crazietalk.net

To my knowledge, I have never had a problem with Steve Lavin......until today.

Not only did he say Duke had the easiet draw for a number one seed he'd seen in 25 years, he followed it up with "With the big teams out, Duke could sneek in a National Championship."

Hey, Duke just beat a team that could beat National Powerhouses such as N. Iowa, West Virgina and Butler. Baylor is a great team. I thought it was a bit unprofessional.

But he didn't stop there. Just a few minutes ago, one of the ESPN analyst, when commenting on Zoubek drawing the charge, said that Duke "always seems to get the cals." What does Lavin respond with? "Yeah, it does seem that way and provides us great fodder for conversation when at the bar drinking root beer!"

Hogwash you ninny pooping wingle dickhead! They played "Point, NO Counterpoint." They piled on Duke a bit.

Eat our shorts Lavin. We are the last number one standing. We've earned it. What we get, we will earn, not "seek." And even as I type this, he is talking about how Duke is not that talented. I'm serious. He said that. Deep down, I wonder if he's just pissed off. He called there talent, "good, decent." "I'm not even sure there's a 'Quinn Snyder' level player on this team." !!!!!! I can't believe he just said that!

Discuss.

-EarlJam

I mean really. ESPN is spinning it NOT as Duke making the Final Four, rather, how easy of a bracket Duke had and how they got there with average talent.

There headline might read as follows:

Duke takes Advantage of Historically Easy Bracket, Overcomes Average Talent to Luckily Advance to Final Four.

Apologies in advance for my "French," people, but.....

FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Lavin!

-EarlJam

Sour grapes, methinks. Lavin was not a successful coach and he's jealous. He's a scumbag.

I hereby refuse to pay attention to Steve Lavin or read any more articles by Pat Forde. Both are letting sour grapes taint their "journalism". They are both worse than hacks.

Embrace the hate.

Redick understood what it means. It means we are GOOD. Nobody truly likes to be disliked but it isn't a bad thing that they are still talking about us - no matter how they are talking about us.

I can ignore bonehead Lavin, but my biggest fear is that ESPN and Lavin will, purposefully or not, launch into full steam messaging of "Duke gets all the calls" leading up to the Final Four.

If they do this, I fear it will subconciously have an effect on how the refs call the game. it's happened before.

-EarlJam

If this stuff is true, what a complete pecker head this POS is.

If I were a fan of Purdue or Baylor, I think I'd be pretty pissed off, because Lavin basically said they suck. What a jackass.

Consider that Lavin & his no counterpoint sidekick were on ESPNNews when they did that. The ESPN "A" team wouldn't have said anything like that. Gadzooks is right... I would think that Baylor & Purdue would be rather pissed off at such a comment about the quality of the bracket. And the on-air rationalizing about 'nova being a weak team was simply beneath ESPN standards.

In the words of wilson: OFF WITH LAVIN'S HEAD!!

I love that, yet again, they're already saying we'll lose to WVU. We were gonna lose to Cal, then Purdue, then Baylor. Keep picking against us, guys, PLEASE! And that whole easiest road thing is crap. Did anybody think Kansas was gonna lose to Northern Iowa in the second round? No. They didn't even TEST the "difficulty" of their draw. Everybody was talking about MSU, Maryland, Tennessee, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, and OSU. They sure as hell never played ANY of those teams.

Did ANYBODY say that Syracuse was gonna lose to Butler in the Sweet 16? Hell no. "They" said that Butler was gonna lose to UTEP. They said that it was unfair that Syracuse had Kansas State and Pitt and Vanderbilt. Vandy lost in the first round. Pitt didn't even make the Sweet 16. Again, the 'Cuse didn't even test their bracket's strength.

And look at Kentucky. They faced a 9 and a very game but, let's face it, WAY overmatched Ivy League team in Cornell. They didn't really meet a real challenge until WVU, and they folded like a cheap suit. The "challenges" of their bracket that made it so hard, Wisconsin and Temple, also fell early. Yes, Kentucky faced the teeth of their bracket, finally in the elite 8, and they got SPANKED.

We played an 8 seed and a 4 seed, the only 1 seed to face the upper seeds in each of the rounds. We played a ROAD game against a surging team that everybody said had a shot to take it all. They CAKE-WALKED against St. Mary's, able to rest a little in the second half. So who REALLY had the easiest road? You really can't judge those things until they play out. If anything, I'd say we ended up with the toughest road.

