Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 120 of 120
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)

    I'm sorry but DBR missed the point on this one

    I just found and read the response to Mandel's column that is linked from the front page. IMO, it is a defensive rant. Nothing wrong with defensive rants, as long they are defending against an actual attack, but that's not the case here.

    DBR vehemently defends K for adapting to the changing world of college basketball. That's great, except nowhere is his column does he suggest the game has passed K by. In fact, he goes out of his way not to attack K in the story and explicitly praises him more than once.

    The article's focus is much more that duke is somewhat unfairly called an underachiever these days than to say that duke is lousy now or something like that.

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaymf7 View Post
    Do you have a link for these stats? Thanks.
    Got them from George Harris on rsbc. He posts (updated) ones every year, where he compares conference performance relative to their seeds- so a conference has a 1 seed, a 2 seed, and a 6 seed, it is predicted to win x games, and actually won y games. Google groups doesn't make pretty links, so I won't post it here, but from that you should be able to find it.

    Chris

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post

    What Mandel has essentially done is tried to take the results of three games - Indiana in 02, MSU in 05, and LSU in 06 - and make it into a larger point that Duke either overachieves early or underachieves late, or is a paper tiger. And that's where I think his article really falls apart - none of the evidence he provides can explain why Duke lost those three games. Other than the box scores from those games, I don't think there's any large, trend-style evidence that can explain those losses. On that night, against that opponent, Duke simply didn't win. If Duke had won one, two, or all of those games, there's nothing to talk about. And each of those Duke teams was very capable of winning those games - they just didn't.
    Amen. We can't ignore the fact that luck plays a role. If your goal is to win a championship, success can hinge on a bounce of the ball, a bad call by an official, a missed free throw and lots of other factors. Since the tournament is one-and-done, six years of results in the tournament is not a large enough sample to draw conclusions based on statistics.

    We have informed opinions because we watch the games and understand basketball, but there's no point in pretending that those opinions are based on meaningful statistics. In my opinion, Mandel weakened his argument by throwing all those numbers in there. Better to not use statistics than to misuse them.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by 2002grad View Post
    We have informed opinions because we watch the games and understand basketball, but there's no point in pretending that those opinions are based on meaningful statistics. In my opinion, Mandel weakened his argument by throwing all those numbers in there. Better to not use statistics than to misuse them.
    In my opinion, K made a mistake in his reaction to the 2004 NBA draft- he overreacted and started targeting too many players he knew would stay in school for 3-4 years. Without the pure athletic talent of previous teams, his teams have struggled towards the end of the season, as they wore down from the ironman rotation he has generally used since the Gaudet interregnum. Also, K's excellence as a game coach has tended to mask the shortcomings of these teams (e.g. his spottier record recruiting, like not landing Patterson, as an example). And finally, since the interregnum he has dramatically lessened his willingness to play OOC games on an opponents home court. He used to be much more willing to do that than he has been over the past few years (this actually dates to before the 2004 NBA draft, but I don't think it is one of the major reasons for the decline, more an explanation for Duke being overrated at the middle of the year).

    How would I show that? I can say it, and it makes sense, but then everyone says 'no, you need to compare to other schools, you are just comparing Duke to their own awesomeness.' Or they feel differently- they might have the impression that Paulus is really capable of guarding, say, Ty Lawson.

    McDAA's are a terrible way of looking at the talent at Duke. Over the past few years there seems to have been a lot of 'he's going to Duke, he's a McDAA' going on. So how else could you show it? Well, one way would be to try and show that Duke has, over the past three years, grossly underperformed relative to an average team with their NCAA seed, suggesting that they are overrated by the end of the year. You are correct that three years isn't a truly long enough time period to judge based on those stats, but they are all we really have, if we want to show that the 2004 NBA draft was the source of the problem. There simply aren't enough data points otherwise: these aren't baseball players with 500+ recorded events each season.

    By combining anecdotal evidence and argument with statistical ones, you can make a much more compelling case. And that is what Mandel was trying to do here. He marshaled statistics and anecdotal evidence together to try and support a hypothesis.

