Skip to main content
The Significance of 903





In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I adopted the Duke Blue Devils as my second-favorite team (after my alma mater) sometime in the '90s. College basketball has its share of legend coaches, just like football. In a certain way, there are more of them: Wooden, Smith, Rupp, Knight, and the rest. If you watch the sport, there are those still in the game who are legends even before their sunset: Boeheim, Calhoun, Pitino, Krzyzewski. And now
Krzyzewski stands above them atop the win list of men's college basketball. The relatively young man of 64 is numerically greater than all of them. What would have happened if the coach had not led his seriously flawed team past the rising Butler Bulldogs in 2010? Would the celebration of this moment, the adulation, and the editorials be this fawning? No way. And surely that run was energized by leading Team USA to Olympic gold in Beijing. So here we are, facing one incontovertible fact: Arguably the greatest coach ever in college basketball doesn't think he's done yet. He and Coach Pat Summitt can argue that one while there's still time. But they asked him what was next. He said he hadn't won a championship with this team. That didn't sound like a man riding off into the sunset. Imagine what it would be like to be on a team that plays in the championship tournament every year. What if that same team were in the final 16 teams of that tournament nearly every year, and was considered a failure if not? Imagine a bad season of 30-5. Imagine defeating most of your opponents on fear alone. You begin to get some idea what Coach K has done. More championships than Smith. More than Knight. More than Boeheim. With recent events, we can't extrapolate moral virtue from athletic dominance or loyalty, if we ever could. But we can say that a seemingly nice guy has already redefined basketball, and isn't near done.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...