Talk:Mike Krzyzewski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Mike Krzyzewski is part of WikiProject College Basketball, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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

• What controversy? Wahkeenah 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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.

Contents 1 Salary 2 Unfinished table 3 Beyond the Glory 4 USA Basketball 5 Controversy section discussion 6 Lakers/Krzyzewski/Roy Williams

[edit] Salary

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

[edit] Unfinished table

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: [1] Remember 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond the Glory

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)

[edit] USA Basketball

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

[edit] Controversy section discussion

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. -Bluedog423^Talk 04:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Dubc0724 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Remember 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakers/Krzyzewski/Roy Williams

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)

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)

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)