PDA

View Full Version : Duke


BeachCat97
08-06-2009, 01:35 PM
Been thinking about Duke a little this week.

Whereas once they seemed a threat to reach the FF and win the ACC reg season title pretty much every year, the Blue Devils have slid a little. Since 2001 (the year of their last NC), Duke has reached the FF just once (2003-04) and won the ACC twice (2003-04, 2005-06).

Now, for pretty much any other program in the nation, one FF and two conference titles within a decade would be considered pretty damn good. But Duke is not any other program. They've been the gold standard in college hoops for much of the past 25 years. But they've been much more of an also-ran lately, perhaps because their recruiting has not been as strong, or perhaps because the players they've had have fallen short of expectations. Hard to say.

Like we've all been through with the Olson to Miller transition, Duke too will face a period of transition when K decides to quit. To my knowledge, he's given no indication of when that might be, but K is getting into his mid 60s. Will he coach into his 70s? Again, hard to say. So we can figure that Duke will have their HOF coach for at least 7-10 more seasons; anything short of or longer than that would be pretty surprising.

So who will succeed K? The names we mainly hear are Dawkins and Capel. And if Duke insists on keeping it in the family, they've got two strong candidates. But why wouldn't Duke look outside the program? Some of the top programs in the country (Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, Arizona) have recently (or semi-recently) hired coaches with no previous tie to their university; why wouldn't Duke do the same? Would Duke consider an NBA coach? Would they consider a current college coach at a thriving program, like Self, Howland, or Donovan?

I'm curious to know whether anyone thinks (a) Duke will win another NC before K retires and (b) Duke will go outside the family tree for their next coach.

CatintheHeat
08-06-2009, 01:45 PM
IMO part of the problem with the slide of Duke is that Coach K has to spend time with the olympic team instead of going out on the recruiting trail. Whereas all other coaches only have to focus on their college team. Also IMO there is still a small chance Coach K may leave Duke and coach in the NBA. You can say that Coach K isn't 100% loyal to Duke.

luteformayor2
08-06-2009, 02:43 PM
When a player commits to Duke, or if a player is white (see: McRoberts, Paulus, etc), they get a jump in the ratings, and people over hype them.

But also, Duke is just a **** hole of a program. A bunch of ****s on the hardwood who regularly get beaten in the post season by teams with athletic players.

Merkin
08-06-2009, 03:06 PM
When a player commits to Duke, or if a player is white (see: McRoberts, Paulus, etc), they get a jump in the ratings, and people over hype them.



Duke:Gerald Henderson is gone, but coach K has the dynamic duo of Kyle Singler and Jon Scheyer back. The Blue Devils will also miss Elliot Williams, who transferred to Memphis

:rolleyes:

But I do see Singler is #16 draft prospect in 2010, so who knows. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kyle-Singler-1071/

AZCoachB
08-06-2009, 03:19 PM
Whereas once they seemed a threat to reach the FF and win the ACC reg season title pretty much every year, the Blue Devils have slid a little. Since 2001 (the year of their last NC), Duke has reached the FF just once (2003-04) and won the ACC twice (2003-04, 2005-06).

Now, for pretty much any other program in the nation, one FF and two conference titles within a decade would be considered pretty damn good. But Duke is not any other program. They've been the gold standard in college hoops for much of the past 25 years. But they've been much more of an also-ran lately, perhaps because their recruiting has not been as strong, or perhaps because they players they've had have fallen short of expectations. Hard to say.

Which incidentally has coincided with the rise of the UNC program. During that time, they probably finished second in the conference in the years they didn't win it. That's not gold standard but it's still not bad. The thing that has plagued them the past 4 years is the lack of a true point guard (it took Coach K three and half years to realize Paulus sucked!). Sound familiar?

Like we've all been through with the Olson to Miller transition, Duke too will face a period of transition when K decides to quit. To my knowledge, he's given no indication of when that might be, but K is getting into his mid 60s. Will he coach into his 70s? Again, hard to say. So we can figure that Duke will have their HOF coach for at least 7-10 more seasons; anything short of or longer than that would be pretty surprising.

