everything that's on my mind
(as if there's not already enough people doing this)Saturday, April 08, 2006
The party's over
Well, this will be my last post until late fall devoted strictly to college basketball. More specifically, it is the post I mentioned previously regarding a look back at the season for Duke and the careers of Shelden Williams and J.J. Redick. And, even though it's not December, I do have - in the spirit of Festivus - a few grievances to air as well. So, bear with me - it's my last one, and it's a long one. Here we go.
The season
First of all, Duke had a great season. That simply cannot be argued. Anyone who would argue it would likely have some type of strong bias against Duke (i.e. the "duke haters"). Th
ey had an outstanding year, and Redick and Williams specifically had a great year. They were 32-4 overall, and they were 11-3 against teams in the NCAA tournament. Their losses were to Georgetown, North Carolina and, in the tournament itself, LSU. Their wins against ranked teams in the tournament included Texas (a #2 seed), Memphis (a #1 seed), North Carolina (a #3 seed) and Boston College (a #4 seed) who they beat twice. Other tournament team wins included Seton Hall, Indiana, Penn, Bucknell, Davidson and NC State. They were the regular season champions of the ACC at 14-2, and also won the Preseason NIT and ACC tournaments.
There were some great moments as well. Dockery's 45-footer to beat Virginia Tech. Redick dropping 41 on Texas (and 40+ two other times as well) and also his 5 straight games of 30+ points. Redick's record breaking 30 points against Miami, passing Johnny Dawkins as Duke's all-time leading scorer (as well as the many other records he broke this season). Winning at Chapel Hill, always a great win, as well as both hard-fought wins against Boston College. The freshmen's play in the ACC tournament, as well as Redick's amazing shooting against Boston College in the final. And, of course, winning the two tournaments, especially the ACC, which was their ninth straight final, and their seventh win in the last eight. (It truly has become "The Duke Invitational.")
While the season did not end the way they wanted it to, it cannot take away from what an outstanding season they had. They finished the season - prior to the NCAA tournament - ranked #1 and only one team (George Washington) finished with fewer losses (3) and only three other teams (Connecticut, Memphis and Gonzaga) matched their finish with only 4 losses. While they weren't one of the greatest teams ever to play at Duke, they were a great team this season in college basketball.
Redick and Williams
After the loss to LSU, I was a little amused at some of the articles that almost seemed to be comparing Duke to a mid-major team and seeing some write about Redick as if he were the worst player ever to play college basketball. After all they had accomplished, one game suddenly made people believe they were horrible. The truth is, there is a certain kind of player that gives Redick more trouble than he can overcome. Few teams have that kind of player. Memphis did. Temple did. Michigan state did in last year. And LSU did. The taller, long-armed, significantly more athletic player can stay with him and keep him
from doing what he wants to do. Plus, LSU's other defenders helped out a lot, and Duke's dependence on his scoring hurt them too much in that game. It didn't happen that often. But to suggest Redick is less than a great college basketball is the result of either stupidy or bias.
Others pointed to Redick's difficulty in sweet 16 games over his career. Again, Redick, while in great shape physically, is not a terribly athletic player, and he has faced great defense in 3 of those games (I honestly don't recall much about the Illinois game in 2004.) First, against Kansas, Heinrich played him very well. Let's also not forget, though, that Redick was a freshmen at that time, and a very one-dimensional player. Last year, as I've already mentioned, Michigan State threw several athletic players at him. Then, of course, Garrett Temple's defense for LSU this year. LSU was the reason he wasn't scoring, and the officials were letting the teams play, so he wasn't getting to the foul line, either. That's not a criticism of the officials, or in any way blaming the officials - it's just a fact. They called it the same both ways. And Duke was used to getting to the line more. Some, of course, are saying "without Duke officials, they couldn't get the calls." That, of course, is stupid. It was just a different style of officiating than they had played against most of the year, and it's not always easy to completely adjust to that, and Duke never did in that game.
