Dave Sez

Was Matt Doherty Wrong?

Leave it to SportsByBrooks. The "sports" site most famous for it's copious pictures of the ... uh ... gifted SportsByBrooks girls has dug up a pretty compelling video of the rarest of species, an attractive female Duke student/fan. Now, I'm sure that statement will upset some folks, but just watch the video. The young lady modestly makes this same claim herself.

I should add that while this chick is fairly attractive at first, that all goes out the window when she opens her mouth. Out of her glossy lips come some of the most arrogant, insipid and obnoxious words you'll ever here. Frankly, I didn't think she was really a student at Duke until she makes a comment about having a class with Josh McRoberts. God knows how this girl and her sidekicks got in.

By the way, listen for the description of the heretofore glamorized Krzyzewskiville tent-dwellers as "refugees." Nice.

Hat tip to Joe Ovies at 850 The Blog for the find. I'm sure he was reading SBB for the articles.

ACC And The Final Four

For those of us still licking our wounds after a second consecutive ACC-free Final Four, Barry Jacob's article today at the DBR is a soothing salve.

He looks back the FF since 1985, when the tournament expanded to 64 teams. And for those who say that 1985 is probably an arbitrary year picked to make the ACC look good, you're wrong. Carolina won the whole thing in 1982 and NC State did the same in '83. Carolina lost in the finals in '81 and UVA made the Final Four in both '81 and '84'. Jacobs should have gone back to 1980!

For the 64-team years (and yes, I'm ignoring that stupid play-in game that makes it 65 teams now), the ACC still leads the next best conference (the Big Ten) 21 to 16. Duke and Carolina alone have more than any other conference.

Speaking of Carolina, this chart shows something that's been bugging me a lot recently. Back in the day, folks used to joke about how Dean Smith always came up short in the tournament despite having the best talent in the country. That talk cooled a bit when he won in '82 and again in '93, but it's a stigma he still carries with some people. Mike Krzyzewski used to have the same label. He made Final Four after Final Four in the late 80's but couldn't break through until 1992. Even now, after building the best NCAA resume this side of John Wooden, folks claim K has lost his touch since Duke hasn't been to the final weekend in three whole years.

But the current favorite target of snarky comments is Roy Williams. When he was at Kansas, everyone joked about how they always choked in the tourney. Williams built the greatest overall winning percentage of any coach in the country, but that didn't really count, because anyone could win at Kansas. Then, he came to Carolina and promptly won a title in his second year. But those weren't really his players and besides, winning at Carolina is even easier than Kansas, right? Roy Williams hasn't proven anything! He didn't make the Final Four this year with the most talented team in the country! What a choker! A rube!

OK, that's enough sarcasm for one paragraph. Now, take a look at Barry's table. Since 1985 (and Roy didn't take over at Kansas until 1988 and even then, he inherited NCAA sanctions), Roy has taken his teams to a combined five Final Fours - four at Kansas and one with UNC. Only three schools have hit the promised land more than that and two of them are the very teams he coached! Sure, it's easy to win at Kansas, but somehow Williams has managed to make the final weekend more times than Kentucky, Indiana, Syracuse, Arizona, UCLA, Michigan, Michigan State, Florida, UNLV, Connecticut, Georgetown, Louisville or any other basketball power you can name outside of Duke or UNC. Isn't it easy to recruit and win at all of those schools? Does Kansas really have greater access to talent than those programs?

Hmmmm. Maybe he's not such a chump. Or maybe every coach is a chump. You can't have it both ways.

p.s. One more note about the notion that Carolina was the most talented team in the country and should have made the Final Four. Every year, there are a half-dozen or so schools who think they should make it. You have the four #1 seeds and at least two of the #2 seeds. This year, that group didn't even include Arizona (a team with at least three NBA players), Kentucky or Duke. Considering that the Final Four usually includes only about two or three of those favored six teams, it's just not unusual for good or even great teams to miss out. It doesn't mean anything. One year is not a trend, particularly in light of what I wrote above.

Bad ACC Year? Not For The Accountants!

Expansion was supposed to help the ACC by making it more competitive in football and as a result, more profitable. Well, one out of two ain't too bad! Expansion has NOT produced much in the way of fantastic football (or basketball, for that matter), but as Bill Maloney (Eagle In Atlanta to you and me) points out, but the ACC is still raking it in.

According the latest financial numbers, the ACC pulled in nearly $20 million more in 2006 than 2005. Boston College and Virginia Tech aren't yet earning full shares, but they still pulled $1.4 million and $2.5 million respecively more than they got in their final Big East year. Only Miami lost out, because they had a good football team in their last year in the Big East.

So, maybe the ACC put Wake Forest in the BCS, had only one team in the Sweet Sixteen and none in the Final Four this year, but at least the athletic departments are making more money! That's all that really matters, right?

Sheed Skeelz

Did you see the 60-foot shot Rasheed Wallace hit the other night to send the game to overtime? Pretty impressive.

But if you'd seen this video of Sheed performing trick shots at practice, you might not have been too surprised. It's crazy just how coordinated and skilled this guy is. And he's 6'11"! That's just unfair. If only he could control his brain half as well as he can control his hands.

Sidney Lowe's Son Arrested

What is it with coaches' sons? Philadelphia Eagles coach Andy Reid had to take a leave of absence to deal with his two sons' malfeasance and now NC State coach Sidney Lowe's son was arrested and charged with involvement in at least two armed incidents.

Now, Sidney Lowe played a while in the NBA. He coached for quite a while, including a stint as a head coach. Now, he's the head man at NC State. Money is not an issue with this family. Sidney Lowe II (the son) didn't grow up in any projects. How does he, a college student at NC A&T, get caught up in crap like this? It just doesn't make any sense.

Where In The World Is Byron Mouton?

Remember Byron Mouton? Starting guard on the 2002 national champion Maryland Terrapins? Essayist and Cadillac owner?

Well, the Washington Post found him playing for the Wilmington Sea Dogs of the ABA. It's an interesting and somewhat sad read. Mouton's played all over the world, trying to keep alive the hope that basketball can someday make him rich. Articles like this should be required reading for every Division 1 basketball player.

By the way, this was my favorite part of the story:

Mouton ended up in Wilmington by mistake. When he signed a contract with the Sea Dawgs in late January, he thought the team played out of Wilmington, Del., a 90-minute drive from Mouton's apartment in Bowie.

Video Of The Day

If you missed the Division II Championship on Saturday (and I did), then you have to watch this video of the last 45 seconds. Hell, if you watched the game, click that link to enjoy it again. It's one of the most amazing sequences of basketball I've ever seen.

If you don't know the story, Winona State was up 7 points with 45 seconds left. They had won 57 games in a row. The point guard for Barton proceeds to outscore Winona 10-1 in the final 36 seconds for the win, including a layup with .1 seconds left.

And if that's not enough (and it really is), the same dude, Anthony Atkinson, had hit game-winners in each of their two previous tournament games!

Hollywood would reject a script with that in it.

Blue Monday

Tough loss for the Tar Heels yesterday. Brutal.

All year, I've maintained that I thought this squad was a year away. They were too young and too prone to lapses in concentration, intensity and/or judgment. Still, I hoped that they'd get it together enough or maybe just "talent" their way to the Final Four.

It almost happened. But then the inexperience and youth popped up. They thought they had it won. Kids are prone to impatience and that's exactly what the Heels were, impatient. Seven minutes left and up by ten. Why not just end the game now? They started jacking up unnecessary threes, trying to hit the knockout punch instead of pounding it inside like they'd done all game. Tyler Hansbrough, Brandan Wright, Deon Thompson and Alex Stephenson combined to score 56 of Carolina's 84 points, but for some reason, the guards thought they would be ones to finish things off. Keep in mind that when Carolina successfully battled back from a 16-point second-half deficit against Southern Cal in the previous round, they didn't attempt a single three. Not one.

Momentum is a funny thing in sports. It can turn at any moment for almost any reason. In tennis, you can be up a break and serving for the match. Lose a quick pair of points, and suddenly you are back even on serve and your opponent has first serve in a tie-breaker. A couple more points go the other way and now he is in charge. Two hours of domination can be reversed in two minutes. Same thing in basketball. The Heels just needed to be smart and the game and East Regional was won. Instead, they repeatedly took bad shots early in their possession. Each miss emboldened the Hoyas and they started stretching and strengthening their defense. On the other end of the court, the suddenly aggressive and confident Big East squad attacked the rim, scoring time and again. By the time the Heels realized what was going on, it was too late.

-------------------------------

I have a zillion other thoughts about that game and all of the others from the past four days, but I'm swamped at work. I'll just leave you for now with an updated table of postseason results by conference. The SEC has assumed the mantle of top NCAA tourney team, while the Big East can claim to be the best for the whole postseason at this point.

[Update: I fixed a few stupid errors in the table. My bad.]

Who Dat?

A little quiz for you.

First, take a look at this table of statistics:

Those two players had pretty damn similar statistics, right? One guy scores about a point and a half less, but makes up for it with an extra rebound. Both apparently pass well, but probably turn the ball over too much. One guy does block a lot more shots, but the other guy makes up for it by being a more efficient shooter. So, all-in-all, they had pretty compatible seasons.

OK, a bit more info. Both players play the same position, are about the same size, have about the same athleticism, play in the same conference, play for teams with similar records and are sophomores.

Here's where they differ greatly. Player A is beloved by his fans and is considered a rising star. Player B has been roundly criticized and has been largely considered a bust.

Figured it out?

It's not really that tough to guess that Player B is Josh McRoberts, who just left Duke for the NBA, without causing too many teary Blue Devil eyes. Player A is NC State's Ben McCauley.

It's interesting how expectations affect our view of players, isn't it?

Gopher Tubby

This is just crazy. Kentucky basketball coach Tubby Smith is apparently leaving to become the coach at the University of Minnesota.

Wow!

Talking about shrinking from the light. I thought it was a bit of a stretch to think that he might take the Virginia job a couple of years ago (although by all accounts, he seriously considered it), but Minnesota?

Every AD in the country with a successful coach better start working on a new contract for your guy, because there's a good chance that Kentucky's going to be sending some Emery trucks full of cash his way soon.

McLeaving

Earlier today I was thinking about one of the articles I want to write after the season is over. I was thinking about Duke's team next year, with everyone returning and three McDonald's All-Americans coming in. Josh McRoberts didn't live up to preseason expectations, but if you ignore his high school accolades, he still has a pretty promising future as a college player. With another year of practice and maturity to go with his current skills and athletic ability, he could still develop into an All-American-caliber player.

Little did I suspect that just an hour later I'd hear that McRoberts has decided to go pro. Wow. This isn't nearly as surprising as Shavlik Randolph leaving early, but it did catch me off guard. I thought he might leave last year, but after this season? Could any NBA team really be salivating over this guy? He couldn't dominate in college and showed all kinds of red flags - an unwillingness to bang, a tendency to shy away from big shots, a fragile ego, a generally poor grasp of how to use his talents. All of those weaknesses are correctable, but the NBA is a damn difficult place to learn. This isn't exactly a Will Avery situation - 6'3" guards are a dime-a-dozen so if you can't play right away, you'll get cut - but it's just really hard to imagine that he can succeed at the next level. Sure, he'll make a team and stay in the league for at least a few years - if Randolph can do it, McRoberts can - but anything more than that is going to require a complete attitude readjustment.

On the flip side, I'm pretty sure this is a good thing for Duke. Clearly this year's team had some problems with chemistry. They didn't play often as a cohesive unit and were generally less than the sum of their parts. When that's the case, losing your "best" player is often the best thing that can happen. Instead of everyone waiting around for McRoberts to grow a pair and become a leader, they can rally around each other and let Paulus step up as the unquestioned captain (although I'm sure DeMarcus Nelson will be co-captain). Duke still has a lot of young, developing talent and has more on the way. If their jersey said something like "Clemson" or "Virginia" on the front instead of "Duke," they'd have everyone optimistically looking toward next year and wondering how a school like that acquired so many players.

Don't be surprised when the rumors start leaking out that Krzyzewski pushed McRoberts out the door. Maybe K has heard of the Ewing Theory.

You're Listening Live

.. or at least you can be in a few minutes. I've done so many of these shows in the past couple of weeks that I almost forgot to put out notice for this one. I'm back on Grant Thompson's Sports Pulse show today at 2:30 (about 15 minutes from now!)

Once again, the snazzy banner!

Butch Davis Has Cancer

I was just talking to a Tar Heel fan yesterday about Butch Davis and the impact that they hope he has on the UNC football program. Little did either of us know that Davis had been recently diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma after a tumor was removed from his mouth.

Davis seems to be playing down the story, and I understand that, but come on. There's no such thing as an insignificant cancerous tumor in your head. And from what I understand, there's no such thing as easy chemotherapy treatment.

Football coaches are famous for their insane work ethics and 20-hour days. With spring football just starting up, how can Davis possibly keep that up while going through chemo? That knocks regular people out, much less folks who want to be go-go-go 24-7. I hope he hired competent assistants, because he is going to be relying heavily on them until he finishes his treatment.

Good luck to coach Davis. Take care of yourself first, then worry about your team and your job.

Postseason Performance

After filling out pool sheets, the second most popular NCAA Tournament pastime might be comparing conference performance. Everybody keeps track of who has how many teams left. Conferences are ranked by various arbitrary measures - number of bids, number of Sweet Sixteen teams, number of Final Four squads, total wins, winning percentage, etc. Each of those has some merit, but all are critically flawed.

The absolute team counts are handy, but clearly miss a lot of detail. If a conference puts two teams in the Sweet Sixteen, is that always better than the league who gets only one? What if that first league lost 5 teams on the first day, but the other conference put 6 teams into the first weekend?

Total wins is a better look at whole-tournament performance, but it too misses a critical element. If a team loses a game, should it's impact on the tourney be completely ignored? If so, then a conference with 6 bids and 2 wins is no better than a conference with only 1 bid and 2 wins.

Winning percentage is nice over the long run, but for a single tournament, it too lacks. Consider Conference USA this season. It's a weak conference and had an awful year, sending just one team, Memphis, to the tourney. But right now, the Tigers are 2-0. Does that mean that Conference USA is the best league in the country, better even than the SEC with its three Sweet Sixteen teams?

Years ago, I came up with a measure that I liked that I've always called Impact. The Impact of a league is a simple measure - take the leagues tournament winning percentage and multiply it by the number of bids it received. This way, performance is critical, but teams get credit even for taking part. Consider the ACC this year. Georgia Tech was the ACC's last team in the tourney. The Yellow Jackets lost their only game. If you looked at just winning percentage, the ACC would have been considered a better league just by virtue of GT missing out on a bid. Instead, using Impact, the ACC gets credit for the bid, but still pays the penalty for their loss.

In the table below, I show some basic measures, including Impact, for each of the six major leagues. I included the NIT and then a combination of both postseason tournaments as a way to get an even better measure of overall league strength. Note that I don't intend this to be the be-all-end-all of conference comparisons - I don't think you can ignore the regular season - but it's pretty fair. Teams have to perform well enough throughout the year to even get bids and then they need to perform in those postseason tourneys to show how good they really are.

Looking at the table, if you consider just the NCAA Tournament, it's no surprise that the Pac-10 and SEC have the best numbers. The SEC is winning at the highest rate, but the Pac-10 has had a greater Impact, because more of its teams have played.

If you look at all postseason teams, the Big East actually edges out the ACC for most overall Impact. Both leagues are helped immensely by strong NIT showings so far.

Keep in mind that there are still a lot of games left to play. Most of these numbers will come down as the teams start playing games against each other.

Another Look At Race And Basketball

In my column reviewing the weekend NCAA Tournament games, I wrote a short piece about Tyler Hansbrough's athleticism and included a final line wondering if he would be viewed differently if he were black. Obviously, that's the sort of topic that's not best handled by a single throwaway line, but I didn't have time to go into it more.

Fortunately, Chad Orzel of the Uncertain Principles blog read what I wrote and expanded on it nicely.

As most anyone who watches much sports knows, there tends to be a bias in how white and black athletes are described. Let's ignore the "truth" about how athletic various players really are or aren't - white athletes tend to get credit for hustle, hard work, attitude and smart play while black athletes are noted for their sheer athleticism and skill. In many cases, these descriptions are appropriate and in many cases they are not. This kind of analysis is laziness in the form of easy stereotyping. You see the same thing when an athlete reminds the announcer of some similar athlete who is invariably of the same race.

As for Hansbrough, I'll admit that I haven't always thought of him as athletic. Sure, he's no Will Bowers, but I wouldn't compare him to Sean Williams or even Josh McRoberts either. That's partly why I was surprised to realize that his brother and father both have accomplished things that do require supreme athleticism. Maybe Hansbrough isn't just a hard worker or "the toughest basketball player in America" but is also a superior athlete. I mean, Jason Cain plays pretty hard and he's fairly athletic as well, but he's nowhere near the player Hansbrough is.

I think Tyler actually is a superior athlete, but he's just one of those guys who's not very fluid. He's jerky and angular, but surprisingly athletic. We've probably all had friends like that or at least played against that guy at the gym. He looks goofy and runs funny, but damn if he doesn't keep scoring on you or hitting jumpers from 20 feet. I ran track with a guy like that in college. He looked and acted like a big dork. He kind of loped when he walked and looked like he was trying too hard when he ran. But the dude could long jump 23 feet (you try that some time) and was a hell of a dunker at just about 6 feet tall. And yes, he was white.

It just goes to show - you never really know until you watch what someone can and can't do. The color of their skin or the smoothness of their gait doesn't tell you the whole story.

ACC History To Salve Our Wounds

The ACC's reputation wasn't built in a year, five years or even a decade. The ACC has been the most dominant conference by far over a long period of time. One bad year (and this hasn't been that bad yet) doesn't change that.

So, I give you David Glenn's piece from last week detailing just how dominant the ACC has been in the NCAA Tournament.

My favorite paragraph:

Since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985, the ACC has had 111 teams in the NCAA Tournament, about the same as the Big East (116). Yet the ACC has 221 wins in that span — 35 more than the Big East. The Big Ten has had 124 participants since 1985 yet has 42 fewer wins. The SEC, with 110 participants, has 61 fewer wins. The Pac-10 has less than half as many NCAA wins as the ACC in the modern era. Since the Big 12 formed in 1996, it trails the ACC 96-72.

Another Appearance On CampusFans.com

If you missed me last week, you have another shot tonight. I'll be on CampusFans.com tonight at 6pm Eastern. We'll be talking about the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament and probably about how the ACC flopped.

By the way, I talked to Michael Riccio, who hosted my show last week and will again tonight, and they don't yet have the capability to replay past shows, but that's in the works.

Weekend Thoughts

Not a good start to the NCAA Tournament for the ACC, huh? Unfortunately, I'm not terribly surprised. I mentioned briefly on this site and again on one or two of my radio interviews that the ACC was poised for a tough first two rounds of the tourney. Only Carolina would be a heavy favorite to win two and Maryland was probably the only other one even slightly favored. And well, the ratings and Vegas oddsmakers were right.

Does it mean the ACC had a terrible year? No, certainly not. Just getting seven teams in is a pretty impressive accomplishment that speaks volumes about how those teams played the entire season. But putting only one team in the Sweet Sixteen does mean that it's certainly not a banner year for the ACC. Not a great one and not even a very good one.

There are many ways for a conference to have an excellent year. One way is to have a few exceptional teams on top - two or three squads who are good enough to vie for a Final Four berth or even a title. Another way is to have strength at the bottom of the league - the whole "there is no off night in this league" thing. And a third is to have a strong middle of the league - maybe an elite team on top and one crappy one on the bottom, but with a large, successful middle class. I'd say the ACC pretty much fit that last mold this year, with a touch of the second one as well. As the bottom-feeders showed at the end of the year, no game was a guaranteed win this season and 10 of the 12 ACC teams earned postseason bids. The ACC led in pretty much every conference power rating, but had only national-level elite team.

Now, my thoughts on the weekend games, which despite the ACC's struggles, were pretty entertaining.

Saturday's games:

• That charging call on DJ Strawberry near the end of the Maryland-Butler game was horrendous. Not only was the guy not in position until after Strawberry was in the air, but there's also a rule that says you have to let someone catch a ball and come down. Terrible. The thing is though, Maryland probably still would have lost. They were down 2 at that point and Strawberry had just missed one of two free throws. Even if he had hit them both, Butler would have had 20 seconds to get off a last shot. Still, I'm sure the Terps would rather have been in that situation than the one that call left them in.


• Georgetown was extremely impressive in the last 10 minutes against Boston College. Their two stars, Roy Hibbert and Jeff Green stepped up and so did Patrick Ewing Jr. If those guys, Hibbert in particular, continue to play like that, then the national prognosticators who are jumping on the Hoya bandwagon may just be right.


• That Xavier collapse was crushing. It bummed me out all day; I can't even imagine what Musketeer fans must feel like. They had that game. Had it! Give Ohio State all the credit they deserve, because they seized the slim chances that were there, but still, Xavier blew it. One free throw here, one rebound there and the game ends differently. If the refs had blown an intentional foul on Greg Oden at the end (and he deserved one), it would have ended differently. But, instead we saw one of the great comebacks in NCAA history. Great game. But it hurt.


• Don't look now, but North Carolina is playing their best ball of the year. Sure, they had a midseason peak, but I like what they are doing now even better. Roy has tightened the rotation a bit, even if he'd never admit it, and the big guns are stepping up. Tyler Hansbrough played his best game of the season and Reyshawn Terry continued his last season surge. All season, I was sure that they would fall short of the Final Four, but I'm not so sure now.


• Early in the day, I happened upon an NIT game on TV, where Mississippi State was playing someone. While I was watching, I saw a quick, aggressive Bulldog guard drive through the defense for an impressive layup. The kid was Ben Hansbrough, Tyler's little brother. That got me thinking. It's one thing to be 6'9" and play college basketball. Sure, you have to be somewhat athletic, really how many people are you beating out for that spot? But to be 6'3" or so and play college ball, you have to be a hell of an athlete. And that's Tyler's brother.

  Later, when Carolina was playing, they showed his dad and mentioned that he had high jumped as a student at Missouri and had once cleared 7'2". 7'2"!! So, Tyler's little brother is a D-1 guard and his dad was an elite track and field athlete. Hmmm, maybe Tyler's not quite the sub-athlete so many say he is. He's constantly praised for his motor, his aggressiveness, his work ethic and his hands, but never for sheer athleticism. Do you think maybe he'd be talked about differently if he were black instead of white?



• The Louisville-Texas A&M game might have been the most entertaining game of the day. Might have been except that it wasn't because the refs couldn't stop blowing their whistles. Damn near every possession ended with free throws. It was too bad, because both teams were playing hard, aggressive ball and it would have been nice to see them establish some flow.

  Tough break for that Louisville kid who missed those free throws at the end. He was 15-15 at that point, but with just seconds left and his team down by one, he missed both. Ouch.



• Vandy must like their ACC imports. Back in the day Billy McCaffrey was an All-American there after leaving Duke. Now, former Cavalier Derrick Byars has them in Sweet Sixteen. They should have to donate a share of proceeds.


• The average margin at the end of regulation of the eight games - 3.6 points. If you take out the Carolina game, it was just 3.3 points, and in that game, UNC trailed by 3 with about 8 minutes left. Pretty amazing slate.

Sunday games:

• Virginia was sooo close, but I can't really argue with the outcome. Tennessee was probably the better team, but if they played 10 games, the final split would probably be 5-5 or 6-4. Things might have been different if JR Reynolds hadn't rolled his ankle 14 minutes into the game. At that point, he'd already scored 22 points, but he tallied just 4 more, both on layups, the rest of the way. Similarly, if the Vols hadn't banked in a damn three with about 2 minutes left, things might have been very different. It always sucks to see your team lose and end their season, but I'm still happy with what they did this year.


• Virginia Tech played against two of the best half-court defenses in the tourney and struggled mightily against both. Against Illinois, they found their rhythm by going to a full-court press, but nothing seemed to work against Southern Illinois. Thinking back, I don't remember if they even tried a press. One thing I noticed in both games is something I should have picked up earlier this year - the Hokies have no offense. Their points seem to pretty much come from dribble penetration from Jamon Gordon, Zabian Dowdell or sometimes Deron Washington. Basically, they pass the ball around a few times and then someone attacks. That just won't work against a disciplined defense with good on-ball defenders. When you are held to 44 points in a tourney game against a mid-major and you have the offensive talent VT has, something is wrong. It'll be interesting to see what happens to them next year without Gordan, Dowdell and Coleman Collins. That might be a last-place team.


• Thought I had during the day (many times) - Well, at least the Big Ten is sucking too.


• Memphis really reminds me of those old Denny Crum Louisville teams - athletes all over the floor, running and jumping and creating mayhem. Of course, I thought that last year too and they folded in the tourney. Their game against Texas A&M should be awesome. BTW, Joey Dorsey has a ridiculous body. That guy just looks like an All-American.


• The Kentucky-Kansas game was very entertaining. Both teams looked really good. I wonder if Kentucky just needed to see another elite program on the court to help them get motivated? The Jayhawks are looking more and more like a legit favorite for the title. It's great to see them, UNC and Florida all rounding into shape here at the end. It could be a hell of a Final Four.


• So, is UNLV a mid-major? They are from one of those minor western conferences, but they have some impressive history and were a traditional power 15-20 years ago. I say they are. Or are they some other category - Major program in middling conference? You could put Memphis in that category as well (and Louisville back in their Metro Conference heyday).

