I hope K took notes.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

It's a different game since 2001 b/c all the best players have to come school for at least 1 year (soon to be 2). It's an athlete's game, and I think that's obvious. UCLA was a slightly better Duke on the West coast. They had 1 maybe 2 athletes tops. And when you don't have a knock down 3 point shooter, this game is no surprise.

It has and will continue to be an athlete's game. As great as Duke 2001 was (one of the most underrated college teams of all time), it really only had 1 superior athlete. I'm not sure you'll see that much more.

[Atlanta Duke]

It's a different game since 2001 b/c all the best players have to come school for at least 1 year (soon to be 2). It's an athlete's game, and I think that's obvious. UCLA was a slightly better Duke on the West coast. They had 1 maybe 2 athletes tops. And when you don't have a knock down 3 point shooter, this game is no surprise.

It has and will continue to be an athlete's game. As great as Duke 2001 was (one of the most underrated college teams of all time), it really only had 1 superior athlete. I'm not sure you'll see that much more.

All 5 starters went to the NBA; it wasn't exactly church league talent out on the floor

[Karl Beem]

It's a different game since 2001 b/c all the best players have to come school for at least 1 year (soon to be 2). It's an athlete's game, and I think that's obvious. UCLA was a slightly better Duke on the West coast. They had 1 maybe 2 athletes tops. And when you don't have a knock down 3 point shooter, this game is no surprise.

It has and will continue to be an athlete's game. As great as Duke 2001 was (one of the most underrated college teams of all time), it really only had 1 superior athlete. I'm not sure you'll see that much more.

Our superior athlete had a mediocre game.:rolleyes:

[dukie8]

It's a different game since 2001 b/c all the best players have to come school for at least 1 year (soon to be 2). It's an athlete's game, and I think that's obvious. UCLA was a slightly better Duke on the West coast. They had 1 maybe 2 athletes tops. And when you don't have a knock down 3 point shooter, this game is no surprise.

It has and will continue to be an athlete's game. As great as Duke 2001 was (one of the most underrated college teams of all time), it really only had 1 superior athlete. I'm not sure you'll see that much more.

i'm curious which of the 5 future starters in the nba made your cut as a superior athlete?

[DukeHoopsGuru]

Obviously you didn't read my post. Duke 2001 is arguably the most underrated college basketball champion of all time. They won every tourney game by double digits. However, you can't say that Boozer, Battier, Dun, and Duhon were great athletes.

2001 is a long time ago. Derrick Rose wouldn't be in this game 3 years ago. Think he made a difference? You need athletes. UCLA was the best team in the best conference, and they got run out of the freaking gym by a conference USA team. Why? B/c Memphis was by far the more athletic team.

[ghost]

It's a different game since 2001 b/c all the best players have to come school for at least 1 year (soon to be 2).

did I miss something? are they changing the rules?

[DukeHoopsGuru]

i'm curious which of the 5 future starters in the nba made your cut as a superior athlete?

Jason Williams. Come on guys. Take a chill pill will ya? Duke 2001 was freaking great. Freaking great. But they weren't amazing athletes, they were great basketball players. But remember the Derrick Roses and Kobe Bryants didn't go to college in 2001. Now they have to, and it matters.

It's a different game from just 7 years ago. You're seeing the impact of kids having to go to school for at least 1 year. And when the rule goes to 2 years, athleticism will be at even more of a premium.

[Atlanta Duke]

Obviously you didn't read my post. Duke 2001 is arguably the most underrated college basketball champion of all time. They won every tourney game by double digits. However, you can't say that Boozer, Battier, Dun, and Duhon were great athletes.

2001 is a long time ago. Derrick Rose wouldn't be in this game 3 years ago. Think he made a difference? You need athletes. UCLA was the best team in the best conference, and they got run out of the freaking gym by a conference USA team. Why? B/c Memphis was by far the more athletic team.

Non-superior athlete Boozer is averaging 21 points and 10 boards a game this season -

[DukeHoopsGuru]

did I miss something? are they changing the rules?

David Stern has made it point to get the age limit to 2 years. It will be done. Book it.

[YmoBeThere]

C'mon, Love is a fabulous athle....whoops, he's land bound. Scratch that...

[dukie8]

Obviously you didn't read my post. Duke 2001 is arguably the most underrated college basketball champion of all time. They won every tourney game by double digits. However, you can't say that Boozer, Battier, Dun, and Duhon were great athletes.