All things being equal, what's tougher, taking on a 2 seed on a neutral court, or taking on a 3 seed in a BLATANT ROAD game? You tell me.

bjornolf wrote:Did ANYBODY say that Syracuse was gonna lose to Butler in the Sweet 16? Hell no. "

Umm, I did. ;)

bjornolf wrote:I love that, yet again, they're already saying we'll lose to WVU. We were gonna lose to Cal, then Purdue, then Baylor. Keep picking against us, guys, PLEASE! And that whole easiest road thing is crap. Did anybody think Kansas was gonna lose to Northern Iowa in the second round? No. They didn't even TEST the "difficulty" of their draw. Everybody was talking about MSU, Maryland, Tennessee, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, and OSU. They sure as hell never played ANY of those teams.

Did ANYBODY say that Syracuse was gonna lose to Butler in the Sweet 16? Hell no. "They" said that Butler was gonna lose to UTEP. They said that it was unfair that Syracuse had Kansas State and Pitt and Vanderbilt. Vandy lost in the first round. Pitt didn't even make the Sweet 16. Again, the 'Cuse didn't even test their bracket's strength.

And look at Kentucky. They faced a 9 and a very game but, let's face it, WAY overmatched Ivy League team in Cornell. They didn't really meet a real challenge until WVU, and they folded like a cheap suit. The "challenges" of their bracket that made it so hard, Wisconsin and Temple, also fell early. Yes, Kentucky faced the teeth of their bracket, finally in the elite 8, and they got SPANKED.

We played an 8 seed and a 4 seed, the only 1 seed to face the upper seeds in each of the rounds. We played a ROAD game against a surging team that everybody said had a shot to take it all. They CAKE-WALKED against St. Mary's, able to rest a little in the second half. So who REALLY had the easiest road? You really can't judge those things until they play out. If anything, I'd say we ended up with the toughest road.

All things being equal, what's tougher, taking on a 2 seed on a neutral court, or taking on a 3 seed in a BLATANT ROAD game? You tell me.

You are forgetting one minor thing here. These peckerheads, err talkingheads, don't wan't to be sidetracked by anything that might be interpreted as statistics and actual facts.


Assholes.

bjornolf wrote:I love that, yet again, they're already saying we'll lose to WVU. We were gonna lose to Cal, then Purdue, then Baylor. Keep picking against us, guys, PLEASE! And that whole easiest road thing is crap.

Don't you love how we've had the easiest road, and yet we were supposed to lose all of the game we've played in except round 1?

CameronBornAndBred wrote:

bjornolf wrote:I love that, yet again, they're already saying we'll lose to WVU. We were gonna lose to Cal, then Purdue, then Baylor. Keep picking against us, guys, PLEASE! And that whole easiest road thing is crap.

Don't you love how we've had the easiest road, and yet we were supposed to lose all of the game we've played in except round 1?

LOL! Right? All those teams suck, but Duke sucks worse, apparently, and all the teams we beat this year sucked, too, I guess, so we ended up ranked #3 yet still didn't deserve a 1 seed. And if we beat WVU and go on to win the championship game, that'll be because we were playing a 5 seed.

I don't really mind so much when commentators like a particular team, but being blatantly biased *against* a team really irks me, and not just because it's my team they hate. It's unprofessional; they're not journalists, with that presumption of impartiality, but still. It's "cool" to bash Duke, and it gets old. Assholes.

Though I do agree that there's a certain benefit to being underestimated.

Guess who may be interviewing at St. John's:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/b ... ?eref=sihp
He might be back...

Lavabe wrote:Guess who may be interviewing at St. John's:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/b ... ?eref=sihp
He might be back...

Well, they sure haven't been able to woo any real coaches.

Lavabe wrote:Guess who may be interviewing at St. John's:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/b ... ?eref=sihp
He might be back...

Duke should set up games against them for the next 4-5 seasons if he's hired so we can beat the snot out of Lavin. I say 4-5 years only because he'll be fired around that time - hopefully after a 50 point drubbing by Duke

CameronBornAndBred wrote:

Lavabe wrote:Guess who may be interviewing at St. John's:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/b ... ?eref=sihp
He might be back...

Well, they sure haven't been able to woo any real coaches.

When you get "through" with Lavin, how 'bout taking on Clark Kellogg and his obvious bias FOR Baylor and his almost total silence when Duke pulled ahead.

Talking heads? I am too much of a lady to call them what they really are! Seems as if they're paid by the word and they don't care what words they say...so long as they fill the time.

pinkbend wrote:Talking heads? I am too much of a lady to call them what they really are!

I'll take care of it for you...
Dickheads. Dickheads they are, I tell you!