February 13, 2007
The Pete Gaudet Story
One of the commonly listed items in Duke-haters checklists is that Duke and Coach Krzyzewski unethically saddled interim coach Pete Gaudet with K's losses in 1995. This story has always seemed like a non-issue to me, because Gaudet did coach that team for two losing months, but the controversy never seems to go away.
Well, with Duke now losing like it's 1995, the Gaudet Issue has resurfaced like a sulphuric bubble popping out of a tar pit. Coach K was asked about it in his press conference yesterday and said that he thinks he should be saddled with the losses. Gary Johnson, the NCAA's associate director of statistics says that the decision is totally up to Duke and they were well within their rights to assign the record to Gaudet. Duke did not have to "petition" the NCAA for anything. The NCAA leaves those sorts of decisions up to schools (which is amazing considering how much the NCAA does regulate).
To really discuss the situation, you have to go back and look at that year. Joe Ovies does a good job with his post at 850 The Blog. Folks seems to forget that Duke was actually having a pretty solid year. They were 9-2, they were ranked and they had beaten a couple of ranked teams already. They clearly weren't as good as recent Blue Devils squads (not many teams are), but the only real hint of trouble occurred when they lost their ACC opener against Clemson. Anytime Duke loses to Clemson in Cameron it's jarring, but no one really thought it meant that Duke sucked. That loss came on January 4. Coach K never coached again that season - including practices - and the Blue Devils completely fell apart, winning only four more games (including one in the ACC Tournament).
So again, Duke was 9-3 while K was on the bench. After he left, they went 4-15. Pete Gaudet ran the team for over two months and turned a 9-3 team into a 13-18 team.
Others point to some other examples where coaches have missed games, but still kept the results on their record. In all of the cases I've heard mentioned (there are a few in here), the coach missed only a small handful of games. In those cases, it makes sense to me to keep it on the record of the head coach. A few games isn't enough to completely turn a team around, one way or the other. Two months is a different story. Coach K had no chance to address the problems of the team. He had no chance to see what the ACC teams were doing and adjust. He had no chance to go through the league a second time trying different things. Simply put, Coach K was not coaching his team. Why should he take the record? Do you really think that team goes 2-14 in the ACC with Krzyzewski on the bench?
So let's give this one a rest folks. You can find plenty of reasons to dislike about Duke and Mike Krzyzewski. Doctoring his record isn't a good one.
Comments
I would have to disagree a little. One reason why this story never quite goes away is that there are/were rampant rumors about what really happened with Coach K that year. I was living in the D.C. area at the time and never heard anything really, but when I went home to North Carolina to visit family, my sister and brother-in-law seemed to know a lot more about that "back ache" and exhaustion."
In Art Chansky's book on Dean Smith, Chansky approaches the subject, simply by saying that the public at large has never read in print the full story.
What doesn't seem fair is for Coach K to accept the 9-3 record at the beginning of the season, which is a .750 winning percentage but not the rest of the results. I believe that if he gave the initial 9-3 to Gaudet, then the issue might go away.
Coach K recruited this team, he trained them in the pre-season, he coached them for 40% of the year and left them with his assistant, still playing K's system. Maybe they would not have gone 2-14, but given that they were 8-8 in conference the next year with K back, who knows?
Also, it seemed awfully strange that Gaudet was gone the next season, due to some sort of purported pay issue.
Then there is also the issue of these streaks that are a kind of pseudo-record. Lute Olson is about to break Smith's record for most tournament appearences in a row and is closely followed by Roy Williams. But, what about K? Does his streak go back to 1984 or did the 1995 season break his streak? My opinion is that K coached Duke during a year when they did not go to the tournament and thus his current streak starts in 1996, not 1984.
In Art Chansky's book on Dean Smith, Chansky approaches the subject, simply by saying that the public at large has never read in print the full story.
What doesn't seem fair is for Coach K to accept the 9-3 record at the beginning of the season, which is a .750 winning percentage but not the rest of the results. I believe that if he gave the initial 9-3 to Gaudet, then the issue might go away.
Coach K recruited this team, he trained them in the pre-season, he coached them for 40% of the year and left them with his assistant, still playing K's system. Maybe they would not have gone 2-14, but given that they were 8-8 in conference the next year with K back, who knows?
Also, it seemed awfully strange that Gaudet was gone the next season, due to some sort of purported pay issue.