2001 is a long time ago. Derrick Rose wouldn't be in this game 3 years ago. Think he made a difference? You need athletes. UCLA was the best team in the best conference, and they got run out of the freaking gym by a conference USA team. Why? B/c Memphis was by far the more athletic team.

obviously i did read your post -- which was why i responded to it. do you mean that rose wouldn't have been in the 2005 ff like marvin williams wasn't in it?

being the best team in the best conference hardly means that you are the best team in the country. unc was the best team in the best conference last year and they didn't even get to the ff.

i'm not sure what game you were watching but love, collison, westbrook and ship all are incredible athletes. they were plenty athletic enough to have won if they would have let love touch the ball on offense within 25 feet of the basket after memphis's bigs had 3 fouls each.

i do agree with your basic assertion that duke needs to upgrade its talent level if it wants to get back in the ff mix but you really cloud it with absurd statements (eg, that the 2001 is arguably the most under-rated champion -- whatever that is supposed to mean -- and that boozer, battier and duhon aren't great athletes).

[moonpie23]

you're not paying attention if you thought battier and williams were not great atheletes.


i remember when battier graduated and before the draft, he was attending all the camps along with that "fabulous high school athelete, KWAME BROWN (#1 pick).

they were in atlanta and the team had them running drills....one of the drills was to stand under the basket and dunk the ball repeatedly until they missed or just got too tired to dunk it..

kwame was on one end of the court, battier was on the other end. Brown could not get above the rim on dunk # 57. battier missed his 129th.

he turned to the teams trainers and said. "i guess i'm in better shape than you thought"

[dyedwab]

Man this is the most sensitive group of people in the history of mankind. People around here can't take truth about their team very well. Duke 2001 in my opinion is one of the best college basketball teams ever. It was a unique team in the sense that it wasn't an overly athletic team. Did they have athletes? Absolutely. But that's not what they were known for.

No sh*t Boozer averages that, but is Boozer known as an uber athlete? There can be exceptions to the rules. Chill the f*** out. It's the same with all the Paulus crap. Get a freaking grip.

..can be defined in various different ways, and we have hashed it over hundreds of times on DBR. But I have always had a hard time with "athletic" being synomous with running and jumping exclusively.

Anyway, it sure didn't seem to me that "athleticism" so defined was the reason for the teams demise this year...

[YmoBeThere]

boozer, battier and duhon aren't great athletes

The contention here would be on hand/foot speed and leaping ability. Given size and strength, I think Boozer rates the best. But none of these three is going to get recognized as a standout athlete. Dahntay and Gerald decidedly so...

[dukie8]

The contention here would be on hand/foot speed and leaping ability. Given size and strength, I think Boozer rates the best. But none of these three is going to get recognized as a standout athlete. Dahntay and Gerald decidedly so...

if that's all it took to be a great basketball player, then carl lewis would have been on the dream team. there's a A LOT more to the game than speed and jumping. btw, boozer was incredibly strong in college and i assume that strength is part of this definition of "athlete."

[pfrduke]

Jason Williams. Come on guys. Take a chill pill will ya? Duke 2001 was freaking great. Freaking great. But they weren't amazing athletes, they were great basketball players. But remember the Derrick Roses and Kobe Bryants didn't go to college in 2001. Now they have to, and it matters.

It's a different game from just 7 years ago. You're seeing the impact of kids having to go to school for at least 1 year. And when the rule goes to 2 years, athleticism will be at even more of a premium.

I think you underestimate Battier's athleticism. In the pre-draft workouts in 2001, in the Superman drills, considered to be one of the better evaluators of athleticism, I know for sure Battier out-performed Jason Richardson (super-athletic himself), and I'm pretty sure had the best performance of anyone in the draft. Shane was not necessarily explosive, but he was incredibly athletic - the backhanded tip in the finals, the block of Dixon in the Gone in 54 Seconds game, running down Forte like a Gazelle at Chapel Hill, etc.

[YmoBeThere]

if that's all it took to be a great basketball player

Never said it was, just trying to interpret the contention being made. Yes, Boozer fares very well, Battier and Duhon less so.

[The1Bluedevil]

Maryland 2002 had Chris Wilcox and no other big time athlete.

[Carlos]

Obviously you didn't read my post. Duke 2001 is arguably the most underrated college basketball champion of all time. They won every tourney game by double digits. However, you can't say that Boozer, Battier, Dun, and Duhon were great athletes.

