Praise from Forde??

[CharlestonDevil]

I'm still trying to convince myself that Pat Forde actually wrote this...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/previe...pat&id=5782981

Lots of (well deserved) praise for K and the Duke program. Go Devils!

[ncexnyc]

Yes, we are getting a ton of media love, but rest assured come the first loss or two and they will all be singing a different tune.

[DukeDiva]

Good ESPN read...enjoy

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/previe...pat&id=5782981

But now, The Minutes will argue that he stands alone behind John Wooden (5) among the best in the history of his sport and is rivaled only by Phil Jackson among the greatest coaches in all major sports over the past 25 years.

[loran16]

In all honesty, I can't dislike Forde. Yeah he's got a state of Kentucky bias, but his columns are funny in both bball and football.

Also, I'm not sure if anyone of you read Kyle Whelliston's work at midmajority.com, but in one of his essays last year, he described how most ESPN announcers and analysts seem to think of it only as a job, and have disdain for their audience and the fans. How they don't find it fun. And Forde was an exception. (It's an excellent essay, you can read it here) So I can't dislike him.

[PADukeMom]

Ahhhh the ever present "what-if's" & semi-respect! Now it offically feels like basketball season.

GTHCGTH!

[flyingdutchdevil]

Second best article or mention about Duke that I've read (behind Seth Davis. That made me giddy the whole day!).

I too like Pat Forde. He often takes cheap shots at Duke, but he is funny and usually gives respect where respect is due. I remember his commentary after we beat Butler last year and my perception of him changed quickly.

[CEF1959]

Here are the Cliffs Notes:

"Duke has been good for a long time. Laettner was good; Singler is good. Coach K is one of the best coaches ever. If Duke had lost the National Championship game, they wouldn't be reigning national champions today."

Pat Forde's a freakin' genius. What would we do without such insightful sports writing?

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Here are the Cliffs Notes:

"Duke has been good for a long time. Laettner was good; Singler is good. Coach K is one of the best coaches ever. If Duke had lost the National Championship game, they wouldn't be reigning national champions today."

Pat Forde's a freakin' genius. What would we do without such insightful sports writing?

That is a little bit of a cheap shot. The whole spiel on "what if the shot went in" was very good natured and funny

[SCMatt33]

Here are the Cliffs Notes:

"Duke has been good for a long time. Coach K is one of the best coaches ever. If Duke had lost the National Championship game, they wouldn't be reigning national champions today."

Pat Forde's a freakin' genius.

I think you have to give him a little more credit than that. Forde placed great emphasis on the Coach K's winning span, while few members of the national media have picked up on the importance of Coach K's longevity and ability to win across different eras. Coach K's 19 year span between first and last titles ('91-'10) dwarf that of any other college coach. Wooden ('64-'75), Knight ('76-'87), and Smith ('82-'93) are all tied for second at 11, a full 8 years behind Coach K.

I also don't think that anyone here hasn't thought about what would have happened if Duke had lost on that last shot. No one would ever see a Christian Laettner highlight again on the CBS intro montage, and Coach K would likely always have that intentional miss as a small black mark on his great legacy, perhaps having the end of his career shaped as more of a decline, or having focused too much on the national job, whether it was deserved or not, because in reality, strategy is judged on results even if it was the correct thing to do given the circumstances.

Forde was tougher than most on Duke for failings in the tournament, but always put in the context of "I won't believe Duke can do it until they do it." Now they have, and he has paid his respects to last year's team and has Duke at the top of his list of "teams who can win it all" after emphatically leaving us off last year. Will his work ever win a Pulitzer, of coarse not, but it's not supposed to either. Forde has given credit where credit is due and I think that we should do the same.

BTW, no one has yet given him credit for his hidden shot at Maryland. In his "Things I Like" list appears the following:

Creative student sections. (One hint for the college kids: Profanity does not equal creativity. Usually the opposite.)

Props for that.

[timmy c]

Pat Forde - good hair, reminds me of a young Pat Sajak, insipid writer.

[sagegrouse]

With the second-most number of NCAA championships (tied with Baron Rupp), with an Olympic gold-medal team and a world FIBA championsip, and on a path toward the most career victories by the end of the season, the Krzyzewski hagiography will become a mountain by the end of the season. Forde is smart to get his article written early, while it is still somewhat original.

sagegrouse

[SuperTurkey]

[GODUKEGO]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/previe...pat&id=5782981

This was the writer last year that loved hating on Duke. Glad to see maybe he has seen the light. I do agree on many of his comments.

Five sophomores poised to take off, I was scared that he was referring to taking off pounds for John Henson.

Nontournament, nonconference gems , we have two of the five games and I guess he forgot the potential match up of Kansas State and Duke. To all the pundits, we have such an easy schedule!!!

Coaches who need a good season, Sidney might end up regretting his heralded freshman class. As of the start of the season, he has the second worst winning percentage of all thirteen NCSU coaches in ACC games with a winning % of .293. Coaches with over four years, he has the worst percentage.

http://www.statefansnation.com/index...ce-coach-ever/

Five big guys who need to step up, Mason and Miles defensively have to be stoppers and get rebounds.

[CEF1959]

Why does anybody care where we are on the thermometer of these self-appointed sports-opinionists who happen to get paid for their wah wah? I respect sports journalism for its reportage, but there are way WAY too many analysts who don't do any original reporting and just blather on about their opinions. They don't dig in the trenches for stories not available elsewhere. They just write opinion pieces after reading the AP wire and and watching Sportscenter. Maybe talk to other people who don't know anything either. Who cares? I don't.

[COYS]

Why does anybody care where we are on the thermometer of these self-appointed sports-opinionists who happen to get paid for their wah wah? I respect sports journalism for its reportage, but there are way WAY too many analysts who don't do any original reporting and just blather on about their opinions. They don't dig in the trenches for stories not available elsewhere. They just write opinion pieces after reading the AP wire and and watching Sportscenter. Maybe talk to other people who don't know anything either. Who cares? I don't.

As someone who eats up almost everything college basketball related (even if I don't like the taste of it as it goes down), I've found that analysts for the big sites (ESPN, Fox, etc.) tend to rely heavily on opinion for college basketball, in particular. I think the sheer volume of teams and turnover from year to year make "digging in the trenches" research almost impossible. Local media or school specific journalists (I'm looking at Watzone, Jimsumner, Airowe, etc. for examples on DBR) tend to be better equipped to provide insightful data on a particular team or conference. If you have insider access, ESPN's Blue Ribbon previews provide a much more in depth overview of every NCAA team. Of course, each one of their articles is upwards of 10 paragraphs. For the casual fan who just wants to know which teams are going to be in the national spotlight, such analysis is not really relevant . . . hence columns like Forde's Minutes.

[killerleft]

Why does anybody care where we are on the thermometer of these self-appointed sports-opinionists who happen to get paid for their wah wah? I respect sports journalism for its reportage, but there are way WAY too many analysts who don't do any original reporting and just blather on about their opinions. They don't dig in the trenches for stories not available elsewhere. They just write opinion pieces after reading the AP wire and and watching Sportscenter. Maybe talk to other people who don't know anything either. Who cares? I don't.

I care. Without them how would we know what isn't true? Seriously, right or wrong, they make a sports season seem much more important than it is, which makes my time investment in sports look a little better.

[CharlestonDevil]

Why does anybody care where we are on the thermometer of these self-appointed sports-opinionists who happen to get paid for their wah wah? I respect sports journalism for its reportage, but there are way WAY too many analysts who don't do any original reporting and just blather on about their opinions. They don't dig in the trenches for stories not available elsewhere. They just write opinion pieces after reading the AP wire and and watching Sportscenter. Maybe talk to other people who don't know anything either. Who cares? I don't.

Any time the overwhelming success of Duke and/or Coach K forces a well known Duke-hater to give us that amount of priase, I'd say that's noteworthy.

[Kedsy]

Any time the overwhelming success of Duke and/or Coach K forces a well known Duke-hater to give us that amount of priase, I'd say that's noteworthy.

Personally I think we use the phrase "Duke hater" all too often and not particularly accurately. Bill Simmons is a Duke hater, no question. But Forde? Last year he wrote a column in which he named every team he could think of that had a shot at the title (including teams like BYU), and explicitly excluded us. He was certainly a non-believer, and his column proved him to be foolish. But just because he thought our team wasn't very good doesn't make him a hater. If there's other evidence of his "hate" (as opposed to his thinking our team wasn't any good) I'm not aware of it.

There's plenty of Duke hate out there, but when we label everyone who criticizes the team as a hater, we sound kind of paranoid (and maybe a little whiny).

Just my opinion, of course.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Personally I think we use the phrase "Duke hater" all too often and not particularly accurately. Bill Simmons is a Duke hater, no question. But Forde? Last year he wrote a column in which he named every team he could think of that had a shot at the title (including teams like BYU), and explicitly excluded us. He was certainly a non-believer, and his column proved him to be foolish. But just because he thought our team wasn't very good doesn't make him a hater. If there's other evidence of his "hate" (as opposed to his thinking our team wasn't any good) I'm not aware of it.

There's plenty of Duke hate out there, but when we label everyone who criticizes the team as a hater, we sound kind of paranoid (and maybe a little whiny).

Just my opinion, of course.

Kedsy, I think you hit the nail on the head. Absolutely. Just because a journo takes a cheap shot at Duke doesn't mean that he/she "hates" the school. Forde doesn't dislike Duke. Dana O'Neil doesn't dislike Duke. Doyle DOES dislike Duke (and right back at you, buddy!).

That said, I love being the devil (figuratively and, well, figuratively). I makes for great small talk and petty arguments with non-Duke friends / colleagues.