As I said, certain types of players have given him trouble, and only certain teams have them. Should he have still played better in those games? Probably. But defense had a large role in his difficulties in those games. That cannot be ignored. However, many say, you're defined by what you
do in March. Maybe so, but what did or didn't happen in March doesn't erase the rest of the year or his whole career. Just look at the record books. Redick had a great season and a very good career. Period.
The same is true for Shelden Williams. He had an outstanding career and, like Redick, improved every year. He was constantly in foul trouble his first 2 years, but continued to improve in all areas of his game and was one of the top players in the country this season along with Redick. It was unfortunate that he was sometimes in the shadow of Redick because his season and career were equally great, and he will be missed next season as much as Redick.
Also, for those who take such great joy in pointing out that Redick is not going to be a great player in the NBA, I'd just like to say this: congratulations for pointing out the obvious. There's no doubt media types and possibly even NBA folks have placed him higher than he should be, but even as a huge Redick fan it's obvious to me that he's not going to get great at the next level. He will likely play for a while - maybe even a long time - and be a guy who comes in for some offense here and there. But, he's not got the game to be great at the next level, and he never will. He's not the next Larry Bird. He's not even the next Danny Ainge. So, if you're going to dance around on draft day when Redick isn't a lottery pick and tell everyone "I told you so", you might want to consider that most intelligent basketball fans already knew it before you told them. You'll just look stupid.
Tournaments past
A word about tournament's past: many have begun to harp on Duke's difficulty in getting past the sweet 16 in recent years. I have a few reasons I think that is true. For one thing, they're a much bigger target than they used to be in the 80's and early 90's. As Duke became a great program again in the late 80's (don't forget they were great during the 60's under Vic Bubas), they were often not seeded #1 in the tournament. They were not often expected to make the final four. That made it a little easier on them, because they were not the target. They have become a benchmark - a great program, a great coach, and usually great players. So when you beat Duke now, it means something. That is evidenced by seeing Georgetown and Florida State fans storming the court like they'd just won the national championship after beating Duke this year. It's happened elsewhere over the last 8 or 9 years as well.
After the early 90's, Duke became a "dynasty" of sorts, a team that is most hated, but also most envied. While they did have a couple of down years in the mid-90's, they came back strong starting in 97 and their success since has fueled the hatred of other fans. There's no better example than Maryland fans, who seem to be among the most vile towards Duke players. While knocking off Duke hasn't meant knocking off the defending national champion for 4 years now, it still is pretty special for one of two reasons (or maybe both) - people love to beat a great program, or people love to beat the team they hate the most. Whatever the reason, people love beating Duke, and people are more and more motivated to do so. There's also the fact that Duke has often been a #1 seed during the last 9 years, so that also motivates teams in March to knock them off. You get a shot at Duke and at a #1 seed - two for the price of one. They are a huge target.
Back to the sweet 16: Duke has now lost 6 times under Krzyzewski in the sweet 16. All 6 times the team they lost to went on to win the regional and reach the final four. In 1987, Indiana won the title. In 2000, 2002, and 2003, they lost to Florida, Indiana and Kansas, respectively, all of which went on to the title game where they lost. And in 2005 and 2006, Michigan State and LSU went to the final four before losing.
In fact, in 17 of the last 21 years, they've reached the sweet 16. Three of those years (91,92,01), they won the championship. In 8 of those years, they lost to the eventual champion (86,87,88,90,94,98,99,04). So, in 11 of those 17 years, they've won it or lost to the champion. And in the other 6 years (89,00,02,03,05,06), they lost to a final four team. What does all of that mean? I don't know. But it's not like they've been losing to Bucknell or Bradley (see Kansas), or to UAB (see Kentucky), or to NC State (see Connecticut). When they've lost, they've usually lost to teams that play during the final weekend, and more often than not on Monday night.