    As for my theory on K, he'll fix it eventually. He's too smart and way too competitive to keep making these mistakes. I'm just trying to enjoy every moment of this while I can. (It was, after all, in a similar slump by Dean that K built his program.)

    Chris

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisM View Post
    By combining anecdotal evidence and argument with statistical ones, you can make a much more compelling case. And that is what Mandel was trying to do here.
    My problem with this is by combining too few data points with anecdotal evidence, you can argue pretty much anything, but there's really nothing of statistical significance to back it up, so it essentially all boils down to 'gut' perceptions. As has been demonstrated, the data that Mandel laid out can essentially be used to prove the exact opposite conclusion. And, as a journalist, there's my problem with Mandel's column [and ones like it]--it's largely a pointless exercise [although, I suppose, mildly entertaining--after all, it did spawn this thread, so he must be doing something right].

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisM View Post
    (It was, after all, in a similar slump by Dean that K built his program.)
    And this statement sums up the problem that really is at the root of the 'Duke slump' perception. Deano and the Heels were at the top of the ACC--the toughest conference in the land--during that supposed slump... They just weren't winning national championships or reaching Final Fours with the historic consistency that Duke was... But that was a special streak for Duke and Coach K, on the level of UCLA's historic runs back in the day... Carolina wasn't slumping then, just like Duke isn't slumping now... IMO, either suggestion is preposterous (of course, that and a dollar probably won't even get you a cup of coffee)...

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Here is a longer criticism on Mandell

    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    devildownunder:


    So what is your point about the story? Not trying to be difficult, just want to understand? Are you saying the rest of his story is invalid because he didn't handle these stats correctly? What's your assertion?
    devildownunder:

    Here is my textual criticism of the Mandell piece. (I apologize for a more cursory response last time – but I was on my way out of town.)

    …”this week’s sudden swoon should come as little surprise.” Two losses equal “sudden swoon” – maybe OK. “… [L]ittle surprise” implies that this trend will continue. Uh – we’ll see. But except for last year, I don’t see a swoon in other years. The ACC has been a very competitive conference, and in five of the last seven years Duke has won the ACC tournament. Tournament victories have contributed a lot to Duke receiving no. 1 seeds, when other schools lost the last week. In fact, I thought the 2003 team overachieved, with JWill, Dunleavy and Boozer gone and JJ and Shel as freshman, winning the ACC tournament was quite an accomplishment.

    “Its relatively unchallenging nonconference schedule”…. [has] contributed to both Duke’s inflated rankings and postseason failure.” Huh? A good record in conference and winning the ACC tournament is not enough preparation for the NCAAs? Everybody in basketball tends to agree that results in November don’t matter at all. Moreover, my earlier point was that until Duke and UNC started racking up NCs in the early ‘90s, there was a lot of tut-tutting that the ACC teams couldn’t win the NC because they were worn out by the ACC tournament. In any event, we are supposed to believe that a couple more road games against good teams in Nov-Dec are supposed to make the team better prepared in March. Uh, no! The point that harder games may lead to losses and to lower rankings is a fair comment, but it looks to me that Duke plays as challenging a non-conference schedule as anyone.

    His table citing road games from 1986 to 2001 is interesting, although unchecked (and he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt). I don’t know whether this reflects NCAA wide trends or Duke is somehow special. I do believe that, top to bottom, the ACC is much tougher now than 20 years ago. I expect that affects K’s scheduling decisions.

    “…[H]e began softening the schedule in recent years simply because he knew his teams weren’t as good as in years past.” Give me a break! Duke’s conference record the past ten years has been phenomenal. How is it that K thought his teams weren’t as good as in the 10-15 years before then? What I do believe is true is that when the team totally turns over (2000, 2003, 2007) K starts the team off more slowly.

    And then, his factual paragraph on Duke McD’s and subsequent NBA experience was poorly researched. McRoberts has, in fact, made an NBA roster in his rookie year (no guaranteed contract). And Shelden wasn’t a McD AA (off-court charges, which were dropped, prevented him from being a shoo-in for McD).

