From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college
Subject: Re: Dean Smith (Re: UNC TARHEELS--1992/93 NCAA BSKTBLL. CHAMPS)
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:14:35 GMT
Reply-To: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center

In rec.sport.basketball.college, markham@brtph597.bnr.ca (Andrew Markham 
P205) writes:

 >UNC had a slim (one-point) lead near the end of the game because they
 >were playing a fairly talented team from Michigan on a neutral court.
 >If you think that because UNC is talented they should be ahead of EVERY
 >team (no matter how good they are) by 10+ pts at the end of the game,
 >you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Are you saying that everytime UNC loses to a talented team, that is
excusable?  UNC's slow start is excusable because they're playing Michigan?
Lynch's poor performance is excusable because UNC was playing Michigan?
UNC's loss to Michigan was excusable because UNC was playing Michigan,
and therefore should lose to Michigan?  It seems that you are making
excuses for UNC whenever UNC loses a game.

Also, you need to remember that UNC has plenty of talented players,
too.

 >I agree that UNC has a habit of getting off to a slow start in the first
 >half, but I have RARELY seen them do the same in the second half.  IMHO,
 >they are almost ALWAYS a second half team, that can take over close games
 >early in the second half.

Glad to hear you admit that UNC does have slow start problem.  Yes,
UNC's slow start is far more frequent in the first half, and, yes, UNC
is basically a second-half team.  Thanks for pointing out another
characteristic of UNC.  Unfortunately for UNC, the game has two halves.
Dean Smith needs to start preparing his players for two halves, not 
just the second half. :-)

UNC doesn't fall behind in second half often; it happens when UNC is 
playing a strong team that gets fired up during halftime and takes
off at the start the second half.  The UNC-OSU game last year is an
example.

 >Is UNC any different from other programs?  Just the other night Duke
 >was down by 9 (or was it 11) early in the first half to Oklahoma and
 >they came back and then Oklahoma came back.  I don't watch all their
 >games, but can assume that over the past few years they have been
 >down early and come back later to win some of their games.

Slow start is not characteristic of Duke whereas it is of UNC.  Duke
usually has a fast start which can be demoralizing to the other team.
Duke had a fast start against Michigan in the game earlier this season.

On the other hand, Duke has the characteristic of slumping whenever 
it has too big a lead, as it did happen in the Oklahoma game recently,
and in the Indiana and Kentucky games in the NCAA playoffs last year.

 >Perhaps the same is true for Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, etc...
 >Unless you watch EVERYONE of their games, you cannot simply assume
 >that because they win, they never come from behind.

I never said that these teams never come from behind.  I only said that
UNC had to come from behind too often because of their slow starts or
offense slump during the game.

Note that I also am not saying that other teams don't have offense slump
during the games.  Duke does at times.  Many teams do at times.  Nothing
to criticize here.  The point is that when your offense goes into a
slump, your defense had better take over the control of the game, or
you're going to get way behind in the game.  This is what sets the
championship teams apart from other teams.  The Duke-Michigan game last
year in the Final Four is a classical example of this.  Both Duke and
Michigan went into offense slump (it was a game of defense), but Duke's 
defense prevailed.

 >Perhaps you'll like to humor us by explaining how Villanove, NCSU, and
 >Kansas won their titles in the 80's?  The odds were certainly against
 >them.  And what about that Duke title over UNLV?

These teams won because they outplayed their opponents.  Simple, isn't 
it?  This shows that any team can rise to the ocassion and outplay a 
superior team.  Excellent coaching and game preparation also contributed.

 >Duke vs. Michigan this year was on Duke's home-court.

Remember that the Duke-Michigan game was on Michigan's home-court last 
year.  Beside, home-court may give the home team some advantage, but 
it doesn't win games for the home team.  If this was true, then all 
teams would have zero victories on road.

It is true that it may be more difficult for some visiting teams to 
win at some courts because of the crowd noise, the distance the visiting 
team has to travel, etc.

 >Michigan has also been getting a lot of press lately on how much better
 >they are playing now than at the beginning of the season.

Yeah, but other teams are also improving. Some teams improve tremendously 
while others don't. This is what makes college basketball interesting. 
And the polls having to be changed frequently.

 >>I am an UNC fan who happens to know that Dean Smith isn't a basketball
 >>god.  Perhaps just an angel or a saint or something.  Perhaps another
 >>NCAA title will make Dean a god? :-)
 >
 >He's only had two double-digit loss years over the last quarter of a
 >century.  People can judge coaches on whatever they want.  Some (ME)
 >choose championships, some (YOU) choose winning.

Actually, I choose both winning and championship.  You say that you
choose championships.  This means that unless you're a Duke fan, you
think that your team has not performed satisfactorily and has fallen
short of your expectations in the past two years?

 >Hell, if he won one this year and didn't for another 10 you would be
 >bitching about him only having won two.

No.  I actually want Dean Smith to win another one to show that the
first one wasn't by luck. :-)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college