Of the sweet 16 losses, I'd say only one of those losses was a bad loss which they should have won - and that was against Indiana in 2002. There was no excuse for that. In 2000, they were a team playing 3 freshmen, losing to another team with some freshmen and a bunch of sophmores - and those sophmores had lost the previous season at Duke by 30 points. Perhaps that contributed to their motivation. In 2003, they were seeded lower than Kansas, so that's can't really be a bad loss - they were expected to lose to a very experienced, senior-led Kansas team. In 2005, they were seeded higher, but they did finish only 3rd in the ACC and played a very talented (although lower seeded) Michigan State team that had begun to play really well at the end of the season. I think that can be argued either way. Then, of course, there was LSU this year, which I've already discussed more than once.
Coach K
Another thing I've seen some of was this - "you can't spell choke without K" - which I saw online after the LSU game in a couple of different places. In other words, there are those saying Coach K has begun to choke in March. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, how has Coach K and Duke done? Just a few stats:
As for 99, the media - more than once - referred to the tournament as the "Duke Invitational". Duke had appeared dominant throughout the season. However, the ACC was not nearly as strong as usual that year, and many forget that Connecticut also only had 2 losses that year. And, something I've never heard mentioned, but is in fact true, is that Connecticut was ranked #1 during the season for more weeks than Duke. All of that, coupled with the media hype of crowning Duke champion before the tournament started, made Connecticut a team on a mission - not just to win, but to beat Duke in doing so.
I recall some idiot reporter (sorry for the redundancy) in the post game press conference asking Calhoun if he felt like Villanova did when they beat Georgetown (and, by the way, if you look at the facts, that 85 title game was not as big of an upset as it has been made out to be. They played two close games in the regular season.) Calhoun was offended, and rightly so. He pointed out that they were a very good team, only had 2 losses, etc. Duke - not unlike UConn in 2006 - had the most talent. But I've never felt like they were necessarily the best team. I think UConn played better as a team in that championship game, and that's why they won. So, I don't personally put much stock in any "choke" talk regarding those 2 title games.
As for other title games, there was nobody on the planet going to beat UNLV in 1990. And, Arkansas clearly had the better team in 1994. Duke had overacheived by reaching the title game that year.
Let's also not forget one other stat: Coach K still has the NCAA tournament wins (68) of all time. I think he's doing alright so far.
A final word about Duke hating and officiating
There are websites devoted strictly to "Duke hating". I've found several, but am not going to link to them here. It pretty much proves my point about the envy and hatred out there. They pick out the most trivial things and make a big deal of them. My only response is that these poor people really need to get a life.
As for officiating, it was a hot topic this year. I've commented previously about the Boston College and Florida State games this year, where the complaining was the loudest. The Great Officiating Conspiracy (as I like to call it) began at the final four in 2001. This is where, at least in large part, the complaint that "Duke gets all the calls" either began, or at least was proclaimed the loudest and became national. I've read that even Gary Williams is convinced Duke was able to come back from a 22-point deficit about 13 minutes into the game (notice that - there was still 27 minutes of basketball left) because of the officials. Duke, after Maryland gained that lead, outscored Maryland by 33 the rest of the way. So it seems the theory is that for Duke to do that over the last 27 minutes of the game, it took help from the officials. Evidently, it did NOT take any help from the officials for Maryland to outscore Duke by 22 to get that lead in only 13 minutes! Am I suggesting Maryland benefited from the officials in the first 13 minutes? Actually, I have never seen the game a second time. I'd have to be able to watch it again. But, to suggest that Duke needed help and Maryland didn't is just absurd.
Shane Battier had another theory. In a television interview, Battier suggested that Duke won the game in Januray when they erased a 10-point lead in the final 54 seconds of a game in College Park, which Duke went on to win in overtime. (I'm sure they had help from the officials to do that, too. wink, wink.) Battier suggested that, as they started chipping away at the lead, he could see it in the Maryland's players eyes - they'd seen this before. Now, Battier may just be making a good story out of the situation, but again, to suggest that this was impossible without help from the officials is insane.
