How lucky did we get with Coach P?

[JG Nothing]

You mean, if the administration hadn't wanted to win a championship, they would have hired someone else?

I cannot speak for msdukie. However, Alleva said at McCallie's introduction that she was hired specifically to take Duke to the "next level." Alleva explicitly set the bar at a national championship. Maybe that is not fair to McCallie, but that is how she was presented.

[uh_no]

Well, I did look at the final AP rankings, which personally I think is a better indicator of league strength than NCAAT performance, and I don't think we see the same trend.

I only analyzed the top 15, which I admit is arbitrary, but I didn't feel like spending the time on the rest, especially considering the general contention that women's basketball is so top heavy that only the first 10 or 15 teams matter:

ACC: 17 teams (avg of 3.4 teams per year)
Big East: 17 teams (3.4)
Big 12: 14 teams (2.8)
SEC: 8 teams (1.6)
PAC 10: 8 teams (1.6)
Big 10: 5 teams (1.0)
mid-major: 6 teams (1.2)

To me, that seems like the ACC is one of the toughest conferences, although as you point out, none of those highly ranked teams have made the Final Four during those years. I guess it depends on your definition of tough.

Thanks for doing that. It is more impressive that the ACC has fewer teams than the big east.

A lot of the reason for the tournament explanation is the top teams. Big east has uconn, Big 12 has oklahoma, and now baylor. Sec had tennessee...but they have dropped off...and the Pac 10 has stanford...

BUt i didn't realize the ACC has had so many ranked teams. I think top 15 is a fine cutoff. You're right though, it does come down to being top heavy why there is that discrepancy...and in the end there's no good way to compare conferences...

ANyway, Duke needs to continue scheduling the top teams, but they need to get some wins against them...including in the tournament...its what it comes down to. At some level its unfair to compare Duke to Uconn and thelike since the bar is very very high, but I think that is the kind of success that P and the team/dept want, and with those success conditions, they can't be considered to be there yet.

[Kedsy]

I cannot speak for msdukie. However, Alleva said at McCallie's introduction that she was hired specifically to take Duke to the "next level." Alleva explicitly set the bar at a national championship. Maybe that is not fair to McCallie, but that is how she was presented.

Our old coach quit. We had to hire someone. Some people were blaming Alleva for not doing whatever it took to keep G. What did you expect him to say?

[throatybeard]

Our old coach quit. We had to hire someone. Some people were blaming Alleva for not doing whatever it took to keep G. What did you expect him to say?

Exactly. People can jaw as much as they want to about how we haven't won an national championship, or how what has happened 2008- isn't as awesome as what Auriemma has done. It's about opportunity cost. You lose, say, the 6th best coach in the game, under these other NC winning coaches. Just to keep the program at the level it was under G is amazing.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Well, I did look at the final AP rankings, which personally I think is a better indicator of league strength than NCAAT performance, and I don't think we see the same trend.

I only analyzed the top 15, which I admit is arbitrary, but I didn't feel like spending the time on the rest, especially considering the general contention that women's basketball is so top heavy that only the first 10 or 15 teams matter:

ACC: 17 teams (avg of 3.4 teams per year)
Big East: 17 teams (3.4)
Big 12: 14 teams (2.8)
SEC: 8 teams (1.6)
PAC 10: 8 teams (1.6)
Big 10: 5 teams (1.0)
mid-major: 6 teams (1.2)

To me, that seems like the ACC is one of the toughest conferences, although as you point out, none of those highly ranked teams have made the Final Four during those years. I guess it depends on your definition of tough.

Agreed.
Year in and out take a look at the ACC in the regular season, and you will see that the ACC is indeed one of the best conferences in women's basketball. There are those who will judge us by our conference record only (rightly or wrongly) but consistently the ACC has 4 or 5 teams in the top 25. With the Big East being huge, that is going to be a given. I wouldn't look too much at the SEC past Tennessee and Kentucky. The Big 12 is legitimate, and it's one of the reasons that G is having a hard time since top to bottom (unlike the ACC and SEC) they are solid through and through.
Anyways, back to my original point at any point for most any year and you may see in the top 25
Duke
Maryland
UNC
NCSU
UVA
FSU
Miami
Welcome GT to that mix now. Of course not every team is going to be at the top of their game every year, and might not be ranked for the whole season, but when you have 8 solid programs in your conference it's impossible to say the ACC isn't a tough place to play.
Since she's been here, Coach P has led her team to the ACC tourney championship game EVERY year she's been here except for this year. The last 2 of those Duke won. And some of y'all are complaining about that. Whoever takes the job over for K is doomed.