So who will succeed K? The names we mainly hear are Dawkins and Capel. And if Duke insists on keeping it in the family, they've got two strong candidates. But why wouldn't Duke look outside the program? Some of the top programs in the country (Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, Arizona) have recently (or semi-recently) hired coaches with no previous tie to their university; why wouldn't Duke do the same? Would Duke consider an NBA coach? Would they consider a current college coach at a thriving program, like Self, Howland, or Donovan?

I'm curious to know whether anyone thinks (a) Duke will win another NC before K retires and (b) Duke will go outside the family tree for their next coach.

Kansas went outside the program only after UNC decided to go inside the program and steal Roy Williams and if there's any school that Duke is going to be compared to and/or compare themselves to, it's UNC. UCLA tried the "inside" approach and Lavin failed miserably (at least by their standards). Kentucky is at the mercy of their boosters and all they care about is winning by any means necessary so Calipari made sense. The only person from the Lute Olson coaching tree that was a viable option was Pastner (who I believe would have been Livengood's next phone call if Miller had turned us down) and he was just a few years away from being a shoe-in.

Dawkins has only one year of head-coaching experience so it's way too early to tell if he'll be a consideration. Capel is obviously a very hot name right now but I have a feeling Oklahoma's going to struggle without a super-freak like Blake Griffin. If Capel can keep his ship afloat at OU, I think he's the most logical choice but in 5-10 years, who really knows?

77HoyaCat4Ever
08-06-2009, 03:43 PM
F*** Duke

Coop Cat
08-06-2009, 08:00 PM
IMO part of the problem with the slide of Duke is that Coach K has to spend time with the olympic team instead of going out on the recruiting trail. Whereas all other coaches only have to focus on their college team. Also IMO there is still a small chance Coach K may leave Duke and coach in the NBA. You can say that Coach K isn't 100% loyal to Duke.

He chooses to.

Itamicbomb
08-06-2009, 08:06 PM
Been thinking about Duke a little this week.

Whereas once they seemed a threat to reach the FF and win the ACC reg season title pretty much every year, the Blue Devils have slid a little. Since 2001 (the year of their last NC), Duke has reached the FF just once (2003-04) and won the ACC twice (2003-04, 2005-06).

Now, for pretty much any other program in the nation, one FF and two conference titles within a decade would be considered pretty damn good. But Duke is not any other program. They've been the gold standard in college hoops for much of the past 25 years. But they've been much more of an also-ran lately, perhaps because their recruiting has not been as strong, or perhaps because the players they've had have fallen short of expectations. Hard to say.

Like we've all been through with the Olson to Miller transition, Duke too will face a period of transition when K decides to quit. To my knowledge, he's given no indication of when that might be, but K is getting into his mid 60s. Will he coach into his 70s? Again, hard to say. So we can figure that Duke will have their HOF coach for at least 7-10 more seasons; anything short of or longer than that would be pretty surprising.

So who will succeed K? The names we mainly hear are Dawkins and Capel. And if Duke insists on keeping it in the family, they've got two strong candidates. But why wouldn't Duke look outside the program? Some of the top programs in the country (Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, Arizona) have recently (or semi-recently) hired coaches with no previous tie to their university; why wouldn't Duke do the same? Would Duke consider an NBA coach? Would they consider a current college coach at a thriving program, like Self, Howland, or Donovan?

I'm curious to know whether anyone thinks (a) Duke will win another NC before K retires and (b) Duke will go outside the family tree for their next coach.

Duke won the ACC in 05, 06, and 09. The regular season doesn't mean jack**** since the ACC expanded to 12 teams; the schedules are unbalanced and Duke usually gets the shaft (this is supported by comparing opponents' league winning percentages - and you'd expect Duke's opponents to have a lower than average record since they're playing Duke).

I think the bottom line in terms of March results is that Duke hasn't had very good point guard play since 2004, and I'm not really expecting them to have very good point guard play this year with two converted shooting guards initiating the offense. Their talent and scheme is going to win them a lot of games in the regular season, but I'd be surprised if they made the Elite 8 this year because they don't have (unless Smith has undergone some fantastic transformation over the summer) a guy who can break down a defense and distribute. It's certainly disappointing in the near term, but I don't think it's indicative of decline or decay in the program.

