PDA

View Full Version : Duke: living more on its faded glory than on current success



CatfiveCane
03-21-2008, 05:25 AM
Really painful article on ESPN today. I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful that Duke plays great basketball tomorrow:

ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney08/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=3304438)

CatfiveCane
03-21-2008, 05:27 AM
Just for the record: I don't believe everything she (author) says. Plus I think she's a UNC alum.

MarkD83
03-21-2008, 06:28 AM
I won't read the article, but I bet 90% of it was written awhile ago and the writer was just waiting for a time to unveil it.

If Duke beats WVA the article will be irrelevant.

calltheobvious
03-21-2008, 06:28 AM
Just for the record: I don't believe everything she (author) says. Plus I think she's a UNC alum.

She went to Penn State.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/dana_pennett_oneil/

Still, I thought the piece was very weak. She decided on what novel she was going to write with,

"It tells you everything you need to know about this NCAA first-rounder that after the game, Belmont wasn't sad or depressed about missing the upset."

When I read that I immediately thought about Renfroe in his PGI saying something like, "It's a heartbreaker...I'm not going to lie."

To her credit, though, she did include the Renfroe quote a little later, I'm just not sure how you square that with Belmont not being "sad or depressed..."

Just kind of a cheap way to write the column. I think she was probably as impressed with Belmont's performance as anyone, and I don't think she meant to take anything away from them, but to put the focus of the column on the supposed paper-tigerness of Duke really does Belmont a disservice. They deserved much, much better, and so did Duke.

slower
03-21-2008, 06:34 AM
I won't read the article, but I bet 90% of it was written awhile ago and the writer was just waiting for a time to unveil it.

If Duke beats WVA the article will be irrelevant.

Just another pack-mentality piece of crap. When I was a kid, I used to want to be a sports writer. But I've come to realize that many of them are folks of middling intellect and ethics. Just like "hard news" reporters, they all follow the same script(s), no matter how ridiculous, obvious or bogus.

dukelifer
03-21-2008, 06:45 AM
Really painful article on ESPN today. I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful that Duke plays great basketball tomorrow:

ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney08/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=3304438)
She compares Duke to the Packers who were one of the best teams in the NFL this past year. That is VERY odd. Somehow I think she wrote some of this last year and used it for last night. Pretty weak.

devildownunder
03-21-2008, 06:51 AM
Reporters vary in their competence -- and their ethics -- as much as any other group of people. The writer of this piece is at the lower end of the spectrum on both. Instead of praising the little school that almost could, she chooses to kick a better-known program while she has the chance. Classy.

And btw, far from "living more on faded glory", I think this Duke team has had to struggle mightily to try to OVERCOME the shadow of the glory days. Thanks to media/fan venom and expectations.

willywoody
03-21-2008, 07:01 AM
She went to Penn State.



speaking of a school with an athletic program living on past glories.

CatfiveCane
03-21-2008, 07:09 AM
overall I think it's a pretty poor article, but certain areas do ring true.

And its now a matter of perception. The large majority of the public will read it and agree. It hurts Duke image. It hurts our recruiting. It hurts our television spots, etc.

Only one way to fix it: crush West Virginia tomorrow.

KenTankerous
03-21-2008, 07:22 AM
I am confused. Is this college football where writers' and coachs' opinions determine a champion?

No. This is basketball where champions play champions and the way you play today - not your reputation, not past victories, not estimates of potential - determines the outcome.

Maybe it's my recent conversion to Duke basketball or maybe I'm just a little grumpier with age but I am completely disgusted with the media coverage of the game. I was sick of bracketology in December. I think most of the writers are hacks, most of the commentators washed up ex-jocks whose degree in communication isn't worth the newspapers they ought to be delivering.

Faded glory! PAAALEEEASE just shut up and give me the box score.

dukelifer
03-21-2008, 07:29 AM
overall I think it's a pretty poor article, but certain areas do ring true.

And its now a matter of perception. The large majority of the public will read it and agree. It hurts Duke image. It hurts our recruiting. It hurts our television spots, etc.

Only one way to fix it: crush West Virginia tomorrow.

The same article could have been written about UNC 2001-2004, two second row bow outs-2 no shows. Don't think their recruiting suffered.

Bostondevil
03-21-2008, 07:44 AM
Wonder what she'll write when Mt. St. Mary's takes UNC close?

Biscuit King
03-21-2008, 07:52 AM
I won't read the article. It's not worth my time.

But I have one question: would Maryland, Syracuse, Florida, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan or LSU -- all storied programs and/or recent Final Four participants -- trade their spots on the couch (or in the NIT) for Duke's "faded glory" right now? Ummmmm, yes they would.

So who gives a s--t if Duke has "faded" its way into the next round of the NCAA Tournament?

tecumseh
03-21-2008, 07:54 AM
I saw an interview with Jim Boeheim and he said that there are no more great teams in the NCAA and will not be in the future with all the top players doing one and dones. The sportswriters makes some teams out to be great but he says not so. So in that light this article is kind of silly. Duke will not have another 4 years like they had with Grant Hill the game is too different call that past glories if you will. Similarly you will not see a team in the NFL win 4 Super Bowls like the Steelers did. Quiet Pats fans your team has very few players who were on that first Super Bowl team, the Steelers had basically the same team for their 4 in 6 years.

colchar
03-21-2008, 07:56 AM
I won't read the article,


Not the most mature response.



I bet 90% of it was written awhile ago and the writer was just waiting for a time to unveil it.


No, it wasn't.




If Duke beats WVA the article will be irrelevant.


Really? As Duke advances in this tournament this game will hang over their heads a bit because everyone will be talking about it. For example: How can they beat (insert big school here) when tiny little Blemont very nearly beat them?

dukie8
03-21-2008, 08:14 AM
The same article could have been written about UNC 2001-2004, two second row bow outs-2 no shows. Don't think their recruiting suffered.

there's just a slight difference there -- unc had doherty as its coach and duke has k. that article would have been written about unc if deano still were the coach there during that stretch (or if unc BARELY beat a 15 seed that had notched losses to not 1 but 2 sub 300 teams during the season).

coastal1
03-21-2008, 08:40 AM
there's just a slight difference there -- unc had doherty as its coach and duke has k. that article would have been written about unc if deano still were the coach there during that stretch (or if unc BARELY beat a 15 seed that had notched losses to not 1 but 2 sub 300 teams during the season).


Not "would have been" - there were tons of these articles when the Heels were down

CDu
03-21-2008, 08:49 AM
I don't understand all of the whining about this article. While it isn't terribly inventive, it's also pretty accurate. We aren't the same team we were in the early-90s or the late-90s/early-00s. We're vulnerable, and we have distinct weaknesses. Teams don't step on to the court fearing this team like they have previous teams. It seems that some are not able/willing to admit that.

Aside from the fact that it's more fun to be a juggernaut, I don't see anything wrong with this being the case. We had some incredibly dominant teams in those previous years. It was arguably an unprecedented run of greatness, and it may or may not be matched again in the future. That doesn't mean this team is bad. It's really good. But the fact that this team is really good AND that teams don't fear us anymore tells you how great those previous teams were.

Rich
03-21-2008, 09:01 AM
Actually, this article in the NJ Star-Ledger takes the same approach and, IMO, is even more annoying.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/politi/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1206077783253190.xml&coll=1

jipops
03-21-2008, 09:03 AM
I don't see anything that is at all untrue in the article. It isn't knocking on Duke, it's just telling us like it is. We're not a dominant team this year and we haven't been for a few years. Aren't we all aware of this?

Stop being so sensitive everyone, it's ok to critique Duke. This was actually one of the better critiques of Duke, none of the mindless mainstream generalized hate drivel we see from other authors. This just basically told it like it is so stop crying about it.

dukie8
03-21-2008, 09:07 AM
I don't see anything that is at all untrue in the article. It isn't knocking on Duke, it's just telling us like it is. We're not a dominant team this year and we haven't been for a few years. Aren't we all aware of this?

clearly not. anything negative written about duke, no matter how true, is utter blasphemy and evil.

TheDuke11
03-21-2008, 09:09 AM
why are articles like this not written about kentucky? What have they done lately?
what about maryland? what about uCONn? Hell, St. Johns is a storied program too, where are the articles tearing them down.

Its getting to be a bit pathetic to be honest. Every single sports page, website, newspaper, tv and radio show think it is their responsibility to tear down Duke and frankly its getting old.

Misunderestimated
03-21-2008, 09:15 AM
clearly not. anything negative written about duke, no matter how true, is utter blasphemy and evil.


"I like criticism, but it must be my way."
- Mark Twain's Autobiography

JasonEvans
03-21-2008, 09:17 AM
2 things--

1) The questions about why we do't see articles like this about Syracuse, UConn, Kentucky, Arizona, and others are sorta silly in my mind. For the better part of 2 decades, Duke has been THE signature team in college basketball. We don't see articles about these other teams precisely because they are not Duke. We should take it as a sign of respect that folks are writing about our "downfall." When Duke struggling is not a major story in colllege hoops, that is when I will really be worried.

2) Lets stop complaining about this stuff. There is one answer to it -- win. I know the team is sick and we face a very tough opponent in West Virginia (look at who they lost to this year and the scores, this is far and away the best #7 seed in the tourney and it probably more like a #4 seed), but the bottom line is that the best way to stop the "Duke has fallen" articles is to beat WVA and make the Sweet 16 again. Heck, the real best way is to march all the way back to the Final Four. Been too long since we've been there!

--Jason "sportswriters saying negative things about Duke is just not news people" Evans

CDu
03-21-2008, 09:31 AM
why are articles like this not written about kentucky? What have they done lately?
what about maryland? what about uCONn? Hell, St. Johns is a storied program too, where are the articles tearing them down.

Its getting to be a bit pathetic to be honest. Every single sports page, website, newspaper, tv and radio show think it is their responsibility to tear down Duke and frankly its getting old.

Well, the answer is pretty simple. None of those teams were as dominant for as long. And none of those teams were as prominent in the national spotlight.

We've been THE program over the ESPN era. From 1986-2005, there was nobody with the sustained excellence we had. There was an aura about the program. We won a ton of ACC titles. We went to a ton of Final Fours. We've won more national championships than anyone else in that era.

It is a compliment that people are writing these things. They show how great Duke has been over the past 20 years. We're more relevant than UConn, and we're certainly more relevant than Maryland!

I think people are being WAY too sensitive about the truth.

dukie8
03-21-2008, 09:34 AM
Well, the answer is pretty simple. None of those teams were as dominant for as long. And none of those teams were as prominent in the national spotlight.

We've been THE program over the ESPN era. From 1986-2005, there was nobody with the sustained excellence we had. There was an aura about the program. We won a ton of ACC titles. We went to a ton of Final Fours. We've won more national championships than anyone else in that era.

It is a compliment that people are writing these things. They show how great Duke has been over the past 20 years. We're more relevant than UConn, and we're certainly more relevant than Maryland!

I think people are being WAY too sensitive about the truth.

you know things are bad when people start comparing the duke program to st johns. have they been to more than 1 final 4 in the past 30 years?

greybeard
03-21-2008, 09:39 AM
The article was cheap. Duke has played terrific basketball all season. Amazingly entertaining, innovative, skilled, and yes, successful.

They played poorly last night and either guys were slipping alot in the mid court area, or blowing a lot of cream puff lay ups that a sixth grade team could make regularly, or there were a lot of fouls that weren't called that made this thing close.

To win on a bad night, no one, not even the writer, would dare to say that Duke played even close to a good game last night, speaks to its superiority to this Belmont club. Ten games, Belmont maybe wins one. Sorry, that is my take, and this was the one, with the help of awful refereeing (don't get me started about the announcers, I had to turn on the mute button in the second half), only Belmont LOST.

The author does not say that Belmont was robbed, or that they didn't get every single call imaginable, only that somehow fate let the poor Belmont team down and deprived them of what she thinks that they earned. You earn a win when you score more points when the final buzzer goes off. Belmont did not do that.

Yes, unknown schools can beat the best teams in the college game on any given night. This season proved that. Why write an article that denegrates Duke but no other "big" school based on that reality when, unlike most of the others, Duke, hello, did not get beat?

Cheap shot, gossipy column written by someone who has no respect for the accomplishments and efforts of a terrific group of young men who, along with their coach, drive the bus that provides her and her ilk with the ability to make a living doing what they are not qualified to do.

If she thinks that she would have a job without Duke having had the season that it has had she is less clever then she seems. A new type of bottom feeder who can tell no one with a whit of knowledge about the game anything that they might find fresh, interesting, insightful, or even dramatic.

This is the kind of nonsense one used to only see in the tabloids. Gee, and now we get to read it in the sports pages. America, is this a great country or what?

1Devil
03-21-2008, 09:40 AM
It's all pretty ridiculous. We're certainly not playing well, but damn, we're 28-5. Do we have to be undefeated?

wisteria
03-21-2008, 09:40 AM
I may sound arrogant. But ever since the first appearance of such anti-Duke articles ( wake loss ), I've been saying this: Let's go deep in March first. Before that, the media can say whatever they want. We are Duke. We aim at excellence and greatness. We should not be content about being merely good. So let them criticize. To shut them up, we ourselves need to be much better.

johnb
03-21-2008, 09:51 AM
We have had a lot of Final Fours, but we've only been really dominant during ''92 and '99 (and we lost the title in one of those years). The Laettner years are best known for miracles (either last second shots or beating an admittedly better team in UNLV). We've only been dominant in retrospect.

We have an allure because we've won our share, been consistently in the top 5, have kept the same coach, and have fans and athletes who can be seen as smart/rich/upscale/articulate/funny/thoughtful/snobbish (depending on your point of view).

Oh, and I don't see any reason why we can't stay in the top 10 indefinitely, especially if we can keep getting more high school all americans than just about anyone else. And everyone wants that to happen (especially CBS and ESPN)

dukie8
03-21-2008, 09:53 AM
We have had a lot of Final Fours, but we've only been really dominant during ''92 and '99 (and we lost the title in one of those years). The Laettner years are best known for miracles (either last second shots or beating an admittedly better team in UNLV). We've only been dominant in retrospect.

We have an allure because we've won our share, been consistently in the top 5, have kept the same coach, and have fans and athletes who can be seen as smart/rich/upscale/articulate/funny/thoughtful/snobbish (depending on your point of view).

Oh, and I don't see any reason why we can't stay in the top 10 indefinitely, especially if we can keep getting more high school all americans than just about anyone else. And everyone wants that to happen (especially CBS and ESPN)

what about '86? that team was uber dominant.

CDu
03-21-2008, 09:54 AM
is that I'm pretty sure there was a thread (or DBR front page article) regarding one of Dana O'Neill's previous articles, saying something to the effect of how refreshing her work was and that it was nice to see someone not write a "hater" piece about Duke. But now that she writes a piece that isn't pro-Duke, she's a hack? Come on.

We didn't play well. We haven't played well in the NCAA tournament the past two years. Small conference schools no longer fear us, and openly say so. These are facts. Why do people complain about the facts?

It is a COMPLIMENT that people are writing about Duke losing its aura. We've been so good for so long that people expect us to do great things. When we struggle against the "nobodies" of the world, it is a story. The fact that the nobodies now think they can beat Duke is completely relevant, in my opinion.

TheDuke11
03-21-2008, 10:01 AM
kentucky was at least as dominate as we were in our "glory days" and uCONn was arguably MORE dominate than we were from 94 through 06.

its just the "in" thing to trash Duke. yeah, its a sign of respect, but its also a sign of disrespect as well.

also, I really dont remember anything being said about unc's 2 consecutive no tourney appearances either, and they have probably been the standard in college basketball since day 1.

Lets win.

dukie8
03-21-2008, 10:06 AM
kentucky was at least as dominate as we were in our "glory days" and uCONn was arguably MORE dominate than we were from 94 through 06.

its just the "in" thing to trash Duke. yeah, its a sign of respect, but its also a sign of disrespect as well.

also, I really dont remember anything being said about unc's 2 consecutive no tourney appearances either, and they have probably been the standard in college basketball since day 1.

Lets win.

please provide some facts to back up your claims that kentucky and uconn were at least, if not more, dominant than duke during duke's glory days. from '86 to '92, we played in 6 final fours (in 7 years), won 2 ncs and made the finals in 2 other ffs. if you want to extend out to '94, you can tack on another ff and another nc game. fire away.

CDu
03-21-2008, 10:09 AM
kentucky was at least as dominate as we were in our "glory days" and uCONn was arguably MORE dominate than we were from 94 through 06.

its just the "in" thing to trash Duke. yeah, its a sign of respect, but its also a sign of disrespect as well.

also, I really dont remember anything being said about unc's 2 consecutive no tourney appearances either, and they have probably been the standard in college basketball since day 1.

Lets win.

This is incorrect. Since 1986 (which is the beginning of our heyday), we've made more final fours than Kentucky and UConn COMBINED. We've won nearly as many championships (4 to 3) as the two schools combined. We've been the final regular season #1 team more times than either of those teams. And more importantly, we've been the face of college basketball for the last 20-25 years.

And not remembering articles about UNC's two-year collapse is probably due to a memory failure in that regard. People are naturally more sensitive to remembering negative comments about something important to them rather than negative comments about their enemies. It's natural. I'm quite sure people wrote about the demise of UNC when it was happening, too. You just don't remember them because they didn't bother you like these articles do.

It's not simply the "in" thing to do. It's not trashing Duke. It's reality - we aren't feared by the little guys like we were for the past 20 years.

SMO
03-21-2008, 10:15 AM
is that I'm pretty sure there was a thread (or DBR front page article) regarding one of Dana O'Neill's previous articles, saying something to the effect of how refreshing her work was and that it was nice to see someone not write a "hater" piece about Duke. But now that she writes a piece that isn't pro-Duke, she's a hack? Come on.

We didn't play well. We haven't played well in the NCAA tournament the past two years. Small conference schools no longer fear us, and openly say so. These are facts. Why do people complain about the facts?

It is a COMPLIMENT that people are writing about Duke losing its aura. We've been so good for so long that people expect us to do great things. When we struggle against the "nobodies" of the world, it is a story. The fact that the nobodies now think they can beat Duke is completely relevant, in my opinion.

I think you're correct, and what that tells me is that O'Neill writes over-the-top articles based on which way the wind is blowing. Duke beats UNC and they're perhaps the best team in the nation. Duke plays a close 1st round game and their image is tarnished forever. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the picture. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. I'm not sure if journalism is so much about the truth as it is about stirring up controversy.

HoopsFan
03-21-2008, 10:18 AM
The article was cheap. Duke has played terrific basketball all season. Amazingly entertaining, innovative, skilled, and yes, successful.

They played poorly last night and either guys were slipping alot in the mid court area, or blowing a lot of cream puff lay ups that a sixth grade team could make regularly, or there were a lot of fouls that weren't called that made this thing close.

To win on a bad night, no one, not even the writer, would dare to say that Duke played even close to a good game last night, speaks to its superiority to this Belmont club. Ten games, Belmont maybe wins one. Sorry, that is my take, and this was the one, with the help of awful refereeing (don't get me started about the announcers, I had to turn on the mute button in the second half), only Belmont LOST.

The author does not say that Belmont was robbed, or that they didn't get every single call imaginable, only that somehow fate let the poor Belmont team down and deprived them of what she thinks that they earned. You earn a win when you score more points when the final buzzer goes off. Belmont did not do that.

Yes, unknown schools can beat the best teams in the college game on any given night. This season proved that. Why write an article that denegrates Duke but no other "big" school based on that reality when, unlike most of the others, Duke, hello, did not get beat?

Cheap shot, gossipy column written by someone who has no respect for the accomplishments and efforts of a terrific group of young men who, along with their coach, drive the bus that provides her and her ilk with the ability to make a living doing what they are not qualified to do.

If she thinks that she would have a job without Duke having had the season that it has had she is less clever then she seems. A new type of bottom feeder who can tell no one with a whit of knowledge about the game anything that they might find fresh, interesting, insightful, or even dramatic.

This is the kind of nonsense one used to only see in the tabloids. Gee, and now we get to read it in the sports pages. America, is this a great country or what?

Slipping a lot at midcourt? Awful refereeing? I think you had your blinders on.

Scorp4me
03-21-2008, 10:27 AM
You can replace Duke with just about any elite school and write the same article. The story isn't about Duke(or UNC or Kentucky or UCLA) it's about the little schools stepping up. But of course that wouldn't sell lol!

Atlanta Duke
03-21-2008, 10:37 AM
Actually, this article in the NJ Star-Ledger takes the same approach and, IMO, is even more annoying.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/politi/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1206077783253190.xml&coll=1

New York Times also runs the same theme

Duke Escapes, but Is Exposed by Belmont

Duke lost in the first round last season to Virginia Commonwealth, and this narrow victory was yet another sign that the days of the Blue Devils being college basketballís pre-eminent menís program appear to be fading.

No need to be defensive about it; Duke had 2 runs of dominance (1986-1994; 1998 -2006); nothing lasts forever

KandG
03-21-2008, 10:45 AM
is that I'm pretty sure there was a thread (or DBR front page article) regarding one of Dana O'Neill's previous articles, saying something to the effect of how refreshing her work was and that it was nice to see someone not write a "hater" piece about Duke. But now that she writes a piece that isn't pro-Duke, she's a hack? Come on.



Her preview article for ESPN on the last Duke-Carolina matchup, and her rehash of the Roy-K "injuries" spat, didn't distinguish itself as "objective" or "refreshing" either.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=3279289

I am really not one to look for anti-Duke bias in the average columnist's piece, but O'Neil's article seemed pretty overheated and alarmist to me. It looked like she already had the piece penned assuming Belmont was going to win; when the favored team stole the game away (and this sort of thing *does* happen in tournament play), she couldn't be bothered to change her narrative about the big, bad giant crumbling before our very eyes, no longer earning respect or inspiring fear in opponents.

feldspar
03-21-2008, 10:59 AM
I don't understand all of the whining about this article. While it isn't terribly inventive, it's also pretty accurate. We aren't the same team we were in the early-90s or the late-90s/early-00s. We're vulnerable, and we have distinct weaknesses. Teams don't step on to the court fearing this team like they have previous teams. It seems that some are not able/willing to admit that.



Agreed.

It says something when Duke is "relieved" to have won a 2/15 matchup in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.

Anyone who says this program hasn't lost some of its mystique...not all, but some, is really fooling themselves.

RelativeWays
03-21-2008, 11:02 AM
At this point I'd say almost everyone hates Duke, and almost nobody respects Duke, not like they used to.

bluebear
03-21-2008, 11:02 AM
New York Times also runs the same theme

Duke Escapes, but Is Exposed by Belmont

Duke lost in the first round last season to Virginia Commonwealth, and this narrow victory was yet another sign that the days of the Blue Devils being college basketballís pre-eminent menís program appear to be fading.

No need to be defensive about it; Duke had 2 runs of dominance (1986-1994; 1998 -2006); nothing lasts forever

I'm not overly worked up about this thing because I think you are in general correct that nothing lasts forever but I also think the article was just another trendy hack at Duke. You are correct that Duke had 2 runs of dominance but the general spin of these articles is that Duke has fallen after a 20+ year run of dominance. This article could have been written in 98 and it would have turned out to be completely wrong. Who knows what will happen over the next few years...Duke may never have a run like 86-94 but no one outside of UCLA had such a run in the past. It's hard to make the final four every year. It's amazing that Duke did what it did during that stretch. Duke's continued existence in the Top 5-10 every year is something that very few teams can match (look at Florida this year)....We'll have to fall a lot further and for a lot longer before it's rational to say that Duke is no longer one of the top programs in the country.

feldspar
03-21-2008, 11:05 AM
We have had a lot of Final Fours, but we've only been really dominant during ''92 and '99 (and we lost the title in one of those years).

A telling stat: if Duke doesn't make the Elite 8 this year, it will be the longest drought without an Elite 8 appearance since Coach K began his tenure at Duke.

That's the kind of thing that these sportswriters (and the general public) are paying attention to. Bottom line is that we're not getting the job done when it comes to the NCAA Tournament. It's not something that's just made up, it's not something that their just pulling out of thin air. It's real.

The solution? Just as others have said, we have to get the job done. It's up to Duke to remedy this.

Classof06
03-21-2008, 11:19 AM
Dana O'Neill has been taking shots at Duke through her articles for a couple of months now. It's pretty clear that whenever ESPN wants someone to write a polarzing article about Duke, O'Neill gets the nod.

When the whole Coach K/Roy Williams "Injurygate" thing came about, she was probably the most vocal ESPN personality, saying she thought what K said was petty and snide. When it came to the surface that Krzyzewski actually didn't say it, she still didn't buy it. She's had it out for Duke ever since. It's strange too because she was one of the few ESPN people that gave Duke respect at the beginning of the season when nobody really thought we'd be that good. Oh well.

jdscrilla
03-21-2008, 11:28 AM
When people write these type of articles and say they haven't won a title since 2001 and haven't been to the final four since 2004 I always want to ask them which team has had a better decade? Florida because they won 2 championships would be the only one that I would say has definitely been better. UNC? They won 1 championship this decade (same as Duke). UCLA has been to 2 final fours but haven't won anything. So who?

dynastydefender
03-21-2008, 11:30 AM
I am beginning to understand ALL about faded glory as opposed to recent success.

mapei
03-21-2008, 11:34 AM
Maybe some of these articles overreach, but we all know there is some truth to it. The way to prove the observers wrong is to starting beating good teams by good margins in March games that count. If we can't do that, they will be proven right.

Philadukie
03-21-2008, 11:36 AM
is that I'm pretty sure there was a thread (or DBR front page article) regarding one of Dana O'Neill's previous articles, saying something to the effect of how refreshing her work was and that it was nice to see someone not write a "hater" piece about Duke. But now that she writes a piece that isn't pro-Duke, she's a hack? Come on.

We didn't play well. We haven't played well in the NCAA tournament the past two years. Small conference schools no longer fear us, and openly say so. These are facts. Why do people complain about the facts?

It is a COMPLIMENT that people are writing about Duke losing its aura. We've been so good for so long that people expect us to do great things. When we struggle against the "nobodies" of the world, it is a story. The fact that the nobodies now think they can beat Duke is completely relevant, in my opinion.

I think this is correct. I didn't find the articles hack jobs at all. As someone who went to Duke and a long time fan, I've been thinking these things recently myself. I think we should feel honored that these things are being said about us and also concerned. We have to look at ourselves clearly, I think, in order to understand where we've been and where we're going. Honest appraisals are necessary.

I think these particular issues (the diminishing aura, the lack of fear from opponents, the endemic hatred), are, in fact, stongly relevant, interwoven and even symbiotic with internal, systemic issues (recruiting, end of season fatigue, poor recent post-season performances).

I love this team. I love Duke. And that's why I want to discuss these isssues openly and honestly. Not to get political, but I think it's similar to the debates about this current presidential administration. Criticism is considered unpatriotic from supporters, when many of those criticizing claim to be doing so because they love America.

We're all fans together, and I think we should allow for honest debate and discussion. Not personally destructive comments, but not all positive either. One can be intelligent, accurate, and also make assessments that appear negative.

mapei
03-21-2008, 11:42 AM
I think this is correct. I didn't find the articles hack jobs at all. As someone who went to Duke and a long time fan, I've been thinking these things recently myself. I think we should feel honored that these things are being said about us and also concerned. We have to look at ourselves clearly, I think, in order to understand where we've been and where we're going. Honest appraisals are necessary.

I think these particular issues (the diminishing aura, the lack of fear from opponents, the endemic hatred), are, in fact, stongly relevant, interwoven and even symbiotic with internal, systemic issues (recruiting, end of season fatigue, poor recent post-season performances).

I love this team. I love Duke. And that's why I want to discuss these isssues openly and honestly. Not to get political, but I think it's similar to the debates about this current presidential administration. Criticism is considered unpatriotic from supporters, when many of those criticizing claim to be doing so because they love America.

We're all fans together, and I think we should allow for honest debate and discussion. Not personally destructive comments, but not all positive either. One can be intelligent, accurate, and also make assessments that appear negative.

Post of the Week.

throatybeard
03-21-2008, 12:40 PM
A telling stat: if Duke doesn't make the Elite 8 this year, it will be the longest drought without an Elite 8 appearance since Coach K began his tenure at Duke.

No, he didn't go to a region final in his first five seasons, 1981 to 1985. (Nor even a S16). A S16 or 2R loss this year would make four years, because we were in the FF in 2004.

But I'm agreed that all the whining about how much the media hates us is getting old.

weezie
03-21-2008, 12:48 PM
I'm sorry to sound like a bluestocking (heh, blue) but if we step back and take a good look at ourselves, come on folks. We love our Devils, we love our Coach, we love our school but geez, can we stand up straight and stop the navel gazing? Heads up, cheer loudly, hope for strength for the team but bear in mind that those kids are out there trying their very, very best. They're playing with their hearts on the outside of the jerseys. They're playing sick and sore...they would die for K and vice versa. They hear the boos, they hear the threats and they take the heat, not us!

With so much misery and pain in the world around us, with war, hatred, famine and poverty, thank God we've got a game to watch. Let's go Duke!

greybeard
03-21-2008, 01:15 PM
A telling stat: if Duke doesn't make the Elite 8 this year, it will be the longest drought without an Elite 8 appearance since Coach K began his tenure at Duke.

That's the kind of thing that these sportswriters (and the general public) are paying attention to. Bottom line is that we're not getting the job done when it comes to the NCAA Tournament. It's not something that's just made up, it's not something that their just pulling out of thin air. It's real.

The solution? Just as others have said, we have to get the job done. It's up to Duke to remedy this.

Bottom line is that Duke is the premier program in the country, whether they win a playoff game or not. People watch Duke play because it is fun, interesting, entertaining. It is all those things because of what this team brings to the game. Not the teams of the past, this team.

When they play well, they take your breath away, not by startling dunks, or unbelievable thises or thats, but by how they play the damn game.

Memphis, UCLA, Florida of the previous two years, yawn. Double yawn.

This year's Duke team sets the standard. A team like Belmont comes closer to that standard than lets say Memphis, UCLA, yawn, and probably most other.

If Duke goes beyond tomorrow, I'd love to see the Neilsons or whatever they are that shows who watches what game. Even with UCLA's large market, the entire state of Kansas being into KU, more people will watch Duke than those other two. I'd bet on it. If they don't they are idiots (blame Kornheiser, I'm not calling anyone here an idiot, poetic license or plagerism, not meant to insult!).

I think Boeheim is correct and that there are no great teams anymore. So what. I have said it before and I'll say it again; I have enjoyed watching this Duke team play more than any other team I've seen that I can remember (I don't do that too good anymore about most things, remember that is, but basketball ain't one of them).

Kdogg
03-21-2008, 01:36 PM
why are articles like this not written about kentucky? What have they done lately?
what about maryland? what about uCONn? Hell, St. Johns is a storied program too, where are the articles tearing them down.

Its getting to be a bit pathetic to be honest. Every single sports page, website, newspaper, tv and radio show think it is their responsibility to tear down Duke and frankly its getting old.

There are a lot of reasons. Take your pick.
- Duke is a small, private, elite school.
- It has a true national following. Stories like these sell in every region.
- We became the big bad wolf. Outside of their fans, no one cares about UK, Maryland, UConn, Mich, Georgetown, etc...All have hit hard times but nationally, it's not news. The only other program to get similiar treatment is Carolina. Even there though, you would not see articles from the NYT or Washington Post.
- No school has had the level of success as Duke in the last 22 years. Every class has been to a Sweet Sixteen. All (not including Paulus's class) have been to an Elite Eight. All but one (not including this year and Paulus's class) has been to a Final Four.
- The only thing the public likes more that a winner is a winner's fall from grace.

I can go on but you get the picture.

greybeard
03-21-2008, 02:01 PM
I think this is correct. I didn't find the articles hack jobs at all. As someone who went to Duke and a long time fan, I've been thinking these things recently myself. I think we should feel honored that these things are being said about us and also concerned. We have to look at ourselves clearly, I think, in order to understand where we've been and where we're going. Honest appraisals are necessary.

I think these particular issues (the diminishing aura, the lack of fear from opponents, the endemic hatred), are, in fact, stongly relevant, interwoven and even symbiotic with internal, systemic issues (recruiting, end of season fatigue, poor recent post-season performances).

I love this team. I love Duke. And that's why I want to discuss these isssues openly and honestly. Not to get political, but I think it's similar to the debates about this current presidential administration. Criticism is considered unpatriotic from supporters, when many of those criticizing claim to be doing so because they love America.

We're all fans together, and I think we should allow for honest debate and discussion. Not personally destructive comments, but not all positive either. One can be intelligent, accurate, and also make assessments that appear negative.

Personally, not to put too fine a line on things, but I think that this type thinking is nuts.

If McRob did not have as bad a back as he does, he would have been back, in which case this team would be far and away the odds on to win it all. If McRob had not been constrained to leave early to get whatever money there was left on the table and whatever more he could have out of his back, Duke would have had one of the premier shot blockers in the country in the middle, a guy who could defend on the ball and help, and pass and catch and finish off lobs with the best of them. Even assuming that the rest of his offensive game would not have been vastly better without the bad back (it would have been), this team would have been awesome.

McRob, in my view, would not have left after his sophomore year had it not been for his back. I also think that his "attitude" would have much different had it not been for his back.

We have not spoken of the loss of that kid to Cal, who would have helped provide minutes and fouls when needed, and the injury to Zoubek.

But, you add McRob to this group, particularly a healthy one, and this team might have been surreal. Drop off, really? I think you need to rethink this, or maybe let K worry about such matters. From where I sit, Duke is doing more than fine.

The article was a complete gossip column. She could have written a column that did a service to the Belmont team, which was no different than a hundred Princeton teams of yore, who put the fear of G-d into such teams as Pat Ewing's Georgetown team when JTIII the player came within a point or two of sticking it to Pops big time. She chose instead to make the in my mind indefensible case that this year's Duke team is somehow overrated. It is not, and in fact has had one of the more remarkable seasons I have witnessed.

dukelifer
03-21-2008, 02:36 PM
there's just a slight difference there -- unc had doherty as its coach and duke has k. that article would have been written about unc if deano still were the coach there during that stretch (or if unc BARELY beat a 15 seed that had notched losses to not 1 but 2 sub 300 teams during the season).
The point was about the article (an its implications affecting recruiting). If anything, UNC's bad stretch with Doherty as the coach would have even caused bigger problems in recruiting- but it did not. Also are you saying Duke lost to 2 sub 300 teams this season - Pitt (Big East Tourney Champ), Wake (not a good team), Miami (NCAA team), UNC (ACC Champs x2) and Clemson ( NCAA team)?

marsblackman
03-21-2008, 03:21 PM
This is incorrect. Since 1986 (which is the beginning of our heyday), we've made more final fours than Kentucky and UConn COMBINED. We've won nearly as many championships (4 to 3) as the two schools combined. We've been the final regular season #1 team more times than either of those teams. And more importantly, we've been the face of college basketball for the last 20-25 years.

And not remembering articles about UNC's two-year collapse is probably due to a memory failure in that regard. People are naturally more sensitive to remembering negative comments about something important to them rather than negative comments about their enemies. It's natural. I'm quite sure people wrote about the demise of UNC when it was happening, too. You just don't remember them because they didn't bother you like these articles do.

It's not simply the "in" thing to do. It's not trashing Duke. It's reality - we aren't feared by the little guys like we were for the past 20 years.

But who is? That's the thing. The distance between the "have's" and "have not's" - the power conferences and everyone else - has narrowed significantly since the mid-90's. I saw several articles today talking about how "the Duke mystique is gone". Well, yeah, but why is that news? That shouldn't surprise anyone. "Upsets" occur every year in the tournament. Seeding means less and less each year. George Mason was in the final four two years ago - beating MSU, UNC and UConn along the way. If that didn't signify the end of big conference schools intimidating smaller conference schools, then I don't know what will. Is it really worthy of an article at this point, just to say "Duke isn't as dominant as they once were?" Nobody is. To quote Hurley from last night's Lost, "Uh, we kinda like knew that forever ago."

Philadukie
03-21-2008, 03:31 PM
Personally, not to put too fine a line on things, but I think that this type thinking is nuts.

Thanks, I won't call your way of thinking "nuts" but I will respectfully disagree with it. And there seem to be a number of other Duke fans (and, yes, non-Duke fans) who think that there may be something larger occuring here based on a number of interplaying factors. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but what I do know are the facts, as some others here have stated, regarding our recent post-season performances relative to MOST of the K era.

You can say it was Josh's back. Maybe that's it. But maybe it was some other factors, too -- some larger issues occuring that maybe an intelligent discussion could illuminate.

The fact that we agree with such articles and want to discuss our concerns and possible reasons for this doesn't make us "nuts." And if we can do so respectfully and thoughtfully, then why can't we have a forum where this conversation can occur without being aggressively dismissed by being called "nuts."

greybeard
03-21-2008, 04:21 PM
Thanks, I won't call your way of thinking "nuts" but I will respectfully disagree with it. And there seem to be a number of other Duke fans (and, yes, non-Duke fans) who think that there may be something larger occuring here based on a number of interplaying factors. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but what I do know are the facts, as some others here have stated, regarding our recent post-season performances relative to MOST of the K era.

You can say it was Josh's back. Maybe that's it. But maybe it was some other factors, too -- some larger issues occuring that maybe an intelligent discussion could illuminate.

The fact that we agree with such articles and want to discuss our concerns and possible reasons for this doesn't make us "nuts." And if we can do so respectfully and thoughtfully, then why can't we have a forum where this conversation can occur without being aggressively dismissed by being called "nuts."

Maybe it's just my age, but today's basketball, pro or college, in the main bores me. If I see another highlight dunk that does not involve a glass of milk and a doughnut, ugh.

So, this year I find something remarkably interesting in the game--intelligent, creative, exciting, skilled, coordinated, to go on top of the usual things that people here have come to expect from K teams, which I won't even try to enumerate, all of which contribute to winning, which also bores me, but that's another matter.

I see the elegant game that basketball was in my youth squared; it left me agape--never saw such stuff in my life. You have someone who wants to argue otherwise, I'd love to hear it. Certainly, I'd just love it if that chick who wrote that article would try to take this issue on.

So, you think that Duke has lost something when they don't have Brand, Boozer and JWill, not to mention a host of other pro or pro caliber players on the same team, and I think that none of those teams have captured the game the way this one has. One of us is nuts then, right, you with me so far. Now, if I began by saying it was me, no one would have read one word, because for the first time in history everyone on this board would have been on the same page. Who, I ask you, would have wanted that? So the est of you are nuts and me, I am sane. Now we got us a discussion, right?

From my perspective, the star qualify of Duke or any other team is far less interesting, exciting, stimulating, then when I see a Hall of Fame Coach throw away the play book of so many past years, learn from his peers, and have a group of high quality players who are new or relatively new to the college game deploy like they were the freakin NY Knicks of 1969, only more creatively.

If Dave Debushere (spelling ugh), may he rest in peace, could see Kyle play, he would envy him his grace, his good looks, and see in this kid a modern version of himself, only Kyle is just 19 and Dave would be seeing with the eyes of a seasoned pro, the best at what he did, which was just about everything, on one of history's greatest teams.

Now maybe Kyle will never get to win two championships in the pros the way David did. But, Kyle is the smartest, most versatile, most even tempered, most fearless, most talented 6'8" player you will see. No, no he does not have LeBron's body, nobody does, but come on, if you don't think that you've been watching something extraordinary in Duke history in watching Kyle then, how can I put this nicely, one of us is nuts.

And, if you watched DeMarcus this year and were not stone cold in awe of all that he brought to the court against anybody and everybody, then ditto.

Scheyer, what are they going to say about Scheyer that has not been said before. Gerald, Greg, have they not left you completely stunned? I don't mean excited, I mean stunned?

Then you see a guy like Zman, playing on one foot, living to get out on the court and contribute, even while he is severely hamperedl; and a warrier like McClure, the best defender in the ACC last year, recovering, playing a lesser roll, and he too contributes. Smith, this kid could well be a pro; he sits and watches guys from Belmont who you will never hear about again and who if their coach had to choose would choose Smith 10 out of 10 times over them as they play and he sits.

Me, I live in today's world, which for the most part disappoints. Not Duke basketball, not this year it hasn't. Not by a long shot. Call me "nuts," if you like Phillie, but this year's team was great; win, lose or draw they set the mark by which the game is to be judged. That, sir, is my position, and I am sticking to it.

Shane, Boozer, Brand, JWill, Grant, and maybe even Christian, you ask them; why do I think that none would disagree.

Atlanta Duke
03-21-2008, 04:26 PM
Duke's continued existence in the Top 5-10 every year is something that very few teams can match (look at Florida this year)....We'll have to fall a lot further and for a lot longer before it's rational to say that Duke is no longer one of the top programs in the country.

I think what the NYT writer is saying is that Duke is no longer the pre-eminent program, which is not an unjustified conclusion. These things ebb and flow - for now Carolina appears to have returned to the top of the roost in the ACC as it did during Dean's last surge post-1992 and we know that did not last.

But just because nothing lasts forever does not mean it will not come back.

As someone who had his initial exposure to Duke basketabll during the grim 1972-76 years, it appeared after 1980, 1986, and the dark times of 1994-95 that Duke might be heading back into the early 70s abyss and rallied.

As long as K is the coach Duke will be in the mix

dukie8
03-21-2008, 05:00 PM
The point was about the article (an its implications affecting recruiting). If anything, UNC's bad stretch with Doherty as the coach would have even caused bigger problems in recruiting- but it did not. Also are you saying Duke lost to 2 sub 300 teams this season - Pitt (Big East Tourney Champ), Wake (not a good team), Miami (NCAA team), UNC (ACC Champs x2) and Clemson ( NCAA team)?

no. i was referring to the fact that belmont lost to campbell and kennesaw st, both of which are sub 300 in the rpi. i'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by rattling off the teams that duke lost to.

greybeard
03-21-2008, 05:19 PM
I think what the NYT writer is saying is that Duke is no longer the pre-eminent program, which is not an unjustified conclusion. These things ebb and flow - for now Carolina appears to have returned to the top of the roost in the ACC as it did during Dean's last surge post-1992 and we know that did not last.

But just because nothing lasts forever does not mean it will not come back.

As someone who had his initial exposure to Duke basketabll during the grim 1972-76 years, it appeared after 1980, 1986, and the dark times of 1994-95 that Duke might be heading back into the early 70s abyss and rallied.

As long as K is the coach Duke will be in the mix

Serious question: do you think more people watch Carolina play [you file in the blank] or Duke play the same team? This year I say it is Duke.

The only guys on Carolina I would go out of my way to watch are Hansbrough and Ellington. I'd rather watch Singler than Hansbrough, and much rather watch any of three other players on Duke (Markie, Scheyer, and Gerald) over Ellington. The rest of the guys on Carolina, including Lawson, I wouldn't pay a nickel to watch.

When both teams are playing well, which team is better? Which team is more interesting to watch? I think that the answer to both is Duke. The second one is not even in the same universe.

Carolina has won more games, and has beaten Duke twice and lost only once. Carolina might win the NCAA Championship. Duke is much less likely to. Pre-eminent should be made of sterner stuff, imo.

Wander
03-21-2008, 05:33 PM
I don't think anyone believes that Duke is as dominant as it was in the early 90's. I'm just tired of people overreacting to one game. Duke wins in Maui or beats UNC on the road, and the program is back to its old ways. Duke loses to Wake Forest or plays close with Belmont, and the team is exposed and the program is on the decline. It's lazy as hell...

Atlanta Duke
03-21-2008, 05:52 PM
Serious question: do you think more people watch Carolina play [you file in the blank] or Duke play the same team? This year I say it is Duke.

The rest of the guys on Carolina, including Lawson, I wouldn't pay a nickel to watch.



The Yankees are probably still a bigger ratings magnet than any team except possibly the Red Sox, but that does not make them the clearly pre-eminent baseball team. If TV ratings were the test American Idol would be the pre-eminent artistic achievement of our time.

All I am saying is the articles on Duke not being the sole superpower in college ball after one trip past the Sweet Sixteen in the last 6 tournaments are not unjustified

mapei
03-21-2008, 05:55 PM
She could have written a column that did a service to the Belmont team, which was no different than a hundred Princeton teams of yore, who put the fear of G-d into such teams as Pat Ewing's Georgetown team when JTIII the player came within a point or two of sticking it to Pops big time.

For the record, neither Patrick Ewing, who graduated from Georgetown in 1985, nor John Thompson III, who graduated from Princeton in 1988, played in that game.

The game took place in 1989, and Georgetown was led by Alonzo Mourning and Charles Smith. I believe that JT3 was neither playing nor coaching but in business at the time.

greybeard
03-21-2008, 05:58 PM
For the record, neither Patrick Ewing, who graduated from Georgetown in 1985, nor John Thompson III, who graduated from Princeton in 1988, played in that game.

The game took place in 1989, and Georgetown was led by Alonzo Mourning and Charles Smith. I believe that JT3 was neither playing nor coaching but in business at the time.

I believe that you will find that III played against II in the playoffs and almost beat him. I could be wrong, but the point would still be valid. Alonzo, the African, Charles against princeton.

sagegrouse
03-21-2008, 06:05 PM
We have to look at ourselves clearly, I think, in order to understand where we've been and where we're going. Honest appraisals are necessary.

I think these particular issues (the diminishing aura, the lack of fear from opponents, the endemic hatred), are, in fact, stongly relevant, interwoven and even symbiotic with internal, systemic issues (recruiting, end of season fatigue, poor recent post-season performances).



These are strong views and intensely expressed.

If I can apply a modest amount of textual criticism, I have no trouble with understanding the first two-thirds of what you say: "reduced aura and lack of fear from opponents" are in a kind of feedback loop with recruiting (poor, you mean?), end-of-season fatigue (not enough good players or ineffective coaching?), and poor recent post-season performances (i.e., no FF since 2004, although through 2006 we had a phenomenal ACC tourney record).

What does any of this have to do with Duke hatred? First, the "hatred" isn't "endemic" unless Duke hatred is the only kind of hatred there is. (E.g., "The yellow-billed magpie is endemic to California." [Found only there.]) Maybe you meant "intense hatred." FWIW, I think Duke is hugely popular with the general public and casual fan and, therefore, reviled by some b-ball fans that root hard for another school. And, of course, it's the latter group that publish all these ignorant blogs and on-line postings. ("Ignore those little people behind the curtain.") I prefer to think of Duke hatred, to the extent it exists, as a kind of jealousy of the program. In which case, "Vive Duke hatred!"

But back to the part I think I understand. If the players are no good (or not as good), then the reduced aura and lack of fear from opponents is a pretty obvious connection. And if the aura is diminished, then it may be more difficult to recruit.

Seems pretty obvious, but I am not sure I buy it.

Isn't the Duke program allowed to have a down year without being toppled as a premier program? Last year's team was severely handicapped because of youth -- all the freshmen, the Paulus injury and consequent average performance, and the failure of McRoberts to blossom into the second coming of Laettner. (And I think the 2005-2006 team was an overachiever -- there was almost no help for JJ and Shel -- winning the ACC was a bit of a miracle.)

I think this team is a lot better than last year's and properly representative of Duke. And it should be even better next year, if the losses are confined to Markie. Maybe the team will lose tomorrow and maybe it won't make the FF but then maybe it will do both. But this has been an exciting team that won almost all its 13 conference wins by double digits.

I can't share your concerns, although I understand that is really fun to make the FF every year, to be ranked #1, and to dominate the ACC.

sagegrouse

greybeard
03-21-2008, 06:22 PM
The Yankees are probably still a bigger ratings magnet than any team except possibly the Red Sox, but that does not make them the clearly pre-eminent baseball team. If TV ratings were the test American Idol would be the pre-eminent artistic achievement of our time.

All I am saying is the articles on Duke not being the sole superpower in college ball after one trip past the Sweet Sixteen in the last 6 tournaments are not unjustified

I haven't seen any such article. Saying that Duke is not a pre-eminent college basketball team, which is what the chick said, is ignorant, in my opinion.

You haven't answered any of my other questions? I take it then that you agree with me. That at its best, Duke is superior to Carolina at its best. Yes or no? It is reasonable to say that Carolina is better. I do not think that that is the case, and I bet at least half the 1-A coaches would agree with that.

Carolina playing its less than A game beats Duke playing its less than A game. Carolina has more margin for error, that is, has BIGGER and more athletic front court players. That's it. Roy can stock pile em. Period.

Add McRoberts and I say that Duke is the superior team, as in vastly. Carolina can keep Wright, who was NEVER a college player to begin with. With McRoberts, Duke would be the best team in the Country, by far. You disputing this?

No one would argue that McRoberts was ready to come out, and no one with a brain, which McRoberts has, would have left, had it not been for his legitimate concern about his back. Even with a troubled back, McRoberts' shot-blocking, man-up and help defense, outlet passing, catch and dunk offense, and passing ability would have made this team a killer. One for the ages! Way better than the competition. You arguing with this, or not!!!!

Atlanta Duke
03-21-2008, 06:39 PM
I haven't seen any such article. Saying that Duke is not a pre-eminent college basketball team, which is what the chick said, is ignorant, in my opinion.

You haven't answered any of my other questions? I take it then that you agree with me. That at its best, Duke is superior to Carolina at its best. Yes or no? [/B]

My original link in this thread was not to "the chick" (amazed you were not sent to a re-education camp at the Gothic Wonderland for that mindset:) but to The New York Times article that stated as follows:

Duke lost in the first round last season to Virginia Commonwealth, and this narrow victory was yet another sign that the days of the Blue Devils being college basketball’s pre-eminent men’s program appear to be fading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21west.html?scp=2&sq=duke&st=nyt

The NYT article did not state Duke was not a pre-eminent program; it stated Duke was fading as the pre-eminent program - do you disagree?

To answer your question regarding Carolina, IMO Carolina at its best has been better than Duke at its best on average post-2004 and certainly better this year - being able to recruit competent power players over 6'6" tends to achieve that goal.

As for adding McRoberts, why not say what if Patterson would have committed or Hansborough would have left last year? In the words of the great basketball coach Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Recruiting for the front line has not gone as well as it could have the last several years and Duke is experiencing the consequences.

runanhide21
03-21-2008, 06:51 PM
I think one of the previous posters in this thread said it best when he quoted what Boeheim said about the fact that there will never be another GREAT college basketball team (even though as much as it pains me to say this because my hatred for Joakim Noah borders on that for the North Carolina basketball team, I have to say the Florida teams of the past 2 years were pretty darn good)...Look, I love Duke as much if not more than anyone in the world but I have to say that the past 2 year's teams do not have that fire, that killer instinct that left with JJ and Shelden in my opinion...I look to the sidelines and I dont see K getting in people's faces and you know what, I think thats what these guys need...They are f-ing Duke University, they need to put that jersey on and remember who wore it in the past and go out there with the idea that they want to beat everyone that takes the court with them by 20+...I know that it doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 100 but you know what, as a Duke fan, I don't want to hear that from the players...I want them to be honest and say what they are thinking which is "We should have beat the tar out of Belmont, they have no business being on the same floor as us, etc."

And you know what I think is the most frustrating thing about this season? They PLAYED like with that type of fire and that type of killer attitude in every game through the UNC win at Chapel Hill...They stepped on the court with the goal to drop 90+ points on anyone they could and they darn near did...and then, for whatever reason, that fire was gone and who the heck knows where it went...I have NOT seen them play a game the same way they played that UNC game for the rest of the season, period...And I am telling you all, if Coach K gets in their faces and lets them know this, I can see them getting it back, because there is intensity there, there is fire but someone needs to wake it up again...I mean when DeMarcus went to the line last night for a 1-1 at the end to make is a 2 or 3 point game, who else besides me just knew he would miss the front end of that 1-1? If you took one look at his face, you knew he was nervous and was going to miss that shot...That, to me, is terrifying as a Duke fan because as a senior, as your leading scorer, and as your team leader, who else would you want on the line at the end of the game? Well, for me, I don't think DeMarcus is that guy anymore, and it hurts me to say that because I love him and I think he is a different player away from that free throw line...

Bottom line is really this though, they DID advance and I personally feel at this point that they have one of the best chances of any 2 seed to get to the elite 8 (WVU tomorrow, and then either WKU or SD in the Sweet 16) but not unless they bring the attitude that they had the beginning of the year, that we all love to see and that we love to have as Duke fans...

dukelifer
03-21-2008, 06:55 PM
no. i was referring to the fact that belmont lost to campbell and kennesaw st, both of which are sub 300 in the rpi. i'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by rattling off the teams that duke lost to.

I read a "that" as an "and" and thought you referring to Duke. Your point is well taken. UNC never almost lost to a team in the tourney with 2 losses to sub 300 teams.

mapei
03-21-2008, 06:58 PM
I believe that you will find that III played against II in the playoffs and almost beat him. I could be wrong, but the point would still be valid. Alonzo, the African, Charles against princeton.

This is a tangent, but JT2's teams never played Princeton while JT3 was on the Princeton team. The game that everyone remembers was a 50-49 near-upset in 1989 that was saved only by freshman Alonzo Mourning's last-second blocked shot. It is the closest a 16th seed has ever come to beating a #1, and it is still talked about. Georgetown has played Princeton since, but only only after JT3 graduated.

It's possible that you are remembering 1999, when Georgetown lost to Princeton in the NIT. JT3 was an assistant on that Princeton team, but the elder Thompson had been replaced mid-season that year by Craig Esherick. That was the first time that Georgetown played Princeton after the 1989 near-upset.

I agree that none of this affects your point. Just clearing the record.

merry
03-21-2008, 08:36 PM
This is a tangent, but JT2's teams never played Princeton while JT3 was on the Princeton team. The game that everyone remembers was a 50-49 near-upset in 1989 that was saved only by freshman Alonzo Mourning's last-second blocked shot. It is the closest a 16th seed has ever come to beating a #1, and it is still talked about.

The thing I remember about Georgetown in the 1989 NCAAs was they advanced to the regional final where they lost to #2 seed Duke.

mgtr
03-21-2008, 08:57 PM
All this faded glory junk (bear in mind that it is a brand name of Walmart!) is just another way of saying "What have you done for me lately?" Such people have small minds, and cannot encompass the larger picture, where a team consistently wins for many years (where their coach has over 800 wins!) and thinks that if you don't win this year, you have slipped down into the muck. Duke (and yes, other team such as UK and UNC) have established consistent records over the years which will never be equalled by upstarts such as Memphis.

Rich
03-21-2008, 09:11 PM
as a senior, as your leading scorer, and as your team leader, who else would you want on the line at the end of the game?

Lindsey Harding? (sorry, that was uncalled for)

Lauderdevil
03-21-2008, 10:55 PM
With a young team, little size, and no superstar, Duke is 28-5 so far this year. We ranked in the top 10 all season, rising as high as 2. Got a 2 seed in the Tournament. Folks, whether or not we are *the* predominant program, we're still in the glory years. The day will come when Duke is not one of the dominant programs -- it has happened to everyone: UCLA basketball, Notre Dame football, the New York Yankees, and yes, the Green Bay Packers. When those days come we'll reminisce about seasons like this one, when a young team scrapped and outperformed to take a team further than anyone expected. There were not too many games I've enjoyed more than this year's Wisconsin blowout, or the Dean Dome Carolina game. I took Duke to the national championship in my brackets this year -- heart over head, perhaps, but something I still view as possible. I'm just glad to have a team where that ember of possibility still glows. Ask your friends at NC State or Michigan if they would like to still have that dream.

devildownunder
03-21-2008, 11:37 PM
Maybe it's just my age, but today's basketball, pro or college, in the main bores me. If I see another highlight dunk that does not involve a glass of milk and a doughnut, ugh.

So, this year I find something remarkably interesting in the game--intelligent, creative, exciting, skilled, coordinated, to go on top of the usual things that people here have come to expect from K teams, which I won't even try to enumerate, all of which contribute to winning, which also bores me, but that's another matter.

I see the elegant game that basketball was in my youth squared; it left me agape--never saw such stuff in my life. You have someone who wants to argue otherwise, I'd love to hear it. Certainly, I'd just love it if that chick who wrote that article would try to take this issue on.

So, you think that Duke has lost something when they don't have Brand, Boozer and JWill, not to mention a host of other pro or pro caliber players on the same team, and I think that none of those teams have captured the game the way this one has. One of us is nuts then, right, you with me so far. Now, if I began by saying it was me, no one would have read one word, because for the first time in history everyone on this board would have been on the same page. Who, I ask you, would have wanted that? So the est of you are nuts and me, I am sane. Now we got us a discussion, right?

From my perspective, the star qualify of Duke or any other team is far less interesting, exciting, stimulating, then when I see a Hall of Fame Coach throw away the play book of so many past years, learn from his peers, and have a group of high quality players who are new or relatively new to the college game deploy like they were the freakin NY Knicks of 1969, only more creatively.

If Dave Debushere (spelling ugh), may he rest in peace, could see Kyle play, he would envy him his grace, his good looks, and see in this kid a modern version of himself, only Kyle is just 19 and Dave would be seeing with the eyes of a seasoned pro, the best at what he did, which was just about everything, on one of history's greatest teams.

Now maybe Kyle will never get to win two championships in the pros the way David did. But, Kyle is the smartest, most versatile, most even tempered, most fearless, most talented 6'8" player you will see. No, no he does not have LeBron's body, nobody does, but come on, if you don't think that you've been watching something extraordinary in Duke history in watching Kyle then, how can I put this nicely, one of us is nuts.

And, if you watched DeMarcus this year and were not stone cold in awe of all that he brought to the court against anybody and everybody, then ditto.

Scheyer, what are they going to say about Scheyer that has not been said before. Gerald, Greg, have they not left you completely stunned? I don't mean excited, I mean stunned?

Then you see a guy like Zman, playing on one foot, living to get out on the court and contribute, even while he is severely hamperedl; and a warrier like McClure, the best defender in the ACC last year, recovering, playing a lesser roll, and he too contributes. Smith, this kid could well be a pro; he sits and watches guys from Belmont who you will never hear about again and who if their coach had to choose would choose Smith 10 out of 10 times over them as they play and he sits.

Me, I live in today's world, which for the most part disappoints. Not Duke basketball, not this year it hasn't. Not by a long shot. Call me "nuts," if you like Phillie, but this year's team was great; win, lose or draw they set the mark by which the game is to be judged. That, sir, is my position, and I am sticking to it.

Shane, Boozer, Brand, JWill, Grant, and maybe even Christian, you ask them; why do I think that none would disagree.




This year's team set the mark by which the game is to be judged?

Please tell me this is sarcasm. This year's duke team, when healthy, is a good team, an exciting team, a tough team to play and a fun team to watch, but they have never left me in awe. This post left me in awe.

Lulu
03-22-2008, 03:13 AM
Without debating the merits of the argument, I think the big difference in the public's perception of Duke, compared to UCLA, KY, UNC..., is that those programs go beyond the coach, while Coach K IS the Duke program. I think this is a broad perception that likely does/will affect recruiting etc down the road. Being a smaller private school is never going to help that perception either. Is it not fair to say that it is easier to imagine a recruit wanting to play for UNC over Duke, but similarly for Coack K over Roy? Or, a player goes to UNC because they want to play for UNC, they go to Duke because they want to play for Coach K.

So as goes Coach K, as goes Duke to an extent. I admittedly cringe every time ESPN decides to mention K's birthdays - it's true, so I guess I can't feel too bad saying it. We all know that K isn't coaching into his 90's, so at some point he will have to retire and my gut just tells me that it's going to take a dominant season a few years beyond K's shadow to change this sentiment about the Duke program.

wisteria
03-22-2008, 04:05 AM
Without debating the merits of the argument, I think the big difference in the public's perception of Duke, compared to UCLA, KY, UNC..., is that those programs go beyond the coach, while Coach K IS the Duke program. I think this is a broad perception that likely does/will affect recruiting etc down the road. Being a smaller private school is never going to help that perception either. Is it not fair to say that it is easier to imagine a recruit wanting to play for UNC over Duke, but similarly for Coack K over Roy? Or, a player goes to UNC because they want to play for UNC, they go to Duke because they want to play for Coach K.

So as goes Coach K, as goes Duke to an extent. I admittedly cringe every time ESPN decides to mention K's birthdays - it's true, so I guess I can't feel too bad saying it. We all know that K isn't coaching into his 90's, so at some point he will have to retire and my gut just tells me that it's going to take a dominant season a few years beyond K's shadow to change this sentiment about the Duke program.

Lulu, I think you nailed one of the reasons. We had good coaches before K. Bubas, Foster...But Duke was never much of a powerhouse. K made Duke basketball. No matter we admit it or not, people expect us as a one-time wonder, except that this is a 30-something year wonder. Meaning, Duke falls when K retires. We might have to wait till that day, the day we still have great teams/ great performance without K, to change people's perception about us.

Atlanta Duke
03-22-2008, 06:45 AM
Lulu, I think you nailed one of the reasons. We had good coaches before K. Bubas, Foster...But Duke was never much of a powerhouse.

His record of course does not compare to that of K (only Coach Wooden leaves K in the dust) but this excerpt from Wikipedia (I think the facts are good although with Wiki you never know) indicates Vic Bubas made Duke what would seem to be a powerhouse during the 1960s.

As his program progressed, Duke would finish in the AP Top-10 basketball poll in seven of his ten seasons. He led Duke to the NCAA Final Four three times (1963, 64 and 66). His teams finished first in league play on four occasions and won four ACC championships, competing in the ACC Tournament championship game in eight of his ten seasons. Bubas led Duke to a 213-67 record, which was the 3rd-highest win total in America during the Sixties. His .761 winning percentage ranks tenth all-time among NCAA coaches.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Bubas

K obviously is the greatest Duke coach and there will be a drop-off when he leaves, but the Duke brand does have some independent value - IMO we are not talking UNLV post-Tark here

mapei
03-22-2008, 09:13 AM
Lulu, I think you nailed one of the reasons. We had good coaches before K. Bubas, Foster...But Duke was never much of a powerhouse. K made Duke basketball. No matter we admit it or not, people expect us as a one-time wonder, except that this is a 30-something year wonder. Meaning, Duke falls when K retires. We might have to wait till that day, the day we still have great teams/ great performance without K, to change people's perception about us.

Not only that, but K has been the only coach of Duke basketball for most people who are basketball fans today. People just aren't old enough to remember Foster and Bubas 30 (!) years ago. Meanwhile, every one of those other storied programs has changed coaches multiple times. There's not the familiarity that comes from K's continuity.

greybeard
03-22-2008, 09:47 AM
My original link in this thread was not to "the chick" (amazed you were not sent to a re-education camp at the Gothic Wonderland for that mindset:) but to The New York Times article that stated as follows:

Duke lost in the first round last season to Virginia Commonwealth, and this narrow victory was yet another sign that the days of the Blue Devils being college basketballís pre-eminent menís program appear to be fading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21west.html?scp=2&sq=duke&st=nyt

The NYT article did not state Duke was not a pre-eminent program; it stated Duke was fading as the pre-eminent program - do you disagree?

To answer your question regarding Carolina, IMO Carolina at its best has been better than Duke at its best on average post-2004 and certainly better this year - being able to recruit competent power players over 6'6" tends to achieve that goal.

As for adding McRoberts, why not say what if Patterson would have committed or Hansborough would have left last year? In the words of the great basketball coach Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Recruiting for the front line has not gone as well as it could have the last several years and Duke is experiencing the consequences.

Oh, The New York Times, that is different. Right. There has been in my time only one "the pre-eminent program" in college basketball and it was not Duke. It was UCLA.

K has been and is the preeminent coach in college basketball for some time. I expect that he will continue to be.

Has K fielded teams that were stronger than the current one. Who cares. The same people who went nuts when Bonds was hitting 73 and then went even more nuts when they discovered that he was using (not proven yet, thank you).

The article was written by a chick who used catty stuff instead of an appreciation for the game, the preeminent coach in the game, and a team that has played remarkable basketball this year, something in my mind and K's (he said so) that makes him extremely gratified and proud win or lose from here on out.

You think the chick deserves to be called what she pretends to be, a sports writer in the great tradition of NY Sports Writers, sorry, I don't. And, I don't think that the NY Times' track record of late is particularly hallowed in that regard, that is, they seem to in the last few years have fielded a slew of unprincipled wannabes who engage in schlock journalism. You disagree with that? Someone writes an article about one team that played a nice game but lost to a better team and uses it as a platform to bash the better team gets what she gets; in this case it is chick; a chick bringing tabloid journalism, gossip, to the sports pages, where it and she do not belong. If I could have thought of a more perjorative way to put her down, I'd have used it. Sorry, this is the best I could do.

Your analogy to the Yankees was cute but wrong headed. Duke played great, as in terrific basketball this year which is why I watched. I went to Cornell. I don't watch Duke if they are less than all that. I have been a basketball fan all my life. I was taken with K from before Johnny D. He impresses me. But, he don't play. If his team is not my cup of tea, I hit golf balls or go to the gym. Sadly, my workouts suffered this year. The chick and you think that this was some kind of downfall from greatness by the hallowed Duke program, I think you are nuts (in a kind and gentle way because Duke ain't UCLA, and there is no such animal except among schlock journalists when they want to tear something down).

In any event, even if Duke was the pre-eminent program, anybody who looks at this year's team and uses it as proof of a drop off in an article knows nothing about the game. Nothing.

As for Paterson, he didn't chose to go to Duke, so I don't count him. McRob did. IMO, he would still be there if he did not have a terribly flawed back. In my opinion, that means that K and his staff had succeeded in building the pre-eminent team in colleg basketball only to have it foiled by injury. They didn't lose McRob to the pros because of the big bucks. They lost McRob the same way they did last year; to a bad back. Had he played witha bad back for Duke, they are odds on Champs this year. They beat Carolina three times, not once. That is my view, and it is not the same as your lament about the one that got away.

Carolina lost Lawson to injury; if he had been out for the season, no way Carolina makes a serious run. Duke still can make that run, even though they lost McRob to a career (at Duke at least and maybe forever) ending injury.

Finally, you and the chick make the unexceptional point that there is greater parity in college basketball today than there was in bygone years. How many times does somebody write about that and build Duke up as a straw man to get torn down before you get tired of it? You know my feelings and thoughts on the matter.

I hope Duke plays well today. They have earned it. Go Duke!

Atlanta Duke
03-22-2008, 10:11 AM
Oh, The New York Times, that is different. Right. There has been in my time only one "the pre-eminent program" in college basketball and it was not Duke. It was UCLA.

K has been and is the preeminent coach in college basketball for some time. I expect that he will continue to be.

Has K fielded teams that were stronger than the current one. Who cares. The same people who went nuts when Bonds was hitting 73 and then went even more nuts when they discovered that he was using (not proven yet, thank you).

The article was written by a chick who used catty stuff instead of an appreciation for the game, the preeminent coach in the game, and a team that has played remarkable basketball this year, something in my mind and K's (he said so) that makes him extremely gratified and proud win or lose from here on out.

You think the chick deserves to be called what she pretends to be, a sports writer in the great tradition of NY Sports Writers, sorry, I don't. And, I don't think that the NY Times' track record of late is particularly hallowed in that regard, that is, they seem to in the last few years have fielded a slew of unprincipled wannabes who engage in schlock journalism. You disagree with that? Someone writes an article about one team that played a nice game but lost to a better team and uses it as a platform to bash the better team gets what she gets; in this case it is chick; a chick bringing tabloid journalism, gossip, to the sports pages, where it and she do not belong. If I could have thought of a more perjorative way to put her down, I'd have used it. Sorry, this is the best I could do.

Your analogy to the Yankees was cute but wrong headed. Duke played great, as in terrific basketball this year which is why I watched. I went to Cornell. I don't watch Duke if they are less than all that. I have been a basketball fan all my life. I was taken with K from before Johnny D. He impresses me. But, he don't play. If his team is not my cup of tea, I hit golf balls or go to the gym. Sadly, my workouts suffered this year. The chick and you think that this was some kind of downfall from greatness by the hallowed Duke program, I think you are nuts (in a kind and gentle way because Duke ain't UCLA, and there is no such animal except among schlock journalists when they want to tear something down).

In any event, even if Duke was the pre-eminent program, anybody who looks at this year's team and uses it as proof of a drop off in an article knows nothing about the game. Nothing.

As for Paterson, he didn't chose to go to Duke, so I don't count him. McRob did. IMO, he would still be there if he did not have a terribly flawed back. In my opinion, that means that K and his staff had succeeded in building the pre-eminent team in colleg basketball only to have it foiled by injury. They didn't lose McRob to the pros because of the big bucks. They lost McRob the same way they did last year; to a bad back. Had he played witha bad back for Duke, they are odds on Champs this year. They beat Carolina three times, not once. That is my view, and it is not the same as your lament about the one that got away.

Carolina lost Lawson to injury; if he had been out for the season, no way Carolina makes a serious run. Duke still can make that run, even though they lost McRob to a career (at Duke at least and maybe forever) ending injury.

Finally, you and the chick make the unexceptional point that there is greater parity in college basketball today than there was in bygone years. How many times does somebody write about that and build Duke up as a straw man to get torn down before you get tired of it? You know my feelings and thoughts on the matter.

I hope Duke plays well today. They have earned it. Go Duke!

Thanks for building up straw men and knocking them down rather than respond to my point with such cheap shots as "New York" sportswriters (another word traditionally goes in place of "sportswriters" for that slur, but close enough). You tried to lump me in with "the chick" (if she writes a pro-Duke article does that term get lost for you?) and I never adopted her point of view.

I of course also hope Duke plays well today and definitely admire the moxie this team has exhibited all year (as opposed to last year's dysfunctional operation that appaently was not unelated to the personality of McBob).

I was a regular poster here for a number of years but have laid off - these sorts of exchanges remind me why.

Go Duke!

Drebly1
03-22-2008, 10:46 AM
The article was written by a chick who used catty stuff instead of an appreciation for the game, the preeminent coach in the game, and a team that has played remarkable basketball this year, something in my mind and K's (he said so) that makes him extremely gratified and proud win or lose from here on out.

You think the chick deserves to be called what she pretends to be, a sports writer in the great tradition of NY Sports Writers, sorry, I don't. ury.

Finally, you and the chick make the unexceptional point that there is greater parity in college basketball today than there was in bygone years.

Referring to the female writer as "chick" really cheapens your argument, especially when it's done three times in a single post.

Lauderdevil
03-22-2008, 10:59 AM
I think the big difference in the public's perception of Duke, compared to UCLA, KY, UNC..., is that those programs go beyond the coach, while Coach K IS the Duke program.


So as goes Coach K, as goes Duke to an extent.


Originally Posted by wisteria
Lulu, I think you nailed one of the reasons. We had good coaches before K. Bubas, Foster...But Duke was never much of a powerhouse.

Guys, Duke has been playing basketball since 1906 and is the fourth-winningest program of all time. It didn't all just happen since 1980. While obviously Coach K is the greatest coach in the school's history, Duke basketball was among the nation's top ten or twenty programs before he arrived, and will be after he's gone. It's unlikely we (or anyone else) will have the same level of consistent excellence, and we may not be the consensus number one program in the nation -- but I suspect at least one of the other guys in suits on the current Duke bench will one day lead Duke to one or more national championships.

merry
03-22-2008, 11:00 AM
Not only that, but K has been the only coach of Duke basketball for most people who are basketball fans today. People just aren't old enough to remember Foster and Bubas 30 (!) years ago. Meanwhile, every one of those other storied programs has changed coaches multiple times. There's not the familiarity that comes from K's continuity.

There was an article in the print version of Blue Planet early in the season that stated this as one of the possible reasons why people "love to hate" Duke - consistency. Every other ACC program (and in fact every other dominant national program) has changed coaches in some cases up to five times during Coach K's 27 year tenure at Duke. Duke has not only had the same coach but has also continued to play in the same storied building rather than building a big new arena. So there's a lot of stability in the program in a variety of ways.

-jk
03-22-2008, 11:00 AM
Guys, Duke has been playing basketball since 1906 and is the fourth-winningest program of all time. It didn't all just happen since 1980. While obviously Coach K is the greatest coach in the school's history, Duke basketball was among the nation's top ten or twenty programs before he arrived, and will be after he's gone. It's unlikely we (or anyone else) will have the same level of consistent excellence, and we may not be the consensus number one program in the nation -- but I suspect at least one of the other guys in suits on the current Duke bench will one day lead Duke to one or more national championships.

And I believe we only passed one team - St. John's - to move from 5th to 4th in the K era.

-jk

arnie
03-22-2008, 12:09 PM
And I believe we only passed one team - St. John's - to move from 5th to 4th in the K era.

-jk

I did not realize that and I've been a Duke BBall fan for nearly 40 years! That stat and the fact that we were in 4 final fours between 1963 and 1978 trashes the argument that Duke has no tradition beyond K.

I'm not sure; however, that one of the other suits on the bench will win a national championship as posted by someone else. I suspect however that Capel/Brey/Battier might win one as the Blue Devil coach.

moonpie23
03-22-2008, 01:07 PM
breathlessly awaiting her scathing commentary on Uconn's slide into faded glory...

DukeColonial
03-22-2008, 03:58 PM
Congrats on a decent year. That is what it was; decent. They won same games, lost some games, but in the end, they didn't do much other than end up in the middle of the pack. And that is ok, because you can not win everything all the time.

That said, I have noticed a thread on this board regarding an article on ESPN, whose entire jist was that Duke is living off its past glory. Maybe the article felt a little canned, maybe it wasn't the best, but one thing the article was was partially, or maybe fully, accurate. I know you can't bring in all of the best players all of the time, but Duke has brought in a glut of wing players the past few years that all do the same thing, and has brought in limited size. They defend well, but aren't the best rebounding team, which ties directly to size. For a team that relies so heavily on the three point shot, they have a serious amount of players that really shouldn't be shooting threes. They can go into a high school players home and use the names Coach K and Duke and wow them, but if you aren't winning when it matters (ie the NCAA tournament), then you are going to continue to lose out on the best players.

So reverse course. If you are so insistent on running an offense predicated on the three point shot, go after guys that can shoot it. DeMarcus Nelson might have scored thousands of points in high school, but he was nothing more than a fourth option on a good team in reality, and he couldn't create his own shot if he had to. He missed too many floaters and free throws. Henderson should not be shooting threes; he should drive to the hoop every time he touches the ball, use his mid-range ability (which is among the best Duke has had since Grant Hill) and his overwhelming athleticism. Scheyer does all the little things well, and is one of the smartest players I have seen in a while, but he needs tons of space to get off a three, and even then he isn't as accurate as he should be. Singler should not be a four by any means; imagine him playing the three, posting up smaller players, playing inside and out. He would be tough to handle. But none of the players Duke has (except for Paulus and King, who should have played at least 15 minutes a game all year; no one would ever convince me that he wouldn't have played better than Nelson did in the NCAAs, regardless of any illness anyone had) are right for the type of system the coaches have decided to play right now. Maybe Elliot Williams will come in and be what they need, but my guess is he will be a slightly smaller Nelson/Henderson type of player.

So why continue to recruit athletic wings? I keep watching the teams that do well in the tournament now, the West Virginias, the Butlers, the so called Mid-Majors, and I ask myself why Duke doesn't target some of the players these teams have. If you are going to rely on the three point shot, go get players that can shoot threes. I have to imagine that if Coach K went to some of these kid's houses and asked them to play for Duke, they would jump at the chance. What is wrong with getting some bangers that are 6-9 and 255 lbs and can't do anything other than rebound and block some shots? Isn't that a better move than getting Lance Thomas, who gets thrown around and makes silly foul after silly foul? I like his energy, but he shouldn't be a starting center on a team that has any real intentions of winning a championship. They need players who are going to hit open threes much more consistently. They need players who won't get out rebounded by 6-2 back up point guards. They need to develop their depth much better, so when their team gets to March, they aren't front rimming threes because of fatigue. I would rather they lose four or five games in the ACC if it meant they had fresher legs in March.

I love Duke, I have since I was 8. I endured the ridicule of my classmates at The George Washington University when Duke beat us in 2006. I wrote this post not because I am bitter about today's loss. I write from a perspective of someone who wants to see Duke get back to their winning ways. I love all of the players that come in and play for my favorite basketball team. But if Duke is going to get back to where they once were, then they need to do something different, and soon.

Duke76
03-22-2008, 04:17 PM
great analysis, agree with everything

K talking about that 3 at end of shot clock was the difference in game

heath_harshman4
03-22-2008, 04:24 PM
Great Post, pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

battierfan
03-22-2008, 04:26 PM
great analysis, agree with everything

K talking about that 3 at end of shot clock was the difference in game

Difference in the game? I think that's bogus. Sorry, but WVU had momentum well before then, and we were within striking distance afterward. There was plenty of time for K to make adjustments. I am baffled by the lack of adjustments and decision making of the coaching staff.

K needs to reassess his recruiting and how he manages the psychology of the team. As I've said in many other posts, they can't relax and enjoy the game, and just play hard for each other. They are thinking so much about executing like Swiss watches that they can't relax and just play. Please recruit some inside players and guard with killer instincts.

Jumbo
03-22-2008, 04:30 PM
I can easily refute the vast majority of the original post. Maybe I'll get the time tomorrow. Right now, I'm too busy dealing with people whose idea of handling disappointment is to trash the people they supposedly "root for." And by trash, I don't mean say a few nasty things. I mean flat-out destroy them. You guys are lucky that you won't see a lot of those posts.

devildownunder
03-22-2008, 04:31 PM
great analysis, agree with everything

K talking about that 3 at end of shot clock was the difference in game

Did he really say that? Oh my goodness, that's troubling.

DukeCO2009
03-22-2008, 04:32 PM
I can easily refute the vast majority of the original post. Maybe I'll get the time tomorrow. Right now, I'm too busy dealing with people whose idea of handling disappointment is to trash the people they supposedly "root for." And by trash, I don't mean say a few nasty things. I mean flat-out destroy them. You guys are lucky that you won't see a lot of those posts.

Refute it, then. This is the best post I've seen in the DBR in forever. What's wrong with constructive criticism? Come on!

YmoBeThere
03-22-2008, 04:32 PM
I can understand from an emotional standpoint that it was a turning point...

Jumbo
03-22-2008, 04:33 PM
Refute it, then. This is the best post I've seen in the DBR in forever. What's wrong with constructive criticism? Come on!

Nothing is wrong with constructive criticism. That's why, you know, the post is still standing. When I have some time to post a coherent argument, I will. As I said, I'm tending to the flood of trolls and nasty posts from pseudo-fans at the moment.

dbchamblee
03-22-2008, 04:37 PM
I don't post here alot, but I have loved and followed Duke Basketball for about 45 years. That post says what many of us feel but don't want to admit. I love these kids and they played their hearts out, but I knew it was over at the 5 minute mark, if not before. We don't have the Laettner, Hill, Hurley, Battier, Brand, Williams, etc. we would need to mount a 10 point comeback.

I guess we get spoiled being the best. Next play...............

kinghoops
03-22-2008, 04:48 PM
well im not going to blast anyone in this post, and i hope it doesnt get deleted for anything negative i have to say. first im not a duke grad, im a life long duke fan and until a couple of years ago, a durham resident. i was a duke fan when willie hodge,tate armstrong, and such were at duke, and i remember being rediculed by carolina fans for wearing my duke shirts and hats to school.

k has been by far the best thing to ever happen to duke in my lifetime, but i have seen a pattern for almost 6 straight seasons that really concerns me as a duke fan. and i can almost go down the list of coaches, who in my opinion outcoached k in the ncca tourney. 02 mike davis, i will not count 03 and 04, 2003 we lost williams,boozer and dunleavey sp? in 2004 in the final four, i thought we lost to a team that had better talent(uconn), in 2005 it was tom izzo, in 2006 it was john brady, in 2007 it was the coach from vcu and today it was bob huggins, who outcoached k, plain and simple in my opinion.

in all the years listed above, my opinion, we had better talent than the team we lost to, so why is k being outcoached?? who out there thought duke should have been up by more than 5 at halftime?? i thought duke really outplayed wva in the first half, but was only up 5, and we didnt adjust to the adjustments that wva made at halftime.

im not a duke insider, dont claim to be, but i would love to hear from everyone on what is the answer? i know 28-6 is a great season and i dont want to take anything away from that, but i would gladly give up a few of the wins in the regular season, to be more competitive in the ncaa tourney.

fogey
03-22-2008, 04:57 PM
great analysis, agree with everything

K talking about that 3 at end of shot clock was the difference in game

the difference in the game, really, is that we were missing both (a) a tough inside presence, and (b) guard quickness and penetration threat. A team missing just one of those strengths is usually doomed in the NCAA tourney, but missing both makes it impossible, not to mention our poor shooting.

So Duke fans should appreciate the great performance and accomplishments of this Duke team this year, the coaching staff and players both. They are a great source of pride for us, work very hard, conduct themselves in first class fashion, all and we are fortunate to be Duke fans.

dbchamblee
03-22-2008, 05:02 PM
in all the years listed above, my opinion, we had better talent than the team we lost to, so why is k being outcoached?? who out there thought duke should have been up by more than 5 at halftime?? i thought duke really outplayed wva in the first half, but was only up 5, and we didnt adjust to the adjustments that wva made at halftime.



We should have been up by much more than 5. But how many layups and inside shots did we miss? Is it just me or does it seem we're so gassed or off balance from a drive that we can't finish the shot? Sometimes the 3's don't fall but layups, come on?

I think that has a direct bearing on talent and recruiting. How many times did Jason Williams put the team on his back with a late series of drives?

Saratoga2
03-22-2008, 05:06 PM
Congrats on a decent year. That is what it was; decent. They won same games, lost some games, but in the end, they didn't do much other than end up in the middle of the pack. And that is ok, because you can not win everything all the time.

That said, I have noticed a thread on this board regarding an article on ESPN, whose entire jist was that Duke is living off its past glory. Maybe the article felt a little canned, maybe it wasn't the best, but one thing the article was was partially, or maybe fully, accurate. I know you can't bring in all of the best players all of the time, but Duke has brought in a glut of wing players the past few years that all do the same thing, and has brought in limited size. They defend well, but aren't the best rebounding team, which ties directly to size. For a team that relies so heavily on the three point shot, they have a serious amount of players that really shouldn't be shooting threes. They can go into a high school players home and use the names Coach K and Duke and wow them, but if you aren't winning when it matters (ie the NCAA tournament), then you are going to continue to lose out on the best players.

So reverse course. If you are so insistent on running an offense predicated on the three point shot, go after guys that can shoot it. DeMarcus Nelson might have scored thousands of points in high school, but he was nothing more than a fourth option on a good team in reality, and he couldn't create his own shot if he had to. He missed too many floaters and free throws. Henderson should not be shooting threes; he should drive to the hoop every time he touches the ball, use his mid-range ability (which is among the best Duke has had since Grant Hill) and his overwhelming athleticism. Scheyer does all the little things well, and is one of the smartest players I have seen in a while, but he needs tons of space to get off a three, and even then he isn't as accurate as he should be. Singler should not be a four by any means; imagine him playing the three, posting up smaller players, playing inside and out. He would be tough to handle. But none of the players Duke has (except for Paulus and King, who should have played at least 15 minutes a game all year; no one would ever convince me that he wouldn't have played better than Nelson did in the NCAAs, regardless of any illness anyone had) are right for the type of system the coaches have decided to play right now. Maybe Elliot Williams will come in and be what they need, but my guess is he will be a slightly smaller Nelson/Henderson type of player.

So why continue to recruit athletic wings? I keep watching the teams that do well in the tournament now, the West Virginias, the Butlers, the so called Mid-Majors, and I ask myself why Duke doesn't target some of the players these teams have. If you are going to rely on the three point shot, go get players that can shoot threes. I have to imagine that if Coach K went to some of these kid's houses and asked them to play for Duke, they would jump at the chance. What is wrong with getting some bangers that are 6-9 and 255 lbs and can't do anything other than rebound and block some shots? Isn't that a better move than getting Lance Thomas, who gets thrown around and makes silly foul after silly foul? I like his energy, but he shouldn't be a starting center on a team that has any real intentions of winning a championship. They need players who are going to hit open threes much more consistently. They need players who won't get out rebounded by 6-2 back up point guards. They need to develop their depth much better, so when their team gets to March, they aren't front rimming threes because of fatigue. I would rather they lose four or five games in the ACC if it meant they had fresher legs in March.

I love Duke, I have since I was 8. I endured the ridicule of my classmates at The George Washington University when Duke beat us in 2006. I wrote this post not because I am bitter about today's loss. I write from a perspective of someone who wants to see Duke get back to their winning ways. I love all of the players that come in and play for my favorite basketball team. But if Duke is going to get back to where they once were, then they need to do something different, and soon.

I think areas have changed in the last few years: The first is in the recruting area where we have gone after some number 1 type propects but haven't got many of the important inside players of that type. Perhaps some of it is the emphasis on getting players who will stay with the program and another part looking for players who are very mobile and also have good GPAs. Not too many of those around. We have also not gotten a superfast point guard despite getting some good wing players like Scheyer, Henderson and Smith.

2. We have lost some of the more average inside players due to what seems like a lack of PT. In coach K's system, you either need to be mobile and play solid defense or you don't get the PT while you grow as a player.

3. Coach K has the coaching style which showed in the last few games this year of staying with the players who brung you and not seemingly making adjustments when they appear to the layman as being needed. Is that different than before? Probably not, but he had a better cast of characters in the past.

DownEastDevil
03-22-2008, 05:07 PM
My Thoughts

1. We have no inside game. It makes it easy to gaurd a 3 point shooting team when you can push your defense to the perimeter without having to worry about an inside presence.

2. Our 3 point shooters are spot up shooters and have a difficult time creating their own shots. The last 3 weeks they even had problems hitting the wide open 3's. If you noticed the driving and kickouts that worked at the beginning of the year no longer worked because teams would let us drive and would not collapse so we had no one to throw the ball too because they knew our gaurds couldn't finish at the rim.

3. Our point guard (Paulas) was our best outside shooter. It's difficult to run a team when you are so dependent on scoring.

4. "G" is not a good long range shooter he should have been going to the hoop more often.

5. Demarcus even though he is a hard nose player he can't shoot very good and in close games he is a liability because his free throw shooting is awful.

6. I loved that wide open style at the start of the year because it was fun to watch and we were winning but deep down in my heart I knew it would be our down fall at years end. If you remember all our Final Four teams of the 80's & 90's then you remember how balanced they were inside & out and until we get that balance back then we are what we are. Please "K" find us some inside game.

kinghoops
03-22-2008, 05:08 PM
We should have been up by much more than 5. But how many layups and inside shots did we miss? Is it just me or does it seem we're so gassed or off balance from a drive that we can't finish the shot? Sometimes the 3's don't fall but layups, come on?

I think that has a direct bearing on talent and recruiting. How many times did Jason Williams put the team on his back with a late series of drives?

i agree very much so, not only missing layups, but hell hitting the bottom of the rim with some, what happen to driving in the lane, faking, getting the defender off balance and getting a foul?? and i asked the question earlier in the week, if this team was so tired, why did k say in an article in the durham herald-sun on the eve of the acc tourney that this team was fresh??

ajtrublu
03-22-2008, 05:10 PM
I'm too busy dealing with people whose idea of handling disappointment is to trash the people they supposedly "root for." And by trash, I don't mean say a few nasty things. I mean flat-out destroy them. You guys are lucky that you won't see a lot of those posts.

Thank you for for that. Seriously, thank you.

Rich
03-22-2008, 05:14 PM
Psychology. I think he was trying to use the media to get to the team and try to will them to believe that they were fresh.

DukeColonial
03-22-2008, 05:17 PM
I dont know the answer to the coaching question. I revere Coach K, he is without a doubt the best thing that has ever happened to the Duke basketball program, and I do not necessarily know if he was out-coached or not. I think each of their losses since the last national championship has been different and was due to different reasons. I won't go into all of them, but in 2002 I felt the team, Jason and Boozer and Dunleavy, had zero depth behind the starting 5 and also had a sense that they deserved to win going into each game, instead of playing hard all the time, just because they had won the year before. The other years seemed to be bad match up problems, esp the Mich State year. The LSU team was the worst team we could have played, because Ty Thomas was athletic enough to guard JJ, and with 5 inches on him, it made it almost impossible for JJ to do anything, and Big Baby and Shel were virtually the same player. Last year's team was just not ready for the big time. Limited experience, didn't seem like they had much desire, lacked a killer instinct, and was not overly athletic, playing against a team that went all out for 40 minutes.

Which brings me to this team. I thought the first half was among the better halves Duke has played in months, minus a few careless turnovers, but they should have been ahead by more than 5. When the second half started, WVU just wanted it more. Duke either hit a wall or plain didn't have the killer instinct they needed. but that was the worst half of basketball I have seen in some time. They did nothing right. I do not believe they were necessarily out-coached. I thought they were just out played. WVU brought in some players who hadn't played much recently, and they did the little things to win. I thought there were a few ticky tack fouls called, esp the last two Singler had, but the refs were pretty consistent in calling the game close on both ends of the court. But it really came down to Duke shooting too often from behind the arc, shooting too early no matter, and shooting some shots that just should not have been shot (Paulus was esp guilty of this).

I commend Coach K for embracing new philosophies and wrinkles at this stage in his career, esp because his ways of doing things have been successful to a historic degree. But I question it at the same time. From what I had read/heard, he learned a lot of the new offensive methods from Mike D'Antoni while coaching Team USA. If that is the truth, then why bring in a new offense that stresses something that your team really isn't that suited for. The Suns shoot an inordinate amount of three pointers, but, correct me if I am wrong, haven't won anything since D'Antoni has been there. Duke seems headed in that direction unless they start bringing in players that fit that kind of system. Refute me all you want, but none of the Duke players, other than Paulus and King, are strict three point shooters. Nelson, Henderson, and Scheyer are all better at putting it on the floor. Singler could be a great inside-out player, in the mold of Battier. But this team was made up of athletic players that aren't consistent from the three point line shooting way too many three pointers. Someone on a different thread pointed out that the 2001 team shot more threes, but that those players were better. Battier, Williams, Dunleavy, and James were consistent three point shooters; Nelson and Henderson are not. Play to your strengths. Tough defense, slashing, and creating. Let Paulus shoot the threes.

And please make free throws. That seems to be Duke's Achilles heal year in and year out, and IMHO, its absolutely inexcusable. If you're skill as a player is to slash to the hoop and get fouled, please be able to make your foul shots.

Atlanta Duke
03-22-2008, 05:20 PM
I can easily refute the vast majority of the original post. Maybe I'll get the time tomorrow. Right now, I'm too busy dealing with people whose idea of handling disappointment is to trash the people they supposedly "root for." And by trash, I don't mean say a few nasty things. I mean flat-out destroy them. You guys are lucky that you won't see a lot of those posts.

Hang in there Jumbo - I have been pretty much a lurker rather than a poster this season and appreciate the mods controlling the flow

Since this is the first mid-afternoon elimination I can recall since 1997 (1998 UK was an early Sunday evening) I am sober and not flaming away

Disappointed but certainly not shocked; as I previously posted in another thread, the effort certainly is not lacking but any contention there has not been a clear drop off in the overall level of talent over the last several years is not supported by what we see on the floor.

dbchamblee
03-22-2008, 05:30 PM
And please make free throws. That seems to be Duke's Achilles heal year in and year out, and IMHO, its absolutely inexcusable. If you're skill as a player is to slash to the hoop and get fouled, please be able to make your foul shots.

That's certainly been the case the last few years. How long has it been since you heard the "Duke makes more free throws than their opponent shoots" mantra?

I'm not kidding here - I think the adjustable goals that allow seven year olds to dunk are a big part of the problem. I remember as a kid just shooting free throws in the back yard. I wonder how many kids do that now?

kinghoops
03-22-2008, 05:37 PM
i agree pp choosing uk over duke was a huge blow, but i have yet to see anyone answer my question, was wva more talented than duke??

GDT
03-22-2008, 06:06 PM
I...appreciate the mods controlling the flow
Disappointed but certainly not shocked

Agreed on both counts. Maybe a little shocked by a 45 to 19 rebound margin (at least according to ESPN) and 5 offensive rebounds by Mazzulla (even though he wasn't the shortest player on the court (also according to ESPN) despite the announcers saying so again and again (and I love him too)) and only three shots by Singler, and nine missed shots by Nelson, and only FIVE shots by Scheyer...heck, now I'm not only shocked but appalled.

Duke76
03-22-2008, 06:38 PM
classic,,,,all dribble no passing..who took all the shots if Scheyer and Singler only took 8. if nelson was sick he shouldn't have been in there;;;he couldn't get past anyone

cbfx3
03-22-2008, 06:49 PM
When I saw Nelson go around his man for the drive and instead of finishing he stopped and looked to pass (the play he got called for the travel).. I knew we had lost. He wouldnt have done that at the begining of the year. He would have slammed it home and maybe got to the line as well.

1Devil
03-22-2008, 06:51 PM
Henderson and Scheyer are good enough to play on any Duke team over the years. Singler too (at least the Singler we saw for most of the season, not the one who is distracted by physical contact and worries about fouls). I think Nolan Smith will be that good as well, and Taylor King too as a special kind of role player.

But as much as I like some of the other guys on the team (Paulus), most would have no role on Duke's best teams. Nelson would have been a role-player, not our leading scorer. How can you count on someone who should be a role-player (like a Thomas Hill) to lead you to glory in the NCAA tournament?

freshmanjs
03-22-2008, 06:53 PM
Ok this is disappointing. It hurts that we are not dominating the ncaa's like we did from 86-94. It is too bad that we don't have the superstars that we had in 99 and 01. It is frustrating when the media (correctly even) points out that we are not what we used to be. It stings that for the last 4 years and 6 of the last 7, we have suffered early exits in the big dance. It is no fun that UNC is better than us right now. I wish McRoberts was as good as Laettner. I wish we could hit some 3's in march. I wish we landed some dominant big guys recently. It hurts.

On the other hand, who is better? Would you trade our 2005-2008 for the 4 years produced by Connecticut? Kentucky? Arizona? Michigan State? Georgetown? Indiana? Florida? (ok yes...but, what seed did they get this year?)

Over the last 4 years, UNC, Florida, and UCLA have performed better. Texas and Kansas are similar. After that, the list is pretty short.

Do we want to do better? Most certainly...and this IS disappointing.

More than anything else, this is a different era in college basketball. Sustaining final4 level excellence across time is proving hard even for the elite programs. Still, I'd rather be an underperforming 1/2 seed than alternate an occasional good year with frequent irrelevance like CT, KY, et al.

kinghoops
03-22-2008, 07:04 PM
Ok this is disappointing. It hurts that we are not dominating the ncaa's like we did from 86-94. It is too bad that we don't have the superstars that we had in 99 and 01. It is frustrating when the media (correctly even) points out that we are not what we used to be. It stings that for the last 4 years and 6 of the last 7, we have suffered early exits in the big dance. It is no fun that UNC is better than us right now. I wish McRoberts was as good as Laettner. I wish we could hit some 3's in march. I wish we landed some dominant big guys recently. It hurts.

On the other hand, who is better? Would you trade our 2005-2008 for the 4 years produced by Connecticut? Kentucky? Arizona? Michigan State? Georgetown? Indiana? Florida? (ok yes...but, what seed did they get this year?)

Over the last 4 years, UNC, Florida, and UCLA have performed better. Texas and Kansas are similar. After that, the list is pretty short.

Do we want to do better? Most certainly...and this IS disappointing.

More than anything else, this is a different era in college basketball. Sustaining final4 level excellence across time is proving hard even for the elite programs. Still, I'd rather be an underperforming 1/2 seed than alternate an occasional good year with frequent irrelevance like CT, KY, et al.

the way i feel, all the teams listed are irrelavent besides one. unc, that is who i feel our competition is, and i hope like hell they dont win this tourney, but im afraid they will

cspan37421
03-23-2008, 12:09 PM
I only got to see part of the first half - was something scheduled already in the afternoon and evening. I wanted our guys to win, of course, but unlike Clark K and Seth D, I thought we would not. Reason? Nothing earth-shattering, just that we peaked in January by beating the (now) #1 team in America by 11 on their home floor. Since then we've not played so well, and I didn't see anything that suggested to me the course would reverse.

I think it was K that said that much of the team's personality had gelled while Zoubek was out, and they were trying to figure out how to work him into the system. But apparently he didn't play a lot in the 2nd half yesterday, so we can't hang it on him.

Offense is up and down but defense finds its level and should be able to be consistent. We knew going into this year that we'd have trouble rebounding and that seems to have been a huge factor yesterday. But I'll tell you, reading the stories this morning about WVA woofing it up by comparing the McD All-Americans (sic?) on the 2 rosters, well, it hurts, but either we deserve the ridicule, or McD means far less than supposed. I hated to see another late season swoon, but compared to last year we did significantly better.

It seems to me that we're an unbalanced team. Maybe we have a lot of some skills, but are inadequate for others, and those inadequacies (FT shooting, rebounding, defensive speed, PG speed) proved our undoing. How far could we really have expected to go with those deficiencies? The way we played, not any further, of course, but one would really like to see improvement through the year, not degradation. The last AP poll had Wisc ahead of us, and of course we took them to the woodshed. But the simple fact is, at the end of the year, we were not playing as well as at the beginning of the year, and I doubt we'd fare as well in a rematch or against a slate of common opponents.

I'd like to see Taylor King practice fewer undefended 30-foot shots and more 21-footers with a guy in his face or something on the line. I've gotten tired of hearing how in warmups he hits from everywhere, but misses when it counts. One yesterday in the first half he was even wide open and missed badly. Championship-caliber teams make you pay for leaving guys wide open.

Next year, I think we're going to need to try and rely on Zoubek more, not less. We need his inside presence for rebounding and some easier scores. These days, you can't wholly rely on the 3, you will go cold as a team sometimes and you need an answer for it, usu. in the form of some guys 6-10 and bigger with post moves. We need balance, and being above average in most areas plus having K on the bench, we'll do great things.

topps coach
03-23-2008, 12:18 PM
If u think 28 wins in a season is just decent u have not been a fan for very long. If u had lived thru the 1970 to 1976 seasons u would thank God for this kind of year. All of this doom and gloom is so silly. We are still a great program that every other team in America tries to emulate.
Our so called demise is not only premature but overstated. If u objectively look at the facts it is easily explained. Duke went for years without losing any players and K"s template was to selectively recruit players to seamlessly fit into the system. He never expected to lose players such as Deng ,Livingston, Humphreys,Randolph, and Mcroberts. When a finely tuned machine loses a plug the engine does not run as well. K rhas recognized this with this team and only needs one big man to get it running smoothly again. Even with these adjustments going on we were a nationally ranked top ten team due to K:s coaching and a wonderful group of young men who gave us everything they had for five months.
Finally how many of u before the season thought that this team would win 28 games

JasonEvans
03-23-2008, 12:31 PM
i agree pp choosing uk over duke was a huge blow, but i have yet to see anyone answer my question, was wva more talented than duke??

The most talented team does not always win. Is this really a concept that is new to you? How often does the "most talented" team win the NCAA title?

I do agree that PP's contributions to Kentucky really helped them in the NCAA tourney though.

--Jason "I root for the guys who come to Duke and do not concern myself with the ones who go elsewhere" Evans

JasonEvans
03-23-2008, 12:40 PM
the way i feel, all the teams listed are irrelavent besides one. unc, that is who i feel our competition is, and i hope like hell they dont win this tourney, but im afraid they will

Carolina-obsession is a fatal disease. You should really seek a cure.

I've got a news flash for everyone under 30, you are currently experiencing what life was like for Duke when Dean Smith was at UNC. Stud recruiting classes year-after-year, ACC Regular season and Tournament titles more often than not, constant #1 seeds in the NCAA tourney. Folks, this is what it was like in the 80s and much of the 90s. Sure, Duke was successful and had years where they were better than Carolina, but (even in many of our Final Four years) UNC was generally a bit ahead of Duke.

Then, Dean retired and Gut struggled to bring in elite recruits and then Doh needed serious anger management classes and the Tarheels slipped. It was fun!!

Well, Roy is there now and he is Dean all over again. If you primarily grew up as a Duke fan in the Gut/Doh years, what is happening now stings. But, the reality is, get used to it. They ain't going away any time soon.

Still, we are their biggest rival and should strive to top them any and all the time. but, as a fan, don't get too hung up on rooting for them to lose cause it just ain't gonna happen all that often.

--Jason "sorry to be the bearer of bad news" Evans

Huh?
03-23-2008, 12:44 PM
We Will Be Back

Edouble
03-23-2008, 01:25 PM
Yes, 28-6 is a great record... far better than last year. But this record doesn't tell the whole story. The story is this: we beat Carolina on their home floor, we were 10-0 in the conference, and we were looking great one month away from March. Then, for some reason, the bottom fell out from under us.

I don't know how many people, in the second week of October last year, believed we would win 28 games, a point I've read some people making on this board. More importantly, I think, how many people in the second week of January thought we wouldn't make the Sweet 16? At that point we were clearly one of the top 5 teams in the country, and our deevolution has been suprising and uncharacteristic of Duke basketball under Coach K.

It would be one thing if the rest of the country had caught up to us, but they haven't. Coach K hasn't really been outcoached all that much-- the team just looks tired and out of sorts. Yesterday, WVA wanted it more than us and played harder in the second half. That was just uncomfortably weird. We've been losing games because of things we've been doing, not because of things that other teams have been doing to us, but because of things we can control, mainly effort and desire.

That's great that Duke sucked in the 1970's. But it's not the 70's anymore. Now that we have a better coach than UNC, and we have an extremely talented squad that's capable of starting the year 22-3, it's emotionally difficult to go through the last month of basketball that we've had. If things were like they were in the 1970's, I'm sure we'd all be glad just to win a few games. In 1997, I was so elated that we won the ACC regular season that I really didn't care what we did in the tournament. I think that each year's team exists in a vacuum somewhat, and this year, alot of us were pretty thrilled with how we were playing. Then the team suddenly looked unrecognizable based on the first 2/3 of the season. I personally was hoping the old team would show up again, but they just got worse, to the point where WVA looked like Duke usually looks yesterday, playing harder and with more desire than the other team on the floor. It was really odd, and not at all what I'm familiar with seeing from a Coach K coached team.

I'm not gonna curse out the team, and I'm not gonna compare them to UNC. If the whole team has had the flu for a while, that explains alot, because yesterday I didn't feel like I was watching Duke basketball, as I have known it. As a fan with long time emotional involvement, I find yesterday's loss and especially the manner in which we lost to be very unexpected.

greybeard
03-23-2008, 01:31 PM
Carolina-obsession is a fatal disease. You should really seek a cure.

I've got a news flash for everyone under 30, you are currently experiencing what life was like for Duke when Dean Smith was at UNC. Stud recruiting classes year-after-year, ACC Regular season and Tournament titles more often than not, constant #1 seeds in the NCAA tourney. Folks, this is what it was like in the 80s and much of the 90s. Sure, Duke was successful and had years where they were better than Carolina, but (even in many of our Final Four years) UNC was generally a bit ahead of Duke.

Then, Dean retired and Gut struggled to bring in elite recruits and then Doh needed serious anger management classes and the Tarheels slipped. It was fun!!

Well, Roy is there now and he is Dean all over again. If you primarily grew up as a Duke fan in the Gut/Doh years, what is happening now stings. But, the reality is, get used to it. They ain't going away any time soon.

Still, we are their biggest rival and should strive to top them any and all the time. but, as a fan, don't get too hung up on rooting for them to lose cause it just ain't gonna happen all that often.

--Jason "sorry to be the bearer of bad news" Evans

Dean, for all his great recruiting, backed into his two lone championships through doors marked "exit" only. Freddie Brown handed him his first, and Chris Webber his second. Hardly earth shattering wins. Dean, for all his great recruiting, is best known for the four corners, the flop, and the hands up and step in and under a jump shooter. Those are his innovations.

You are correct about Roy. He is a great recruiter and coaches a pro-style fast break offense. He will be a major force in college ball for the foreseeable future. The fragility of being such a force, however, is underscored by what happened when Lawsen went down. Without Lawsen, this year we are not talking about Roy or his steller recruiting, or am I missing something?

I thought that K would take it inside off the pass against WVa early and would have let Singler and Lance take on WVa, which obviously was going to commit to stopping wing penetration while covering the three shooters. That left inside players free to catch near the basket without help defense.

That kid from WVa notwithstanding, sorry, he was not a McD's All-America so I can't recall his name, I'd have liked to see him try to stop Singler in that type of scenario.

Singler seemed to run out of gas towards the end of this season. Understandable. Miami, Florida State, Clemson, NCST, all beat the heck out of Singler and the rest of the Duke team physically. That might be basketball or it might be poor officiating. Either way, it proved to wear Singler down and set the road map for defending against Duke. Even Belmont did it!

The question, it seems to me, is whether there is anything about the style of play that wore down and ultimately lead to Duke's defeat this year that entertains or inspires anyone? I know my answer.

The only thing entertaining about watching WVa play is what Bman left behind. That will soon be gone; then they will be the same team that Huggins routinely fielded at Cinncinnati. They could play, only couldn't go to school. You pays your money and makes your choices.

Oh, the kid with the mouth was entertaining to watch too; wonderfully creative one-on-one player. Really impressive. I wonder what message Huggins filled his head with to inspire such a performance?

johnb
03-23-2008, 02:06 PM
Congrats on a decent year. That is what it was; decent. They won same games, lost some games, but in the end, they didn't do much other than end up in the middle of the pack. And that is ok, because you can not win everything all the time.

Second in the ACC and top 5 or 10 in the country throughout the year is not middle of the pack.


That said, I have noticed a thread on this board regarding an article on ESPN, whose entire jist was that Duke is living off its past glory. Maybe the article felt a little canned, maybe it wasn't the best, but one thing the article was was partially, or maybe fully, accurate. I know you can't bring in all of the best players all of the time,

Without a roster of 40 or 50 players, it would definitely be hard to get everyone we'd like. Nevertheless, my hunch is that every single player on our roster was or would have been heavily recruited by every other program in the country and perhaps a few might have not received offers from perhaps 2 or 3 colleges because of their own roster restrictions.


but Duke has brought in a glut of wing players the past few years that all do the same thing,

My first reaction is that they all do the same thing: play excellent basketball, go to school, and bring credit to Duke by being humble, thoughtful, and articulate. My second reaction is that aside from having the dominating inside player whose number is about to be retired, we have all sorts of different pieces to a basketball puzzle.



and has brought in limited size. They defend well, but aren't the best rebounding team, which ties directly to size.

This particular team is an outstanding defensive team. When not struggling with the flu, this year's team was as good as any team in overall defensive work. Thy may not have been rebounding champs, but their overall defensive presence was super. By the way, how many Elton Brands and Shelden Williams are available each year?


for a team that relies so heavily on the three point shot, they have a serious amount of players that really shouldn't be shooting threes

I'm having a little trouble figuring out who shouldn't be shooting threes. Thomas, McClure, and Zoubek probably shouldn't be lobbing them in from outside the circle, but every other player in our top 8 or 9 is a very good shooter with a sold 3 point FG average.


They can go into a high school players home and use the names Coach K and Duke and wow them, but if you aren't winning when it matters (ie the NCAA tournament), then you are going to continue to lose out on the best players.

"continue to lose out on the best players"??? We lost Patterson last year and Monroe next year, but we have consistently gotten more of the best players than any other college in the country. That is partly seen in the McDonald's AA numbers, but even in that group, we get an absurdly high percentage of the top 30 players who also could thrive at Duke.


So reverse course. If you are so insistent on running an offense predicated on the three point shot, go after guys that can shoot it. DeMarcus Nelson might have scored thousands of points in high school, but he was nothing more than a fourth option on a good team in reality, and he couldn't create his own shot if he had to. He missed too many floaters and free throws.

Well, he was one of our first options, and we were a top 10 team, so I'm not sure how to address your versionof "reality." If Duke's games in the NCAA tournament were the only games you saw, then you didn't see Markie in action. Take a look at his postgame interviews this past week; the guy could barely talk, coughed constantly, and looked sick. The fact that K saw a 60% Nelson as worthy of being in the game says something about DeMarcus's skills and heart.


Henderson should not be shooting threes; he should drive to the hoop every time he touches the ball, use his mid-range ability (which is among the best Duke has had since Grant Hill) and his overwhelming athleticism.

Excellent advice--have him do the same thing every time he gets the ball; that should work.


Scheyer does all the little things well, and is one of the smartest players I have seen in a while, but he needs tons of space to get off a three, and even then he isn't as accurate as he should be. Singler should not be a four by any means; imagine him playing the three, posting up smaller players, playing inside and out. He would be tough to handle.

It is pretty unusual for any of our players to get to shoot a three without a hand in his face, and that goes for Scheyer. How accurate, exactly "should" he be; his numbers seem fine to me.

How many college teams have 6'8" highly-skilled wing players? If we had Laettner and Brand on a team at the same time, Singler could play the 3 (though we don't actually number our positions). Of course, if we had Brand, Laettner, and Singler on the team at the same time, we should just join the NBA. On a regular top 10 team, a guy like Singler will do what he did--play inside and outside, generally as a "power forward," whatever that means at Duke.



But none of the players Duke has (except for Paulus and King, who should have played at least 15 minutes a game all year; no one would ever convince me that he wouldn't have played better than Nelson did in the NCAAs, regardless of any illness anyone had) are right for the type of system the coaches have decided to play right now.

So, first, in the current Duke system, we have no use for Singler, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, Thomas, Nelson, etc? Who exactly do you think we should be playing? Kobe, Nash, and Garnett?

And second, you really don't believe that Nelson was sick? Or are you saying that King is simply better than Nelson? Or are you saying that if King had gained experience and confidence by playing 15 minutes/game all year AND if Nelson were very ill AND if King were not ill (though he was listed among those who were sick and his 3-point shots were barely clanging iron against WVU) then there might have been a period of time in the WVU game that King would have been more effective than Nelson. I'll give you that one.


Maybe Elliot Williams will come in and be what they need, but my guess is he will be a slightly smaller Nelson/Henderson type of player.

Didn't you just imply that Henderson and Nelson were not elite players? So I guess this means that Williams--despite being a consensus top 10 recruit--will be a smaller version of marginal.



So why continue to recruit athletic wings?

Wasn't it just a few years ago that people on this board were complaining that we would be in the final four if only we could just start recruiting some athletic wings? Don't people widely say that it's guard play that wins NCAA tournaments? Again, we don't have a roster of 50 guys, and it seems pretty useful to have a team with a good share of athletic wings.


I keep watching the teams that do well in the tournament now, the West Virginias, the Butlers, the so called Mid-Majors, and I ask myself why Duke doesn't target some of the players these teams have.

We could go out of our way to get the players who play for Butler (they did beat South Alabama after all) and West Virginia (read their postgame comments about Duke and tell me if you would be proud of having them on your team--they were arrogantly dismissive). We could also aim our recruiting at the mid majors, despite the fact that no college coach would choose midmajor players over the guys we get. In regards to tournament success, do you think all the midmajors put together have had Duke's tournament success over the past 20 years? If so, perhaps you could run by me the midmajor national champs during that span.


If you are going to rely on the three point shot, go get players that can shoot threes.

Yawn. Look up our stats for the year.

To be continued.

Beezer7
03-23-2008, 02:06 PM
Yes, 28-6 is a great record... far better than last year. But this record doesn't tell the whole story. The story is this: we beat Carolina on their home floor, we were 10-0 in the conference, and we were looking great one month away from March. Then, for some reason, the bottom fell out from under us.

I don't know how many people, in the second week of October last year, believed we would win 28 games, a point I've read some people making on this board. More importantly, I think, how many people in the second week of January thought we wouldn't make the Sweet 16? At that point we were clearly one of the top 5 teams in the country, and our deevolution has been suprising and uncharacteristic of Duke basketball under Coach K.

Very good points. I hope the poor NCAA tourney performances are mainly attributable to the team having the flu...

johnb
03-23-2008, 02:11 PM
I have to imagine that if Coach K went to some of these kid's houses and asked them to play for Duke, they would jump at the chance. What is wrong with getting some bangers that are 6-9 and 255 lbs and can't do anything other than rebound and block some shots?

Who did you have in mind, in particular? Do keep in mind that a lumbering, no offense center takes up one of the 5 spots on the court and that we had one of the best teams in the country.


Isn't that a better move than getting Lance Thomas, who gets thrown around and makes silly foul after silly foul? I like his energy, but he shouldn't be a starting center on a team that has any real intentions of winning a championship.

I have no inside information, but I've heard that the team does have a "real intention" of winning the championship every year. Thomas is an excellent player who was a HIGHLY prized recruit. Yes, I would have liked it if he had an Elton Brand body, and any casual fan would know that he would fare better as a 4 than a 5. I am proud that he sucked it up and didn't whine and worked hard; if I want some sort of perfection, there are other web sites that specialize in such things.



They need players who are going to hit open threes much more consistently.

Yawn.


They need players who won't get out rebounded by 6-2 back up point guards.

I won't even bother to answer that one, either, but will remind you that this is a fan site not a site for random snarkiness



They need to develop their depth much better, so when their team gets to March, they aren't front rimming threes because of fatigue. I would rather they lose four or five games in the ACC if it meant they had fresher legs in March.

Multiple announcers mentioned that the Duke team was one of the fittest teams they'd ever seen, that the players could run all day long. They lost in the context of being sick, not tired.



I love Duke, I have since I was 8. I endured the ridicule of my classmates at The George Washington University when Duke beat us in 2006. I wrote this post not because I am bitter about today's loss. I write from a perspective of someone who wants to see Duke get back to their winning ways. I love all of the players that come in and play for my favorite basketball team.

Exactly who on this team do you love? Apparently Singler but only when he is playing as a 3, Henderson when he is driving the basket, Scheyer when he is shooting a wide-open 3, and Nelson when he is being used as a 4th option. Oh, you also love Patterson, midmajor players, and unnamed 6'9" 255 pound guys who rebound for other teams. I couldn't tell if you love the coaching staff, but it sounds like it might be difficult to love people who don't have the same aspirations for success that you apparently have.


But if Duke is going to get back to where they once were, then they need to do something different, and soon.

You got me there.

SharkD
03-23-2008, 03:05 PM
Wow. If this is the company I keep by being a Duke fan, I'm almost embarrassed to be a Blue Devil.†

That said, I'm going to jump in line behind JohnB:


The Class of 2008 is only the second senior class during the Krzyzewski-era that hasn't witnessed a Final Four appearance since 1986 (the other being the class of 1998). Coach K holds the mantle of the winningest active coach in the NCAA tournament, highest tournament win percentage and the most wins in the first 33 years of a career (surpassing Dean Smith on Thursday night). Sure, Duke fans have come to expect a Final Four appearance every year, but to act like a 2nd round out is the end of the world is ridiculous.


Obviously none of you have seen what the "flu" that's going around Durham (and campus) is like. It's hit my fiancée (a hard-charging Duke oncology nurse and former Duke cross-country runner who literally hasn't taken a sick day in 5 years) and literally knocked her off her feet... in fact, we spent most of yesterday in the DUMC ED because she nearly collapsed while on shift. The fact that Krzyzewski, Collins, Wojo, Nelson, Paulus, Singler, Smith, King and Thomas were all suffering from this bug over the course of this week, yet all got up and did their part is pretty gutty. I doubt many of you would even consider getting out of bed with a 104° fever, let alone playing 38 minutes of basketball and then do it again 40 hours later.


Recruiting hasn't fallen off -- athletes commitment to four years of college has. You're fooling yourselves if you think that a Hurley or Laettner would stick around for three or four years in an era when Freshmen are jumping to the pros with regularity. I guaran-damn-tee you that, if every underclassman on the team returns next year, and the players manage to stay healthy over the summer (and Singler and Thomas work with Nate James a little more) Duke will be in top form next year;


Duke is no more dependent upon the three than they've ever been. I guess you were highly critical whenever Bobby Hurley, or Danny Ferry, or Jason Williams, or JJ Redick, or Trajan Langdon took a shot at three when Duke was down against an opponent, huh? Sure, Seth Davis and other commentators have noted with regularity that Duke doesn't have an inside presence and it lives by the three alone, but they never mentioned how Duke managed to beat teams with huge post play or the effective use of the penetrate and kick-out. With the exception of Brand and Williams, Duke hasn't ever had a traditional post player under Krzyzweski.

Obviously, our over-reliance on a power-forward as center and a three-point shooting point guard from 1990-1992 really hampered our performance. I will say that not having Zoubek in the lineup for 3-4 months did change our gameplay, and did create some headaches when he returned (if for no other reasons than chemistry and his conditioning).


As many of you have perceptively noted, this year's experimental strategy of trying to win by scoring fewer points than their opponents was a colossal failure. Coach K has already informed his staff that they will not be trying that next year, owing his newfound insight to posts on a Duke fan site forum, where it was pointed out by expert commentators that the key to winning was not losing.


† - It could be worse, you could be a fan of my Alma Mater, GW, which has never made it past the Elite Eight and usually doesn't even make the tournament.

greybeard
03-23-2008, 04:17 PM
This is a tangent, but JT2's teams never played Princeton while JT3 was on the Princeton team. The game that everyone remembers was a 50-49 near-upset in 1989 that was saved only by freshman Alonzo Mourning's last-second blocked shot. It is the closest a 16th seed has ever come to beating a #1, and it is still talked about. Georgetown has played Princeton since, but only only after JT3 graduated.

It's possible that you are remembering 1999, when Georgetown lost to Princeton in the NIT. JT3 was an assistant on that Princeton team, but the elder Thompson had been replaced mid-season that year by Craig Esherick. That was the first time that Georgetown played Princeton after the 1989 near-upset.

I agree that none of this affects your point. Just clearing the record.

Maybe I'm confusing JTIII with another son of a storied Washington basketball coach? Is that possible?

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-23-2008, 04:46 PM
I've got a news flash for everyone under 30, you are currently experiencing what life was like for Duke when Dean Smith was at UNC. Stud recruiting classes year-after-year, ACC Regular season and Tournament titles more often than not, constant #1 seeds in the NCAA tourney. Folks, this is what it was like in the 80s and much of the 90s. Sure, Duke was successful and had years where they were better than Carolina, but (even in many of our Final Four years) UNC was generally a bit ahead of Duke.

As someone just old enough to cringe when I remember Dean's reign in the 80's and 90's, I completely agree that this feels like a return to that era sans the great post-seasons. I guess my hope was that K in his prime would at least have us neck-and-neck with anyone that UNC brought in. Am I reading you correctly that we should expect UNC to return to top-dog status and just be content as the #2 team in the ACC?

Is UNC's advantage in recruiting (re: academics, giant fan base, etc.) just so prohibitive that we can't expect to compete and win as many as we lose? I know there's more to the season than the UNC games (although as a guy stuck in the triangle my quality of life re sports discussion is very much at stake). But they are our main rival and stand in the way of ACC RS and tournament titles every season. I'm curious what factors make UNC able to reliably outperform us given the fact that our once-in-a-lifetime coach is established and was recently recruiting at an unprecedented rate. All the evidence since Ol' Roy got the machine up and running confirms this theory, but I'd be genuinely curious to hear why it is so.

sundown
03-23-2008, 05:32 PM
I sincerely hope that seasons like the one we just had -- 28 wins, in the top ten almost the whole season, etc. -- will in the future continue to constitute "down years," and that going four years without a final four run and two without a sweet sixteen run will continue to mark a remarkable "decline." There isn't a single program that, over the past decade, hasn't had a season inferior to Duke's last two. It's an unavoidable truth of college basketball that you just don't make a deep tournament run every damn year. No one does it: even Duke, with its towering image and past "glory." Writers and commentators writing the obituary of Duke's program, as well as fans panicking about the falling sky and demanding drastic changes, would do well to realize that the last few years have merely been an inevitable dip after an awesome run of dominance. Now, that doesn't mean that things will be "back to normal" soon; making regular final four runs is no one's birthright. But declaring the end of Duke being that sort of program, or at least an elite program, based on the past few "sub-par" years, is premature, to put it lightly.

Take a look at these programs, and think back on or look up the sort of down years each has suffered the past decade or so:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2862455

CatfiveCane
03-23-2008, 05:46 PM
Is UNC's advantage in recruiting (re: academics, giant fan base, etc.) just so prohibitive that we can't expect to compete and win as many as we lose? I know there's more to the season than the UNC games (although as a guy stuck in the triangle my quality of life re sports discussion is very much at stake). But they are our main rival and stand in the way of ACC RS and tournament titles every season. I'm curious what factors make UNC able to reliably outperform us given the fact that our once-in-a-lifetime coach is established and was recently recruiting at an unprecedented rate. All the evidence since Ol' Roy got the machine up and running confirms this theory, but I'd be genuinely curious to hear why it is so.

Honestly, I think UNC's advantage is that Duke is now falling victim to the image we have created: holier than you. We say hey to the world: our basketball players are smarter, better spoken, goto class, etc. We point to Grant Hill, Jason Williams, Elton Brand, Shane Battier...

And you know what? I think it hurts us big time. Sure the media loves and eats it up. So do our alumni. But not in the highschool locker rooms or homes of these players. They get resentful. They think Duke is stuck-up. They label us a "white" team. Stuff like that. I know for a FACT that Kenny Boynton "advisors" dont want him to come to Duke because of this.

What Duke needs is to revamp our image. We need to get guys who have a mean streak. That don't mean or dumb, but who play with a chip on their shoulder. We need to start playing trench, fast pace, athletic, hard nose, jungle warfare basketball. Not perimeter, 3-point shooting, basketball.

cspan37421
03-23-2008, 05:51 PM
Suppose it was the flu. If recruiting and image are so important, why is it admirable when someone "refuses to use that excuse"? Might not potential recruits otherwise wonder if K has lost his touch, or the game is passing him by? It can be couched as a reason, not an excuse. I think better to be up front about it, if it was the flu. Last I heard from a DeMarcus quote, he insisted he wasn't sick or anything. But something caused him to be a lot slower than he has been all season.

But on the bright side, we went from 22-11 to 28-6. If we show similar improvement next year, we'll be 34-1 !! I'll take that, esp. if the 1 is in January, not March. Big if, I know, but we're a family, and like our fearless leader says, "Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream!"

johnb
03-23-2008, 08:48 PM
We need to start playing trench, fast pace, athletic, hard nose, jungle warfare basketball. Not perimeter, 3-point shooting, basketball.

Surely you don't think our guys are soft? People can say they were relatively undersized, but there's not a player on the team who's soft.

dyedwab
03-23-2008, 09:43 PM
What Duke needs is to revamp our image. We need to get guys who have a mean streak. That don't mean or dumb, but who play with a chip on their shoulder. We need to start playing trench, fast pace, athletic, hard nose, jungle warfare basketball. Not perimeter, 3-point shooting, basketball.

I agree with this...I would be nice if we had guys with a iittle more of a chip on their shoulder.

We need some guys who don't just survive the Duke Hatred Tsunami, but thrive on it. People who drop 20 on you, beat you by 30 and then sleep with your girlfriend after they beat you... That is not inconsistent with our image at all.

There is a scene in the television show "The West Wing" during which Jed Barlett is running for reelection and has just debated his opponent and trounced him. Sam Seaborn is sitting in a bar talking to someone about it and says, basically, "people thought he was arrogant, not matter what he did, so we used that to our advantage"

People think that Duke is arrogant, and elitist, and too good for anybody else, etc. no matter what we do...So let's not change, but let's get players who thrive in that atmosphere.

dukemsu
03-23-2008, 10:51 PM
End of year thoughts:

1. First and foremost, I am proud of this team. (Full disclosure: I am not a Duke Alum. However, Duke was my team from the time I was 6 and remains so. I am proudly completing my 27th year of being a proud follower of the program) The health issues cannot be simply written off, and the effort was there. I was watching the game with my dad and brother and they thought I was crazy for how I was praising Dave McClure for his D on Alexander. Dave's effort under dire circumstance was a great example of what this team was about. I could come up with examples for all the guys over this 34 game season.

2. I am concerned about the Duke Hatred Tsunami, primarily for the effect it may have on Duke players. It must be truly exhausting to be the target. From my calculations, Duke became the target the moment the buzzer sounded in the 79-77 win over UNLV in 1991. When the first 3 to start the WVU run went in yesterday, you could almost feel the crowd through the TV. What must it be like to play for a team that seems to be hated to an almost irrational degree? Legions of fans and most distrubingly, much of the media seem to take palpable glee in Duke losing in the tournament. Does this affect the players? Does it contribute to their fatigue? Does it make it harder to knock down shots? I don't know, because I haven't been in that spot. Also-does it affect recruiting-is this a contributing factor to Monroe, Patterson, etc. choosing to go elsewhere? I'm asking because I don't know and would like to see what other people think.

3. There are times I, in the course of watching a game, openly question the coaching staff (I was yelling Go To Orange throughout the second half, referring to the zone). However, by the next day, I'm usually calmed down to the point where I accept the fact that K and crew probably already thought of and evaluated any suggestion I might have. I think that's part of being a fan, to question what's going on.

4. I am excited for next year, though I do have concerns about personnel (like many, I feel that our interior presence is not NC caliber right now, etc). Still, I can hardly wait until October 15 so we can all be back on here counting the days to the first game.

Thanks for listening. LGD. Thank you, DeMarcus.

devildownunder
03-24-2008, 05:32 AM
Carolina-obsession is a fatal disease. You should really seek a cure.

I've got a news flash for everyone under 30, you are currently experiencing what life was like for Duke when Dean Smith was at UNC. Stud recruiting classes year-after-year, ACC Regular season and Tournament titles more often than not, constant #1 seeds in the NCAA tourney. Folks, this is what it was like in the 80s and much of the 90s. Sure, Duke was successful and had years where they were better than Carolina, but (even in many of our Final Four years) UNC was generally a bit ahead of Duke.

Then, Dean retired and Gut struggled to bring in elite recruits and then Doh needed serious anger management classes and the Tarheels slipped. It was fun!!

Well, Roy is there now and he is Dean all over again. If you primarily grew up as a Duke fan in the Gut/Doh years, what is happening now stings. But, the reality is, get used to it. They ain't going away any time soon.

Still, we are their biggest rival and should strive to top them any and all the time. but, as a fan, don't get too hung up on rooting for them to lose cause it just ain't gonna happen all that often.

--Jason "sorry to be the bearer of bad news" Evans


hmmm, i suspect the way I feel right now is the way people who complain about "negative" posts feel when they read them. This is just downright depressing. I don't even feel like seeing another basketball again after reading this. Ever. Hmmm, when does cricket season start?

johnb
03-24-2008, 11:07 AM
It would be painful to watch Carolina win it this year. At the same time, I belong to the downtrodden minority who believe that it's good for Carolina to win as long as it's good for Duke. And a NC for Carolina is more helpful to us than a win by some school like UCLA or Kansas. Okay, maybe I'd prefer Davidson.

If you (as a fan) never want to lose, try women's golf.

DukieInBrasil
03-24-2008, 07:39 PM
Duke has not played well in the NCAA tournament lately, at least since Deng was around. K, and the Duke brand, has gotten burned by early departures, such as Deng's (as well as McRoberts, Boateng, Boykin, Burgess, Randolph [who scored 6 the other night for the 76ers], Livingston, Humphries [neither of whom ever made it to campus]), which has reduced the amount of tournament experience on our recent rosters. Actually, the fact that Deng's "class" set foot on campus for a total of 1 season probably had a larger effect on this team than initially imagined. Not that either would have stayed all 4 years, but that gaping hole in experience and talent in the lineup alongside JJ and Shelden is what prevented the post-Deng teams from advancing beyond the Sweet 16.

K also recruited some guys that were "safe" bets to not jump to the NBA thinking they were gonna be more effective but were never able to produce enough to compensate for their "safeness" (Dockery, Melchioni, Sanders come to mind and the book is still out on LT).

For a while there, we always had so many guys who had been to a F4 before to guide the team. Going into this year we didn't have any F4 experience, except on the bench. We won't have any next year either, in fact we'll have one guy who has played significant minutes in a tourney game beyond the first week. The rest of the team will consist of 4 guys who have a total of 3 games, and another 3 who have played 2 and X number of Fr. who will have none. That is not a lot of tourney experience. Next year's roster will also have a pretty bad ACC tourney resume.
I really thought that the Maui Invitational was gonna be a better indicator of this team's tournament character. I also thought that K's OOC scheduling style was gonna be a good indicator of our ability against proven tourney teams, and many of the teams we played in OOC were/are in there; Davidson, Cornell, Marquette, Wisconsin, Pitt, Temple. For whatever reasons, the style that served us so well up through the 1st half of the ACC just couldnít be re-produced after beating the Holes.

bjornolf
03-27-2008, 06:06 AM
I was listening to Colin Cowherd on the radio the other day, and he was saying that Duke Basketball = Notre Dame Football, just a little better talent-wise. A mediocre team living off its great reputation and past. I've been hearing it from my friends who are Maryland and Carolina fans all week. I know in my gut that that can't be right, but I'm just a dumb old football player who can't seem to put it into words.

He also said that Duke had been down for the last 13 years or so despite the NC and that we were skating by on the past and only did well because we got high seeds thanks to our reputation. Had some kind of stats about our average seeds and average wins over the last decade or so. Something about our average seed (somewhere in the 2.5 or so range I think they said) was higher than our average number of wins (something like 2.3 or something), whereas UNC's average wins (2.7 I think) were higher than their average seeds (2.5 or something), so they were more successful and "deserved" there seedings more than we did. Does that make sense? I guess if a team averaged a 6 or higher seed, it would be impossible to win more than their seed, so I'm not sure how that works. I don't agree with this either, but again, I'm not sure how to debate it. After all, seedings are supposed to be based on regular season performance. It seems to me that we've earned our seeds with our regular season play, but maybe not lived up to them in the tourney. That's not the same thing in my book. Maybe an analysis based on what seed UNC and Duke have bowed out to and the difference between the seeds would make more sense? Didn't UNC lose as a 2 to a 15 at least once in the late 90's? Anyway, this all just confuses me. Can anybody more in the know explain this all to me?

Thanks. :o

NashvilleDevil
03-27-2008, 07:02 AM
Cowheard is a moron and a huge west coast homer. Right now it is easy for the media to get their licks in after Duke has struggled in the tourney the last couple of years. Cowheard also knows that a majority of his audience is going to agree with him about Duke so of course he is going to say something like that. Gottlieb compared Duke to Notre Dame also after Saturday's loss but he was talking more about recruiting and how kids who pick Duke or Notre Dame tend to get overrated because of the schools' past success.

Papa John
03-27-2008, 07:18 AM
I was listening to Colin Cowherd on the radio the other day

And therein lies your first mistake...


and he was saying that Duke Basketball = Notre Dame Football, just a little better talent-wise.

He doesn't like ND either...


He also said that Duke had been down for the last 13 years or so despite the NC

That's just funny... A program is "down" during a period when it wins a championship, goes to the finals, and the final four a third year while winning a record 5 ACC championships in a row... Interesting...


Had some kind of stats...

Cowherd wouldn't know a stat if it walked up and bit him on the arse...

ugadevil
03-27-2008, 07:31 AM
I'm pretty sure that Colin Cowherd likes Duke a great deal. I've listened to him many times when he talked about how he thinks the Cameron Crazies are the perfect example of how a student section can be clever and not degrading. He also talked this season about how this Duke team was a great example of college basketball because they rely on team play instead of the one-on-one offense we see in the NBA. I've also heard him criticize people that say Duke students and fans are stuck up, he said something along the lines of "just because they're intelligent, doesn't mean their elitist."

Buckeye Devil
03-27-2008, 07:37 AM
He is an absolute idiot who should go live in a west coast commune. His lack of true sports knowledge is evidenced by the fact that he spends a lot of his program time rambling about non-sports topics that nobody with any sense even cares about.

If you want to start all the way back to 1995, there was a bit of a dry spell in terms of Final 4 showings for Duke. That reference point would work to his advantage. 1995 was the year that K started having all his health problems and missed a big chunk of the year. There were no F4's from 1995-98. But the '99 team played in the championship game (should have won it against UCONN), won the NC in 2001, and played in another F4 in 2004 losing again to UCONN. Plus, Duke had sweeet 16's in 2005-06. It's just been within the past 2 years that Duke has hit a slump in the tournament.

To compare that with ND football is absurd. The fall of the Irish has been going on much longer than 2 years and has kind of been a downward spiral for many years. I was embarrassed for them last year and I dislike ND football to about the same degree that I dislike UNC basketball. They have not won a bowl game since sometime in the mid 90's. The Irish have had minimal success in the past 25 years or so excluding the great years of Lou Holtz. Following Holtz were such coaching stalwarts as Bob Davies, Ty Willingham, and now Charlie Wiess who led the Irish to their worst year in ages. The last major bowl they played in was the Fiesta Bowl against Ohio State in 2006 and they were thrashed by the Buckeyes. And think of what was before Holtz: Gerry Faust who had a disastrous run of bad seasons.

No, I think the ND comparison is horrible and only a moron like Cowterd would draw it.

Buckeye Devil
03-27-2008, 07:44 AM
They last played in a major bowl after the 2006 season and were thrashed by LSU 41-14 in the 2007 Sugar Bowl. The last bowl win was 1993.

bjornolf
03-27-2008, 08:19 AM
I haven't noticed him being that bad of west coast homer. I've heard him accused of that a lot, but I haven't really noticed it as bad as many people say. I hear a little bit of it peaking through, but it hasn't bugged me that much. Of course, some say there's such an anti west coast bias that some people might see it as refreshing. As for his opinion of Duke, I'm a little confused about his stance. It's almost a jeckyll and hyde kind of thing. One day, he's saying we're the best in terms of history, success, reputation, academics, sportsmanship, etc., and the next day he's backhanding us like we're his little bee-otch. Then a week later, he's back saying how great Duke is. It really confuses me. I wish he'd just pick one. :confused:

And again, I don't understand how the whole average seed vs. average wins in the tourney works. Does that take into account the two years they missed out and the one that we did? I assume not, but again, I'm just a dumb football player.

So, I see nobody likes the herd around here, but that doesn't help me argue it with the people who hold it up to me. What do I tell them? Just insult Colin? Isn't that the kind of thing we frown upon here? :rolleyes:

IStillHateJimBain
03-27-2008, 08:32 AM
Cowherd's not an idiot at all. He just does what he has to do to build ratings, and he's pretty successful at that. I doubt he really believes a lot of the stuff he says. Much of it is designed to generate reactions just like the ones in this thread. He even admits that on his show from time to time. There's probably a grain of truth in the recruiting aspect he and Gottlieb are talking about in comparing Duke basketball to Notre Dame's football program when it comes to misguided outside ratings of players. The best way to deal with Cowherd is not to react the way he wants you to.

hokieDEVIL83
03-27-2008, 08:50 AM
While we're comparing programs/organizations here, I'd make an argument that Duke Basketball can be compared to Yankees baseball, particularly in the past 20 years. Think about it, Duke's dynastic success in the 90's coincided with the Yankees World Series runs at roughly the same time. And then came the hate.

Now, (IMO), almost everyone hates the Yankees and has suddenly become New England natives. The overwhelming success of these programs/organizations combined with the constant national coverage has created a great amount of resentment and/or jealousy. Duke basketball, I would argue, has now reached the same "hateraid" status of the Yankees.

The success of both the Blue Devils and Yankees has caused each team, and their fans, to "re-define" what success means to them. I think most, if not all of us would agree that anything less than a national championship is a failure on some level or another. So, by these standards, we are in a "slump" right now (if you really want to call 28-6 a slump). Much like the Yankees World Series "slump" over the past 7 years (I believe 2001 was their last appearance, which would be fitting...please correct me if I'm wrong).

Another point of similarity would be the whole north vs. south, Yankees vs. good 'ol southerners dynamic that Duke has found itself caught in. Much of the haters will argue that Duke is nothing but a bunch of rich, elitist white kids from New Jersey, transplanted to the Carolinas. And of course we know of the "elitist" tag the Yankees have been given over the last couple decades resulting in their newest moniker "the evil empire".

As a Duke fan, I say bring it on! Yes, we are in a slump. Anything less than an NCAA championship is a failure (IMO). So everyone better get their kicks in now, because Duke will be back!!! Just remember this, without success there is no hate! HATE US ALL YOU WANT, WE ARE DUKE, WE WILL NEVER DIE, WE WILL PREVAIL!

Any Yankee fans out there? What do you think?

bjornolf
03-27-2008, 10:00 AM
The success of both the Blue Devils and Yankees has caused each team, and their fans, to "re-define" what success means to them. I think most, if not all of us would agree that anything less than a national championship is a failure on some level or another. So, by these standards, we are in a "slump" right now (if you really want to call 28-6 a slump). Much like the Yankees World Series "slump" over the past 7 years (I believe 2001 was their last appearance, which would be fitting...please correct me if I'm wrong).


I wouldn't go that far. I'm satisfied if we make it to the second weekend of the tourney. I consider the elite 8 to be a successful season most years (years like 1999 being an acception). It's funny, if we get to the s16 or e8 and then lose, I'm usually happy. If we get to the f4 or beyond, I feel bad when we lose. I felt especially bad for the guys my freshman year at Duke that lost to Arkansas in '94 (I think that was Grant Hill's last year). Isn't that odd? The more success we have, the more disappointed I am. That's really screwy. :rolleyes:

pamtar
03-27-2008, 10:26 AM
This from a guy who refuses to pronounce his name correctly.

Reguardless of how its spelled its pronounced kou-erd, not kou-herd. Tewel.

Johnboy
03-27-2008, 10:48 AM
Any Yankee fans out there? What do you think?

Cue to Ozzie . . .

Personally, I hate being compared to the Yankees, Dallas Cowboys and Notre Dame, because, well, I don't like any of these teams. I prefer to think of UNC basketball in those terms, then dislike them all.

NashvilleDevil
03-27-2008, 10:56 AM
The Yankees have not won a WS since 2000. They lost to the D-Backs in '01 and lost to the Marlins in '03.

duke74
03-27-2008, 11:39 AM
While we're comparing programs/organizations here, I'd make an argument that Duke Basketball can be compared to Yankees baseball, particularly in the past 20 years. Think about it, Duke's dynastic success in the 90's coincided with the Yankees World Series runs at roughly the same time. And then came the hate.

Now, (IMO), almost everyone hates the Yankees and has suddenly become New England natives. The overwhelming success of these programs/organizations combined with the constant national coverage has created a great amount of resentment and/or jealousy. Duke basketball, I would argue, has now reached the same "hateraid" status of the Yankees.

The success of both the Blue Devils and Yankees has caused each team, and their fans, to "re-define" what success means to them. I think most, if not all of us would agree that anything less than a national championship is a failure on some level or another. So, by these standards, we are in a "slump" right now (if you really want to call 28-6 a slump). Much like the Yankees World Series "slump" over the past 7 years (I believe 2001 was their last appearance, which would be fitting...please correct me if I'm wrong).

Another point of similarity would be the whole north vs. south, Yankees vs. good 'ol southerners dynamic that Duke has found itself caught in. Much of the haters will argue that Duke is nothing but a bunch of rich, elitist white kids from New Jersey, transplanted to the Carolinas. And of course we know of the "elitist" tag the Yankees have been given over the last couple decades resulting in their newest moniker "the evil empire".

As a Duke fan, I say bring it on! Yes, we are in a slump. Anything less than an NCAA championship is a failure (IMO). So everyone better get their kicks in now, because Duke will be back!!! Just remember this, without success there is no hate! HATE US ALL YOU WANT, WE ARE DUKE, WE WILL NEVER DIE, WE WILL PREVAIL!

Any Yankee fans out there? What do you think?

As a Mets fan since 1962 (first year), PLEASE don't insult my Blue Devils by linking them to the Junkees. On the other hand, think K can buy some players and have the highest payroll in D1? ;)

dkbaseball
03-27-2008, 06:02 PM
Cowherd is long on opinions and short on information, except when he has a guest on the show. One opinion he threw out a few weeks ago: College basketball is declining significantly in popularity. Maybe it's still big on Tobacco Road, he observed, but most everywhere else it's really falling off. Didn't offer supporting evidence; just his general sense of things. Anybody else have the same sense?

RelativeWays
03-27-2008, 06:14 PM
Any Yankee fans out there? What do you think?

Us Cub fans would love to be in a slump like the Yankees. DAMN YOU BARTMAN!

dukemsu
03-27-2008, 08:48 PM
Cowherd is long on opinions and short on information, except when he has a guest on the show. One opinion he threw out a few weeks ago: College basketball is declining significantly in popularity. Maybe it's still big on Tobacco Road, he observed, but most everywhere else it's really falling off. Didn't offer supporting evidence; just his general sense of things. Anybody else have the same sense?

Good point. He rarely bothers to back anything up with substantive information. Basically, he is well paid to just fire off his own opinion, which is tailored to make people angry.

I suggest turning the station.

mgtr
03-27-2008, 09:04 PM
This thread must hold the record for the most very, very long posts. They are hard to read. Short, pointed posts are far more effective, in my opinion.

weezie
03-27-2008, 09:27 PM
Yeah, what were we taking about, exactly?

devildownunder
03-28-2008, 06:54 AM
Cowherd's not an idiot at all. He just does what he has to do to build ratings, and he's pretty successful at that. I doubt he really believes a lot of the stuff he says. Much of it is designed to generate reactions just like the ones in this thread. He even admits that on his show from time to time. There's probably a grain of truth in the recruiting aspect he and Gottlieb are talking about in comparing Duke basketball to Notre Dame's football program when it comes to misguided outside ratings of players. The best way to deal with Cowherd is not to react the way he wants you to.

If this is true, I'd have more respect for him if he were an idiot with some integrity. Pathetic.