You know what's awesome?

[RepoMan]

While I'm not concerned about the depth issues this year, or more accurately the worn down and tired issues that I feel did affect us during the JJ years, I can't believe anyone would deny the basic point that some of us have made for quite some time now. . . .I only hope we don't tighten the reigns at all from this point on. I do think we benefit from having 9 or 10 playing as opposed to 6 or 7. And while I understand there will be games like last night when we do kinda shorten the bench in the second half, I hope we err a little in the other direction on average from here on out. And I think the coaches are committed to doing all they can to keep the team fresh - in large part because they have seen the results of "tired teams" over the last several years.

Jumbo, I hope you realize that by starting this thread you have elicited the very dialogue you were glad was missing.

While I find it easy to understand the argument that if Player A plays fewer minutes during the course of a game, he is less fatigued at the end of that game, which might be beneficial to team success. You will never convince me that well conditioned 20 year old athletes somehow get "worn down" physically by playing 35 minutes, 2 games a week.

[_Gary]

While I find it easy to understand the argument that if Player A plays fewer minutes during the course of a game, he is less fatigued at the end of that game, which might be beneficial to team success. You will never convince me that well conditioned 20 year old athletes somehow get "worn down" physically by playing 35 minutes, 2 games a week.

Look, I'd really like to enjoy this current team and not keep talking about this - so I'll make this my final post in this thread. I get that you and others here don't think playing less minutes really makes a difference. What I don't get is that both JJ and Coach K have said that it was an issue. Maybe not a big issue, but an issue nonetheless. If you want to dispute them, go ahead.


Gary

[dukie8]

There are two things wrong with your thought process. Implicitly, you are stating that:

1) Depth controls how well Duke will fare in the tournament. But depth is only one small aspect of how well a basketball team functions. If this year's Duke team shot and passed and handled the ball like last year's Duke team did, then they could have an 11-man rotation and still struggle. Depth is just one small strength for this team among many strengths.

2) You are also implying that you will judge this team based on how well it fares in the tournament. Mathematically (probability-wise), it's a terrible way to judge. And I'm not picking on you because the vast majority of college basketball fans think that the single-elimination crapshoot-ish NCAA tournament is the best way to judge teams. If the NBA held a 1-game-series tournament instead of the 7-game-series tournament that they do, Jordan's Bulls would only have 2 rings instead of 6, Duncan would only have 1 ring instead of 4, Shaq would have 2 instead of 4, etc etc. The differences reflect how often those teams lost the first game of a series. Those teams still ended up winning championships under this method (single-elimination) but they won them at a much lower rate mostly due to the bad luck of matchups being 1 game series instead of 7.

your logic is extremely flawed regarding your nba analogy. first, the only team that could have won the opening game in each series is the team that ultimately wins the nba title. there are many years that the winner doesn't win the opening game in every series so there would be no winner in your artificial world. second, and more importantly, you have no idea how players would have reacted if the nba had been playing a single elimination tournament all these years. the bulls very well could have won 10 titles in such a scenario. i could see a jordan-led bulls team coast by the dregs of the nba in rounds 1 and 2 (against the 8 and 4/5 seeds) and then have jordan completely focus for the last 2 games (the conference finals and the finals) and win both of those games every year. my money says that jordan plays harder in those games than he does in the opening game in every round every year.

getting back to your point, yes the bulk of how people judge a team is how it does in the ncaat. whether you like it or not, the ncaat is what it is all about and flaming-out early largely erases success during the regular season and, conversely, exceeding expectations in the ncaat largely erases disappointment during the regular season. do you ever hear anyone complain that unc did not win the acct in 2005? do you ever hear anyone complain that duke lost so many regular season games in '90 that it was a 3 seed but nonetheless went on to the finals?

[Troublemaker]

your logic is extremely flawed regarding your nba analogy. first, the only team that could have won the opening game in each series is the team that ultimately wins the nba title. there are many years that the winner doesn't win the opening game in every series so there would be no winner in your artificial world.

What???

second, and more importantly, you have no idea how players would have reacted if the nba had been playing a single elimination tournament all these years. the bulls very well could have won 10 titles in such a scenario.

Yes, and it's possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow. You're talking fairy-tale rubbish. It's a FACT that a 7-game series favors the better team over a 1-game series. How much more duh-obvious common sense can it be?

i could see a jordan-led bulls team coast by the dregs of the nba in rounds 1 and 2 (against the 8 and 4/5 seeds) and then have jordan completely focus for the last 2 games (the conference finals and the finals) and win both of those games every year. my money says that jordan plays harder in those games than he does in the opening game in every round every year.

Right, because ultra-competitors like Jordan, Magic, and Bird were known for coasting in the playoffs. You can go back and look at the playoff records yourself. There was no preponderance of Game 1 losses in the early rounds. For example, Jordan's first championship team lost Game 1 in the NBA Finals to the Lakers. The Lakers used their experience to steal the first game, in Chicago Stadium, no less. But the Bulls were a waaay better team, adjusted, and won the next four games to capture the trophy. Played under college rules, though, the Bulls would've never gotten a chance to adjust.

getting back to your point, yes the bulk of how people judge a team is how it does in the ncaat. whether you like it or not, the ncaat is what it is all about and flaming-out early largely erases success during the regular season and, conversely, exceeding expectations in the ncaat largely erases disappointment during the regular season. do you ever hear anyone complain that unc did not win the acct in 2005? do you ever hear anyone complain that duke lost so many regular season games in '90 that it was a 3 seed but nonetheless went on to the finals?

Yes, I know that's how the public judges. That was the whole point of my post. I am saying it's an unintelligent way to do it, and that's not opinion, it's fact. Judging a team by how it fares in a single-elimination tournament is much, much, MUCH less accurate than judging teams in a 7-game series.

Go back and check. Magic would've won 2 rings instead of 5. Bird 1 instead of 3. Jordan 2 instead of 6. Shaq 2 of 4. Duncan 1 of 4. That's the effect of single elimination.

[Troublemaker]

Note, though, that I love the NCAA tournament and wouldn't change the format. I like watching the little guy have a chance and the tradeoff is that sometimes, Duke will lose to an inferior team when they would've beaten in a 7-game series. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.