I think the staff has traditionally tended to lock into a very small number of targets, which works a lot better when Duke is in the Final Four every few years but not as well when Carolina is winning championships. They have seemed to cast a wider net for next year, and the 2010 class is shaping up to be very, very solid if they can lock down Barnes and one of the elite point guards.

The question of succession has been addressed here almost as frequently as the question of who would succeed Lute; I don't think much has changed since it was brought up with the crazy K to the Lakers rumor earlier this summer. I expect Coach K to go for 1000 wins barring unexpected health issues, and I think he'll retire shortly thereafter.

Predicting NCs more than one season out is purely speculation, but I'll say they're going to be good for 2-3 more Final Fours under Coach K, and that the next coach will have some significant tie to Duke.

BeachCat97
08-06-2009, 10:55 PM
Predicting NCs more than one season out is purely speculation, but I'll say they're going to be good for 2-3 more Final Fours under Coach K, and that the next coach will have some significant tie to Duke.

Do you think they'll even consider someone without ties? Wouldn't you think there'd be interest from some pretty big names without ties?

Itamicbomb
08-06-2009, 11:18 PM
Do you think they'll even consider someone without ties? Wouldn't you think there'd be interest from some pretty big names without ties?

Unlikely as long as there are reasonable options from within the family. I'd also be careful when estimating the popularity of the job to any elite coach who wasn't a Dukie - there are moderate recruiting restrictions, he'd be following a legend, and a not insignificant portion of the revenue may not transfer from Krzyzewski to the next coach whoever it is.

BeachCat97
08-07-2009, 12:56 AM
Unlikely as long as there are reasonable options from within the family. I'd also be careful when estimating the popularity of the job to any elite coach who wasn't a Dukie - there are moderate recruiting restrictions, he'd be following a legend, and a not insignificant portion of the revenue may not transfer from Krzyzewski to the next coach whoever it is.

I just wonder how what kind of reception Capel or Dawkins will get as K's successor. Granted, it's still way too early to know how much (or how little) success these two will have in the years leading up to K's retirement, and obviously, that will play a part in how they're greeted as the new coach. But let's just say that JC and JD have moderate, not great, success over the next 5-10 years. Will the boosters, alums, fans, etc. start a campaign to look beyond the family tree, provided there's interest from some top notch candidates?

The x-factor seems to be JC and JD's coaching performances over the next several years. If either of them moves into the elite ranks of college coaches, which could happen, K's successor would seem to be a no-brainer. What'll be intesting is if that doesn't happen. I don't understand why you think there won't be considerable interest in the Duke job when it opens up. If a big name comes, you better believe the revenue will follow.

Flipper
08-07-2009, 08:53 AM
I just wonder how what kind of reception Capel or Dawkins will get as K's successor. Granted, it's still way too early to know how much (or how little) success these two will have in the years leading up to K's retirement, and obviously, that will play a part in how they're greeted as the new coach. But let's just say that JC and JD have moderate, not great, success over the next 5-10 years. Will the boosters, alums, fans, etc. start a campaign to look beyond the family tree, provided there's interest from some top notch candidates?

The x-factor seems to be JC and JD's coaching performances over the next several years. If either of them moves into the elite ranks of college coaches, which could happen, K's successor would seem to be a no-brainer. What'll be intesting is if that doesn't happen. I don't understand why you think there won't be considerable interest in the Duke job when it opens up. If a big name comes, you better believe the revenue will follow.

Following a legend is a tough proposition, which is why big names don't normally do it. Most elite programs experienced some tough transitions after the "legend" associated with their program leave. Some longer than others. UCLA's a perfect example. Indiana after Knight, even UNC after Smith. Kentucky back then (and recently after Slick Rick), Kansas was lost for a long time until Roy (outside of that '88 squad), and looks to have done a great job with Self.

The other tough part for a future coach at Duke is this freight train called Roy down the street. Only a young, ambitious coach would want to take on the challenge of recruiting against him.

I think 'Zona made a great hire with Miller. We'll see if Duke and UConn will be able to hit home runs when their time comes.

BeachCat97
08-07-2009, 04:16 PM
Following a legend is a tough proposition, which is why big names don't normally do it. Most elite programs experienced some tough transitions after the "legend" associated with their program leave. Some longer than others. UCLA's a perfect example. Indiana after Knight, even UNC after Smith. Kentucky back then (and recently after Slick Rick), Kansas was lost for a long time until Roy (outside of that '88 squad), and looks to have done a great job with Self.

The other tough part for a future coach at Duke is this freight train called Roy down the street. Only a young, ambitious coach would want to take on the challenge of recruiting against him.

I think 'Zona made a great hire with Miller. We'll see if Duke and UConn will be able to hit home runs when their time comes.

Bill Self followed a legend at KU; Tubby Smith followed a legend at UK. It's debatable whether these two were "big names" at the time they were hired, but it's not as though good, reputable, highly employable coaches don't follow legends.

You'd think that this whole business about the "tough transitions" would make it all the more likely that a school like Duke -- a school whose men's hoops program has been one of the few "dynasties" in all of sports over the past 20-25 years -- would do everything they can to prevent a decline, however slight that decline might be. UCLA, by the way, is not a good example because the Bruins are/were pretty good in football. Duke is not. Itam can verify this, but I'd imagine there's a considerable disparity between the revenue generated by Duke's men's hoops program and every other athletic program at that university. Duke, in this sense, is much more like Arizona (or maybe Kansas): both schools have one athletic program that towers over the others in terms of profitability. This is not true of UCLA.

And as far as Roy goes, Duke can either concede the fact that there's a HOF coach down the road who's gonna continue kicking their ass until his career ends, or they can aggressively pursue a successor to K whose reputation and coaching talent could potentially rival Roy's. Then again, Roy's no spring chicken either, and it wouldn't be surprising to see a coaching change at UNC within the next 7-10 years.

And finally, yes, we did make a great hire with Miller. He's young, talented, and seems to be an outstanding recruiter. Time will tell whether Miller can elevate Arizona back to where we were for much of the 90s and the early part of this decade, but I like his chances.

Itamicbomb
08-07-2009, 04:34 PM
Bill Self followed a legend at KU; Tubby Smith followed a legend at UK. It's debatable whether these two were "big names" at the time they were hired, but it's not as though good, reputable, highly employable coaches don't follow legends.

You'd think that this whole business about the "tough transitions" would make it all the more likely that a school like Duke -- a school whose men's hoops program has been one of the few "dynasties" in all of sports over the past 20-25 years -- would do everything they can to prevent a decline, however slight that decline might be. UCLA, by the way, is not a good example because the Bruins are/were pretty good in football. Duke is not. Itam can verify this, but I'd imagine there's a considerable disparity between the revenue generated by Duke's men's hoops program and every other athletic program at that university. Duke, in this sense, is much more like Arizona (or maybe Kansas): both schools have one athletic program that towers over the others in terms of profitability. This is not true of UCLA.

And as far as Roy goes, Duke can either concede the fact that there's a HOF coach down the road who's gonna continue kicking their ass until his career ends, or they can aggressively pursue a successor to K whose reputation and coaching talent could potentially rival Roy's. Then again, Roy's no spring chicken either, and it wouldn't be surprising to see a coaching change at UNC within the next 7-10 years.

And finally, yes, we did make a great hire with Miller. He's young, talented, and seems to be an outstanding recruiter. Time will tell whether Miller can elevate Arizona back to where we were for much of the 90s and the early part of this decade, but I like his chances.

Donations aside (obviously basketball is fueling the majority of those, especially with the Legacy Fund), football brings in more money than basketball because of the fat television/bowl contracts that get split evenly amongst the ACC teams.

BeachCat97
08-07-2009, 05:29 PM
Donations aside (obviously basketball is fueling the majority of those, especially with the Legacy Fund), football brings in more money than basketball because of the fat television/bowl contracts that get split evenly amongst the ACC teams.

You're gonna need to do better than that, Itam. Refer us to some stats/figures. I find it very hard to believe that Duke football outearns Duke basketball. Next you're gonna tell us that Kentucky football outearns Kentucky basketball. Or that Notre Dame basketball outearns Notre Dame football.

Merkin
08-07-2009, 05:50 PM
Duke 10/16/2007 - 10/15/2008:
men's basketball revenue $15.9M
football revenue $10.2M
men's basketball expenses $15M (WTF? They fly their own jet, or is the payoffs that high?)
football expenses $14.1M

Itamicbomb
08-07-2009, 05:53 PM
You're gonna need to do better than that, Itam. Refer us to some stats/figures. I find it very hard to believe that Duke football outearns Duke basketball. Next you're gonna tell us that Kentucky football outearns Kentucky basketball. Or that Notre Dame basketball outearns Notre Dame football.

