Duke: living more on its faded glory than on current success

[CatfiveCane]

Really painful article on ESPN today. I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful that Duke plays great basketball tomorrow:

ESPN article

[CatfiveCane]

Just for the record: I don't believe everything she (author) says. Plus I think she's a UNC alum.

[MarkD83]

I won't read the article, but I bet 90% of it was written awhile ago and the writer was just waiting for a time to unveil it.

If Duke beats WVA the article will be irrelevant.

[calltheobvious]

Just for the record: I don't believe everything she (author) says. Plus I think she's a UNC alum.

She went to Penn State.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/colu...pennett_oneil/

Still, I thought the piece was very weak. She decided on what novel she was going to write with,

"It tells you everything you need to know about this NCAA first-rounder that after the game, Belmont wasn't sad or depressed about missing the upset."

When I read that I immediately thought about Renfroe in his PGI saying something like, "It's a heartbreaker...I'm not going to lie."

To her credit, though, she did include the Renfroe quote a little later, I'm just not sure how you square that with Belmont not being "sad or depressed..."

Just kind of a cheap way to write the column. I think she was probably as impressed with Belmont's performance as anyone, and I don't think she meant to take anything away from them, but to put the focus of the column on the supposed paper-tigerness of Duke really does Belmont a disservice. They deserved much, much better, and so did Duke.

[slower]

I won't read the article, but I bet 90% of it was written awhile ago and the writer was just waiting for a time to unveil it.

If Duke beats WVA the article will be irrelevant.

Just another pack-mentality piece of crap. When I was a kid, I used to want to be a sports writer. But I've come to realize that many of them are folks of middling intellect and ethics. Just like "hard news" reporters, they all follow the same script(s), no matter how ridiculous, obvious or bogus.

[dukelifer]

Really painful article on ESPN today. I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful that Duke plays great basketball tomorrow:

ESPN article

She compares Duke to the Packers who were one of the best teams in the NFL this past year. That is VERY odd. Somehow I think she wrote some of this last year and used it for last night. Pretty weak.

[devildownunder]

Reporters vary in their competence -- and their ethics -- as much as any other group of people. The writer of this piece is at the lower end of the spectrum on both. Instead of praising the little school that almost could, she chooses to kick a better-known program while she has the chance. Classy.

And btw, far from "living more on faded glory", I think this Duke team has had to struggle mightily to try to OVERCOME the shadow of the glory days. Thanks to media/fan venom and expectations.

[willywoody]

She went to Penn State.

speaking of a school with an athletic program living on past glories.

[CatfiveCane]

overall I think it's a pretty poor article, but certain areas do ring true.

And its now a matter of perception. The large majority of the public will read it and agree. It hurts Duke image. It hurts our recruiting. It hurts our television spots, etc.

Only one way to fix it: crush West Virginia tomorrow.

[KenTankerous]

I am confused. Is this college football where writers' and coachs' opinions determine a champion?

No. This is basketball where champions play champions and the way you play today - not your reputation, not past victories, not estimates of potential - determines the outcome.

Maybe it's my recent conversion to Duke basketball or maybe I'm just a little grumpier with age but I am completely disgusted with the media coverage of the game. I was sick of bracketology in December. I think most of the writers are hacks, most of the commentators washed up ex-jocks whose degree in communication isn't worth the newspapers they ought to be delivering.

Faded glory! PAAALEEEASE just shut up and give me the box score.

[dukelifer]

overall I think it's a pretty poor article, but certain areas do ring true.

And its now a matter of perception. The large majority of the public will read it and agree. It hurts Duke image. It hurts our recruiting. It hurts our television spots, etc.

Only one way to fix it: crush West Virginia tomorrow.

The same article could have been written about UNC 2001-2004, two second row bow outs-2 no shows. Don't think their recruiting suffered.

[Bostondevil]

Wonder what she'll write when Mt. St. Mary's takes UNC close?

[Biscuit King]

I won't read the article. It's not worth my time.

But I have one question: would Maryland, Syracuse, Florida, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan or LSU -- all storied programs and/or recent Final Four participants -- trade their spots on the couch (or in the NIT) for Duke's "faded glory" right now? Ummmmm, yes they would.

So who gives a s--t if Duke has "faded" its way into the next round of the NCAA Tournament?

[tecumseh]

I saw an interview with Jim Boeheim and he said that there are no more great teams in the NCAA and will not be in the future with all the top players doing one and dones. The sportswriters makes some teams out to be great but he says not so. So in that light this article is kind of silly. Duke will not have another 4 years like they had with Grant Hill the game is too different call that past glories if you will. Similarly you will not see a team in the NFL win 4 Super Bowls like the Steelers did. Quiet Pats fans your team has very few players who were on that first Super Bowl team, the Steelers had basically the same team for their 4 in 6 years.

[colchar]

I won't read the article,

Not the most mature response.

I bet 90% of it was written awhile ago and the writer was just waiting for a time to unveil it.

No, it wasn't.

If Duke beats WVA the article will be irrelevant.

Really? As Duke advances in this tournament this game will hang over their heads a bit because everyone will be talking about it. For example: How can they beat (insert big school here) when tiny little Blemont very nearly beat them?

[dukie8]

The same article could have been written about UNC 2001-2004, two second row bow outs-2 no shows. Don't think their recruiting suffered.

there's just a slight difference there -- unc had doherty as its coach and duke has k. that article would have been written about unc if deano still were the coach there during that stretch (or if unc BARELY beat a 15 seed that had notched losses to not 1 but 2 sub 300 teams during the season).

[coastal1]

there's just a slight difference there -- unc had doherty as its coach and duke has k. that article would have been written about unc if deano still were the coach there during that stretch (or if unc BARELY beat a 15 seed that had notched losses to not 1 but 2 sub 300 teams during the season).

Not "would have been" - there were tons of these articles when the Heels were down

[CDu]

I don't understand all of the whining about this article. While it isn't terribly inventive, it's also pretty accurate. We aren't the same team we were in the early-90s or the late-90s/early-00s. We're vulnerable, and we have distinct weaknesses. Teams don't step on to the court fearing this team like they have previous teams. It seems that some are not able/willing to admit that.

Aside from the fact that it's more fun to be a juggernaut, I don't see anything wrong with this being the case. We had some incredibly dominant teams in those previous years. It was arguably an unprecedented run of greatness, and it may or may not be matched again in the future. That doesn't mean this team is bad. It's really good. But the fact that this team is really good AND that teams don't fear us anymore tells you how great those previous teams were.

[Rich]

Actually, this article in the NJ Star-Ledger takes the same approach and, IMO, is even more annoying.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/pol...190.xml&coll=1

[jipops]

I don't see anything that is at all untrue in the article. It isn't knocking on Duke, it's just telling us like it is. We're not a dominant team this year and we haven't been for a few years. Aren't we all aware of this?

Stop being so sensitive everyone, it's ok to critique Duke. This was actually one of the better critiques of Duke, none of the mindless mainstream generalized hate drivel we see from other authors. This just basically told it like it is so stop crying about it.