bcthomas
02-16-2006, 02:07 PM
From A Duke Law School Grad.
The best part is, not one ounce of this article can be refuted. It is 100% truth.
Mike Krzyzewski and his players don’t understand the antipathy. They know
it’s out there, but they truly don’t know why. Fans of all schools love to hate Duke, with growing enthusiasm it seems, and the trend is baffling the great coach to no end.
Truly, it is difficult to accept that a group of purportedly intelligent persons could at once be so repugnant yet oblivious to the intentional impudence that makes them so. However, I suppose it is possible to be so steeped in conceit and self-righteousness as to become blind to one’s own flaws.
At any rate, as a lifelong basketball fan, and as a graduate of both the University of North Carolina and the Duke University School of Law, I feel infinitely qualified to allay the consternation. Although many writers, in piecemeal fashion, occasionally opine as to isolated reasons behind the ABD (”anybody but Duke”) movement, I am aware of no comprehensive piece that fully enumerates the multitude of interrelated reasons why this basketball program is loathed so intensely by so many. I will attempt to do so herein.
I. The Duke Persona.
First is the persona shared by the coach, his team, and the supporting student body. A rarely seen blend of obscene arrogance and shameless hypocrisy is the cornerstone of Duke basketball. Whether it is Christian Laettner wagging his tongue after a lay-up, Brian Davis tauntingly skipping across the floor after a break away dunk, or Chris Duhon matter-of-factly stating that all other ACC teams simply compete for second place in the annual conference tournament, (ironically said before Maryland defeated Duke for last year’s title), the rank conceit and condescension are insufferable.
As for the equally unrelenting hypocrisy, examples abound year after year.
In every close game, for instance, Coach K spews profanities at game officials for the extremely rare call against his team, while, at the same time, starring in a television commercial promoting the importance of good sportsmanship. Admittedly, his boorish behavior gets results, as every ACC official seems to react to each outburst by calling an offensive foul against the opposition at the next possible opportunity. Nevertheless, Krzyzewski, unabashed and blind to his hypocrisy, stated during last year’s ACC tournament that nothing is gained from working the officials, and it is therefore something that he does not do.
The language this coach spouts is truly appalling, even by competitive sports standards, yet the media anointed him to sainthood status long ago. Gary Williams shouts game profanities with similar regularity and is understandably criticized by the media for doing so. Bobby Knight is similarly blasted for his well-publicized misconduct. And yet Coach K – a Knight disciple by the way - is not only given a free pass but worshiped as the great gentleman - “an officer and a gentleman” as one commentator said during a game break last year. Somehow the media equates the man with class, when, in reality, he is two letters removed from the word. Duke students and fans similarly experience difficulty with consistency. As all basketball fans know, the student body is legendary for its efforts to humiliate opposing players. They, for example, threw snack cakes at Dennis Scott because he once had a weight problem; they dressed as Frankenstein in an Eric Montross replica jersey; they named an “All Acne Team” of opposing players and further named Mike O’Koren the Oxy 10 poster boy; record albums were thrown at an N.C. State player accused of stealing a stereo; Maryland forward Herman Veal was showered with condoms and women’s panties after being accused of sexual misconduct, (a charge of which he was exonerated); Steve Francis received a serenade of “SAT” because of academic struggles. The list goes on and on. All of these stunts, mind you, were performed on regional, often national, television - the better to publicize the “creative genius” of the Duke student body. In the face of this churlish history, J.J. Redick, last season, complained of opposing fans’ insensitivity towards Duke players. “Just from this year,” he whined, “there have been so many incidents from other team’s fans, saying rude and crude remarks to us.” Which is the more amazing: that Redick would be surprised/troubled by opposing fans’ comments or that he would show the temerity to complain of the perceived unfairness publicly?
Only a few years earlier, during Matt Doherty’s first year as UNC head coach, Doherty concluded a closed team huddle, in a raucous environment where his team struggled to hear his words, with the statement, “Duke still has the ugliest cheerleaders in the ACC.”
Somehow word of this statement reached the media, whereupon the Duke students and alumni immediately exploded in outrage. How, they asked, could a coach utter such a callous remark? Surely such insensitivity could not be tolerated, they said. Unbelievable, but true. Somehow, in the Duke mindset, a half-century of mocking the physical appearances of individual, teen-aged players, on national television is good-natured fun, while a coach’s private comment to his own players about a group of cheerleaders is grounds for persecution. Bringing its hypocrisy full-circle, only weeks ago, the Duke student body, in its Maryland pre-game “cheer card,” (yes, they actually print and circulate such a thing), encouraged the student body to continue to spout cheers and jeers about how ugly they believe Steve Blake to have been.
Beyond the hypocrisy, it is difficult to select the word that best describes the Duke students who attend the school’s home games. Haughty, impudent, smug, egg-headed nerds - all capture elements, but none come close to painting the full descriptive picture. The Washington Post, roughly twenty years ago, coined a useful but dated phrase in labeling the students, “Yuppie Brats.” Still, a full understanding of their detestable
nature can be gathered only through experience, not description.
And yet the sports media, for reasons that baffle, glorify this same group. Led by **** Vitale, who affectionately refers to the student section of Cameron Indoor Stadium as the “Cameron Crazies,” sports telecasters and analysts regularly imply, and often directly state, that the Duke student body is what’s “great” about college basketball. These same commentators credit the students for their creative and clever game rituals, and they seemingly cannot say enough times what a “classy” program Duke is. It’s an insane commentary on students who, as opposing players are introduced, chant such creative phrases as, “Antawn @#%$.” Another Duke trademark is the united chant of “@#%$” in response to any unfavorable official’s call. Before losing to UNC in 1989, the student body, referring to Carolina’s star center J.R. Reid, raised a sign that read, “J.R. Can’t
Reid This.” The same statement was chanted, even though Reid was actually a
quite intelligent and scholastically accomplished student athlete. This is the stuff of class?
Now back to the hypocrisy factor. Dean Smith was badly troubled by the latter incident, which he understandably construed as a racial slur. Because Coach Smith had also recruited two of Duke’s big men, Christian Laettner and Danny Ferry, he coincidentally knew what these players scored on the SAT. In a press conference, he rebutted the crowd’s baseless innuendo by explaining that J.R. Reid and frontcourt mate Scott Williams accomplished a higher combined SAT score than did Laettner and Ferry, both white. Smith took pains to avoid disclosing any specific scores, nor did he provide any
individual comparisons. In response, the same group that slanderously labeled Reid illiterate berated Smith for his audacity in disclosing the completely true, but purportedly “private,” information of its players. Still unconvinced? Consider the case of J.R. Reid’s frontcourt running mate, Scott Williams. By all accounts, a great person, Williams suffered the worst imaginable tragedy when he lost both his parents in a murder-suicide
shooting. Several of the good-natured, creative Dukies responded at the next Duke-UNC game with clever shouts of “Orphan, Orphan!” as Williams was introduced.
Enough said.
II. Coach K.
Why else is Duke despised? No essay on the subject is complete without extensive discussion of the coach. The man who models the haughty demeanor that his players so perfectly emulate is an egotist to no end. This past summer’s experience is a prime example. Krzyzewski was approached by the Los Angeles Lakers and offered a coaching position. Admittedly, the story is worthy of news in the sports world, but what followed was truly absurd. Coach K issued media statements on a daily basis to advise of his intent to continue with his deliberations. Local newscasts actually led with the story throughout the week long affair. At a time when American soldiers were dying daily and a presidential election was but weeks away, news outlets actually led one to believe that
the latest in a series of K’s disingenuous flirtations with the NBA was front page news. Of course, in the end, Krzyzewski did what he has always done: chose to remain at his cherished college post, fully aware that he, like the overwhelming majority of his players, would enjoy zero success at the next level.
