Skip to content

No, Mike Krzyzewski, it’s not harder to win at Duke than with the New York Yankees

Nov 16, 2011, 9:12 AM EDT

Duke v Michigan State Getty Images

Last night Mike Krzyzewski became college basketball’s all-time winningest coach. Good for him. One of his postgame comments was interesting:

Krzyzewski used the New York Yankees to explain how hard it is to keep a program on top because of players changing every four years, or even earlier with the NBA draft looming overhead. “We don’t have Jeter or Rivera for 15 straight years and you have to do it in intense competition in a great school,” he said. “We never have problems because usually we can develop a team.

Call me crazy, but is it not 1000 times easier for an elite college sports program to attract top talent year-in, year-out than it is for a major league baseball team to develop two Hall of Fame talents and keep them together for 15 years?

In the latter instance you have those couple of Yankees players and … well, that’s pretty much it.  In contrast, what Duke and Krzyzewski does is to basically sign the top three or four free agents every single year for decades on end.  Except they don’t have to pay them. And there are several programs that do this in both basketball and football, albeit not quite at the high level Krzyzewski does it.

That’s not to take away from Krzyzewski.  He has to maintain that high standard he has established and he has certainly done it really well.  But to think that there isn’t a really huge amount of momentum that keeps a major program like Duke basketball going that simply doesn’t exist in baseball seems off to me.

I’ll cut him some slack, though. Bobby Knight hugged him after the game and that was bound to addle his senses a bit.

  1. woodenulykteneau - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

    I believe he was referring to the difficulty in doing so while maintaining the facade that is the student-athlete. And as we saw with Ped State, that veneer has remained intact.

  2. stlouis1baseball - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

    Craig: Some would say it is much easier for the Yankees because all they have to do is open their checkbook and buy another title.

    • phukyouk - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM

      I dont get it…. are people really that stupid? I literally cannot count the number of times i have seen ” Buy another title ” used on this site in the last month. they Yankees have 27 Chips. if you are going to make stupid asinine comments like that PLEASE do me a favor and tally up how many of those 27 were “bought”.

      • stlouis1baseball - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM

        How many were “bought?” You can’t be serious.

      • mrfloydpink - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM

        Well, let’s see.

        In the 1920s, the Yankees could afford to buy Babe Ruth from the Red Sox (as opposed to investing their money in the play “No, No, Nanette”

        In the 1930s, they could afford to pay Ruth the highest salary in baseball.

        In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, they had the resources to scout more widely than anyone else, and to pay higher signing bonuses than anyone else. This landed them California’s Joe DiMaggio, Oklahoma’s Mickey Mantle, and Missouri’s Yogi Berra, among others.

        In the 1970s and 1980s, they could afford to outbid other teams for free agents like Reggie Jackson and Dave Winfield.

        In the 1990s and 2000, they were able to pay the Alex Rodriguezes of the world $30 million while keeping any of their homegrown talent that they wanted–Jeter, Posada, Williams, etc.

        So, let me do some quick math. Of the 27 titles, I’d say the Yankees’ superior financial situation was a critical factor in roughly…27 of them.

        Unless, of course, you think the Yankees have just been lucky for 90 straight years.

      • phukyouk - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

        That may be the stupidest response i have ever heard. so that i understand from 1920-present the ONLY reason that the Yanks won 27 Titles is cause they bought all their talent. yea that sounds about right.

      • paperlions - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM

        No, he just pointed out that money has ALWAYS been the primary driver behind the Yankees success…they have never been the Twins, the Rays, or the A’s….they have always had money and always spent a lot of it.

        Jeez, is it that hard to admit that the primary driver behind their team is money? Other team’s can’t afford to keep every star they develop and some can’t afford to keep any of them. The Yankees can keep their own and buy other people’s. Nearly every off-season, the primary thing you are concerned about is who the Yankees can acquire via FA by paying more than anyone else….most other fan bases are most worried about keeping their own guys or the development of young players.

