I respect DK for what he's done with his business and he generally provides great sports coverage, but his comments regarding Duquesne always come off as someone who doesn't pay real close attention.

2012, no question he has an agenda that goes back to his days on the Bluff. I do have to give him credit for coving hoops and for talking about players other than Pitt's. Also another harsh reminder of where we stand in the area.

The Dome wrote:

2012, no question he has an agenda that goes back to his days on the Bluff. I do have to give him credit for coving hoops and for talking about players other than Pitt's. Also another harsh reminder of where we stand in the area.

Agreed. The problem I have with his commentary here was that it consisted of "they are losing DC and MM, therefore, they are going to have a rough year." That's just lazy. It doesn't acknowledge the new guys and replacements, and it doesn't acknowledge DC and MM's weaknesses and limitations which, in some ways, contributed to the team's lack of success in the conference season. Some of those weaknesses and limitations will be eradicated by the replacements

ED agreed. What I found most disturbing is the absolute belief the RMU will "fix" things and be better. As all of us are painfully aware the rebuild sign has been out on us for way to long.

I can see the value in both of your posts regarding the DK piece.  Certainly nobody can look at the results we've endured for the last 30-40 years and blame anyone but Duquesne for allowing a great tradition to die a slow death.  On the other hand  DK and his cub reporter pretty much stated the obvious, and didn't bother to do much in the way of research into the new players other than the nice comments on Ike Mike.