2010 NCAA Tournament (and NIT) Thread

[Easy Mac]

Can someone point out the annoying Duke fans (aside from Vitale, who for the last 5 years has been jocking Roy Williams) that keep getting mentioned in this thread? I keep reading that they're everywhere, but the only ones I've seen are the ones who have to defend themselves because they're being called arrogant and idiots, especially in this thread.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Can someone point out the annoying Duke fans (aside from Vitale, who for the last 5 years has been jocking Roy Williams) that keep getting mentioned in this thread? I keep reading that they're everywhere, but the only ones I've seen are the ones who have to defend themselves because they're being called arrogant and idiots, especially in this thread.

I think we've established that they're all in New Jersey.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by molson

I think we've established that they're all in New Jersey.

Thank you governor Patterson. That's a bit like calling all brunettes slutty because you watched Jersey Shore.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Thank you governor Patterson. That's a bit like calling all brunettes slutty because you watched Jersey Shore.

I was referencing a point I made earlier in the thread.

Where are these "obnoxious fans" of Duke, and of all of the other successful teams that are purported to have them? They don't seem to be on this board, so we can only assume they're hanging out in the places where the posters that consider them so rampant live .

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

To me the "underdog" is the classic bandwagon. It's like the Patriots against St. Louis in their first Super Bowl win. It was trendy to cheer for New England. Then they started winning games and it was trendy to cheer against them. How Butler (George Mason) is anything but bandwagon is beyond me.

Not really a criticism of pulling for Butler, just a question of what bandwagon fan means if it doesn't describe cheering for Butler.

The funny thing is that Butler isn't really an underdog. You could argue that Syracuse is the only team they've really upset in the tournament. I know people are basing it off the conference they are in, but when a program gets to where Butler is, you can't really call them underdogs. Kind of like saying Gonzaga is the underdog these days.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The funny thing is that Butler isn't really an underdog. You could argue that Syracuse is the only team they've really upset in the tournament. I know people are basing it off the conference they are in, but when a program gets to where Butler is, you can't really call them underdogs. Kind of like saying Gonzaga is the underdog these days.

And Butler was ranked only a couple of spots lower than Duke in preseason polls. Butler lost the high ranking with a couple of pre-conference losses, and then never lost again. They're definitely not George Mason.

[Young Drachma]

I think it's disingenuous to say Butler isn't an underdog. Even without the crutch of the small conference, they're the smallest school in a Final Four since Villanova did it and before that, you'd have to get to Jacksonville that did in the 1970s with their homegrown ringers.

This is no easy feat. Duke's basketball budget for men's bball is over $17m, Butler's is just over a million. To say they're not an underdog is ridiculous. Sure, they've had success, but the Cinderella moniker comes from having to compete against a deluge of programs that are doing all sorts of things both ethical and not on a grand stage that's nothing like say, a closed professional sports league where everyone is on the same stage.

What they've done is the equivalent of a small nation making the World Cup final. It's just no easy feat, while the system is built for this sort of thing to happen every year and we're seeing more flukes in theory because of parity, it's not fair to try to downplay their accomplishment by citing "oh, well they were preseason Top 15. They've been in the Top 20 for three straight years."

Yes, that's a fact. But it's also a fact that for a school of their means to manage to do that and translate that into a national championship appearances given the odds against it is a confluence of good timing, the right personnel and excellent work by all involved.

It won't be "not a big deal" until this sort of thing is commonplace and I can figure that we can all bet that won't happen.

[molson]

Sure, the success of their program is a remarkable thing, but considering just this season, this game, what's happened on the court this season, where the teams were ranked before the season - they're really not that far apart.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

And Butler was ranked only a couple of spots lower than Duke in preseason polls. Butler lost the high ranking with a couple of pre-conference losses, and then never lost again. They're definitely not George Mason.

