This season will be a different experience for a lot of you.

[MulletMan]

See, I knew you hadn't been married much longer than I had, if at all. 3/5/2000, homes.

You're right about the framing device that the 2001 championship provides in people's minds.

Its weird... that 2001 title puts sort of a close on one part of my Duke Basketball fan-dom. That was my first year in grad skool and my whole love affair with the prgram changed after that point. I think I watched my first Duke game in '86, and really started reading about teams prior to that sometime in high school, but once we won that title in '01 I felt like a chapter closed. In retrospect I think that's because after that season, I was a more visible crazy and invovled with ticket distribution etc. It was like actually meeting the people invovled with the program and being part of this little off shoot made it different.

Throaty, you know what I'm saying?

Jumbo... I like your thoughts. I just wouldn't vocalize them because, A. I don't have the patience to look up the stats, and B. it would make me sound like a crotchety old man.

[johnb]

I also attended that 1958 Orange Bowl game (played following the 1957 season), when Duke turnovers allowed Oklahoma to pull away in the fourth quarter and blow open what had been a close game. Of course, I was only 9 at the time, and thought the Oklahoma fight song and the "Boomer Schooner" rolling across the field was way cool.

Having had parents who went to OU in the mid-late 1950's, I also loved the fight song, the boomer schooner, and yearbooks in which the football team essentially never lost. Of course, things changed when I went to Duke, and if we were to again play Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, my loyalties --which would be distracted a bit by hell having frozen over--would have shifted eastward.

[throatybeard]

Its weird... that 2001 title puts sort of a close on one part of my Duke Basketball fan-dom. That was my first year in grad skool and my whole love affair with the program changed after that point. I think I watched my first Duke game in '86, and really started reading about teams prior to that sometime in high school, but once we won that title in '01 I felt like a chapter closed. In retrospect I think that's because after that season, I was a more visible crazy and involved with ticket distribution etc. It was like actually meeting the people involved with the program and being part of this little off shoot made it different.

Throaty, you know what I'm saying?

I think in my head I divide it up into "waiting to be at Duke" (life thru 1994 spring in my case), at/around Duke (1994-2004), and "since I left" (2004-). I was never really as involved as you or Ed--only 2 years on committee and never in a leadership role. I think I was a lot less visible in the sense that I was the guy with the beard, but I doubt anybody in the program other than Sobb knows my name, maybe Laurence.

[kmspeaks]

As one of the younger members of this community I just want to say thanks to posters like jumbo and others who give us youngsters a perspective of the past. I fell in love with Duke at the age of 9. I don't remember all the details but the first basketball game I ever watched was a Duke game at the time Wojo was there. I don't recall any specific play but i just remember watching him and thinking "i want that guy's team to win."
I remember watching elton and jason williams and shane and jj but I love the fact that people on these boards remind us (or let us know) about guys like Spanarkel, Gminski, Banks etc. On most boards that wouldn't happen. So thanks for passing down the legends.
GO DUKE!! I LOVE DBR!!

[grossbus]

"It's not just that old-timers like Heyman were ignored"

a travesty

[Dukerati]

"It's not just that old-timers like Heyman were ignored"

a travesty

As another of the "young" crowd, I view Heyman's omission as less of a travesty and more of a cold reality. The fact of the matter is, DBR is an online community (which will skew younger since the internet was not around in the 70s and 80s) and Duke has steadily picked up fans during the K era-- so much so that I would wager that the majority of Duke fans and DBR readers are here because of K.

Therefore, when we talk about favorite players, the JJs and Jwills will have high totals because they simply had more fans than Heyman ever did, regardless of greatness.

[phaedrus]

As another of the "young" crowd, I view Heyman's omission as less of a travesty and more of a cold reality. The fact of the matter is, DBR is an online community (which will skew younger since the internet was not around in the 70s and 80s) and Duke has steadily picked up fans during the K era-- so much so that I would wager that the majority of Duke fans and DBR readers are here because of K.

Therefore, when we talk about favorite players, the JJs and Jwills will have high totals because they simply had more fans than Heyman ever did, regardless of greatness.

Especially since this is a "favorite" poll, not a "greatest" poll. no matter how well-versed in duke basketball history i might be, heyman will not be my favorite because i didn't see him play. I saw JJ Redick play almost every single game of his Duke career. It's not due to ignorance that I favor JJ.

[DevilAlumna]

Post the poll and let's see who responds. I've got no problem stating that I'm 48 years young and have been a Duke fan since the Bubas years.

Interesting thread, and always good to get the long-term and historical perspectives.