People love to point at Duke losing big second half leads against Kentucky in 1998 (18 points), or Indiana in 2002 (14 points, I believe) when they want to talk about "choking". Yet, when they start complaining about officiating in Duke games, they never seem to mention the officials having aided Kentucky or Indiana.
Evidently when a team comes back from a large deficit to win a game, they only get help from officials if their name is Duke.
The future
Well, there's still hope for next season. I don't anticipate many people picking Duke to win the title next year. They lose 5 seniors overall, 4 who played significant minutes. However, they have another talented freshmen class coming in, some of which - like McRoberts and Paulus this year - will be depended on from the start. Center Eric Boteng is transferring (there's no ill will, but he thinks he'll play more elsewhere). I hate to see a center leave when you already have a senior center graduating, but maybe it will be for the best. DeMarcus Nelson could emerge as a star next year. If he can stay healthy, he will likely have a great season. I expect Paulus to improve a great deal over the summer. I anticipate a great year from him as well, and expect he will improve his shooting over the summer and be an important scorer from outside with Redick gone, along with his point guard duties. Sophmore David McClure, who redshirted this year, will also be back. So, I think they'll have a good amount of talent, albeit young talent.
The key to the wh
ole season, however, is Josh McRoberts. First, is he going to return? It's not yet known. He's projected as a lottery pick currently, and could end up leaving. That decision, evidently, has not been made yet. Assuming he does return, Duke could have a very good year. They are ranked in the top 15 in one preseason poll I've seen (yes, they're already releasing polls.) But that could drop significantly if McRoberts leaves. The promise he showed at the end of the season - particularly in the ACC tournament - will be important to Duke next year. He will be much more aggressive and score much more with Williams gone. Their dependence on him and Paulus together will be key, and if he doesn't return, it will hurt them all year long. So, hopefully he will make the decision to stay at least another year.
Conclusion
So, here's to a great season this year. It didn't end with a championship or even a final four trip. But it was great nonetheless. And if McRoberts returns next year, they should have a pretty good year as well, despite their youth.
Only 7 months until the season starts...
The season
First of all, Duke had a great season. That simply cannot be argued. Anyone who would argue it would likely have some type of strong bias against Duke (i.e. the "duke haters"). Th
ey had an outstanding year, and Redick and Williams specifically had a great year. They were 32-4 overall, and they were 11-3 against teams in the NCAA tournament. Their losses were to Georgetown, North Carolina and, in the tournament itself, LSU. Their wins against ranked teams in the tournament included Texas (a #2 seed), Memphis (a #1 seed), North Carolina (a #3 seed) and Boston College (a #4 seed) who they beat twice. Other tournament team wins included Seton Hall, Indiana, Penn, Bucknell, Davidson and NC State. They were the regular season champions of the ACC at 14-2, and also won the Preseason NIT and ACC tournaments.There were some great moments as well. Dockery's 45-footer to beat Virginia Tech. Redick dropping 41 on Texas (and 40+ two other times as well) and also his 5 straight games of 30+ points. Redick's record breaking 30 points against Miami, passing Johnny Dawkins as Duke's all-time leading scorer (as well as the many other records he broke this season). Winning at Chapel Hill, always a great win, as well as both hard-fought wins against Boston College. The freshmen's play in the ACC tournament, as well as Redick's amazing shooting against Boston College in the final. And, of course, winning the two tournaments, especially the ACC, which was their ninth straight final, and their seventh win in the last eight. (It truly has become "The Duke Invitational.")
While the season did not end the way they wanted it to, it cannot take away from what an outstanding season they had. They finished the season - prior to the NCAA tournament - ranked #1 and only one team (George Washington) finished with fewer losses (3) and only three other teams (Connecticut, Memphis and Gonzaga) matched their finish with only 4 losses. While they weren't one of the greatest teams ever to play at Duke, they were a great team this season in college basketball.
Redick and Williams
After the loss to LSU, I was a little amused at some of the articles that almost seemed to be comparing Duke to a mid-major team and seeing some write about Redick as if he were the worst player ever to play college basketball. After all they had accomplished, one game suddenly made people believe they were horrible. The truth is, there is a certain kind of player that gives Redick more trouble than he can overcome. Few teams have that kind of player. Memphis did. Temple did. Michigan state did in last year. And LSU did. The taller, long-armed, significantly more athletic player can stay with him and keep him
from doing what he wants to do. Plus, LSU's other defenders helped out a lot, and Duke's dependence on his scoring hurt them too much in that game. It didn't happen that often. But to suggest Redick is less than a great college basketball is the result of either stupidy or bias.Others pointed to Redick's difficulty in sweet 16 games over his career. Again, Redick, while in great shape physically, is not a terribly athletic player, and he has faced great defense in 3 of those games (I honestly don't recall much about the Illinois game in 2004.) First, against Kansas, Heinrich played him very well. Let's also not forget, though, that Redick was a freshmen at that time, and a very one-dimensional player. Last year, as I've already mentioned, Michigan State threw several athletic players at him. Then, of course, Garrett Temple's defense for LSU this year. LSU was the reason he wasn't scoring, and the officials were letting the teams play, so he wasn't getting to the foul line, either. That's not a criticism of the officials, or in any way blaming the officials - it's just a fact. They called it the same both ways. And Duke was used to getting to the line more. Some, of course, are saying "without Duke officials, they couldn't get the calls." That, of course, is stupid. It was just a different style of officiating than they had played against most of the year, and it's not always easy to completely adjust to that, and Duke never did in that game.
As I said, certain types of players have given him trouble, and only certain teams have them. Should he have still played better in those games? Probably. But defense had a large role in his difficulties in those games. That cannot be ignored. However, many say, you're defined by what you
do in March. Maybe so, but what did or didn't happen in March doesn't erase the rest of the year or his whole career. Just look at the record books. Redick had a great season and a very good career. Period.The same is true for Shelden Williams. He had an outstanding career and, like Redick, improved every year. He was constantly in foul trouble his first 2 years, but continued to improve in all areas of his game and was one of the top players in the country this season along with Redick. It was unfortunate that he was sometimes in the shadow of Redick because his season and career were equally great, and he will be missed next season as much as Redick.
Also, for those who take such great joy in pointing out that Redick is not going to be a great player in the NBA, I'd just like to say this: congratulations for pointing out the obvious. There's no doubt media types and possibly even NBA folks have placed him higher than he should be, but even as a huge Redick fan it's obvious to me that he's not going to get great at the next level. He will likely play for a while - maybe even a long time - and be a guy who comes in for some offense here and there. But, he's not got the game to be great at the next level, and he never will. He's not the next Larry Bird. He's not even the next Danny Ainge. So, if you're going to dance around on draft day when Redick isn't a lottery pick and tell everyone "I told you so", you might want to consider that most intelligent basketball fans already knew it before you told them. You'll just look stupid.
Tournaments past
A word about tournament's past: many have begun to harp on Duke's difficulty in getting past the sweet 16 in recent years. I have a few reasons I think that is true. For one thing, they're a much bigger target than they used to be in the 80's and early 90's. As Duke became a great program again in the late 80's (don't forget they were great during the 60's under Vic Bubas), they were often not seeded #1 in the tournament. They were not often expected to make the final four. That made it a little easier on them, because they were not the target. They have become a benchmark - a great program, a great coach, and usually great players. So when you beat Duke now, it means something. That is evidenced by seeing Georgetown and Florida State fans storming the court like they'd just won the national championship after beating Duke this year. It's happened elsewhere over the last 8 or 9 years as well.
After the early 90's, Duke became a "dynasty" of sorts, a team that is most hated, but also most envied. While they did have a couple of down years in the mid-90's, they came back strong starting in 97 and their success since has fueled the hatred of other fans. There's no better example than Maryland fans, who seem to be among the most vile towards Duke players. While knocking off Duke hasn't meant knocking off the defending national champion for 4 years now, it still is pretty special for one of two reasons (or maybe both) - people love to beat a great program, or people love to beat the team they hate the most. Whatever the reason, people love beating Duke, and people are more and more motivated to do so. There's also the fact that Duke has often been a #1 seed during the last 9 years, so that also motivates teams in March to knock them off. You get a shot at Duke and at a #1 seed - two for the price of one. They are a huge target.
Back to the sweet 16: Duke has now lost 6 times under Krzyzewski in the sweet 16. All 6 times the team they lost to went on to win the regional and reach the final four. In 1987, Indiana won the title. In 2000, 2002, and 2003, they lost to Florida, Indiana and Kansas, respectively, all of which went on to the title game where they lost. And in 2005 and 2006, Michigan State and LSU went to the final four before losing.
In fact, in 17 of the last 21 years, they've reached the sweet 16. Three of those years (91,92,01), they won the championship. In 8 of those years, they lost to the eventual champion (86,87,88,90,94,98,99,04). So, in 11 of those 17 years, they've won it or lost to the champion. And in the other 6 years (89,00,02,03,05,06), they lost to a final four team. What does all of that mean? I don't know. But it's not like they've been losing to Bucknell or Bradley (see Kansas), or to UAB (see Kentucky), or to NC State (see Connecticut). When they've lost, they've usually lost to teams that play during the final weekend, and more often than not on Monday night.
Of the sweet 16 losses, I'd say only one of those losses was a bad loss which they should have won - and that was against Indiana in 2002. There was no excuse for that. In 2000, they were a team playing 3 freshmen, losing to another team with some freshmen and a bunch of sophmores - and those sophmores had lost the previous season at Duke by 30 points. Perhaps that contributed to their motivation. In 2003, they were seeded lower than Kansas, so that's can't really be a bad loss - they were expected to lose to a very experienced, senior-led Kansas team. In 2005, they were seeded higher, but they did finish only 3rd in the ACC and played a very talented (although lower seeded) Michigan State team that had begun to play really well at the end of the season. I think that can be argued either way. Then, of course, there was LSU this year, which I've already discussed more than once.
Coach K
Another thing I've seen some of was this - "you can't spell choke without K" - which I saw online after the LSU game in a couple of different places. In other words, there are those saying Coach K has begun to choke in March. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, how has Coach K and Duke done? Just a few stats:
- Duke has been to 10 final fours. The closest, in 2nd place, is North Carolina, with 7 final fours during that time.
- Duke has 3 titles. Only 3 other schools have more than
1 (Kentucky, Connecticut, and North Carolina - all with 2 each.) - Krzyzewski has 3 titles. Only 1 other coach has more than 1 - Connecticut's Jim Calhoun (2).
- Since Duke won back-to-back titles in 1991 and 1992, they have only one other title (2001). Only 3 schools have more - the same three mentioned above.
- Krzyzewski is 3-4 in title games. By comaprison, Dean Smith was 2-3, and Bob Knight is 3-2. Rupp was either 4-1 or 4-2, I believe. Wooden, of course, is by far the best. (This is based on at least 5 appearances - I don't know if any other coaches have reached the title game 5 or more times. But they're going to be well under .500 if they did.)
- They've been to 9 straight (98-06). Nobody else more than 2 straight. Don't know the stats on who's been there the most besides them in those 9 years. I also do not have stats on who has been in the most regional finals (Duke has 4, and Michigan State has 4, but I'm unsure about any others. I think Connecticut and Kentucky may have been to 4, also, but I'm not certain.)
- During those 9 years, they've been to 3 final fours. Only Michigan State has been to more (4) and North Carolina (3) has matched them. As for titles, Duke has 1 in that stretch, and only 1 school (Connecticut with 2) has more than 1.
- Duke has lost in the sweet 16 in 5 of the last 7 years. However, how many schools have advanced to the elite 8 (or further) more than twice during that time? Only four other schools - UConn (3), Kansas (3), Arizona (3) and MSU (4). I don't think I'm missing anyone there, but I could be.
As for 99, the media - more than once - referred to the tournament as the "Duke Invitational". Duke had appeared dominant throughout the season. However, the ACC was not nearly as strong as usual that year, and many forget that Connecticut also only had 2 losses that year. And, something I've never heard mentioned, but is in fact true, is that Connecticut was ranked #1 during the season for more weeks than Duke. All of that, coupled with the media hype of crowning Duke champion before the tournament started, made Connecticut a team on a mission - not just to win, but to beat Duke in doing so.
I recall some idiot reporter (sorry for the redundancy) in the post game press conference asking Calhoun if he felt like Villanova did when they beat Georgetown (and, by the way, if you look at the facts, that 85 title game was not as big of an upset as it has been made out to be. They played two close games in the regular season.) Calhoun was offended, and rightly so. He pointed out that they were a very good team, only had 2 losses, etc. Duke - not unlike UConn in 2006 - had the most talent. But I've never felt like they were necessarily the best team. I think UConn played better as a team in that championship game, and that's why they won. So, I don't personally put much stock in any "choke" talk regarding those 2 title games.
As for other title games, there was nobody on the planet going to beat UNLV in 1990. And, Arkansas clearly had the better team in 1994. Duke had overacheived by reaching the title game that year.
Let's also not forget one other stat: Coach K still has the NCAA tournament wins (68) of all time. I think he's doing alright so far.
A final word about Duke hating and officiating
There are websites devoted strictly to "Duke hating". I've found several, but am not going to link to them here. It pretty much proves my point about the envy and hatred out there. They pick out the most trivial things and make a big deal of them. My only response is that these poor people really need to get a life.
As for officiating, it was a hot topic this year. I've commented previously about the Boston College and Florida State games this year, where the complaining was the loudest. The Great Officiating Conspiracy (as I like to call it) began at the final four in 2001. This is where, at least in large part, the complaint that "Duke gets all the calls" either began, or at least was proclaimed the loudest and became national. I've read that even Gary Williams is convinced Duke was able to come back from a 22-point deficit about 13 minutes into the game (notice that - there was still 27 minutes of basketball left) because of the officials. Duke, after Maryland gained that lead, outscored Maryland by 33 the rest of the way. So it seems the theory is that for Duke to do that over the last 27 minutes of the game, it took help from the officials. Evidently, it did NOT take any help from the officials for Maryland to outscore Duke by 22 to get that lead in only 13 minutes! Am I suggesting Maryland benefited from the officials in the first 13 minutes? Actually, I have never seen the game a second time. I'd have to be able to watch it again. But, to suggest that Duke needed help and Maryland didn't is just absurd.
Shane Battier had another theory. In a television interview, Battier suggested that Duke won the game in Januray when they erased a 10-point lead in the final 54 seconds of a game in College Park, which Duke went on to win in overtime. (I'm sure they had help from the officials to do that, too. wink, wink.) Battier suggested that, as they started chipping away at the lead, he could see it in the Maryland's players eyes - they'd seen this before. Now, Battier may just be making a good story out of the situation, but again, to suggest that this was impossible without help from the officials is insane.
People love to point at Duke losing big second half leads against Kentucky in 1998 (18 points), or Indiana in 2002 (14 points, I believe) when they want to talk about "choking". Yet, when they start complaining about officiating in Duke games, they never seem to mention the officials having aided Kentucky or Indiana.
Evidently when a team comes back from a large deficit to win a game, they only get help from officials if their name is Duke.
The future
Well, there's still hope for next season. I don't anticipate many people picking Duke to win the title next year. They lose 5 seniors overall, 4 who played significant minutes. However, they have another talented freshmen class coming in, some of which - like McRoberts and Paulus this year - will be depended on from the start. Center Eric Boteng is transferring (there's no ill will, but he thinks he'll play more elsewhere). I hate to see a center leave when you already have a senior center graduating, but maybe it will be for the best. DeMarcus Nelson could emerge as a star next year. If he can stay healthy, he will likely have a great season. I expect Paulus to improve a great deal over the summer. I anticipate a great year from him as well, and expect he will improve his shooting over the summer and be an important scorer from outside with Redick gone, along with his point guard duties. Sophmore David McClure, who redshirted this year, will also be back. So, I think they'll have a good amount of talent, albeit young talent.
The key to the wh
ole season, however, is Josh McRoberts. First, is he going to return? It's not yet known. He's projected as a lottery pick currently, and could end up leaving. That decision, evidently, has not been made yet. Assuming he does return, Duke could have a very good year. They are ranked in the top 15 in one preseason poll I've seen (yes, they're already releasing polls.) But that could drop significantly if McRoberts leaves. The promise he showed at the end of the season - particularly in the ACC tournament - will be important to Duke next year. He will be much more aggressive and score much more with Williams gone. Their dependence on him and Paulus together will be key, and if he doesn't return, it will hurt them all year long. So, hopefully he will make the decision to stay at least another year.Conclusion
So, here's to a great season this year. It didn't end with a championship or even a final four trip. But it was great nonetheless. And if McRoberts returns next year, they should have a pretty good year as well, despite their youth.
Only 7 months until the season starts...
Comments:
<< Home
Greg--
I appreciate the fine recap and analysis, especially the "closer look" at Duke's tournament record. Although I know everybody is dealing with it, but were it not for the early exit of several key players over the span you discussed, I can't help but think that Duke would have at least one or two more banners to hang by now.
So, with J.J. receiving basically every significant Player of the Year Award this year, perhaps this is a sign that "Duke Bias" is now contagious and is spreading from the refs to the sportswriters as well! Soon or later, you've got to give him his due, Duke Hater or not. I for one am more bullish on his NBA prospects than some. Physically, I think he may be a "late bloomer," (unlike the LeBron James who was a full grown 27-year-old at age 18). Many times athletes achieve their physical peak in their mid to late 20s, so maybe there'll be some improvement there. Regardless, I think he will at the very least a fine role player and long-distance scoring specialist, a la John Paxton or Steve Kerr. I would predict a 10-12 year NBA career and maybe even a ring in there somewhere and an All-Star appearance during a particularly good year. Afterwards, maybe he can be paired with Jay Bilas in the booth so that finally, at long last, we can have some well-educated, articulate replacements for Packer and Vitale!
It's going to be a long summer...but October 15th will be here before you know it.
Post a Comment
I appreciate the fine recap and analysis, especially the "closer look" at Duke's tournament record. Although I know everybody is dealing with it, but were it not for the early exit of several key players over the span you discussed, I can't help but think that Duke would have at least one or two more banners to hang by now.
So, with J.J. receiving basically every significant Player of the Year Award this year, perhaps this is a sign that "Duke Bias" is now contagious and is spreading from the refs to the sportswriters as well! Soon or later, you've got to give him his due, Duke Hater or not. I for one am more bullish on his NBA prospects than some. Physically, I think he may be a "late bloomer," (unlike the LeBron James who was a full grown 27-year-old at age 18). Many times athletes achieve their physical peak in their mid to late 20s, so maybe there'll be some improvement there. Regardless, I think he will at the very least a fine role player and long-distance scoring specialist, a la John Paxton or Steve Kerr. I would predict a 10-12 year NBA career and maybe even a ring in there somewhere and an All-Star appearance during a particularly good year. Afterwards, maybe he can be paired with Jay Bilas in the booth so that finally, at long last, we can have some well-educated, articulate replacements for Packer and Vitale!
It's going to be a long summer...but October 15th will be here before you know it.
<< Home
Archives
May 2004 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006