    “The rate of pro success for Duke’s McDonald’s alums is significantly lower than that of all others during the same time period.” Horse hockey! He fudged the data; he falsified the analysis by not omitting current college players; and he imagined a result that isn’t in the data.

    “… [R]ecent emphasis by Krzyzsewski to recruit players more likely to remain in school for three or four years.” Didn’t we go all out for the Louisiana stud who chose G’town for his one year in college? Unless some other poster wants to provide some info on this subject, this is idle speculation by Mandell. Of course, when the majority of your scholarship players are white, he is not the only one to speculate thusly. But I would be surprised if Scheyer, King and Singler don’t have long NBA careers (along with, for sure, Henderson and Smith).

    “There are, at most, two players on the Duke roster that one can envision eventually approaching that level” (i.e., NBA starters Battier, Boozer and Dunleavy). Then, of course, having said “at most” he adds the possibility of Smith and King also reaching that level. I mean, does SI have editors, and do they read this stuff?

    But it gets worse: “Memphis, whose entire starting five could end up in the NBA; North Carolina (at least three if you include the injured Ty Lawson).” Notice the subtle shift from “NBA starters” to “end up in the NBA.” He has already conceded that Markie, Greg and Scheyer are comparable to Avery and Ewing (who, of course, did play in the NBA). Is he really saying that Memphis’s starting five will all become NBA starters? Yuck! This is jabbering to make a point by obscuring both your reasoning and the facts.

    That’s the end of my textual criticism, although I could have gone on even longer.

    My other point is implicit in the whole article. Duke players from 1999 to 2002 were absolutely fabulous on both the college and NBA levels: NBA stars Brand, Maggette, Battier, Boozer and Dunleavy (with JWill missing because of a career-ending injury). To say that JJ, Shel, Luol, Shav and Josh are not as good is hardly a bold move and really unfair to them given their stage of career. But it is also illogical if Duke’s recent McD’s have done about as well as others in the NBA. I think they have, and I think Mandell falsified the data and the analysis to prove otherwise.

    On the issue of exceptional performance, I think he is holding Duke’s 1986-1994 teams’ NCAA results as a standard of comparison for more recent teams. Those years were the most fabulous NCAA long-running performance, except for UCLA, in history.

    Ugh and double ugh!

    sagegrouse
    'BTW, how are things down under? I remember your reasons for emigration -- did it work out as well as you hoped?'

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

    1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

    2a. If the answer is yes, why?
    2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?

  8. #108

    Yes

    The tournament winner is rarely the best team. Bad match-ups (Duke-LSU) or just one bad game 2002 will cost the team a championship, seasons can't be judged on NCAA performance alone. Saying that I don't think too many teams have a better record over the last 6 years. We clearly have been the best RPI wise with such poor NBA talent (eyes rolling). There are 64 teams every year that feel the disappiontment of not winning. We were one of them.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

    1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

    2a. If the answer is yes, why?
    2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?
    First, you can't (or shouldn't) eliminate the "peak" -- I would include 2001 and, really, overall performance in the post 1995 era. The NCAA's are a single elimination tournament that is going to produce random results (a real crapshoot, IMHO). Restricting results to only a few years is a mistake (one that Mandell was only to eager to embrace).

    I thought the 1999 and 2004 teams played well enough, overall to win the championship, but as we learned in all the years before (1964, 1966, 1978, 1986, and 1994), "well enough" doesn't do it -- you have to have some luck.

    I thought the 2002 team was a disappointment, in that it had all necessary talent, but didn't play with the focus and intensity of the 2001 team (of, course, Battier was the glue in 2001).

    I thought the 2005 and 2006 could have done better, and maybe should have done better.

    2003 and 2007 had nowhere near the talent to contend for anything. The fact that the 2003 team won the ACC tournament is as close to a miracle as anything in Duke history.

    Basically, if the 2004 team doesn't get victimized by a horribly officiated game and wins the NC, we don;t have this conversation.

    sagegrouse

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

    1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

    2a. If the answer is yes, why?
    2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?
    I agree with much of what sagegrouse said in the post above me, but I thought I'd add this.

    I don't think there is any one reason (or any group of reasons) that we can pull from the season as a whole (or multiple seasons) to explain why Duke lost three or four particular games at the time they did. Just like there's no reason (or group of reasons) that would explain why Duke won the games they did in earlier seasons.

    To turn your 2b around, do you believe that the reason Duke lost to LSU, MSU, Indiana, and VCU is that we did not play true road games against top 25 opponents in November and December?
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    I agree with much of what sagegrouse said in the post above me, but I thought I'd add this.

    I don't think there is any one reason (or any group of reasons) that we can pull from the season as a whole (or multiple seasons) to explain why Duke lost three or four particular games at the time they did. Just like there's no reason (or group of reasons) that would explain why Duke won the games they did in earlier seasons.

    To turn your 2b around, do you believe that the reason Duke lost to LSU, MSU, Indiana, and VCU is that we did not play true road games against top 25 opponents in November and December?
    Not necessarily. I honestly don't know. It may be that our style of play produces a more fatigued, error-prone team down the stretch, and I don't think Mandel discussed that possibility.

    It could also be that our lack of "true" road games helps push our record and ranking too high, so that while we were a number one seed against LSU, MSU, Indiana, and VCU, we weren't really one of the best four teams in the country going into the tournament those years. Maybe when we lost those games they shouldn't have been considered such huge upsets.

    I do think there has been a trend towards underperformance in the tournament in the last several years, relative to our ranking, and it's happening with enough recent recurrence that it's a good topic for consideration. Personally I'm at a loss to explain it or to think about how to improve it. Fortunately it is K rather than me with that challenge.

    I found Mandel's take on it interesting and provocative, and although I can't say that he's right I've been surprised by the vehement reaction.

    I do wish K played true nonconference road games against tough opponents, mainly to take the argument away from Duke-haters that we are ducking those situations, something that in the past we could never be cited for. I have no idea whether it hurts us in March.

    I also think it's possible that we're not the top dog in recruiting anymore and that could be having an impact, especially with regard to power players. (Not that we ever did recruit those guys much, but it's possible that it's catching up to us.) I'll concede that that one can be argued either way, and it frequently is on this board.

    Finally, although I don't think the '04 semifinal was well-officiated, I think UConn had an ax to grind in that game (1st half) just like we did (2nd half). Both affected the game, as did superb 2nd-half play by a great college player named Ameka Okafor (whose name I probably just misspelled). If he had played most of the first half we might never have built a lead at all. I agree that, if we had won that game, there would be much less to discuss on this set of topics.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    If we've been overseeded, it's because we have a habit of winning the ACCT. In the last ten ACCTs we've won 7 and lost the final in two more, so our record in the ACCT (1998-) is 25-3. Because almost everybody's got a conference tournament, the overwhelming majority of the top 50 lose their last game before the NCAAT. So when you go 3-0 that week, you're going to leapfrog a bunch of people in the polls. And the polls are a much better predictor of seed than the RPI.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    But except for last year, I don’t see a swoon in other years. The ACC has been a very competitive conference, and in five of the last seven years Duke has won the ACC tournament...
    I'm sorry, Sage, but you are muddying the waters here with your insanely accurate interpretation of the facts...

    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

    1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

    2a. If the answer is yes, why?
    2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?
    I think Sage has actually done an excellent job of rebutting Mandel's column... My main problem with these types of columns is that they're pointless--using your 'gut feeling' and trying to back it up with an extraordinarily limited data set [one which he clearly defined as he did because he obviously felt it proved his argument, yet I think it's been clearly demonstrated by others here that you could draw opposite conclusions from the limited data set he presents] is a sloppy, lazy excuse to 'punt' a column... Of course, I also think this is what the bulk of sports "journalism" is...

    To answer your questions...

    - Yes, Mandel is full of crap, but that's no revelation...