      • phukyouk - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

        Paper – they got money to spend and they spend it each year on the best piece available if possible. nothing wrong with that. I don’t understand what the problem is… IF you had $100MM you would most likely buy whatever you wanted as well.
        what all the idiots here fail to mention is the amount of $$ the Yanks/Sox/Mets give the league every year as part of the Luxury tax which almost never gets spent on improving the team. Listen… I’m not going to argue this point anymore. you want to hate the success of the Yanks cause they are rich, fine, go ahead. just make sure that when you walk through a rich a neighborhood you also throw eggs at the doors of the nice houses cause you cannot afford them either.

      • mrfloydpink - Nov 16, 2011 at 12:30 PM

        Uh, phukyouk, it was you who said (rather rudely) “are people really that stupid?” You also challenged everyone to do you a favor and tally up how many championships the Yankees have bought.

        Given your comment, I did just that, though I didn’t even use the word “bought.” I simply observed that the Yankees superior financial position is, and always has been, a major factor in their success. I’m not sure why that statement–which is rooted in facts that I summarized for you–is problematic or offensive. If it is, then you really shouldn’t issue challenges like the one you did.

        What I did not do, despite your accusations to the contrary:

        – Assert that money is the ONLY reason for the Yankees’ success
        – “Hate” on the rich
        – Suggest that I would not do the same in their position, or that I wouldn’t want my team (the Angels) to do the same if they could
        – Write anything that was contradictory and/or hypocritical

        In short, I think your attack on me–“the stupidest response I have ever heard” are unwarranted. And, in any event, you need to decide exactly what you believe. You cannot condemn the suggestions that the Yankees have a big financial advantage, and then turn around and say, “they got money to spend and they spend it each year on the best piece available if possible. nothing wrong with that.” Which is it?

      • phukyouk - Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM

        So i ask to tally up how many were “bought” and you answer
        a) all of them since 1920
        or
        b) none of them but they are super rich so there!
        SO
        either you answered my question by saying they bought all 27 OR you answered a question that i didnt ask.. yea… pretty stupid if you ask me

      • mrfloydpink - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM

        This is not a binary situation. It is not the case that the only options are (a) The Yankees titles were 0% due to their financial largesse, and (b) The Yankees titles were 100% due to their financial largesse. Anyhow, since you seem to be having a little trouble here, let me put it more simply:

        You asked: How many of the Yankees’ 27 titles were “bought”?
        I answered: Their wealth played an important role in all 27, I would say.

        There it is. Now please proceed with your reply, in which you will surely call me “stupid” a third time.

      • phukyouk - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:29 PM

        first off i never called you stupid i called the comment stupid, there is a difference however slight it may be. If Stephen Hawkings said that the O’s were the best team in MLB i would say ” that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard” but i am clearly not calling HIM dumb. THAT being said.. over and over and over folks like to say that the Yanks “buy” WS titles. I usually retort with ” how many have they NOT won with their crazy high payroll?” this time i asked for some proof that even half of their 27 were “bought”. its aggravating more than anything else. The yanks are one of, if not THE, richest teams in Sports history (MLB,NBA,NFL,NHL) and they flaunt it and spend it. as stated before they ALSO give almost every team in MLB a significant amount of $$ every year which, for the most part, does not get put back into the team. perhaps if teams like the Rays, A’s, O’s and so on took even 50% of the luxury tax dollars and spent it on FA they would have a better chance at a WS title ( I am aware that the Rays have made the Post season 3 out of the last 4 yrs).
        at no point have i disputed that their wealth has played a part in their success but by saying that they have “bought” 27 chips is saying that Jeter, Joe D. Mo, Mantel, Gherig and so on played NO part at all in their success.

        If i have insulted you i apologize but it is beyond infuriating that there are folks out there that cannot recognize that the Yanks have plenty of hoe grown kids that have played a HUGE part in their history.

      • davidpom50 - Nov 16, 2011 at 2:21 PM

        Phukyouk says “by saying that they have “bought” 27 chips is saying that Jeter, Joe D. Mo, Mantel, Gherig and so on played NO part at all in their success.”

        Clearly he missed the part where mrfloydpink laid out clearly how the Yankee’s financial might allowed them to offer larger signing bonuses than anyone else to DiMaggio, Mantel, and Gehrig in the days before the draft, and pay more than anyone else to keep homegrown talent like Jeter and Rivera.

        You should read everything, dude.

      • phukyouk - Nov 16, 2011 at 3:09 PM

        “Clearly he missed the part where mrfloydpink laid out clearly how the Yankee’s financial might allowed them to offer larger signing bonuses than anyone else to DiMaggio, Mantel, and Gehrig in the days before the draft, and pay more than anyone else to keep homegrown talent like Jeter and Rivera.”

        No I didn’t. twice i said how other teams should use the luxury tax given to them by the Yanks to “put back into their team”

        Perhaps it is you that should read everything?

      • mrfloydpink - Nov 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM

        I only have time for a few responses:

        1. Nobody is saying that other factors are not part of the Yankees’ success. They have built a mystique and a culture that makes players want to play for them. They have had some very skillful managers and scouts. They have made some good draft picks. They play in a very favorable home field environment.

        2. The factors I listed above are abstracts. So too is the impact of the Yankees’ wealth. As these things are abstract, they cannot be quantified or “proven.” I cannot present to you conclusive proof that the Yankees’ most recent title was, say, 44% financial resources, 10% clubhouse culture, 6% scouting, 20% management, 8% mystique, 4% home field advantage in the WS, and 6% luck. As such, I cannot select a particular championship and “prove” it was bought. Nor would I want to do so, because I do not believe that any of the Yankees championships can be attributed 100% to their money.

        3. That said, as I tried to make clear, and as the previous poster noted, it’s not as simple as calling some players “home grown.” Lou Gehrig was a New Yorker who went to Columbia University, so it was easy for the Yanks to become aware of him. But it was their money that allowed them to beat out the Giants for his services. Joe DiMaggio was a Yankee for life, but only because the Yankees could afford to pay $25,000 to the San Francisco Seals to purchase his contract. Derek Jeter will be a Yankee for life (presumably), but that has only been made possible by the fact that the Yankees could pay him $51 million for seasons in which he will undoubtedly be in decline. Most teams could not pay him that at any time, much less the tail end of his career.

        4. Finally, the distinction you draw between calling me stupid and calling my comment stupid, well, I dunno. That distinction is particularly difficult to see in your second usage of the word. I would submit that it’s probably best to just keep such things out of the conversation.

    • Bill - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:42 AM

      Even if this were true — and I hate the Yankees, but come on — I don’t see how opening the checkbook is more work than sitting back and waiting for the best talent in the country to come and beg you to let them play for you (presumably) for free.

      • stlouis1baseball - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM

        I apologize Bill as I am not fully grasping what you are saying. Either way…Kopy, ThatGuy and FrankLapidus do a great job of illustrating where I stand on the whole thing. As mentioned previously though…all the Yankees have to do is open the checkbook and pick their number of years. Coach ‘K’ (and I am NOT a Duke fan by any means) has to sell it…sell it…sell it on a year in…year out basis…over and over and over. All the while…trying to sell it AND explain to a kid why he would want to go to a place like Duke when there are a multitude of other (far less demanding) places to spend their next YEAR or TWO.

      • djpostl - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:53 PM

        Lol I wanna know who the eleven Dukies were that gave this a thumbs down. When you’re a big program like that you are “buying” players too so stow it.

  3. catsmeat - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:19 AM

    Craig, you’re trolling the Dookies now? This could be entertaining.

    • foreverchipper10 - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:32 PM

      Ha. Poops.

  4. philsieg - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:22 AM

    “Last night Mike Krzyzewski became college basketball’s all-time winningest men’s coach.”

    Fixed that fer ya.

    • brewcrewfan54 - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:59 AM

      Leader in Division 1 mens wins.

      Fixed that fer ya.

      • philsieg - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM

        Thanks.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM

        You’re welcome.

    • metalhead65 - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM

      nobody cares how many games the ladies or any division other than division 1 coach has won. stop trying to compare them to the big boys. if they were on the same level then they should be coaching on the same same level. there fixed that for you.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM

        You told me.

      • philsieg - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM

        “nobody cares how many games the ladies…” I’m sure you’re a big hit with those selfsame ladies you call nobodies. Well, your moniker’s appropriate anyway.

      • paperlions - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:34 AM

        I don’t know…I’m more impressed with people that win in versions of the sport that aren’t corrupted, where the athletes are also students (which does seem to be mostly true for Duke, though not with most D-1 BB programs), and where recruiting is based on the quality of the program and not the quantity of the under-the-table benefits.

  5. stlouis1baseball - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:23 AM

    The Scene:
    The (2011-2012) College Basketball Season is about to begin and Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski
    is 3 Wins away from surpassing his Coach & Mentor Bob Knight for most wins in D-1 College Basketball.

    Coach Knight: Michael…can you talk to the kids about getting these 3 wins as quickly as possible?

    Coach ‘K': Um…sure Coach. The 1st three games are important…all of the games are important.

    Coach Knight: No…No…not that. I am just getting tired of saying nice things about you.

  6. kopy - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:24 AM

    I’d call you crazy. The Yankees throw the most money at the best talent. I know there’s a little more to it, but that’s the bare bones. And at the end of the day, they are one of 30 in MLB. Whenever there’s a high-end free agent, there’s always only a few teams that are even in the running.

    Duke is one of 342 college basketball teams. They may both be one of the most respected teams in their game, but I think it’s a lot harder to constantly attract high school kids all over the country and get them to commit to your school and not one of the 341 others. Either you are breaking NCAA rules to get a leg up in recruiting, and have to be careful, or you’re at a disadvantage with the schools that are. In MLB, you have signed contracts so you know what you have. NCAA scholarships go year-to-year, so you don’t know if you have a player for 1-5 years (redshirt), and you won’t find out until the last minute.

    The only thing that’s probably easier is managing a roster of 12 vs. 25.

    • ThatGuy - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:33 AM

      Not to mention the Yankee’s don’t really have any peers in terms of the type of money they can spend, where in Basketball there are other year in year out powerhouses. UNC and UCONN to name two. Plus the local college team, often has a leg up in recruiting.

      • kopy - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:40 AM

        Exactly. All D1 programs have the same amount of resources, the number of scholarships the can offer. It’s essentially an equal salary cap for all teams. If they use up all the scholarships on bad signings, and a great player comes knocking on the door, too bad.

        Even though MLB contracts are guaranteed, you can still take a player off your roster and sign someone else.

      • Bill - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:47 AM

        Seems a little (and by a little, I mean jaw-droppingly) naive to say that two teams, one with 13 Duke scholarships and one with 13, say, San Diego State scholarships, have “the same amount of resources.”

      • kopy - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:54 AM

        The resources may be more valuable, but unless players would rather pay to attend and play at Duke than attend SDSU for free, it’s still a huge issue that they have the same limited amount.

        Besides, Duke is tied for 5th in Men’s Basketball titles. They’re not the Yankees. There are lots of other schools on equal footing. I don’t think great players look at this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG and choose Duke as often as pro players choose the Yankees. I mean, the ones that CAN choose, not the ones that are drafted and stuck for 6 years.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM

        Wrong, kopy. Duke can actually drop a player’s scholarship at any time, for any reason. This is actually something that the NCAA is finally addressing by giving conferences the option of making scholarship offers more than a year-to-year affair, but right now they basically work like pre-arbitration baseball player contracts – each year, we decide if you come back for the minimum or get cut.

      • kopy - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM

        I was thinking about a team that already offers all its scholarships in one recruiting year and then doesn’t have any more to give out to other players, but you’re right. At the same time though, year-to-year scholarships means your players can transfer out, which does happen.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM

        Sure, but at an incredibly harsh penalty. And while it’s true that he could run out of scholarships to offer on a year-to-year basis, he’s not going to get surprised by a superstar recruit picking Dook at the end – he’ll be in on that player the whole way and holding a scholarship open for him.

        Further, the number of scholarships is more of a roster-constraint issue than a salary cap issue, and in that case I’d argue that the Yankees modus operandi leaves them with much less flexibility. Nothing is really stopping Koach K from going out and recruiting the top point guard in the country, even if he already has a point guard. The Yankees, on the other hand, are basically restricted from the Pujols/Fielder derby by the presence of Mark Teixeira’s contract already being on the books.

      • kopy - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:21 AM

        The Yankees are only restricting themselves. The only restriction is money (which they have the most of) and roster spots (which can be instantly opened). The Yankees weren’t restricted from acquiring and signing A-Rod when they already had Jeter.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM

        So… it’s easier for the Yankees to simply bench/cut Teixeira than it is for Dook to open a scholarship? Practically speaking, that’s a lot to swallow.

      • kopy - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM

        Why do you think it’s harder for the Yankees to bench Tex and sign a new first baseman than it is for Duke to bench their starting PG and sign a new one?

      • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM

        Because $20 million/year is a hell of a lot more to swallow than not renewing a kid’s scholarship.

    • stlouis1baseball - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM

      Dead on Kopy.

      • woodenulykteneau - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:47 AM

        As long as you naively believe that a degree from Duke costs the same, and has the same catchet, as one from Presbyterian College…

  7. yankeesgameday - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:24 AM

    Nah, both the Yankees and duke just outspend every other team to get the best players every year.

  8. franklapidus316 - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM

    Not exactly a Duke fan, and Coach K always comes off like a tool, but how’s he so off on that? Duke doesn’t have a payroll way out of line with the rest of college hoops year after year(well, as far as we know). And even if he signs 3-4 top free agents every year by your analogy, so do 30 other programs. In the early 90’s, Duke had an edge in that their players were staying 4 years while others were losing their stars after 1 or 2, but that’s long gone. And that came with the disadvantage of having ostensibly higher academic standards to deal with.

  9. ramsyanks - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:28 AM

    Coach K is the White D-EVIL … Go Yanks, Go Heels!!!!

  10. florida76 - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:30 AM

    Given the incredible resources a team like the Yankess have, why would anyone think it’s difficult to keep hall of fame caliber players together for a long time? Ditto for good players as well.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM

      difficult to keep hall of fame caliber players together for a long time

      People need to understand that this is the best benefit the Yankees money has, not buying FA. It’s quite possible the Yanks could end up with 4 HoFers from the Core Four. How many other teams could afford to keep 2 HoF players on their team for 15+ years with the salaries these guys commanded let alone 4.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 16, 2011 at 12:24 PM

        Piggybacking on this, look at the Twins for example. They end up with Mauer, who was on pace to be one of the great catchers with phenomenal defense and a good bat. They sign him to a $180M deal (market value). Could they turn around and do the same for Liriano, or what if they still had Santana?

        Many teams can afford to keep one great player at a market rate, how can they keep up with a team that can afford 5+?

  11. duvisited - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:42 AM

    Is this the offseason plan – Craig surveys the sports world for new fanbases to troll? I like it – Pittsburgh Steelers should probably be next.

    In any case, the bigger accomplishment wasn’t winning consistently at an elite program, it was building an elite program with mixed recent results while working in proximity to an already established elite program.

    • nolanwiffle - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:09 PM

      Duke played in the 1978 National Championship game (and lost to KY) in 1978, just two years prior to Coach K’s arrival. Duke had a proud basketball history before 1980.

  12. birdsnblues - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM

    Duke is the premier team in CBB…Coach K showers with Sandusky

    • foreverchipper10 - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:35 PM

      Uncalled for. Use your head.

  13. jlinatl - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:44 AM

    Interesting comparison. Yankees lead 5-4 during Coach K era. I think the 1 and Done changes could help Duke as they seem to recruit/get less of those players than other perennial powerhouses. The Yankees open checkbook would need to be cross referenced to Duke’s basketball budget (including recruiting) to get a truer picture. I’m far too lazy for that.

  14. linedrivehit - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:47 AM

    Sure, but then the Yankees add A-Rod, Sabathia, and Teixeira with the stroke of a pen and THAT was easy – 3 of the 4 highest paid players in baseball. But that couldnt buy the championship so now they are going after C.J. Wilson. Checkbook please!

    • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM

      Last time I checked, the Yankees won the championship the first year all three players were on the team.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM

        Excuse me, somehow mis-read A-Rod as AJ. Point still stands, though – they’ve won with all three on the roster.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 16, 2011 at 12:25 PM

        Arod was also a trade, but people conveniently forget that.

      • nolanwiffle - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM

        I think his contract was traded with him.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 2:49 PM

        Only part of it.

  15. winkeroni - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM

    I’m not at all a Duke fan and even I admire what Coach K does. There is seldom a player on his teams that is ever a superstar in the NBA. It’s unselfish play and team work that gets his programs wins. The top players out of hs don’t find themselves in a Blue Devil uniform very often. Most of his student athletes leave degrees not after a season.

    I believe you’re confusing Coach K with more of a John Cal that goes out and gets the top players year in and year out. His players are like a revolving door in one year and out the next year as a 1st round draft pick. You’ve got to give Coach K some credit for developing the talent that he does get and winning.

  16. Jonny 5 - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM

    Pat Summitt has well over 1000 wins……

    • Kevin S. - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM

      Pat Summit coaches in a league that has roughly six programs on a completely different level from the rest of the country.

  17. yankeesfanlen - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM

    I don’t like college basketball.The New York Yankees can spend as much as they like.
    Have a nice day.

  18. Jonny 5 - Nov 16, 2011 at 10:30 AM

    Kevin, that doesn’t change the fact that She is indeed the record holder for the most wins for a college basketball coach.

  19. JBerardi - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM

    “In the latter instance you have those couple of Yankees players and … well, that’s pretty much it. In contrast, what Duke and Krzyzewski does is to basically sign the top three or four free agents every single year for decades on end. Except they don’t have to pay them. And there are several programs that do this in both basketball and football, albeit not quite at the high level Krzyzewski does it.”

    This is why Americans love college sports so much, they represent the truest American value of them all: the theft of labor. Well, it worked on the plantations and it works pretty well for D1 football/basketball schools too…

    • JBerardi - Nov 16, 2011 at 12:23 PM

      Oh, I’m sorry. I inadvertently compared a bunch of young men doing body-destroying labor in the hot sun all for no pay and no pension in order to enrich large, powerful institutions to slavery. Silly mistake, that.

      • nolanwiffle - Nov 16, 2011 at 1:19 PM

        You also failed to mention that slaves weren’t given an education, conservatively valued at roughly $100,000.

  20. cshearing - Nov 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

    They both have an easier time than most of the teams they are competing against.

  21. schmedley69 - Nov 16, 2011 at 9:24 PM

    The Yankees don’t have the benefit of the umps swaying games in their favor like Coach K does with the refs in College BB.

  22. bozosforall - Nov 17, 2011 at 11:03 AM

    The only comparison between Duke and the Yankees is that both teams play their players.

  23. bozosforall - Nov 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM

    The “greatest resources” argument is invalid. Tom Yawkey consistently spent tons of money in the time that he was the Red Sox owner, yet he got NO titles for all of the money that he splashed around. Much like all the money that John Henry and Tom Werner threw around to build the current team, the only difference being that the Yawkey teams didn’t have the added benefit of steroids to fuel his squads to victory.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches