Thank goodness Patrick Patterson went to UK

[grc5]

Classy move:
http://withleather.com/post.phtml?pk=4486
:D

[TillyGalore]

I didn't play the video as I read what was written below and that grossed me out enough to NOT want to watch the video.

Maybe PP was having a Seinfeld moment.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

EEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!

Love, Ima

[Lord Ash]

I am assuming this is the nose picking thing. If I had to trade nose-picking-and-eating for 12 rebounds and 8 points a game in the point, I'd make that trade. Missing Patterson still stinks.

[EarlJam]

Nice pick Patrick!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. BOOGERS!


-EarlJam

[TillyGalore]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. [SIZE="4"]BOOGERS!


-EarlJam

Would you like ketchup with that?

[3rd Dukie]

I am assuming this is the nose picking thing. If I had to trade nose-picking-and-eating for 12 rebounds and 8 points a game in the point, I'd make that trade. Missing Patterson still stinks.

Well, you might want to think about the possibility that this is supposed to be funny. However, his assists would be down for sure; who would ever want to catch the ball?

[EarlJam]

Well, you might want to think about the possibility that this is supposed to be funny. However, his assists would be down for sure; who would ever want to catch the ball?

Based on the evidence I've seen, I certainly would NOT shake his hand after seeing him exit from the restroom.

Question: If Kentucky came to Cameron this year, would it be fair game to make fun of his booger pickin'? Or would that be considered over the line?

I think it would be fair game because we all know he's likely a great kid. He just picks and eats his boogers and all.

-EarlJam

[CameronBlue]

I am assuming this is the nose picking thing. If I had to trade nose-picking-and-eating for 12 rebounds and 8 points a game in the point, I'd make that trade. Missing Patterson still stinks.

Exactly, it's about the game. So what if the ball's a little slippery.

POTW!

If it's good enough for the Pres...http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Nose-picking

[Fish80]

I am assuming this is the nose picking thing. If I had to trade nose-picking-and-eating for 12 rebounds and 8 points a game in the point, I'd make that trade. Missing Patterson still stinks.

I'm glad we don't have PP. I really like the team we have, it looks like the chemistry is great and they are having fun. We have plenty of great players.

[Classof06]

I'm glad we don't have PP. I really like the team we have, it looks like the chemistry is great and they are having fun. We have plenty of great players.

Especially when he said he didn't "click" with the players. In my opinion, this Duke team has better chemstry than any other I can remember, even during my 4 years on campus. It's a joy to watch..

[Patrick Yates]

1. I do not believe for one minute that PP committed to UK because he didn't "click" with Duke's players. Given his late season visit, and the bad taste in everyone's mouth at the way the season ended, I doubt he got a good read on that sort of thing. Especially on a recruiting visit. This was easier than saying "I will have to fight for minutes at Duke. KY is a wasteland talent wise. I will be, easily, the best player, and will barely have to work for minutes." That is why KY got his services.

2. For whatever percieved flaws or shortcommings K has (and he does have some, no coach is perfect. Maybe Wooden), inspiring the troops is not one of those problems. Some coaches win by devising a superior game plan. K wins by inspiring great kids to come to Duke. Once they are here he convinces them they can do anything. He once spoke to a class of mine, and by the end I was convinced that me and 4 other students from the class could win the NC. I really doubt that PP would have adversely affected chemistry. K would've hammered out that problem by early November, if not before the season actually started.

[I know that some will point to last year as an example of "no chemistry" and they are right. But, reports of that didn't really surface until the late season slide happened. When a team is winning, there are rarely "chemistry concerns". Only losers have chemistry problems. I accept that chemistry could lead to losing. But, if a few more threes had fallen last year, and Duke had won a few more games and gone to the sweet 16, talk of Chemistry issues would have been quieter. For all this year's talk of chemistry, talk to me when we lose. Playing a few minutes and/or getting few shots in a solid win is one thing. Barely getting any burn in a loss leads to some hurt feelings. It all stems from competitiveness, but losing is hard on not just us fans.]

3. Who really doesn't want PP? He was good enough to give Hans some comp. His main strength seems to be rebounding and low post scoring, our two main weaknesses. As good as we are now, we would be better with him. With him on the team, I think NOBODY questions Duke's inside strength. Right now, we would prbably be the second or third ranked team, and Duke would be talked about as one of the most dangerous teams in the nation, and a favorite for the FF. As it stands now, we have a good chance to make the FF. But, the surprise would be IF we made the FF. With PP, the surprise would be if we DIDN'T make the FF. I wasn't a believer in PP during his recruiting frenzy, but I am now. Not that he is a superstar or anything, but he would have been perfect at Duke because we didn't need him to do anything but rebound and score arround the basket.

Patrick Yates

[EarlJam]

1. I do not believe for one minute that PP committed to UK because he didn't "click" with Duke's players. Given his late season visit, and the bad taste in everyone's mouth at the way the season ended, I doubt he got a good read on that sort of thing. Especially on a recruiting visit. This was easier than saying "I will have to fight for minutes at Duke. KY is a wasteland talent wise. I will be, easily, the best player, and will barely have to work for minutes." That is why KY got his services.

2. For whatever percieved flaws or shortcommings K has (and he does have some, no coach is perfect. Maybe Wooden), inspiring the troops is not one of those problems. Some coaches win by devising a superior game plan. K wins by inspiring great kids to come to Duke. Once they are here he convinces them they can do anything. He once spoke to a class of mine, and by the end I was convinced that me and 4 other students from the class could win the NC. I really doubt that PP would have adversely affected chemistry. K would've hammered out that problem by early November, if not before the season actually started.

[I know that some will point to last year as an example of "no chemistry" and they are right. But, reports of that didn't really surface until the late season slide happened. When a team is winning, there are rarely "chemistry concerns". Only losers have chemistry problems. I accept that chemistry could lead to losing. But, if a few more threes had fallen last year, and Duke had won a few more games and gone to the sweet 16, talk of Chemistry issues would have been quieter. For all this year's talk of chemistry, talk to me when we lose. Playing a few minutes and/or getting few shots in a solid win is one thing. Barely getting any burn in a loss leads to some hurt feelings. It all stems from competitiveness, but losing is hard on not just us fans.]

3. Who really doesn't want PP? He was good enough to give Hans some comp. His main strength seems to be rebounding and low post scoring, our two main weaknesses. As good as we are now, we would be better with him. With him on the team, I think NOBODY questions Duke's inside strength. Right now, we would prbably be the second or third ranked team, and Duke would be talked about as one of the most dangerous teams in the nation, and a favorite for the FF. As it stands now, we have a good chance to make the FF. But, the surprise would be IF we made the FF. With PP, the surprise would be if we DIDN'T make the FF. I wasn't a believer in PP during his recruiting frenzy, but I am now. Not that he is a superstar or anything, but he would have been perfect at Duke because we didn't need him to do anything but rebound and score arround the basket.

Patrick Yates

You're just saying all that because your first name is Patrick. Admit it.

Actually, great post. Booger picking and snot chomping aside, he would have been a great addition. But enough. I love our team this year.

-EarlJam

[greybeard]

You're just saying all that because your first name is Patrick. Admit it.

Actually, great post. Booger picking and snot chomping aside, he would have been a great addition. But enough. I love our team this year.

-EarlJam

You do have a way with words; yikes that made me laugh!

[mcdukefan]

Would you like to super size that sir?

[BD80]

no coach is perfect. Maybe Wooden

Why is Wooden a perfect coach? His boosters bought the best players in the country and he got a buy (oops, a typo, I meant bye) each year into the final four.

Legendary? Yes. Innovative? Certainly. Perfect? Not close.

The UCLA teams were absolutely loaded with talent, and there have been reports that there were payments to the players which got them to come. It is not generally disputed that the player were paid, the dispute is whether
Wooden knew about the payments. The PAC 10 sucked, so he got an automatic NCAA bid and the first 2 rounds were against the west (16 team field) where there was little challenge to the final four.

Wooden was a great coach, but not the best ever.

[kydevil]

I have heard his favorite play is the Pick and roll :D

[Patrick Yates]

Why is Wooden a perfect coach? His boosters bought the best players in the country and he got a buy (oops, a typo, I meant bye) each year into the final four.

Legendary? Yes. Innovative? Certainly. Perfect? Not close.

The UCLA teams were absolutely loaded with talent, and there have been reports that there were payments to the players which got them to come. It is not generally disputed that the player were paid, the dispute is whether
Wooden knew about the payments. The PAC 10 sucked, so he got an automatic NCAA bid and the first 2 rounds were against the west (16 team field) where there was little challenge to the final four.

Wooden was a great coach, but not the best ever.

Fisrt of all, I had never heard of these allegations.

And, if the kids were paid, well, a lot of other schools were doing it, or at least had the option to. And the Pac-10 may have been bad. Part of that was because UCLA was so dominant that kids were scared of going into the conf to challenge (not really) UCLA. UCLA still dominated.

It was news when Wooden lost, even a single game. That is dominance. No one is perfect (though he IS close), but Wooden is undeniably the greatest college hoops coach ever. The only other name that could be raised is Rupp, but even diehard UK fans have to bow to UCLA. NO other coach can even enter the argument.

And if you want to talk about play for pay in college: Corey Maggette. You can add any number of shady street agents steering kids to certain programs. Until proven by some judicial body, allegations are only that.

Patrick Yates

[Turtleboy]

And if you want to talk about play for pay in college: Corey Maggette. You can add any number of shady street agents steering kids to certain programs. Until proven by some judicial body, allegations are only that.Magette was paid to play in college? Do you have a cite for that? Even as an allegation?

[Turtleboy]

As for UCLA being crooked during Wooden's tenure, Google "John Wooden Sam Gilbert" for a taste.

An example, from here (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news?slug=dw-uclalegacy040206&prov=yhoo&type=lgns).


"I hate to say anything that may hurt UCLA, but I can't be quiet when I see what the NCAA is doing (to other coaches) only because (they have) a reputation for giving a second chance to many black athletes other coaches have branded as troublemakers. The NCAA is working night and day trying to get (them), but no one from the NCAA ever questioned me during my four years at UCLA."

That quote comes from none other than Bill Walton, maybe the greatest Bruin of them all, in a 1978 book "Bill Walton: On the Road with the Portland Trail Blazers," which went on to detail how Sam Gilbert, a Los Angeles contractor the feds allege made millions laundering drug money, bought a decade worth of recruits for UCLA.

"It's hard for me to have a proper perspective on financial matters, since I've always had whatever I wanted since I enrolled at UCLA," Walton said.

[billybreen]

Fisrt of all, I had never heard of these allegations.

Really? Wow, it's usually mentioned in the same breath as any discussion of UCLA's greatness. At least it is if Bobby Knight's in the room.

[billybreen]

Magette was paid to play in college? Do you have a cite for that? Even as an allegation?

Umm, we almost had to forfeit our 98-99 season as a result of the Myron Piggie fiasco. There was a big NCAA investigation and everything.

Duke was never implicated in any way, but even unknowingly having a player who is being paid can lead to forfeiture of games or other penalties.

[Turtleboy]

Umm, we almost had to forfeit our 98-99 season as a result of the Myron Piggie fiasco. There was a big NCAA investigation and everything.

Duke was never implicated in any way, but even unknowingly having a player who is being paid can lead to forfeiture of games or other penalties.Was that college or high school? And if Duke was "never implicated in any way," how can it be that we "almost had to forfeit our 98-99 season?" The word I am wondering about is "almost." How close did we get, if no connection was found?

[EarlJam]

Umm, we almost had to forfeit our 98-99 season as a result of the Myron Piggie fiasco. There was a big NCAA investigation and everything.

Duke was never implicated in any way, but even unknowingly having a player who is being paid can lead to forfeiture of games or other penalties.

Christian Laettner and Bobby Hurley were paid.............in cans of whoop arse!

I'm not even sure what that means. Something (Satan?) just made me type it. Sorry dudes.

-EarlJam

[billybreen]

Ok, I think everyone is overlooking the key nature vs. nurture discussion here. We have no way of knowing if PP was born a nose picker or, like the Smails kid, a picker and eater. But it seems far, far more likely to me that he picked up this habit during his first few months at Kentucky, perhaps from a professor, a dean, or some other authority figure. He's still an impressionable youth.

[billybreen]

Was that college or high school?

I believe it was from someone affiliated with his high school AAU program, but it doesn't matter whether it happened before or during his college career. Being paid at any point ends your amateur status, and that's what the NCAA seeks to preserve.

[Turtleboy]

From here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD81138F931A25754C0A9669C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/N/National%20Collegiate%20Athletic%20Assn), bolding mine :
The former Duke player Corey Maggette has admitted that he accepted cash from a summer league coach while still in high school.



I believe it was from someone affiliated with his high school AAU program,See my cite, above.
but it doesn't matter whether it happened before or during his college career. Being paid at any point ends your amateur status, and that's what the NCAA seeks to preserve.I requested a cite for the assertion that he was paid to play in college, e,g., while at Duke. I'm still waiting.

Is that distinction really lost on you?

[Cicero]

Ok, I think everyone is overlooking the key nature vs. nurture discussion here. We have no way of knowing if PP was born a nose picker or, like the Smails kid, a picker and eater. But it seems far, far more likely to me that he picked up this habit during his first few months at Kentucky, perhaps from a professor, a dean, or some other authority figure. He's still an impressionable youth.

And to think that we thought that the promises of 20 shots per game and not having to play center attracted Patterson to UK. In reality, it was the promise that he could pick his nose on the court whenever he wanted! Darn Coach K and his overly high player conduct standards!

M. Tullius

[billybreen]

From here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD81138F931A25754C0A9669C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/N/National%20Collegiate%20Athletic%20Assn), bolding mine :

See my cite, above.I requested a cite for the assertion that he was paid to play in college, e,g., while at Duke. I'm still waiting.

Is that distinction really lost on you?

Yes, I suppose it is. I don't see much difference between pay before college and pay while in college because they are both no-nos in the eyes of the NCAA. I don't think Mr. Yates was implying that Maggette was paid by a Duke booster to play at Duke or anything of the sort. But we were still on the hook for having a non-amateur athlete.

It seems like you are just challenging Yates' use of the preposition 'in' rather than a more precise word such as 'before.'

[billybreen]

Was that college or high school? And if Duke was "never implicated in any way," how can it be that we "almost had to forfeit our 98-99 season?" The word I am wondering about is "almost." How close did we get, if no connection was found?

Sorry, missed this one. You can easily search this to see just how close we came, and in many circles (note that the first two Google hits for piggie and duke lead to TruthAboutDuke stories) the fact that we weren't sanctioned is a sign of NCAA favoritism.

A recent Yahoo! Sports article making the favoritism case (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news?slug=dw-ncaafavorites&prov=yhoo&type=lgns), though a bit less stridently than would TAD.

A contemporary report from SportsLawNews (http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202000/CommentDukeMagrette.htm):


While Duke claims they were unaware of the payments to Maggette, his admission puts the entire Blue Devils basketball program in jeopardy. Duke will almost certainly have to give up their second place finish in the 1999 Final Four tournament. In addition, and maybe more important, it is possible Duke might have to give back over $200,000 in tournament revenue.Jane Jankowski, an NCAA spokeswoman said that past instances like this one have seen teams give up any titles won and return 45% of its game revenue. However, if it is proved that the school knew about the violations, Duke could lose up to 90% of its tournament revenue. Not surprisingly, Duke spokesman Al Rossiter Jr. said “Clearly, this [Maggette’s admission] is not what we wanted to hear...”

[Fish80]

According to ukathletics.com, as of Dec 01 in 6 games he's 40 FG out of 63 FGA. A pretty good percentage, but only 10.5 attempts per game. Clearly, he needs to double his number of shot attempts.

[Cameron]

No one is perfect (though he IS close), but Wooden is undeniably the greatest college hoops coach ever. The only other name that could be raised is Rupp, but even diehard UK fans have to bow to UCLA. NO other coach can even enter the argument.

Others have already enlightened on the fact that John Wooden was the coach of a crooked program. I mean, there is no denying that. For God sakes, Bill Walton, perhaps Wooden's most prized player ever, doesn't even refute it: (as posted above: "It's hard for me to have a proper perspective on financial matters, since I've always had whatever I wanted since I enrolled at UCLA" -Bill Walton)

When you are playing with the best players money can buy, THE BEST PLAYERS MONEY CAN BUY!, to take a word from Western University Dolphin head coach Pete Bell, it's a pretty good situation. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. Seeing him all old, and sitting there at UCLA games, some 30 years after winning his last crooked championship, still makes me smile. He's a basketball legend. Just not big on morals (or is just very good at playing stupid). You decide.

