ejection or suspension would have been if his actions started a fight.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that Laettner should have been suspended. From certain perspectives my position on these two fouls will seem counterintuitive. I believe G's foul was unintentional but the suspension was reasonable. Conversely, Leattner's foul was intentional, yet suspension would have been unreasonable. The refs decisions in both cases are defensible. Henderson's foul is defensible. Laettner's tech was indefensible.

Troublemaker
03-06-2007, 08:50 PM
he/she is arguing against what he/she perceives as hypocrisy within the program and its leader. This is a cause we should all champion, the same way that we should not tolerate hypocrisy within our government. Dramatic, I know, but true nonetheless. I happen not to agree with feldspar in this instance. I don't think there is any hypocrisy on display here but I have absolutely no problem with duke fans and alumni calling out Coach K or anyone else wearing Duke blue if they think they are being hypocritical. Doublespeak makes the program look bad and is an insult to all of us.

My beef is not with calling out hypocrisy. My beef is with not thinking things through and as a result ending up championing the cause of the enemy.

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 09:13 PM
My beef is not with calling out hypocrisy. My beef is with not thinking things through and as a result ending up championing the cause of the enemy.



How do you know Feldspar hasn't thought things through? How do you know what path Feldspar took to arrive at his conclusions?

devildownunder
03-06-2007, 09:14 PM
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Laettner should have been suspended. From certain perspectives my position on these two fouls will seem counterintuitive. I believe G's foul was unintentional but the suspension was reasonable. Conversely, Leattner's foul was intentional, yet suspension would have been unreasonable. The refs decisions in both cases are defensible. Henderson's foul is defensible. Laettner's tech was indefensible.

What do you think K should have done to Laettner?

Troublemaker
03-06-2007, 09:19 PM
How do you know Feldspar hasn't thought things through? How do you know what path Feldspar took to arrive at his conclusions?

I'm sure he gave it some thought but I don't think he thought it through enough. I believe he was unreasonably calling K a hypocrite but my goal here is not to bash feldspar. I like feldspar.

johnnydakota
03-07-2007, 05:35 AM
How do any of you know wether or not K disciplined Laettner on his own? That's none of our business. That incident was not big enough to warrant a public flogging from K. Coach K runs the team not you. If you don't trust him to run it in an appropriate way, with integrity and class, then get another coach, right?

gus
03-07-2007, 06:49 AM
My beef is not with calling out hypocrisy. My beef is with not thinking things through and as a result ending up championing the cause of the enemy.

Listen- the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" nonsense is inappropriate in any sphere. Feldspar's a passionate duke fan too: there's no need to castigate him for applying human characteristics to Coach K.

I can't judge whether or not Doyel as a "smidgen" of a point (I've not read the article). However, drawing a comparison to the Laettner incident a decade and a half ago (jeez) and the Henderson incident to call K hypocritcal is absurd. We don't know how Coach K punished Laettner (though I imagine he did in practice that week). However, I don't think a reasonable, disinterested person could view the incident and think Laettner was doing anything more than asserting his authority over Timberlake in a stupid and petty way- he was not trying to hurt him, and the move was not violent or dangerous. Personally, I see Doyel's question bush league too. It was petty and small.

feldspar
03-07-2007, 07:23 AM
Listen- the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" nonsense is inappropriate in any sphere. Feldspar's a passionate duke fan too: there's no need to castigate him for applying human characteristics to Coach K.

I can't judge whether or not Doyel as a "smidgen" of a point (I've not read the article). However, drawing a comparison to the Laettner incident a decade and a half ago (jeez) and the Henderson incident to call K hypocritcal is absurd. We don't know how Coach K punished Laettner (though I imagine he did in practice that week). However, I don't think a reasonable, disinterested person could view the incident and think Laettner was doing anything more than asserting his authority over Timberlake in a stupid and petty way- he was not trying to hurt him, and the move was not violent or dangerous. Personally, I see Doyel's question bush league too. It was petty and small.

Good points, gus. I've enjoyed your take on the situation.

Carlos
03-07-2007, 07:54 AM
Guys, I think you're being a transparent homer on this one.

When Dockery intentionally shoved T last year, ****fan says "No biggie, intent but not force." In that case, insufficient force was the difference between the presence or absence of any K imposed punishment.

When Henderson chicken-wings T this year, ****fan says "No biggie, force but not intent." Now we are told that insufficient intent is the difference between the presence or absence of any K imposed punishment.

Either there is a rule or there isn't a rule. Pretending there's a rule, but redefining it to fit just outside the present facts does not help K's credibility when he preaches his leadership sermons atop Mt. Accountability.

You should pick up a copy of K's book "Leading with the Heart" where he starts off the first chapter in the book by stating "Too many rules get in the way of leadership." I think he goes on to state that rules are for people who are afraid to make decisions.

The problem here is that everyone is trying to make the Laettner play, the Dockery play, and the Henderson play analogous so that it can all fit into some sort of nice, comfortable, predefined algorithm. Guess what - none of those three instances are the same thing so each require that the coach handle them differently.

As for what K was talking about with the reference to suspending Henderson himself, there's a big hole in jhmd's logic above. It would seem clear that what K was referring to in the case of Henderson was that if there was intent with force then K would have add an additional suspension beyond just what the league issued.

Troublemaker
03-07-2007, 08:16 AM
Listen- the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" nonsense is inappropriate in any sphere. Feldspar's a passionate duke fan too: there's no need to castigate him for applying human characteristics to Coach K.

Yep, I like feldspar. He's awesome. I never endorsed such an attitude, and I've been critical of K in the past.


I can't judge whether or not Doyel as a "smidgen" of a point (I've not read the article). However, drawing a comparison to the Laettner incident a decade and a half ago (jeez) and the Henderson incident to call K hypocritcal is absurd. We don't know how Coach K punished Laettner (though I imagine he did in practice that week). However, I don't think a reasonable, disinterested person could view the incident and think Laettner was doing anything more than asserting his authority over Timberlake in a stupid and petty way- he was not trying to hurt him, and the move was not violent or dangerous. Personally, I see Doyel's question bush league too. It was petty and small.

Agreed.

mph
03-07-2007, 10:58 AM
What do you think K should have done to Laettner?

I coach a college debate team and I'll tell you that in my experience team discipline is the hardest part of coaching. Most of the time I try to find ways to discipline individuals while trying to minimize the impact on the rest on the team (practice related discipline, community service, public apologies, etc.) Sometimes team members do things that require disciplinary measures that affect other team members (suspensions, dismissals, etc.)

In Laettner's case I would have considered a suspension had this occurred during the regular season. There is no way I would have suspended him for the Final Four. I realize some will argue that if an action merits a suspension in the regular season it should merit suspension in the post-season, and that principles dictate uniform, consistent punishment. I disagree. In my experience, context is everything and attempts to uniformly apply the letter of the law in team situations can produce some pretty perverse results. Suspending Laettner for the Final Four would have been excessively punitive to him, but more importantly, to his teammates.

So, I really don't have a problem with the way K handled the Laettner incident. I remember K publicly condemned Laettner's action, although I don't remember if he forced Laettner to apologize to Timberlake.

Again, my primary point is that K should have resisted the urge to engage Doyell. The question was asked in bad faith and there was no answer that would have satisfied Doyell or K's critics. Equivocating over whether or not it was a "stomp" is exactly the sort of thing for which Doyell was fishing. Whether or not it was a "stomp" matters when you are trying to determine how to discipline Laettner, but it shouldn't enter into any discussion with people outside of the program. It will inevitably look like you are trying to excuse bad behavior. Just say "next question" and move on.

dukestheheat
03-07-2007, 04:24 PM
well,

that thing happened so long ago that no one remembers it except the kentucky fans and virtually all of the fans of all other teams out there that aren't spelled 'DUKE' (in other words i know most of the world remembers christian tap-dancing on aminu timberlake's chest cavity).

don't worry about it; it's ancient, ancient history and i'd still pick laettner to be on my team if i needed a big shot or something like that. it also gives christian a dubious distinction; he's the only guy in the world who could get away with something like that! if i had done something like that when i played i'd been shot on the spot.

dth.

dukestheheat
03-07-2007, 04:27 PM
Fish80-

man do i remember that one. please don't get me going on that one! (laett was abused right then and there)......quietly as i get up and walk away from the keyboard to let this one go so i don't flip out.............

dth.

imagepro
03-07-2007, 05:54 PM
I'm the one who was banned??????????

dukelifer
03-07-2007, 10:21 PM
Nice strawman. None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

In general, no, I don't think K is duplicitous. I think unfortunately because he allowed himself to get baited by a pernicious sports writer, he has been in this instance.

Look, you keep bringing up the fact that Laettner was given a T in that game. That's not the point. Coach K has said over and over and over that he holds his players to a higher standard. That is the point. The T that was issued has no bearing on how K disciplines (or chooses not to discipline) his players.

Whose higher standard? I would guess his own. Who is to say that Laettner did not meet his standard? Maybe K did not think that warranted more discipline? Did Laettner try to send a message- particularly since Timberlake was trying to pull him down when he fell- yes- was it a bit much- okay- but there was no attempt to hurt or injure- and the player was fine- in fact happy that he got under Laettner's skin. K may hold his players to a certain standard (that has not been defined)- but he and many others did not see that as an egregious act. K does not expect his players to be perfect. That standard cannot be met by anyone- well except for Shane ;)

jipops
03-07-2007, 10:49 PM
I heard a local sports radio guy comment about the Laettner thing which provides a very good analysis actually.

If you take a styrofoam cup and place it between Laettner's foot and Timberlake's chest you will still be able to drink coffee out of that cup. I guess Timberlake was in so much pain after the "stomp" he couldn't stop laughing and clapping.

So basically what Laettner's "stomp" amounts to is a very stupid taunt. So in order for Coach K to not appear as a hypocrite he would have had to have suspended Laettner in the national semifinal thereby sacrificing all the other teammates season long efforts... for a taunt? Really?

Ok, Laet's action was very, very stupid and classless. But based on the actual non-violent action that took place, what would any higher standard call for? Should a Duke player be suspended everytime he engages in a little trash talk as well to conform to some kind of higher standard?

What is apparent here is that Duke is held to a certain standard by the media. No matter what the action is, it's a bigger deal if it's Duke. I guess we should be honored.

UKfan
02-13-2008, 07:25 AM
Sorry for the bump but, I saw that the Laettner shot is in the running for the greatest highlight ever on ESPN and was hoping they would show the "stomp" as part of the clip. :p I found this thread in a google search for the stomp (thanks for that vid by the way).

It's interesting to see this from the Duke fan's perspective.

What everyone fails to realize is that they actually changed the rules of college basketball as a result of that game. At the time you needed either 5 personal fouls or 2 technical fouls to foul out. I can still remember watching the game and jumping for joy when Laettner received his 4th personal foul, because I thought that with the technical he would be out. But nope, he remained in - playing with 5 fouls. Shortly after that they altered the ruling so that any combination of personal and technical fouls adding up to 5 would be enough for them to foul out.

This is the beef that I have. He shouldn't have been ejected. But with 5 fouls he shouldn't have still been in the game. He shouldn't have been able to catch that inbounds pass at the free throw line. And that infamous shot should never have been taken.

freedevil
02-13-2008, 07:45 AM
Sorry UKfan, the shot still counts. And it still is hilarious to see how obsessive Kentucky fans are in trying to discount the pure glory of that shot.

Duvall
02-13-2008, 07:59 AM
What everyone fails to realize is that they actually changed the rules of college basketball as a result of that game. At the time you needed either 5 personal fouls or 2 technical fouls to foul out. I can still remember watching the game and jumping for joy when Laettner received his 4th personal foul, because I thought that with the technical he would be out. But nope, he remained in - playing with 5 fouls. Shortly after that they altered the ruling so that any combination of personal and technical fouls adding up to 5 would be enough for them to foul out.

This is the beef that I have. He shouldn't have been ejected. But with 5 fouls he shouldn't have still been in the game. He shouldn't have been able to catch that inbounds pass at the free throw line. And that infamous shot should never have been taken.

You are wrong.

Laettner received a contact technical foul for the play, which at that time also counted towards the personal foul limit.

buddy
02-13-2008, 09:09 AM
K should have benched Laettner immediately and not reinserted him into the game. That would have shown Laettner! I bet Doyel would be singing K's praises to the roof if he had done that. Greatest humanitarian of all time! And since Singler got a technical the other day for woofing, then he should be suspended for the season. And how about Markie--maybe he should be suspended as well for rough play. That's it--K will show the world. He'll have Jordan Davidson and Steve Johnson start, reactivate Griffin Tormey, and find two more walk-ons. Get a life!

The event was 15 years ago. Maybe Carolina should eliminate basketball because 47 years ago Larry Brown started a fight with Art Heyman. Doyel has an axe to grind. K should tell him to grind it elsewhere, and get on with the next play.

UKfan
02-13-2008, 09:21 AM
You are wrong.

Laettner received a contact technical foul for the play, which at that time also counted towards the personal foul limit.

You are wrong.

If it were a contact foul he would have been out of the game.

In the 92-93 season the rule was changed to include unsporting technical fouls as well.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/basketball/m_basketball_records_book/2001/playing_rules_history.pdf

jimsumner
02-13-2008, 09:48 AM
So Laettner should have fouled out off a 1992 game under 1993 rules?

Wow, that's a UK spin I haven't heard before and I thought I had heard them all.

BTW, if you examine the tape of the 1986 Duke-Louisville game, it appears to me that Duke made more shots from 20 feet or so than did Louisville. The NCAA didn't have a three-point shot in 1986 but did in 1987. So I think we should go back and retroactively give extra points for all of the shots that would have been three-pointers. Therefore, Duke wins the 1986 NCAA title under the 1987 rules.

Makes about as much sense doesn't it?

Duvall
02-13-2008, 09:53 AM
You are wrong.

If it were a contact foul he would have been out of the game.

In the 92-93 season the rule was changed to include unsporting technical fouls as well.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/basketball/m_basketball_records_book/2001/playing_rules_history.pdf

Read your own link:


1991-1992

Contact technical fouls count toward the five fouls for player disqualification and toward the team fouls in reaching bonus free-throw situations.

That is precisely what happened in this game. Laettner's technical foul counted towards his personal foul total; he was not disqualified because he only committed three personal fouls in addition to the technical.

Wander
02-13-2008, 10:57 AM
So Laettner should have fouled out off a 1992 game under 1993 rules?

Wow, that's a UK spin I haven't heard before and I thought I had heard them all.

BTW, if you examine the tape of the 1986 Duke-Louisville game, it appears to me that Duke made more shots from 20 feet or so than did Louisville. The NCAA didn't have a three-point shot in 1986 but did in 1987. So I think we should go back and retroactively give extra points for all of the shots that would have been three-pointers. Therefore, Duke wins the 1986 NCAA title under the 1987 rules.

Makes about as much sense doesn't it?

Don't forget to mention that we're undefeated this year. Pitt's game winning three pointer would be a two pointer by next year's rules.

dynastydefender
02-13-2008, 12:20 PM
Then why did coach K give Laettner a nice butt chewing for doing it?


There you go again, Feldspar. Why in the world are you tarnishing Laettner's name now? He is the greatest Blue Devil of all time - he is in the Duke Pantheon. There was no stomp - at best, a light tap. Just like Hansborough's face hit Henderson's elbow, Timberlake's fat chest got in Laettner's way as he was trying to climb over the clumsy oaf and get back in the play.

Clearly, if you think Laettner "stomped" on Timberlake and deserved a punishment from Coach K, you are really not a Duke fan. Perhaps Inside Carolina is more to your liking.

wilson
02-13-2008, 12:42 PM
I believe that WeepingThomasHill's post was yet another example of how, as I often say, the internet has no sarcasm button. Keep your shirt on.

dynastydefender
02-13-2008, 12:50 PM
I believe that WeepingThomasHill's post was yet another example of how, as I often say, the internet has no sarcasm button. Keep your shirt on.
Still new to the board. Like Yahoo...tone of voice is not heard.

Did you get the link to the Owensboro BBQ Festival?

wilson
02-13-2008, 01:11 PM
Still new to the board. Like Yahoo...tone of voice is not heard.

Did you get the link to the Owensboro BBQ Festival?

I did, and I must say that I would love to go there...I am among the minority of people who basically choose not to take sides in the great BBQ debate. I believe there is room in this world for all sorts of BBQ, whether it's North Carolinian, Kentuckian, Texan, or any other sort.
That said, North Carolinians did invent North American BBQ...it was being prepared there when everyone else still thought tomatoes were poisonous, and when Kentucky was but "Indian country."

dynastydefender
02-13-2008, 01:23 PM
I did, and I must say that I would love to go there...I am among the minority of people who basically choose not to take sides in the great BBQ debate. I believe there is room in this world for all sorts of BBQ, whether it's North Carolinian, Kentuckian, Texan, or any other sort.
That said, North Carolinians did invent North American BBQ...it was being prepared there when everyone else still thought tomatoes were poisonous, and when Kentucky was but "Indian country."

Ah yes...actually a county of Virginia back then. Owensboro Explodes with people from around the Country pawning off thier BBQ. I mean a normal trip to town ends up being a tour of all kinds of BBQers on the side of the road cooking!! MMMMMM MMMMMMM and the BURGOO!!!!!

BigTedder
02-13-2008, 01:44 PM
this is pointless...it was 15+ years ago, let it go....G had no malicious intent but intended to foul, Laet. was just frustrated but didnt intend to hurt, he barely dirtied T's jersey....this is dumb to even dwell on.

pamtar
02-13-2008, 02:22 PM
So, does Doyel dye his hair or his soul patch? Or, was he born a tool?
http://images.sportsline.com/images/author/8450.jpg
I just cant tell and its EATING ME ALIVE...

sagegrouse
02-13-2008, 03:03 PM
Ah yes...actually a county of Virginia back then. Owensboro Explodes with people from around the Country pawning off thier BBQ. I mean a normal trip to town ends up being a tour of all kinds of BBQers on the side of the road cooking!! MMMMMM MMMMMMM and the BURGOO!!!!!

North Carolina was part of the Carolina colony until North and South were separated (ca. 1729, IIRC) due to size and distance and to the fact that many NC settlers were Virginians who moved south, no doubt fleeing the tobacco smoke.

sagegrouse
'A sandlapper is there ever was one, although the species has been long extirpated from the Lowcountry'

watzone
02-13-2008, 03:18 PM
I admit I haven't read any of this thread, but Greg has to be on cloud nine that he has drummed up 6500 views. I am afraid some of you fell into his master plan. I never open his links. It works!

ugadevil
02-13-2008, 03:19 PM
So Laettner should have fouled out off a 1992 game under 1993 rules?

Wow, that's a UK spin I haven't heard before and I thought I had heard them all.

BTW, if you examine the tape of the 1986 Duke-Louisville game, it appears to me that Duke made more shots from 20 feet or so than did Louisville. The NCAA didn't have a three-point shot in 1986 but did in 1987. So I think we should go back and retroactively give extra points for all of the shots that would have been three-pointers. Therefore, Duke wins the 1986 NCAA title under the 1987 rules.

Makes about as much sense doesn't it?


I vote for a Jim Sumner thread that is sticky at the top of the board where we can go and read all of his posts.

Dukiedevil
02-13-2008, 03:34 PM
Still new to the board. Like Yahoo...tone of voice is not heard.

Did you get the link to the Owensboro BBQ Festival?

I grew up in Evansville. Used to make a yearly trip to this one and the Blues/BBQ fest in Henderson...

MMmmmmm.... Pulled pork

wumhenry
02-13-2008, 03:37 PM
His hypocrisy rap presupposes that Coach K had a good view of the so-called stomp. How do we know that he did? If he saw it for the first time in a post-game video what could he have done to discipline Laettner even if he'd wanted to? Didn't Laettner's college hoops career end with that game?

wilson
02-13-2008, 03:39 PM
...Didn't Laettner's college hoops career end with that game?

You're not serious, are you?

RPS
02-13-2008, 03:42 PM
So, does Doyel dye his hair or his soul patch? Or, was he born a tool?

I just cant tell and its EATING ME ALIVE...False dichotomy. Irrespective of Mr. Doyel's cosmetological preferences, he most certainly is a tool.

wumhenry
02-13-2008, 03:44 PM
You're not serious, are you?
I wasn't joking. I was a fair-weather fan back then, so the events weren't burned into my brain all that deeply. (I got more avid when my elder daughter was admitted to the Class of '08.) So it was only a semifinal game?

MChambers
02-13-2008, 03:47 PM
I wasn't joking. I was a fair-weather fan back then, so the events weren't burned into my brain all that deeply. (I got more avid when my elder daughter was admitted to the Class of '08.) So it was only a semifinal game?

East Regional Final