Right and a 5-seed too. I don't think anyone is equating them with a fluky underdog in the true Cinderella sense, but...it's still not fair to call them a "power program" because in college basketball that means you have to have money and the cache that comes from playing in a major conference. Sure, in basketball "major" conference extends a lot further than in college football but let's not get carried away and act like it means Butler is gonna become a juggernaut program anytime soon.

The odds are that one of the major conference schools in Indiana makes another Final Four before Butler gets back. It's just too difficult for a school like that, they have less margin for error financially and even in scheduling. Where a major conference team can lose games in-conference and not be judged to be less than stellar, these guys pretty much HAVE to win 27 straight to get even a semblance of respect.

I don't think calling them a Cinderella means we're saying they're George Mason, but they're not a Big East team recruiting top of the line players either. 9 times out of 10, this never happens. It deserves to be heralded as the big deal that it is, even if that annoys people who wish they'd go away so we can see more traditional powers instead.

[digamma]

You're talking about two different things, DC.

They're clearly an underdog to build a program of this caliber. But, that's much, much different from whether they are an underdog in a single game or, really, in a single season.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by digamma

You're talking about two different things, DC.

They're clearly an underdog to build a program of this caliber. But, that's much, much different from whether they are an underdog in a single game or, really, in a single season.

I think they're still a significant underdog, because they don't have the margin for error that comes with being a true juggernaut or even a "major" program. There's a reason that programs like Gonzaga and Xavier are able to crack the ceiling past "mid-major" status but can't get into a Final Four or get Top 100 recruits to go to their schools over the power schools.

The cynic in me says "because they're not paying enough if anything," but...it's got to be more complicated than just that. As a result, I don't think it's fair to call them anything other than underdogs, because that's what they are, because in any realistic situation they should not be able to win any of the games they've been able to win save for maybe the 5-12 game they started the tourney in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think it's disingenuous to say Butler isn't an underdog. Even without the crutch of the small conference, they're the smallest school in a Final Four since Villanova did it and before that, you'd have to get to Jacksonville that did in the 1970s with their homegrown ringers.

Umm ... Villanova was in the Final Four last year, that's not much of a gap there. Did you mean in the championship game maybe?

In Final Fours of the past 20 years, undergrad enrollments under 10k would include Duke, Seton Hall, Stanford, and Villanova.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think they're still a significant underdog, because they don't have the margin for error that comes with being a true juggernaut or even a "major" program. There's a reason that programs like Gonzaga and Xavier are able to crack the ceiling past "mid-major" status but can't get into a Final Four or get Top 100 recruits to go to their schools over the power schools.

The cynic in me says "because they're not paying enough if anything," but...it's got to be more complicated than just that. As a result, I don't think it's fair to call them anything other than underdogs, because that's what they are, because in any realistic situation they should not be able to win any of the games they've been able to win save for maybe the 5-12 game they started the tourney in.

Of course they are underdogs...6 points if I read the line correctly.

But you are still talking about program building versus single teams and single seasons. Of course the program building plays into the single season, because a team is going to have mo' betta athletes.

But in today's college basketball, Butler may be more the rule than the exception. Teams that stick together and can build depth over a four year cycle are going to be able to compete with one and dones with less cohesion. The question is whether a team like Butler can sustain this success. You can build a team, but can you sustain a program. That's where the cinderella-against the odds aspect of this comes into play.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... Villanova was in the Final Four last year, that's not much of a gap there. Did you mean in the championship game maybe?

In Final Fours of the past 20 years, undergrad enrollments under 10k would include Duke, Seton Hall, Stanford, and Villanova.

Yes, I know. But all four of those schools are in major conferences. No accident.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by digamma

Of course they are underdogs...6 points if I read the line correctly.

But you are still talking about program building versus single teams and single seasons. Of course the program building plays into the single season, because a team is going to have mo' betta athletes.

But in today's college basketball, Butler may be more the rule than the exception. Teams that stick together and can build depth over a four year cycle are going to be able to compete with one and dones with less cohesion. The question is whether a team like Butler can sustain this success. You can build a team, but can you sustain a program. That's where the cinderella-against the odds aspect of this comes into play.