The man’s ego is such that it prevents him from ever accepting criticism. Take the 1994-95 season as an example. That was the year that Duke suffered an ignominious record of 13-18. Knowing when to fold them, K sat out the majority of the season, citing an ailing back (or hip or some body part), and delegated head coaching duties to assistant coach Pete Gaudet. Any standup guy would have accepted responsibility for the season that unfolded with his players, at his school, following his game plans. Classy Coach K,
however, insisted that the season’s win-loss record be stricken from his career totals.
And if you think this was an isolated incident, think again. The man is a champion buck passer. When I attended the school during the 1989-92 time period, Duke squeaked by in a couple of regular season games, after which there was some question about the team’s leadership and direction. Always looking for a fall guy, Coach K, in a post-game press
conference, actually turned on his own student body, who, he barked, had grown complacent in its support. “I think we need to understand what the @#%$ is going on here at Duke University,” was one of the quotes. This he said of the same students who camp out for weeks for the chance to support this team with their boorish displays.
This has proven to be a recurring Krzyzewski excuse, one that he resorted to even this year as his students remained as boisterous and obnoxious as ever in their game time antics. No doubt, there is plenty for which to criticize these students, but support of the team is not one. K’s tendency to turn on his fellow vermin is a testament to his amazingly self-centered, one-dimensional mindset.
And let us not forget the man’s tendency to fault game officials for unfair calls - the same officials who regularly enable his team to make more free throws in a season than their opponents are allowed to attempt - more on that later.
III. Media Bias.
The general public’s unawareness of the foregoing is perpetuated by the sports media’s irrational love for anything associated with Duke basketball. For reasons unimaginable, sportscasters, commentators, and writers constantly turn blind eyes to the plethora of reasons to despise the place, all while perpetuating the myths that Coach K and his Cameron Crazies are embodiments of class. Indeed, the media has become so jaded in its bias that it has taken to viewing Duke players as the victims of unfair and undeserved
hostility. A perfect example was aired by ESPN immediately after Duke’s second loss to
Maryland this season. The network devoted a lengthy segment to the subject of how low opposing fans will go to get inside poor JJ Redick’s head. The segment started by showing JJ shooting alone in a quite and dark gym that he considers his quite and comfortable home, the absurd implication being that Duke offers a calm and reverent venue. Next, game clips of rival fans, mostly from Maryland, are shown shouting at Redick. From there, JJ himself, in a sickeningly sanctimonious tone of voice, bemoans the startling comments that he has heard from opposing school’s students and fans. Midway through the piece, Chris Collins, of all people, offers his opinions as to what is
and is not acceptable from a sportsmanship standpoint. The segment ends with JJ reading poetry and scripture, which he explains help him through his tribulations. All of this, mind you, from a player whose supporting student body annually raises the bar for the most despicable courtside conduct in the country. The entire segment was preposterous, yet, at no point, did ESPN even hint at the possible irony.
Well, JJ, to your inspirational book of poetry, please allow me to contribute the following gems of wisdom, which hopefully will further assist you in enduring your life’s toils:
People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. You reap what you sow. What goes around comes around.
As with its misguided adulation of the Duke student body and players, the media for some odd reason goes to absurd extremes to worship Krzyzewski as the ultimate role model. A classic case in point came in the 2001 season. Duke, in a home game against Georgia Tech, runs its lead to 44 points with under a minute to play, due largely to three point shooting that continued long after the game had passed the point of gratuitous humiliation. Finally, as the clock went under thirty seconds, Duke graciously holds the ball for its final possession in lieu of a final field goal attempt. Mike Patrick, in
his annoyingly dogmatic tone of voice, shouts, “Doesn’t that just show what a classy guy Mike Krzyzewski is? He doesn’t want to embarrass anybody.” It was as if the difference between a 44 and 46 point nationally televised drubbing was somehow a magnanimous show of sportsmanship.
The extent to which the media has become blind in its love for this program is astounding. Remember a few seasons ago when Duke came back from ten points down to Maryland in the final minute of play? A great comeback, no doubt, but Mike Patrick once again lost all grips on reality by emphatically stating how it was the most amazing thing he had ever seen. Apparently, Mike missed it when Carolina came back from eight points down in seventeen seconds, with no three-point shot available - against Duke, by the way.
To this day, we are still afflicted with video clips of Christian Laettner’s buzzer beating shot against Kentucky in the 1992 regional finals. Undoubtedly, it will remain firmly etched in the middle of CBS’s road to the final four for perpetuity. And why? A dramatic shot? Sure. But how many more spectacular - and far more significant – tournament shots have there been? How about a freshman named Jordan hitting the game winner in the 1982 National Championship game? N.C. State’s Lorenzo Charles dunking home the championship winner the very next year in one of the great Cinderella stories? Laettner’s shot was good, but please, for the love of Pete, spare us further viewing of this well-worn
piece of film.
IV. Bias of Game Officials.
The media bias, while annoying to be sure, pales in comparison, and significance, to that of the game’s officials. By now, most have heard how Duke’s basketball team has experienced seasons where its players convert more free throws than their opponents attempt. Admittedly, this fact, standing alone, is not necessarily cause for criticism, as smaller and lesser talented teams are more likely to foul their bigger, quicker, more
talented adversaries. In Duke’s case, however, the actual numbers, when viewed in appropriate context, are staggering. In 2000-01, the last championship season, Duke actually attempted 1,002 free throws, compared to its opponents’ 701 attempts.
Think about that statistic for a moment - over one thousand free throws. During that season, Duke players were assessed with 659 fouls; the opposition, 848. The year before, Duke converted on 618 free throws, 81 more than its opponents attempted. Certainly, the foregoing statistics are absurd in themselves, but the issue becomes truly inexplicable when one considers the team’s traditionally aggressive approach to the game. Krzyzewski, remember, shuns the zone defense, insisting instead that his players confront even superior athletes with his signature, hard-nosed man-to-man. By its nature, man-to-man is a more physical defensive style, one that usually generates a higher foul count than the more passive zone alternatives, but somehow not for Duke. Instead, Duke players routinely waltz to the charity stripe at twice the rate of their opponents, all while hacking, slapping, and hand-checking opponents up and down the court.
Remember too that Duke regularly leads the conference in steals and blocked shots - other tell-tale signs of aggressive play - and still enjoys prodigious advantages in foul tallies. Going back to the title year, for example, Duke had 411 steals compared to its opponents’ 282; Duke blocked 196 shots, its opponents, 117. Inside players, meanwhile, feast off of a constant barrage of moving picks and not-so subtle pushes. Danny Ferry, for
example, was allowed to shove his way to better collegiate rebound stats than any number of superior inside players who have subsequently, in pro ball, easily exposed his dearth of true skills.
During the mid-1980’s, an ACC coach anonymously explained Duke’s defensive philosophy as follows: all five defensive players foul all five opposing offensive players at the same time, leaving officials too confused and stunned to respond. Since then, Duke’s impunity has evolved to the point where the game’s rules simply do not apply to the school. Referees absolutely refuse to blow the whistle when Daniel Ewing and Redick push off defenders with their left hands; Duke guards are never penalized for extending their arms laterally to obstruct opposing players’ movements; moving interior screens are simply expected; Shelden Williams swings his elbows into opposing player’s faces throughout games in which he collects a total of 3 personal fouls, (none as a result of his headhunting); Coach K screams himself hoarse with profanity with never a technical called. And who could forget this year’s first UNC-Duke game where K presumptuously ambled onto the court, in the middle of play, to talk strategy with Redick. As Billy Packer himself noted, it was undisputable grounds for a technical foul, but the refs never thought of blowing the whistle.
The foul disparities become more baffling still, when one considers Duke’s prevailing offensive approach. In recent years, Duke has emphasized the three point shot. For roughly the past five seasons, the offensive philosophy reminds one of the 1980s Loyola-Maramount squads as Duke players repeatedly jack up one long-range shot after another. Usually, such a team approach produces low foul counts for the opposition, as outside shooters are rarely fouled. Nevertheless, Duke’s free throw advantage continues unabated, even as JJ Redick runs and guns in a fashion that would make Rick Pitino proud.