As for the poll, I think "when did you first became a Duke BBall Fan" would be more relevant than "how old are you." For example, both my mom and I became loyal fans during 1990-91, when I was a sophomore in high school, and she was, well, not in high school.

[mapei]

I wish we would just stop it already with the snipes about people's ages and which players have come to be their favorites. There's room for all of us here, and I for one hope we don't do that poll just so someone can be self-satisfied in seeing how young and ignorant the DBR membership really is.

BTW, I'm old enough that Art Heyman came and spoke to my high school while he was at Duke. But my favorite players are the recent ones.

[Jumbo]

I wish we would just stop it already with the snipes about people's ages and which players have come to be their favorites. There's room for all of us here, and I for one hope we don't do that poll just so someone can be self-satisfied in seeing how young and ignorant the DBR membership really is.

BTW, I'm old enough that Art Heyman came and spoke to my high school while he was at Duke. But my favorite players are the recent ones.

I don't think anyone is "sniping" about ages. That certainly wasn't the intention of this thread. I think there is a certain portion of posters who don't have much perspective, and who speak in absolutes based on a tiny sample size of information. That's what I wanted to address in my original post.

[mapei]

It wasn't directed at you, Jumbo. I always learn a lot from your posts. But there seemed to be a "gang mentality" building among some people that I thought was counter to the great spirit of community I've always found here. Let's not do that.

Actually, I hope you're right about what's in store this year!

[jipops]

I think a lot of folks not only don't really start following a team when they're 8, but they don't start following Duke at all till they get to Duke. So you've got a large quantity of, say, 2005 grads whose Duke basketball memory beings in 2001.

I'm in my mid-30's and my first distinct memories of Duke basketball featured a team of Tom Emma, Mike Tissaw, Vince Taylor, Dan Meagher, and Richard Ford. I have faint memories of the G-Man/Banks squad but I really got into Duke in the very early eighties, so throaty's theory of following a team starting about age 8 does indeed apply to me. Turned out to be pretty cool getting emotionally tied to a team that was in the midst of some very lean years. Made these successful ones all the more enjoyable.

In tonight's postgame K mentioned that last year's team had planned to play an uptempo style but pre-season injuries to Paulus and Henderson derailed all of that. He also emphasized the fact that there are more guys available this season to allow for this style of play.

[jimmymax]

Just observing, no answers or solutions, but it seems like the trend of computer/internet access being what it is, that it’s not surprising that the age of sports board posters is on the decline. And with younger participants it’s only natural that the history of these sports/teams may not have been experienced first hand or otherwise.

In recent years the DBR moderators seem to have been struggling with the board’s identity. I almost never visit other boards, except to follow the occasional link in a DBR thread highlighting meltdowns at other fan sites after a bad loss or miss on a recruit – mostly for a laugh at the immature reactions. This is enough for me to realize that DBR is (and has been for some time) special. The level of discourse is generally pretty sophisticated. Still I think the locking of threads can be premature. Sometimes things get ugly or personal but the application of the “you’re not adding anything new” reasoning seems quick to be cited at times.

I’m not sure of the makeup of the moderators, and I certainly value their effort and involvement, but I would venture that many date back to the parquet-floor-background- years and have a sense of ownership of DBR. Understandably, rehashing the same discussions each pre-season, or after an unexpected loss when the sky-is-falling folks come out of the woodwork, gets old. It must also be difficult to accommodate enthusiastic newcomers, whose teeth were perhaps cut on other more wild-west boards, when you have a picture in mind of DBR’s past and projected future.

There’s a parallel between the board and the team. Each year posts show up about rotation, depth, starters, big men, etc. Older posters can cite years when whatever the bee-in-the-bonnet issue is didn’t matter. Newer posters have no context, or ignore this. But it goes on and is self-perpetuating. There is more information posted about players, practices, exhibitions all the time. Expectations and possibilities build each year: this will be the fastest, best passing, rebounding, etc. team ever -- to the point where players who have never suited up for an ACC game are being compared to players with retired jerseys and recruits who didn’t sign on are dismissed.

I don’t think the added player exposure, information or hype will diminish, so how does DBR cope and maintain? Does it get worse each year Duke doesn’t win the NCAAs? What if Duke fails to make the tourney? Will it lead to DBR banning/censorship? Will apathy cause the hit counter to crawl?

I hope the recurring themes, perceived as tiresome by some, will evolve and mutate with gentle influence from the moderators. In the meantime I think the concerns-du-jour of posters, regardless of age/experience, are valid.

Does citing what happened X years ago mean that it will happen again – this year? No.

Can someone freak out that Duke doesn’t have an established post player, point guard, etc.? Sure.

Is it OK to be paranoid about the roster the team down the road has leading to the conclusion that Duke’s season is doomed? I suppose so.

The game changes over the years: big men dominate, guards dominate, shooting, defense, etc. But who know what plan a creative coach might some up with? Who knows what will happen when they play the games? Who knows what will happen post-K? We all lose perspective at times with respect to expectations of teams and individuals. Hot button issues change over time. But will all watch and see, and react.

We’ve been very lucky for many years, to the point of being spoiled. We should all take a step back and appreciate the ride we’ve been on – at least the past 20+ years of the K era -- regardless of how long we’ve been riding. And for quite a while now DBR has been there as a mirror.

[Udaman]

Jumbo,

You are correct, of course, that many of the general comments that people throw out about Coach K have not always been the case. He has gone 8-9-10 deep before. He has changed his starting lineup. We have gone up tempo. I'm class of 1990, so I remember all of those things.

What has bothered me, and some of my fellow classmates, is that over the last few years he has abandoned that, for whatever reason. You may argue that it is based on the skill set he has around him. Possibly true, but I don't necessarily agree. Look at the 96-97 season. He played Carmen Wallace and Chris Chappell over 10 minutes a game. We went 9 deep with people like Ricky Price and Greg Newton (who were fine, but not great, and not great defensive players).

Compare that to last year. We had Zoubek and Pocious (two people I would say as good if not better than Price and Newton) and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them. The simple fact is that over the last 7 years Coach K has changed his strategy about playing people lots of minutes versus going deep. It's easy to see. The past 7 years we have had 17 players average 31.5 minutes or more a game (including an astounding 10 over the last 3 seasons). The 7 years before that, we had 8 players average 31.5 or more, including three seasons where nobody did.

Now, if this year Coach K goes 9 deep this year, then at least I will acknowledge that he has bucked the trend. But if at the end of the year we are pretty much playing 7 guys and that is it, please don't come back with the "Well, you have to earn it to play with Coach K" line, because if you do I'll come back with "It's not Global Warming, just a warm phase we are going through" retort.

[Troublemaker]

Jumbo,

You are correct, of course, that many of the general comments that people throw out about Coach K have not always been the case. He has gone 8-9-10 deep before. He has changed his starting lineup. We have gone up tempo. I'm class of 1990, so I remember all of those things.

What has bothered me, and some of my fellow classmates, is that over the last few years he has abandoned that, for whatever reason. You may argue that it is based on the skill set he has around him. Possibly true, but I don't necessarily agree. Look at the 96-97 season. He played Carmen Wallace and Chris Chappell over 10 minutes a game. We went 9 deep with people like Ricky Price and Greg Newton (who were fine, but not great, and not great defensive players).

Compare that to last year. We had Zoubek and Pocious (two people I would say as good if not better than Price and Newton) and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them. The simple fact is that over the last 7 years Coach K has changed his strategy about playing people lots of minutes versus going deep. It's easy to see. The past 7 years we have had 17 players average 31.5 minutes or more a game (including an astounding 10 over the last 3 seasons). The 7 years before that, we had 8 players average 31.5 or more, including three seasons where nobody did.

Now, if this year Coach K goes 9 deep this year, then at least I will acknowledge that he has bucked the trend. But if at the end of the year we are pretty much playing 7 guys and that is it, please don't come back with the "Well, you have to earn it to play with Coach K" line, because if you do I'll come back with "It's not Global Warming, just a warm phase we are going through" retort.

Man, we've all written these arguments word-for-word like 20 times each already. Some points that you've either forgotten or have ignored:

- Pocius was injured all of last season and required offseason surgery. There's no way you could've expected him to play. He recently re-aggravated his injury again this season. Dude might just be injury-prone.
- Since you've been a fan for a decent amount of time and know the history pretty well, what does K's recent years of relatively shorter bench coincide with?
- Answer: it coincided with NBA defections. Ever since the first NBA defections occurred (Brand, Avery, Maggette), Duke's depth has been decimated almost annually by kids going league. No other program has lost as many players to the NBA as Duke since 1999. Has K recently made an adjustment for that?
- Answer: Yes. He's now recruiting to 12 or 13 scholarships whereas over the course of his career, it was common for Duke to only have 11 schollie players or less. I would expect Duke to always be at or near the schollie limit going forward, and this will help immensely to combat the effects of NBA defections on our talent and depth.
- I do admit it took K a year or two longer than I had hoped to make this adjustment but it's done now. I'm not going to go through the years one-by-one again, but every single year that you could complain about Duke's depth, there has always been at least one "what-if" player who had declared early, sometimes surprisingly like Luol Deng (there have also been unfortunate injuries, transfers, and overall, plain inexperience, that have played a factor to lost depth). With the new approach to recruiting, even surprise departures shouldn't devastate depth.

