Roy > dean

I guess you're right. Being mediocre every year is the model of consistency.

 

Boeheim was on K's staff at the Olympics. I was defending both as not being washed up.

 

First off, there was no 'taking over a team'. You do know the olympics are played every 4 years, right? Both "teams" (1972 and 2008 - might want to fix your years up there since you're the one 'educating' me...) were coming off years where they didn't win gold - that's a fact.

Do I really need to get into the fact that Dean's team were college kids (4 off his own team, by the way) while K's were all-star caliber pros (no two from the same team, let alone 4...)

I know there are times when you've got your dook blue glasses on, and there are definitely times when I have my Carolina blue glasses on, but this comparison, while similar, only proves that Dean's gold was definitely more impressive than K's.

 

What K did with that team, what with the egos and all was impressive. However, he got to work with them for like two or three years. Not a few months after the NBA playoffs just before the Olympics. Also, that team was hand picked by him, not by a committee.

 

12 years since the last olympic gold medal, really? How'd we do in 2000 in Sydney?

 

I'm not saying it wasn't impressive. He did a good job with them - no doubt. The discussion is more around Dean's or K's golds being more impressive. Just a reminder - Dean picked his own team in 1976, too, so the 'hand-picked' argument is out the window.

 

I'm not going to fix shit but I'll let you know why I chose those years. K took over the US Basketball team in 2006. I referenced 1973 because it was the year after the 1972 games (in Munich.) I'm well aware of what years the Olympics took place, as well as how the teams were built. Dean Smith took over a program that had lost one game in international competition (a game played in such heavy dispute that the losing team has to this day refused their silver medals.) Coach K took over a team that had failed to win a Gold medal in two successive Olympics. A program that despite sending pros had been roundly beaten in international competition.

Anyway, your comparision of teams only helps my comparison. Dean took four players already familiar with each other and himself, while K brought together 12 isolated personalities with humongous egos.

I like the irony of you though. If someone had said that Dean was overrated or washed up you would have never let that statement pass. By the same token, if someone tries to show Duke or K some respect you also never pass up the opportunity to take a shot. That's all well and good but don't go looking to pick fights just because I respond to a statement about K being washed up.

I suppose I should have just brought up that he was one of 16 coaches to take his team to the Sweet 16 this year and has the third (fourth?)-longest NCAA tournament streak in the country but I didn't think that saying Boeheim was washed up was fair either. So I defended them both in one statement. And once again, you got your panties bunched for some unknown reason.

 

True, but wasn't all of the pro Olympic teams selected by a committee? With the exception of K's team.

 

Actually, the discussion was if K or Boeheim were washed up, you decided to piss all over the topic like you normally do. I thought another championship might mellow you out but it seems like you just want to squash any sort of conversation in a wall of pale blue. It's tiring and quite boring.

And 8 years, whoops. My bad. Point stands, USA Basketball was considerably more vulnerable in 2006 than it was in 1976 and the fact that you can't admit that says everything about what color glasses we're both wearing.

 

See my comment above about the egos.
The one picking the fight was you - remember this comment? K wasn't just walking into an already winning situation like say, Dean did when he won his Gold.
I asked you if you wanted to actually go through that comparison - which apparently you did. (With wrong dates/facts/etc., by the way...)

There's no question Dean's gold is more impressive in every way, but again - I understand why (looking through your dook blue glasses) that K's gold HAS to be the best (if not the best in Olympic history). It's all K and the dookies have to hold on to. I really wish that mediocre program hadn't fallen so far - this is just too easy.