Well, they have. Since Matta, they've been a perennial tourney entry and have been building towards this success, so it's not an overnight thing despite their resources. Whether it'll get them say, into a major conference in a decade is another thing and even if they'll want it is another thing.

I get what you're saying though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yes, I know. But all four of those schools are in major conferences. No accident.

M'kay, I was just working from the phrase "Even without the crutch of the small conference, they're the smallest school in a Final Four since Villanova did it and before that ...", and therefore didn't consider the conference affiliation at all.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by digamma

Of course they are underdogs...6 points if I read the line correctly.

But you are still talking about program building versus single teams and single seasons. Of course the program building plays into the single season, because a team is going to have mo' betta athletes.

But in today's college basketball, Butler may be more the rule than the exception. Teams that stick together and can build depth over a four year cycle are going to be able to compete with one and dones with less cohesion. The question is whether a team like Butler can sustain this success. You can build a team, but can you sustain a program. That's where the cinderella-against the odds aspect of this comes into play.

so your saying Butler's model should be Duke

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think it's disingenuous to say Butler isn't an underdog. Even without the crutch of the small conference, they're the smallest school in a Final Four since Villanova did it and before that, you'd have to get to Jacksonville that did in the 1970s with their homegrown ringers.

This is no easy feat. Duke's basketball budget for men's bball is over $17m, Butler's is just over a million. To say they're not an underdog is ridiculous. Sure, they've had success, but the Cinderella moniker comes from having to compete against a deluge of programs that are doing all sorts of things both ethical and not on a grand stage that's nothing like say, a closed professional sports league where everyone is on the same stage.

What they've done is the equivalent of a small nation making the World Cup final. It's just no easy feat, while the system is built for this sort of thing to happen every year and we're seeing more flukes in theory because of parity, it's not fair to try to downplay their accomplishment by citing "oh, well they were preseason Top 15. They've been in the Top 20 for three straight years."

Yes, that's a fact. But it's also a fact that for a school of their means to manage to do that and translate that into a national championship appearances given the odds against it is a confluence of good timing, the right personnel and excellent work by all involved.

It won't be "not a big deal" until this sort of thing is commonplace and I can figure that we can all bet that won't happen.

Well if you're talking about overcoming odds as a program, then yes.
I'm just talking about the actual talent each team has on the court. Michigan has a massive enrollment and athletic budget, but I don't consider it an upset every time Northwestern beats them. I've always viewed underdogs as teams with less talent and skill.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think they're still a significant underdog, because they don't have the margin for error that comes with being a true juggernaut or even a "major" program. There's a reason that programs like Gonzaga and Xavier are able to crack the ceiling past "mid-major" status but can't get into a Final Four or get Top 100 recruits to go to their schools over the power schools.

They do get top 100 recruits to go to their school though. Gonzaga has one come in just about every year. Austin Daye was in some top 10 recruits in the nation and they have two guys (Goodson and Bouldin) who were easily top 100 recruits.

They can't compete with Kentucky, Duke, and other powerhouses, but they bring in recruiting classes that can compete with most teams in the power 6.

I understand what you're saying and they probably have to work harder to recruit and on limited budgets. But the notion that these schools like Gonzaga and Butler are just some scrappy kids who bought into a system is wrong. They are loaded with top high school talent.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

But in today's college basketball, Butler may be more the rule than the exception. Teams that stick together and can build depth over a four year cycle are going to be able to compete with one and dones with less cohesion. The question is whether a team like Butler can sustain this success. You can build a team, but can you sustain a program. That's where the cinderella-against the odds aspect of this comes into play.

Butler isn't a Senior-laden team. Their best player is a Sophomore and their other two top players are Juniors. I agree that teams sticking together helps them compete with less talent. An example of that would be this year's Cornell squad. But I don't think Butler or a Gonzaga would fall in that area.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by molson

I was referencing a point I made earlier in the thread.

Where are these "obnoxious fans" of Duke, and of all of the other successful teams that are purported to have them? They don't seem to be on this board, so we can only assume they're hanging out in the places where the posters that consider them so rampant live .

Sorry I'm late. That would be me. Have I missed much?

Duke is very worthy of your hate. Although Radii would like to note that Duke has only 1 Final Four appearance in the last 8 years (2004), it does conveniently omit appearances in '99 and '01, the latter resulting in our 3rd National Championship. I won't even bother reminding everyone of Duke's 7 ACC championships during that period and 3 National Players of the Year (Battier, Williams and Redick). That would probably be overkill.

So hurl your slings and arrows of discontent, haters. We're busy adding a new trophy cabinet in Cameron.

In all seriousness, I think a lot of the Duke hate is class-based, just like a lot of the feelings one way or the other about Notre Dame was based on religious identification. The student body at Duke is viewed as wealthy and elitist. And who are we kidding? It is. It was bad when I was there and I have no doubt it is worse now, reflecting the continued concentration of wealth that has occurred in the last 20 years. It is a school of smug, mostly white kids from very wealthy families. Who wouldn't feel some animosity toward that?

Vitale loves to talk about Duke kids being your boss someday. I think crap like that breeds the hate as much as the 24 conference titles, 26 NCAA berths, record 75 NCAA Tourney wins, 18 Sweet 16s, 11 Final Fours and soon to be 4 National Championships during the Krzyzewski era have bred.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They do get top 100 recruits to go to their school though. Gonzaga has one come in just about every year. Austin Daye was in some top 10 recruits in the nation and they have two guys (Goodson and Bouldin) who were easily top 100 recruits.

They can't compete with Kentucky, Duke, and other powerhouses, but they bring in recruiting classes that can compete with most teams in the power 6.

Well, much as I like the theory, I'm not sure I agree with you all that much.

For example, scout.com recruiting class rankings (Top 25 or 30) for the last five seasons has only three teams from non-power conferences even crack the list once -- Memphis (several times), Xavier, and Nevada, while teams like Auburn, South Carolina, St. John's make the lists but make no noise.

Meanwhile, looking at Rivals top 150 players list, here at the non-power schools from last year (looks like their index/overall list is busted for earlier years & I don't have the time/patience to go position by position for each year)

Akron #43, BYU #145, Creighton #101, Detroit #125, Fresno #93, Ga State, #54, Gonzaga #88, #116, Marshall #87, UNLV #109, W. Kentucky #141

Gonzaga is a pretty big exception to the rule with 3 top 25 players in the past few years but other than them, you really don't see others getting that sort of talent to work with.

[RainMaker]

I just don't get the hate though. They run a seemingly classy and clean program. Out of all the crap that goes on in college basketball, I just don't see how they get the brunt of hatred from fans.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

It is a school of smug, mostly white kids from very wealthy families.

Quick Facts about Duke

Umm ... not anymore it isn't, at least not the mostly white part. Undergrad is only 47% Caucasian, grad is just 55%. It's almost literally half white/half not at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Out of all the crap that goes on in college basketball, I just don't see how they get the brunt of hatred from fans.

Class envy overrules a lot of things Rain, a lot of things.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Quick Facts about Duke

Umm ... not anymore it isn't, at least not the mostly white part. Undergrad is only 47% Caucasian, grad is just 55%. It's almost literally half white/half not at this point.

Fair enough, and good for them! The change was desperately needed.

The big change has been in Asian students. I did a paper on racial diversity when I was there umpteen years ago. Duke was just under 7% African-American and about 3-4% each with Hispanic and Asian students.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, much as I like the theory, I'm not sure I agree with you all that much.

For example, scout.com recruiting class rankings (Top 25 or 30) for the last five seasons has only three teams from non-power conferences even crack the list once -- Memphis (several times), Xavier, and Nevada, while teams like Auburn, South Carolina, St. John's make the lists but make no noise.

