PDA

View Full Version : Officiating



Fish80
03-18-2007, 09:20 PM
Serious question, and it's hard to ask without sounding like a cry baby. Why do the officials let teams play so physically against Duke? Last year LSU deployed that strategy, and again this year VCU, and we know the result. Teams are going to do what they can to compete, and if the officials let them play rough, then they'll play rough.

I blame Paul Hewitt and Al Skinner for starting it. GT has used that strategy against us since Hewitt got there. And Skinner tries the same thing, and then tops it off by complaining about the calls. (What is in Skinner's mouth? He's always chewing something, you can see a buldge in his cheeks.)

If you want to go back a ways, you could blame John Thompson Sr, he used that style at Georgetown, but they did that to everybody.

Are there just teams that play a very physical style, and we happened to run into two of them in LSU and VCU? Or do teams crank the physicality up a notch against Duke?

How can we turn this around? I don't know. A guy like Battier had great relationships with the officials, he would talk and joke with them, and maintained his composure while still competing as hard as anybody. I saw Hansblahblah go over to the officials and say something like "good game" after the game yesterday. Good sportsmanship, and smart too. Does that make any difference in how games are called? I don't know.

Maybe the answer is to just get so good, it doesn't matter how they call the game.

lavell12
03-18-2007, 09:36 PM
Un like common belief Duke doesn't get the calls from the refs.

In 2002 NCAA tourny game against Indiana, Carlos Boozer was tackeld as he tried to put back Jason Williams' missed free throw in the closing seconds.

In 2004 Semi-Final against UCONN Shelden and Shavlik fouled out on two horrible calls while Okafor did nothing against those two he took over the game. Later with Duke down one JJ went to the lane and was mugged but no call and Duke ended up losing by one.

LSU held JJ the whole game in last year's loss in the sweet sixteen.

CDu
03-18-2007, 09:47 PM
This is my theory on the matter:

Part of it is a difference in officiating style between the ACC and the rest of college basketball. Historically, I think the ACC has tended to call the game tighter than most conferences. This has served to protect skilled players and promote a more open, "prettier" style of basketball (if you play too physically, you foul out, so it behooves you to lay off the grabbing/banging).

Part of this has been due to the coaching philosophies in the conference. We haven't generally been a conference where coaches try to bang. They usually coach sound defense and a more free style of play. But GT, BC, and VT have changed that in recent years. Their approaches have been to play as physically as possible. This eventually desensitizes the officials to some of the "lighter" physical play. Over time, what used to be a fringe foul call ceases to be called a foul.

The result is that teams who are comfortable with physical play (usually bigger/faster/beefier/more "athletic"/more aggressive teams) handle this style of officiating better than more "finesse" teams. With fewer fouls being called and more physical play allowed, the skill level goes down, and teams more prepared to bang gain an advantage. We've generally (though not universally, see Brand, Williams, Jones) been what you'd consider a more skilled/less physical team. Thus, the drift toward more physical play hurts us.

ChrisP
03-18-2007, 10:02 PM
I was at that game in 2004 and I am one of the LAST people you will hear compaining about the refs, but we got HOSED against the 'Connvicts.

And, yeah, I know it probably never should have come down to that last play against IU in 2002, but Boozer was absolutely fould on that play when JW missed the FT. I mean, it shouldn't have come down to that, but, well, it did! And if it's a foul, then CALL IT!!!

Chicago 1995
03-18-2007, 10:13 PM
Serious question, and it's hard to ask without sounding like a cry baby. Why do the officials let teams play so physically against Duke? Last year LSU deployed that strategy, and again this year VCU, and we know the result. Teams are going to do what they can to compete, and if the officials let them play rough, then they'll play rough.

I think part of it is that we've not had -- save for Shelden -- a terribly physical team. We don't play physically in response, and when you shy from contact and play soft -- as we've done a lot, especially in the paint the last couple of years -- they aren't going to make the calls on your opponent.

throatybeard
03-18-2007, 10:20 PM
Interestingly, Carolina fans complain about this too over the last decade or so.

dockfan
03-18-2007, 10:23 PM
I agree with CDu - a lot of it is the ACC refs call games tighter. I also think though there is a overall trend toward allowing more physical play, especially in the NCAA tournament games. It is a pretty disheartening trend, because many of the games turn into ugly, low-scoring slugfests. I noticed it in last year's tournament and it has been even worse this year.