2001 is a long time ago. Derrick Rose wouldn't be in this game 3 years ago. Think he made a difference? You need athletes. UCLA was the best team in the best conference, and they got run out of the freaking gym by a conference USA team. Why? B/c Memphis was by far the more athletic team.

Is Derrick Rose as a freshman that much more superior as an athlete than Gilbert Arenas as a sophomore? Is Chris Douglas Roberts more athletic than Richard Jefferson?

Maybe that 2001 team faced a couple of athletes of the caliber that Memphis put on the floor tonight.

[MarkD83]

to 2 years in college before going to the league, I think it will help Duke recruiting. Right now the struggle is do you use a lot of effort for a guy that will stay for only one year or do you go after 3-4 year players. If everyone has to stay for 2 years I expect that the effort is worth going after every top recruit.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

Maryland 2002 had Chris Wilcox and no other big time athlete.

Yes, and kids could go straight to the league from high school then. That is the whole point of my post. The best athletes now have to go to school for at least one year, and it's soon to be 2.

[miramar]

Since athleticism is in vogue nowadays, does that mean that Bird and Magic would now suck? Or do you need good basketball players, first and foremost?

[The1Bluedevil]

Yes, and kids could go straight to the league from high school then. That is the whole point of my post. The best athletes now have to go to school for at least one year, and it's soon to be 2.

I agree with your post 100% just was thinking of other teams that weren't overly athletic. You’re exactly right.

[devildownunder]

Obviously you didn't read my post. Duke 2001 is arguably the most underrated college basketball champion of all time. They won every tourney game by double digits. However, you can't say that Boozer, Battier, Dun, and Duhon were great athletes.

2001 is a long time ago. Derrick Rose wouldn't be in this game 3 years ago. Think he made a difference? You need athletes. UCLA was the best team in the best conference, and they got run out of the freaking gym by a conference USA team. Why? B/c Memphis was by far the more athletic team.

I think it was because Ucla insisted on trying to beat memphis with guard play, where the tigers were clearly better, instead of pounding the ball inside, where they had a potentially large advantage AND would have forced memphis' big men to defend with foul trouble. I don't think Ucla was overmatched at all, except in the coach's box.

[ArtVandelay]

Yes, and kids could go straight to the league from high school then. That is the whole point of my post. The best athletes now have to go to school for at least one year, and it's soon to be 2.

I think you mean that the best PLAYERS have to go to school for one year now. I'm not sure what athleticism has to do with it. Further, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here - you're just stating the fact that great players are coming to school for one year (e.g. Oden, Durant, Rose, Gordon, etc.)? Ok, fair enough. But I'm not sure what this does for you unless your argument is "Duke needs to recruit one-and-dones." However, I'm not sure what this has to do with going back to 2001 - the one year rule is of much more recent vintage. If you look at the data points that would back up whatever claim it is you're making, Syracuse is the only champion since then led by a one and done player. THe rest were won by veteran squads. Even last year with all of the great freshmen, Florida, the experienced team, won.

This also leads directly to the whole "what constitutes a great athlete" question. I think you're being incredibly under-inclusive if you exclude all of our 2001 team except J-Will. By your definition, was Noah a great athlete? What about Noah 2 years ago? Emeka Okafor and Ben Gordon? Sean May and McCants? I mean, I'm not really sure who you consider to be an athletic player aside from Kobe Bryant and Derrick Rose. One is possibly the best player in the NBA. So if you're saying "recruit the best basketball players on the planet" should be Duke's strategy, then I say "bold suggestion."

[77devil]

Obviously you didn't read my post. Duke 2001 is arguably the most underrated college basketball champion of all time. They won every tourney game by double digits. However, you can't say that Boozer, Battier, Dun, and Duhon were great athletes.


We all read your post but found your argument to be ridiculous.

[Channing]

I think people are seriously under valuing Dunleavy as a pure Athlete. The guy was/is a terrific athlete - fast, jumps well and gets off the ground real quick - he made some ridiculous shots throughout his time at Duke.

Plus, imo, the second and third most "athletic" teams in this tournament were Texas and Louisville, neither of whom, obviously, made the final four.

[jma4life]

Two weeks ago, K was blasted by some for not going after Kevin Love.

Now, Kevin Love is not athletic enough?

I know these are different posters but you get the point.

