The AP top-10 streak is... dead.

[blUDAYvil]

Some folks around here seem hell-bent on turning every thread into a debate, whether or not it's reasonable or on-topic or relevant in any way.
Seems to me like the neighborhood pub could stand to hire a bouncer.

I disagree with your comparison of this thread to a "neighborhood pub." It might be offensive to the folk around here who are teetotalers.

[matt1]

UNC has actually been unranked at some point each of the last four seasons. We were unranked for a total of one week (in 2007) in the period I can remember.

I can't believe that
some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.

Yeah, individual polls have their quirks and mistakes. There's a guy on CBS Sports who does a great column called Poll Attacks that ridicules stupid voters (he does not include the inclusion of Duke into the top 10 as one of this week's outrages). I wouldn't argue if the voters had put Villanova ahead of Duke this week -- disappointed, yes ... but certainly not outraged.

But the point of the thread is that Duke has a streak of 118 straight weeks in the top 10. It's a measure of consistency that only one other program in college basketball history has been able to match.

I'm sure there were weeks during Kentucky's 91 week streak and maybe even UCLA's 155 week streak that could be debated. But that doesn't detract from the magnificence of either streak. Just look around. Kentucky has a great program under Calipari, but they were out of the poll for a good part of last year. UNC has been out of the to 25 (much less the top 10) in two seasons since winning the title in 2009. Historically great programs such as UCLA and Indiana have been out of the top 10 more than they've been in it.

Staying in the top 10 week after week, season after season, is hard.

This streak is a great accomplishment for Coach K and Duke basketball and I'd like to see it last as long as possible.

That starts with beating Michigan tonight.

[brevity]

Whether we deserve a top 10 ranking is a logical extension of this thread. I agree with most of what Olympic Fan said, but it's disingenous to start this thread -- that extended a remarkable streak, but set no numerically interesting milestone -- and then be up in arms when others mildly question whether the streak should have continued.

The DiMaggio comment is poignant, but not for its intended reason. The streak survives after all the quibbling is long forgotten. And maybe that's the lesson here: there is no asterisk. Dissenters should be welcome, but they should realize that their opinion will not be recognized by history.

[OldPhiKap]

Them damn bananas.

Pretty sure it was the rum that got them.

[Wander]

I can't believe that some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.

It's an internet message board. A well-reasoned argument that's topical to the subject you present is part of the game. Should everyone just respond with the reply-equivalent of a facebook like? Come on.

You're brushing aside the issues that come with an accomplishment that is largely based on projection and not results. I will again repeat that it's like taking pride in a preseason All American team selection - sure, it does imply something good about your reputation and what's expected of you, but it's not what you want to be bragging about.

The Villanova thing was just a minor example of one problem with using the streak as a meaningful statistic. But there's also the inverse problem - Florida was a top 10 team the moment they stepped on the court in fall 2005, but they didn't become ranked in the top 10 until December. Now, those few extra weeks wouldn't put the Gators anywhere near Duke's ballpark here. But are there other teams out there sometime in college basketball history that would have much longer poll streaks if they were ranked properly? I honestly don't know.

I strongly disagree that this is something that basketball historians will care about in the future. I follow the sport pretty closely outside of Duke, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone hold up UCLA's top 10 poll streak as one of the program's great accomplishments. I hear all sorts of statistics about the number of national championships, the number of final fours, the winning streaks, and the great players who were part of that program and their associated honors and records. Those are the types of things that Duke is also going to be remembered for.

I'll retract any implication I may have made that this streak is 100% meaningless - it's not like it says nothing about the program - but I stand by the opinion that it's not a well-formulated metric or important streak we should focus on. There are many far better statistics that demonstrate the program's consistency of excellence.

[throatybeard]

Pretty sure it was the rum that got them.

They didn't have enough rum-protectors.

[Des Esseintes]

It's an internet message board. A well-reasoned argument that's topical to the subject you present is part of the game. Should everyone just respond with the reply-equivalent of a facebook like? Come on.

You're brushing aside the issues that come with an accomplishment that is largely based on projection and not results. I will again repeat that it's like taking pride in a preseason All American team selection - sure, it does imply something good about your reputation and what's expected of you, but it's not what you want to be bragging about.

No. It's like taking pride in a preseason All-American selection that is followed by a postseason All-American selection for seven straight years and counting. If you don't want to brag about that, fine.

The Villanova thing was just a minor example of one problem with using the streak as a meaningful statistic. But there's also the inverse problem - Florida was a top 10 team the moment they stepped on the court in fall 2005, but they didn't become ranked in the top 10 until December. Now, those few extra weeks wouldn't put the Gators anywhere near Duke's ballpark here. But are there other teams out there sometime in college basketball history that would have much longer poll streaks if they were ranked properly? I honestly don't know.

You don't know if there are any uncredited 118-week-long streaks of top-10 play in college basketball history? The answer is no. There aren't any uncredited 118-week-long streaks of top-10 play in college basketball history.

I strongly disagree that this is something that basketball historians will care about in the future. I follow the sport pretty closely outside of Duke, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone hold up UCLA's top 10 poll streak as one of the program's great accomplishments. I hear all sorts of statistics about the number of national championships, the number of final fours, the winning streaks, and the great players who were part of that program and their associated honors and records. Those are the types of things that Duke is also going to be remembered for.

You act as though this streak is minor or arbitrary while ignoring the potential arbitrariness of the other potential measures. I mean, what does Kevin Durant's NPOY selection say about Texas basketball? I don't think Michigan State has ever had a Wooden National Player of the Year. Is that a data point suggesting UT has a more distinguished basketball history than Michigan State? BYU has 2! Did you all know BYU is tied for being the third most prestigious program in college basketball history! Whereas the top three of the top-10 streak is UCLA, Duke, and Kentucky. Which one of these has better historical descriptive power?

I'll retract any implication I may have made that this streak is 100% meaningless - it's not like it says nothing about the program - but I stand by the opinion that it's not a well-formulated metric or important streak we should focus on. There are many far better statistics that demonstrate the program's consistency of excellence.

I just don't get it. Consistently excellent play is what EVERYONE IN COLLEGE BASKETBALL IS TRYING TO DO. That is what this record shows. Complain all you want about preseason polls. Unlike, say, college football, preseason polls don't matter by season's end. You still have to be killing it. And Duke has--for 7 straight seasons. When Duke's streak breaks, an *extremely* long time will pass before anyone threatens its mark. Why wouldn't that speak in a very specific way to a very specific and admirable way Duke has excelled above its competition?

[Skitzle]

Just for some perspective, I did some research.
Here's a list all the active streaks for weeks in the Top 10:

	Team	Strk
Duke          	118
Mchgn St.	11
Kansas       	11
Louisville	10
Arizona       	5
Kentucky	5 
Syracuse	5
Oklmha St.	5
Ohio St.	4
Wisonsin	2

For those who didn't know the streak includes preseason and postseason polls.

Duke's streak is pretty impressive.

[OldPhiKap]

Just for some perspective, I did some research.
Here's a list all the active streaks for weeks in the Top 10:

	Team	Strk
Duke          	118
Mchgn St.	11
Kansas       	11
Louisville	10
Arizona       	5
Kentucky	5 
Syracuse	5
Oklmha St.	5
Ohio St.	4
Wisonsin	2
Tar Heels   0.

For those who didn't know the streak includes preseason and postseason polls.

Duke's streak is pretty impressive.

One small edit.

[johnb]

...
And, while I'd prefer not to compare Duke teams, I thought the '86 and '99 teams were more deserving than, say, the 2010 team. Not more likable, necessarily, but I did think they were the best teams in their year, while the 2010 team overachieved (as in, they won but weren't probably the best overall team of the year). Similarly, if the final four games were best 3 of 5, I'd guess that we wouldn't have a NC banner in 2001.

All that is just a long-winded way to say that 118 is a tremendous marker of success. If we beat Michigan and string it out through next year and break UCLA's record, I should think a banner would be an excellent idea.

2010 was #1 Pomeroy entering the NCAA Tournament.

True. We were #1, followed by Kansas as #2 and Wisconsin as #3.

The 2010 team is considered the best team in the land by one computer:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/...standings.html

[click on "SRS" to order the teams]

The 1999 team was also considered the best team in the land, by far.

The 1986 team, by this metric, was #3 (behind UNC and Kansas).

Wait, who do you think would be much better than us to win a 2 out of 3 meeting in 2001? Stanford? Michigan State?

-Jason "2 out of 3 and we win in 1999 and 1986 for sure... sigh" Evans

I assumed that John B. of sloop fame meant 1991 and UNLV as opponents. Time flies, etc., etc.

sage

Yes, I did mean to pick on '91 (though the Vegas upset was more surprising/exciting than any game I think I've watched--perhaps until this coming saturday). 20 years/10 years, they blur together... I'm getting old.

And, as for '86, there were fewer metrics (and no DBR) available, and so I was going mostly on my own personal preference (watched the Kansas game from an empty hospital bed as a medical intern--I was on call and answered pages at the timeouts and halftime. a friend had a cat named pervis, and I avoided visiting until the cat finally died).

[BD80]

One small edit.

The Helms Committee disagrees. unc has been in the top 10 since 1808.

[ChillinDuke]

I can't believe that some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.

Yeah, individual polls have their quirks and mistakes. There's a guy on CBS Sports who does a great column called Poll Attacks that ridicules stupid voters (he does not include the inclusion of Duke into the top 10 as one of this week's outrages). I wouldn't argue if the voters had put Villanova ahead of Duke this week -- disappointed, yes ... but certainly not outraged.

But the point of the thread is that Duke has a streak of 118 straight weeks in the top 10. It's a measure of consistency that only one other program in college basketball history has been able to match.

I'm sure there were weeks during Kentucky's 91 week streak and maybe even UCLA's 155 week streak that could be debated. But that doesn't detract from the magnificence of either streak. Just look around. Kentucky has a great program under Calipari, but they were out of the poll for a good part of last year. UNC has been out of the to 25 (much less the top 10) in two seasons since winning the title in 2009. Historically great programs such as UCLA and Indiana have been out of the top 10 more than they've been in it.

Staying in the top 10 week after week, season after season, is hard.

This streak is a great accomplishment for Coach K and Duke basketball and I'd like to see it last as long as possible.

That starts with beating Michigan tonight.

I couldn't agree more. I understand that some can take exception to our current or other weekly rankings, but the streak stands as of right now and it's absolutely remarkable. Consider the ease with which someone can drop out of the Top 10. I imagine something as simple and common as a loss would be enough to knock someone out of the Top 10 if they were ranked 8 or higher. Two-game losing streak should do it for anyone 4 or higher (ish). And I'm probably being conservative. Now consider long-term injuries to players like Irving or Kelly (in recent years) which required a reworking of the team/lineup. Consider lineup shakeups like inserting guys like Elliot Williams into the lineup mid-season. Consider who we play year in and year out - our schedule is always one of the tops in the nation. Consider losing one-and-doners like Rivers or Irving or stud seniors like Plumlee, Singler, Scheyer, et al. Consider just normal variance in a given college season!

Just sit back and think about that. That's absolutely remarkable. And Skitzle's table sheds further basis for my amazement.

Wow.

- Chillin

[vick]

I put the three longest streaks (UCLA, UK, Duke) into a graph. We didn't really spend all that much time in the 8-10 range, although a little more than Kentucky--though Duke was also ranked in the top 2 more than Kentucky. UCLA's streak was, as you might expect, insanely good.

Top 10 Streaks.jpg

Caveat, did it by hand from a PDF file, so might have transposed a number here or there, but I think it's pretty accurate.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I put the three longest streaks (UCLA, UK, Duke) into a graph. We didn't really spend all that much time in the 8-10 range, although a little more than Kentucky--though Duke was also ranked in the top 2 more than Kentucky. UCLA's streak was, as you might expect, insanely good.

Top 10 Streaks.jpg

Caveat, did it by hand from a PDF file, so might have transposed a number here or there, but I think it's pretty accurate.

Interesting. Curious, what is each team's average rank across their respective streaks? (or maybe there is a better comparative stat)

[vick]

Interesting. Curious, what is each team's average rank across their respective streaks? (or maybe there is a better comparative stat)

Not sure if there's a better one, but Duke's average is 5.1, UK's 4.8, and UCLA's 1.6. The median rank was 5 for both Duke and UK, and 1 (!) for UCLA.

The most intuitive way for me to look at the average rank is a CDF, which looks like:

Top 10 Streaks CDF.jpg

The way to read this is to look at the rank, and the percentage indicates the percent of times that the school was at least that rank during the streak (so, e.g., Duke being at 22% for 2 indicates that 22% of the time during its streak, Duke was ranked either 1 or 2). Duke's streak is a little more volatile than UK's, which you can see--more time in the 7-10 range, but also more time in the 1-2 slots.

[Des Esseintes]

Not sure if there's a better one, but Duke's average is 5.1, UK's 4.8, and UCLA's 1.6. The median rank was 5 for both Duke and UK, and 1 (!) for UCLA.