The refs allow so much contact (off the ball screens, body checks, block outs, and on the ball "hand" checking, etc.) for the first 35+ minutes of the game. Then, like they have always done (and should), they swallow the whistle at the end and let the players decide the outcome. But by then, the game has been so physical already that the last 5 minutes are outrageous. Witness Oden's foul and the scrum that preceded it, or any of the rebounding battles down the stretch.

It is especially telling, IMO, that in this year of NBA-level freshmen back in college basketball (i.e. more talent), that there have been so many games struggling to get out of the 50s or 60s. It's not for lack of talent or scoring ability - I think it is the physical play. Watching overtime and double overtime games barely in the 70s and 80s on Saturday was the low point for me, even though the games are still tense from a competitive standpoint.

So, I don't think it is a Duke thing - it is a college basketball thing now, sadly.

Besides, Duke gets all the calls, don't you know?? :)

Oh wait, BUTLER gets all the calls now. :)

Bob Green
03-18-2007, 10:46 PM
This is my theory on the matter:

Part of it is a difference in officiating style between the ACC and the rest of college basketball. Historically, I think the ACC has tended to call the game tighter than most conferences.



I agree wholeheartedly. The ACC had a real problem with physical play in the NCAA tournament back in the 70s. In the mid-to-late 80s, as Coach K started having serious success at Duke, many of my whiney Carolina friends complained about Duke's physical play. Danny Ferry was the target of many Carolina fan tirades as was Christian Laettner.

IMO, the examples cited in this thread are all accurate. In addition, I would add Michigan State's mauling of JJ in the 2005 Sweet 16. As far as Indiana in 2002, I can never bring myself to complain about the no call because we never should have been in that position.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

lavell12
03-18-2007, 10:58 PM
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1079775634&fr=yfp-t-391

gep
03-18-2007, 11:02 PM
And, yeah, I know it probably never should have come down to that last play against IU in 2002, but Boozer was absolutely fould on that play when JW missed the FT. I mean, it shouldn't have come down to that, but, well, it did! And if it's a foul, then CALL IT!!!

Just to add a note to this... I remember that the player that "fouled" Carlos to prevent him from making the basket actually *admitted* to fouling Carlos for the sole purpose of preventing the basket.

Ima Facultiwyfe
03-18-2007, 11:53 PM
I have to admit to having only really watched our own games this season up until this weekend. So, I've been leading a sheltered life. But, shifting gears in this fashion and suddenly watching everybody else bang around in these slugfests this tournament has pointed out more graphically to me that Duke doesn't have a team of players as strong, fast and mean as these I'm seeing. It's no wonder we can't survive and advance.

What saddens me, personally, is how out of step I feel with the whole process. I have to keep reminding myself that all those guys out there must like it this way or they'd not keep coming back for more. When I hear annoucers...most of whom are former players...laud aggressive and unsportsmanlike play I realize I'm just missing something here.

This idea of refs "swallowing their whistles" at the end of the game and letting the players decide the outcome is silly. A rule is a rule just as much at the end of a game as it is at the beginning of a game. Yes, the players should be deciding the outcome for the whole forty minutes....but, WITHIN the rules....or why have rules at all.

I can't think of a game more violent, more dangerous or more ugly than college basketball played the way it's being played now. We've lost something good.

I don't know why they just don't issue tire irons as game equipment, send the refs home and get on with it. As for me I think I may have something more important to do with my time...like maybe wash my socks.

Love, Ima

Lulu
03-19-2007, 04:28 AM
I wonder if allowing more personal fouls before fouling a player out would make this problem better, or worse. I've always felt that in many physical games the refs will actually adjust how they are calling the game, if the whistle seems to be blowing too many times. It IS disruptive, after all, to enforce the rules. Plus, no one is going to accept that a team gets 4 players in foul trouble in the 1st half, etc... so the refs swallow their whistles, whether conscious of doing so or not, to prevent this from happening to games.

It's hard to blame anyone... a coach has to go with what he's got, and if the best option for earning a win is to play rough and see what the refs will allow you to get away with then that's what his team ought to do. Ultimately, it is the officials who are responsible of couse, but they are only human and just put in a difficult position, either wrecking the flow of the game (resulting in unhappy crowds) and seemingly dictating the outcome by calling tons of fouls, or just letting the fouls go. Now, refs like everyone else seem to have just grown accustomed to the physical play. It's not even hard to see why some conferences drifted towards this physical style while other conferences lagged behind; just depends on the types of players.

So, what do people think a soluiton (if any exist) to this problem might be? The officials could simply start calling fouls by the book, but that seems extrememly unlikely, and definitely won't help the situation unless somehow enforced by the NCAA as a whole and not by each conference at its own discretion. That would be the best option, imo, but if that's the only solution then I fear this will never change. We could then start looking at thigns like adjusting the number of fouls allowed, but I can't even figure out for myself what the results might be because there would be seemingly opposing forces in action. With more personals allowed, one could argue that the officials face less pressure in terms of fouling out too many players, and could blow the whistle a little more often (won't help the flow of the game still). However, you could also argue that the coaches with bigger, more athletic (i.e. less talent and less skilled) players could have their teams play an even rougher game since they have more fouls to give. I suppose we could also look at reducing the number of fouls allowed before awarding bonus shots (best option?). If the more talented teams shoot pretty well from the stripe this would definitely be a disincentive to foul (but again, will slow down the game). And lastly, in a completely opposite direction from the first suggestion, you could reduce the number of fouls allowed before fouling out; this gives the players reason to play more cautiously but puts even more pressure on the refs to not foul out too many players.

I should self-edit this post, but I won't. The bottom line I guess is that the coaches will less talented players have to find some way to compete with the more talented teams, and physical play is about the only way to do so. You could probably argue that relying on more physical play, and leaving the rest to the officials, is the only correct choice for them. It is therefore up to the officials to be willing to decide more games, at the price of both slowing down the game and annoying a lot more fans and likely commentators etc. Aside from blowing the whistle more often, harsher penalties (more bonus shots etc) would be the only other disincentive I see to this behavior. Any thoughts? I'm thoroughly confused.

All of this is probably moot though, because the first step toward any change would have to be that more people want it than not... and what's the chance of that? A few vs many I think. The quality of the game, I'm afraid, is probably a secondary issue to most... for reference, check out the NBA. ...So... aside from awarding five free throws for every foul, I'm not sure what could really work. ...then again, that would probably backfire and the officials would never call a foul.

Sorry for repeating myself multiple times, writing such a long post, and pretty much just posting my train of thought. If it was too pointless and stupid I sincerely hope you haven't read this far.

HK Dukie
03-19-2007, 08:07 AM
Don't forget Langdon's mugging in the '99 title game.

The convicts stole two from us.

bird
03-19-2007, 08:53 AM
Little doubt in my mind several VCU players, Maynor and Anderson in particular, were operating pursuant to script to attempt to "punk" Duke. And, am afraid, it worked to a degree. I was pleased Paulus in particular did not back down and got a little angry: one frustration is I didn't see anger / determination in reaction from anyone else. I find K's quote re getting our "butts kicked" after the game telling. Maybe he felt the same frustration.

Anyway, I enjoyed VCU's loss, and cheered every one of Maynor's air balls. I do not like where the "punk" players take the game.

Alan

captmojo
03-19-2007, 09:56 AM
the last out of bounds pass in by Indiana following a time out the last time Duke lost to them. Side out, and the inbounder ran up and down the sideline freely when not allowed. Call should have been traveling. inbounding play leads to Hoosier basket, Duke loses, goes home.

BoC
03-19-2007, 01:55 PM
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1079775634&fr=yfp-t-391

Can you describe what this video depicts? As soon as I saw that it came from "truth"aboutDuke.com, my interest level dropped like a stone.

lavell12
03-19-2007, 02:04 PM
Don't forget Langdon's mugging in the '99 title game.

The convicts stole two from us.

that reminds me of earlier in that game with Duke within 1 point Elton Brand was tackled by the center for UCONN.

feldspar
03-19-2007, 02:07 PM
Can you describe what this video depicts? As soon as I saw that it came from "truth"aboutDuke.com, my interest level dropped like a stone.

It's the (questionable, at best, IMO) no-call on Redick at the end of UConn in the 2004 FF.

lavell12
03-19-2007, 02:07 PM
Can you describe what this video depicts? As soon as I saw that it came from "truth"aboutDuke.com, my interest level dropped like a stone.

it comes from that site yet it doesn't say anything bad about Duke just see the video for yourself, its JJ being mugged against UCONN in the final four in 2004.

mapei
03-19-2007, 02:57 PM
It definitely looks like JJ was fouled before Horvath's foul on the UConn guy.

But we also benefited from officiating in that game, when Okafor picked up three quick ones and had to sit. I doubt we could have built up that lead without the best player in basketball that year sitting on the bench instead of in the game. Once he came back in, we had a much tougher time, and it wasn't all officiating.