[JG Nothing]

Our old coach quit. We had to hire someone. Some people were blaming Alleva for not doing whatever it took to keep G. What did you expect him to say?

To simply say Goestenkors "quit" does not do justice to the situation leading up to her departure. Of course "we had to hire someone" once our old coach left. What did I say to suggest otherwise?

Alleva framed the hire as Goestenkors was not able to win a national championship but McCallie was someone who can. That was his choice. There were a thousand ways to spin the transition and that is how Alleva choose to do it (probably as a parting shot at Goestenkors). Alleva could have framed the hire as one that keeps Duke as an elite, top tier team for example. If you are saying that is all rhetoric and for show, then fine. But it still was not necessary. Of course, Duke hired someone to win national championships. But Alleva explicitly set the bar for success at a national championship. If McCallie was hired to take the program to the "next level" and she does not, then McCallie did not do what she was hired to do. That is all I'm saying to try to put msdukie's comment in context. And, as I also said, that may or may not be fair to McCallie.

[JG Nothing]

Exactly. People can jaw as much as they want to about how we haven't won an national championship, or how what has happened 2008- isn't as awesome as what Auriemma has done. It's about opportunity cost. You lose, say, the 6th best coach in the game, under these other NC winning coaches. Just to keep the program at the level it was under G is amazing.

Ironically, as you complain about other people jawing you do some jawing yourself. Welcome to the unwashed masses. Also, what opportunity cost are you talking about? Can you explain?

[J.Blink]

To simply say Goestenkors "quit" does not do justice to the situation leading up to her departure. Of course "we had to hire someone" once our old coach left. What did I say to suggest otherwise?

What does that mean? I had always thought her leaving was largely a product of getting divorced and wanting a fresh start, but I can't say I followed the situation that closely. Were there behind the scenes machinations?

[uh_no]

What does that mean? I had always thought her leaving was largely a product of getting divorced and wanting a fresh start, but I can't say I followed the situation that closely. Were there behind the scenes machinations?

She didn't get along with alleva, and texas gave her more money

[Raleighfan]

"What does that mean? I had always thought her leaving was largely a product of getting divorced and wanting a fresh start, but I can't say I followed the situation that closely."

Not an insider with regard to GG's private life, but was/am season ticket-holder (and loyal in attendance!) to WBB games here for a number of years...that said, GG's wanting a fresh start may have been a factor but I seriously doubt her divorce had anything to do with leaving Duke/going to Texas. Indeed, her ex had already left this area for his own "fresh start".

[Kfanarmy]

... it might be worth remembering that G never quite reached her own next level either. And it wasn't just the losing but the utterly devastating way in which our teams so often seemed out of their element at the most critical times. ... Frankly, I wished she had more time here ... Had G stuck around up to today, the "How lucky..." question might be asked of her.

She might have reached her potential/gotten that national championship if she hadn't been chasing her "dream job" at Texas during the NCAA tournament. I will always believe her taking interviews with Texas' administration impacted the prep of her final game and may have cost Duke women a national title...Frankly, I think she is reaping what she sowed at Texas...hard to tell recruits how committed you are when you're history indicates that in your team's biggest moment, you were thinking of you.

[77devil]

Well, I'll respond by saying, are you kidding? The ACC has been one of the toughest conferences in all of women's basketball, and Duke under Coach P has by-and-large owned the conference. K couldn't say anything close to that his first 5 years.

Top to bottom, the men were stronger in the early 1980's. Half the 8 team conference was routinely in the top 20. And, of course, there was the full round robin that Coach P has never faced plus the extensive weakness below the top of the expanded league, just like the men.

Under coach P, Duke has finished first in the regular season and won the conference championship 2 out of 5 times. That's not "by and large owning" the conference. You are just making things up.

In 1977-78, Duke was ACC champion and the national runner up under Foster. In 1978-79, we were the pre-season #1 in the country (and held the top spot for 9 weeks), tied for the ACC regular season championship, and made the ACC tournament final. In 1979-80, we were #1 in the country for 8 weeks, won the ACC championship, and made the Elite Eight. To me, those three years sound like a team on the verge of elite status.