Meanwhile, looking at Rivals top 150 players list, here at the non-power schools from last year (looks like their index/overall list is busted for earlier years & I don't have the time/patience to go position by position for each year)

Akron #43, BYU #145, Creighton #101, Detroit #125, Fresno #93, Ga State, #54, Gonzaga #88, #116, Marshall #87, UNLV #109, W. Kentucky #141

Gonzaga is a pretty big exception to the rule with 3 top 25 players in the past few years but other than them, you really don't see others getting that sort of talent to work with.

I don't think that goes against what I was saying. I was pointing out that a few of those breakthrough programs are not your typical mid-major. They grab talent as well as most majors and Gonzaga is a great example of that.

There are also a lot of problems with the ranking systems of many of those services. You can tell with the schools that frequently end up on the list but can't seem to ever produce strong teams. They tend to be more urban focused and put more stock in the various camps. For instance, Hayward was not on any of those sites radars, but was given offers to multiple Big 10 schools and will be a potential lottery pick after only two years of college. You can't miss much more than that.

They also base the class rankings on overall recruiting. So if Gonzaga nabs a top player but fills the other commits with some role players, they get drastically marked down. But as we know in college basketball, it's not who has the best 12 guys, but who has the best 7 or 8. Gonzaga doesn't get the depth perhaps, but you just don't need that in this sport.

[Racer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They do get top 100 recruits to go to their school though. Gonzaga has one come in just about every year. Austin Daye was in some top 10 recruits in the nation and they have two guys (Goodson and Bouldin) who were easily top 100 recruits.

They can't compete with Kentucky, Duke, and other powerhouses, but they bring in recruiting classes that can compete with most teams in the power 6.

I understand what you're saying and they probably have to work harder to recruit and on limited budgets. But the notion that these schools like Gonzaga and Butler are just some scrappy kids who bought into a system is wrong. They are loaded with top high school talent.

I believe Matt Howard is actually the only former top 100 recruit currently on Butler's roster. I was curious to see what most of Butler's players were ranked and their roster is composed primarily of 3-star and 2-star recruits. Obviously he has far outplayed his rating, but Gordon Hayward was a 3-star recruit in one publication and a 2-star recruit in the other. Of course, that may be because he grew from 6-2 to 6-8 between his junior and senior years of high school and prior to his senior year Butler was the only school recruiting him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And none of us even mention the final downgrading of recruits that I strongly suspect occurs fairly often (no, I have not nor do I plan to study this in depth) with players going to schools with lower perceptions in a sort of "if he was really that good then he would go to X instead of Y". Happens all the time with football, I'm hard pressed to imagine it doesn't happen with basketball as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Racer

I believe Matt Howard is actually the only former top 100 recruit currently on Butler's roster. I was curious to see what most of Butler's players were ranked and their roster is composed primarily of 3-star and 2-star recruits. Obviously he has far outplayed his rating, but Gordon Hayward was a 3-star recruit in one publication and a 2-star recruit in the other. Of course, that may be because he grew from 6-2 to 6-8 between his junior and senior years of high school and prior to his senior year Butler was the only school recruiting him.

That's why the rating system is bullshit. Hayward was offered scholarships at Purdue and Michigan. It's not that he outplayed his expectations, it's that most of these places ignored a really talented player. You don't become a potential lottery pick in two years without people heavily missing.

As I mentioned, there is a huge urban and camp focus on these ratings. The tall white kid from smaller communities get ignored by them. Remember that Adam Morrison wasn't on many top recruit rankings back in his day.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And none of us even mention the final downgrading of recruits that I strongly suspect occurs fairly often (no, I have not nor do I plan to study this in depth) with players going to schools with lower perceptions in a sort of "if he was really that good then he would go to X instead of Y". Happens all the time with football, I'm hard pressed to imagine it doesn't happen with basketball as well.

