Posted by ettaexpress on 3/22/2014 3:02:00 AM (view original):
Duke gets mad help from the refs in ACC play in the regular season. That's the difference, and most non-Duke people associated with the ACC know it. Sometimes they're legitimately good, sometimes they're not; but you'd hardly know the difference from ACC play.

Swofford plays favorites more than any other conference commissioner. 

I'm sure that guy that learned everything he knows from Bob Knight is a bad Xs and Os coach though? Ell oh ell. 

Coach K is an outstanding coach of the game. This just wasn't his best team, or close to it.

Oh, and by the way, you remember how you said you didn't like people twisting your words into something you didn't say?  Well then, please stop doing that to mine.

Nowhere did I say the man was a "bad" Xs and Os coach.  I said he wasn't a great one, but that he was a good one.

You also contradicted yourself.

"Coach K is NOT a good in-game coach.  He gets outcoached ALL the time." -- taken literally, this would suggest that every coach is a better Xs and Os coach than him. Taken more figuratively, it still in no way conveys that he is a good one. 

"A good one, sure, but he gets out done consistently by the opposition coach." -- Here, you contradict yourself within the same sentence. If he is consistently "outdone" (whatever the crap that means) by the opposition coach, then he is by definition below average. So unless he coaches youths from Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average, he cannot be considered good by your statement.

It's akin to Coach K talking about the A-10 saying "they're great teams" and then proceeding to tell you why he clearly doesn't think they're great teams.

Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 3:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 3/22/2014 3:02:00 AM (view original):
Duke gets mad help from the refs in ACC play in the regular season. That's the difference, and most non-Duke people associated with the ACC know it. Sometimes they're legitimately good, sometimes they're not; but you'd hardly know the difference from ACC play.

Swofford plays favorites more than any other conference commissioner. 

I'm sure that guy that learned everything he knows from Bob Knight is a bad Xs and Os coach though? Ell oh ell. 

Coach K is an outstanding coach of the game. This just wasn't his best team, or close to it.

You've got your opinion on his X and O coaching prowess, I've got mine.  One thing we can agree on though is the referee favoritism.  Sometimes it's so blatant, it's embarrassing.  Another agreeable point is that this Duke team, while sporting a pretty nice record, was not even in the same zip code as some of his best teams.  Not sure why he stopped recruiting a dominant big man the last few seasons, maybe this kid out of Chicago can provide some help down low.  Still not sure why Plumlee didn't see more floor time today.  Maybe he could have negated the Coursey kid from Mercer.  Hell, he couldn't have done any worse than anyone else out there.

Duke's infatuation with the three is getting to the point where they are all-or-nothing.  Hit, they win.  Go cold, they lose.  There's no back-up plan either (i.e., a big man to post up to switch things up a little). It's threes for the win or bust, no contingency plan.  You'd think that the man who learned everything he knows from Bobby Knight would have one of those, huh?   Ell oh ell.

If you know anything about Knight (hey, Knight!), you know that he wasn't exactly real big on contingency planning. He expected his team to relentlessly pursue perfect execution of plan A. He rarely switched defenses, never to my knowledge ever changed his core offensive system, and hated calling non-strategic time outs. 

He and Coach K are very much alike as far as the defensive philosophy goes. K has tweaked his offensive philosophies but it's pretty much the same basic ideas except that Knight didn't believe in set plays in the base offense -- the only place he called set plays were on out-of-bounds situations.

And now you've got me looking up old Bob Knight footage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=577jLINI7Mc

To all my haters out their. I correctly called Mercer over Duke and SF Austin over VCU.

Posted by phillyboy107 on 3/22/2014 10:45:00 AM (view original):
To all my haters out their. I correctly called Mercer over Duke and SF Austin over VCU.

Since you brought it up, in the interest of fairness, you also called American over Wisconsin.

Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by phillyboy107 on 3/22/2014 10:45:00 AM (view original):
To all my haters out their. I correctly called Mercer over Duke and SF Austin over VCU.

Since you brought it up, in the interest of fairness, you also called American over Wisconsin.

lol ya I did, but still 2 of 3 right is better than 90% did with picking those 3 games. Correct?

Do you take everything you hear or read literally?  Really, everything?  And thank you for the little tidbit about Bob Knight, that proved my point far better than anything I wrote earlier.  Too stubborn to change, even when things weren't working. 

Posted by phillyboy107 on 3/22/2014 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by phillyboy107 on 3/22/2014 10:45:00 AM (view original):
To all my haters out their. I correctly called Mercer over Duke and SF Austin over VCU.

Since you brought it up, in the interest of fairness, you also called American over Wisconsin.

lol ya I did, but still 2 of 3 right is better than 90% did with picking those 3 games. Correct?

Probably, although the VCU/SF Austin game was a pretty popular upset pick.  Especially since it was a 5/12.  Still, good call on the those two.

He called just about every game possible, didn't he? 

SF Austin was extremely lucky. I wouldn't claim any greatness from that one.

Mercer had the beating of Duke for sure. I didn't expect them to do as well with how Duke plays defense. Normally Duke doesn't flop until they face a team with a good big man. 

Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 11:12:00 AM (view original):
Do you take everything you hear or read literally?  Really, everything?  And thank you for the little tidbit about Bob Knight, that proved my point far better than anything I wrote earlier.  Too stubborn to change, even when things weren't working. 

Boy talk about not getting it.

These two coaches are 1-2 in the history of the sport in wins. Whatever resistance to change they have seems to be very well-founded indeed.

But I'm sure they'll agree some guy that plays a crappy internet sim knows better.

Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 3:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 3/22/2014 3:02:00 AM (view original):
Duke gets mad help from the refs in ACC play in the regular season. That's the difference, and most non-Duke people associated with the ACC know it. Sometimes they're legitimately good, sometimes they're not; but you'd hardly know the difference from ACC play.

Swofford plays favorites more than any other conference commissioner. 

I'm sure that guy that learned everything he knows from Bob Knight is a bad Xs and Os coach though? Ell oh ell. 

Coach K is an outstanding coach of the game. This just wasn't his best team, or close to it.

You've got your opinion on his X and O coaching prowess, I've got mine.  One thing we can agree on though is the referee favoritism.  Sometimes it's so blatant, it's embarrassing.  Another agreeable point is that this Duke team, while sporting a pretty nice record, was not even in the same zip code as some of his best teams.  Not sure why he stopped recruiting a dominant big man the last few seasons, maybe this kid out of Chicago can provide some help down low.  Still not sure why Plumlee didn't see more floor time today.  Maybe he could have negated the Coursey kid from Mercer.  Hell, he couldn't have done any worse than anyone else out there.

Duke's infatuation with the three is getting to the point where they are all-or-nothing.  Hit, they win.  Go cold, they lose.  There's no back-up plan either (i.e., a big man to post up to switch things up a little). It's threes for the win or bust, no contingency plan.  You'd think that the man who learned everything he knows from Bobby Knight would have one of those, huh?   Ell oh ell.

Very good post. Coach K has stopped all together adjusting on the defensive side of things (from what I can see). It's insane how imbalanced this team was. How can you end up with so many talented guards and have such little depth down low? This is a common theme. 

Agreed on Plumlee 100%. I do not pretend to have a great basketball mind. I certainly don't pretend to think I'm in the same atmosphere as any collegiate coach - especially my beloved coach k. But  man oh man I was left shaking my head this year. I think the majority of the season is to be blamed on coach. Was completely underwhelmed by him. This team was no where near as good as his best - yes - but I think this team was far more talented than many of them.

Personnel-wise, hasn't that always been the (dent, because apparently you can't use the more common word for this phrase lol) in the armor for Duke? Doesn't seem like anything new. 

Still silly to criticize what's worked for so long. Must be nice for 26-9 to be "completely underwhelmed".

Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 2:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/21/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):
emy for what its worth, i think when you say duke should do more lately with the talent they have - you have got to mean the post season - right? these kind of upsets are becoming more normal for them, i was reluctant to bring them into the elite 8 on my bracket, but i thought this team was different (parker and hood i was really impressed with in the few games i saw). but their regular seasons are awesome. doesn't that kind of suggest i am right on this one? discipline, work ethic, and smart play bringing duke up to a 1st tier team even with not-quite 1st tier talent? (still far above average, however) - or if you'd rather, making them the clear #1 in the post season, despite not clear #1 talent? but then in the post season where you get most people's best shots, those advantages are somewhat neutralized?

sigh, i totally get what i deserve having my bracket busted, for picking the dookies =(

I hate that you feel like I was being "aggressive" towards you in this thread, if you do feel that way I don't know how you'd react if there WAS real aggression.

Kind of silly to imply that Duke doesn't get every team's best shot in the regular season, only in the postseason.  But I bet you feel like UK takes everyone's best shot all year, every game, huh?  Hate to break this to you, but teams like Duke, UK, UNC, Kansas, etc. (the blue bloods of college basketball) take every team's best shot every game, all season.  So if Duke is having these awesome regular seasons as you claim (and they are good, but I wouldn't call them awesome by any means) and is doing it despite taking other team's best shots during these regular season games, then what's the difference between taking a team's best shot during the postseason?  Answer:  nothing.  So, no, that doesn't "kind of suggest " you're right on this one.  Far from it actually.  They lose earlier than they should in the NT because although the man is one of the best recruiters ever, and one of the best motivators ever, Coach K is NOT a good in-game coach.  He gets outcoached ALL the time.  When he's losing to an inferior team, his primary coaching move is to sit on his chair, hand on chin, face scrunched up so that he looks like a little weasel, and turn red in the face.  Then during a timeout, his best coaching move is to scream at the players until he turns beet red and scrunch up his face even more until he looks like a little rat.  Great recruiter?  Check.  Great motivator?  Check.  Great X and O's coach?  Not by a long shot.  A good one, sure, but he gets out done consistently by the opposition coach.  Duke wins all those regular season games you're talking about, not because they are this highly disclipined, hard working, intelligent team (although they do have those traits, that's not why they win though).  They win them because they are simply more talented than the teams they are playing.

You said earlier that they don't get "first class talent".  Sorry but to me that insinuates just above average players.  To me first class talent is four and five star players, the elite, the "burger boys" as you call them.  So I'd love to hear your rationale about why you think Duke's talent isn't "1st tier".  I'm open to all suggestions on this one.  Oh, and me having Duke blinders on?  Sure, that's why I didn't have them going past the Sweet Sixteen on any of my brackets.  Why?  Because I'm a realist when it comes to things like that.

yeah, i would agree that duke, uk et all get the other teams "best shot" most games in the regular season, in the colloquial form of that saying. that colloquial form of the saying is around because you certainly see better than average performance from the opponents of the elite teams, on average. but is it really their best shot? the best game they could play all season is this game vs duke or unc or whoever - every time? of course not. there is an elevated level of excitement in trying to beat an elite school. is it AS elevated as in the NT? of course not. so, i agree with the saying because i don't take it literally - but clearly there is a gradient here, the "best shot" in the regular season is not the same as the "best shot" you get in the sweet 16.

i don't define top tier talent by high school rankings and individuals. its just my opinion, when i see duke 1-2 seed teams i just often don't think they are that good, i generally think if you had the best performance from duke and most of the other 1-2 seeds, duke would lose. duke might still win in a series or on average, though - because i think they just perform better in their range than others, from discipline, etc... im not going to go into recruiting classes and say heres this team who gets more talented players and all that, that is meaningless noise. said another way, i think those duke teams are good but with lower ceilings than some other teams around their level - exact same way i feel about florida this year. none of this goes back to just above average players. its small differences that separate the top teams. florida is great - they deserve that #1 overall, no dispute there. i just think if they play kansas (assuming embid plays) and both teams play their best, or very close to it, kansas wins. same with louisville, id even have said the same about duke, as well as some other teams. of course florida is "one of the best" but i don't think they are one of the top few when it comes to ceiling performances - maybe "first class talent" isn't the right word, but the talent-imposed ceiling is just not up to the level of some other teams. thats how i feel, you clearly disagree, but i don't think its as unreasonable a position as you make it out to be. its like you are trying to polarize the argument into something its not...

edit: just to clarify when i said i'd include duke, thats just by height of ceiling as i see it - not by specific matchup. i actually think florida would beat duke head to head if they both played their best, because i don't see duke containing young when hes playing really well.

Posted by ettaexpress on 3/22/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 11:12:00 AM (view original):
Do you take everything you hear or read literally?  Really, everything?  And thank you for the little tidbit about Bob Knight, that proved my point far better than anything I wrote earlier.  Too stubborn to change, even when things weren't working. 

Boy talk about not getting it.

These two coaches are 1-2 in the history of the sport in wins. Whatever resistance to change they have seems to be very well-founded indeed.

But I'm sure they'll agree some guy that plays a crappy internet sim knows better.

Funny, you're spewing forth your "knowledge" while also playing that crappy internet sim.  And I can't wait to hear how you'll spin the fact that you're wrong about Coach K and Bobby Knight being 1-2 all-time in wins.  Ever heard of a guy named Jim Boeheim?  You may want to see where he ranks all-time in wins genius.  Amazing that you could be wrong on such common basketball knowledge.  Kind of puts a dent in your basketball credibility when you make mistakes on something as basic as that.

But having been through this crap in another thread, I have no interest in starting again. 

K and Knight 1-2 in all-time wins?  ELL OH ELL, moron.

Posted by ettaexpress on 3/22/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Personnel-wise, hasn't that always been the (dent, because apparently you can't use the more common word for this phrase lol) in the armor for Duke? Doesn't seem like anything new. 

Still silly to criticize what's worked for so long. Must be nice for 26-9 to be "completely underwhelmed".

So just because it's worked for so long, it never needs adjustments?