Every year, a team does well and people try to claim that's the model you need to win. In reality, you do need athletes but first and foremost, you need kids who can play. Julius Peppers was a great athlete but he didn't do much for Carolina.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like K to go after a few more specimens but I will say that just having an athletic team with no skill won't get you anywhere. Memphis is doing well not because of athletes but because of talent. Players can be talented for different reasons. Some players have decent athleticism but great skills making them talented. Others have amazing athleticism and good enough skills to be talented. Either way, success usually comes down to having talent, having the proper balance of that talent, good coaching of that talent, good chemistry with that talent, and in the dance, some luck.

[CameronBlue]

I think people are seriously under valuing Dunleavy as a pure Athlete. The guy was/is a terrific athlete - fast, jumps well and gets off the ground real quick - he made some ridiculous shots throughout his time at Duke.


Yeah but we all know Duke 2001 skated by, by concealing our slow, lead-footed lugs. Just look at em now in the NBA. I mean the last person I would ask to guard Kobe if I was the Houston coach, would be Battier...oh....never mind,.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

We all read your post but found your argument to be ridiculous.

You're right. My post is "ridiculous." It's just a pure coincidence that the 2 most athletic teams 1 to 5 are playing for the national championship on Monday.

[pfrduke]

It's just a pure coincidence that the 2 most athletic teams 1 to 5 are playing for the national championship on Monday.

Actually, yeah, it is. KU barely escaped Davidson, and Memphis barely escaped Miss. St. Also, the only position where Memphis is clearly more athletic than UCLA is center, and Love is not unathletic - he just seems like it because he's pudgy.

Memphis and Kansas have good basketball players. And they've played well for 5 games straight. That's why they're meeting on Monday.

FWIW, the only part about your posts in this thread that was ridiculous was your assertion that Jason Williams was the only athletic player on the 2001 team.

[77devil]

You're right. My post is "ridiculous." It's just a pure coincidence that the 2 most athletic teams 1 to 5 are playing for the national championship on Monday.

No one was commenting about this year or about the importance of athleticism. Gee, state the obvious. It was the your statement that a team that started 5 future NBA players was not athletic.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

No one was commenting about this year or about the importance of athleticism. Gee, state the obvious. It was the your statement that a team that started 5 future NBA players was not athletic.

Corrections:
1. I never said the Duke 2001 team was a bunch of slugs. It was an all-time great time that wasn't known to be a bunch of pure athletes. However it was in 2001 when the best athletes could go to the NBA. Just imagine LeBron in the NBA for 1 year. Think about that for 1 second. It wasn't possible just 7 years ago.

2. Brian Scalabrine and Mark Madsen play in the NBA. Are they know for their superior athleticism? There are niches in the NBA for players who aren't athletes. They're known as "energy guys," which is what Hansbrough will be.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

Actually, yeah, it is. KU barely escaped Davidson, and Memphis barely escaped Miss. St. Also, the only position where Memphis is clearly more athletic than UCLA is center, and Love is not unathletic - he just seems like it because he's pudgy.

Memphis and Kansas have good basketball players. And they've played well for 5 games straight. That's why they're meeting on Monday.

FWIW, the only part about your posts in this thread that was ridiculous was your assertion that Jason Williams was the only athletic player on the 2001 team.

UNLV 91 beat Ball State by 2 points. Duke 92 needed a miracle to beat an inferior Kentucky team. Even the best teams in every sport have close calls. Often times its their superior athleticism that gives them the edge when shots aren't falling.

And no, I said "superior" athlete regarding Jason Williams.

[FerryFor50]

You guys are completely missing the point of DukeHoopsGuru's post. You're acting like he's committing blasphemy by suggesting that the 2001 Duke team wasn't athletic.

He may have a different definition of athleticism, but he's got a point - the two most athletic teams are in the finals. Tyler Hansbrough, decidedly un-athletic got destroyed all night by more athletic big men. Ty Lawson looked like a mere mortal.

Who had the best games for UNC? Athletes like Danny Green and Wayne Ellington.

Duke's 2001 team had some fast guys (Jason Williams, Duhon). It had some strong guys (Battier, Boozer). But it didn't have guys who were the total package, like a Chris Douglas Roberts, Brandon Rush or Derrick Rose. Jason Williams came the closest.

Dahntay Jones and Gerald Henderson are the closest to that athleticism that DHG is talking about.

[roywhite]

You guys are completely missing the point of DukeHoopsGuru's post. You're acting like he's committing blasphemy by suggesting that the 2001 Duke team wasn't athletic.