Sorry, mistyped. I thought Duke's football team was more profitable (again, excluding motivations behind donations) mainly because they spend so much on basketball...didn't realize they were spending $14 million on football. This list also doesn't account for the $15 million they spent on the new basketball facility, although football is next. Kentucky football does outearn Kentucky basketball...SEC football payouts are gigantic.

Duke 10/16/2007 - 10/15/2008:
men's basketball revenue $15.9M
football revenue $10.2M
men's basketball expenses $15M (WTF? They fly their own jet, or is the payoffs that high?)
football expenses $14.1M

Yes, they do have a team charter.

BeachCat97
08-07-2009, 06:01 PM
Duke 10/16/2007 - 10/15/2008:
men's basketball revenue $15.9M
football revenue $10.2M
men's basketball expenses $15M (WTF? They fly their own jet, or is the payoffs that high?)
football expenses $14.1M

Thanks, Merk. We can always count on the seasoned, dependable wisdom/resourcefulness of Merk.

Merkin
08-07-2009, 06:10 PM
No team charters for PAC games allowed.

UA basketball expenses $4.4M
UA football expenses $8.5M

Both programs bring in between $16 and $17M.

IB is right about Kentucky, football brings in $25.6M and basketball only $15.2M.

All schools are searchable here: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

BeachCat97
08-07-2009, 06:22 PM
No team charters for PAC games allowed.

UA basketball expenses $4.4M
UA football expenses $8.5M

Both programs bring in between $16 and $17M.

IB is right about Kentucky, football brings in $25.6M and basketball only $15.2M.

All schools are searchable here: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Unbelievable that UK football outearns (and considerably so) UK hoops, especially when I'd bet that many UK fans/alums would gladly dismantle the football program in order to free up more funding for Calipari's empire.

97cats
09-28-2012, 12:30 PM
3-ranked shooting guard in the class. Amile Jefferson is the No. 4-ranked power forward. Scouts say Sulaimon is a natural scorer, and has the physical ability to develop into a lockdown defender on the perimeter. They point to Jeffersonís length and versatility; potentially, he could be the kind of athletic forward Duke hasnít had in years, even in seasons when it guarded well.

The main focus for the newcomers, and for Dukeís coaching staff, will be repairing the relatively shoddy defense the Blue Devils played in 2011-12. Sulaimon could make an impact here right away, but freshmen are always unpredictable. No, this restoration will require a total team effort.

Thatís a coaching buzz phrase, but one that is nonetheless applicable here. The offense will be there. Bank on it. Now everyone on this team, from the perimeter in, has to get better on the defensive wing and on the defensive glass.

If the Blue Devils want to live up to their typically high expectations -- which means competing for a national title, and nothing less -- then thatís the key. It really is that simple.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/64523/three-big-things-duke

97cats
10-08-2012, 04:45 PM
DUKE

Toughest: vs. Kentucky (Nov. 13 in Atlanta), Battle 4 Atlantis (Nov. 22-24), Ohio State (Nov. 28)

Next-toughest: Delaware (Dec. 1), Temple (Dec. 8 in East Rutherford, N.J.), vs. Davidson (Jan. 2 in Charlotte)

The rest: Georgia State (Nov. 9), Florida Gulf Coast (Nov. 18), Cornell (Dec. 19), Elon (Dec. 20), Santa Clara (Dec. 29)

Toughness scale (1-10): 9 -- Coach Mike Krzyzewski does not want another early exit from the NCAA tournament, and he’s preparing his team early with a grueling mix of Final Four contenders and mid-major talent. Kentucky (Champions Classic) and Ohio State (ACC/Big Ten Challenge) will be two early measuring sticks, and they sandwich in a challenging trip to the Bahamas, where the Blue Devils open against Minnesota, and then face either Memphis or VCU in a stacked tourney that could very well end up placing all eight participants in the Big Dance.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/64948/nonconference-schedule-analysis-acc-2

catgrad97
10-08-2012, 05:09 PM
That's the first time in history I've ever heard of a trip to the Bahamas described as "challenging."