Virtually every Duke game is a perfect example of the favoritism the players receive, but this year’s classic case study has to be the first of the Duke — Virginia Tech games. Played at Duke, the game began with Shelden Williams driving his elbow at freshman center Deron Washington’s head, causing him to hit the deck. No foul was called, Williams scored an uncontested first two points of the game, and the tone was set. Throughout the game, Williams pushed, elbowed, and bullied his way through VT’s younger frontcourt players, with officials doing nothing. In the same game, however,
the officials whistled an astounding thirty-four team fouls on Virginia Tech, many of which would have gone uncalled in a church league game. An amazing twenty-two fouls — nearly enough to foul out four players – were called in the first half alone. Not surprisingly, Duke won the game by 35 points, 30 of which were scored from the foul line. In an interesting contrast, when the same two teams met only weeks later in Blacksburg, the team foul tallies were essentially even. The result? A Virginia Tech win,
(after which JJ Redick’s father complained publicly about the student body’s
poor sportsmanship.)
To make matters worse, during the first game, the Duke students began chanting, “Please stop fouling,” as if Tech was attempting to have its entire team disqualified. As the son of a V.M.I. graduate, I have no love for Virginia Tech, but could there be a greater example of the absurd lengths to which officials go with their favoritism?
A. The Duke Flop.
A principal reason for the disparity in foul totals is the outrageous manner in which game officials apply the ever-subjective offensive foul rule. You know the scenario: An opposing player blows by a slower Duke defender while being closely guarded thirty feet from the basket. As the player races to the hoop for a lay-up, another Duke player jumps into his path, often while the offensive player is in the air, deliberately causing a dangerous collision near the basket. The late arriving defender falls over backwards, arms flailing, with a melodramatic shriek. As sure as the sun sets in the West, one of the three game referees will run to the scene, often from far out of position, hand clasped behind his head, whistle sounding loudly, all with Krzyzewski’s pumping fist signaling his approval in the background. Of course, when the opposition attempts to return the
favor, the call is just as surely a block or, at best, a no call.
While many times the Duke player accomplishes his goal of creating a violent collision, any given game brings several additional defensive “plays” in which a Duke defender drops to the floor when his opponent so much as breathes on him. The Duke team is so thoroughly trained to resort to this regularly rewarded tactic that it is common so see them fall anywhere on the court - near the basket, at mid-court, in the backcourt, sometimes while the offensive player is simply dribbling laterally, making no effort to move towards the basket. During the closing seconds of its last loss to Maryland,
for instance, a Duke defender actually flopped beneath Maryland’s defensive
goal on an inbounds play. It seems only a matter of time before a Duke player is awarded a charge call for taking a seat at the scorer’s table. Any time is a good time for a Duke defender to dive under the feet of an offensive player in an effort to manufacture offensive fouls.
This patented “Duke flop” is without doubt the most maddening innovation of the Coach K era, (with his players’ tendency to slap the floor at midcourt in a purported show of defensive solidarity running a close second). Over the course of an average game, the Duke opponent sees five to six baskets, or ten to twelve points (fifteen to eighteen if we count the three-point play that should have resulted), erased by this grossly one-sided call. Duke, meanwhile, receives an additional five to six free throws as opponents
are regularly whistled for blocks. Year after year, legendary athletes, from Jordan to Bias to Duncan to Carter, are unfairly handicapped by the spectrum of inferior Duke players jumping into their paths and flopping backwards, even if contact is avoided. Indeed, it is not unusual for slow-motion replays to show Duke defenders beginning their staged falls, before, occasionally in the total absence of, actual contact. Much to the chagrin of flop-leader Shane Battier, it was because of this infuriating nonsense that the NBA actually amended its rules to prohibit offensive fouls from being called as the result of charges within five feet of the basket. And for great reason: games should not turn on the basis of
inferior athletes deliberately diving into an opposing player’s path in order to manufacture an offensive foul call. This is not basketball. It breaks the flow of any game, angers fans, and endangers athletes. In a broader sense, it perverts the game by shaving points from opposing teams’ scores while simultaneously saddling their players with fouls that should never be charged.
B. Bastardizing Game Effects of Pro-Duke Officiating.
Think the officials’ bias is inconsequential or overstated? Think again. While the numbers themselves tell the story, decades of history provide extensive anecdotal evidence of the college ref’s embellishing impact. How many of the all time Duke basketball greats promptly proceeded to fizzle at the next level where game rules are actually enforced in an unbiased manner and where defenders must actually defend their opponents? Mark Alarie, Johnny Dawkins, David Henderson, Billy King, Robert Brickey, Phil Henderson,
Kevin Strickland, Danny Ferry, Alaa Abdelnaby, Brian Davis, Antonio Lang, Cherokee Parks, William Avery, Shane Battier, Dahntay Jones, Chris Carawell, Mike Dunleavy — the list is seemingly endless. Past Duke rosters read like a “Who’s Who?” of professional basketball jokes, most of whom are quickly shipped out to European leagues because of their inability to make it in the NBA. With the sole exceptions of Grant Hill (on those rare seasons when he does not - like his college mentor — sit out entire seasons for injuries), Elton Brand, and Carlos Boozer, it would be fair to say that every Coach K
era Duke basketball star has, at the pro level, either completely failed or substantially under performed vis-à-vis his college record, with Danny Ferry perhaps best symbolizing the stuff of the Duke basketball reality check.
Even all-time media darling Christian Laettner has unwittingly exposed the extent to which his collegiate success depended upon Coach K’s striped worshipers. Laettner’s career NBA numbers (12.7 points, 6.7 rebounds per game) are reasonably respectable, even if accumulated while being traded more frequently than Krzyzewski’s hair dye schedule. However, his career, which includes but a single All-Star game, falls far short of the greatness that hoops analysts projected on the basis of his golden boy college years. And does anyone seriously believe that the trend of pro duds will end with
JJ Redick and Randolph Shavlick?
Compare the post-collegiate accomplishments of the following UNC grads from the same time period: Michael Jordan, James Worthy, Sam Perkins, Brad Daugherty, Kenny Smith, Jerry Stackhouse, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Jameson, Vince Carter. The group has collected enough NBA rings, All-Star appearances, and MVP awards to fill the Dean Dome. Nevertheless, each of these players, with the possible exception of Worthy, who went pro before Krzyzewski was given his sainthood status, struggled against the one-sided neutralizing effect of the collegiate officials.
Other absurd examples of the Duke flop’s bastardizing effect on the game abound. When I attended Duke, for example, the student body rejoiced as Christian Laettner actually got the better of a vaunted LSU center named Shaquille O’Neal. Two seasons earlier, Christian finished with better numbers than Alonzo Mourning. These unfathomable outcomes were all due to the inane manner with which the college official favors Duke above any other team.
The mystery to all of this is why college refs would show such transparent favoritism to a program of haughty whiners. Remember Phil Henderson’s publicized mid-season tirade about Lenny Wirtz? How about Krzyzewski’s tendency to hold mid-court tantrums, replete with profanity, any time his team falls behind in a game? Just last season, the man experienced a seemingly endless meltdown, which would have made any spoiled three year-old envious, as his team lost at home to Georgia Tech. Who could forget K’s
Classless screaming to refs “you killed us” after his team’s 2004 semifinal loss to UConn. Or Matt Christiansen physically accosting a referee in the aftermath of an earlier Duke tournament loss, only to be recognized weeks later by Coach K as the player who most exemplifies Duke basketball. And still the refs treat these spoiled louts as if they were their own fair-haired children. At any rate, it is because of the Duke players’ inability to adjust to the shock of objectively enforced rules that so many fail in the NBA, and in
Europe (e.g., Casey Saunders’ cut by a Swedish team), and quickly return - where else - to Duke to rejoin Coach K as an assistant coach. Any given year brings us a team of real world flops who take on the role of assistant coach. Currently, two of Duke’s more obnoxious alumni - Chris Collins and Steve Wojokowski - join Johnny Dawkins in this capacity. Others, such as Tommy Amaker, Quinn Snyder, David Henderson, have found homes as equally underachieving college head coaches.
