It is not uncommon for the more liberal elements of American politics to praise the welfare states found by the North Sea or north of our border. It is indeed admirable how effectively such countries ensure the quality of life of their citizens. But it is misleading and unhelpful to think of these countries as offering an alternative social and economic model to that of the United States. It is far better to view Scandinavian countries and Canada as comparable countries with successful practices that we can and ought to emulate.

For proof that we are not so different, look at the Heritage Foundation’s 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. Canada is sixth in this ranking, Denmark ninth, the U.S. 10th, Finland 16th and Sweden 18th. All of these countries surpassed the U.S. in business freedom as well, partly due to lower corporate tax rates. Sweden’s government commands 51.3 percent of the GDP compared to America’s 42 percent and Canada’s 42.9 percent, and the U.S. spends an additional 5.3 percent of GDP on tax expenditures. At any rate, America, Sweden and Canada can each be accurately categorized as having mixed market economies and big governments.

In light of Sweden and Canada’s substantial welfare states, it is impressive that they have kept balanced budgets and debt-to-GDP ratios below 50 percent. Though much of this can be credited to a steady stream of tax revenue, it is also due to foresighted pension reforms; unlike Social Security, which uses a demographically unsustainable “pay-as-you-go” system, Canada’s state pension plan is partially funded, while Sweden’s state pensions are partially privatized.

Yet we would do well to recall the early 1990s, when Canada had a chronic deficit of six percent GDP in 1994 with unemployment at 10 percent, and when Sweden’s deficit was a whopping 13 percent of GDP with unemployment at 10 percent in 1993. By comparison, America’s current unemployment rate stands at 7.8 percent and the deficit is 8 percent of GDP. Despite elevated unemployment rates, Sweden and Canada massively reduced their deficits during the 1990s, primarily through spending cuts. In Canada, seven dollars of spending was slashed for every one dollar in tax increases. Cherished social programs were gutted and tens of thousands of public employees were let go. But by 1998, neither country had a deficit, while unemployment had fallen as well.

In contrast, over the last five years, the U.S. increased spending and reduced taxes in the face of high unemployment and a high deficit. Compared to Canada and Sweden’s successes in the 1990s, current results in the U.S. have not been nearly as good. While Canada and Sweden also reduced taxes during the most recent recession, they did so from positions of relative fiscal strength, thus aiding the economic recovery without deepening their fiscal holes. Admittedly, these countries began their cuts during the 1990s with spending and tax levels higher than those in the U.S. Thus, tax cuts will be less effective in the U.S. today than they were in Canada and Sweden and spending cuts will hurt more. However, despite the fact that government spending is no longer a larger share of GDP in Canada than in the U.S., Canada continues to forge ahead with such spending cuts.

Beyond fiscal policy, the North still has much to teach us. School choice programs introduced in the 1990s in Sweden have offered parents with limited means the ability to send their children to private schools. Contrary to American fears that such programs will undermine public schools, Sweden’s state institutions improved following the end of the near-monopoly on education, evidenced by the fact that most Swedish pupils still attend public school. Finnish schools — while all public — have a great deal of autonomy in curriculum development and pedagogy. Both Finnish and Canadian schools rely heavily on professional teacher development programs. All of these countries’ schools best American ones on international assessments despite lower per pupil expenditures.

I have not addressed the numerous social programs provided by Scandinavian countries that the U.S. does not offer to its citizens — these no doubt account for part of the high living standards enjoyed by Swedes, Finns and others. Unfortunately, developing such programs is not an option for America, where governments at all levels face gaping budget holes. We can, however, set a path for sustainable budgets and growth in the future, and following the Northern model may be the way to go.

Last week Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the US military’s official ban on women in combat positions would be lifted. According to the Defense Department, there are currently around 238,000 positions in the military unavailable to women, and with the lifting of the ban many of those spots are going to be opened for women to apply.

According to Panetta, “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job – and let me be clear, we are not reducing qualifications – then they should have the right to serve.” The pronouncement comes as another historic decision under Panetta’s leadership, as he was a key player in repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2011.