    - No--I want Duke to win the National Championship every year... But winning the tournament has a lot to do with matchups and luck as much as anything else... And, quite frankly, we Duke fans have been extraordinarily spoiled with respect to our team's NCAA tournament performance during the K years... 22 tournament appearances, 68-19 record, 3 National Championships, 3 runner-ups, 10 Final Fours... Only one team can win the NCAA... Only 4 of 64 make the Final Four... We've been one of those four almost 50 percent of the time in Coach K's tenure... We've underperformed relative to our seed in some years, and overachieved relative to our seed in others--that's the law of averages...

    The only season I was truly disappointed in was last season, when I felt we had too much talent to play as poorly as we did down the stretch...

    You can't win 'em all... You can hope, but...

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Fair points by both of you. I do worry that it has become a trend, but I don't dispute that it could simply be blind luck.

    The year that disappointed me the most was JJ & Shel's senior year. Those two guys, and their teammates, deserved better than to go out early.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa John View Post
    No--I want Duke to win the National Championship every year... But winning the tournament has a lot to do with matchups and luck as much as anything else... And, quite frankly, we Duke fans have been extraordinarily spoiled with respect to our team's NCAA tournament performance during the K years... 22 tournament appearances, 68-19 record, 3 National Championships, 3 runner-ups, 10 Final Fours... Only one team can win the NCAA... Only 4 of 64 make the Final Four... We've been one of those four almost 50 percent of the time in Coach K's tenure... We've underperformed relative to our seed in some years, and overachieved relative to our seed in others--that's the law of averages
    not exactly. because the ncaat is a single-elimination event, you are going to have years when your team loses when it should not due to matchups or luck. that's why the indiana loss didn't stand out at the time. however, you make it sound like the '05 and '06 teams were humming along and just hit bad matchups with mich st and lsu. that couldn't be any further from the truth. the '05 MIGHTILY struggled with 16 seed delaware state. we won by 11 but we scored a grand total of 21 points in the 2nd half and shot 41% for the game. we then BARELY beat miss st by 8 by shooting 38% from the field. that team was a staggering mess by the time the mich st game tipped off and, by that point, not surprising that it lost.

    the '06 also didn't exactly look like a well-oiled 1 seed either in rounds 1 and 2. it, too, struggled with its 16 seed, southern. southern only was down by 9 at half and wound up losing only by 16. players not named jj and sheldon scored a grand total of 12 points that game and we committed an embarrassing 20 turnovers. i remind you that this was the 16 seed! the next game was against gw, which was quite upset at getting an 8 seed despite being ranked 14th. we actually played ok that game. despite committing 18 turnovers, we wound up winning by 13 in a game that really wasn't in doubt.

    so in summary, the '05 and '06 teams played extremely poorly in 3 of the 4 games leading up to their sweet 16 exits (and 2 of those games were against 16 seeds). thus, of the 6 ncaat games they played, 5 were poorly played. it's fantasy to simply chalk up the mich st and lsu loses to either bad matchups and/or the vagaries of bad luck as our poor play started well before those games. mapei nicely outlined some of the possibly explanations and i don't think anyone can say for sure what is going on. however, when duke flames out of the ncaat 4 out of the last 6 years, you have enough datapoints to conclude that there is something else going on besides randomness or "bad" matchups at the sweet 16 level.

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    However, when duke flames out of the ncaat 4 out of the last 6 years, you have enough datapoints to conclude that there is something else going on besides randomness or "bad" matchups at the sweet 16 level.
    I didn't realize that making it into the Final 16 and losing a game in the final minute [which describes both the MSU and LSU losses you cite] constituted a "flameout"... I normally reserve "flameout" for, say, a 2 seed losing in round 1 (something Ole Roy has done a couple of times)...

    We all want to see Duke win the championship every year, I imagine... That just ain't reality...

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa John View Post
    I didn't realize that making it into the Final 16 and losing a game in the final minute [which describes both the MSU and LSU losses you cite] constituted a "flameout"... I normally reserve "flameout" for, say, a 2 seed losing in round 1 (something Ole Roy has done a couple of times)...