V. The Fans.
No essay on the subject can be complete without discussion of the mindless Duke fan base that has emerged over the past decade or so. As distinguished from the obnoxious student body that at least has a reason to support the team, these are the fair-weather fans who simply root for whichever team enjoys a winning tradition at a given point in time. They are the folks we see in four-wheel drives donning Blue Devil baseball caps and championship bumper stickers. Neither the Duke fan nor his close friends or family
members attended Duke, but they have all purchased Blue Devil apparel from a Durham County Wal-Mart.
Unheard of during Krzyzewski’s early years, this growing collection of gullible dupes also buys into the media’s misplaced love for Duke by believing that the program and its coach are class unmatched. Most of the fans are North Carolinians, who, perhaps not unreasonably, assume that the school’s central state location is reason enough to justify an allegiance to it. Because the Blue Devil fan has no firsthand experience with the school,
he has no idea that the vast majority of the student body is imported, with a large percentage comprising smug Northeastern carpetbaggers who constantly mock North Carolina and its native residents. The Duke fan honestly believes that Mike Krzyzewski is handsome and marvels at his ability to coach ACC basketball for a quarter of a century without sprouting a single grey hair.
VI. The players.
Without question, one could compose a lengthy book on the subject of despicable Duke players. It’s far easier to identify the few who do not turn our stomachs. I, for example, generally had no problems with the starting five of K’s first final four team, (although Michael Jordan wannabe David Henderson bordered on the annoying). I later met Jay Bilas, a law school classmate of mine, and he is definitely a likeable guy - I’d even agree with classy. My sense was that Mark Alarie, Johnny Dawkins, (while he was a player anyway), and Tommy Amaker were similarly unobjectionable. But aside from this small group, the roster from any of the Krzyzewski era teams reads like an historical survey of all-time NCAA tools. The list is so inexhaustible that it is necessary to discuss the most hated Duke players by categories. First is what I describe as the Wojo prototype. Usually two to three on any Duke team, this is the player with average to below-average skills who, after ANY made basket, runs down the court with arms fully extended at his side, fists clutched, brows furrowed, and garbage effusing from a mouth opened as wide as humanly possible. The facial expression is a cross between that of a trash-talking punk and a toddler in mid temper-tantrum. The prototype was perhaps perfected by two of the
current assistant coaches, Steve Wojokowski and Chris Collins, with the current representatives being JJ Redick and, my favorite, Lee Melchionni. In an effort to put a favorable spin on these clearly detestable players, basketball commentators developed a euphemism for this particular type of Krzyzewski-bred jerk: “the emotional leader of the team.”
Admittedly, other schools occasionally have players of the Wojo mold: former N.C. State player Chris Corchiani and current Maryland swingman Nick Caner-Medley come to mind. But no other school has ever put forward such a consistent and unending string of infuriating tools. In addition to the previously mentioned annoying gnats, we’ve seen Danny Ferry, Quinn Snyder, Bobby Hurley, Greg Koubek, Thomas Hill, Brian Davis, Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, Cherokee Parks, and a herd of other past and present players gallop down the court with that same smug look. I have no doubt that the reason Wojo himself was plucked from the radio booth and given the honor of an assistant coach position was his ability to mentor current Duke students in mastering the nuances of this prickly player profile.
Next, we have the Dahntay prototype. Named for Dahntay Jones, this player is a master of unabashed thuggery. He regularly resorts to dangerous, flagrant fouls, the majority of which are somehow never called. You may, for example, recall Dahntay himself striking Raymond Felton with a vicious elbow to the face during Felton’s freshman year.
No foul was called, (but the referees did order Felton out of the game until his bleeding was stopped.) This “accidental” contact, incidentally, occurred almost a year after Jones broke the jaw of Wake Forest forward Justin Gray. The Dahntay prototype is physically what Krzyzewski is verbally: an out-of-control absurdity who gets a season long free pass from game officials and a blind eye from the media. Other classic examples of these elbow-throwing, cheap shot artists include Danny Ferry, Greg Newton, Elton Brand, Matt Christianson, Casey Saunders, and, of course, Shelden Williams. Then there is the Duhon prototype. A long-time Duke tradition, virtually every player from Danny Ferry forward fits this mold: haughty, smug, pompous players who look as though everyone around them is an untouchable piece of garbage. A further reflection of the coach, the best
examples here often unfold off court. A few years back, for instance, Carlos Boozer left an ACC tournament game after being called for a foul. Unbeknownst to him, the camera followed as he sat on the bench, arrogantly staring forward. A water boy immediately stepped behind him and touched his shoulder with a cup of Gatorade, apparently forbidden from speaking to him. Boozer simply stared forward for a good twenty seconds, to good to say, “No thank you,” or to even shake his head. Dahntay Jones’ impromptu set of pushups in front of the television camera immediately after a dunk against UVA is another good example. I mentioned earlier Duhon’s smug proclamation
that all other ACC schools simply compete for second place. Another great illustration is the prevailing tendency of Duke players to whine about the cruel manner with which opposing fans treat them, as if nothing short of homage is expected. But, above all, it is the unmistakable look of unadulterated conceit that has made the following illustrative players so easy to despise: Phil Henderson, Grant Hill, Brian Davis, Christian Laettner, Elton Brand, JJ Redick, Daniel Ewing, and, of course, Chris Duhon himself. The aforementioned Wojo and Collins, of course, also cross over into this list.
All of the foregoing prototypes are the direct results of Krzyzewski’s two-faced approach to the game. The saddest aspect of it all is the manner with which the K factor can convert even normal human beings into detestable *****. A case in point is Johnny Dawkins. As remarked earlier, I personally had few problems with this guy as a player. He struck me as a solid, overachieving player with a great shot and a vertical leap I could only dream of; a respectable counterpart to UNC’s Kenny Smith. But, oh, how Things changed as the man morphed into a Krzyzewski clown, uh, clone. These days, every time the camera shows “Coach Dawkins,” he has that foul, contemptuous, chip-on-the-shoulder scowl permanently etched on his face, the look of a man so conceited that he resents even being required to prove his superiority.
VII. The Place is PHONY.
As the extensive evidence of Duke hypocrisy suggests, Duke, its students, players, fans, and coaches, are a bit on the disingenuous side. And yet few people appreciate that the school is fake to its core. I still recall my orientation during which a second year law student took us on a short tour of the west campus. As we walked between the gothic
buildings, she explained the school’s origin by advising that James B. Duke had a love affair for Princeton University. He actually tried to buy the place, but Princeton was not looking to sell. After being rebuffed, Mr. Duke decided he would build his own Princeton. Hence, stone-carved gothic architecture was added to what was then Trinity
College.
Additional efforts were taken to cause the twentieth century buildings to appear much older than they are, our guide explained. For example, acid was placed on the stairs in order to cause them to have a time worn appearance. I couldn’t believe Duke wanted to publicize this history, but it confirmed what I already suspected: that Duke, from its inception, has tried to be something that it is not.
No one epitomizes this phony tradition better than Coach K. From his jet-black dyed hair, to his hypocritical attempts to paint himself as a model citizen, K nauseates me each and every fall. Indeed, he ascends to new zeniths of abhorrence each year as he does things like star in American Express commercials in which he claims an interest in helping players develop as human beings.
If the man were simply a boorish lout, I would not take as strong an offense to him. Bobby Knight, for instance, is about as foul mannered as they come, but he doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not. Ditto for Gary Williams, John Cheney, and other coaches who are rough along the edges but first to admit it. Only K, and his disciples, go through life as obscene, self-centered, smug, haughty jerks while pretending to be the sport’s Snow White.
VIII. Obstinate Refusal to Accept/Act Upon Constructive Criticism.
Last but far from least, we loathe Duke University because its arrogance prohibits it from recognizing and correcting its most serious deficiencies. What other explanation can there be for the fact that Duke has still, without a doubt, the absolute, number one, undisputed, UGLIEST cheerleaders in the ACC?
The best part is, not one ounce of this article can be refuted. It is 100% truth.
Mike Krzyzewski and his players don’t understand the antipathy. They know
it’s out there, but they truly don’t know why. Fans of all schools love to hate Duke, with growing enthusiasm it seems, and the trend is baffling the great coach to no end.
Truly, it is difficult to accept that a group of purportedly intelligent persons could at once be so repugnant yet oblivious to the intentional impudence that makes them so. However, I suppose it is possible to be so steeped in conceit and self-righteousness as to become blind to one’s own flaws.
At any rate, as a lifelong basketball fan, and as a graduate of both the University of North Carolina and the Duke University School of Law, I feel infinitely qualified to allay the consternation. Although many writers, in piecemeal fashion, occasionally opine as to isolated reasons behind the ABD (”anybody but Duke”) movement, I am aware of no comprehensive piece that fully enumerates the multitude of interrelated reasons why this basketball program is loathed so intensely by so many. I will attempt to do so herein.
I. The Duke Persona.
First is the persona shared by the coach, his team, and the supporting student body. A rarely seen blend of obscene arrogance and shameless hypocrisy is the cornerstone of Duke basketball. Whether it is Christian Laettner wagging his tongue after a lay-up, Brian Davis tauntingly skipping across the floor after a break away dunk, or Chris Duhon matter-of-factly stating that all other ACC teams simply compete for second place in the annual conference tournament, (ironically said before Maryland defeated Duke for last year’s title), the rank conceit and condescension are insufferable.
As for the equally unrelenting hypocrisy, examples abound year after year.
In every close game, for instance, Coach K spews profanities at game officials for the extremely rare call against his team, while, at the same time, starring in a television commercial promoting the importance of good sportsmanship. Admittedly, his boorish behavior gets results, as every ACC official seems to react to each outburst by calling an offensive foul against the opposition at the next possible opportunity. Nevertheless, Krzyzewski, unabashed and blind to his hypocrisy, stated during last year’s ACC tournament that nothing is gained from working the officials, and it is therefore something that he does not do.
The language this coach spouts is truly appalling, even by competitive sports standards, yet the media anointed him to sainthood status long ago. Gary Williams shouts game profanities with similar regularity and is understandably criticized by the media for doing so. Bobby Knight is similarly blasted for his well-publicized misconduct. And yet Coach K – a Knight disciple by the way - is not only given a free pass but worshiped as the great gentleman - “an officer and a gentleman” as one commentator said during a game break last year. Somehow the media equates the man with class, when, in reality, he is two letters removed from the word. Duke students and fans similarly experience difficulty with consistency. As all basketball fans know, the student body is legendary for its efforts to humiliate opposing players. They, for example, threw snack cakes at Dennis Scott because he once had a weight problem; they dressed as Frankenstein in an Eric Montross replica jersey; they named an “All Acne Team” of opposing players and further named Mike O’Koren the Oxy 10 poster boy; record albums were thrown at an N.C. State player accused of stealing a stereo; Maryland forward Herman Veal was showered with condoms and women’s panties after being accused of sexual misconduct, (a charge of which he was exonerated); Steve Francis received a serenade of “SAT” because of academic struggles. The list goes on and on. All of these stunts, mind you, were performed on regional, often national, television - the better to publicize the “creative genius” of the Duke student body. In the face of this churlish history, J.J. Redick, last season, complained of opposing fans’ insensitivity towards Duke players. “Just from this year,” he whined, “there have been so many incidents from other team’s fans, saying rude and crude remarks to us.” Which is the more amazing: that Redick would be surprised/troubled by opposing fans’ comments or that he would show the temerity to complain of the perceived unfairness publicly?
Only a few years earlier, during Matt Doherty’s first year as UNC head coach, Doherty concluded a closed team huddle, in a raucous environment where his team struggled to hear his words, with the statement, “Duke still has the ugliest cheerleaders in the ACC.”
Somehow word of this statement reached the media, whereupon the Duke students and alumni immediately exploded in outrage. How, they asked, could a coach utter such a callous remark? Surely such insensitivity could not be tolerated, they said. Unbelievable, but true. Somehow, in the Duke mindset, a half-century of mocking the physical appearances of individual, teen-aged players, on national television is good-natured fun, while a coach’s private comment to his own players about a group of cheerleaders is grounds for persecution. Bringing its hypocrisy full-circle, only weeks ago, the Duke student body, in its Maryland pre-game “cheer card,” (yes, they actually print and circulate such a thing), encouraged the student body to continue to spout cheers and jeers about how ugly they believe Steve Blake to have been.
Beyond the hypocrisy, it is difficult to select the word that best describes the Duke students who attend the school’s home games. Haughty, impudent, smug, egg-headed nerds - all capture elements, but none come close to painting the full descriptive picture. The Washington Post, roughly twenty years ago, coined a useful but dated phrase in labeling the students, “Yuppie Brats.” Still, a full understanding of their detestable
nature can be gathered only through experience, not description.
And yet the sports media, for reasons that baffle, glorify this same group. Led by **** Vitale, who affectionately refers to the student section of Cameron Indoor Stadium as the “Cameron Crazies,” sports telecasters and analysts regularly imply, and often directly state, that the Duke student body is what’s “great” about college basketball. These same commentators credit the students for their creative and clever game rituals, and they seemingly cannot say enough times what a “classy” program Duke is. It’s an insane commentary on students who, as opposing players are introduced, chant such creative phrases as, “Antawn @#%$.” Another Duke trademark is the united chant of “@#%$” in response to any unfavorable official’s call. Before losing to UNC in 1989, the student body, referring to Carolina’s star center J.R. Reid, raised a sign that read, “J.R. Can’t
Reid This.” The same statement was chanted, even though Reid was actually a
quite intelligent and scholastically accomplished student athlete. This is the stuff of class?
Now back to the hypocrisy factor. Dean Smith was badly troubled by the latter incident, which he understandably construed as a racial slur. Because Coach Smith had also recruited two of Duke’s big men, Christian Laettner and Danny Ferry, he coincidentally knew what these players scored on the SAT. In a press conference, he rebutted the crowd’s baseless innuendo by explaining that J.R. Reid and frontcourt mate Scott Williams accomplished a higher combined SAT score than did Laettner and Ferry, both white. Smith took pains to avoid disclosing any specific scores, nor did he provide any
individual comparisons. In response, the same group that slanderously labeled Reid illiterate berated Smith for his audacity in disclosing the completely true, but purportedly “private,” information of its players. Still unconvinced? Consider the case of J.R. Reid’s frontcourt running mate, Scott Williams. By all accounts, a great person, Williams suffered the worst imaginable tragedy when he lost both his parents in a murder-suicide
shooting. Several of the good-natured, creative Dukies responded at the next Duke-UNC game with clever shouts of “Orphan, Orphan!” as Williams was introduced.
Enough said.
II. Coach K.
Why else is Duke despised? No essay on the subject is complete without extensive discussion of the coach. The man who models the haughty demeanor that his players so perfectly emulate is an egotist to no end. This past summer’s experience is a prime example. Krzyzewski was approached by the Los Angeles Lakers and offered a coaching position. Admittedly, the story is worthy of news in the sports world, but what followed was truly absurd. Coach K issued media statements on a daily basis to advise of his intent to continue with his deliberations. Local newscasts actually led with the story throughout the week long affair. At a time when American soldiers were dying daily and a presidential election was but weeks away, news outlets actually led one to believe that
the latest in a series of K’s disingenuous flirtations with the NBA was front page news. Of course, in the end, Krzyzewski did what he has always done: chose to remain at his cherished college post, fully aware that he, like the overwhelming majority of his players, would enjoy zero success at the next level.
The man’s ego is such that it prevents him from ever accepting criticism. Take the 1994-95 season as an example. That was the year that Duke suffered an ignominious record of 13-18. Knowing when to fold them, K sat out the majority of the season, citing an ailing back (or hip or some body part), and delegated head coaching duties to assistant coach Pete Gaudet. Any standup guy would have accepted responsibility for the season that unfolded with his players, at his school, following his game plans. Classy Coach K,
however, insisted that the season’s win-loss record be stricken from his career totals.