Obviously, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” wasn’t without critics, and neither is Panetta’s most recent choice to open up more combat positions to women. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark), a veteran, told a radio host. “To have women serving in infantry could impair the mission’s central task in those units. That’s been proved in study after study just as a matter of nature.”

John Piper, a mega-church minister from Minnesota, has written on his blog that coed combat is “cultural cowardice,” writing that “A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp.”

Wayne State U. law professor, Kingsley Browne, published a book about the issue titled “Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars.” Browne believes women shouldn’t be allowed to be involved in combat positions, because they aren’t as physically fit as men, as well as because women being mixed with men in combat situations might cultivate more situations of sexual harassment.

What Panetta – and countless other proponents of military equality – has fought for is a new, inclusive, American military. The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the lifting of the combat ban represent the military taking steps to offer the type of equality for which America should be known.

If there is one lesson America should have learned by now, it’s that a lack of diversity is not ideal for decision-making, and authority without diversity is a recipe for oppression and stupidity. One only has to recall President Obama’s mention of Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall in his second Inaugural Address to dwell on the poor, exclusive, and dominating decisions the country has made without different voices offering advice.

While effective and courageous, our nation’s military has earned a controversial reputation. The military has often asked the nation to take a “don’t ask; we don’t want to tell” approach to its politics and problems.

The 2012 Oscar-nominated documentary “The Invisible War” sheds light on the rampant sexual abuse in the armed forces. According to the film, the Department of Defense estimates that over 19,000 instances of sexual abuse happened in 2010, and 20 percent of women in the military will be sexually assaulted. And while the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a big step in policy for gay military equality, documented harassment still occurs in the ranks of the armed forces.

The most important impact of the lift of the combat ban is that combat duty and experience are necessary for women to advance and be promoted in military leadership. Therefore, allowing women to apply for more combat-intense positions will increase the chance for diversity in military authority, adding important voices to the conversation of what our country will do and where our country will go.

With North Korea testing nuclear missiles, controversy over the use of both foreign and domestic drones and intervention in the Arab world always on the table, more women in the military will be better for the country.

Besides being of pragmatic benefit, increased opportunities for women in the military helps realize part of the American experiment and aids America in becoming the exceptional country it so desperately wants to be.

In the past, there has been a notion that military presence and power make America great, but in a 21st century in which both methods of warfare and ideas about equality have changed, giving women the same opportunities as men should make all Americans proud.

We cannot afford to be contrary to cultural changes due to outdated conceptions of gender and bravery, and we cannot shy away from breaking down barriers just because the systems set in place to protect against sexual abuse aren’t solid. Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall were all leaps in American progress, but occurred amidst controversy, bigotry and violence.

We should be proud women want to protect and serve, and in response we should applaud and protect their thriving in military ranks.

Okay, I’ll bite.

Up until now, I resolved never to write about the NCAA, knowing that USC fans have heard it all — at some point, handwringing and finger-pointing just grow tiresome. But in light of the most recent news regarding the NCAA’s flubbing of the Miami investigation, I believe it’s time to air grievances and explain why the institution is devoid of all credibility and moral authority.

Before introducing the NCAA’s latest embarrassment, let’s review USC’s main contention: The sanctions the football program received in 2010 are not commensurate with any precedent and far exceed recent punishments given out to schools for worse transgressions.

When Ohio State and North Carolina received their laughable sanctions before this past season, I gritted my teeth in absolute disbelief.

To boil it down, former Ohio State coach Jim Tressel knew his players were trading their uniforms and bowl game memorabilia for tattoos. Investigators found emails to attest to that. North Carolina decidedly trumped Ohio State, committing academic fraud by allowing six football players to compete while academically ineligible. On top of this affront to the student-athlete ideal, multiple Tar Heels also received impermissible agent benefits totaling in excess of $31,000.

Though USC didn’t give Reggie Bush any gifts or special treatment, the NCAA said in its ruling that the university lacked institutional control and should have expected agents, who drooled at the running back’s NFL potential, to try to make inroads with the former USC star. Ultimately, USC should have taken more steps to ensure Bush’s amateurism stayed intact, the NCAA argued — without question a fair point. No one can argue intelligently that USC didn’t deserve some type of punishment.

But here comes the kicker: If USC gets punished for not knowing something it probably should have known, what happens when university administrations willfully and brazenly violate NCAA rules? Using some warped sense of logic, the NCAA gave Ohio State and North Carolina half the postseason ban and roughly 30 percent of the scholarship reductions USC received.

Though I should have known better, I still held out hope in the form of Miami. Screwing up the Miami investigation would be too big of a feat, I figured. After all, convicted Ponzi schemer and Miami booster Nevin Shapiro fully admitted to throwing sex and drug yacht parties for Miami recruits and even funding an abortion for one of their girlfriends.

But fortunately for Miami, we learned for certain last Wednesday that the NCAA’s incompetence knows no bounds. NCAA President Mark Emmert announced in a statement that the NCAA Infractions Committee bungled its investigation by mishandling at least two depositions while working with an attorney for Shapiro. In essence, the NCAA worked with Shapiro’s bankruptcy attorney to ask witnesses in his bankruptcy case deposition questions pertaining to the Miami investigation, thus obtaining information — under oath — it could not otherwise get. Let’s just say that the chances this attorney keeps her license are pretty slim.

As a result, the long-anticipated notice of allegations against Miami will not be released until an external review of the investigation occurs within the next two weeks. Emmert confirmed that none of the evidence collected illegally will be used in the report and that some of the investigators are no longer working on the case — what a relief, right?

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand why high-power universities subject themselves to the whims of an incompetent institution drowning in inconsistencies. The NCAA currently faces six separate lawsuits stemming from its investigative practices.

The external review will be conducted by former Justice Department official Kenneth Wainstein, who will also have the latitude to review the NCAA’s methods in previous cases. Such news should interest Trojan fans because Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller, who currently presides over former USC assistant football coach Todd McNair’s lawsuit against the NCAA, has indicated his belief that NCAA investigators were “over the top” in the USC case.

But even if USC experiences the best-case scenario, with Wainstein recommending the lifting of its sanctions, there will be little vindication. By the time the review goes through the bureaucratic rigmarole, the only recourse available to the NCAA will be to remove the scholarship reductions scheduled for the 2014 season — the last part of the sanctions.

Of course, USC would welcome such a decision, but the damage has already mostly been done. The only serious retribution will come if the NCAA undergoes serious reform and decides to heed its mission of “commitment to fair play.”

But I would caution USC fans to tamp down expectations. We’ve bet on the NCAA to listen to common sense before.

There’s no point in crossing every politically-correct line ever drawn for the sake of shock factor alone. Too often, sitcoms that want to be new and outrageous think that stringing together a half-assed plot with as much profanity as possible is all the work they need to put in.

Only a standout series can take exceptionally crass vulgarity and skillfully finagle the obvious denial and throwaway laughs into unsuspecting, should-I-even-laugh-at-this humor. FX’s new half-hour comedy, “Legit,” plays perfectly into this dynamic, pulling cautious snickers from every uncensored line out of Jim Jefferies’s mouth.

A successful stand-up comedian before partnering with FX, à la Louis C.K., Jefferies essentially plays an overblown version of himself in front of the camera. Still, the delivery is spot-on and Jefferies, who looks like Ricky Gervais’s mellowed-out twin (the series does have an odd similarity to “Life’s Too Short”), makes the comedy look effortless — a mean feat for a pilot.

As proven with “Louie” and “The League,” FX knows how to work with comedians in an outside-the-cookie-cutter approach to sitcoms. And while “Legit” doesn’t have the maturity of an established comedy yet, it certainly showcases good bones. The non-stop, say-anything crudeness never becomes a crutch, and typical beginning-of-series stumbles are the only things that drag the premiere down.

The loose premise of the series plays out in the first two minutes, with Jefferies’s mother’s plea for him to legitimize himself before she dies, a task he takes as seriously as he’s able. The pilot focuses on his first “legit” good deed: honoring his best friend’s brother Billy’s (DJ Qualls) request to get laid for the first time — a unique request as Billy is 32 and at an advanced stage of muscular dystrophy. Jefferies takes this all in stride (mostly) and manages to make the strenuous search for the perfect hooker seem awkwardly heroic. The parting sequence, complete with an extremely satiated looking Billy rolling out while fun.’s “Carry On” blasts in the background, certainly comes off as inspirational.

There’s no doubt that, as with most of FX’s programming, “Legit” is an acquired taste. It’s not for everyone, and will inevitably offend more than its fair share. But, as FX proves time and again, even vile, boorish nastiness is palatable when there’s the tiniest bit of heart shining through.

It’s that heart, more than unconventional formats and lengthy pauses, that pushes “Legit” past ordinary. Sure, Jefferies is a selfish, useless stoner with a bad habit of saying whatever the hell he wants, but the audience can tell he actually cares about Billy. That is, for more than just the handicapped parking space and unlimited wingman potential. And that’s nice. Nice enough to make a road trip to an out-of-the-way dive bar into a surprisingly poignant moment of male bonding. It might even provoke a reluctant smile.

In true FX style, buried beneath all the male posturing and obvious dick jokes is a series that might just make you feel something. And hey, the dick jokes can be fun too.

Tuesday marked the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade. The verdict utilized the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to protect a woman’s privacy regarding the right to choose. Roe v. Wade and a concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, addressed the lack of clarity in state laws regarding abortion access.

The decision made in Roe v. Wade attempted to rectify the complication of two key interests with regard to pregnancy termination: women’s health and prenatal life. It was established that women should have full access to abortion services until viability. Since we have become accustomed to the issue of choice, the terminology of the decision lacks so much specificity that attempts at defining “life” have become prevalent.

For instance, viability is relative to each pregnancy and cannot be applied in a universal manner and is complicated by conceptions of personhood, as shown in attempts at limiting Mississippi’s Initiative 26. Such are the issues that arise in motions to regulate and enforce the inherent nuances of pregnancy. We have seen efforts aimed at clarifying these problems through the legal system in successive cases brought before the Supreme Court, including Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart.

As we attempt to coalesce action regarding an issue with two main interest camps maintaining their own distinct perspectives on the issue, we will continue to encounter issues of clarity and complications of enforcement. The values with which the groups approach abortion, when applied rigidly, are exclusive of each other.

The valuation of prenatal life over the health of the woman, for one, excludes considerations for the woman’s particular circumstance. The arrival at the decision to abort is deeply personal and regulation of access to abortion services, if any, should respect this agency. This respect for individual authority is an issue that needs to be further articulated and discussed in the public sphere as a uniting valuation we can apply to the many, multifaceted issues that manifest in our modern society.

Many are concerned with the possible actions and subsequent consequences in response to the cases previously mentioned. This inability to come to a compromise on the situation is causing a new, wider rift in our country and people’s political allegiances.

The problem is never going to disappear, and the women who are affected by the possible outcomes and interpretations of new laws face a daunting prospect. Women across the country who have aborted will gain new stigma in the event that pro-life supporters have their way, and those who revile women for discarding the budding life within them will be seen as criminals to the people who reserve the right to govern what happens within their own bodies.

Unfortunately, it seems inevitable that either way, someone is going to be left offended and nursing their ideologically driven anger.

What impacts this will have in 10, perhaps 20 years in the future are as of yet unknown until one standard is implemented. But hopefully, the next few generations will not be as offended at our indiscretions as we were to hear about how doctors once “treated” the mentally ill or how unyielding many previous generations were in accepting the reality of evolution.

After several games in which Indiana slowed down to the paces of its opponents, Sunday’s against Michigan State saw the Hoosiers return to their customary speedy ways.

For much of the afternoon, though, the Spartans stayed with the Hoosiers step-for-step.

When the second half slowed to a physical dogfight, though, No. 7 IU still emerged with a 75-70 win against No. 13 Michigan State.

Junior guard Victor Oladipo led the charge for IU the entire game. He led IU in scoring, steals and blocks, and tied for the lead in rebounds

His contributions often transcended the stat sheet, though, as he dived for loose balls and chased down Spartans to deny them apparent breakaway baskets.

IU was able to dictate the pace virtually from the beginning. Even though slumping sophomore forward Cody Zeller lost the tipoff to MSU center Adreian Payne, Oladipo stole the ball on MSU’s first possession, taking the ball the length of the court himself and finishing with a dunk that brought Assembly Hall to its feet.

Minutes later, he would replicate the feat almost identically, from the perimeter steal to the thundering jam.

Payne hit a pair of surprise 3-pointers to keep IU from pulling away early, even giving MSU the lead briefly. He would later hit a third on the afternoon. Before Sunday, the 6-10 center had made three 3-point shots all season.

IU eventually staked a 28-19 lead, but it was a quickly nullified by a 9-0 MSU run that included a dunk off of a stolen in-bounds pass.

IU played both man-to-man and zone defenses during the game,

switching between the two as frequently as each possession. The strategy

was especially flummoxing early on for the Spartans.

With 1:06 to play in the half, the game was again tied, now at 38-38, before 3-pointers by Sheehey and Ferrell, his coming with just two seconds to go, gave IU a six-point lead at the break.

With fewer turnovers in the second half, fast breaks became less frequent and the game slowed somewhat, further preventing IU from running up the score in transition. Instead, its lead never eclipsed seven points.

Oladipo simply adapted to the slower pace. The IU offense had by no

means been a one man show in the first half, but when his supporting

cast’s shots stopped falling in the second period, the offense came to run primarily through the junior guard. He scored 13 points in the second half through all manner of shots.

While the Spartan’s leading scorer, guard Keith Appling, was kept scoreless in the second half and fouled out with 5:17 to go, one-time IU recruiting target Gary Harris stepped up with 14 second half points. He was serenaded by bitter IU fans with chants of “Gary sucks” and “IU reject” all afternoon.

Harris kept the Spartans squarely in the contest all afternoon, twice pulling his team to within a single point.

In the game’s final minutes, after Oladipo’s moments of dominance,  it was a pair of plays by Zeller, who had nine points but largely continued to struggle, that clinched the game for IU.

With 2:09 left and IU leading 72-70, MSU center Derrick Nix was called for a travel. Seconds later, Zeller drove the length of the floor, ending with a finger roll layup at the other end to double the lead.

The score still 74-70 with 14.3 seconds left and MSU getting desperate, the Spartans fed the ball inside to Payne. As he worked toward the basket, Zeller took a charge to give the ball back to IU and effectively clinch the win and a share of the conference lead.

On your next night at the Whiskey Republic, leave the cigarettes at home — smoking could lead to a worse hangover, according to a new study from Brown U’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies. The research was published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs earlier this month.

To conduct their study, researchers including Damaris Rohsenow, a research professor of behavioral and social sciences, analyzed daily reports from students at an unidentified Midwestern university about how many drinks they consumed, how much they smoked and how they felt the next day.

The researchers focused on drinking episodes when students had an estimated blood alcohol level above .11, slightly over the legal limit of .08. On those nights, students who smoked were more than twice as likely to have a hangover than students who did not. Additionally, students who smoked more cigarettes reported having more intense hangovers the next day.

Hangovers are “not one of the common negatives” reported by students during alcohol counseling, said Frances Mantak, director of health education, so it is difficult to tell whether Brown students have similar experiences. There is a large gap between perceived and actual smoking on campus, with less than 5 percent of students falling into the heavy smoker category, she noted.

The researchers found a correlation between smoking and hangovers but could not explain the relationship. Due to poor understanding of hangover mechanisms in general, explaining that link is difficult, Rohsenow said.

One possible explanation could be that alcohol affects nicotine receptors, Rohsenow said. Smoking has also been linked to poorer sleep quality, which is known to worsen hangovers, she said. Because the students keeping the diaries did not record how much and how well they slept and because the study did not include biological measures, the authors were unable to test these explanations.

Roland Moore, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, wrote in an email to The Herald that he finds the study “persuasive.” Moore drew a parallel between the chemicals in dark liquors like bourbon and rum to those in tobacco smoke. Past research has found that dark liquors lead to worse hangovers, he wrote. “I can speculate that the numerous toxic byproducts of tobacco smoke … could similarly contribute to the experience of hangover,” he added.

Previous research has shown detrimental changes in the brain structures of alcoholics, which are even more pronounced in those who smoke, Rohsenow said.

She said she hopes college students will see her study as yet another reason to quit smoking, as the research demonstrates that even minor use of tobacco with alcohol can have negative effects.

In his first on-camera interview since the controversy surrounding the fake life of Lennay Kekua broke eight days ago, former Irish linebacker Manti Te’o maintained his innocence with his parents beside him Thursday on television host Katie Couric’s syndicated talk show.

“The hardest part of this experience is seeing my family go through it because of something I did,” Te’o said. “The greatest joy in any child’s life is to make your parents proud. The greatest pain is to know they’re experiencing pain because of you.”

In the hour-long program, Te’o defended his innocence in the hoax supposedly perpetrated by Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, however he did admit to misleading people about his relationship with Kekua, most notably the fact they had never met.

“I wasn’t as forthcoming about it, but I didn’t lie,” he said. “I was never asked ‘Did you see her in person.’ That embarrassment [of not meeting her] … scared me.”

Despite having never seen Kekua in person, Te’o said his emotions were genuine following her reported death Sept. 12.

“What I went through was real,” said Te’o, who said he did not know if the personal tragedy aided him in his second-place Heisman trophy finish. “The feelings, the pain, the sorrow. It was real. That’s something I can’t fake.”

Te’o provided voice messages to Couric that he claimed came from who he thought was Kekua. Those messages were aired on the show Thursday. The New York Daily News reported earlier in the day that Tuiasosopo’s lawyer told the newspaper that his client was the voice behind Kekua.

Te’o rejected the notion that he and Tuiasosopo are close and concocted the hoax together.

“Previous to [Tuiasosopo’s confession of his involvement] I had only talked to Ronaiah twice,” Te’o said. “He was to my understanding, Lennay’s cousin — her favorite cousin.”

When asked by Couric if he is gay, Te’o said he is “far from it,” and that he had developed a deep emotional bond with Kekua without ever meeting her.

“She was Polynesian supposedly,” Te’o said. “She was Samoan. She knew a lot about — I’m Mormon and she knew a lot about that. … They knew my standards and my culture.

“I found a lot of peace and a lot of comfort being able to talk to somebody and she knew my standards and culture.”

In advance of the interview’s airing, Couric appeared on ABC’s “Nightline” Wednesday evening and said she found Te’o to be convincing.

“I do think that his affection for this young woman was very real,” Couric said. “I think the relationship was very real. I think that the pain he endured when he was told she had died was very real.

“He would keep the phone on at night and wake up with the phone at his ear in the morning. It’s strange, believe me, but I think it happened.”

In early December, when Te’o claims he first heard from whom he thought was Kekua, he said he continued to speak of her death in media interviews because he was still trying to process the information himself and that it was not until he received a timestamped photo of a girl posing as Kekua on Dec. 21 that he was convinced she was alive.

“Part of me was saying, if you say that she is alive, what would everybody think,” Te’o said of his reason not to make the matter public at the Dec. 8 Heisman trophy media availability.

His mother, Ottilia Te’o, said it “hurts” to see her son’s name dragged through the mud by people who doubt his innocence in the hoax.

“That’s my child out there. That’s my child in my eyes who always puts others before himself,” she said. “I am proud of his character. It just hurts to see his picture and his name being displayed as someone who is dishonest.”

Te’o, who has been training for the NFL Draft in Bradenton, Fla., said the past few weeks have taken a toll on him.

“It’s been hard. It’s been difficult,” he said. “Not only for myself but to see your last name and just to see it flash everywhere and to know that I represent so many people and my family’s experiencing the same thing. That’s what was so hard for me.”

Rasheed Sulaimon had a rough start. He went to the bench after letting Maryland’s Dez Wells score Maryland’s first seven points and grab five rebounds in the first four minutes.

When he came back, he made sure that would not happen again.

Hitting his next six three-point attempts, Sulaimon went on to score a career-high 25 points as the Blue Devils rebounded from their Miami loss with a 84-64 trouncing of Maryland Saturday at Cameron Indoor Stadium.

“Rasheed played a great game,” head coach Mike Krzyzewski said. “He did something that I think is so terrific…. He said, ‘I got you coach. I’ll do better.’ So he just embraced responsibility, and anybody who embraces responsibility has a chance to do better.”

Sulaimon re-entered the game at the 14:01 mark in the first half with the Blue Devils down 13-12, and the guard did not waste his second chance.

First, he knocked down a 3-pointer and drew a foul to complete a four-point play that put Duke up by five. Then, he hit two more 3-pointers on consecutive plays.

“Quinn [Cook] found me early, I got that and-one three, and after that everything just kept falling in, and they just kept finding me,” Sulaimon said.

The freshman stayed hot, hitting two more 3-pointers to finish the half making 5-of-5 from behind the arc. Duke shot 70% overall from 3-point range in the half, a marked improvement from the 17.4% performance against Miami.

“This was just a game that showed basically what our character was like,” Sulaimon said. “Are we going to fold after a big loss or are we going to step up and be men?”

In the 90-63 loss to Miami Thursday, Sulaimon had played with a greater sense of urgency in the closing minutes than his teammates, scoring 11 of his team-high 16 points in the final 10 minutes.

“When he came out in the first half like that [today], I thought this is a carryover,” senior Mason Plumlee said. “He was aggressive at the end of the Miami game. As a team, we weren’t all that aggressive at the end of that game, but he was, and I think it carried over.”

Sulaimon’s offensive performance carried over into the second half of the matchup with Maryland as well.

Duke entered the break with a 43-35 lead, but had given up 12 offensive rebounds and 12 second-chance points to the Terrapins. With the help of three more offensive rebounds in the first five minutes, Maryland was able to keep cutting into Duke’s lead.

After the 14-minute mark, Sulaimon twice extended the Blue Devil lead back to double-digits. After the second time—on the freshman’s sixth consecutive made 3-pointer—Duke’s lead never dropped back to single digits.

The wingman’s hot hand also opened the court for Plumlee, who scored just four points in the first half and has struggled without injured forward Ryan Kelly in to spread the floor.

“I know a lot of the attention is going to be on Seth and Mason, especially with Ryan being out. The attention is more on those two,” Sulaimon said. “Just doing my job as a teammate, I know that I’m going to have a lot of open shots and that I have to be ready to take them and make them…. If I’m making shots, the defense, the pressure is less on them, and they can take over the game.”

In the second half, Plumlee did just that. The senior put up a 16-point second-half performance, highlighted by a two-handed, reverse putback jam midway through the half.

“I thought his second half was as good as he played this year,” Krzyzewski said. “He’s playing against a pretty good player, a really good player, and that offensive rebound, that got me excited.”

While Plumlee picked up his scoring performance, it was freshman Amile Jefferson who helped Duke compete on the boards.

Behind his team-leading nine rebounds, the Blue Devils were able to pull even on the second-half rebounding margin after Maryland won nine more first half boards.

That improvement on the glass helped fuel Duke’s transition game that produced eight fast-break points.

“We’ll run if we get the ball, and people are sending a lot of people to the ball because they’re bigger than we are,” Krzyzewski said. “If our perimeter gets the rebound, then we’re going to have a numerical advantage on the other end, and that’s what happened. To get the rebound is the thing.”

Overall, all five Blue Devil starters reached double-digit scoring, and the team finished with a 52.4% field–goal percentage against the third-best field goal percentage defense in the nation.

“We weren’t just playing for ourselves,” Sulaimon said. “We weren’t just playing for this team, but we were playing for this program—all the players that came before. To put on that Duke jersey is something special, and we let our program down on Wednesday and we just wanted to respond and just do everything we can to make this program proud.