Then there is also the issue of these streaks that are a kind of pseudo-record. Lute Olson is about to break Smith's record for most tournament appearences in a row and is closely followed by Roy Williams. But, what about K? Does his streak go back to 1984 or did the 1995 season break his streak? My opinion is that K coached Duke during a year when they did not go to the tournament and thus his current streak starts in 1996, not 1984.
| william wrote: |
| Also, it seemed awfully strange that Gaudet was gone the next season, due to some sort of purported pay issue. |
See, this never seemed strange to me. Considering how much of a complete disaster that season was, how could it have ended any differently? If you were a head coach and you found out that your senior assistant couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag, would you keep him? Conversely, if you were the assistant, would have you have wanted to stay around? I would have been crushed and humiliated, particularly given the recent success of that program.
And the pay thing was a real issue. At that time, the NCAA had strict rules about assistant pay and Gaudet was a "restricted earnings" coach, meaning he could make only $16K a year. It was Gaudet's lawsuit against the NCAA that ended that rule, I believe.
As for the NCAA streak, that's a good question. My instinct is that his streak would start in '96 and that '95 would count as missing the tourney on K's record even if all the games don't.
The only reason this story doesn't go away is that Heel fans are hateful, spiteful people who lie for sport. No offense.
When's the last time you heard someone talk about a coach's overall winning percentage? The only coaching mark that anyone *ever* discusses is total wins, and counting the wins for Gaudet leaves Krzyzewski worse off in that regard.
[quote]Maybe they would not have gone 2-14, but given that they were 8-8 in conference the next year with K back, who knows? [/quote]
If by "they" you mean the same team without two future lottery picks, then yes, they did go 8-8 the next year.
When's the last time you heard someone talk about a coach's overall winning percentage? The only coaching mark that anyone *ever* discusses is total wins, and counting the wins for Gaudet leaves Krzyzewski worse off in that regard.
[quote]Maybe they would not have gone 2-14, but given that they were 8-8 in conference the next year with K back, who knows? [/quote]
If by "they" you mean the same team without two future lottery picks, then yes, they did go 8-8 the next year.
What if K ends up with, oh I don't know, let's say 877 career wins when he retires. You know, just hypothetically.
Do the UNC fans still insist that K be given credit for Gaudet's 4-15 record?
Do the UNC fans still insist that K be given credit for Gaudet's 4-15 record?
I don't know about 'Heels fans being any different from other fans in the ACC. Wake and State fans seem to dislike Duke just as much, but living in Maryland, I actually think that Terp fans hate Duke more than anybody, probably for that uncalled clear-out by Kenny Dennard in 1980.
With respect to winning percentage, I hear announcers talk about winning percentage all the time. It came up when Dean Smith's record was broken. I have heard it regularly mentioned that Gonzaga's coach is number one for coaches between 5 and 10 years on the job and that Roy Williams is number one among coaches with more than 10 years on the job.
K would also have gotten 2 losses versus Carolina and he desperately wants to be ahead in the streak when his career ends. He currently is either even or two down depending upon one's perspective.
With respect to winning percentage, I hear announcers talk about winning percentage all the time. It came up when Dean Smith's record was broken. I have heard it regularly mentioned that Gonzaga's coach is number one for coaches between 5 and 10 years on the job and that Roy Williams is number one among coaches with more than 10 years on the job.
K would also have gotten 2 losses versus Carolina and he desperately wants to be ahead in the streak when his career ends. He currently is either even or two down depending upon one's perspective.
About Gaudet, Dave, I don't know if we can judge whether he can coach or not. K went 17-13, 11-17 and 11-17 his first 3 years. 19 games is a small sample size.
Also, we have no idea what the mindset was in that lockerroom. It may very well be that none of the players would listen to Gaudet because "he wasn't the real coach." Remember substitute teachers back in school?
Duke would go on to lose its first four conference games the next year when K was back. These were not great teams that Duke had in 1995, 1996 and 1997. He was having a recruiting drought while Carolina got Wallace, Stackhouse, Mcginness, Jamison and Carter, that seemed to end the year Dean Smith retired. Guthridge was a good coach but couldnt recruit. Doherty could recruit like crazy but couldn't coach, but since Doherty got his trio in 2003, Duke's talent level has plunged, because Carolina is picking off guys that were going to Duke before.
Also, we have no idea what the mindset was in that lockerroom. It may very well be that none of the players would listen to Gaudet because "he wasn't the real coach." Remember substitute teachers back in school?
Duke would go on to lose its first four conference games the next year when K was back. These were not great teams that Duke had in 1995, 1996 and 1997. He was having a recruiting drought while Carolina got Wallace, Stackhouse, Mcginness, Jamison and Carter, that seemed to end the year Dean Smith retired. Guthridge was a good coach but couldnt recruit. Doherty could recruit like crazy but couldn't coach, but since Doherty got his trio in 2003, Duke's talent level has plunged, because Carolina is picking off guys that were going to Duke before.
Fans in the ACC knew Duke was very vulnerable that year; 9-3 at the end of your non-conference schedule is not very strong, and losing to Clemson at Cameron was a strong presage of difficulty to come in what was a strong ACC that year (UNC, Md, Wake, UVa all had very strong teams, Tech wasn't bad). Leaving with 'exhaustion' which he later used the time for back surgery he had originally planned for the offseason looked at the time as very suspect.
I wouldn't put it past the rat to want the extra couple wins in case it means not having to coach another season somewhere down the road in order to pass Coach Knight's record, and couch it in terms so as to defuse past criticism.
I wouldn't put it past the rat to want the extra couple wins in case it means not having to coach another season somewhere down the road in order to pass Coach Knight's record, and couch it in terms so as to defuse past criticism.
Well, thanks for trying to be the voice of reason, Dave, but the haters will continue to hate regardless of what facts you show them.
They have chosen what they want to believe and you aren't about to change their minds. Any negative written about Coach K will be believed to the fullest. On the other hand, mention Dean Smith's little tirade in Cameron where he started pounding on the scorers' table, see how much denial you're met with. It's a one way street.
They have chosen what they want to believe and you aren't about to change their minds. Any negative written about Coach K will be believed to the fullest. On the other hand, mention Dean Smith's little tirade in Cameron where he started pounding on the scorers' table, see how much denial you're met with. It's a one way street.
I have not heard one person posting state that they hate Coach K. Ted did call him a "rat" but I think he meant it affectionately. It basically has been a good discussion without any insults where we are attempting to persuade each other.
I don't think that anyone wants to dig up dirt, but Duke loves to tout statistics about how great its program is. And Carolina does too.
When you basically have an even record between Duke and Carolina since K arrived, how can you not expect people to say anything when the Duke media people are arguably misleading people by saying that Coach K has a winning record versus Carolina, without at least putting in the caveat about the Gaudet season.
If Roy wins a few more, maybe this issue will go away. It doesn't matter so much with Dean because he defeated K so much more than K defeated him.
I don't think that anyone wants to dig up dirt, but Duke loves to tout statistics about how great its program is. And Carolina does too.
When you basically have an even record between Duke and Carolina since K arrived, how can you not expect people to say anything when the Duke media people are arguably misleading people by saying that Coach K has a winning record versus Carolina, without at least putting in the caveat about the Gaudet season.
If Roy wins a few more, maybe this issue will go away. It doesn't matter so much with Dean because he defeated K so much more than K defeated him.
Ted in DUrham wrote:
Leaving with 'exhaustion' which he later used the time for back surgery he had originally planned for the offseason looked at the time as very suspect.
He had back surgery prior to the season and returned too soon from the surgery which in part led to his "exhaustion" and his inability to finish coaching that year
Leaving with 'exhaustion' which he later used the time for back surgery he had originally planned for the offseason looked at the time as very suspect.
He had back surgery prior to the season and returned too soon from the surgery which in part led to his "exhaustion" and his inability to finish coaching that year
No, you're wrong. He had back surgery after leaving the team. He moved it up from when it was planned in the offseason. If we want to go there, he left the team to seek help for clinical depression because his wife threatened to leave him if he didn't get the help. I won't bash over that, at all.
I've lived in New York all my life, but have been a Tarheel fan for just as long. So I'll try and give you my view as someone very interested in the scenario, however also someone removed from the local gossip.
First, I think it's definitely fair to say that Duke would not have gone 2-14 with Coach K behind the bench and I also see who gets credited with the wins and losses as a non-issue. Also Gaudet's removal was pretty much warranted by the record that he posted as head coach. The roster definitely had ENOUGH talent to perform at least a little better.
That being said, from what I've heard/read, Coach K's health did not seemingly require him to take the entire rest of the season off. He was entertaining recruits in his home weeks after removing himself from the team, including future Tarheel Vince Carter. Carter in a magazine article said that Coach K was up and about, not showing any physical problems and if he was so exhausted how did he still have time to entertain recuits? I think this was mentioned before, but would Coach K under the same physical circumstances have sat out if the year was say 1992? Those are legitamte arguments that have to be considered.
First, I think it's definitely fair to say that Duke would not have gone 2-14 with Coach K behind the bench and I also see who gets credited with the wins and losses as a non-issue. Also Gaudet's removal was pretty much warranted by the record that he posted as head coach. The roster definitely had ENOUGH talent to perform at least a little better.
That being said, from what I've heard/read, Coach K's health did not seemingly require him to take the entire rest of the season off. He was entertaining recruits in his home weeks after removing himself from the team, including future Tarheel Vince Carter. Carter in a magazine article said that Coach K was up and about, not showing any physical problems and if he was so exhausted how did he still have time to entertain recuits? I think this was mentioned before, but would Coach K under the same physical circumstances have sat out if the year was say 1992? Those are legitamte arguments that have to be considered.
The person responsible for hiring the assistant coach is responsible for the record. That person should be perpared for potential unknown problems and hire an adaquate assisant. Coach K did the hire and Coach K needs to take the record.
I've never understood what UNC fans really want out of this whole situation, other than a vehicle to affirm their dislike of Duke. Would you rather have had K coach the entire 1995 season? If so, it would have been much more likely Duke would have beaten UNC at least once, thus possibly affecting UNC's seeding in the tournament. If a K-led Duke had made the NCAA's, there'd be no argument over whether any kind of consecutive appearances streak would count. And so on.
It's ludicrous to think K is averse to losses on his record per se. He fully embraces his 1982-83 seasons (and '96 for that matter), and probably talks about them more than, say, Dean ever talked about 1964.
So I ask UNC fans: (1) What should Duke have done in 1995 (give Gaudet the whole season, give K the whole season, or whatever)? (2) If Duke were to come out tomorrow and reassign the 1995 season exactly to conform to your answer to #1, would you be "made whole"? If not, why not? Methinks there would no consistent answer to #1 and no answer at all to #2. Which just reveals the whole 1995 issue is used as a self-fulfulling prophesy. Evinced by statements like this: "I wouldn't put it past the rat to want the extra couple wins in case it means not having to coach another season somewhere down the road in order to pass Coach Knight's record, and couch it in terms so as to defuse past criticism."
It's ludicrous to think K is averse to losses on his record per se. He fully embraces his 1982-83 seasons (and '96 for that matter), and probably talks about them more than, say, Dean ever talked about 1964.
So I ask UNC fans: (1) What should Duke have done in 1995 (give Gaudet the whole season, give K the whole season, or whatever)? (2) If Duke were to come out tomorrow and reassign the 1995 season exactly to conform to your answer to #1, would you be "made whole"? If not, why not? Methinks there would no consistent answer to #1 and no answer at all to #2. Which just reveals the whole 1995 issue is used as a self-fulfulling prophesy. Evinced by statements like this: "I wouldn't put it past the rat to want the extra couple wins in case it means not having to coach another season somewhere down the road in order to pass Coach Knight's record, and couch it in terms so as to defuse past criticism."
lurker:
1) Give K the whole season, for the reasons that william said in his first post.
2) Yes. In fact, if they came out and said 'Listen, we made a mistake' and assign K with the losses, Duke would gain a small measure of respect from me. Although I don't know about that bit about being "made whole".
-
I don't mean to detract from the current discussion, but I have to comment on this..
*steps onto soapbox*
@ Post #3, Ramar:
I actually do take offense to that, because I'm not a 'hateful, spiteful person who lies for sport.' I don't understand how rooting for a certain sports team (or being a specific color/religion) automatically labels me as ANYTHING but being a fan of UNC sports (or just being white/Jewish). Now, you might be wondering why I'm making such a big deal out of this (on a sports blog, no less), but I bet you would if you ever dealt with the shit that my friends and I live with on a daily basis.
You could have just posted about the relevant topic and made some interesting points. Instead, what you proved is that you are an ignorant jackass. No offense.
*steps off soapbox*
Posted by Dave at February 13, 2007 01:56 PM
| TrackBack
1) Give K the whole season, for the reasons that william said in his first post.
2) Yes. In fact, if they came out and said 'Listen, we made a mistake' and assign K with the losses, Duke would gain a small measure of respect from me. Although I don't know about that bit about being "made whole".
-
I don't mean to detract from the current discussion, but I have to comment on this..
*steps onto soapbox*
@ Post #3, Ramar:
I actually do take offense to that, because I'm not a 'hateful, spiteful person who lies for sport.' I don't understand how rooting for a certain sports team (or being a specific color/religion) automatically labels me as ANYTHING but being a fan of UNC sports (or just being white/Jewish). Now, you might be wondering why I'm making such a big deal out of this (on a sports blog, no less), but I bet you would if you ever dealt with the shit that my friends and I live with on a daily basis.
You could have just posted about the relevant topic and made some interesting points. Instead, what you proved is that you are an ignorant jackass. No offense.
*steps off soapbox*
BrightCar Car Maintenance Software - Software To Manage Your Car Maintenance Schedule
