Why My Wife is to Blame for Duke's Thursday Night Comeback

Thursday night the NC State Wolfpack made the short trek over to Durham to take on the third-ranked Duke Blue Devils in college basketball. Unranked State has had an up-and-down season and a win at Duke would do a lot for its post-season hopes. Things looked great early, as the Wolfpack ran out to a nine-point halftime lead. But they certainly did not end well, as the Blue Devils ended up winning by 20. And the worst part is that the blame can be placed completely on my house, specifically my wife.

Most sports fans are superstitious. We have a (somewhat) irrational belief that we can control the destiny of players we've never met in far away places simply by our actions in front of the TV set. While some people have rituals that they do before every big game, my superstition is limited to respecting the streak. If I start doing something during the game and my team goes on a big run, I HAVE to continue doing that for the rest of the game.

The biggest example I can give you is during Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. My friends went out to a bar to watch the game but I sat alone in my apartment. My roomate had adopted the Red Sox as his team during the series, just to taunt me. With the Mets down in the ninth inning, I was dreading him coming home with a bunch of alcohol in him and being subjected to his never-ending taunts. New York was down to its last out and I was shell-shocked, sitting in a state of disbelief on the couch, unable to move.

Then the hits started coming. I wanted to jump for joy, I wanted to shout, but I knew full well that I controlled the team's destiny. I didn't move a muscle. Not even the slightest twitch. I remained perfectly still through hits, wild pitches and slow rollers through the legs of Bill Buckner. It's a little-known fact, but the reason the Mets won the World Series was because of my determination and dedication in front of the television.

So, last night during the first half of the State-Duke game, I am on the couch and my wife is in the chair doing some job-related stuff on the laptop. We're both concentrating on the task at hand. I'm leading the Wolfpack to a major upset and she's doing, well I can't say for sure. All I know is she's being quiet.

Then in the second half, everything fell to pieces. Maybe it was my fault, as I got up from the couch at halftime to pick a few things up and write some quick emails. But I really think it was her fault. After not making a peep in the first half, she did a complete 180, babbling on about everything and State fell apart. No, that's not accurate. State didn't play bad, Duke just played out of its mind.

My wife actually enjoys college basketball and usually knows better than to pull a stunt like that. The only logical conclusion is that I must be in trouble for something else. Regardless, I am trying to watch the game and not provoke a fight. At first I answer her pointless questions with one word answers. That doesn't stop the barrage so I stop answering at all. Matching my determination stroke for stroke, she keeps firing questions.

What's a boy to do?

In my younger, more foolish days, I would have told her point blank to shut up. I'm sure you can imagine how well that's gone over in the past and why I no longer do that. Mustering every bit of kindness I could, I informed her that in the first half while she was being quiet State was up by nine points and that since she started talking, Duke had outscored them by 21 points. That seemed to work, but the damage was done.

The only thing that compared to my wife's needless chatter was the "analysis" by Billy Packer during the game. The game was televised nationally on ESPN but it was blacked out here in North Carolina and shown on the local CBS affiliate instead. Our announcers were Bob Rathbun and Packer. During the run, Packer went on about how State didn't have the same intensity it showed in the first half. And I'm sitting there wondering what Duke is shooting as they seemingly hit a 3-pointer each time down the court.

Finally, they put a graphic on the screen which shows that Duke has hit 15 of 22 shots in the second half. That's 68 percent shooting! You would think that the lead basketball analyst might say something to the effect of, "Wow, Duke is doing a tremendous job converting shots!" But he never mentioned that at all. At least not that I could hear over the chatter from my wife.

After the game, I find the boxscore and play-by-play on ESPN.com and find out that Duke hit 13 of its first 17 shots after intermission. That is 74.8 percent. Included in that run is five 3-pointers and four jump shots. So, it's not like they are padding their shooting percentage with nothing but dunks and layups. They're just shooting lights-out.

Now, I know full well that Duke's offense is predicated on hitting outside shots, specifically 3-pointers. It's why they're not a legitimate threat to win the title this year. But 75 percent is just amazing.

So, hats off to Duke on their fine performance in the second half. But thumbs down to Packer for not recognizing the real reason for the comeback.

If only I could figure out what to give my wife for her part in this debacle.