DankeShane
03-19-2007, 03:37 PM
It definitely looks like JJ was fouled before Horvath's foul on the UConn guy.

But we also benefited from officiating in that game, when Okafor picked up three quick ones and had to sit. I doubt we could have built up that lead without the best player in basketball that year sitting on the bench instead of in the game. Once he came back in, we had a much tougher time, and it wasn't all officiating.

I agree with you, but the point here that is worth mentioning is the fact that refs deliberately and consciously altered their reffing strategy midgame to account for the fact that they gave 3 fouls early to Okafor. Feinstein goes into painstaking detail in his book from last year on this game. To paraphrase, the refs realized they F'd over UConn so they started calling ticky tack stuff against Duke to even things out. Basically, game started normal - Okafor picks up 3 fouls... refs change their philosophy and start calling ticky tack garbage (Duke picks up fouls that weren't fouls earlier in the game).. then the refs realize they are being "too picky" and they let the game turn into a free-for-all in the last 13 minutes or so. They changed their whistle policy twice during the game, so no one was able to develop a sense of what a foul was. Feinstein went on to say those refs have effectively been banned from any subsequent Final Four games.

Of course, ESPN doesn't highlight anything like this when it happens against Duke.

feldspar
03-19-2007, 04:06 PM
refs deliberately and consciously altered their reffing strategy midgame to account for the fact that they gave 3 fouls early to Okafor.
I'm not going to get into it with you 'cause I'll give you and Feinstein the benefit of the doubt since you've both obviously analyzed the game and its fouls better than I ahve, but just wanted to pick this nit a bit.

First off, there's no such thing as reffing "strategy." I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Second off, officials regularly take inventory at halftime of what they have done so far in the game and how, if at all, they need to adjust for the second half. Not only is this done regularly, it is strongly encouraged by those who oversee officials. I'm not saying it was done correctly in this case, what I'm saying is that officials shouldn't be criticized for altering the way they call a game from one half to the next.

_Gary
03-19-2007, 04:24 PM
Second off, officials regularly take inventory at halftime of what they have done so far in the game and how, if at all, they need to adjust for the second half. Not only is this done regularly, it is strongly encouraged by those who oversee officials. I'm not saying it was done correctly in this case, what I'm saying is that officials shouldn't be criticized for altering the way they call a game from one half to the next.

But that's not what happened in the game in question, feldspar. What we are talking about here is that the refs specifically tried to, in their mind, "even things out" because Oke was called for 3 early fouls. And any attempt by the refs to ever "even foul calls out" by calling ticky tack stuff on one team but not on the other is profoundly unethical (even though it's clearly done all the time) and in this particular case put Duke in a position at the end of the game where they couldn't counter UConn's inside attack. Again, it was blatantly obvious and wrong - and it almost assuredly cost us a fourth National Title!

Gary

feldspar
03-19-2007, 04:34 PM
But that's not what happened in the game in question, feldspar. What we are talking about here is that the refs specifically tried to, in their mind, "even things out" because Oke was called for 3 early fouls. And any attempt by the refs to ever "even foul calls out" by calling ticky tack stuff on one team but not on the other is profoundly unethical (even though it's clearly done all the time) and in this particular case put Duke in a position at the end of the game where they couldn't counter UConn's inside attack. Again, it was blatantly obvious and wrong - and it almost assuredly cost us a fourth National Title!

Gary

Again, I'm not going to take issue with YOUR assessment of what happened. I'll only point out that I find it highly unlikely that you have any sort of clue what exactly was going on in the officials' heads when they made any of those foul calls.

Accusing an official of "profoundly unethical" behavior is quite the charge. Having only seen the video posted earlier, all I can say is that, as an official myself, I would have had a very hard time calling that foul at the end with Redick driving the lane. It was questionable at best and, IMO, not as cut and dry as most Duke fans would hope it to be.

Look. All I'm saying is that to give credence to the "profoundly unethical" arguemnt is also to give credence to the "Duke gets all the calls" argument. Neither can be substantiated. They're both based on our biases toward our respective allegiances. To open the door to one is to open the door to the other. The arguments made against "Duke gets all the calls" are the same ones to refute your and others' arguments regarding the 2004 FF game, that's all. Gotta be careful where and about what you choose to fight this kind of stuff.

_Gary
03-19-2007, 06:18 PM
All I'll say, so that my personal position is clarified, is that when I talk about "evening" out calls and how that can be profoundly unethical I don't mean to insinuate any conscious conspiracy on the part of the officials. I'm talking about the unconscious desire to call a game "evenly." When, in the case of 2004, the refs actually realized Ukafor had been whistled for 3 fouls quickly there seems to be little doubt they began calling the game differently so as to even things out. I would never accuse them of purposely doing this to slant the game one way or the other. But to think that this desire to call a "balanced" game never influences officials, especially if they feel a game in progress is "unbalanced", seems to me to be very naive. Your point about biases are spot on. Officials do their best to be unbiased, but in certain situations (like 2004) I think things can get out of whack when they feel they have to "even" things out. And I'd think most anyone who watched how that game progressed would feel the refs did change the way they were calling the game for that very purpose. Again, I don't assign any conscious desire on their part. I'd say it's an unconscious issue that actually arises out of a desire to call a game "evenly" (try to keep the foul issues balanced between the teams - even if in that particular game it isn't warranted by the play on the court).

Gary

calltheobvious
03-20-2007, 01:13 AM
address in this thread. There are points about officiating in Duke tournament games over the years, and there are points about tournament officiating in general. I'll attempt to take each in turn.

First let me disclose my biases. I am a Duke alum and fan of 21 years this month; I am also a high school and college basketball official of 8 years. I dare say this gives me a unique perspective on the questions that seem to come around almost every March. I'll throw in on the Duke-specific plays and then give my two cents on tournament officiating in general.

1) Duke-UConn '99. If Ricky Moore had been called for a foul against Trajan, it would have been a travesty. You had a slow offensive player trying to take one of the nation's best defenders off the dribble. The odds of our guy beating theirs in that situation were slim, and indeed, it did not happen. Moore played great defense; sure it was physical, but that was mostly because Trajan was trying to make a way out of no way. If Khalid El-Amin had been trying to take Shane in that situation and Shane had been called for a foul on a similar play, Duke fans would have been howling, and justifiably so.

2) Duke-Indiana '01. This one's tough. 'Los was indeed fouled on the play, but you have to consider the geometry of the situation. The lead (baseline) official on the play was positioned very wide, as he should have been on a free throw. If you look at the play, he was not in a position to see the foul on the play. I have no way of knowing whether the trail official or the slot (opposite side, free-throw line extended) could see the foul, but there is a high likelihood that they could not. Even when the crew are all properly positioned, there are those rare occasions when no one has an angle. And when there is no angle, officials are told, nay implored, not to guess. I don't think this was a case of guys not having the stones to pull the trigger, but a case of them getting unlucky that not one of the three could see through the bodies to get a look at the hit on Boozer's arm. Unlucky. Duke should not have been in that position in the first place.

3) Duke-UConn '04. Unlucky again, with some major caveats. First, if you stuck a gun to my head and forced me to guess (which is all I can reasonably do, given the available, inconclusive tv angles), I'd have to say JJ didn't get fouled. The reason I believe this is based on the action of JJ's arms afte the ball came loose. If JJ had been hit on one or both arms, there would have been a substantial delay in the arm(s) coming up as he jumped on the (non)shot. There was not. His arm action is consistent with a good strip; hands begin to go up with the ball, ball is stripped, hands continue to rise. Simple action-reaction/inertia stuff.

Now, one of the caveats. Unlike the play in the Indiana game, the crew were not well-positioned to referee the play. The official on the baseline had initiated what we in the trade call a rotation, which means he comes across the lane, which “forces” an adjustment by the other two officials. Suffice it to say that the official who inbounded the ball did not make the adjustment he should have. By the time JJ drove the lane, he should have slid down to the opposite free-throw line extended. If he had, he’d have been in perfection position to see the play. Additionally, the other outside official should have “rolled” out so that he could look down through the play, rather than through bodies. As it was, there wasn’t a soul among the crew who could see the play. Again, I don’t think it was a foul, but two of the three members must accept responsibility for not being well positioned.

So, to recap, no lack of integrity, no anti-Duke bias, just a couple of unlucky instances for Duke. And again, ask yourself how you would view each of these plays if you were a disinterested observer. My guess is that you’d seek them like most referees see them, and I can tell you that I’ve talked plenty over the years about these plays with other referees. I’m giving you the predominant view (which I happen to share).

4) Tournament officiating in general. This one is tough, and not just because I am very hesitant generally to criticize officials much more skilled than I. It’s tough because there are a lot of issues at play here, and the Duke men’s program is way, way down on the list of relevant factors (that’s not to say that it’s a total non-issue).

The most important elements in the equation are the crew groupings and the process of advancement. The officials selected to work the tournament come from all over the country. The bigger conferences get more officials in, and all conferences are represented. Just as with the teams selected, you have lots and lots of teams who constitute their conferences’ lone reps. What does this mean for officiating? It means you have guys working games together who sometimes have never worked together. This is bad enough if officiating is standardized across conferences, but the sad fact is that it is not. There are very different styles and even philosophies across conferences, and no matter how hard crews work to get onto the same page in pre-game conferences, it’s simply impossible to do your best work when you’re not sure what your partners perceive to be fouls, when you aren’t used to reading each other’s body language, movements, keys, etc. These are simply not optimal conditions.

If only that were the only issue, though. Even bigger than that is that officials advance not based on their performance over the course of the season, but based instead on their performance in tournament games. Some may see this as a fine way of selecting, but I do not. I have been in situations in which I knew that my next assignment depended on my performance in that game, and I have never been at my most relaxed in this setting. Now certainly, I have learned to cope, as I could never have been hired at the college level if I had not, but that doesn’t mean that I do my best work under the microscope, and I don’t know anyone who referees better when that kind of heat is turned up. Some guys thrive under game pressure, but I have yet to meet anyone who says they work better when they’re being critiqued then when they’re not.

I think this explains why tournament games are often more physical than regular-season games. It also explains why there is more inconsistency. In the tournament, it’s easy to get into the habit of second-guessing every potential whistle. It’s generally better not to blow on a foul than to blow on a non-foul, and this logic is taken too far. Guys think, “It’s suicide to be wrong,” and if I don’t blow, I can’t go too far wrong. Well, obviously too much of that mentality leads to overly physical play, which is just what happens all too often.

Combine this with a lack of familiarity with partners, and you have a dangerous ****tail. When guys are comfortable with each other, they understand each other’s threshold for whistles. I see a play in my partner’s primary area of coverage, a play that it is his to judge first. If I’m comfortable with that guy, I might think, “If Joe can see that, he has a foul. He doesn’t have a foul, therefore he doesn’t see it, so I need to go in and get that one.” On the other hand, if it’s Mike, and I don’t know Mike, I may think, “Well, Mike doesn’t have a foul there, but it may be because he judges the play not to be a foul; I don’t want to step on his toes, so I’m going to lay off, too.” You can judge for yourself which set-up you’d prefer.

If you’re thinking, “That’s too much thinking,” then you’re right. It is. But that’s the system as it stands. It’s late, and I’m tired, so I’ll post later on how I think the name “Duke” comes into all of this.

Lulu
03-20-2007, 01:59 AM
Very informative, calltheobvious. Cannot wait for rest of post. Your idea of choosing officials based on season perfomance instead of tournament performance must make too much sense for the NCAA. Assuming everything you have said is true then it's no wonder tournament play is always more physical.

ojaidave
03-20-2007, 03:16 PM
Excellent post calltheobvious. Don't forget about your follow up post!

Dave

A-Tex Devil
03-20-2007, 03:46 PM
Little doubt in my mind several VCU players, Maynor and Anderson in particular, were operating pursuant to script to attempt to "punk" Duke. And, am afraid, it worked to a degree. I was pleased Paulus in particular did not back down and got a little angry: one frustration is I didn't see anger / determination in reaction from anyone else. I find K's quote re getting our "butts kicked" after the game telling. Maybe he felt the same frustration.

Anyway, I enjoyed VCU's loss, and cheered every one of Maynor's air balls. I do not like where the "punk" players take the game.

Alan

Unfortunately, this year's team, except to some extent Paulus, was easily "punked." This team tried really hard. I'll never believe that there was a lack of effort. But this was the first Duke team I've ever seen seem so intimdated on such a regular basis - by other teams attitudes, by other teams runs, by their inability to score, by big plays, by everything. It was a bunch of Stuart Smalleys out there.

I have a hard time buying youth, especially after watching dozens of other freshmen and sophmores this year play with some fire.

_____________________

Back to the topic at hand -- it always seems to me (pure perception) that ACC games get to the bonus and double bonus much faster and with more regularity in both halves than in other conferences. This may mean the ACC is actually more physical, I don't know. I'd venture that maybe the refs are a bit more whistle happy in our league.

Who knows, but the ACC sure didn't show up this year. But man are we owning the NIT.