To each his own in defining on the verge of greatness. However, pre-season #1 means nothing. Duke tied UNC for the regular season and went out in the first round of the NCAA. Many consider that season a failure relative to expectations, and a major disappointment. Duke was # 1 in the 1980 season for 4 weeks, not 8, early in the season. Again, you are just making things up.

http://www.collegepollarchive.com/mb...1980&teamid=64

And you choose to ignore the essential point that Foster did not sustain the recruiting of great talent after the Banks and Dennard class to sustain what he built. Most importantly, regardless how one defines Duke under Foster, what he left for coach K was a mere semblance of what had been.

Coming out of high school, Tom Emma was considered one of the best talents ever to come out of Long Island. Chip Engelland became one of the best shooters and scorers in the ACC. Add those two to Dennard and Taylor and I'd say it's a pretty solid supporting cast for our star, Gene Banks.

Emma's stature out of high school is irrelevant to his performance in college which was mediocre at best. England put up some decent numbers as a junior and senior, but nothing close to resembling "one of the best scorers in the ACC." If you really think this is part of a solid supporting cast, instead of just debating for it's own sake, when the competition is Sam Perkins, James Worthy Michael Jordon, Jimmy Black, Buck Williams, Albert King, Greg Manning, Len Bias, Ralph Sampson, Jeff Lamp, Sidney Lowe, Derrick Wittenburg, Thurl Bailey, Frank Johnson, Guy Morgan, and on and on, so be it.

[Kedsy]

Top to bottom, the men were stronger in the early 1980's. Half the 8 team conference was routinely in the top 20.

During Coach P's tenure at Duke half the women's teams have routinely been in the top 25. What's the difference?

Under coach P, Duke has finished first in the regular season and won the conference championship 2 out of 5 times. That's not "by and large owning" the conference. You are just making things up.

Duke finished 3rd in P's first two years and 1st the next three years (not two -- who's making things up now?). She made the ACC tournament final in each of her first four seasons (this season being the only year she hasn't), winning the ACC championship in two of those years. What team in the ACC has done better during P's time here?

To each his own in defining on the verge of greatness. However, pre-season #1 means nothing. Duke tied UNC for the regular season and went out in the first round of the NCAA. Many consider that season a failure relative to expectations, and a major disappointment.

It wasn't just pre-season. We were #1 for the entire month of December. We tied for first in the regular season and reached the ACC championship game. I was as disappointed as anyone when we lost our first game in the NCAA tournament (which was in the 2nd round, by the way, not the first round; we had a bye in the first round). I suppose "to each his own" in defining "major disappointment," but personally I thought it was a far better season than any of K's first few years.

Duke was # 1 in the 1980 season for 4 weeks, not 8, early in the season. Again, you are just making things up.

I misspoke. We were #1 for 8 games, not 8 weeks. And in 1978-79 it was 9 games (5 weeks), not 9 weeks. (Sorry about that, although with your hostile tone I really don't know why I'm bothering to be polite to you.)

And you choose to ignore the essential point that Foster did not sustain the recruiting of great talent after the Banks and Dennard class to sustain what he built.

He recruited Spanarkel, then Gminski the next year, then Banks and Dennard the next year, then Vince Taylor the next year, then Tom Emma (who was a top recruit) and Chip Engelland (who was a good recruit), along with Mike Tissaw and Alan Williams (who were both considered pretty decent recruits even though they didn't pan out so well). The only year he didn't recruit well was his final year, when apparently he had one foot out the door.

Most importantly, regardless how one defines Duke under Foster, what he left for coach K was a mere semblance of what had been.

K inherited an Elite Eight team that had lost two players: pretty good PG Bob Bender and second team All-American C Mike Gminski. P inherited an Elite Eight team that lost two players: first team All-American PG Lindsay Harding and first team All-ACC C Alison Bales, who at the time was the 3rd leading shot-blocker in women's NCAA history.

Again, I don't see much of a difference, or if there is one it's in P's favor. You certainly can't say K's first Duke team had lost more from the previous season than P's first Duke team.

Emma's stature out of high school is irrelevant to his performance in college which was mediocre at best. England put up some decent numbers as a junior and senior, but nothing close to resembling "one of the best scorers in the ACC." If you really think this is part of a solid supporting cast, instead of just debating for it's own sake, when the competition is Sam Perkins, James Worthy Michael Jordon, Jimmy Black, Buck Williams, Albert King, Greg Manning, Len Bias, Ralph Sampson, Jeff Lamp, Sidney Lowe, Derrick Wittenburg, Thurl Bailey, Frank Johnson, Guy Morgan, and on and on, so be it.

Tom Emma was a rising sophomore when K took over, and at the time a lot of people thought Emma was going to be a very good player. Engelland (not "England," by the way -- that's a small country in Europe) shot 55% from 3-point range in 1983 (2nd best single-season performance in Duke history) and scored 15+ ppg in 1982. I can't find the leading scorers list from Engelland's day, so I can't say whether Engelland was on that list or not.

Putting that aside, I'm not sure how naming the other ACC teams' stars has anything to do with whether Emma and Engelland were part of a solid supporting cast around Duke's stars. They were.

[77devil]

During Coach P's tenure at Duke half the women's teams have routinely been in the top 25. What's the difference?



Duke finished 3rd in P's first two years and 1st the next three years (not two -- who's making things up now?). She made the ACC tournament final in each of her first four seasons (this season being the only year she hasn't), winning the ACC championship in two of those years. What team in the ACC has done better during P's time here?



It wasn't just pre-season. We were #1 for the entire month of December. We tied for first in the regular season and reached the ACC championship game. I was as disappointed as anyone when we lost our first game in the NCAA tournament (which was in the 2nd round, by the way, not the first round; we had a bye in the first round). I suppose "to each his own" in defining "major disappointment," but personally I thought it was a far better season than any of K's first few years.



I misspoke. We were #1 for 8 games, not 8 weeks. And in 1978-79 it was 9 games (5 weeks), not 9 weeks. (Sorry about that, although with your hostile tone I really don't know why I'm bothering to be polite to you.)



He recruited Spanarkel, then Gminski the next year, then Banks and Dennard the next year, then Vince Taylor the next year, then Tom Emma (who was a top recruit) and Chip Engelland (who was a good recruit), along with Mike Tissaw and Alan Williams (who were both considered pretty decent recruits even though they didn't pan out so well). The only year he didn't recruit well was his final year, when apparently he had one foot out the door.



K inherited an Elite Eight team that had lost two players: pretty good PG Bob Bender and second team All-American C Mike Gminski. P inherited an Elite Eight team that lost two players: first team All-American PG Lindsay Harding and first team All-ACC C Alison Bales, who at the time was the 3rd leading shot-blocker in women's NCAA history.

Again, I don't see much of a difference, or if there is one it's in P's favor. You certainly can't say K's first Duke team had lost more from the previous season than P's first Duke team.



Tom Emma was a rising sophomore when K took over, and at the time a lot of people thought Emma was going to be a very good player. Engelland (not "England," by the way -- that's a small country in Europe) shot 55% from 3-point range in 1983 (2nd best single-season performance in Duke history) and scored 15+ ppg in 1982. I can't find the leading scorers list from Engelland's day, so I can't say whether Engelland was on that list or not.

Putting that aside, I'm not sure how naming the other ACC teams' stars has anything to do with whether Emma and Engelland were part of a solid supporting cast around Duke's stars. They were.

I miscounted. Still, 3 out of 5 and 2 out of 5 does not constitute your exagerated "by and large owning the conference." You state that K had it better than P, but try to argue that Emma and Engelland were strong support in a league with the elite competition I named which you try dismiss. You state that the 1980 team was elite 8, but fail to acknowledge that by being 7-7 in ACC play demonstrates how much stronger the league was when K arrived.

You claim the ACC women routinely put half of the league in the top 25 during the P era which is false; more like a third. You make a spurious claim that the 1979 Foster team was better than K's "first few years." Who is comparing K to Foster? Where did that come from? If you are going to throw it out there at least get your facts right and make a valid comparison. 1979 was Foster's 5th season and in 1985 Duke won the ACC tournament, 2 rounds in the Big Dance, and had one more win and same # of losses.

Your original argument was that P dId better than K in their first 5 years without qualification. I've listed many valid extenuating reasons in my responses that you choose to ignore or try to refute with unsubstantiated subjectivity or outright falsehoods. This conversation is like arguing with David.

[msdukie]

I cannot speak for msdukie. However, Alleva said at McCallie's introduction that she was hired specifically to take Duke to the "next level." Alleva explicitly set the bar at a national championship. Maybe that is not fair to McCallie, but that is how she was presented.

This is what I was talking about.

[miramar]

She might have reached her potential/gotten that national championship if she hadn't been chasing her "dream job" at Texas during the NCAA tournament. I will always believe her taking interviews with Texas' administration impacted the prep of her final game and may have cost Duke women a national title...Frankly, I think she is reaping what she sowed at Texas...hard to tell recruits how committed you are when you're history indicates that in your team's biggest moment, you were thinking of you.

To be fair, Rutgers played really well (plus they had all those tattoos), not to mention that Duke had its best shooter on the line at the end, two shots and down only one. I am certain that I wasn't the only one who was sure that at worst it would go to overtime.

I don't know if Coach G is reaping what she sowed or if it's simply a case of be careful what you wish for. No matter what, it's clear that she doesn't seem to be a great fit at Texas, so I guess the Duke curse is alive and well in Austin.

[uh_no]

I don't know if Coach G is reaping what she sowed or if it's simply a case of be careful what you wish for. No matter what, it's clear that she doesn't seem to be a great fit at Texas, so I guess the Duke curse is alive and well in Austin.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair to G. She was in what she thought was a bad situation at duke. Texas gave her the money and duke did not. I'm not sure either party is at fault here. Duke didn't want to pay that kind of money to a program which wasn't generating a whole lot of profit (I think they draw a loss...not sure), so they were justified not ponying up from a financial standpoint. You can't blame a coach for leaving when another program is willing to offer more money, especially when you are in a situation where you don't necessarily see eye to eye with the AD.

She's not had the success at Texas that I'm sure she's wanted (for whatever reason), but we don't know if she would have sustained her success at Duke either. For all we know, she could have done less with the talent she recruited than P ended up doing. There's just no way to know.

[Mike Corey]

I've no authority with which to make this request, but I would suggest that we take it easy on both Coach G and Coach P.

The full/true story of Coach G's departure is not in the public record. I'd suggest that all that matters is that she loved Duke, she transformed Duke women's basketball into a juggernaut, she is now at Texas, and she is worthy of our respect as Duke alums and/or fans.

Coach P is an a very different coach than Goestenkors. She was brought in with a goal of winning national championships. That is also why Coach G was in Durham. But Coach P's rebuilding the program in her own way, and that doesn't happen overnight, even when inheriting a talent-rich team. That does not require perfection, nor constant progress.

Coach P's teams are yet to enjoy the sustained success that Coach G's did in the latter half of her tenure in Durham. That does not mean Coach P isn't up to the task, or that she and her teams never will be. Her recruiting, for one, begs to differ.

So hopefully Duke can make a strong showing this postseason, and hopefully we can leave the snide remarks about Coach G behind as well.

[OldPhiKap]

I've no authority with which to make this request, but I would suggest that we take it easy on both Coach G and Coach P.

The full/true story of Coach G's departure is not in the public record. I'd suggest that all that matters is that she loved Duke, she transformed Duke women's basketball into a juggernaut, she is now at Texas, and she is worthy of our respect as Duke alums and/or fans.

Coach P is an a very different coach than Goestenkors. She was brought in with a goal of winning national championships. That is also why Coach G was in Durham. But Coach P's rebuilding the program in her own way, and that doesn't happen overnight, even when inheriting a talent-rich team. That does not require perfection, nor constant progress.

Coach P's teams are yet to enjoy the sustained success that Coach G's did in the latter half of her tenure in Durham. That does not mean Coach P isn't up to the task, or that she and her teams never will be. Her recruiting, for one, begs to differ.

So hopefully Duke can make a strong showing this postseason, and hopefully we can leave the snide remarks about Coach G behind as well.

Could not have said it better.

I'm glad to see there is some passion about our women's team, I guess that's the positive. But as Mike correctly states, both are good coaches and both will (hopefully) leave a positive mark on our university.

[JG Nothing]

I've no authority with which to make this request, but I would suggest that we take it easy on both Coach G and Coach P.

The full/true story of Coach G's departure is not in the public record. I'd suggest that all that matters is that she loved Duke, she transformed Duke women's basketball into a juggernaut, she is now at Texas, and she is worthy of our respect as Duke alums and/or fans.

Coach P is an a very different coach than Goestenkors. She was brought in with a goal of winning national championships. That is also why Coach G was in Durham. But Coach P's rebuilding the program in her own way, and that doesn't happen overnight, even when inheriting a talent-rich team. That does not require perfection, nor constant progress.

Coach P's teams are yet to enjoy the sustained success that Coach G's did in the latter half of her tenure in Durham. That does not mean Coach P isn't up to the task, or that she and her teams never will be. Her recruiting, for one, begs to differ.

So hopefully Duke can make a strong showing this postseason, and hopefully we can leave the snide remarks about Coach G behind as well.

This: "The full/true story of Coach G's departure is not in the public record."

All I am saying is statements like Goestenkors simply "quit" or "didn't get along with Alleva" really misrepresent the situation and what when on. By the way uh_no, Texas did not "give her more money." Duke matched Texas' offer.