FanPost

Officials - Coach K - Duke Teams

Each time I see a Duke game, or follow a thread about one, I think of a way to improve this dissertation, already years in its development.  Here Sunday evening, 3/28/'10, seems a good time to circulate it for feedback.

I do believe Duke, Coach K in particular, gets the "best" of the officiating more often than anyone else.  I wonder why and try to answer myself.  

I have never used this FanPosts page, so probably am going to screw it up.

Follow the JUMP if you care how I'm progressing . . .

Mike K is one hell of a coach, great at X&O, good on the bench; but his understanding and use of Officiating Psychology goes well beyond what most coaches have ever thought of.

He studies officials, studies them individually and collectively, even keeps files on them.  My earlier suggestion that he knows who their bookies are is not all that far-fetched.  He (like other good coaches) teaches the collective wisdom of, "Don't do things that will piss off the refs."  That is coaching on a generic level.   Referees aren't from a cookie cutter -- they differ from each other -- some of them differ a lot.

K's acumen goes much farther than the generic.  He game-plans for the individual crews and officials, just as for each opponent and coach. He knows what is likely to discombobulate each coach he faces, especially after meeting them a few times.  He also knows which ref he can intimidate in each crew; what one ref is touchy about; what can make another doubt himself. Most other coaches know their tendencies to call games a certain way, period.   

And, like some win-at-any-cost fiend, he uses this knowledge to advantage in games!  Not all of it in every game, but usually enough to matter when it's called for.

Partly because of this (necessarily) great impact of officials on game results, K tries to recruit 'his kind' of player --

  • looks and acts clean-cut;
  • above average basketball skills;
  • yes sir, no sir, polite;
  • doesn't get pushed around nor make a big deal of it; 
  • contrite when called down; 
  • flops as a matter of habit;

-- and -- smart enough that they can prepare differently for each game according to the particular officiating crew assigned --

  • more flopping some nights than others;
  • some games you can carry the ball or slide your pivot foot, but only on one end of the floor;
  • fouls will be called tight underneath the first twelve minutes, then it's Katy-Bar-The-Door on defense;
  • whistles are swallowed late in half/game, or not.  

Also, as do most staffs, his scouts and assistants alert Duke players to peccadillos of players on other teams and the best time in a game to use it against them, like just after halftime or the last 20 seconds.  

There aren't a great many such recruits around any given year.  A lot (nearly all ?) 18-22 yr-olds would be completely flummoxed trying to absorb this much information -- not to mention kids with exceptional athletic gifts and talent, who may well never have had a need or desire to 'play smart.'  While Duke usually awards all its scholarships, not all go to exactly 'his kind' of player.  For that we can be grateful, but very few are far from this model, even the ones with more than moderate talent.  And it doesn't need to be said that kind of player will be attracted to this kind of program.

All this extra preparation (for opponent and officials) must be done between games -- which is tougher to do in tournaments.  First there is the general dictum to 'let them play,' which affects some officials more than others. Then there is shorter turn around time to do all the prepping after last minute crew assignments.  How many of his losses in NCAA have come in the second game of a weekend -- second round rather than first, or E8 not S16?  I don't think that is only because, most times, the opponent is a higher seed.  After all, there are 32 losers first & 16 in second round; eight S16 losers, only four E8 losers each year.

A victory by Duke in a closely contested game, at least occasionally, hinges on one or more of these advantages -- "unfair" as that may be.  The man known as Coach K is completely merciless from tip-off to final buzzer; as bad as a weasel in the chicken house.  Izzo, Calhoun, Boeheim, Bobby Knight may be the closest in recent times.  I don't think even they were real close.

 

Was it a Sergeant or a General who said, "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your strategy sucks." ? 


 I don't know this Coach K personally, but he probably comes off as a pretty decent guy the rest of his life.

In This FanPost

Teams