Weak non-conference road schedule

[dukediv2013]

A couple of months ago (I think after the Wisconsin game) I said that Duke's weak non-conference road schedule would come back to bite them in ACC play and the NCAA Tournament. No one on this board agreed with me at that time, but who agrees today?

I don't want to attribute all of Duke's bad play in the losses to playing on the road, but I think it does factor into the game. If we had played a few of those neutral-site games as true road games, I believe that this team would be a much better road team. But since we have not, we will be seeking our first true road win of the season for the 4th time on Saturday.

GO DUKE! BEAT CLEMSON!

[duke4life32182]

I think its going to be an awesome game Saturday, but I think we can pull it out.

[KyDevilinIL]

It's worth noting that probably two of the three best teams we've played this season are Wisconsin and Georgia Tech, and those were both true road games. Was playing on the road the primary culprit in those losses, or the fact that the competition was so strong? It's a combination of both, of course, but I'm not convinced the location of the games was the overwhelming reason for either loss.

State was what it was. An improving, hungry team playing in a crazed arena against a Duke team that played as poorly as it has all year. A perfect storm. Good teams can lose games like that; really good teams respond well to such losses. We'll find out where we stand in that regard on Saturday.

[sagegrouse]

State was what it was. An improving, hungry team playing in a crazed arena against a Duke team that played as poorly as it has all year. A perfect storm. Good teams can lose games like that; really good teams respond well to such losses. We'll find out where we stand in that regard on Saturday.

The other comment about last night's game that seems appropriate is a piece of movie dialogue:

"Who are those guys?" said Butch Cassidy to the Sundance Kid.

I mean, really: Horner, Javi, Tracy? I have seen State play a few times, and I never saw anything like last night. And they shot 58%, which is a good percentage in a shoot-around .

sagegrouse

[camion]

I don't want to attribute all of Duke's bad play in the losses to playing on the road, but I think it does factor into the game. If we had played a few of those neutral-site games as true road games, I believe that this team would be a much better road team.
GO DUKE! BEAT CLEMSON!

I disagree. But if you are correct, we have now played three true tough road games so we should be ready for Clemson now if playing on the road makes us a much better road team.

[Kedsy]

I disagree. But if you are correct, we have now played three true tough road games so we should be ready for Clemson now if playing on the road makes us a much better road team.

This brings up a good point. How many true road games would the original poster have liked us to schedule? State was our third one, so I guess two would not have been enough. Maybe we should schedule all road games, but then if we lost a tournament game we'd probably have to blame it on the lack of neutral site games in the pre-season.

[SeattleIrish]

Why doesn't anyone ever come on and post, "Remember 3 weeks ago when I posted that (blah...blah...blah...) and no one believed me then? You all mocked me and said I didn't know what I was talking about. Well, 3 weeks later, I wanted to come back here and post that you were all right and I was wrong. I've learned a lot from all of you."?

Dukediv - if we come back and win 3 road games in a row, I'm hoping you restore my faith in humanity and make the first such post

s.i.

[flyingdutchdevil]

This brings up a good point. How many true road games would the original poster have liked us to schedule? State was our third one, so I guess two would not have been enough. Maybe we should schedule all road games, but then if we lost a tournament game we'd probably have to blame it on the lack of neutral site games in the pre-season.

I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting that we played enough true road games in our non-conference schedule? The original poster's main argument is that Duke didn't have enough true road games to truly prepare themselves for the rough ACC. Considering that we played only one true road game before ACC play, lost that one, and then played two road games in the ACC and lost those too, he may have a pretty convincing point.

So many, and I mean so many, attribute experience as a sign of potential success. Experience comes in many verticals: age, minutes, NCAA success, and home/road games. This team has a lot of the other types of experience, but true road games this year it does not. I personally think last night was a fluke. If we played NC State 10 times, we would have won 9. That said, I agree with the original poster that we weren't prepared for away games coming into the ACC.

[Kedsy]

I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting that we played enough true road games in our non-conference schedule? The original poster's main argument is that Duke didn't have enough true road games to truly prepare themselves for the rough ACC. Considering that we played only one true road game before ACC play, lost that one, and then played two road games in the ACC and lost those too, he may have a pretty convincing point.

So many, and I mean so many, attribute experience as a sign of potential success. Experience comes in many verticals: age, minutes, NCAA success, and home/road games. This team has a lot of the other types of experience, but true road games this year it does not. I personally think last night was a fluke. If we played NC State 10 times, we would have won 9. That said, I agree with the original poster that we weren't prepared for away games coming into the ACC.

My point is I don't think he has anything close to a convincing point. I apologize for being snippy but I tend to get annoyed by "I told you so" posts, especially since his point is sooooo far from being proven in a two game sample size with no control group.

Only three of our players are freshmen (and one of them hardly played last night). The rest have played in plenty of road games (although I'll grant that Miles didn't actually get on the court in so many road games last year). The idea that playing one or two extra road games would have made Mason and Andre (or Miles, for that matter) play better last night makes no sense to me.

Moreover, if I recall correctly, the original debate was comparing our schedule to UNC's, saying why couldn't we play as many road games as they do. Well, UNC's only road games (pre-ACC) were at Kentucky, in Texas (but not @Texas, it wasn't really a "true" road game, although perhaps a little more than our game in Chicago), and at Charleston (although that came way after the original discussion). Well, accepting that in the original discussion UNC's schedule was considered laudatory (which is my recollection but admittedly may not be accurate), then the OP would effectively be arguing that one extra road game against a second-tier Southern Conference team plus moving the Chicago game to somewhere closer to Iowa (but not @Iowa State) would have been acceptable and would have avoided last night's debacle. Again, that seems like quite a stretch to me, not to mention that all those road games didn't keep Carolina from getting clobbered in their only league road game so far. (Plus, UNC's lost 2 of their 3 home games in the league so far; maybe they didn't schedule enough home games in the pre-season.)

Finally, even if the original debate wasn't in the context of UNC's schedule, I doubt too many of the top-tier teams play more than two (and certainly not more than three) "true" road games in the pre-season schedule. So, (a) again, we are arguing about one (or at most two) additional road games; (b) most coaches of top-tier teams seem to more or less agree with K's scheduling strategy; (c) plenty of other teams who play only one true pre-conference road game (or even none) seem to do OK on the road in their conference schedule; and (d) Duke has been one of the best (if not the best) road team in the ACC for years, despite K's scheduling tendencies.

And if we're really only talking about one extra pre-season road game, then didn't we get that against GaTech? It shouldn't have affected us against State at all, right?

So I don't agree. Is that better?

[flyingdutchdevil]

My point is I don't think he has anything close to a convincing point. I apologize for being snippy but I tend to get annoyed by "I told you so" posts, especially since his point is sooooo far from being proven in a two game sample size with no control group.

Only three of our players are freshmen (and one of them hardly played last night). The rest have played in plenty of road games (although I'll grant that Miles didn't actually get on the court in so many road games last year). The idea that playing one or two extra road games would have made Mason and Andre (or Miles, for that matter) play better last night makes no sense to me.

Moreover, if I recall correctly, the original debate was comparing our schedule to UNC's, saying why couldn't we play as many road games as they do. Well, UNC's only road games (pre-ACC) were at Kentucky, in Texas (but not @Texas, it wasn't really a "true" road game, although perhaps a little more than our game in Chicago), and at Charleston (although that came way after the original discussion). Well, accepting that in the original discussion UNC's schedule was considered laudatory (which is my recollection but admittedly may not be accurate), then the OP would effectively be arguing that one extra road game against a second-tier Southern Conference team plus moving the Chicago game to somewhere closer to Iowa (but not @Iowa State) would have been acceptable and would have avoided last night's debacle. Again, that seems like quite a stretch to me, not to mention that all those road games didn't keep Carolina from getting clobbered in their only league road game so far. (Plus, UNC's lost 2 of their 3 home games in the league so far; maybe they didn't schedule enough home games in the pre-season.)

Finally, even if the original debate wasn't in the context of UNC's schedule, I doubt too many of the top-tier teams play more than two (and certainly not more than three) "true" road games in the pre-season schedule. So, (a) again, we are arguing about one (or at most two) additional road games; (b) most coaches of top-tier teams seem to more or less agree with K's scheduling strategy; (c) plenty of other teams who play only one true pre-conference road game (or even none) seem to do OK on the road in their conference schedule; and (d) Duke has been one of the best (if not the best) road team in the ACC for years, despite K's scheduling tendencies.

And if we're really only talking about one extra pre-season road game, then didn't we get that against GaTech? It shouldn't have affected us against State at all, right?

So I don't agree. Is that better?

Much better . You give a convincing argument, but I think all of these posts are underlying an overall theme: Duke is not very good (and one could easily make the argument of being horrible) on the road. We lost to two undefeated teams at the time (Sconsin wasn't ranked when we played them) and an inconsistent GT team. All on the road. This is bad. I kinda laughed and never thought that a poor shooting Singler was an issue when DBR was going bonkers. However, not being able to play away is indeed a concern. Anyone who thinks it's not, I'd love to hear your views.

[airowe]

Much better . You give a convincing argument, but I think all of these posts are underlying an overall theme: Duke is not very good (and one could easily make the argument of being horrible) on the road. We lost to two undefeated teams at the time (Sconsin wasn't ranked when we played them) and an inconsistent GT team. All on the road. This is bad. I kinda laughed and never thought that a poor shooting Singler was an issue when DBR was going bonkers. However, not being able to play away is indeed a concern. Anyone who thinks it's not, I'd love to hear your views.

We only have one bad loss in an away game. If we start losing to more relatively bad teams on the road, I'll say we have a problem on the road. It's too small a sample size to judge future performances on right now.

A certain team lost to Boston College at home to start ACC play and followed that up with a loss at Wake Forest last year.

Want to know how they finished the season?

[flyingdutchdevil]

We only have one bad loss in an away game. If we start losing to more relatively bad teams on the road, I'll say we have a problem on the road. It's too small a sample size to judge future performances on right now.

A certain team lost to Boston College at home to start ACC play and followed that up with a loss at Wake Forest last year.

Want to know how they finished the season?

I'd have to disagree with you on this point. That team you speak of already proved their away games with wins at UC Santa Barbara (k, not a great example), Mich State, and Nevada.

Second, we're already a third into the ACC and the season is basically half done. That isn't a small sample size, even if we only have 3 "true" away games. IMO, it is a concern. Littlejohn is a great (in many senses of the word) test for Duke.

[airowe]

I'd have to disagree with you on this point. That team you speak of already proved their away games with wins at UC Santa Barbara (k, not a great example), Mich State, and Nevada.

Second, we're already a third into the ACC and the season is basically half done. That isn't a small sample size, even if we only have 3 "true" away games. IMO, it is a concern. Littlejohn is a great (in many senses of the word) test for Duke.

Don't talk to me about Nevada and UCSB. That team was a lot better than this team also. All I'm saying is, you can't predict future successes on such a small sample size.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Don't talk to me about Nevada and UCSB. That team was a lot better than this team also. All I'm saying is, you can't predict future successes on such a small sample size.

And all I'm saying is that Duke's play on the road is a concern. Currently, with the exception of K's track record, there is nothing to suggest that we're a good team on the road. Do I think we'll be 8-8? Of course not. Do I think K will get it together? Absolutely! But, as of this moment, our road situation is indeed a situation. And the most pressing issue that Duke faces right now.

[airowe]

And all I'm saying is that Duke's play on the road is a concern. Currently, with the exception of K's track record, there is nothing to suggest that we're a good team on the road. Do I think we'll be 8-8? Of course not. Do I think K will get it together? Absolutely! But, as of this moment, our road situation is indeed a situation. And the most pressing issue that Duke faces right now.

The most pressing issue Duke faces right now is Clemson's Defense

I understand where you're coming from. Duke has played three poor games on the road. Two of them were against really good competition though and one of those is almost impossible to beat at home. If we start losing at BC, at Miami, at UVA I'll be concerned. I hope we win this game at Clemson, and I think we will but if we lose at Georgetown I'm not freaking out. That's a really good team and they're going to be out for blood.

[Kfanarmy]

the most pressing issue duke faces right now is clemson's defense

punny

[Chitowndevil]

Fun (and admittedly OT) facts:

Only eight coaches in the history of the ACC have career winning records in road conference games.

Of those eight, seven coached at UNC or Duke. Two coached at schools other than UNC or Duke (not a misprint!).

Coach K is fourth on the list at 129-85 (.603). Roy Williams is first at 33-16 (.673), though I'm betting he'll be behind Vic Bubas (46-23, .667) after this year.

Dean Smith, the career leader in ACC victories, won at a nearly 25% higher clip at home (.838) than on the road (.591) in conference games. (K's winning %s are .783 and .603, respectively).

[NYDukie]

Came across some road win breakdowns of the top 10 on SI as follows

Texas (3): Rice, Arkansas, Iowa State
Kentucky (3): Indiana, Florida, Auburn
Kansas (3): UCLA, Temple, Nebraska
Villanova (3): Marquette, Louisville, Rutgers
Syracuse (4): Seton Hall, Rutgers, West Virginia, Notre Dame
Michigan State (3): The Citadel, Northwestern, Iowa
Duke (0)
Tennessee (2): Memphis, Alabama
Pittsburgh (3): Syracuse, Cincinnati, UConn
Kansas State (1): Colorado

I know some like to nitpick about other teams road wins but when in fact we have not one road win to date, we have no basis to complain about being bumped out of the Top 10, moved down to a 3 or 4 seed on someone's bracket projection or left out of the national championship debate. Now, remember this is as of today and there is a lot of schedule left. This can all change, just as the same that anyone can win the championship since it's one and done and is the great equalizer come Tourney time.

[Chitowndevil]

I saw that same breakdown (it's in Luke Winn's power ratings). Winn makes a big deal of Duke having the worst road resume followed by KState. Frankly based on that list I'm not impressed by Texas or Michigan State either. Tennessee's win over Memphis doesn't impress me too much as Memphis has yet to beat a team in the Pomeroy top 100. Kansas at least has a solid road thumping of a good Temple squad.

[Duvall]

I saw that same breakdown (it's in Luke Winn's power ratings). Winn makes a big deal of Duke having the worst road resume followed by KState. Frankly based on that list I'm not impressed by Texas or Michigan State either.

Yup. Winn gives credit for Michigan State's dodgy road wins, but doesn't even mention their embarrassing road loss to one of the worst teams in the ACC.