PDA

View Full Version : Seth Davis dings our lack of true road games



Billy Dat
12-12-2007, 09:23 AM
This seems like the SI saw du jour...all we need is Grant Wahl to pile on Winn and Davis

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/seth_davis/12/11/hoop.thoughts/1.html
• Speaking of schedules, it's absolutely mystifying to me that a high-powered program like Duke, which everyone knew was going to be at least a top-15 team coming into the season, is not playing a single true nonconference road game this season. Come on, Coach K! For years, I've heard other coaches grumble that Mike Krzyzewski was playing a lot of his "road" games at regional or neutral sites -- or even at non-neutral neutral sites like Madison Square Garden (aka Cameron North), where Duke will be playing Pittsburgh later this month.

mr. synellinden
12-12-2007, 09:31 AM
I don't think playing St. John's at MSG as we have a few times in the last several years would qualify as Cameron North. We happen to have them and Michigan at home this year. Next year they will be away. Playing Illinois in the United Center (ACC-Big Ten Challenge last year) isn't a true road game? Playing Temple in Philly isn't a true road game? Davidson in Charlotte?

These games are in bigger gyms because Duke sells tickets not because we are avoiding "true" road games. This is just silly blather.

Reporters tend to be lazy idiots and don't do their own independent thinking (Seth Davis is among the worst) so I expect this to be repeated in other places.

Indoor66
12-12-2007, 09:40 AM
Reporters tend to be lazy idiots and don't do their own independent thinking (Seth Davis is among the worst) so I expect this to be repeated in other places.

Funny thing about Seth is that he is a Duke Grad:

"A 1992 graduate of Duke with a degree in Political Science, he also was a sports columnist for The Chronicle, the university's daily campus newspaper."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/seth_davis/archive/

feldspar
12-12-2007, 09:43 AM
I don't think playing St. John's at MSG as we have a few times in the last several years would qualify as Cameron North. We happen to have them and Michigan at home this year. Next year they will be away. Playing Illinois in the United Center (ACC-Big Ten Challenge last year) isn't a true road game? Playing Temple in Philly isn't a true road game? Davidson in Charlotte?

These games are in bigger gyms because Duke sells tickets not because we are avoiding "true" road games. This is just silly blather.

Reporters tend to be lazy idiots and don't do their own independent thinking (Seth Davis is among the worst) so I expect this to be repeated in other places.

You and Seth happen to define "true road game" differently. I don't think that makes him an idiot. If it does, than I guess you'd have to accept the label as well.

wilson
12-12-2007, 09:47 AM
His Duke education completely aside, I do think Davis is among the better of his ilk of journalists out there. I also think his criticism is valid. As synellinden pointed out, circumstance dictated some of our scheduling, but the fact remains that we have no road non-conference games this year (Davidson in Charlotte does not count, ever.).
IMO, road games in the ACC will be just fine as far as forcing this team to find its chops in hostile environments. Littlejohn, college park, chappaheeyah, etc...those places will do exactly what road games are supposed to do.
Mostly I view his criticism as a convenient, but not especially meaningful one. After 30 regular-season games, folks will know plenty about this team.

sandinmyshoes
12-12-2007, 09:49 AM
I think he overstates a good point.

In most cases MSG or the Meadowlands can be a friendly environment for Duke. Against teams like Arizona or Pitt. But not so much against St. Johns or other area schools.

On the other hand, Coach K does keep pure cupcakes to a minimum. So while some schools might hold up a couple of really tough road games as shining examples of their tough schedule, while trying to draw attention away from a half dozen sacrificial lamb schools also to be found there.

I think, with Michigan back on the schedule (and maybe Georgetown?) we could see a return to an early 90s type of scheduling. I'd even accept a few more sacrificial lambs to balance the schedule, just so long as we don't go to John Thompson levels.

tbyers11
12-12-2007, 09:59 AM
The interesting thing is that later in that same article he gives credit to Michigan State for playing road games at Bradley and BYU. While the Bradley game was a "true" road game by his definition, the BYU game was not played at the Marriott Center in Provo (BYU's true home court) but at the Utah Jazz arena in Salt Lake City.
He lauds Michigan State for doing the exact same thing (playing an away game not at a true homecourt but at a nearby larger venue) that he dings Duke for.

While I don't know if Seth Davis is an idiot, I do agree with Feldspar that the fact-checking in his articles has more errors than most national columns. I also feel that many of his opinions in said articles do seem to lack a bit of independent thinking compared to his other CNN/SI college basketball columnists (Luke Winn and Grant Wahl).

I do however agree with him on his overall point that Duke needs another big time road home-and-home series. I know that we play St. Johns for the NYC exposure, but I can't believe that we can't do better than Michigan and Temple for our "marquee" home-and-homes

mr. synellinden
12-12-2007, 10:21 AM
You and Seth happen to define "true road game" differently. I don't think that makes him an idiot. If it does, than I guess you'd have to accept the label as well.

I didn't say that I think Seth is an idiot. I knew Seth very well at Duke and know that he is not an idiot. I do happen to know that many reporters are in fact idiots and lazy and don't like to do their own homework and often rely on what they've read elsewhere. Read the public policy thread about crime rates in Massachusetts for an interesting discussion about this.

What I said is that reporters are idiots and lazy and don't do their own independent thinking - the latter is what I accused Seth of being among the worst because I often read his stories and see regurgitations of what I have already seen and a lack of independent analysis. Some of the evidence of this has been noted by previous posts. That's the nature of his hoop thoughts - quips and opinions often based on what he's heard or read elsewhere, often without sufficient fact checking - and I think that is less than exemplary journalism.

On a separate note, I didn't appreciate your post. You could and should be more diplomatic in general and you should read carefully what people post before making snide responses - that seems to be a pattern of yours.

tbyers11
12-12-2007, 10:31 AM
I guess that I am as bad as Seth Davis. In my previous post, I meant that I agreed with Mr. Synellinden's (not Feldspar's) point about fact-checking. I edited the post once to fix a typo and now I no longer have the edit button on my post. As a not-to-frequent poster, are we not able to edit our posts more than once on this board?

Turtleboy
12-12-2007, 10:35 AM
As a not-to-frequent poster, are we not able to edit our posts more than once on this board?There is a time limit; I believe it is 15 minutes.

tbyers11
12-12-2007, 10:40 AM
There is a time limit; I believe it is 15 minutes.

Thanks. That is good to know and it makes sense, too.

robed deity
12-12-2007, 10:41 AM
I agree that our non-conference schedule the past few years has lacked many true road games, but what is to gain from scheduling more?

The ACC provides enough road challenges, and if memory serves, until last year, Duke has enjoyed unprecedented success in hostile ACC arenas. Isn't it better to schedule games at neutral sites against non conference opponents to better simulate an NCAA tournament atmosphere? I think this might be K's philosophy anyway, and is one reason why we almost always play a preseason tournament.

I realize it would be harder to win a game AT Pitt than the upcoming one at MSG, but the latter has more of a regional final feeling, and at least in K's mind, might prove to be more useful.

ugadevil
12-12-2007, 10:41 AM
Before this turns thread turns into an argument...I understand what people mean about having Duke play more big time games, whether on the road or a home&home series. It sure sounds appealing to get to watch a Duke-Kansas game, Duke-UCLA game, or I'd personally like to see a Duke-Tennessee series (just b/c I could get tickets)...But if we are going to play those teams, doesn't it make more sense to have them at a neutral site? Playing on the road could be a way of getting tested, but playing at a neutral site is the toughest test you'll have in the NCAA Tournament.


Edit: Sorry for saying the same thing as the previous poster; I can't type fast enough!

AnimalFriendly
12-12-2007, 11:03 AM
"IMO, road games in the ACC will be just fine as far as forcing this team to find its chops in hostile environments. Littlejohn, college park, chappaheeyah, etc...those places will do exactly what road games are supposed to do."

Sorry, although Clemson currently looks like the 3rd strongest team in the league, Duke only plays them at CIS this year.

mus074
12-12-2007, 11:03 AM
Some/many will argue that nothing matters until the tournament. Mid-season rankings are at best guidance in NCAA seedings. I don't really agree with this argument, but see its merits. Along those lines then, what value is there to a "true" road game? Hostile yet neutral locations best replicate the toughest venue hurdles teams will overcome in March. Early seasons tournaments and neutral-site events are much better post-season indicators (but for the temporal distance) than away games from the sake of away games. Personally, I would love to see more home-and-home series with good programs, but I don't see them as critical to March Madness seasoning.

AnimalFriendly
12-12-2007, 11:11 AM
"But if we are going to play those teams, doesn't it make more sense to have them at a neutral site? Playing on the road could be a way of getting tested, but playing at a neutral site is the toughest test you'll have in the NCAA Tournament."

Playing on the road "could" be a way of getting tested? Against any half-way decent team, that should always be a good test, if not a very strong one if it's a solid team - and that doesn't have to necessarily be somebody ranked in the current polls. I don't agree at all that playing at a neutral site is the "toughest" test a team can have in the NCAAs. Think back to Carolina in the 2005 finals in St. Louis - that crowd was at least 75% in support of Illinois. Isn't the 2008 Final Four in San Antonio? If Duke had to play, say, Texas, having had more exposure to true road games would only help, not hurt.

Carlos
12-12-2007, 11:29 AM
Of course, the inverse of this "no tough true road games" debate is that Duke also doesn't get the benefit of playing the return game of those home-and-home matchups in Cameron.

Sure, Duke could have played Pitt at Cameron this year and then at Pitt next year and had a "true road game" against a tough opponent. But then they also would have had a true home game over that two year span as well. So, given that Cameron is usually considered one of the biggest home court advantage in college basketball, it seems that Duke gives up as much as they get when they go for those neutral locations.

At the heart of all of this is that the goals of the coaching staff when they make the schedule are different than the desires of those who want to see Duke play games on the road. In the most benign view, those who criticize Duke for not playing true road games are doing it because they want to see great matchups. But more likely the reason they want to see Duke play true road games is because they want Duke to have a greater chance to lose.

Well, K's philosophy is different and I'm doubting that any amount of criticism from fans or the media is going to change that. Sure, Duke could have played Davidson on their home court this year. Or they could play them on the same floor where the ACC Tournament is being held. Sure, Duke could play Pitt in the 'burgh. Or they could play them in a big arena similar to what they'll see in the NCAA Tournament.

From a purely selfish standpoint I'd love to see those home and home games because I'd love to watch Pitt in Cameron. But from a coaching standpoint, it seems like a pretty good move. You get true road game experiences in league play - why not get some versatility in your out of conference experiences?

dball
12-12-2007, 11:57 AM
His Duke education completely aside, I do think Davis is among the better of his ilk of journalists out there. I also think his criticism is valid. As synellinden pointed out, circumstance dictated some of our scheduling, but the fact remains that we have no road non-conference games this year (Davidson in Charlotte does not count, ever.).
IMO, road games in the ACC will be just fine as far as forcing this team to find its chops in hostile environments. Littlejohn, college park, chappaheeyah, etc...those places will do exactly what road games are supposed to do.
Mostly I view his criticism as a convenient, but not especially meaningful one. After 30 regular-season games, folks will know plenty about this team.

Nearly 18,000 people attended the Duke-Davidson game in Charlotte. That's about 3 times what the Davidson gym holds as I understand it. As has been noted before, Charlotte is not really a 'Duke' town so it doesn't really seem like a neutral site. Made for a better payday for Davidson by having it in the larger venue (and the Carolina game).

Since both schools are part of the Duke Endowment, can this ever be a 'road' game anyway? :)

Coach K has stated he likes to have the simulated NCAA tournament feel of playing in large places on the road. I think this is valid based on his overall record. Also, recruiting in various areas would probably be helped by having high profile games in certain cities and larger places (New York, Chicago).

Not sure where this emphasis on so-called "true" road games began. If you're not playing at home......

Agree that the ACC has enough hostile environments to fulfill all and more of any necessary "steel" this adds to the team.

Billy Dat
12-12-2007, 12:15 PM
The Duke staff is very savvy at scheduling for maximum RPI strength...I am guessing that the RPI formula doesn't take into account true road vs neutral court....does anyone know for sure? Does the RPI even factor in home vs away?

If it doesn't impact the RPI, then Duke really has no motivation to schedule home and homes at home courts.

merry
12-12-2007, 12:18 PM
-- or even at non-neutral neutral sites like Madison Square Garden (aka Cameron North)

We play some place a few times, we make it Our House!

feldspar
12-12-2007, 01:30 PM
On a separate note, I didn't appreciate your post. You could and should be more diplomatic in general and you should read carefully what people post before making snide responses - that seems to be a pattern of yours.
I wasn't being snide, I was being quite literal. You attacked Seth for being lazy (and your post could certainly have been interpreted as calling Seth an idiot) merely because your opinion differs from his on what a "true road game" is. That's all.

Wander
12-12-2007, 01:41 PM
The Duke staff is very savvy at scheduling for maximum RPI strength...I am guessing that the RPI formula doesn't take into account true road vs neutral court....does anyone know for sure? Does the RPI even factor in home vs away?

It takes into account home, neutral, and away.

4decadedukie
12-12-2007, 02:48 PM
As journalists of his genre go, Davis is pretty good; however, he misses the mark on this one. I agree that the Meadowlands and MSG (at least one “marquee” game every December) can be friendly venues, but they certainly are not "home" games. More significantly, to date Duke has played several very solid opponents: teams with traditionally excellent programs, outstanding 2008 potential, or both. If one is to carp re our lack of away games, one must also -- in fairness -- acknowledge our aggregate strength of schedule. Shame on Seth for not doing so. Further, it is difficult for me to believe that Davidson in Charlotte is not, in essence, an "away" game.

yancem
12-12-2007, 03:36 PM
At the heart of all of this is that the goals of the coaching staff when they make the schedule are different than the desires of those who want to see Duke play games on the road. In the most benign view, those who criticize Duke for not playing true road games are doing it because they want to see great matchups. But more likely the reason they want to see Duke play true road games is because they want Duke to have a greater chance to lose.

I agree that media types may want Duke to play more "true road games" because that would present Duke with a greater chance to lose and so maybe their motivation is warped. The thing is that you could make the arguement that K schedules neutral court games to increase Duke's chances of winning. I've read the arguements about simulating NCAA tourney games but I don't quite buy the logic. Wouldn't a team be better prepared for the tournament if they were used to facing more difficult situations than the tourney actually presents? I'm also sceptical about conference road games being enough. We play these teams every year and some of them 2 or three time. That makes it easier to prepare for their arenas.

I like the idea of having a game at MSG, it's good for recruiting and good experience playing in a large arena. I also like the pre-season tournaments. They better simulate the NCAA Tourney than a regular season neutral site game. But I do think that we should play at least 1 top nonconfernece team on their floor each year. This would mean we would need 2 top nonconference programs signed up for home and home games. That way we would have one home and one away each year.

Classof06
12-12-2007, 04:10 PM
This seems like the SI saw du jour...all we need is Grant Wahl to pile on Winn and Davis

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/seth_davis/12/11/hoop.thoughts/1.html
• Speaking of schedules, it's absolutely mystifying to me that a high-powered program like Duke, which everyone knew was going to be at least a top-15 team coming into the season, is not playing a single true nonconference road game this season. Come on, Coach K! For years, I've heard other coaches grumble that Mike Krzyzewski was playing a lot of his "road" games at regional or neutral sites -- or even at non-neutral neutral sites like Madison Square Garden (aka Cameron North), where Duke will be playing Pittsburgh later this month.

I'm sorry, but I agree with Seth Davis. I'll start by saying that Duke playing at all these neutral sites is extremely smart and shrewd; how can prepping for the tourney be a bad thing? But from a fan--a Duke fan's--perspective, I'd like to see them play true road games before heading into the ACC schedule. I think that would help the team in the similar manner that neutral games do. You use neutral games to prepare for the tournament, but where you get placed in the tournament depends substanially on how you do in conference--at home and on the road. I mean, we don't play a true road game until January 9th, people!!! At Temple, no less. For a program like Duke, that's just ridiculous, IMO. Your 2nd road game of the season shouldn't be your 1st conference road game. I just don't think that's healthy for a team playing in a conference like the ACC. I like the relationship we've built with Georgetown; I'd just like to see Duke do that with more schools.

It's also a pretty simple equation; the more true road games Duke plays with schools, the more great teams we'll be able to see come to Cameron. Could you imagine a home-and-home with a Texas, a Gonzaga, a Memphis (all schools we've played at neutral sites instead of home-and-home)? Those matchups would be amazing--for the fans, schools and the sport in general.

And not that rankings in December matter but the lack of a true road game is a major reason Duke has stayed ranked at 6th/7th despite our wins over ranked teams the past 3 weeks. Wazzu hasn't played anyone but Gonzaga (last week) and they've stayed above us all year; IMO, there's a reason for that.

Duvall
12-12-2007, 04:15 PM
And not that rankings in December matter but the lack of a true road game is a major reason Duke has stayed ranked at 6th/7th despite our wins over ranked teams the past 3 weeks. Wazzu hasn't played anyone but Gonzaga (last week) and they've stayed above us all year; IMO, there's a reason for that.

Yeah, it's that Washington State finished the year ranked #13 when Duke finished unranked. They started above Duke because they had a better season last year; they've stayed above Duke because they haven't lost. Strength of schedule has nothing to do with it.

Classof06
12-12-2007, 04:26 PM
Yeah, it's that Washington State finished the year ranked #13 when Duke finished unranked. They started above Duke because they had a better season last year; they've stayed above Duke because they haven't lost. Strength of schedule has nothing to do with it.

Well SOS has something to do with it if Texas jumps from #8 to #2 after beating UCLA. I just think it's ironic that the Coaches poll has Wazzu ahead of us but the AP has it the other way around. Like Davis said, coaches have been grumbling about Duke's absence of road games for quite some time..

Scorp4me
12-12-2007, 05:13 PM
Like Davis said, coaches have been grumbling about Duke's absence of road games for quite some time..

They've been grumgling that we keep beating their teams too, but I hope that doesn't change!

bill brill
12-12-2007, 05:19 PM
I have posted this before, but I'll try again. you critics of the lack of road games on the non-com schedule need to realize that virtually nobody (of stature) wants to play at cameron. duke-georgetown was cancelled this year by the hoyas -- don't know the reason -- but will be resumed next year (in durham). it's a good "road" game for duke because it's in a 20,000-seat arena. UNC and UK play, but they each have arenas. wildcats wouldn;t come to duke. neither will kansas, etc. what's the point? playing good mid-majors and others at big buildings such as the ncaa uses makes sense to me. I love rick barnes and he's just crazy enuf to play here (although really I doubt it). but why play them in austin? If u are a high ncaa seed, as duke aims to be, that will never happen. I simply don't buy the idea that such a game "toughens" a team. what might happen is you play good and lose anyway. I don't know the benefits of that, other than it hurts your ncaa seed. it was easier to make this argument when we had the acc round-robin, before expansion that was supposed to toughen football. but the whole idea is to win in march and april. wins and losses are important, believe me. beating pitt would be good, anywhere. and understand that the people who make the schedule aren't doing it to please the hard-core fan base; it is being done to make it possible to win in the post-season.

mr. synellinden
12-12-2007, 06:29 PM
I wasn't being snide, I was being quite literal. You attacked Seth for being lazy (and your post could certainly have been interpreted as calling Seth an idiot) merely because your opinion differs from his on what a "true road game" is. That's all.

I didn't call him out for being lazy BECAUSE of what his opinion is. Again, you are making accusations that are inconsistent with what I posted.

I called him out because what he wrote was a regurgitation of what has already been said or written without a deeper analysis - and that is lazy. Look, he is entitled to have a weak blog like every other "reporter" out there, but he has more journalistic ability than that. If he did good journalistic work he might have pointed out things like what Bill Brill and others have about why 1) Coach K likes to play "road games" in big arenas; and 2) we have difficulty scheduling "true" road games against non-conference opponents. But instead, he chooses to just jump on the media bandwagon outrage over Duke's lack of "true" road games. I know that he knows why that is the case, but he chose not to point it out. That seems lazy to me.

While I'm at it with Seth, this is one of his hoop thoughts:

"Looks like it's gonna be a battle between Virginia Tech and Wake Forest for last place in the ACC."

He might end up being right about that but give me something more than that. Anybody could write that drivel. He is supposed to be an expert on the subject and I'd like to see some journalistic input as to why he thinks that. Is that really what counts for journalism these days?

feldspar
12-12-2007, 07:30 PM
Is that really what counts for journalism these days?

You'd be surprised.

Wander
12-12-2007, 07:39 PM
He might end up being right about that but give me something more than that. Anybody could write that drivel.

...and Georgia Tech may end up making him look stupid anyway.

yancem
12-12-2007, 09:59 PM
I have posted this before, but I'll try again. you critics of the lack of road games on the non-com schedule need to realize that virtually nobody (of stature) wants to play at cameron. duke-georgetown was cancelled this year by the hoyas -- don't know the reason -- but will be resumed next year (in durham). it's a good "road" game for duke because it's in a 20,000-seat arena. UNC and UK play, but they each have arenas. wildcats wouldn;t come to duke. neither will kansas, etc. what's the point? playing good mid-majors and others at big buildings such as the ncaa uses makes sense to me. I love rick barnes and he's just crazy enuf to play here (although really I doubt it). but why play them in austin? If u are a high ncaa seed, as duke aims to be, that will never happen. I simply don't buy the idea that such a game "toughens" a team. what might happen is you play good and lose anyway. I don't know the benefits of that, other than it hurts your ncaa seed. it was easier to make this argument when we had the acc round-robin, before expansion that was supposed to toughen football. but the whole idea is to win in march and april. wins and losses are important, believe me. beating pitt would be good, anywhere. and understand that the people who make the schedule aren't doing it to please the hard-core fan base; it is being done to make it possible to win in the post-season.

Are you scared that Duke will lose the road games? And is a tough loss in December really that bad? Putting a good team in adverse situations should make them better when the tourney rolls around. Duke routinely played big non-conference road games in the late 80's early 90's. Some the won some they lost. Despite being a 3 or 4 seed instead of a 1 or 2 seed, Duke went to the final 4 almost every year. I know that some things in college basketball have changed but Duke's run from '86-'94 would seem to run counter to your argument. I some times wonder if K has shifted more of an emphasis on regular season win which may have occasionally impacted NCAA success.

Jarhead
12-12-2007, 10:46 PM
Thanks, Bill. I agree with what you say. I usually do. This whole thread seems to be an argument over nonsense. Let me put it another way. A true road game, as they are played in the ACC, is not a true test of the relative abilities of the teams. It has a built-in bias. The home court advantage is no myth. For a true test, play the game on a neutral site. While we are at it, for a truer emulation of tourney conditions, play the game in a really big neutral arena, in the middle of a big city, in another time zone if possible. I think that K tries to do just that. A major goal is team development.

When it come to our non-conference schedule in a season, a major goal is NCAA Tourney seeding. The conference games will take care of themselves. We have no control in that. Playing and winning against the better mid-majors helps in either, or both, goals depending on where we play them. Media people care very little for the team development and tourney strategy goals. They just want the best to fall and the worst to shine. Makes for good copy, or not.

dukie8
12-12-2007, 11:08 PM
Coach K has stated he likes to have the simulated NCAA tournament feel of playing in large places on the road. I think this is valid based on his overall record. Also, recruiting in various areas would probably be helped by having high profile games in certain cities and larger places (New York, Chicago).

one, who has come to duke because we played a game in their home city (or close to it)? do you really think that jwill chose duke over unc because duke played in msg when he was in high school. i think the whole "recruiting" argument is bunk. we never played in oregon and it didn't stop singler from coming.

also, playing in msg or the meadowlands are NOT even remotely close to in the ncaat. those are complete cis north venues. were you at the texas game 2 years ago? there were about 50 texas people there, including vince young who left in the middle of the game. the only thing that quieted the place down was that duke was up by 30 points! even the st john's games are well over 50% duke people. k plays up here for the alums and the alums show up in droves.

in nearly every ncaat venue, the crowd is decidedly against duke. people don't like duke and people like to root for the underdog, which, almost always is duke's opponent in the ncaat.

i will say that there has been a direct correlation with k's extreme aversion to non-conference road games and early flame-outs in the ncaat. it's impossible to prove that a true road game, win or lose, better prepares a team for march, but duke's dashes to the final 4 in the 80s and 90s, with non top seeded teams, also coincided with non-conference road games.

dball
12-12-2007, 11:20 PM
one, who has come to duke because we played a game in their home city (or close to it)?

I doubt there is only one thing (though at this point it may just be the chance to play for Coach K) that influences a young person to come to Duke. But Duke has had quite a few kids from in and around NYC and Chicago. Can you prove it had NO influence? If not, why do you classify it as "bunk"?

As for having a lot of Duke fans at those games, how is that not a positive if you're considering that school?

Also, you equate the trips to the Final Four in the 80s with playing "true" road games? One could argue that the championships came after Duke began scheduling nonconf games in big arenas. It's thought that the lighting and atmosphere are so different in those arenas that a bit of experience in them prior to the NCAAs is a good thing.

ice-9
12-12-2007, 11:25 PM
I like the idea of going to top teams like Kansas or UCLA and having a really, really tough road game. Neutral sites in the NCAA will seem easy by comparison.

Conference road games are different because, as yancem pointed out, players over time become familiar and perhaps even comfortable with those venues. (This is less true now that the ACC no longer has a true round robin...but we are talking about playing away games at TOP teams, not middle tier teams like NC State.)

Johnboy
12-13-2007, 12:11 AM
one, who has come to duke because we played a game in their home city (or close to it)? do you really think that jwill chose duke over unc because duke played in msg when he was in high school. i think the whole "recruiting" argument is bunk. we never played in oregon and it didn't stop singler from coming.

Huh. I thought Scheyer said he was going to Illinois, but since we played at the United Center, he came to Duke instead. :D

All joking aside, I would think that the prospect of playing at MSG, the Meadowlands, the United Center, the MCI Center and the like would be attractive to a player from the area. I don't imagine it would be decisive, but being on TV a lot and playing in big venues helps make the program more attractive. Would a hgh school prospect be more excited about playing UCLA at Pauley Pavilion or at the Staples Center? I don't know. Playing Illinois at the United Center instead of Assembly Hall? Again, I don't know.

Then again there is this: home court advantage is weak. According to Ken Pomeroy (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/rabid_crowd_theory/), it's not the place and it's not the fans, it's the basketball team you have to play that makes a place tough. Look - you're going on the road anyway. Is it really tougher to face the Illini at Assembly Hall instead of the United Center? I doubt it. Ohh, here's (http://www.ncsociology.org/advan1.htm)a cool Home Court Advantage study from a Duke source.

I don't know if there have been studies about how much tougher a team is at home vs. on a "neutral" court (Illinois being my favorite example - would they have beaten Arizona the other night if they'd just played at Assmbly Hall instead of in Chicago?)

The advantage of a "true" home court vs. local "neutral" court is probably minimal at best. Sorry, guys, Duke isn't that much tougher at Cameron than they are in Greensboro. If that's the case, why not play in the venues that best simulate NCAA games?

yancem
12-13-2007, 12:13 AM
Also, you equate the trips to the Final Four in the 80s with playing "true" road games? One could argue that the championships came after Duke began scheduling nonconf games in big arenas. It's thought that the lighting and atmosphere are so different in those arenas that a bit of experience in them prior to the NCAAs is a good thing.

Um, during the 1991 season Duke Played at #6 G-Town (L), #11 Oklahoma (W), Notre Dame (W) and #9 Arizona (L double OT)

In 1992 they played at #18 Michigan (W), Boston University (W), #22 LSU (W), and #4 UCLA (W)

In 2001 they played at #17 Temple (W), Portland (W), #3 Stanford (neutral arena? in Oakland) (L) and St.Johns (MSG) (W)

Seems like playing "true road games" worked pretty well during the championship years!

dukie8
12-13-2007, 12:22 AM
I doubt there is only one thing (though at this point it may just be the chance to play for Coach K) that influences a young person to come to Duke. But Duke has had quite a few kids from in and around NYC and Chicago. Can you prove it had NO influence? If not, why do you classify it as "bunk"?

As for having a lot of Duke fans at those games, how is that not a positive if you're considering that school?

Also, you equate the trips to the Final Four in the 80s with playing "true" road games? One could argue that the championships came after Duke began scheduling nonconf games in big arenas. It's thought that the lighting and atmosphere are so different in those arenas that a bit of experience in them prior to the NCAAs is a good thing.

quite a few? jwill, hurley, l thomas and brand (that's a stretch) are the only 4 that come to mind over the past 20 years from the nyc metro area. am i missing anyone else? i don't consider 4 "quite a few." you can't prove pretty much anything that is argued on these boards so it really is a strawman to ask me to prove something subjective like that. duke is a national powerhouse in basketball and doesn't need to play in a specific venue to "help with recruiting." kids make all sorts of stupid decisions regarding where to play but i never have heard someone say that he chose a school because it played near his hometown when he was in high school. i know that k tries to schedule games near players' hometowns AFTER they enroll as a kind of bone. i definitely could see that as have some impact -- particularly when the player's family lives far away from durham -- but we are talking about playing near someone BEFORE that person commits. if you can cite some quotes from hurley or jwill saying that seeing duke play in msg when they were juniors in high school played a large role in the decisions to come to duke, i'll change my mind.

have you been to any final 4s? i have and i wouldn't exactly call the atmosphere anything to write home about. the media gets most of the seats near the court and many of the seats are filled with corporate and local types who don't care who wins. the real fans are usually far from the court. the ones i have been to have been pretty stale atmospheres. some of the good games in nyc -- like kentucky in '01, texas in '05 and st john's in '99 (?) -- have blown away the atmosphere in any final 4 i have been to.

btw, your recollection of types of games played and championships is completely off. we first won in '91 and that same year we played AT arizona in late feb and LOST. we next won in '92 and that same year we played AT ucla in late feb and won. both games were played on the road against top 10 caliber teams in their arenas and in both years we won the nc. we don't played those games anymore and have suffered multiple early round flameouts. i'm not saying that playing these games caused us to win the ncs but their recent absence and ensuing disappointing ncaat results are rather glaring.

devildownunder
12-13-2007, 05:18 AM
I agree that our non-conference schedule the past few years has lacked many true road games, but what is to gain from scheduling more?




For one thing, in years when we are not very experienced, which seem to occur more frequently these days, we would avoid having to chalk up that first road ACC game as a learning experience after losing it. Last year we fell victim to this and in 2003, the last time we relied heavily on a bunch of freshmen, the same thing happened.

Playing on the road, in truly hostile venues, makes teams tougher. Play the best and you get better, I always say. Plus, on a selfish and thoroughly subjective note, I might actually be able to hold my head high about our RPI at the end of the season, instead of feeling a little dirty about the whole thing, knowing that we are rated as high as we are, in part, because we know how to work the system.

jjasper0729
12-13-2007, 07:05 AM
I kind of think it's bunk to look at one year's schedule. Before TA became coach at Michigan, Duke played homeand home with them. Duke played at Georgetown as recently as two years ago (home last year and no game with them this year). It's a little of a straw man argument because it might just so happen that this year, the home and home series are here rather than on the road. Next year, we'll be AT michigan at least.

just because they choose not to play the so-called mid-majors at home i don't have a problem with. not many of the MBB powers tend to do that. on a regular basis unless they are trying to resurrect the program. in most cases, you'll hear the talking heads say that it's playing with fire for a high major to take on a mid-major on the mid's home court.

at least that's my $0.02.

dukie8
12-13-2007, 07:17 AM
I kind of think it's bunk to look at one year's schedule. Before TA became coach at Michigan, Duke played homeand home with them. Duke played at Georgetown as recently as two years ago (home last year and no game with them this year). It's a little of a straw man argument because it might just so happen that this year, the home and home series are here rather than on the road. Next year, we'll be AT michigan at least.

just because they choose not to play the so-called mid-majors at home i don't have a problem with. not many of the MBB powers tend to do that. on a regular basis unless they are trying to resurrect the program. in most cases, you'll hear the talking heads say that it's playing with fire for a high major to take on a mid-major on the mid's home court.


what is strawman of the fact that k has intentionally avoided ooc road games for many years now? duke hasn't played michigan for years so i don't know why you are bringing that up. TA goes there so k drops the series and doesn't replace it with another one. that's exactly the problem. as one of the previous posters pointed out, we used to play multiple ooc road games against ranked teams each year (as in back when we went to the final 4 nearly every year). st johns and temple have been terrible for years. relying on those games for ncaat prep work for a team ranked #1 in the country doesn't cut it.

i don't follow your mid-major point at all. which powers are you referring to? michigan st played bradley AT bradley. unc has nevada and ucsb coming to town. texas has st mary's coming to town.

jjasper0729
12-13-2007, 08:54 AM
i meant at the home of the mid-majors. very few high major schools go to the home court of mid-majors (i.e. george mason coming to cameron last year, but us not going there this year).

we play uncg at the coliseum usually when we go to greensboro for the size of the building (same with davidson this year) because their "home court" is too small to handle the tickets. we restarted the michigan series this year home first. i'm pretty sure we're going up there next year. like i said, it happens to be the come to cameron year for some of these home and homes.

sandinmyshoes
12-13-2007, 09:02 AM
But more likely the reason they want to see Duke play true road games is because they want Duke to have a greater chance to lose.



Unfortunately, I think especially among fans that it is also true in reverse. Many fans are defending this lack of tough OOC road/home series because they're afraid that those games create a greater chance for Duke to lose.

I just want them because they're fun games. Yeah, we'll lose some. But in the old days we used to also win some thrilling games on the other team's floor and there's nothing quite like that.

I don't know if there is a way, or a reason, to chart out Duke's post season success against their OOC road games. Otherwise, I cannot speak to Coach K's strategy in this.

But, I do strongly suspect that most of the fans defending this strategy are doing it out of blind faith in Coach K and the program, coupled with a fear of losing tough road games.

JG Nothing
12-13-2007, 09:25 AM
Unfortunately, I think especially among fans that it is also true in reverse. Many fans are defending this lack of tough OOC road/home series because they're afraid that those games create a greater chance for Duke to lose.

I just want them because they're fun games. Yeah, we'll lose some. But in the old days we used to also win some thrilling games on the other team's floor and there's nothing quite like that.

I don't know if there is a way, or a reason, to chart out Duke's post season success against their OOC road games. Otherwise, I cannot speak to Coach K's strategy in this.

But, I do strongly suspect that most of the fans defending this strategy are doing it out of blind faith in Coach K and the program, coupled with a fear of losing tough road games.
I agree. In the end, college basketball is entertainment. It would be fun to see Duke play at Allen Fieldhouse, Jack Breslin Arena, Pauley Pavillion, etc. Winning or losing a game in these venues is not going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things, but it would be great to watch. If these games are not scheduled because other teams are afraid to come to Cameron, then that is sad and says something about the priorities in college basketball.

ArnieMc
12-13-2007, 09:28 AM
But, I do strongly suspect that most of the fans defending this strategy are doing it out of blind faith in Coach K and the program, coupled with a fear of losing tough road games.I see several reasons for playing in big arenas instead of other teams' home courts.

1. More seats, and they are not part of any season ticket package, means more $$$.

2. A chance for area alums to see the team in person = more support and more $$$.

3. Showing the flag in large metro areas should improve our local visibility and recruiting, even if potential recruits don't actually attend the game.

4. Playing in big arenas better prepares for the ncaat environment.

5. Provides the media with something to whine about on slow news days.

Advantages of playing at other teams' home courts:

1. Gives the other team an edge - "home court advantage" - making it a tougher game.

2. Gives the team practice in dodging bottles and batteries.

3. Would force the media to whine about something else like "Duke gets all the calls."

Personally, I'm with Coach K on this one.

yancem
12-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Advantages of playing at other teams' home courts:

1. Gives the other team an edge - "home court advantage" - making it a tougher game.

2. Gives the team practice in dodging bottles and batteries.

3. Would force the media to whine about something else like "Duke gets all the calls."

Personally, I'm with Coach K on this one.

So you choose the path with the least adversity?

Spret42
12-13-2007, 11:47 AM
A true road game means that the majority of the gym is pulling for your opponent. Putting the game in a big arena in a major metro area where more Duke fans can buy tickets does seem to even the odds a bit.

However,I seriously doubt playing Illinois at United Center would result in the crowd being any less Illinios based.

But you have to admit, it is at least different than playing the game on Illinois' home floor, in their gym, the one they practice and prepare in, surrounded solely by their people.

I don't think Duke is doing anything especially wrong with these games in these arenas, especially if most teams don't want to come to Cameron.

I do wonder sometimes if Cameron becomes a bit of a cocoon for Duke, yet I doubt it.

Duvall
12-13-2007, 12:01 PM
So you choose the path with the least adversity?

That's more than a little melodramatic. Duke is playing top-10 teams in NYC, not home games against St. Leo's.

mapei
12-13-2007, 01:56 PM
I agree. In the end, college basketball is entertainment. It would be fun to see Duke play at Allen Fieldhouse, Jack Breslin Arena, Pauley Pavillion, etc. Winning or losing a game in these venues is not going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things, but it would be great to watch. If these games are not scheduled because other teams are afraid to come to Cameron, then that is sad and says something about the priorities in college basketball.

My sentiments exactly. Playing at home and on the road is what college basketball is about. And, if we don't, it looks to the rest of the world like we are ducking something, because we're Duke and we get to call the shots, the playground bully who owns the ball and makes the rules. More fodder for the tsunami (to mix metaphors). I like playing in a big arena, too, but there's no reason why we can't have both. As multiple people have noted, we used to. I hope we do again.

yancem
12-13-2007, 07:13 PM
That's more than a little melodramatic. Duke is playing top-10 teams in NYC, not home games against St. Leo's.

It might be a little overkill but ArnieMc's post seemed to say "Why should we play on the road, we might get booed and have to work for a victory? Why not play where we can make lots of money and be fawned over by adoring fans"

Me, I say we play the best where ever they will play us. Then we will know how good we are and what are weaknesses are. K always says that have strong reserve players for the starters to compete against in practice make us a better team. Doesn't going into a hostile environment and playing a tough team make a team stronger, better.

I'm not trying to say Duke plays a weak schedule, they don't, but I do think that past teams have benefited from playing teams like Kansas, G-Town, UCLA, Arizona, St Johns (when they were good), and Michigan (see St Johns) on their home courts. That is missing this year and as much as we are relying on freshman and sophomores I wonder if not having that kind of test could hurt down the road.

jzp5079
12-13-2007, 07:55 PM
There is absolutely no real argument to be made here.
I notice some are trying to objectively defend Duke - some that know more about the program the most - more then likely.

I could objectively try to deny their claims, but I have too much studying to do right now to try to make an intellectual point.



So, I have chosen to quote my good friend Dave who is a UNC fan (all though Ironically UNC dosn't play quality oponents on the road to often either)

"Duke has a rollerblade schedule, calm, cozy, predictable... and allthough occasionally things will get tough (ex. marquette, wisconsin, pitt), they're just rollerblading through their non-conference schedule with their noses in the air - they are too good to play on any other teams court and get their feet a little wet."

Of course thats just how I remember it, maybe not exactly how he said it... but I watch basketball not only for entertainment, but for inspiration. Its the one true thing I'm embaressed about... we should step up to the plate more often and try to slay some foreign giants in their own caves.

ArnieMc
12-13-2007, 07:56 PM
It might be a little overkill but ArnieMc's post seemed to say "Why should we play on the road, we might get booed and have to work for a victory? Why not play where we can make lots of money and be fawned over by adoring fans"Well, actually, I was trying to point out the fallacies in sandinmyshoes ludicrous assertion: "But, I do strongly suspect that most of the fans defending this strategy are doing it out of blind faith in Coach K and the program, coupled with a fear of losing tough road games." by pointing out that there are real, understandable reasons for this strategy.

Although I would like to see a home and home with, say, UCLA, and I acknowlege that this would increase the battle-hardened mindset of the team, I can also see the advantages of the big arenas. I think that on a case by case basis, the advantages of the big arena scenario usually wins. The media is going to whine regardless, so I ignore them.

Of course, if you insist on lowering the level of discourse to smartI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. sniping, I used to be 12 too. It was a long time ago, but I think I remember how.

Nugget
12-13-2007, 09:07 PM
As an advocate of more true non-conf road games, I don't think we should stop playing big arena games. They are a good thing and I understand their purpose. But, that's not a good excuse for not having at least 2 high profile home and homes going at all times (so that we'd have at least 1 high profile non-conf. true road game each year).

I trust anything and everything Bill Brill says, but I find it almost impossible to believe that major opponents (other than UCLA who we know canceled their series with us bc they were tired of losing local recruits to us) won't play us home and home because of concerns that Cameron is too small. The extra tv cash alone would, I have to believe, justify Mich St., or Kansas or Kentucky playing us home and home if we were willing.

Further, I think advocates of the big arena gamse must admit they almost never have crowds that are truly against Duke -- we are effectively the "home" team for all of the MSG/Meadowlands games except St. John's, and had at least 1/2 of the crowd for games at the Philly arena against Temple and Villanova, for the Davidson game in Charlotte and at the Chicago arena against DePaul; granted playing Illinois in Chicago is basically a road game, but we haven't done that in a long time).

The big arena games are a good thing. But, even they don't really prepare us spectacularly for playing in the NCAAs. At most big arena NCAA games these days, the "neutral" arena will basically be filled with people rooting against Duke (Indiana at Rupp in 2002 is the best example, but the games at the Georgia Dome in 2006 vs. LSU and 2004 vs. Xavier, at Charlotte in 2005 vs. Mississippi St. and at Salt Lake City vs. Colorado St. in 2003 sure sounded like road games also).

So, other than getting used to the sightlines, I don't see how playing regular season games in friendly big arenas is really much help in preparing Duke for the tournament. Playing Illinois at the United Center, or Michigan St. in Detroit, or Arizona in Phoenix or U.Conn in Boston (or NYC) or Florida in Tampa or Orlando or Kansas in Kansas City or Texas in Dallas would all be better preparation for the tournament than playing Temple in Philly.

The NYC and Philly games are great for alums, good for recruiting and nice for the exposure in the major tv markets. But, to pretend that they are equally good proxies for NCAA Tournament play as are true road games or big arena games in less friendly environments is not at all convincing to me.

Jumbo
12-13-2007, 11:06 PM
Reporters tend to be lazy idiots and don't do their own independent thinking ...

As opposed to message board posters?

Generalize much?

duke2x
12-13-2007, 11:29 PM
This is one of the dumbest criticisms of Duke basketball.

1. Our games with St. John's, Georgetown, Temple, and Davidson are "true" road games no matter how much outsiders want to spin it otherwise. In a pro arena, the upper seats are so bad they are functionally empty. The lowers will nearly all be opposing fans. I sat downstairs at the Davidson game, and I hardly think the crowd breakdown should characterize it as a neutral or home game for Duke. Temple is a large city school in Philly. Why would playing the game in Wachovia Center make it any less of a road game than Liacouras Center? Although Temple gives up the experience shooting in Liacouras, it will have no impact on the outcome.

2. Our reasoning for scheduling Davidson and UNC-G/NCA&T on the road is primarily to gain experience shooting in the future NCAA/ACC-Tournament venue. Giving other alumni and Duke fans a chance to see us play is an important secondary consideration, and those upper-level seats will always be available in a large pro arena.

3. The NCAA eliminated the incentive to play any quality non-conference road game when they went to the pod system for the 1st 2 rounds. The time to satisfy our critics is in 2010 when there isn't a NCAA venue in NC. It looks like we will play Georgetown in 2009-10 on the road. :)

4. I admit that we haven't played an elite team on the road in a while. This, along with the desire for Duke to lose, is the real complaint of our critics. Georgetown 2006 is the exception, and Michigan isn't going to qualify next year.

5. The argument that Duke needs to play a hostile road game to prepare for ACC season is unsupported by the facts. Any sophomore-senior has already played an ACC road game, and our ACC road record the past 2 years has been identical to our ACC home record.

ice-9
12-13-2007, 11:47 PM
Guys...we're not talking about overhauling Duke's schedule. Some of us are just suggesting adding two home-and-home series with a high profile team (Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, Michigan State, Florida, Arizona, etc.) so that we have at least one true road ooc game a year.

JUST ONE!

I'm sure we can find ONE game on the schedule that we can sacrifice to obtain the benefit of an intense, all-out, people-screaming-in-your-face, everyone-hates-you-and-wants-you-to-choke experience that you can only get at the home of a TOP opponent. The kind of experience that will make neutral sites in the NCAA tourney like a piece of cake in comparison.

Duvall
12-13-2007, 11:51 PM
Guys...we're not talking about overhauling Duke's schedule. Some of us are just suggesting adding two home-and-home series with a high profile team (Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, Michigan State, Florida, Arizona, etc.) so that we have at least one true road ooc game a year.

JUST ONE!

I'm sure we can find ONE game on the schedule that we can sacrifice to obtain the benefit of an intense, all-out, people-screaming-in-your-face, everyone-hates-you-and-wants-you-to-choke experience that you can only get at the home of a TOP opponent. The kind of experience that will make neutral sites in the NCAA tourney like a piece of cake in comparison.

Is this in addition to Georgetown and Michigan? (It won't be long before Beilein has them back to being a high-profile team.)

OZ
12-14-2007, 12:23 AM
I don't post very often but I do read the boards.

In the last few weeks Coach K has been criticized for not playing everybody and building a strong bench; questioned for being silent on the lacross situation; some wondered not too silently if he had lost his touch in recruiting; and now he is challenged to provide us with a schedule that meets "our" needs... ("fun," I think someone describe how it ought to be.)

Hell, with a coach this inept, why don't we just fire him?

Besides, I am tired of winning 20-30 games every year... going to the NCAA's every year... being rated every year... being on television all the time...

It is time for a change!!!

But, it won't happen with an incompetent AD like Aleeva! I guess we are just doomed to superiority in basketball and eternal bordom.

dukie8
12-14-2007, 07:09 AM
I don't post very often but I do read the boards.

In the last few weeks Coach K has been criticized for not playing everybody and building a strong bench; questioned for being silent on the lacross situation; some wondered not too silently if he had lost his touch in recruiting; and now he is challenged to provide us with a schedule that meets "our" needs... ("fun," I think someone describe how it ought to be.)

Hell, with a coach this inept, why don't we just fire him?

Besides, I am tired of winning 20-30 games every year... going to the NCAA's every year... being rated every year... being on television all the time...

It is time for a change!!!

But, it won't happen with an incompetent AD like Aleeva! I guess we are just doomed to superiority in basketball and eternal bordom.

are you tired of ncaat early round flame-outs? it's been 3 straight years of those. i am tired of them.

77devil
12-14-2007, 08:12 AM
are you tired of ncaat early round flame-outs? it's been 3 straight years of those. i am tired of them.

Not sure whether anybody particularly cares, but what would you do differently?

Duvall
12-14-2007, 08:40 AM
are you tired of ncaat early round flame-outs? it's been 3 straight years of those. i am tired of them.

Played at Indiana and Georgetown in 2006. It didn't seem to help.

yancem
12-14-2007, 08:42 AM
Of course, if you insist on lowering the level of discourse to smartI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. sniping, I used to be 12 too. It was a long time ago, but I think I remember how.

Wow, smartI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. sniping? Sensitive much? Boil down your post and it comes down to what I said, playing on neutral courts makes more money and makes the games easier. Hardly see how I was sniping but anyway.

OZ
12-14-2007, 08:48 AM
are you tired of ncaat early round flame-outs? it's been 3 straight years of those. i am tired of them.


"flame-outs..."


Hey dukie8, I am agreeing with you. Just look at all those "flame-out" years...

2004-2005: 27-6; ACC Champs; Sweet Sixteen
2005-2006: 32-4; ranked #1 most of season; ACC Champs; Sweet
Sixteen
2006-2007: 22-11; NCAA (I know of one local team that hoist a banner for
this)
2007- : Presently 9-0; ranked #6; Mauii Champs

I am telling you we need to do something fast about this crisis situation. It is obvious from these "flame-outs" that Coach no longer has a clue. It is also clear that he is not going to change to suit us. We need some new blood.

mr. synellinden
12-14-2007, 09:39 AM
As opposed to message board posters?

Generalize much?

Speaking of idiotic ... I mean, come on man. Are you trying to say that we need to meet generally accepted journalistic standards before posting anything here? If so, count me out.

But then again you are entitled to post things that are idiotic or unsupported or just plain opinionated. That's what these types of boards are for. We are not writing for The New York Times or SI or the Des Moines Register here. Board posters are SUPPOSED to post their opinions and aren't paid to report news or provide objective news analysis and do thorough reporting (including simple fact checking) before doing so.

My opinion, based on years of working extensively with the media, is that most reporters are lazy (I count Seth Davis among them), many of them are less smart than you'd hope they'd be (Seth I believe is above the curve on this) and, as a result, I wouldn't be surprised to see Seth's criticisms repeated in other places without much analysis.

If you disagree, then say so, but don't be a blowhard about it.

yancem
12-14-2007, 10:23 AM
"flame-outs..."


Hey dukie8, I am agreeing with you. Just look at all those "flame-out" years...

2004-2005: 27-6; ACC Champs; Sweet Sixteen
2005-2006: 32-4; ranked #1 most of season; ACC Champs; Sweet
Sixteen
2006-2007: 22-11; NCAA (I know of one local team that hoist a banner for
this)
2007- : Presently 9-0; ranked #6; Mauii Champs

I am telling you we need to do something fast about this crisis situation. It is obvious from these "flame-outs" that Coach no longer has a clue. It is also clear that he is not going to change to suit us. We need some new blood.

I agree that "flame out" is a bit much, but on the other hand, do qualify a sweet sixteen birth for a number 1 seed a success? I think that the point that some of us are trying to make is, if we played a couple tougher road games during the season we might lose a game or 2 more and even end up a seed or 2 lower but might stand up a little better to the pressures of the ncaa tourney.

I certainly don't think that Duke's ship is sinking or that our current scheduling is a major problem (I don't have a problem with big arena neutral court games) but that doesn't mean that there isn't any room for improvement. I also don't think that K is happy with his teams' tournament success the past few years and is trying some new things to try to make the team better. I think that a "true road game" could help and certainly shouldn't hurt.

Things are looking pretty good so far this season. I like our team quite a bit but outside of the Marquette game and maybe the Davidson game they haven't really been tested. Not that a many top teams are usually truly tested at this point in the season but tough road games help determine a teams character and abilities

4decadedukie
12-14-2007, 11:14 AM
I don't post very often but I do read the boards.

In the last few weeks Coach K has been criticized for not playing everybody and building a strong bench; questioned for being silent on the lacross situation; some wondered not too silently if he had lost his touch in recruiting; and now he is challenged to provide us with a schedule that meets "our" needs... ("fun," I think someone describe how it ought to be.)

Hell, with a coach this inept, why don't we just fire him?

Besides, I am tired of winning 20-30 games every year... going to the NCAA's every year... being rated every year... being on television all the time...

It is time for a change!!!

But, it won't happen with an incompetent AD like Aleeva! I guess we are just doomed to superiority in basketball and eternal bordom.


It's just possible that Tom Butters might have been initially influential in K's evolution to "perpetual coaching brilliance" status and in his decision to remain at Duke (I hold Butters in the highest esteem and always want to see his superb contributions recognized). In essence, however, I strongly agree with your post.
:D

JG Nothing
12-14-2007, 01:00 PM
now he is challenged to provide us with a schedule that meets "our" needs... ("fun," I think someone describe how it ought to be.)

Hell, with a coach this inept, why don't we just fire him?

It is time for a change!!!

I don't think anyone is calling for K to be fired. I, personally, would like to see us play a currently competitive tradition ladened program (e.g. Kansas, UCLA, Indiana, or Michigan State) in a home and home before the conference season starts. If someone can explain to me how that would significantly hinder the development of the team or affect its opportunities, then I would appreciate it.
Apparently, you take college basketball so seriously as a fan that having "fun" is no longer important. Regardless, it is still just a game that is played by amateurs (albeit exploited amateurs).

Jumbo
12-14-2007, 04:04 PM
Speaking of idiotic ... I mean, come on man. Are you trying to say that we need to meet generally accepted journalistic standards before posting anything here? If so, count me out.

But then again you are entitled to post things that are idiotic or unsupported or just plain opinionated. That's what these types of boards are for. We are not writing for The New York Times or SI or the Des Moines Register here. Board posters are SUPPOSED to post their opinions and aren't paid to report news or provide objective news analysis and do thorough reporting (including simple fact checking) before doing so.

My opinion, based on years of working extensively with the media, is that most reporters are lazy (I count Seth Davis among them), many of them are less smart than you'd hope they'd be (Seth I believe is above the curve on this) and, as a result, I wouldn't be surprised to see Seth's criticisms repeated in other places without much analysis.

If you disagree, then say so, but don't be a blowhard about it.

"Don't be a blowhard about it?" Excuse me?

You made an unbelievably inflammatory comment in which you didn't just insult an entire OCCUPATION (which is just ridiculous), but specific posters here as well. Tell me, do you think Bill Brill is "lazy?" Jason Evans? Jim Sumner? Me?

It's very easy and convenient to bash "the media" or "reporters." In fact, the word I'd use to describe your attempt to do so? Lazy.

mr. synellinden
12-14-2007, 05:09 PM
"Don't be a blowhard about it?" Excuse me?

You made an unbelievably inflammatory comment in which you didn't just insult an entire OCCUPATION (which is just ridiculous), but specific posters here as well. Tell me, do you think Bill Brill is "lazy?" Jason Evans? Jim Sumner? Me?

It's very easy and convenient to bash "the media" or "reporters." In fact, the word I'd use to describe your attempt to do so? Lazy.

My words: Reporters tend to be lazy idiots ...

I accept that is an insult to the occupation of reporters, but I still believe that to be true. Idiots is a harsh word and I could have been more dipolomatic but I do find many reporters to be lacking in intelligence and it is shocking to me how bad it is.

I honestly have no idea who is a reporter that posts on this site, with the exception I guess of Bill Brill since I recognize the name. Perhaps my lack of knowledge about you and others you mentioned is naive. But either way I don't have any reason to think any of you reporters out there on this site are lazy or idiots. And I'm surprised you would jump to that conclusion and have that degree of sensitivity about it. I actually started a thread a few weeks ago commending and thanking Al Featherston for his great.

If you really think my comment about reporters was so inflammatory, I suggest again you consider the thread about the Giuliani-Romney issue on Massachusetss crime rates. Again, I think it's fair to make generalizations about the shortcomings and laziness of the media, and I don't think it's lazy for me to do so particularly since I have a lot of first hand knowledge to base those opinions on. But that doesn't mean I am attributing my opinions on that to anyone specifically. The only specific comment I made was that I think Seth is one of worst in terms of laziness. If you disagree, then fine. And if you disagree with my opinions on reporters/the media, then fine also.

By the way, I am a lawyer. Whenever I have seen people descibe lawyers as greedy, unethical, slimy - take your pick, I don't let it affect me personally. I know that it is a profession filled with all of that stuff. The point is - there are plenty of instances of people insulting an entire profession and I wouldn't call it ridiculous.

Jumbo
12-14-2007, 08:37 PM
My words: Reporters tend to be lazy idiots ...

Exactly. Hence my response.


I accept that is an insult to the occupation of reporters, but I still believe that to be true.
Based on what?


Idiots is a harsh word
You think?


and I could have been more dipolomatic
Well, you could start now...


but I do find many reporters to be lacking in intelligence and it is shocking to me how bad it is.
...or, apparently not. Lacking in intelligence? Really? Maybe some lack intelligence, and some don't. You know, just like every other occupation. There are plenty of brilliant minds in the field of journalism, and plenty of not-so-brilliant minds. That's the same with any field, including law. I'm friends with plenty of lawyers -- some are incredibly bright, others make me wonder how they finished high school. I know teachers who could be Harvard professors and ones who should be learning from their students. I know people in finance who are smart as a whip and counterparts who should be whipped because they're dumb as rocks. That's life.


I honestly have no idea who is a reporter that posts on this site, with the exception I guess of Bill Brill since I recognize the name.
So did you think about how Bill might feel when you called his brethren "idiots?"


Perhaps my lack of knowledge about you and others you mentioned is naive.
No, the naive thing is generalizing in the way you did.


But either way I don't have any reason to think any of you reporters out there on this site are lazy or idiots.

Sure you do. "Reporters tend to be lazy idiots," remember?


And I'm surprised you would jump to that conclusion and have that degree of sensitivity about it.
You're right. I suppose I should have taken you comments as a compliment.


I actually started a thread a few weeks ago commending and thanking Al Featherston for his great.
Um, okay.


If you really think my comment about reporters was so inflammatory, I suggest again you consider the thread about the Giuliani-Romney issue on Massachusetss crime rates.

Why? You said what you said. Nothing in any other thread is going to make yur unfounded generalization any less silly or nasty.



Again, I think it's fair to make generalizations about the shortcomings and laziness of the media,
Why? And what is "the media" anyway? Is it some monolithic entity where everyone thinks, reports and writes the same? Is the New York Times the same as the Duke Chronicle? Is Sports Illustrated the same as Rivals.com? Are the guys who travel with a baseball team for 162 games, write at least one story every day, and spend more time in Marriotts than with their families "lazy?" Are the reporters trying to bring us a bit of truth from Afghanistan "lazy?" Is the guy standing in front of a camera in the middle of a hurricane because that somehow makes everything more real to us in our cozy living rooms "lazy?"



and I don't think it's lazy for me to do so particularly since I have a lot of first hand knowledge to base those opinions on.
Are you kidding? You smack journalists down for supposedly not offering depth. And then your version of supporting a point of view is this nebulous gem: "I have a lot of first hand knowledge." Oh yeah? Like what? And how is that any different from Seth Davis saying, "For years, I've heard other coaches grumble that Mike Krzyzewski was playing a lot of his "road" games at regional or neutral sites -- or even at non-neutral neutral sites like Madison Square Garden (aka Cameron North), where Duke will be playing Pittsburgh later this month?"


But that doesn't mean I am attributing my opinions on that to anyone specifically.
No, as I said, you're doing something worse. You're generalizing.


The only specific comment I made was that I think Seth is one of worst in terms of laziness.
And you based that on nothing.


If you disagree, then fine.
I don't agree or disagree. That wasn't the focus of my irritation.


And if you disagree with my opinions on reporters/the media, then fine also.
I'm aware that it's fine. Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted.


By the way, I am a lawyer.
Great.


Whenever I have seen people descibe lawyers as greedy, unethical, slimy - take your pick, I don't let it affect me personally.
Okay...


I know that it is a profession filled with all of that stuff.
And it's also a profession filled with plenty of stuff that doesn't fit those labels. That's the danger in generalizing.


The point is - there are plenty of instances of people insulting an entire profession and I wouldn't call it ridiculous.
I would call it ridiculous. And stupid. And narrow-minded. Anytime you generalize about an entire group of people, that's the response you should respect.

vango
02-27-2008, 09:00 AM
My UNC office neighbor pointed this out to me -an article on Inside Carolina and I thought I'd post it here. I was curious about the revenue question at the end of the article - I had never considered it. Any truth in that? I would think the TV revenue we get (nearly every game televised) would make the difference but I'll submit that I know little about this issue...

http://www.carolinamarch.com/story/2008/2/25/214913/350

weezie
02-27-2008, 09:06 AM
Aren't playing schedules drawn up four or five years in advance?

Duvall
02-27-2008, 12:35 PM
My UNC office neighbor pointed this out to me -an article on Inside Carolina and I thought I'd post it here. I was curious about the revenue question at the end of the article - I had never considered it. Any truth in that? I would think the TV revenue we get (nearly every game televised) would make the difference but I'll submit that I know little about this issue...

http://www.carolinamarch.com/story/2008/2/25/214913/350

This writer is badly mistaken.

It's more than a little odd to claim that Duke was unprepared to play conference road games by their early season schedule when they went 4-0 in the first half of the conference season, including wins against the teams in 1st, 4th and 5th place in the league standings.

Moreover, teams want to play Duke at bigger venues, because Duke is a major draw. Temple's home court, the Liacouras Center, seats 10,206. They sold 18,030 tickets for their game against Duke. You think Temple wanted to forego that extra revenue? The suggestion that Duke was unwilling to Georgetown on campus is simply absurd. Georgetown is playing one game at McDonough Arena this season - one. The Verizon Center *is* Georgetown's home floor.

Duke schedules games on neutral floors for a variety of reasons. Exposure to new media and recruiting markets (those MSG games always get good coverage in NYC), the chance to play in the kind of venues that usually host NCAA tournament games, and yes, revenue. What's wrong with that?

dkbaseball
02-27-2008, 02:01 PM
Seems like the right place to note that Seth made a bit of an arse of himself the other day, IMO. Claimed there were six elite teams in the country -- UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Duke, Memphis and Tennessee. Then he stated, as if it were self-evident, that Texas obviously doesn't belong among this elite six, overlooking the fact that Texas is 3-0 against these teams.

KyDevilinIL
02-27-2008, 02:39 PM
Seems like the right place to note that Seth made a bit of an arse of himself the other day, IMO. Claimed there were six elite teams in the country -- UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Duke, Memphis and Tennessee. Then he stated, as if it were self-evident, that Texas obviously doesn't belong among this elite six, overlooking the fact that Texas is 3-0 against these teams.

Was that on TV or in print? Seth's fairly regular factual missteps are well-documented around the Web each season. But especially when on television, 'tis always better to sound right than to actually be right.

dkbaseball
02-27-2008, 05:08 PM
Was that on TV or in print? Seth's fairly regular factual missteps are well-documented around the Web each season. But especially when on television, 'tis always better to sound right than to actually be right.

Think I read it on the net two or three days ago.

greybeard
02-27-2008, 05:52 PM
Seems to me that scheduling should have something to do with what is good for the kids. Injuries this year, one, Henderson's wrist. This is a very good stat for this far into the season. Very good.

Where are these kids going to school, and how many will walk away with a degree and a quality education? This too is good, very, very good.

Does Duke play a style that enlivens the game, that brings interesting combinations into play, that allows observation of skilled performance that fits well within an entertaining and effective system? This too is very, very good.

So, who is this guy Seth watching and what is it that he cares about that underlies his article and his questions about scheduling? The guy is an idiot.

dukie8
02-27-2008, 06:37 PM
Aren't playing schedules drawn up four or five years in advance?

no. that's football. the basketball schedule is set over the summer.

Classof06
02-27-2008, 07:42 PM
Duke doesn't really play true road games in the non-conference slate but the fact of the matter is that we play good teams in the non-conference. As much as I would like to see Duke play more road games against elite programs, you can't argue with playing Marquette, Wisconsin and a healthy Pitt; it might not be the best out of conference lineup ever, but it ain't too shabby.

I don't know if our out-of conference schedule has any bearing on how we perform in the NCAA tourney; there's no way to really tell. I will say that over the past 6 years (since I was a frosh in 02), Duke has played extremely well in the regular season only to come up short of expectations in the tourney (save '04). Anyone's guess on how to fix that is as good as mine.