Yeah, I've seen that happen a lot when it comes to a player opting to play D2 or D3 basketball. I remember Cody Schilling being recruited by a few Big 10 schools as well as other D1 schools. He chose Augustana (D2) because he wanted to stay close to home and I believe had a religuous background. The guy fell off the charts at every site.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's why the rating system is bullshit. Hayward was offered scholarships at Purdue and Michigan. It's not that he outplayed his expectations, it's that most of these places ignored a really talented player. You don't become a potential lottery pick in two years without people heavily missing.

As I mentioned, there is a huge urban and camp focus on these ratings. The tall white kid from smaller communities get ignored by them. Remember that Adam Morrison wasn't on many top recruit rankings back in his day.

So you're saying the ratings are reverse-racist? FWIW I wouldn't argue that, and would probably agree with it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So you're saying the ratings are reverse-racist? FWIW I wouldn't argue that, and would probably agree with it.

I guess I wouldn't use the word racist. Just that you have a better chance of receiving a high ranking if you are black, playing in the city, and attending camps than if you were in a rural community and white. It's more about perception. Just as if you went to a gym to play basketball, you'd probably assume the black guy is better than the white.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess I wouldn't use the word racist. Just that you have a better chance of receiving a high ranking if you are black, playing in the city, and attending camps than if you were in a rural community and white.

But at the same time, those rural (white or black) players who don't attend the camps often don't face the same level of competition as their urban counterparts & therefore it's more difficult to accurately assess them, perhaps even more difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt & rank them highly.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Duke is very worthy of your hate. Although Radii would like to note that Duke has only 1 Final Four appearance in the last 8 years (2004), it does conveniently omit appearances in '99 and '01, the latter resulting in our 3rd National Championship.

I'm sure Kodos doesn't care about Duke dominating the ACC during the dark ages after Dean Smith and before Roy Williams


From a success perspective, Duke has one thing, and one thing only, that no one else has in the ESPN era(starting in 1979). They made 5 straight final fours from 1988-1992, allowing a growing ESPN to put a giant spotlight on them and giving a lot of casual fans the impression that Duke is no different than the Yankees.

Outside of that one streak, on the court North Carolina and Duke are nearly identical in the ESPN era and MrBug will be by any minute to laugh at both of us and point out that neither school will ever catch UCLA's record number of titles.

Remember, my point is not that Duke sucks. Its that there is a clear, obvious hatred of Duke by the casual fan that isn't deserved. In the ESPN era UNC matches Duke step for step, and over the history of the sport Duke is in the same club as UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana and Kansas when it comes to national success. Outside of that one run of 5 straight NCAA Final Four's during a major increase of coverage by ESPN, Duke is an elite program but they aren't the Yankees.



I will see what I can do on the forums next year to take after our good friend MBBF more so I can increase the hate throw UNC's way

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Radii

I will see what I can do on the forums next year to take after our good friend MBBF more so I can increase the hate throw UNC's way

Just get the shot clock rescinding & put Dean back on the bench & I'm sure the hatred will return quickly enough.

Those old enough to remember the four corners (and the beauty of running it well) are the ones who probably remember the peak of UNC hatred.

[ColtCrazy]

Using preseason rankings to say Butler and Duke aren't far apart doesn't back up how the two teams did during the season. I'm sure Butler deserved a top 10 ranking in the preseason, but the selection committee obviously wasn't too impressed with Butler, sticking them at a 5 seed, even with just 4 losses and the nation's longest winning streak.

The selection committee looked at them and seeded them based on their mid-major status, not just their regular season accomplishments.

Butler winning the National Championship would be one of the best stories in tournament history. They would have beaten a school from each of the big 4 conferences in route to a championship. They have no one on their team that's liable to last long in the NBA (Heyward strikes me as a good college player, but I don't think he'll translate well to the pros). They have a next to nothing budget compared to the bigger schools. It's a great story, and one that I hope happens.

As for the Duke hate, most of that lingers from Timberlake chest stomp in the regional finals in 1992, that and the pedigree of being a supposedly stuff private school. I hate Duke, but more because they beat one of my favorite all-time IU teams (1992). I still think Coach K is a great coach, and really don't have anything against him.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Radii

I'm sure Kodos doesn't care about Duke dominating the ACC during the dark ages after Dean Smith and before Roy Williams

From a success perspective, Duke has one thing, and one thing only, that no one else has in the ESPN era(starting in 1979). They made 5 straight final fours from 1988-1992, allowing a growing ESPN to put a giant spotlight on them and giving a lot of casual fans the impression that Duke is no different than the Yankees.

Remember, my point is not that Duke sucks. Its that there is a clear, obvious hatred of Duke by the casual fan that isn't deserved. In the ESPN era UNC matches Duke step for step, and over the history of the sport Duke is in the same club as UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana and Kansas when it comes to national success. Outside of that one run of 5 straight NCAA Final Four's during a major increase of coverage by ESPN, Duke is an elite program but they aren't the Yankees.

I will see what I can do on the forums next year to take after our good friend MBBF more so I can increase the hate throw UNC's way

You mean the MATT DOHERTY ERA?!!! That is another thing that Duke never had to suffer through. Our Pete Gaudet era was only half a year, and no one but those who suffered through it can put a name to our malady.

The string was 7 in 9 years from '87-'94. Leave it to you Tarhole sympathizers to understate it. And it was a pretty awesome period. In fact, you could ask me what it was like to go to a college when it didn't make the Final Four, but I simply cannot answer the question. I could make a guess based on how miserable the UNC students appeared to be year after year, but that is the best I can do.

I think you are headed in the right direction by identifying the ESPN era. We call it the Krzyzewski era. Same thing. Duke became the elite program as ESPN was creating the modern college basketball industry. They aired every Duke game that someone hadn't already nailed down. When you are constantly bombarded by one team every night you tune in, it is perfectly natural to form an opinion one way or another.

I have to hit you on one other thing. Based on what you write here, the NY Yankees aren't even the NY Yankees. Since you are including only what happened after the 'streak' concluded, both Duke ('01) and the Yankees ('09) have one championship and lot of making the dance and coming up short.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Those old enough to remember the four corners (and the beauty of running it well) are the ones who probably remember the peak of UNC hatred.

dola

John Feinstein did a piece on this very topic in this weekend's Washington Post.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I don't think there's anything wrong with liking an underdog in college hoops, especially if you're a fan of a mid-major like I am (well, was -- UNO going D-III now). Seeing another mid-major do this well is awesome even if one has no personal connection to them at all. Makes you believe your team can do it too (or could, if they weren't being sabotaged by their chancellor into D-III hell).

I'm now depressed because of all the qualifiers I had to put into that paragraph. Anyway, go Butler.

+1 to all this

[sterlingice]

Man, I'd love for us to be playing for that trophy tonight

That said, go Butler. (I can't believe we're debating why people root for underdogs or the "legitimacy" of it)

SI

[mckerney]

Go Duke!

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Go Duke!

RACIST

[sterlingice]

Hooray! The game has finally started and it's only almost 9:30. No need to get this finished by midnight

SI

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

RACIST

[sterlingice]

What's the 3 second rule in college (RE: Zoubek). Is there anything flukey with keeping a pivot foot or only having one foot in the lane?

If you have any part of your body in the lane, does that count towards your three seconds?

SI

[Noop]

ACC Pride

[ColtCrazy]

Howard needs to finish. Can't expect Duke to stay sluggish the whole game.

[Noop]

I went too sleep listening to the country music station and I woke up racist.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hooray! The game has finally started and it's only almost 9:30. No need to get this finished by midnight

SI

No shit. I expected it though. If it's a good game I'll stay up but getting up at 5:15 fucking blows for shit like this. I hate when I am watching a tight game I am constantly thinking about how bad the morning will suck.