    We all want to see Duke win the championship every year, I imagine... That just ain't reality...
    maybe we have a different set of expectations, but when you are a 1 seed (and the #1 1 seed to boot), losing to the 4/5 winner is a flameout in my book. also, we lost to mich st by 10 and didn't lead for the final 17:07. so, yes, you can loosely say that we lost the game in the final minute, but if you are that liberal with the term, then every losing team loses the game in the final minute (eg, st johns yesterday).

    the fact that you still are trying to make the argument that we lost 2 really close games and they were due to luck/bad matchups indicates that you missed the whole point of my last post -- that the team was playing poorly in the games leading up to the ultimate loss and the belief that we just had some bad luck or a bad matchup is malarkey. take a look at some of the scores against other 16 seeds in past tournaments and you will see utter whippings with the stars benched well before the final horn.

  18. #118

    Compare Apples to Apples

    The getting fat at McDonalds is an unfair assessment. First off Duke only had 16 McD AA from 01-07, and a fifth in the NBA (McRoberts), the numbers change alot. It also isn't right to compare the McD's as a whole. Duke has only had 6 top 15 recruit (according to Scout.com) during that time period.

    02 Shav 12th in the NBA
    02 Redick 13th in the NBA
    03 Deng 2nd in the NBA
    05 McRoberts 1st in the NBA
    06 Henderson 15th lottery selection in next years draft (NBAdraft.net)
    07 Singler 6th any question he wouldn't go in the 1st this year?

    05 Paulus was 18th
    06 Thomas was 18th
    06 Sheyer was 20th

    All three still in school and I wouldn't rule out an NBA career for any of them

    Ewing, Thompson, Dockery, Nelson, Boateng, Smith, and King all were ranked outside of the top 25 players, compare them to similar ranked McDees.

    Of the 60 NBA players that were McDees in those 7 classes, how many do you think were top 15 players. Their were 68 top 10 players during that same period.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by dukie8 View Post
    maybe we have a different set of expectations, but when you are a 1 seed (and the #1 1 seed to boot), losing to the 4/5 winner is a flameout in my book. also, we lost to mich st by 10 and didn't lead for the final 17:07. so, yes, you can loosely say that we lost the game in the final minute, but if you are that liberal with the term, then every losing team loses the game in the final minute (eg, st johns yesterday).
    The MSU game was a 4-point game in the closing minute... LSU was a 1-point game with a minute to go... How do those possibly compare to St. John's the other day?

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

    1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

    2a. If the answer is yes, why?
    2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?
    1. Overall, I'm satisfied. Which is to say, I wouldn't trade Duke's situation for anyone else, I wouldn't want to recruit different players, change the Head coach, Associate or Assistant Coaches, or otherwise make any drastic revisions to the program.

    2(a). There are a couple years where we did worse than I hoped, and the rest I chalk up to chance. Every champion get some breaks (think we'd beat UNLV in a series in 1991? Laettner hits the shot every time? we erase a 22 point deficit in the final Four and win the final with the "go-to" guy in foul trouble?). The NCAA title is rarefied air for everyone. We've been spoiled. <curmudgeon> When I graduated from Duke, the school had never won a national championship in any team sport. This was remedied by the 1986 Men's soccer team.</curmudgeon>

    2(b). Paucity of datapoints. Statistics is the study of large numbers. Sure, it'd be fun if we had won more titles, but it's not like anyone else was doing significantly better (arguably Florida and UConn), but I don't want to be them.

    This idea that the higher ranked team should win every time seems silly to me (e.g. a #1 seed losing to a 4 or 5 is a "flameout"). If you don't believe basketball is a game of matchups, then you need to pay better attention. you construct the best team you can (and keep it together long enough to get really good), then try to impose your will on the other team. Beyond that, you have to survive such obstacles as fatigue, shooting slumps, a poor free-throw shooting night, a hot hand on the other team, foul trouble, illness, injuries, matchup problems and any number of things that can happen to a team.

Similar Threads

  1. Musician John Stewart dies
    By jimsumner in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 10:04 PM
  2. Just a comment
    By trueblue in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2007, 11:41 AM
  3. A Comment about the Front Headline
    By duke86 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 09:55 PM
  4. A Lost Comment
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 06:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •