Can Duke Win The National Championship This Season?

[Kedsy]

Well we know its possible that Duke can win the National Championship if they win the games to do so.

But do you think Duke is good enough to go on a run and take down one of the teams projected to be in the Final Four? Do you think Duke can beat Kentucky or Kansas?

One thing to remember is there's a very big difference between whether we can make the Final Four or win the championship and whether we will. Personally, I thought we were good enough to make the Final Four last year, and it bothers me when people say that the fact that we didn't make it proves we weren't good enough to make it.

I've started to think that a success would be for us to reach the Sweet 16 with such youth and lack of depth in the backcourt.

I don't understand this statement at all. If we don't make the Sweet 16 I'll be very surprised and disappointed.

I would not want to see a Duke-Kentucky matchup in the Tournament. I just cant see any team stopping that Kentucky train with Wall in charge, they're the worst matchup for Duke.

If Duke can get Purdue or Kansas then that is a very good chance for a win.

Having watched Kansas in person and Kentucky on TV, in my opinion Kansas is significantly better than Kentucky. They obviously can be beaten, but I don't think anybody in the country (including Duke and also Kentucky) can be said to have a "very good chance" for a win against Kansas this year.

Having said all that, I'm confident we have a pretty good chance to make the Final Four. Once there, anything can happen, and a small chance is still a chance, but I wouldn't say the odds of us winning it all are in our favor.

[loldevilz]

One thing to remember is there's a very big difference between whether we can make the Final Four or win the championship and whether we will. Personally, I thought we were good enough to make the Final Four last year, and it bothers me when people say that the fact that we didn't make it proves we weren't good enough to make it.

I think many people are looking for a guaranteed final four presence. I don't that it is possible with this team. However, Duke has a few things that set it apart from the others:

1) size. when we go big...we go BIG
2) experience. our starters are 3 seniors and 2 juniors
3) leadership. you can't say enough about Mr. scheyer.
4) we got the mastermind: coach K

[OldPhiKap]

We have as good a chance as any, and a better coach than most.

The team is still improving (IMO) as opposed to having already played its best hoops. So, if we stay healthy and keep progressing, I'll take my chances in each and every match-up we earn.

[gumbomoop]

Yes. It will require 2 of our Big 3 having hot hands and some presence inside.

For a deep run [= F4], in every game:

1. any 2 of 3-S must play O very, very well [= 18-20 pts each, decent 3-pt %, and a killer basket in last 4-5 minutes of tense game], and all 3 of 3-S must play solid D, no foul trouble, a few steals, flicks, hold a key opponent to ineffective O. Hopeful sign here is that we don't have to have superb O from all 3 every game; and odds are that no team can shut down 2 of these 3. These 3 won't go away.

2. LT must maintain fierce, controlled, disruptive D on one of opponent's key men; and must be decent threat on elbow jumper, and hit 75% FTs.

3. any 1 of 3 bigs must have noticeably positive impact on game on O [=7-10 pts, O-rebounds]; and ditto [any 1, doesn't have to be same 1] on D.

4. need a minimal, but good, contribution from either RK or D [a 3pt-er, a couple FTs, a nice entry pass from RK]

5. inspired K-coaching X/O in tight [probably not every] game.

6. Every game, "Duke plays every play." Any question 3-S play every play? How about LT? K?

7. Yep, matchup could get us, as could cold FTs, bad call/bounce. But our odds seem a bit more promising this year.

[mapei]

I think what you all are saying is that *if* several things go well, and nothing goes wrong, we have a good chance for the final four and then for the NC. That is true.

And it is equally true for most top-15 teams.

[gep]

I agree with your analysis. We need to stay healthy and our young players need to continue to improve, but the real key is Zoubek playing solid. ...

Interesting comment... I went for a run this morning, and started fantasizing about the rest of the season. I started seeing Zoob getting 20/20 in each of the two final four games... and... then MVP of the final four (with Duke winning, of course)

[-bdbd]

...However, Duke has a few things that set it apart from the others:

1) size. when we go big...we go BIG
2) experience. our starters are 3 seniors and 2 juniors
3) leadership. you can't say enough about Mr. scheyer.
4) we got the mastermind: coach K

I agree loldevilz. For once, our picture appears to be improving as we head into late-Feb. So many times in recent campaigns you felt that we'd peaked too early, or some sort of in-season setback was slowing us down, etc. This time, we seem to be improving still. I like our tragectory and momentum. That is important. Of course much will, and always does, depend on pairings and the bounce of the ball or how the game is reffed, etc. But on ESPN today, when picking FF favorites, I heard someone for the first time in a long time say "Watch out for Duke. They're coming on too..."

I like our chances (but would still prefer not to see any of KA, KY, Syr. if/until we reach Indianapolis).

[Morris614]

first post after reading for about a month...

But yes, all signs appear that Duke is catching fire at the right time. If Dawkins can give a solid 10-13 minutes per game there could be some serious fire in March/April Madness.

(I realize most people here would hate for Duke to be in the West region, but I got my tix today for the sweet 16/ 8 games in SLC- would love to see Duke there)

[Jumbo]

If...

1) Zoubek's performance over the last 3 games isn't a complete anomoly, and more or less continues...

2) None of the big 3 get hurt (at least not worse than they already are)...

3) The small incremental improvement demonstrated recently by Andre and Mason also continues...

Then... we're as good or better than anyone in the country except KU and UK. We could certainly beat either of them in a single game (see UNLV, 1991) but it would be a tough task to beat both. Kentucky is probably more likely to get bumped off before we run into them... have to hope they have a tough bracket (and that we're not in it!).

Are you really comparing KU and UK to UNLV in 1991? Neither of those teams could hold a candle to that squad. Kansas is good, but why is anyone so scared of Kentucky? Have people actually watched them play this year? Forget about Duke -- Syracuse is clearly better than Kentucky and I might put Villanova ahead of UK as well.

To answer the original question, yes Duke can win the national championship. Doesn't mean they will, but they certainly can.

[Jumbo]

One thing to remember is there's a very big difference between whether we can make the Final Four or win the championship and whether we will. Personally, I thought we were good enough to make the Final Four last year, and it bothers me when people say that the fact that we didn't make it proves we weren't good enough to make it.

Exactly. One bad game against Villanova has significantly skewed people's memories of what last year's team was capable of having done. And this year's team is better, while the field is worse.

[gumbomoop]

I think what you all are saying is that *if* several things go well, and nothing goes wrong, we have a good chance for the final four and then for the NC. That is true.

And it is equally true for most top-15 teams.

Can't speak for others, but I'll disagree with your comment, at least partially.

1. "If go well" - What's more interesting to me is which things must go well. Most important, not everything has to go well. We have more options this year.

2. "If nothing goes wrong" - I don't agree that "nothing can go wrong." Again, more options, so X could go wrong [e.g., NS off game], but unlikely that X and Y and Z will go wrong [i.e., unlikely that even 2 of 3-S will have off game in same game]

3. Don't agree that the "ifs" are "equally true" for most of top-15. I think our ifs are a bit less iffy than most [but, alas, not all] of top-15.

4. Your good point about "March is a very different thing" actually works a bit in favor of an experienced team such as Duke [but true, also KU, Nova, Mich St, West Va, and maybe Purdue], but less so for UK and even Syracuse.

[PhillyDuke]

Our freshman ain't ready for prime time, because they haven't developed; and that's because they sat on the bench for too long most of the season. This time of year, freshmen no longer play like freshmen because they stop making "freshmen" mistakes. Experience does that. Our freshmen are still inexperienced.

[Cell-R]

Then we can put Keuucky in the same boat then as well. They have Wall, Bledsoe and Cousins who are all freshman who will be getting critical minutes in the tourney. Not that I am comparing these guys to that group, but I need to attack this statement about experience in the tourney. We have a starting lineup depending on the team that will feature this:

Singler: Senior
Smith: Junior
Singler: Junior
Thomas: Senior
Zoubek: Senior
.

If only Singler could clone himself as his future senior (PG) self
We would be set then!

[Kedsy]

I think many people are looking for a guaranteed final four presence. I don't that it is possible with this team.

Guaranteed? Like Duke 2002? I think you're right that people want to feel like it's a foregone conclusion, but what makes the NCAA tourney such a wonderful event is that nothing is guaranteed.

[loldevilz]

Our freshman ain't ready for prime time, because they haven't developed; and that's because they sat on the bench for too long most of the season. This time of year, freshmen no longer play like freshmen because they stop making "freshmen" mistakes. Experience does that. Our freshmen are still inexperienced.

I really don't think that's true. I can't buy the argument that its valuable for young players to make mistakes in games. I also think that we have seen improvement.

I was really impressed with Ryan Kelly's play last game. He made two great passes to Zoubek for easy buckets. I expect that he will be getting more play time and surprise everyone. He does exactly what Lance Thomas does not do on offense.

Andre Dawkins got a lot of minutes last game and has shown much improved defense. He obviously is not yet at the level of the other guards, but he still can be very dangerous because of his shooting.

Mason I think is getting a little too much praise, but he still can give good minutes off the bench. Obviously, the duo of Mason and Miles has consistently struggled.

[Jumbo]

Our freshman ain't ready for prime time, because they haven't developed; and that's because they sat on the bench for too long most of the season. This time of year, freshmen no longer play like freshmen because they stop making "freshmen" mistakes. Experience does that. Our freshmen are still inexperienced.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG!

I don't even know where to start. Duke has three freshmen, and each is in a totally different boat. Start with Mason Plumlee. It's absolutely disingenous to suggest that he has "sat the bench" or "hasn't developed" this season. FACT: He missed the first month of his career with a broken wrist. FACT: He has played significantly better this month than last month. FACT: He has played double-figure minutes in all but three games and has played 17-plus minutes in four of his last five. FACT: Games don't get much more "prime-time" than Duke at UNC. And when Lance Thomas went down, Mason Plumlee looked exactly the opposite of what you're saying -- he was READY. 27 minutes, 7 points, 9 boards. Enormous.

How about Ryan Kelly? I'm not sure how many people need to say this before posters such as yourself understand the concept, but he is Duke's 5th big man. Hardly any team in the country regularly plays 5 guys at the 4/5 spots. The parts of Kelly's game that need the most improvement will come through the weight room, not more court time. And he is getting better, regardless. He's not playing major minutes, because Duke has so many other (and right now, better) options up front. But when Duke was struggling early against Miami, did you like the job he did of feeding Zoubek from the high post? Think he looked comfortable? Think if Duke's having trouble against a zone that he couldn't handle that role again?

So what you're really left with, as far as your complaints go, is Andre Dawkins. Except the path of his season totally disputes the myth that players only improve by getting time in games. Dawkins got a TON of playing time early in the season. Guess what? That playing time didn't make him "better" -- by midseason, he had regressed somewhat. He was losing his man constantly on defense and reinforcing bad habits by making them in games. So K limited his playing time for a while. Guess what? He's played at least 10 minutes in each of the last 3 games. His ball-handling is an issue of skill development, and likely won't get better until next season. But he seems to be communicating much better on defense, and K seems to be trusting him more. When Duke wants to go small or needs a floor-spacer in the corner, Dawkins is more equipped to handle that role than he was a month ago.

Finally, it's absurd to treat all freshmen the same. As K is fond of saying, everyone runs his own race. Some freshmen around the country never played like freshmen this season. Some have been up and down. Some have been total disappointments and never see the court (yeah, this actually happens at other schools). Duke is getting almost everything it needs out of its freshmen, because the veterans are playing so well. Would it be great if Mason could just finish a little stronger in traffic, commit fewer reach-in fouls, make safer passes and get lost less on D? Of course, and there's no reason to think he won't continue to improve in those areas over the next month. Would it be nice if, now that his defense seems to be improving, Dawkins could start knocking down threes with some regularity? Sure, that would be great, too, and once again that is totally reasonable. And I've already expressed my opinion about Kelly's role clearly. Enough with the bench/frosh development stuff already. Geez.

[CameronBlue]

How well the bigs adjust to the officiating may determine Duke's tourney success. Is it me or have ACC conference games been a lot rougher than most of the rest of college basketball this year? As several in the media commented Duke-Wake, Duke-Tech were some of the more physical games in recent memory. Two quick fouls in the Georgetown game (IIRC) completely knocked Miles out of his rhythm and seemed to intimidate Zoubs and Mason as well. (Georgetown spread the offense which limited the effectiveness of help-side defense if memory serves.) Duke must be prepared to adjust to similar schemes.

[ice-9]

Assuming you have the talent to go deep, and I believe Duke has that talent, the key to success in the NCAA tournament is CONSISTENCY. The strong team who shows up one day and doesn't the other will not make it far, because the field is too strong and there are too many games to have an off-night.

I believe the Duke teams of recent past have all been quite good, but the main issue was one of consistency. Part of it was that we didn't have any reliable way of generating buckets, another was defense, and so on so forth.

This team is a bit of a puzzle in the sense that in Cameron, we've been AMAZINGLY consistent. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if the NCAA tourney was held at Cameron we'd be the STRONG favorites and by a mile.

On the road, this team is head scratchingly inconsistent. Lower shooting percentages, bad defense, lack of intensity/energy...

But what of neutral sites? Well offensively we're still not as good as we are in Cameron, but opponents seem to be worse off as well and, Gonzaga excepting, we've been able to grind our way through.

If the Cameron version of Duke shows up, we can absolutely win the championship.

If the road version shows up (and the opponent the home version), then I can see us getting upset easily on a cold shooting night and against a bad matchup.

If the neutral site version shows up...I think we can grind out a few games here and there but will likely lose in the Elite Eight/Final Four to a team who knows how to bring their A game away from home.

[Wander]

"Can" is a weak word. Duke will at worst be a 3 seed, and we've all seen enough crazy things happen in March that basically any team with that high a seed "can" win the national championship.

With that being said, for all the talk about the NCAA tournament being fluky, it has done a remarkable job recently of producing the team that "should" win the national championship. I'd argue that each of the past six years, either the best or second best team in the country has won the national championship.

Right now, I don't really see Duke being realistically good enough in March to win the tournament. On offense, we are really efficient, and have three GREAT players, but I'd feel much better if they were, say, a point guard, a wing, and a center instead of two combo guards and a combo forward. I thought earlier in the season that Mason could change this, but he hasn't developed into as consistently a good offensive and defensive player as I'd hoped for by this point in the season. We're also not as consistently good on defense as I would like to see.

I think Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse in that order are the legit national championship contenders, and then a big gap until the 4th team. I'd be surprised if someone other than Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse or Texas won the national championship (yes yes, I know Texas has been awful recently, and I'm not saying they're a better team than Duke - they're not - but they have the required amount of talent).

I reserve the right to change my opinion if Mason starts playing consistently well on both ends of the floor by the end of the season (say, well enough to have locked up a starting spot).

[Wander]

Kansas is good, but why is anyone so scared of Kentucky? Have people actually watched them play this year? Forget about Duke -- Syracuse is clearly better than Kentucky and I might put Villanova ahead of UK as well.

People are probably scared of Kentucky because they're the most talented team in the country - arguably by a sizable margin. They're also improving, and while they've played closer to inferior opponents than they should, they've shown a remarkable ability to make winning plays at the end of those games. I think Kentucky has a better chance at the championship than Syracuse, Duke, and Villanova, but not Kansas.