The most intuitive way for me to look at the average rank is a CDF, which looks like:

Top 10 Streaks CDF.jpg

The way to read this is to look at the rank, and the percentage indicates the percent of times that the school was at least that rank during the streak (so, e.g., Duke being at 22% for 2 indicates that 22% of the time during its streak, Duke was ranked either 1 or 2). Duke's streak is a little more volatile than UK's, which you can see--more time in the 7-10 range, but also more time in the 1-2 slots.

Thanks for making these, Vick. I think I like your first graph best, because it accounts for length of streak. That UCLA maintained its high ranking throughout its streak AND ran its streak so much longer than anyone else is just crazy. Too bad basketball historians of the future will find it a pointless achievement.

[vick]

Thanks for making these, Vick. I think I like your first graph best, because it accounts for length of streak. That UCLA maintained its high ranking throughout its streak AND ran its streak so much longer than anyone else is just crazy. Too bad basketball historians of the future will find it a pointless achievement.

Thanks. One thing, and I don't think there's anything real profound about it but it's interesting as trivia, is that you can make a pretty good case that the best team from each of these streaks didn't spend all that much time at #1. I'll leave picking Wooden's best team to the Jim Sumners and Olympic Fans of the world, but 1968 is often considered a plausible candidate for best all-time team, and it had the long string of #2s early on, after losing to Houston (later avenged). 1996 Kentucky was easily the best team of its streak and probably a top-10 all-time team, but it was only #1 for a few weeks before losing to Camby's UMass team, and only regained it for a couple of weeks toward the end of the year. Duke's 2010 championship team spent no time at all at #1. Probably nothing more than a statistical fluke but I still found it interesting.

[Lar77]

Why not celebrate the streak, especially if and when we top the UCLA streak.

It is a testament to a strong program. And we have accomplished it in an era of one and dones. Not taking away from UCLA's remarkable achievement. Let them celebrate their accomplishment if they so choose.

Yes, the rankings are subjective, and no doubt influenced by status, projections of potential, etc. - so are the securities markets in much the same way.

We have banners celebrating Final #1 rankings and setting a transient mark of 903 wins (I guess some day that will be replaced by a final number). So why object to a banner honoring the streak when it happens. It will look good next to our fifth (sixth?) NCAA banner.

[Olympic Fan]

Thanks. One thing, and I don't think there's anything real profound about it but it's interesting as trivia, is that you can make a pretty good case that the best team from each of these streaks didn't spend all that much time at #1. I'll leave picking Wooden's best team to the Jim Sumners and Olympic Fans of the world, but 1968 is often considered a plausible candidate for best all-time team, and it had the long string of #2s early on, after losing to Houston (later avenged). 1996 Kentucky was easily the best team of its streak and probably a top-10 all-time team, but it was only #1 for a few weeks before losing to Camby's UMass team, and only regained it for a couple of weeks toward the end of the year. Duke's 2010 championship team spent no time at all at #1. Probably nothing more than a statistical fluke but I still found it interesting.

I think most of us would agree that 1992 is K's greatest team ... and it did spend every week at No. 1 (despite losing two games).

The 1991 champs never reached No. 1 -- indeed, its highest rank was No. 5 (and they finished 6th)

The 2001 team spent four weeks in December at No. 1, then didn't get to No. 1 again until the final poll.

As you note, the 2010 champs were never ranked No. 1 -- its highest rank was the final No. 3.

Three of the four national title teams spent every week of the season in the top 10. The 1991 team had back-to-back weeks at No. 12 and No. 14, but that's it. The 2010 team hit rock bottom at No. 10.

[gam7]

Just for some perspective, I did some research.
Here's a list all the active streaks for weeks in the Top 10:

	Team	Strk
Duke          	118
Mchgn St.	11
Kansas       	11
Louisville	10
Arizona       	5
Kentucky	5 
Syracuse	5
Oklmha St.	5
Ohio St.	4
Wisonsin	2

For those who didn't know the streak includes preseason and postseason polls.

Duke's streak is pretty impressive.

Thanks Skitzle. I've wondered about this. Also, if someone has the time and inclination, I'd be interested in seeing the number of weeks each school has been in the top 10 during the last 118 polls. For example, Kansas's active streak is only 11, but during our streak, has Kansas been ranked in the top 10 for 115 weeks? Or 50 weeks?