And if you think this was an isolated incident, think again. The man is a champion buck passer. When I attended the school during the 1989-92 time period, Duke squeaked by in a couple of regular season games, after which there was some question about the team’s leadership and direction. Always looking for a fall guy, Coach K, in a post-game press
conference, actually turned on his own student body, who, he barked, had grown complacent in its support. “I think we need to understand what the @#%$ is going on here at Duke University,” was one of the quotes. This he said of the same students who camp out for weeks for the chance to support this team with their boorish displays.
This has proven to be a recurring Krzyzewski excuse, one that he resorted to even this year as his students remained as boisterous and obnoxious as ever in their game time antics. No doubt, there is plenty for which to criticize these students, but support of the team is not one. K’s tendency to turn on his fellow vermin is a testament to his amazingly self-centered, one-dimensional mindset.
And let us not forget the man’s tendency to fault game officials for unfair calls - the same officials who regularly enable his team to make more free throws in a season than their opponents are allowed to attempt - more on that later.
III. Media Bias.
The general public’s unawareness of the foregoing is perpetuated by the sports media’s irrational love for anything associated with Duke basketball. For reasons unimaginable, sportscasters, commentators, and writers constantly turn blind eyes to the plethora of reasons to despise the place, all while perpetuating the myths that Coach K and his Cameron Crazies are embodiments of class. Indeed, the media has become so jaded in its bias that it has taken to viewing Duke players as the victims of unfair and undeserved
hostility. A perfect example was aired by ESPN immediately after Duke’s second loss to
Maryland this season. The network devoted a lengthy segment to the subject of how low opposing fans will go to get inside poor JJ Redick’s head. The segment started by showing JJ shooting alone in a quite and dark gym that he considers his quite and comfortable home, the absurd implication being that Duke offers a calm and reverent venue. Next, game clips of rival fans, mostly from Maryland, are shown shouting at Redick. From there, JJ himself, in a sickeningly sanctimonious tone of voice, bemoans the startling comments that he has heard from opposing school’s students and fans. Midway through the piece, Chris Collins, of all people, offers his opinions as to what is
and is not acceptable from a sportsmanship standpoint. The segment ends with JJ reading poetry and scripture, which he explains help him through his tribulations. All of this, mind you, from a player whose supporting student body annually raises the bar for the most despicable courtside conduct in the country. The entire segment was preposterous, yet, at no point, did ESPN even hint at the possible irony.
Well, JJ, to your inspirational book of poetry, please allow me to contribute the following gems of wisdom, which hopefully will further assist you in enduring your life’s toils:
People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. You reap what you sow. What goes around comes around.
As with its misguided adulation of the Duke student body and players, the media for some odd reason goes to absurd extremes to worship Krzyzewski as the ultimate role model. A classic case in point came in the 2001 season. Duke, in a home game against Georgia Tech, runs its lead to 44 points with under a minute to play, due largely to three point shooting that continued long after the game had passed the point of gratuitous humiliation. Finally, as the clock went under thirty seconds, Duke graciously holds the ball for its final possession in lieu of a final field goal attempt. Mike Patrick, in
his annoyingly dogmatic tone of voice, shouts, “Doesn’t that just show what a classy guy Mike Krzyzewski is? He doesn’t want to embarrass anybody.” It was as if the difference between a 44 and 46 point nationally televised drubbing was somehow a magnanimous show of sportsmanship.
The extent to which the media has become blind in its love for this program is astounding. Remember a few seasons ago when Duke came back from ten points down to Maryland in the final minute of play? A great comeback, no doubt, but Mike Patrick once again lost all grips on reality by emphatically stating how it was the most amazing thing he had ever seen. Apparently, Mike missed it when Carolina came back from eight points down in seventeen seconds, with no three-point shot available - against Duke, by the way.
To this day, we are still afflicted with video clips of Christian Laettner’s buzzer beating shot against Kentucky in the 1992 regional finals. Undoubtedly, it will remain firmly etched in the middle of CBS’s road to the final four for perpetuity. And why? A dramatic shot? Sure. But how many more spectacular - and far more significant – tournament shots have there been? How about a freshman named Jordan hitting the game winner in the 1982 National Championship game? N.C. State’s Lorenzo Charles dunking home the championship winner the very next year in one of the great Cinderella stories? Laettner’s shot was good, but please, for the love of Pete, spare us further viewing of this well-worn
piece of film.
IV. Bias of Game Officials.
The media bias, while annoying to be sure, pales in comparison, and significance, to that of the game’s officials. By now, most have heard how Duke’s basketball team has experienced seasons where its players convert more free throws than their opponents attempt. Admittedly, this fact, standing alone, is not necessarily cause for criticism, as smaller and lesser talented teams are more likely to foul their bigger, quicker, more
talented adversaries. In Duke’s case, however, the actual numbers, when viewed in appropriate context, are staggering. In 2000-01, the last championship season, Duke actually attempted 1,002 free throws, compared to its opponents’ 701 attempts.
Think about that statistic for a moment - over one thousand free throws. During that season, Duke players were assessed with 659 fouls; the opposition, 848. The year before, Duke converted on 618 free throws, 81 more than its opponents attempted. Certainly, the foregoing statistics are absurd in themselves, but the issue becomes truly inexplicable when one considers the team’s traditionally aggressive approach to the game. Krzyzewski, remember, shuns the zone defense, insisting instead that his players confront even superior athletes with his signature, hard-nosed man-to-man. By its nature, man-to-man is a more physical defensive style, one that usually generates a higher foul count than the more passive zone alternatives, but somehow not for Duke. Instead, Duke players routinely waltz to the charity stripe at twice the rate of their opponents, all while hacking, slapping, and hand-checking opponents up and down the court.
Remember too that Duke regularly leads the conference in steals and blocked shots - other tell-tale signs of aggressive play - and still enjoys prodigious advantages in foul tallies. Going back to the title year, for example, Duke had 411 steals compared to its opponents’ 282; Duke blocked 196 shots, its opponents, 117. Inside players, meanwhile, feast off of a constant barrage of moving picks and not-so subtle pushes. Danny Ferry, for
example, was allowed to shove his way to better collegiate rebound stats than any number of superior inside players who have subsequently, in pro ball, easily exposed his dearth of true skills.
During the mid-1980’s, an ACC coach anonymously explained Duke’s defensive philosophy as follows: all five defensive players foul all five opposing offensive players at the same time, leaving officials too confused and stunned to respond. Since then, Duke’s impunity has evolved to the point where the game’s rules simply do not apply to the school. Referees absolutely refuse to blow the whistle when Daniel Ewing and Redick push off defenders with their left hands; Duke guards are never penalized for extending their arms laterally to obstruct opposing players’ movements; moving interior screens are simply expected; Shelden Williams swings his elbows into opposing player’s faces throughout games in which he collects a total of 3 personal fouls, (none as a result of his headhunting); Coach K screams himself hoarse with profanity with never a technical called. And who could forget this year’s first UNC-Duke game where K presumptuously ambled onto the court, in the middle of play, to talk strategy with Redick. As Billy Packer himself noted, it was undisputable grounds for a technical foul, but the refs never thought of blowing the whistle.
The foul disparities become more baffling still, when one considers Duke’s prevailing offensive approach. In recent years, Duke has emphasized the three point shot. For roughly the past five seasons, the offensive philosophy reminds one of the 1980s Loyola-Maramount squads as Duke players repeatedly jack up one long-range shot after another. Usually, such a team approach produces low foul counts for the opposition, as outside shooters are rarely fouled. Nevertheless, Duke’s free throw advantage continues unabated, even as JJ Redick runs and guns in a fashion that would make Rick Pitino proud.
