What makes a good post-season?

[dukelifer]

There have been a few posters that have pointed to Duke's "failure" of late in March. I am curious what do folks think make a good post season? Does winning the ACC tourney count or not? Does a final 8 mean a good post season or only making the final four? Clearly winning the ACC and a sweet sixteen has not been enough for most folks. If Duke had gone just one more step- would that have made people see Duke in a different "post season" light? Just curious. What is the bar for a "successful" March?

[PatZorro]

It really depends. Obviously, a FF is a good post season. Losing there is dissappointing, because you are so close to the ultimate prize. But, in calmer moments, a ff is perfectly acceptable.

It always depends on the team. Last year's squad would have topped out in the Sweet 16. This year, the elite 8 seems like the wall.

The ACC tourney is well and good, but the NCAA tourney is the measuring stick. Elite programs, like Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, and a few others rarely celebrate such achievements anymore. Tourney titles rarely get their own banner anymore. There is a banner that says ACC tourney titles and a list of the years they were won.

For elite teams, like Duke, a good year does not involve losing to a lesser seeded team. The Sweet 16 is like a baseline of success. Without getting to that level, it is hard to classify a season as anything less than an unmitigated disaster.

PatZorro

[dukelifer]

It really depends. Obviously, a FF is a good post season. Losing there is dissappointing, because you are so close to the ultimate prize. But, in calmer moments, a ff is perfectly acceptable.

It always depends on the team. Last year's squad would have topped out in the Sweet 16. This year, the elite 8 seems like the wall.

The ACC tourney is well and good, but the NCAA tourney is the measuring stick. Elite programs, like Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, and a few others rarely celebrate such achievements anymore. Tourney titles rarely get their own banner anymore. There is a banner that says ACC tourney titles and a list of the years they were won.

For elite teams, like Duke, a good year does not involve losing to a lesser seeded team. The Sweet 16 is like a baseline of success. Without getting to that level, it is hard to classify a season as anything less than an unmitigated disaster.

PatZorro

So if only winning in the NCAA tourney is important- is losing today actually good for Duke. That is, if Duke is really good enough to be a 1 seed (which they might have gotten if they won today and Sunday) but actually enter the NCAAs as a 3- is that ultimately better for Duke? That way they get to beat a higher seed earlier and hence would be deemed a success if they win. Or is not getting a 1 seed seen as a failure for elite program like Duke, UNC etc.

[coastal1]

So if only winning in the NCAA tourney is important- is losing today actually good for Duke. That is, if Duke is really good enough to be a 1 seed (which they might have gotten if they won today and Sunday) but actually enter the NCAAs as a 3- is that ultimately better for Duke? That way they get to beat a higher seed earlier and hence would be deemed a success if they win. Or is not getting a 1 seed seen as a failure for elite program like Duke, UNC etc.

A 3 instead of a 1 seed is never good.

[dukelifer]

A 3 instead of a 1 seed is never good.

Tell that to Florida in 2006.

[PatZorro]

So if only winning in the NCAA tourney is important- is losing today actually good for Duke. That is, if Duke is really good enough to be a 1 seed (which they might have gotten if they won today and Sunday) but actually enter the NCAAs as a 3- is that ultimately better for Duke? That way they get to beat a higher seed earlier and hence would be deemed a success if they win. Or is not getting a 1 seed seen as a failure for elite program like Duke, UNC etc.

It doesn't matter if you win the NCAA as a 1 seed or a 6 seed. It is a success looking backwards, not forwards.

A: I don't think we were a 1 seed, even if we beat UNC tomorrow, unless we blow them off the court, and that would've been highly unlikely.

B: I think all the elite teams understand that not everyone can be a 1 seed. Too many things go into seeding. Non-Conf play, Non-Con SOS, Conf record, Conf SOS, Conf RPI, and tourney play. Some of those things are beyond a team's control, no matter how well they play.

No one starts out as a 1 seed, or a 3 seed for that matter. Suppose that Duke lost a couple of non-conf games, and a couple of conf games, spread over the whole season, not sandwiched together at the end. We finish 2nd in the ACC, and lose to a talented Clemson team. Had we played well today, and Clemson played better, or even if we beat Clemson and drop a tight game to UNC, we end up at approximately the same place.

Only, instead of appearing to be limping to the end of the season, as we appear now, we are on something of an uptick, or are at least playing at or near the level we played at all year.

To make a deep tourney run, in either scenario, we would need strong perimeter shooting, quality D, and key contributions from several players. If we were on an uptick, that would seem more likely, both to us and to potential opponents. Athletes and coaches are like sharks. They can smell blood, and there is a definite sanguine odor about us right now.

And now for something completely different (and depressing). If we do not make the FF this year, it will be the second senior class since K came to Duke to not go to te FF. That class was Wojo's class, and the 99 year followed. I don't think next year is a 99 type year. Talk about trending.

PatZorro

[dukelifer]

A 3 instead of a 1 seed is never good.

And Syracuse in 2003

[PatZorro]

Tell that to Florida in 2006.

My point exactly. Florida was on an uptick. They had a good showing in the SEC tourney, and were on an uptick. They were a young, big, athletic team gelling at the right time. Their 3 seed was the result of some early season losses and a really weak SEC. People like to think they got hot and came out of nowhere, but they were playing good ball heading into March, and continued that play into the tourney.

Also, if you see any similarities between that aforementioned big, athletic, Floriday squad and this year's Blue Devils, please elaborate. I must have missed it.

PatZorro

[coastal1]

And Syracuse in 2003

Obviously anyone could win it and often its not a #1 seed that does. But a #3 instead of a #1 is never good, even though the #3 may end up winning it all.

A #1 has NEVER lost in the first round, yet a #3 as lost several times. That doesnt speak to any particular team, but 1 vs. 3 is not a wash.

On the other hand, maybe you're right and all these top 4 teams competing down the stretch are wasting their energy and would be better off sandbagging.

[devildownunder]

So if only winning in the NCAA tourney is important- is losing today actually good for Duke. That is, if Duke is really good enough to be a 1 seed (which they might have gotten if they won today and Sunday) but actually enter the NCAAs as a 3- is that ultimately better for Duke? That way they get to beat a higher seed earlier and hence would be deemed a success if they win. Or is not getting a 1 seed seen as a failure for elite program like Duke, UNC etc.

IMO, losses during the regular season, or even the acc tournament, are ultimately good for the team IF THEY LEAD TO IMPROVEMENTS/ADJUSTMENTS that bring greater success in the ncaa tournament. Even, dare I say it, a loss to the hated holes would be looked upon (only in hindsight) as a positive in the grand scheme of things if, say, it came because a very talented group was playing poorly due to complacency and served as a wake-up call that got the team to refocus and go on a tear during march madness.

So in that sense, I think a loss CAN be a good thing, if it serves such a purpose. But I disagree that it's a good thing for the team simply because it may lower their seeding and, therefore, the public's perception of any wins or losses they may have. That's just PR, to me, and I don't think it's very important. Now, if you are saying the team might actually perform better due to lower expectations, that's another question.

[devildownunder]

Tell that to Florida in 2006.

3 seed Florida won because they were good, not because they were a 3 as opposed to a 1. A 1 seed's 1st 2 potential opponents will almost always be markedly easier tests than a 3 seeds. I think the number of 3s who have lost on the first weekend, relative to the number of 1s, bears this out. To this day, no 1 seed has ever lost a 1st-round game in a field of 64, if I'm not mistaken.

[dukelifer]

It doesn't matter if you win the NCAA as a 1 seed or a 6 seed. It is a success looking backwards, not forwards.

A: I don't think we were a 1 seed, even if we beat UNC tomorrow, unless we blow them off the court, and that would've been highly unlikely.

B: I think all the elite teams understand that not everyone can be a 1 seed. Too many things go into seeding. Non-Conf play, Non-Con SOS, Conf record, Conf SOS, Conf RPI, and tourney play. Some of those things are beyond a team's control, no matter how well they play.

No one starts out as a 1 seed, or a 3 seed for that matter. Suppose that Duke lost a couple of non-conf games, and a couple of conf games, spread over the whole season, not sandwiched together at the end. We finish 2nd in the ACC, and lose to a talented Clemson team. Had we played well today, and Clemson played better, or even if we beat Clemson and drop a tight game to UNC, we end up at approximately the same place.

Only, instead of appearing to be limping to the end of the season, as we appear now, we are on something of an uptick, or are at least playing at or near the level we played at all year.

To make a deep tourney run, in either scenario, we would need strong perimeter shooting, quality D, and key contributions from several players. If we were on an uptick, that would seem more likely, both to us and to potential opponents. Athletes and coaches are like sharks. They can smell blood, and there is a definite sanguine odor about us right now.

And now for something completely different (and depressing). If we do not make the FF this year, it will be the second senior class since K came to Duke to not go to te FF. That class was Wojo's class, and the 99 year followed. I don't think next year is a 99 type year. Talk about trending.

PatZorro

I wonder if Carolina fans and other teams see them on the uptick with their recent close wins against far weaker opponents. As for this being only the second senior class under K not to make the final four- well that says more about success than anything else. But I am sure that will be discussed as yet another example of how K has lost it. I wonder how things might have been different if the other 2004 recruit along with Demarcus, Shaun Livingston, would have come to campus.

[dukelifer]

My point exactly. Florida was on an uptick. They had a good showing in the SEC tourney, and were on an uptick. They were a young, big, athletic team gelling at the right time. Their 3 seed was the result of some early season losses and a really weak SEC. People like to think they got hot and came out of nowhere, but they were playing good ball heading into March, and continued that play into the tourney.

Also, if you see any similarities between that aforementioned big, athletic, Floriday squad and this year's Blue Devils, please elaborate. I must have missed it.

PatZorro

Well this is a bit revisionist history. Florida lost THREE games in a row in late February. They beat Arkansas by 3 in the first round and South Carolina by 2 the SEC tourney. Not sure folks were trembling about playing Florida or folks thought they were on an uptick.

[dukelifer]

IMO, losses during the regular season, or even the acc tournament, are ultimately good for the team IF THEY LEAD TO IMPROVEMENTS/ADJUSTMENTS that bring greater success in the ncaa tournament. Even, dare I say it, a loss to the hated holes would be looked upon (only in hindsight) as a positive in the grand scheme of things if, say, it came because a very talented group was playing poorly due to complacency and served as a wake-up call that got the team to refocus and go on a tear during march madness.

So in that sense, I think a loss CAN be a good thing, if it serves such a purpose. But I disagree that it's a good thing for the team simply because it may lower their seeding and, therefore, the public's perception of any wins or losses they may have. That's just PR, to me, and I don't think it's very important. Now, if you are saying the team might actually perform better due to lower expectations, that's another question.

Well everything in hindsight can be spun to justify any win or loss in the postseason. Duke's loss to Wake Forest in 1992 where Grant failed to hit Laettner for the game winner was the reason they beat Kentucky- but had they lost that game- it would have been because K went to the same play that failed before.

So Duke will just have to wait to see how their season is judged by history- since the regular season and ACC tourney means nothing except that it gets you a seed and the accompanying expectations that go with it.

[Duke79UNLV77]

if we make the elite 8, and they don't win the national title, i'll be satisfied. if we make the final 4, but they win the title, i may be ill. i know i should just focus on our team, but that's just the way it is.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

for duke as of late i'de say any thing under an elite 8 finish is underachieving no matter what the team make up.

[devildownunder]

Well everything in hindsight can be spun to justify any win or loss in the postseason. Duke's loss to Wake Forest in 1992 where Grant failed to hit Laettner for the game winner was the reason they beat Kentucky- but had they lost that game- it would have been because K went to the same play that failed before.

So Duke will just have to wait to see how their season is judged by history- since the regular season and ACC tourney means nothing except that it gets you a seed and the accompanying expectations that go with it.

You're saying that about the wake lost in 1992, not me, and not anyone else I have ever heard. Yes, of course, how this season is judged will have to wait until after the tournament because until then the season is not over. But I think you deliberately paint with a broad, dismissive brush when you suggest that others have said the acc tourney and the regular season mean nothing. They mean plenty. To play 32 games and win 27 of them is something to be proud of and we certainly enjoy all the winning. I, for one, savour each game I even get a chance to watch, win or lose, because I no longer live in the US, where I can count on blanket duke coverage.

That said, we can look to none other than former K assistant and player Jay Bilas for the proper perspective on the subjet. Jay has said on national television that Krzyzewski's philosophy on the seaon -- that's the man himself -- is that the regular season and the acc tourney are the primary and the midterm. The ncaa tournament is the election and the final exam.

So while it's all well and good to celebrate what we have accomplished so far, I don't think any of us needs to apologise for looking at the way the team has performed recently and lamenting its (apparently) slim chances of a strong run through the field of 65. The NCAAs are next up for this team and there is no more glaring spotlight or greater chance for glory in this or any season. We wouldn't want the team going into the tournament with the mindset that an early loss in the ncaa is ok because we've already won 27 games this year, so why should the fans adopt such an attitude? Once the season is over, then you can step back and savour what was accomplished.

[KandG]

for duke as of late i'de say any thing under an elite 8 finish is underachieving no matter what the team make up.

My expectations are considerably lower. If the team makes the sweet 16, they'll have met, maybe even exceeded, my expectations. Injuries, one dimensional play, and no inside presence make it tough for me to project an Elite Eight finish...and I love our team.

But unless something changes, any team with reasonable quickness on the perimeter and size underneath, that is willing to switch on all ball screens and contest our threes, seems able to give us a game. So I don't even think a sweet 16 is a given at this point.

[Sir Stealth]

It seems ridiculous to me to say the Sweet 16 is good. We have more talent on this team than anyone in the country. You can say McDonalds AA's don't mean anything, but when you have so many, they really do. There are a lot of great players on this team, and there are a lot of tough players on this team. I differ from a lot of posters here because I haven't given up on this team at all, but I also don't want to let them off the hook either. They should go to the tournament and win, no matter what seed they are. They should play better, because we've seen that they have it in them. I agree with anyone that says that losing to a lower seed again is a disappointment. Losing to a higher seed isn't really a failure, but we shouldn't give up on the expectations for this team, because they've shown that they can be a great team as long as they keep attacking. More than anything, I'm tired of those who are pleased with themselves for predicting failure earlier and seeing struggle now, or those who are pleased with themselves for predicting failure in the future so it doesn't hurt them as much if it actually happens. Of course they'll celebrate if things turn out better.

[The1Bluedevil]

Everyone has a different view but a Sweet 16 is a must every year in my eyes. Losing to a better team from that point this year would not leave a sour taste in my mouth. However if a double digit seeded team beat Duke in the 16 or beyond then I would be dissapointed. If Duke blows a big 2nd have lead in the 16 or beyond then I will be dissapointed regardless of who the opponent is.