Friday Thoughts

• I guess J.R. Reynolds' hip is feeling better! Talk about lighting it up. It's amazing how much better Virginia is when he's hitting shots. Sean Singletary will always be dangerous with the ball - quickness doesn't come and go - but his effectiveness is limited if the team has no other threat.
• I mentioned before that all I really wanted from Virginia this year was one tourney win. Just one. Win one game and I'd be satisfied even if they bowed out in the second round. And now after they have won that one game ... I still feel the same way. A win over Tennessee on Sunday would be suhweet, but I won't be devastated if they lose. It's a nice place for a fan to be!
• And how about Tennessee and Virginia's performances? I was extremely pleased that the Cavs went out and won by 27 points, their third-largest margin of victory on the season. And then the Vols went out and won by 35, scoring 121 points in the process! That makes Virginia's win seem modest. But at the same time, I'm still hopeful because UVA played well and their defense will be a whole lot better than what UT saw yesterday.
• I picked Illinois to upset Virginia Tech, largely because of their defense (and just gut feeling), but I still pulled for the Hokies. I was almost right and Illinois did play some of the best D I've seen in the tourney, but I was impressed by how the Hokies responded. Once they switched to the full-court press with about 5 minutes left, they completely dominated the game. It's always interesting to see how a change in defensive philosophy to be more aggressive can change the complexion of a game on both ends of the floor.
• I'm pissed at myself for not picking Winthrop. Before the field was even announced, I had planned on having them win at least one game. I was impressed with how they played against UNC earlier this year and they've been to the tourney so much lately that I knew they were ready to take the next step. But then I talked myself out of it. I heard everyone else picking them to upset Notre Dame and then I saw that the Domers actually had a good Pomeroy rating, so I caved. My bad.
• Another mistake I made - not accounting for Georgia Tech's horrendous play away from home. They should have won that game yesterday, but they simply don't play well outside of Atlanta. It's hard to explain. Obviously they have some youth, but they are more experienced than a lot of teams. Unfortunately for Paul Hewitt, he may not get a chance to mold all of that talent. I bet Thad Young skips out to the NBA, even though his stock has surely dropped since last year.
• How sweet would it have been if Wisconsin had dropped that game? I don't know why it is, but I just love watching the Big Ten fail in the NCAA Tournament. It's not like I hate the schools in that league, but for some reason, I find it funny to see them struggle at the end of the year. I think it stems from those two consecutive seasons in the early 90s when the Big Ten failed to get a single team in the Sweet Sixteen.
• Arizona may just be the worst team with four NBA-caliber players in the history of college basketball. Their season was a disgrace. Remember that when you see any list of great college coaches that includes Lute Olsen. He's a great recruiter and a very good program manager, but he's an average-at-best basketball coach.
• The ACC went 5-2 in the first round. Not too bad. That's about what I expected, although I certainly hoped for more. The real test comes now. Carolina, Maryland and Virginia are all seeded to win, but none have an easy game. Hell, the Hokies might actually have the easiest opponent in Southern Illinois, but the Salukis are pretty darn good.

Thursday Thoughts

• Stephon Curry is the best 12-year-old basketball player I've ever seen. I understand now why the big schools missed out on him. They didn't think to scout the middle school courts at recess.
• Maryland fell asleep defensively in the first half, maybe not respecting Curry's babyface, but did what they needed to do in the second. Davidson pu up 43 points in the first half and only 27 in the second. That's promising for the Terps.
• I didn't see the game, but BC won pretty much how I thought they would. They kept banging and chipping and eventually pulled ahead. They have a perfect win-your-first-round-game team.
• Don't get too caught up in Carolina's mid-game struggles. That's extremely common for talented 1 seeds and not always a bad sign. That team needs constant reminders to stay focused. Michigan State will be no slouch tomorrow though. They put a pounding on Marquette. I'm not sure the Spartans can score enough to upset the Heels though.
• Remember early this season when I said that this Duke team reminded me of the 1995 team that collapsed? Some thought I was crazy. Well, I might have been off by one. This team was really a lot like 1996, the last Duke team to be upset in the first round by a mid-major with quick guards. In '96, Duke went 8-8 in the ACC, lost in the first round of the ACC tournament and again in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Sound familiar? The one key difference is that expectations were fairly low in '96. In that regard, this team was more like '95 in that they were supposed to be good, but the pieces just didn't fit together properly.
• As for the game itself, Duke would have done better if anyone other than Paulus had stepped up. McRoberts tried (at times), but just has no idea AT ALL how to assert his will on a game. DeMarcus Nelson was damn near invisible and Jon Scheyer simply can't score against a good defender.
• Paulus has a little punk in him. That little "accidental" bump last night that nearly started a fracas was not the first time I've seen him do that this year. When guys play him tight, he tries to get physical with them like that. I actually respect him for being scrappy though. He was the one Blue Devil who seemed determined to not lose. Unfortunately for him and Duke, he was outmatched by Eric Maynor.
• I went 15-1 in my picks yesterday, missing only that Duke game. That's the best first day I've had in memory!

Tourney Tips

I'm not going to put together any long lists of links to NCAA Tournament info this week. Seriously, you need help finding that stuff?

But there are a few sources of info that might just be a bit better than most to help you fill out those brackets.

Luke Winn at SI.com has had some good stuff in his NCAA blog. The first one that I liked was his post on picking teams with the best defenses. Read that one.

Next, Winn followed up with another cool piece on finding the hottest teams in each bracket. You definitely want to find teams that are peaking at the right time.

Of course, you never want to skip the master, Ken Pomeroy. Winn's numbers come from Ken, so why not see what Ken thinks himself? Here he runs the numbers (using everyone's favorite Log5 analysis) for the Midwest and West. And here he does the same for the South and East.

Lastly if you think free info is for chumps and really want your own numbers, check out BracketBrains. I linked to that one last year too. It's a pretty cool tool put together by Mike Greenfield, another web stats guru. You can tweak the settings on what factors you think are most important and see how that projects the field. It's really pretty cool.

Now go fill out those brackets!

One more thing, don't forget to sign up for the DaveSez pool! Go here (Yahoo!) and sign up. The Group ID is 54269 and the password is amphibious.

Here A Dave, There A Dave

Calling on in transit
Calling on in transit
Radio Free Europe, radio ...

I never knew what that song meant, and I still don't. Makes no sense to me, but I like it.

Likewise, I can't explain my recent radio frequency, but I like it. I had a great time on Grant Thompson's Sports Pulse radio show last week and now I'm slated to do it again. I'll be on tomorrow (Wednesday) at about 2:30. You can find the broadcast here.

And of course, I'm still slated to to be on CampusFans.com a bit later, at 5. If you miss me at 2:30, maybe you can catch me there.

As you might guess, I'll be talking about the NCAA Tournament, mostly about the ACC squads.

Update:
Check out this snazzy banner they made me!

I should point out that as the banner implies, you can interact with my appearance or any part of the show. When you listen, it pops up a chat room and you can comment, ask questions, etc. It's actually pretty cool.

Coach K's Duke, Then And Now

This is another guest article from William Loeffler. Previously, he took a look at the most important game in ACC basketball history. This time he takes a look at Mike Krzyzewski's career at Duke.

-----------------

A Comparison Between the Duke Teams of pre-1996 and post-1996.

Dave has linked to an Al Featherston article that touches on a sociological aspect of Duke's success, that not only is overlooked, but that is actually often thought to be the reverse of the truth. Because Duke is such a prestigious school, with an elite student body, many of whom come from well-to-do backgrounds, people assume the same about Duke's white players and its coach.

As Featherston says, this is far from the truth. Mike Krzyzewski comes from a working-class background, out of the Polish neighborhoods of Chicago, with the accent to boot. Some of his players have been the children of NBAer's (or NFL'ers) like Dunleavy, Ferry, Collins or Hill, but many, such as Bilas and Laettner were tough-nosed kids who grew up far away from privilege.

During the first part of Krzyzewski's career, there seemed to be even a greater contrast between the Duke and Carolina teams. Dean Smith, the son of schoolteachers, had an efficient, aristocratic program that was fueled by Class A talent, but often was perceived to be playing without either joy or emotion.

From the very beginning, Mike Krzyzewski seemed unafraid to tweak the ACC powers to be, noting upon being hired and asked about competing with Smith, that the ACC had many fine coaches to contend with, rather than kissing the ring of the Carolina coach. His mannerisms on the sideline were certainly unusual for a conference located south of the Mason-Dixon. There had always been fiery coaches like Driesell and McGuire, but no one had ever seemed quite so indulgent in using the 7 words that you can't say on television, as K.

K was smart, tough and somewhat crude and so were his teams, in a good way, if you will. Particularly in K's pre-1992 teams, Duke was often an overachieving bunch of scrappers, talented yes but not incredibly so, but more driven to win, as opposed to the more elite, incredibly-talented Duke teams post-1996 which generally have stared down at opponents from the established hill of greatness.

In the 1980's Duke's defensive play was so intense and some said, physical, that many teams across the country simply seemed overwhelmed in the NCAA tournament, as they did not have the benefit of seeing Duke multiple times and preparing the way that teams in the ACC did.

Fred Barakat, the former ACC chief of officials, noted that there was a change in what was allowed on defense and felt that this change aided the ACC in winning titles in the 1990's and 2000's. They style change coordinated well with Duke's aggressive, in your face defense.

"When I came in, the ACC had the reputation that this league was a touch-foul call league," Barakat said. "There were so many whistles and so much free throw shooting that when they got out into intersectional play, that physical play ... that was a huge adjustment.
"I came in with the advantage-disadvantage concept. It had always been out there, but it became a major emphasis for us. I wanted to change the idea of rule-istic or legalistic - a strict interpretation of the rules - to a more realistic approach, spirit and intent, advantage-disadvantage. So contact, of what there is so much of, is not necessarily a foul unless the contact leads to an advantage.

"That's a whole new concept for our fans to buy. That first year or two, we were going booed off the court on no-calls. My job was to teach the referees how to suck on the whistle instead of blow on the whistle. That was a hard adjustment."

Carolina was the aristocratic team of these times, talent-laden and usually at the top of the league, but prone to either bad luck or lapses in the post-season, depending on your point of view. Carolina was ranked number one in the nation several different seasons and had two 14-0 seasons in the ACC, after their championship win against Georgetown in 1982, but were never able to make it back to the Final Four during the rest of the decade. Although excellent on both ends of the court, Carolina seemed somewhat lackadaisical on defense when compared to the snarling Blue Devils.

Duke, by contrast, probably only had one great talent-laden team during the 1980's, the team with Dawkins, Amaker, Bilas, Alarie and Henderson and that team fell just short in 1986, losing against Louisville in the championship game.

But in terms of coaching achievement, the final years of the 1980's were some of K's best work, in terms of beating expectations. For instance, the 1988, 1989, and 1990 Blue Devils all made the Final Four without finishing first in the ACC regular season standings and never receiving a number 1 seed. Indeed, Duke finished a somewhat mediocre 9-5 in conference(by their current standards) all three seasons and yet still made it to the Final Four all three years.

In 1991, Duke had added Grant Hill, perhaps their first truly great athlete, and managed to finish first in the conference, but got annihilated by UNC in the ACC tourney by 25 points. This cost Duke the number one seed, and yet, still managed to make it to the Final Four and win their first title, with the mediocre record (for a champion, only, of course) of 32-7.

That made it four straight Final Four's for Duke, and in none of these four seasons was Duke a number 1 seed in the NCAA tourney. In both 1989 and 1991, Carolina beat Duke in the ACC tournament final and Duke still went farther than Carolina in the post-season each year.

Often, it is difficult to extract the portion of "luck" from any team's or coach's performance, but Krzyzewski's performance as a coach from 1986-1991 seemed to lead the Blue Devils consistently to post-season success far greater than their regular season performance had implied. In 1992, Duke held serve.

In 1994, Duke again surprised. Although the Blue Devils had finished first in the regular season by one game over UNC, UNC was defending champ and had added Rasheed Wallace, Jerry Stackhouse and Jeff McInnis to its stable, and appeared to be ready for a repeat in Charlotte after winning the ACC tourney, garnering the number 1 seed.

Duke got a number 2 seed and to the chagrin of many North Carolinians, Duke ended up playing Arkansas in the title game in Charlotte, coming within a whisker of winning a game, they seemed to have in hand.

Since 1997, Krzyzewski's performance has lagged in the other direction, with Duke almost always receiving number 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament, in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and yet making only 3 Final Fours and winning only 1 NCAA tourney during those years.

Was Krzyzewski a better coach early in his career, with those scrappy blue collar teams that helped elevate the Duke program to parity with UNC and Kentucky, or was he simply the recipient of a few more good bounces during those years?

It is hard to deny than he would later suffer some excruciatingly close defeats in championship games to Arkansas in 1994, and to UConn in 1999 by his 37-1 Blue Devils--arguably his best team ever. Then there were the NCAA losses to Kentucky, Indiana and UConn in games in which he had big leads and to Michigan State and Louisiana State, in games in which Duke lost to clearly weaker teams.

Was it just bad luck or did Krzyzewski have a coaching style most well suited to working with underdogs? Certainly, his third title team, while talented, did less well in the ACC than had the prior 3 Duke teams and struggled mightily to defeat Maryland in both the ACC title game and the Final Four. Coming back from more than 20 points in the Semi-finals, and then fighting past Arizona for the title, the 2001 team seem to have more of the blue-collar ethic that Duke had been known for in the past.

And so my answer to the question as to whether K has had more bad luck at the end of his career, or whether he was an even better coach early on, is maybe a little bit of both. Like anyone, K might have been hungrier when he was starting out, but if Laettner had not hit two sensational last second shots in 1990 and 1992, Duke would have been to two fewer Final Fours and would have won one fewer championship.

Looking at this year, Krzyzewski might have a chance to return to his roots. The 2007 Blue Devils are a gritty, defensive-oriented team, that can really clamp down on the opposition when they are playing their game. While the Blue Devils lost several games to ACC teams more acclimated to their schemes, Duke had excellent success against teams from outside the ACC, stifling the number one rated offensive team in the country, Georgetown, as well as Indiana, another top offensive team. Duke seemed to have the greatest trouble with teams that excelled on the defensive end, losing all four games against Maryland and UNC, two teams which are its equal on defense.

Neither VCU nor Pittsburgh is an especially impressive defensive team. If Duke can deal with any possible internal issues it might have, the Blue Devils might be poised to surprise and go deeper in the tournament than many of their naysayers believe.

Video Of The Day

This is what happens when you have mixed marriages.

ACC Tourney Redux

Before we get too excited about the upcoming NCAA Tournament, I want to take a quick look back at the ACC Tournament. Despite what many were saying, I don't think it was really a fantastic tournament. Yes, there were a lot of close games and that made it exciting but close does not always equal great. Great is when two very good teams both play well and have the game go down to the wire. There wasn't a lot of that last week. It seemed we mostly had good teams playing poorly and beaten by weaker teams playing well. Out of 12 teams, only about two can really be happy with how they played. I guess that's not that unusual in a tournament, because every team but one ends with a loss, but in this case it wasn't just the fact that teams lost that was disconcerting. It was how they played.

All that said, I really liked how Carolina played all weekend. They were business-like and efficient. They didn't blow anyone out with a barrage of three-pointers and fast breaks. They slowly built leads, had occasional short bursts and generally made things hard on their opponents. That's how you win tournaments. If you rely too much on offensive explosions to win, you usually get upset by the first team that prevents those outbursts. I'm more bullish on the Tar Heel's tourney chances now than I have been all season.

Likewise, there's really nothing but praise to give to Sidney Lowe and NC State. They played extremely well and showed that without a doubt, if Engin Atsur had been healthy all year, that was a very good team. Not only would they have made the NCAAs, but they would have been at least a 5 seed. Add Andrew Brackman to the mix, and they are a top-15 team.

One word of caution to the Wolfpackers: dial your enthusiasm back a notch. Many, many coaches exceed expectations in the first year. That's the easy part. There's a wide gulf between first-year success and becoming a consistent power. Give Lowe some time and expect some bumps in the road.

Lastly, I'd like to link to four Al Featherston articles about the tournament. As you know, I love these long Featherston article. I have so much faith in his work that I'm linking to these without even having read them all. I've read parts, but there's just so much to catch up with this week that I can't do it all.

Featherston on Thursday
Featherston on Friday
Featherston on Saturday
Featherston on Sunday

One Shot

I had completely forgot about this, but back in 1996 tiny Western Carolina, a 16 seed, nearly knocked off 1-seed Purdue. They had a three at the end to win. It bounced off the back of rim. They got the rebound and put up one more shot for the tie. Off the back rim. So close.

Fast forward 11 years, the head coach of the '96 Catamounts, Phil Hopkins is still a head coach. At a junior high.

His top assistant? A young Thad Matta who is now the head coach of 1 seed Ohio State.

Pretty incredible how things can change. If that shot had gone in, Hopkins would be legend. Instead, he's forgotten.

It's a great story.

Hear Dave (Again)

If last week's Internet radio appearance wasn't enough to slake your Dave-thirst (and I'm sure it wasn't), then you'll get another shot on Wednesday. At about 5 (Eastern), I'll be doing an interview on the new site CampusFans.com.

This site is a brand new one founded by Bill Rasmussen, the guy (one of the guys?) who founded ESPN. This site is a pretty cool idea. It's sort of a cross between MySpace and YouTube, but with a college sports focus (USA Today gave it a shoutout here). Anyone can sign up and put together their own talk show. I'm not really sure about all of the technical details (they say they can set it up so that you can take phone calls and live IM chat) and the site is clearly still under construction, but I like the concept. They asked me about hosting a regular show, but while that sounds like fun, I just don't have the time. We'll start with just this one interview. I suppose there's no reason why I couldn't do more in the future, just probably not at any regular interval.

Update: If you missed my appearance, you can listen to the rebroadcast here. ... Oops, I just checked. The link is there, but it says the show is Completed. Maybe you can't replay it.

NCAA Tourney Quick Thoughts

Random, quick thoughts upon seeing the brackets:

• Seven teams for the ACC! Very cool for the conference and for Georgia Tech.
• Seven teams for the ACC could be a trap. Only two, UNC and UVA, are seeded to reach the Sweet Sixteen, and we all know that Virginia isn't really good enough to warrant a 4-seed. And outside of Carolina, none of the teams can claim they are going in on a high note. I really hope it's not a first-weekend bloodbath.
• How about that one pod with Kansas, Kentucky and Villanova? Two of college hoops' elite royalty along with a recent power and owner of one of the sport's most legendary teams.
• Winthrop got an 11? Notre Dame may be in some big trouble.
• Similarly, Maryland better be very careful with that 12-seed Davidson. Davidson is no pushover.
• It's just weird to see Duke as a 6 seed, even though that's about what they deserved. They'll probably be the most talked-about 6 seed in tourney history.
• I like that pod that has Virginia Tech, Illinois and Southern Illinois. Anyone who hasn't followed college hoops carefully would never guess that it's the Salukis who are the high seed. On top of that, I love the potential second-round matchup of the two intra-state rivals. BTW, that's a tough break for the Hokies. You just don't expect to see a program like Illinois as your first round opponent when you pull a 5 seed.
• If they can win their first game, I think Pitt is a great second-round opponent for Duke. The Panthers are plodding and don't score a lot of points. The Devils have more problems with quick teams who can light it up.
• Check this list of 8/9 seeds - Arizona, Purdue, Kentucky, Villanova, Marquette, Michigan State. That's almost a who's who of great college programs. And BYU and Xavier are perennial tourney teams as well.
• The South region looks weak to me.
• Virginia got a 4? Virginia got a 4! That's pretty crazy. I guess the committee looks at the conference standings a lot more than they admit, because that's the only possible explanation for that. But I'm not complaining!
• With only eight at-large bids, I guess all the talk of the new age of the Mid-Majors was overblown.
• How about Rick Pitino taking his team to Lexington for the first two rounds? Think he'll get booed much? And the Cardinals better be careful against Stanford (Cardinals vs. Cardinal - the committee is too cute sometimes). The Cardinal is a pretty tough squad with some talented big men.

Thursday Thoughts

What a crazy day, huh? Four games, four wins by the lower seeds. I bet that's never happened in the ACC Tournament before. Of course, that's a pretty easy bet since until a couple of years ago, the only days with four games were Fridays and four upsets would have to include an 8 or 9 beating a 1. Still, I know I'm not the only one surprised how the games turned out. The only one I picked correctly was NC State beating Duke.

My other randomly ordered thoughts:

• I think I'm ready to hop off of the Clemson bandwagon. I still think there's a decent chance that they'll get in and be the school all the "experts" complain about, but I'm not as optimistic as I was yesterday. As someone pointed out to me the other day, they really don't have enough good wins. Still, they do have 21 wins and an RPI of 45. Not spectacular, but that's good enough to get in. But they won't.


• OK, what about FSU? They now have 20 wins, and RPI of 38, a star player and another player returned from injury. Can they get the bid that the Tigers fumbled? A win over Carolina would make them a sure thing. A loss? I don't know. My hunch is that they'd miss out.


• I owe Frank Haith an apology. I've been dogging his coaching ability for a couple of years now, but I've been really impressed with the Hurricanes' play over the past couple of weeks. They've had serious injury problems, they booted their most talented player (point guard Denis Clemente), their season was pretty much over, and yet they've rallied. They beat UVA, they took a desperate Clemson to OT, they took a desperate FSU to OT and then they upset Maryland, the hottest team in the league. You have to chalk that up to some good coaching. Maybe Haith will work out afterall.


• A special Thank You to Maryland and Duke for making me look like an idiot. I touted both as potential Final Four ACC teams on the radio on Wednesday. Thanks a lot.


• Like Miami, Wake Forest has impressed me of late. Their defense is light years ahead of where it was even a month ago. They are pressuring the ball and wings all over the court. It's they finally realized that they are young, deep and athletic - use it for something! One top of that, Ishmael Smith has really stepped up his game and is playing some of the best point work in the league. Like a lot of freshmen, he started the year strong and then lost his way in conference play, probably taken back a bit by the level of competition. He has regained his confidence though and is really using his quickness as a weapon. 15 assists last night!


• Am I the only one who watches NC State when they play like last night and wonders why this team is just a shade over .500? The easy answer is that Atsur missed a bunch of games, but still the rest of those guys can play as well. When they have things rolling, they might just be the most aesthetically pleasing team in the league. I'm fairly sure those words were never written about a Herb Sendek team.


• Hey Maryland, one more thing. Box out. Seriously.


• Harvey Hale scored 21 points in overtime? Holy cow! He had 1 point in the first 40 minutes and 21 in the extra 10? I wish I could have stayed up to see that! Sadly, my sofa is too comfy.


• Georgia Tech might have put themselves in a tough spot for the NCAAs as well. Folks seem to be assuming they're in, but I'm not sure why. Like FSU, they have 20 wins, but their RPI is 50! Why GTU and not FSU?

NCAA Tournament Pool

If you want to join in a Dave Sez NCAA Tournament Pool, go here (Yahoo!) and sign up. The Group ID is 54269 and the password is amphibious.

No money, no prizes. Just pride and trash talking cred. And that's really all you need.

Two years ago, we got 27 entrants. I'm guessing we can beat that this year.

Games On The Radio On The Computer

For those of us stuck at work for the next couple of days (and next week too), I've found that it's mighty handy to find radio stations that stream their broadcast on the Internet. I found a couple of stations last year that do this, but I guess I didn't save the links.

Does anyone know of a station that is carrying the games and streaming their broadcast? If so, post the URL or station name in the comments. I'll build a list here below. It could come in damn handy!

WCCP (Clemson)
The Boss (UNC)
WMAL (Maryland)
WTEM (Maryland, Virginia Tech)
WHFS (Maryland)
WJFK (Maryland)
WFMD (Maryland)
WRVA (Virginia)
WTAR (Virginia)
WTNT (Virginia)
WXRC (NC State)
WWNC (NC State)
WNMX (Duke)
WRNL (Virginia Tech)
WQXI (Georgia Tech)

Ten Most-Hated Dukies

I don't really know what it is about Duke, but man do people hate that program. Even more, folks hate a lot of the individual players. I think it's some combination of winning, hustle, arrogance, overexposure and whiteness that does it. Yes, whiteness. For some reason, the most hated player around is always the other team's good white player. I can't explain it, but there it is. And Duke has had a lot of good white players.

Anyway, the point of this post is that ESPN 2 posted a list of one guy's ten most-hated Blue Devils. And yes, eight of his ten choices are white and that's only because he included Gerald Henderson who probably wouldn't make this list if he made it again a year from now.

My ten? Let's see...

1. Bobby Hurley
2. Christian Laettner
3. Steve Wojciechowski
4. Chris Collins
5. Greg Newton (man, the 1995 team not only sucked, but it was full of detestable players!)
6. Dahntay Jones
7. J.J. Redick
8. Lee Melchionni
9. Josh McRoberts
10. Danny Meagher

Actually, I should probably bump Meagher up several notches, but I don't feel like reshuffling.

In the spirit of fairness, and since the best way to engender hate is to be good, here are my ten most-hated Tar Heels:

1. Brendan Haywood
2. Rasheed Wallace
3. Makhtar Ndiaye
4. Matt Doherty
5. Jeff Lebo
6. Michael Jordan (I hated him until the NBA)
7. Dante Calabria
8. Eric Montross
9. Jeff McInnis
10. J.R. Reid

Dave On The Radio

If you want to hear the dulcet tones of my smooth radio voice, tune your computer into http://nowinla.com/channel_preview.asp?id=1262 this afternoon at about 2:45. That's when I'm scheduled to be on Grant Thompson's Internet radio show Sports Pulse.

As you might imagine, we'll be talking college hoops, I assume mostly about the ACC. We'll probably cover the ACC Tournament, the NCAA Tournament, Hansbrough's nose and whether Jeff McInnis really slept with Phil Ford's wife.

If you watched ESPN's Dream Job show, Grant was the guy who came in second place to that other guy that I haven't seen since. I guess his dream job was to have ESPN bury him on ESPNU. Evidently Grant has also been on the OC, so I'm sure Bill Simmons is a fan. I'm not a 14-year-old girl, so I've actually never seen the show, but I'm sure Grant was very good. I did hear him interview the Sports Frog's AB a couple of weeks ago and that went very well. Surely I can do better than AB.

Tune in!

Update: you can hear the rebroadcast here - Click on the Flash Media Player link and then zoom forward to about 36 minutes or so in. It'll have to buffer all of that data first though.

All-ACC Teams Announced

As you probably heard, the ACC released it's All-ACC Teams yesterday. The first team might be the least controversial in ACC history.