[Hector Vector]

I haven't read all the posts so maybe this was picked up elsewhere, but a two other factors in K's short rotations in recent years, besides the absence of quality 8-11 players (which I actually think there have been more of then generally recognized), have been:

a. the presence of superior players that K will keep on the court all the time.

Unlike Jim Calhoun and Roy Williams, when K has an elite player -- Redick, Battier, Jason Williams -- he tends to play them 35 minutes + in competitive games, and sometimes even non-competitive games. He is more likely to substitute freely when the difference in talent between starter and reserve is smaller.

That should be more pronounced this year when the difference between Henderson, Nelson, Scheyer and Thomas, King, Zoubek, McClure is not that big. The one guy, based on what I'm hearing who might not have a comparable substitute is Singler, particularly since we are less deep at the 4-5.

b. when the depth is all freshmen

I think when K has a 4 or 5 player freshman class, people are sometimes frustrated that not all the highly regarded freshman are being played. I attribute that to the fact that it is hard to intergrate that many new players into an elite team. Therefore, for example, when Paulus and McRoberts were being worked into a team competing for the championship, it was hard to also use Boating, Boykin, Marty a lot.

This year I expect only one freshman to be a consistent top of the rotation player. The other two will work in about equally with other reserves.

[throatybeard]

The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them.

Can I get an explanation of why Krzyzewski would be expected to substitute two mediocre freshman forwards, Boykin and Boateng, for the best SG we've had in 20 years?

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

You are correct, of course, that many of the general comments that people throw out about Coach K have not always been the case. He has gone 8-9-10 deep before. He has changed his starting lineup. We have gone up tempo. I'm class of 1990, so I remember all of those things.

What has bothered me, and some of my fellow classmates, is that over the last few years he has abandoned that, for whatever reason. You may argue that it is based on the skill set he has around him. Possibly true, but I don't necessarily agree. Look at the 96-97 season. He played Carmen Wallace and Chris Chappell over 10 minutes a game. We went 9 deep with people like Ricky Price and Greg Newton (who were fine, but not great, and not great defensive players).

Compare that to last year. We had Zoubek and Pocious (two people I would say as good if not better than Price and Newton) and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them. The simple fact is that over the last 7 years Coach K has changed his strategy about playing people lots of minutes versus going deep. It's easy to see. The past 7 years we have had 17 players average 31.5 minutes or more a game (including an astounding 10 over the last 3 seasons). The 7 years before that, we had 8 players average 31.5 or more, including three seasons where nobody did.

Now, if this year Coach K goes 9 deep this year, then at least I will acknowledge that he has bucked the trend. But if at the end of the year we are pretty much playing 7 guys and that is it, please don't come back with the "Well, you have to earn it to play with Coach K" line, because if you do I'll come back with "It's not Global Warming, just a warm phase we are going through" retort.

Troublemaker, Hector and Throaty all addressed this very well. But let me just add that I think it's silly to compare, say, Newton and Price in 1996-97 to Zoubek and Pocius last year. In 1996-97, Newton was a senior and a returning starter. He was actually coming off a very good season and had a ton of experience. (Of course, then he went off the deep end and got benched). Zoubek, on the other hand, was an extremely raw freshman. (FWIW, Newton barely played as a frosh). Similarly, Price was a returning starter as a junior in 1996-97, coming off an outstanding sophomore season. Pocius was a sophomore who was a) injured and b) barely played as a frosh. How are those situations remotely comparable?

[Indoor66]

Troublemaker, Hector and Throaty all addressed this very well. But let me just add that I think it's silly to compare, say, Newton and Price in 1996-97 to Zoubek and Pocius last year. In 1996-97, Newton was a senior and a returning starter. He was actually coming off a very good season and had a ton of experience. (Of course, then he went off the deep end and got benched). Zoubek, on the other hand, was an extremely raw freshman. (FWIW, Newton barely played as a frosh). Similarly, Price was a returning starter as a junior in 1996-97, coming off an outstanding sophomore season. Pocius was a sophomore who was a) injured and b) barely played as a frosh. How are those situations remotely comparable?

Darn, Jumbo, don't confuse me with facts.

[jimsumner]

"and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them."

What bothers me about this recurring argument is the word "refused." Maybe I'm over-analyzing this one word but to me this suggests a petulant three-year-old "refusing" to eat their veggies. "No, no, no!"

Maybe Mike Krzyzewski all of a sudden has lost the ability to evaluate the talent on his team but I'm pretty sure he would have used Zoubek and Pocius and anybody else more if he thought that using them enhanced his team's ability to win a basketball game.