The fact of the matter is, guys like Bobby Knight and Mike Krzyzewski certainly belong in the same breath of greatest coach ever discussion. Especially Coach K. Look at this guy's resume, in an era where reaching the Final Four, let alone winning a national championship, is AMAZINGLY difficult. First off, John Wooden didn't have to win six games to earn a national title back in the 1960s and 70s. He only needed four. That's a BIG difference. In the modern era, an era filled with "preordained" teams (Fab Five, Vegas, UMass, Jim Harrick clubs, etc), complete parity (George Mason? Gonzaga?), and increased level of competition with all the early level AAU and traveling basketball organzations and elite camps players are involved in before enrolling in college, Coach K's career record is just as every bit impressive as John Wooden's. 10 Final Fours, 7 national title game appearances, 3 national championships, most NCAA Tournament wins of all-time, and on and on and on. And Coach K has done this without as much of a blip on the cheating radar screen. He's never been touched. With all the Duke hating out there and all the national media that is seemingly always out to get our program (they stood up in unison and cheered in the Media Room, for God sakes, when we lost to VCU in New York this past March), Coach K would have been "brought to justice" long ago if he did in fact participate in any illegal acitivity. Get that Myron Piggie BS out of here. That "incident" was the summer before William even set foot on campus. Coach K, nor Duke University, had ANY part.

Call me a homer, but, when he's all old and grey and has passed the Duke Dynasty on to Shane Battier :), Michael Krzyzewski will be looked upon as the greatest college coach EVER. Period. What he has been able to accomplish over the last 25 years is mind blowing, and every bit as impressive as what John Wooden did (with illegal services). Adolf Rupp was a notorious cheater as well (in fact, the entire Kentucky basketball program has been dirty since he began coaching), so I discount him in the discussion also. The two men, in my mind, that stand alone, are Robert Montgomery Knight and Mike Krzyzewski.

I'm sorry for this saga, but somebody calling John Wooden a perfect coach just made me want to gag.

[blueprofessor]

While there was plenty of "gift giving" by Sam Gilbert to UCLA players, there appears to be no evidence that recruits were paid to sign with UCLA during Wooden's tenure. Recruiting in those days was highly unusual---a number of Wooden's players were recommended by friends and former players and were not seen playing by the UCLA staff prior to signing. Now, when they did arrive at UCLA, "Pappa Sam" took good care of them. Some say Wooden quietly lived with the situation and looked the other way. Others posit that A.D. J.D. Morgan, hungry for financial support,prevented Wooden from cutting the cord between Gilbert and the players!
A good source is Steve Bisheff's book,John Wooden, An American Treasure.:cool:

[dkbaseball]

I'm sorry for this saga, but somebody calling John Wooden a perfect coach just made me want to gag.

Apparently you never saw his teams play. On a different level from anything before or since. Watching his last one practice was a transcendent experience for me. And Kareem, not Walton, would be regarded as his most prized player.

[blueprofessor]

Apparently you never saw his teams play. On a different level from anything before or since. Watching his last one practice was a transcendent experience for me. And Kareem, not Walton, would be regarded as his most prized player.

:) Coach Wooden called Bill Walton his "best" player ever and Lew Alcindor (later Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) his "most valuable" player ever.Walt Hazzard was best ever ball-handler and passing guard, Goodrich named as one of greatest shooters ever, Mike Warren as smart a player as he ever had,and Henry Bibby and Dick Banton as his best ever defensive guards.Wooden cited Keith Erickson as one of the very finest athletes he coached.John Wooden: They Call Me Coach.:cool:

[Cameron]

Apparently you never saw his teams play.

I was talking about Wooden's off the court activities. There's no way all that goes down--especially with how blatant his "best player ever" is about the cash flow--without Wooden knowing about it.

He was a great game coach and did win ten national championships. Tainted in my eyes for sure, but, still an awesome feat nonetheless. But Jesus Christ is perfect, not John Wooden. (Perhaps Shane at the Dean Dome, 2001:))