Jump to content

Talk:Mike Krzyzewski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commericals and refs

[edit]

Shouldn't there be some information concerning the controversy over Krzyzewski's MasterCard and Chevrolet commercials? User:Rebel81086 18:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the gist was that they were promoting him as a really great, inspiring, perfect coach... and that would give him an unfair recruiting advantage. I recall hearing about it on Pardon the Interruption - so presumably some sources could be dug up if anyone is really inspired. Not sure if it warrants anything more than a blurb. --W.marsh 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the way you describe it, it warrants no comment at all. Every major school has a recruiting advantage. If the NCAA has a problem with these ads, then it could be notable. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Wahkeenah 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the section "officiating controversy" should be deleted. I don't know of a single basketball coach who has never been in a dispute about officiating, on either the side defending the calls or arguing the calls. Even though ESPN has put forth a lot of coverage about a "Duke conspiracy," I think this section is not one of the more important aspects of Mike Krzyzewski (it's about ACC officiating), and does not belong in a biographical article of this size. If it deserves to be here, then Jim Calhoun ought to have a section on the discrepancy of foul calls his team gets (since it has been larger than Duke's in recent years) and his complaints to officials. Thus, I am deleting it, unless somebody can conjure up an argument defending its contribution to the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.80.186 (talk • contribs)

Many coaches have been accused of getting calls. The difference is that the ACC openly punished some officials for bias regarding Duke. To my recollection this has never happened before. It deserves to be in the biography because no one talks about Coach K anymore without bringing up the controversy. Whether the bias is there or not, this subject is attached to Coach K more than any other coach and should be noted. The suspension of refs and conspiracy theories got more media coverage than did his accepting the job as US Olympic coach. Your argument that "a biography of this size" does not have room for mentioning something like this is invalid. Who says the biography has to be limited to the size that it is currently? It should constantly be added to as new developments show up. Therefore I am adding the section back until you can explain yourself more clearly.

First of all, if this is a fact-based encyclopedia, the thing about the BC game needs to be taken out since it's opinion. In addition, the same accusations were leveled at Dean Smith when he was the coach at UNC, the only difference being that ESPN wasn't around back then to build a programing block around a manufactured controversy. Also, if you look at the foul situation after those refs were suspended, officials actually called more fouls against Duke than they did for them. Case in point would be the second game against Florida State, when Duke went to the line 17 times to the Seminoles 40. Since the games at the end of the year are more important than ones during the regular season, then one can interpret the data as the refs having a bias AGAINST the Blue Devils, especially when it mattered most. There is absolutely no grounds for such a paragraph in this article, it's all baloney.

How is the thing about BC all opinion? Whether or not the game happened and whether refs got suspended is not opinion. What is opinion is whether the foul called had bias or not. That's why it's called a controversy. How are there no grounds for a paragraph when in the first time in college basketball ACC refs were suspended for treating one team better than another? This is a first, so it should be included. I'll edit the paragraph some and tell me what you think. But regardless the suspension needs to be included because it was a first.

It was a first? It's hard for me to believe that ACC officials have never been suspended before. Please show me an article that says that.

Salary

[edit]

I don't think the salary information is relevant and should be cut. Remember 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no opinion on this myself. But, question! If you don't think the information is relevant, then why don't you think it should be cut? 140.147.160.34 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]
If you actually READ the comment you'll see the recommendation is that the irrelevant information SHOULD be cut.--76.87.222.255 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished table

[edit]

I added the section that stated all of the seasons and the record but I did not have enough time to complete it. I'll complete it later, but if someone wants to complete it now they can go to: [2] Remember 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Glory

[edit]

I was thinking this "*Featured Athlete on Fox Sports Net's Beyond the Glory" should be cut because it doesn't add anything to the page. Does anyone have any strong feelings about this? Remember 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time in the Army

[edit]

Since hundreds of thousands of American boys were drafted and sent to Vietnam, it can't be accurate that Coach K was able to coach basketball during his Army time, can it? For example, I was drafted out of law school. Surely a service academy graduate wouldn't be coaching hoops while draftees were fighting a war? Additional detail on this would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USA Basketball

[edit]

I removed the text about "self aggrandizing" as it was unsourced, pejorative and violated NPOV. Jknoble 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article doesn't do a good job of not neglecting certain aspects of the article, mainly a lack of coverage of his career coaching USA BasketballBradleywstewart (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section discussion

[edit]

Others have been deleting the controversy section, which I assume will be reverted again shortly. In my opinion, the first paragraph should be deleted, but the second two paragraphs should remain. The fact that ACC officials got ejected for calling a technical foul doesn't belong in an article about Mike Krzyzewski, it would belong in a controversy section of an article titled ACC Officiating, which doesn't exist. The fact the officials made an allegedly bad call and got suspended has no relation to Coach K whatsoever unless somebody can cite a source that states the Coach K actively made the officials call a technical foul on the opposing player. If an official mistakingly counted a basket after the buzzer in a game-ending circumstance in a game (which has happened), would you include that tidbit in the article about one of the team's coaches? Of course not. However, the allegations that he cursed at undergraduates of the newspaper and the "silence" amidst the lacrosse scandal are actually actions by Coach K and are thus much more relevant. -Bluedog423Talk 04:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Dubc0724 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Remember 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers/Krzyzewski/Roy Williams

[edit]

I removed the mention of Krzyzewski turning down the Lakers job after Roy Williams turned it down. Krzyzewski turned down the job when Phil Jackson left. Williams turned it down when Tomjanovich left (before Jackson came back).

The mention of Williams was basically irrelevant, and it read as if Williams was the Lakers' "first choice" over Krzyzewski, which is inaccurate. Dubc0724 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - Coach Williams apparently turned it down three times (or at least declined to go past the person of interest stage three times) and Coach Krzyzewski turned it down twice. Here's an article for the [2004] time after Coach Jackson with both of them turning it down (which was the one in the article; the reference I used was solely for the "turned us down three times" quote, supporting that Roy Williams had indeed turned them down.) DukeEGR93 19:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK... I wasn't disputing that Williams had turned the job down; I only disputed the way it was worded. It was my understanding that Coach K was offered the job when Jackson left, but Williams wasn't offered it until they were trying to replace Rudy T. Sounds like I'm all mixed up... Thanks for the info. Dubc0724 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1994-1995

[edit]

This article seems to gloss over the 1994-1995 season. The facts are:

Krzyzewski coached the first 12 games (9-3) in 1994-95 before leaving the team for back surgery and exhaustion. Pete Gaudet coached the final 19 games (4-15) as interim head coach. (in article)

Krzyzewski appealed to have those games removed from his record. [citation needed]

He later claimed "I should have been credited with all of those losses." [1]

If we provide a citation for his appeal, the whole bit should appear under the contraversy section. If talking heads like Billy Packer are still discussing it a dozen years later, it IS contraversy. --70.108.15.246 03:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that's because Billy Packer hates Duke for some reason. If I quoted Dick Vitale saying "JJ Redick is the best player ever" (I don't think he's ever actually said that contrary to what Duke-haters want you to think; also, I think most Duke fans find Vitale annoying a lot of the time), I'm sure people would delete the quote saying, POV POV! Dick Vitale loves Duke so he's not unbiased! I'd argue the same thing with Billy Packer. And Doug Gottlieb and Gregg Doyel, but that's another story. The NCAA's standard practice has always been to not credit coaches with neither wins nor losses accumulated when they missed extended parts of the season. See the similar cases of Phog Allen (Kansas, 1947), Harold Anderson, (Bowling Green, 1951), Slats Gill (Oregon State, 1960), Cappy Cappon, (Princeton, 1961), Doggie Julian (Dartmouth, 1967), and Rick Majerus (Utah, 1990, and again in 2001).Link no longer works, can't find the cached version. In any event, I argue that there is no controversy except that Duke-haters everywhere want to see Coach K fail. And where is the source that says Krzyzewski appealed to have those games removed from his record?-Bluedog423Talk 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text that was removed looks pretty good. It is factual and sourced and has apparently been improved since the text above in this discussion. What more do you want? To arbitrarily remove things that you don't like? -207.145.105.170 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem whatsoever with what it says right now, and it is even properly cited. The source used states, "Johnson, the NCAA's associate director of statistics, said Duke followed NCAA protocol for coach Mike Krzyzewski's leave of absence in January 1995. Johnson talked to Duke officials before assistant coach Gaudet directed the team while Krzyzewski had back surgery and recovered from exhaustion [...] NCAA procedures allow the school to decide which coach gets credit when a leave of absence is taken."Charlotte Observer article My argument is that Duke clearly followed the NCAA rules, so how is there controversy? Because Billy Packer doesn't like the NCAA rule? Then make a controversy of the NCAA if you want. If you think this information is significant enough to be in the article (which I personally don't think it is), then it should at least be moved to the "Tenure at Duke" section since there is no controversy. -Bluedog423Talk 05:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sports Illustrated. [1]

NPOV

[edit]

anyone else bothered by that caption under the picture?


#1 in AP Polls?

[edit]

As listed for some years (2005-06, 2001-02, etc), Duke was #1 for the final post season poll for the AP?? How is that possible if they did not win the national championship (only made the Sweet 16 or other)? That just doesn't make sense, and should probably be changed if incorrect. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing his name

[edit]

tell me why the Polish pronunciation is given in IPA and the American English Pronunciation is given in English-orthography-based pseudo-transcription. As a linguist I HATE HATE HATE pseudo-transcription based on the orthography of a certain language. I'm changing it to IPA, if people can't read it that's their problem, wiki IPA help you morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.89 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that a "linguist" is using such ungrammatical language in their postings (lack of capitalization at the beginning of sentences, for example)... --Enigmatick 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when i wish to type something quickly and i am ONLINE, i tend not to capitalize due to its slowing me down. linguists are not concerned with perfectly prescriptive grammar, linguists are for the most part descriptivists. shows how much you know. wiki "linguistic prescription" before you go off running your damn mouth about how linguists ought to always use prescriptive grammar, because that couldn't be further from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.237.118 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some authority for the pronunciation given for his name?

I ask because, in Polish, that initial K would be pronounced. The fact that it's not commonly pronounced "Kri-ZOO-skee" suggests to me that he's made some effort to have it pronounced in the Polish way. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

I understand that it's polish, and hence pronounced somewhat differently than it is spelled. However, this pronunciation is just absurd. There are no "f"s anywhere in the vicinity of his last name. There are no letters that even approximate a "sh" sound, but there are supposedly two of those in the pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.3.33.116 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Im new & have no idea about editing or anything, so Ill leave that up to you guys. But this following clip shows Coach K, saying his last name, and he most definetly does not pronounce it...sha-SHEF-skee. Sha-zhef-skee is how he pronounces it. Now I now everyone uses the first pronounciation but I think we should go with how HE pronounces it, it is his name after all. Anyhoo, within 30 seconds of this clip, he says his last name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnX0-V3vw28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.6.180 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, here he acknowledges that his name has been Anglicized from its proper pronunciation, 'Krzyzewski relished the opportunity to go back and forth with a journalist from Poland. "You're the first one to pronounce my name right," Krzyzewski quipped. "I can't even pronounce my name right."' http://www.espn.com/olympics/basketball/story/_/id/17356879/olympics-2016-kobe-bryant-coach-k-brought-pride-being-american-back-team-usa
Both pronunciations should be given with an explanation.87.101.134.174 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Alex.alm@gmail.com, 6 April 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Krzyzewski's record in the NCAA tournament now is 77-22, not 76-22 as listed in Tenure at Duke. Percentage is 77.8%

Alex (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of appearances in the title game

[edit]

His records need to be expanded. Coach K has coached in 8 title games, second only to John Wooden. His victory total of 4 is tied for second with Adolph Rupp. Ironically, he has also been the LOSING coach in 4 title games, giving him the dubious distinction of having coached the most losing teams in the title game (Dean Smith is second with 3 losses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.161.17 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All true, but not remotely ironic. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to moving milestone wins into a timeline?

[edit]

The Duke section is sort of repetitive - 500th win, 900th win, 900th win, etc. etc. Would it make sense to turn this into a timeline, something like:

Notable wins

[edit]
  • 227th win (all-time winningest coach at Duke, passing Eddie Cameron): (March 16th, 1990) (cite)
  • 903rd win (all-time winningest NCAA Div. 1 men's basketball coach, passing Bob Knight): (Nov. 11, 2011) (cite)
  • 1000th win (first Div. 1 men's coach to pass 1,000 wins): (date) (cite)

I feel like this format would be easier to read/update, and eliminate a bunch of the redundant verbiage in the body. Anyone object to me starting on it? —Luis (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACC Coach of the Year

[edit]

Text says that he was Coach of the Year in 1974, but he was a coach at Indiana at that time. I think it is supposed to be 1984. This is confirmed later in the list of ACC Coaches of the Year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.24.80 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Krzyzewski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mike Krzyzewski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major style edits needed

[edit]

Why does this article look like this? Lolz56777 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

[edit]

I would like to add the term "Greatest of all time" to the See also section for Mike Krzyzewski's wikipedia page. Eligertler34 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Krzyzewski&oldid=1252197830"