Virtually every Duke game is a perfect example of the favoritism the players receive, but this year’s classic case study has to be the first of the Duke — Virginia Tech games. Played at Duke, the game began with Shelden Williams driving his elbow at freshman center Deron Washington’s head, causing him to hit the deck. No foul was called, Williams scored an uncontested first two points of the game, and the tone was set. Throughout the game, Williams pushed, elbowed, and bullied his way through VT’s younger frontcourt players, with officials doing nothing. In the same game, however,
the officials whistled an astounding thirty-four team fouls on Virginia Tech, many of which would have gone uncalled in a church league game. An amazing twenty-two fouls — nearly enough to foul out four players – were called in the first half alone. Not surprisingly, Duke won the game by 35 points, 30 of which were scored from the foul line. In an interesting contrast, when the same two teams met only weeks later in Blacksburg, the team foul tallies were essentially even. The result? A Virginia Tech win,
(after which JJ Redick’s father complained publicly about the student body’s
poor sportsmanship.)
To make matters worse, during the first game, the Duke students began chanting, “Please stop fouling,” as if Tech was attempting to have its entire team disqualified. As the son of a V.M.I. graduate, I have no love for Virginia Tech, but could there be a greater example of the absurd lengths to which officials go with their favoritism?
A. The Duke Flop.
A principal reason for the disparity in foul totals is the outrageous manner in which game officials apply the ever-subjective offensive foul rule. You know the scenario: An opposing player blows by a slower Duke defender while being closely guarded thirty feet from the basket. As the player races to the hoop for a lay-up, another Duke player jumps into his path, often while the offensive player is in the air, deliberately causing a dangerous collision near the basket. The late arriving defender falls over backwards, arms flailing, with a melodramatic shriek. As sure as the sun sets in the West, one of the three game referees will run to the scene, often from far out of position, hand clasped behind his head, whistle sounding loudly, all with Krzyzewski’s pumping fist signaling his approval in the background. Of course, when the opposition attempts to return the
favor, the call is just as surely a block or, at best, a no call.
While many times the Duke player accomplishes his goal of creating a violent collision, any given game brings several additional defensive “plays” in which a Duke defender drops to the floor when his opponent so much as breathes on him. The Duke team is so thoroughly trained to resort to this regularly rewarded tactic that it is common so see them fall anywhere on the court - near the basket, at mid-court, in the backcourt, sometimes while the offensive player is simply dribbling laterally, making no effort to move towards the basket. During the closing seconds of its last loss to Maryland,
for instance, a Duke defender actually flopped beneath Maryland’s defensive
goal on an inbounds play. It seems only a matter of time before a Duke player is awarded a charge call for taking a seat at the scorer’s table. Any time is a good time for a Duke defender to dive under the feet of an offensive player in an effort to manufacture offensive fouls.
This patented “Duke flop” is without doubt the most maddening innovation of the Coach K era, (with his players’ tendency to slap the floor at midcourt in a purported show of defensive solidarity running a close second). Over the course of an average game, the Duke opponent sees five to six baskets, or ten to twelve points (fifteen to eighteen if we count the three-point play that should have resulted), erased by this grossly one-sided call. Duke, meanwhile, receives an additional five to six free throws as opponents
are regularly whistled for blocks. Year after year, legendary athletes, from Jordan to Bias to Duncan to Carter, are unfairly handicapped by the spectrum of inferior Duke players jumping into their paths and flopping backwards, even if contact is avoided. Indeed, it is not unusual for slow-motion replays to show Duke defenders beginning their staged falls, before, occasionally in the total absence of, actual contact. Much to the chagrin of flop-leader Shane Battier, it was because of this infuriating nonsense that the NBA actually amended its rules to prohibit offensive fouls from being called as the result of charges within five feet of the basket. And for great reason: games should not turn on the basis of
inferior athletes deliberately diving into an opposing player’s path in order to manufacture an offensive foul call. This is not basketball. It breaks the flow of any game, angers fans, and endangers athletes. In a broader sense, it perverts the game by shaving points from opposing teams’ scores while simultaneously saddling their players with fouls that should never be charged.
B. Bastardizing Game Effects of Pro-Duke Officiating.
Think the officials’ bias is inconsequential or overstated? Think again. While the numbers themselves tell the story, decades of history provide extensive anecdotal evidence of the college ref’s embellishing impact. How many of the all time Duke basketball greats promptly proceeded to fizzle at the next level where game rules are actually enforced in an unbiased manner and where defenders must actually defend their opponents? Mark Alarie, Johnny Dawkins, David Henderson, Billy King, Robert Brickey, Phil Henderson,
Kevin Strickland, Danny Ferry, Alaa Abdelnaby, Brian Davis, Antonio Lang, Cherokee Parks, William Avery, Shane Battier, Dahntay Jones, Chris Carawell, Mike Dunleavy — the list is seemingly endless. Past Duke rosters read like a “Who’s Who?” of professional basketball jokes, most of whom are quickly shipped out to European leagues because of their inability to make it in the NBA. With the sole exceptions of Grant Hill (on those rare seasons when he does not - like his college mentor — sit out entire seasons for injuries), Elton Brand, and Carlos Boozer, it would be fair to say that every Coach K
era Duke basketball star has, at the pro level, either completely failed or substantially under performed vis-à-vis his college record, with Danny Ferry perhaps best symbolizing the stuff of the Duke basketball reality check.
Even all-time media darling Christian Laettner has unwittingly exposed the extent to which his collegiate success depended upon Coach K’s striped worshipers. Laettner’s career NBA numbers (12.7 points, 6.7 rebounds per game) are reasonably respectable, even if accumulated while being traded more frequently than Krzyzewski’s hair dye schedule. However, his career, which includes but a single All-Star game, falls far short of the greatness that hoops analysts projected on the basis of his golden boy college years. And does anyone seriously believe that the trend of pro duds will end with
JJ Redick and Randolph Shavlick?
Compare the post-collegiate accomplishments of the following UNC grads from the same time period: Michael Jordan, James Worthy, Sam Perkins, Brad Daugherty, Kenny Smith, Jerry Stackhouse, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Jameson, Vince Carter. The group has collected enough NBA rings, All-Star appearances, and MVP awards to fill the Dean Dome. Nevertheless, each of these players, with the possible exception of Worthy, who went pro before Krzyzewski was given his sainthood status, struggled against the one-sided neutralizing effect of the collegiate officials.
Other absurd examples of the Duke flop’s bastardizing effect on the game abound. When I attended Duke, for example, the student body rejoiced as Christian Laettner actually got the better of a vaunted LSU center named Shaquille O’Neal. Two seasons earlier, Christian finished with better numbers than Alonzo Mourning. These unfathomable outcomes were all due to the inane manner with which the college official favors Duke above any other team.
The mystery to all of this is why college refs would show such transparent favoritism to a program of haughty whiners. Remember Phil Henderson’s publicized mid-season tirade about Lenny Wirtz? How about Krzyzewski’s tendency to hold mid-court tantrums, replete with profanity, any time his team falls behind in a game? Just last season, the man experienced a seemingly endless meltdown, which would have made any spoiled three year-old envious, as his team lost at home to Georgia Tech. Who could forget K’s
Classless screaming to refs “you killed us” after his team’s 2004 semifinal loss to UConn. Or Matt Christiansen physically accosting a referee in the aftermath of an earlier Duke tournament loss, only to be recognized weeks later by Coach K as the player who most exemplifies Duke basketball. And still the refs treat these spoiled louts as if they were their own fair-haired children. At any rate, it is because of the Duke players’ inability to adjust to the shock of objectively enforced rules that so many fail in the NBA, and in
Europe (e.g., Casey Saunders’ cut by a Swedish team), and quickly return - where else - to Duke to rejoin Coach K as an assistant coach. Any given year brings us a team of real world flops who take on the role of assistant coach. Currently, two of Duke’s more obnoxious alumni - Chris Collins and Steve Wojokowski - join Johnny Dawkins in this capacity. Others, such as Tommy Amaker, Quinn Snyder, David Henderson, have found homes as equally underachieving college head coaches.
V. The Fans.
No essay on the subject can be complete without discussion of the mindless Duke fan base that has emerged over the past decade or so. As distinguished from the obnoxious student body that at least has a reason to support the team, these are the fair-weather fans who simply root for whichever team enjoys a winning tradition at a given point in time. They are the folks we see in four-wheel drives donning Blue Devil baseball caps and championship bumper stickers. Neither the Duke fan nor his close friends or family
members attended Duke, but they have all purchased Blue Devil apparel from a Durham County Wal-Mart.
Unheard of during Krzyzewski’s early years, this growing collection of gullible dupes also buys into the media’s misplaced love for Duke by believing that the program and its coach are class unmatched. Most of the fans are North Carolinians, who, perhaps not unreasonably, assume that the school’s central state location is reason enough to justify an allegiance to it. Because the Blue Devil fan has no firsthand experience with the school,
he has no idea that the vast majority of the student body is imported, with a large percentage comprising smug Northeastern carpetbaggers who constantly mock North Carolina and its native residents. The Duke fan honestly believes that Mike Krzyzewski is handsome and marvels at his ability to coach ACC basketball for a quarter of a century without sprouting a single grey hair.
VI. The players.
Without question, one could compose a lengthy book on the subject of despicable Duke players. It’s far easier to identify the few who do not turn our stomachs. I, for example, generally had no problems with the starting five of K’s first final four team, (although Michael Jordan wannabe David Henderson bordered on the annoying). I later met Jay Bilas, a law school classmate of mine, and he is definitely a likeable guy - I’d even agree with classy. My sense was that Mark Alarie, Johnny Dawkins, (while he was a player anyway), and Tommy Amaker were similarly unobjectionable. But aside from this small group, the roster from any of the Krzyzewski era teams reads like an historical survey of all-time NCAA tools. The list is so inexhaustible that it is necessary to discuss the most hated Duke players by categories. First is what I describe as the Wojo prototype. Usually two to three on any Duke team, this is the player with average to below-average skills who, after ANY made basket, runs down the court with arms fully extended at his side, fists clutched, brows furrowed, and garbage effusing from a mouth opened as wide as humanly possible. The facial expression is a cross between that of a trash-talking punk and a toddler in mid temper-tantrum. The prototype was perhaps perfected by two of the
current assistant coaches, Steve Wojokowski and Chris Collins, with the current representatives being JJ Redick and, my favorite, Lee Melchionni. In an effort to put a favorable spin on these clearly detestable players, basketball commentators developed a euphemism for this particular type of Krzyzewski-bred jerk: “the emotional leader of the team.”
Admittedly, other schools occasionally have players of the Wojo mold: former N.C. State player Chris Corchiani and current Maryland swingman Nick Caner-Medley come to mind. But no other school has ever put forward such a consistent and unending string of infuriating tools. In addition to the previously mentioned annoying gnats, we’ve seen Danny Ferry, Quinn Snyder, Bobby Hurley, Greg Koubek, Thomas Hill, Brian Davis, Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, Cherokee Parks, and a herd of other past and present players gallop down the court with that same smug look. I have no doubt that the reason Wojo himself was plucked from the radio booth and given the honor of an assistant coach position was his ability to mentor current Duke students in mastering the nuances of this prickly player profile.
Next, we have the Dahntay prototype. Named for Dahntay Jones, this player is a master of unabashed thuggery. He regularly resorts to dangerous, flagrant fouls, the majority of which are somehow never called. You may, for example, recall Dahntay himself striking Raymond Felton with a vicious elbow to the face during Felton’s freshman year.
No foul was called, (but the referees did order Felton out of the game until his bleeding was stopped.) This “accidental” contact, incidentally, occurred almost a year after Jones broke the jaw of Wake Forest forward Justin Gray. The Dahntay prototype is physically what Krzyzewski is verbally: an out-of-control absurdity who gets a season long free pass from game officials and a blind eye from the media. Other classic examples of these elbow-throwing, cheap shot artists include Danny Ferry, Greg Newton, Elton Brand, Matt Christianson, Casey Saunders, and, of course, Shelden Williams. Then there is the Duhon prototype. A long-time Duke tradition, virtually every player from Danny Ferry forward fits this mold: haughty, smug, pompous players who look as though everyone around them is an untouchable piece of garbage. A further reflection of the coach, the best
examples here often unfold off court. A few years back, for instance, Carlos Boozer left an ACC tournament game after being called for a foul. Unbeknownst to him, the camera followed as he sat on the bench, arrogantly staring forward. A water boy immediately stepped behind him and touched his shoulder with a cup of Gatorade, apparently forbidden from speaking to him. Boozer simply stared forward for a good twenty seconds, to good to say, “No thank you,” or to even shake his head. Dahntay Jones’ impromptu set of pushups in front of the television camera immediately after a dunk against UVA is another good example. I mentioned earlier Duhon’s smug proclamation
that all other ACC schools simply compete for second place. Another great illustration is the prevailing tendency of Duke players to whine about the cruel manner with which opposing fans treat them, as if nothing short of homage is expected. But, above all, it is the unmistakable look of unadulterated conceit that has made the following illustrative players so easy to despise: Phil Henderson, Grant Hill, Brian Davis, Christian Laettner, Elton Brand, JJ Redick, Daniel Ewing, and, of course, Chris Duhon himself. The aforementioned Wojo and Collins, of course, also cross over into this list.
All of the foregoing prototypes are the direct results of Krzyzewski’s two-faced approach to the game. The saddest aspect of it all is the manner with which the K factor can convert even normal human beings into detestable *****. A case in point is Johnny Dawkins. As remarked earlier, I personally had few problems with this guy as a player. He struck me as a solid, overachieving player with a great shot and a vertical leap I could only dream of; a respectable counterpart to UNC’s Kenny Smith. But, oh, how Things changed as the man morphed into a Krzyzewski clown, uh, clone. These days, every time the camera shows “Coach Dawkins,” he has that foul, contemptuous, chip-on-the-shoulder scowl permanently etched on his face, the look of a man so conceited that he resents even being required to prove his superiority.
VII. The Place is PHONY.
As the extensive evidence of Duke hypocrisy suggests, Duke, its students, players, fans, and coaches, are a bit on the disingenuous side. And yet few people appreciate that the school is fake to its core. I still recall my orientation during which a second year law student took us on a short tour of the west campus. As we walked between the gothic
buildings, she explained the school’s origin by advising that James B. Duke had a love affair for Princeton University. He actually tried to buy the place, but Princeton was not looking to sell. After being rebuffed, Mr. Duke decided he would build his own Princeton. Hence, stone-carved gothic architecture was added to what was then Trinity
College.
Additional efforts were taken to cause the twentieth century buildings to appear much older than they are, our guide explained. For example, acid was placed on the stairs in order to cause them to have a time worn appearance. I couldn’t believe Duke wanted to publicize this history, but it confirmed what I already suspected: that Duke, from its inception, has tried to be something that it is not.
No one epitomizes this phony tradition better than Coach K. From his jet-black dyed hair, to his hypocritical attempts to paint himself as a model citizen, K nauseates me each and every fall. Indeed, he ascends to new zeniths of abhorrence each year as he does things like star in American Express commercials in which he claims an interest in helping players develop as human beings.
If the man were simply a boorish lout, I would not take as strong an offense to him. Bobby Knight, for instance, is about as foul mannered as they come, but he doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not. Ditto for Gary Williams, John Cheney, and other coaches who are rough along the edges but first to admit it. Only K, and his disciples, go through life as obscene, self-centered, smug, haughty jerks while pretending to be the sport’s Snow White.
VIII. Obstinate Refusal to Accept/Act Upon Constructive Criticism.
Last but far from least, we loathe Duke University because its arrogance prohibits it from recognizing and correcting its most serious deficiencies. What other explanation can there be for the fact that Duke has still, without a doubt, the absolute, number one, undisputed, UGLIEST cheerleaders in the ACC?