He may have a different definition of athleticism, but he's got a point - the two most athletic teams are in the finals. Tyler Hansbrough, decidedly un-athletic got destroyed all night by more athletic big men. Ty Lawson looked like a mere mortal.

Who had the best games for UNC? Athletes like Danny Green and Wayne Ellington.

Duke's 2001 team had some fast guys (Jason Williams, Duhon). It had some strong guys (Battier, Boozer). But it didn't have guys who were the total package, like a Chris Douglas Roberts, Brandon Rush or Derrick Rose. Jason Williams came the closest.

Dahntay Jones and Gerald Henderson are the closest to that athleticism that DHG is talking about.

Jason Williams not the total athletic package?

I don't agree with this whole argument in general, but you really lost me on that one.

[FerryFor50]

Jason Williams not the total athletic package?

I don't agree with this whole argument in general, but you really lost me on that one.

He was the closest they had on that team. But I don't see the same athleticism in him as I see in Derrick Rose.

[shadowfax336]

UNLV 91 beat Ball State by 2 points. Duke 92 needed a miracle to beat an inferior Kentucky team. Even the best teams in every sport have close calls. Often times its their superior athleticism that gives them the edge when shots aren't falling.

And no, I said "superior" athlete regarding Jason Williams.

First of all, I think you're taking a one year sample and extrapolating a rule. Its true that this year the two most athletic teams made the title game, but I don't think that was true last year, and there's no basis to judge before that. Athleticism is one of the qualities that great basketball players have. It is not the only one. Height, skill, shooting, strength (if we're defining athleticism as quickness and jumping ability as the OP seems to be doing), defensive ability, and smarts are all important. And Memphis and Kansas have all of those to a greater or lesser degree. I would be shocked to see a team with inferior athletes win the title at this point, because I agree that athleticism is an important part of the game. But I think a team with average to slightly above average athleticism can certainly be a championship team. Florida and Ohio state last year were teams with good athleticsm, and both had one stud athlete (Brewer, Conley) but were built around their big men, who were not as athletic in the quick agile sense (Horford, Noah, Oden were more traditional strong and good jumping type athletes) . So lets see what happens over the next few years, and see if this is a trend.

[FerryFor50]

First of all, I think you're taking a one year sample and extrapolating a rule. Its true that this year the two most athletic teams made the title game, but I don't think that was true last year, and there's no basis to judge before that. Athleticism is one of the qualities that great basketball players have. It is not the only one. Height, skill, shooting, strength (if we're defining athleticism as quickness and jumping ability as the OP seems to be doing), defensive ability, and smarts are all important. And Memphis and Kansas have all of those to a greater or lesser degree. I would be shocked to see a team with inferior athletes win the title at this point, because I agree that athleticism is an important part of the game. But I think a team with average to slightly above average athleticism can certainly be a championship team. Florida and Ohio state last year were teams with good athleticsm, and both had one stud athlete (Brewer, Conley) but were built around their big men, who were not as athletic in the quick agile sense (Horford, Noah, Oden were more traditional strong and good jumping type athletes) . So lets see what happens over the next few years, and see if this is a trend.


I think OSU and Florida were the most athletic teams last year, too.

[jma4life]

And who helped win UF the championship last year?

A kid who frankly, is a below average athlete. That didn't stop him from draining threes.

[roywhite]

He was the closest they had on that team. But I don't see the same athleticism in him as I see in Derrick Rose.

Rose is a little bigger.

Don't forget what Jason Williams was like before the motorcycle accident.

This is my last comment on this thread. Basketball is still a team game; it's not a track meet or weightlifting competition. San Antonio Spurs, Argentina Olympic champs---freak athletes? Not really.

[jma4life]

Definitely do not forget the specimen that Williams was folks. The only thing I think Rose has on him is an inch or two. Williams was a truly elite athlete. His explosiveness, power and strength were truly impressive. Running back like.

[shadowfax336]

More athletic then Memphis and Kansas last year?
How about more athletic than UNC?
I'm not sure thats an easy case to make at all.

Florida
Green-decently quick PG, not blowaway speed or anything
Humpty-...
Brewer-Freakish Athlete
Horford-traditional strong low post player, certainly a great athlete, but not in the sense this thread seems to be about
Noah- very good athlete in any sense

I would say that Josh McRoberts is comparable to either of florida's big men in pure athleticism, and he doesn't seem to be missed much on this board. I can't see how Florida is more athletic than UNC for example, as Lawson blows TG out of the water, Terry was much more athletic than Humpty, Green/Ellington loses big to brewer, Hansborough matches up fine with Horford, and Wright was probably a slightly but not much lesser athlete than Noah

OSU
Oden-great athlete in a traditional big man sense
Harris- I gotta be honest, I don't really remember much about him
Lewis- decently athletic guard
Butler- decently athletic guard
Conley- really quick skilled guard

So OSU had 2 top notch athletes that I doubt would make the OPs qualifications for "superior athlete" if Boozer and Battier didn't make them

whereas Memphis and Kansas had their whole teams from now with the only exceptions being Rose...

[shadowfax336]

and that was in reply to the post claiming that OSU and florida were the most athletic teams last year...

Florida maybe, OSU probably not

[nyr484]

you can't say that Boozer, Battier, Dun, and Duhon were great athletes

Come on... did you see Battier playing defense on Kobe 2 weeks ago? I'm not sure why you've chosen such a narrow definition of athlete, but Battier certainly meets my definition. Same goes for Boozer who was a beast on the boards for Duke in his career and is all-star caliber in the NBA. Dunleavy I agree with you, but Duhon was a solid athlete too.

Yes, Memphis has some freakish athletes and totally dismantled UCLA, but that doesn't mean the college game has fundamentally changed or that Coach K should be taking recruiting notes from John Calipari. Get real man.

[ArtVandelay]

I think you guys have totally lost me on what constitutes "athletic." Ellington and Green are the only "athletes" on UNC? OSU was the most or second-most athletic team last year? Again, I think what we're maybe putting too much stock in a very specific definition of athleticism and conflating it with talent. As I said before, I don't quite understand what the line of argument is here. Putting aside the discussion of Duke's 2001 team, as best I can understand it, your argument is as follows: (1) we've entered a phase of college basketball where "athleticism" is what wins titles, (2) this is recent phenomenon, such that the game was very different back in 2001, when a team that didn't contain multiple "superior" athletes could win but couldn't in "today's game", and (3) this is related to the new early entry rule because the best "athletes" now all enter college.

The problem is, I don't see how this argument follows at all or what the evidence is for it, apart from the assertion that this year's national title game teams happen to fit your definition of most athletic. I don't disagree that KU and Mephis are both highly athletic, and perhaps the most two athletic teams in the tourney. But that doesn't make your argument for you. I'll start with the fact that Kansas is fielding a team of veteran players and aren't featuring a "one and done" type, so the early entry rule has no relevance. Plus, a number of these guys could have entered the draft under the rules in place when they were in high school. They didn't, yet they're still potentially the most athletic team. Similarly, last year's Florida team won with veterans over an OSU team featuring two stud freshmen players, one of whom may not have been there if not for the 19 y/o rule.

I see the point you're trying to drive at, but the problem is that you seem to state with such certainty that you've "figured it all out" when, as I pointed out, the evidence is much more mixed that you suggest. I don't think the universe has changed nearly as much as you've let on since 2001.

[SupaDave]

The one thing I loved about Davidson this year (and San Diego and Belmont) is that they make this conversation ridiculous. TEAMS win basketball games.

Would anyone disagree with me in saying that UNLV was more athletic than Duke?

Is Sean May athletic? And for that matter - based on the desire for "Tyrus Thomas" type athletes - was Danny Manning athletic?

Don't believe the hype! How easily it seems some of us buy into the flavor of the month.

As soon as we get another Robert Brickey - I hope you guys don't complain about his scoring.

[dukemsu]

Not to argue for the sake of arguing, but if Shane Battier is not a fantastic athlete, I do not know who is.

The backhanded tip-in that sealed the 01 final and the running down of Joe Forte (maybe my second favorite play in Duke history) are plays that 99.9% of players cannot make.

[Jumbo]

Yes, and kids could go straight to the league from high school then. That is the whole point of my post. The best athletes now have to go to school for at least one year, and it's soon to be 2.

It's not "soon to be 2." The earliest that could happen would be 2011, and it's not likely.

[JBDuke]

I think it's time to shut this thread down. The original post was a poorly crafted argument, and the discussion since has provided little enlightenment. If you want to make an argument that Duke needs more superior athletes, then you'll need to make a better case.

This thread is CLOSED.