Delaware, Davidson and Minnesota do not a 9/10 'tough' rated team make.

Flipper
10-08-2012, 05:37 PM
Maybe the scale is 1 being the toughest....:):lol2:

I agree, that's cupcake city, outside of that one game....

Merkin
10-08-2012, 05:49 PM
It's a 9 for Krzyzewski based on his history of scheduling 7 or 8 cupcakes in Durham to start the season.

Cats101
10-08-2012, 06:09 PM
I don't see any true road games...not that I'm surprised.

AZ91
10-09-2012, 02:16 AM
Delaware is tough?

97cats
10-11-2012, 02:43 PM
PITTSBURGH

Toughest: NIT Season Tip-Off (Nov. 12-23)
Next-toughest: Detroit (Dec. 1)

The rest: Mount St. Maryís (Nov. 9), Fordham (Nov. 12), Oakland (Nov. 17), Howard (Nov. 27), vs. Duquesne (Dec. 5 at Consol Energy Center), North Florida (Dec. 8), Bethune Cookman (Dec. 15), Delaware State (Dec. 19), Kennesaw State (Dec. 23)

It's hard to fault Jamie Dixon for his scheduling philosophy. As SI.com's Luke Winn wrote last month, Dixon is the nation's best RPI exploiter; he slips in every crevice of the NCAA's crude metric, all while rarely putting his team at risk. And with due praise out of the way, sorry, but this schedule is really ugly. Pitt is likely to play Michigan and either Virginia or Kansas State in the NIT Season Tip-Off, but even if those games were guaranteed they're not enough to keep the Panthers off this list. Besides, sure, Pitt was bad last year, but let's not forget that this is still Pitt, one of the most comprehensively consistent programs of the past decade. Their scheduling sights should be set much higher.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/65140/the-10-worst-nonconference-schedules

Cats101
10-11-2012, 02:48 PM
Count em up...1...2...3...4. Almost half that list are Big East teams.

Flipper
10-11-2012, 04:14 PM
Big East has always been CUPCAKE City......

Sort like the SEC in football....

97cats
10-16-2012, 01:24 PM
By: Andy Glockner

Unacceptable, given expectations

Indiana

I went on a mini-rant about this on Twitter earlier this fall, so I'll keep this brief: This schedule, for a team that many are tabbing as the preseason No. 1, is a joke. Tom Crean, known for not playing much of anyone in nonleague play, has outdone himself with this home slate and is doing an injustice to Indiana fans who stuck with the program during its dip. They're being served a platter of garbage.

The rundown:

-- Three States that are not states (San Houston, Ball, Coppin)
-- Two directional modifiers (Central Connecticut, Florida Atlantic)
-- One case of punctuation (Mount St. Mary's)
-- One guy (Bryant)
-- One school of Dolphins (Jacksonville)
-- One school who was being sued for being Sioux'd (North Dakota State)

In Indiana's modest defense, the Kentucky game fell through and the Hoosiers have 2.5 credible games away from Assembly Hall (UCLA or Georgetown and Butler, plus Georgia) as well as hosting North Carolina in the ACC-Big Ten Challenge (which they don't get credit for scheduling, but it's a quality game). They're not the first school to play a handful of decent games surrounded by dreck. But man, throw your home fans a bone. They get to see one decent game before Big Ten play. Not good enough.

NC State

This isn't exactly eye-opening, either, for a team that could be ranked in the preseason top five and should be picked to win the ACC this season.

The rundown:

-- Two States that aren't states (Cleveland -- although that's not a walkover game, Norfolk)
-- Two satellite modifiers (UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Asheville)
-- One mistaken identity (Miami Ohio before playing Miami Fla. in league play)

The Puerto Rico Tip-Off field isn't particularly strong, although UMass could be testing in a semifinal and a game against Tennessee in the final would be very watchable. UConn on a neutral court sounds better than it is. Same with a home date against Stanford. The Pack travel to Ann Arbor for the ACC-Big Ten Challenge, but don't get credit for actually scheduling that. It's far from total dreck, but it's missing some top-end meat to balance out the dinner-sized salad.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_glockner/10/16/NCAA-hoops-schedule-breakdown/index.html?sct=cb_t11_a0