The randomness that defines March Madness

[Jumbo]

Yesterday's Duke loss and the tight games this afternoon got me thinking deeply, which is always a dangerous thing. We've discussed this before, but I think it's worth repeating: So much of what happens in March is based on randomness or luck.

Try this thought exercise first. Imagine how different your perspective on Duke basketball might be if someone had deflected Grant Hill's pass to Christian Laettner, or if Laettner's shot had gone in-and-out. Imagine if Laettner's shot hadn't gone down against UConn. Imagine if Anderson Hunt's had for UNLV. All three things could have easily happened. How would you see Duke basketball without two fewer national titles and three fewer Final Fours?

Now imagine these things had happened: Antonio Lang gets his finger on Scotty Thurman's three-pointer; Trajan Langdon drills a 3 on Ricky Moore; Jason Williams hits the last FT vs. Indiana or the refs call Jared Jeffries for a foul on the rebound; UConn gets called for a hack on J.J.'s final drive in 2004. All were easily possible. Again, imagine how differently you might view Duke basketball.

So many crazy things have happened just over the last few days. Western Kentucky was a 35-footer away from being eliminated. Now, they're in the Sweet 16. Brook Lopez hits a tough turnaround that barely stays down -- Stanford advances, Marquette is done. Meanwhile, Jamont Gordon clanks a three that could have sent Mississippi State to overtime against Memphis. Miami can't execute a Laettner-esque play against Texas in roughly the same amount of time. Games can come down to one play at the end, when neither team has actually outplayed the other. There has to be a winner. There has to be a loser. And in a one-and-done situation, luck factors into a lot of those outcomes.

Think about this -- Duke beat Wisconsin and Davidson in back-to-back games. Now those two will meet in the next round. One will be in the Regional Final. Is anyone willing to say Wisconsin or Davidson is "better" than Duke? I doubt it. But they will have achieved a far greater tournament result. That's life in the NCAA.

Meanwhile, Duke plays perhaps its best half of defense of the season against West Virginia, yet leads by only five. Taylor King, as pure a shooter as we have, misses three wide-open treys. Are there basketball-related explanations for why he missed? Sure. He could have been nervous, out of rhythm, tired, whatever. But I submit that luck plays a part as well. Duke couldn't ask for much more when running its offense than to get him the looks he received. Based on percentages alone, he should have hit one. Bam, Duke is up eight. Based on how ridiculously open he was, two makes would not have been unreasonable. How would an 11-point lead have looked at the half? But they didn't go in. That's basketball.

I'm not going to sit here and blow smoke up your behinds and pretend that Duke didn't have weaknesses. Obviously, we lacked a post scorer. Obviously, we lacked a shot-blocker. Obviously, our point guard was a fantastic shooter, but he didn't routinely penetrate and struggled to keep opposing point guards out of the lane. And I hate excuses. But it's just as silly for some people to dismiss the impact the flu might have had on this team. The guys looked tired. Shots weren't falling. We were a step late for rebounds. We wilted in the second half despite playing a WAY deeper bench than WVA (not just in that game, but all season). It was bad timing. Bad luck. And a bad result.

Hey, that's life. As Nuke says in Bull Durham, "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." The best teams are the ones who can minimize the impact of luck and randomness through dominance, building an insurmountable margin of error. But that's awfully tough for just about anyone in the NCAA Tournament. The odds are against anyone winning, and given that, it actually surprises me how often the best team does win -- Florida last year, Carolina in 2005, us in 2001.

We can look for trends, we can look for systemic issues, we can look for flaws. There's nothing wrong with that. It's healthy. But while we do that, I hope we can all keep in mind the impact one play here and one play there have left on Duke basketball. That's the game we play, the game we love. And, when you think about it, it's crazy at its core.

[wisteria]

Jumbo, that was a great post and all was well said. However, luck affects a team like Duke more than a team like UNC. There's a reason 3-pt shots are low percentage shots and not as reliable. You need to be more lucky if you are relying on your 3-pt shots to go in. JJ wasn't lucky enough. And we were not lucky enough in the wvu game. I really appreciate what the players have done this season. But playing the type of game we play, we were put into a situation where we would need more luck.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Great post. I always enjoy these monologues and the good discussion they generate. I think you've also hit on something that has tripped us up for the last few seasons.

As you note "The best teams are the ones who can minimize the impact of luck and randomness." It seems to me that there are two great ways to minimize luck, short of just being drastically more talented than your opponent: a reliable big man and a penetrating point guard who generates easy baskets for his teammates.

With the former you have easy baskets, generate fouls, and have a fall-back option for defense when other players get beat. Hansbrough this season has been a perfect example of the benefits on the offensive end. When UNC's shots aren't falling he can always get an easy layup and/or (usually and) draw a foul. It's this reason that UNC made it through losing Lawson and won a mind-boggling number of close games. His D isn't at that level and I think that's a major Achilles heel for Carolina.

With the latter you maximize the good/easy chances for every player to score by drawing defense and generating open shots. The term "breaking down" a defense is appropriately descriptive since the "machine" of a defensive unit is broken down and unable to function. I've never seen a college player better than JWill at filling this second role. He could hit shots from anywhere, was strong enough to take a lot of contact, fleet enough to get past most players, and had a really underrated ability to find other players.

Duke's success in the NCAA's has always been predicated on at least one of these and our "down" years almost always correspond to missing one/both of these ingredients. That's why it's so discouraging to see us unable to bring in either of these types of players for several years. I've argued elsewhere that we haven't brought in a top-flight C since 2002 (Shel) and a top-flight PG since 2000 (Duhon). That's 6 and 8 years respectively!

As we saw yesterday, D can keep you in a game for a while, but eventually you need to put some points on the board. Do you (and others) think that Duke can find other ways to minimize the luck/randomness factor, esp. in light of a long-range shooting offense that is particularly vulnerable to bad nights?

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, that was a great post and all was well said. However, luck affects a team like Duke more than a team like UNC. There's a reason 3-pt shots are low percentage shots and not as reliable. You need to be more lucky if you are relying on your 3-pt shots to go in. JJ wasn't lucky enough. And we were not lucky enough in the wvu game. I really appreciate what the players have done this season. But playing the type of game we play, we were put into a situation where we would need more luck.

I sort of agree with that. Sort of. I've never really believed in the idea of "live by the three, die by the three." For one thing, the college three is an easy shot. If you look at the teams that are left in the Tourney, plenty rely purely on a perimeter-based offense. Plus, there's the obvious fact that hitting a third of your threes is just as good as hitting half or your twos.

I love the idea of balance, and that's where I agree with you. If you can hit threes AND post up AND drive to the basket, you have a greater margin for error. You can score in multiple ways and draw fouls in the process. When Duke was playing well, it had two factors working in its favor -- threes and a relentless attack off the dribble. Markie got into the lane and didn't go into head-down mode. He pulled up sooner, changed directions, finished with both hands and kicked when he had to. Gerald got to the rim. Nolan was playing better. Jon got to the bucket. Kyle attacked bigger men off the bounce. Then Gerald got hurt. Kyle either lost his legs or just decided to shoot treys. Nolan looked confused. We didn't drive as well. And I think it's a fair assumption that if the team was sick, that affect their ability to beat people into the lane. It also affected jump shots.

As I've said, a post scorer would be lovely. But just three years ago Illinois reached the national championship game (and lost only two gams all year, right?) with a lineup that was entirely based around three guards. Granted, Deron Williams has turned into an all-world NBA type, Luther Head is a decent pro and Dee Brown was an excellent college player. But their "4" was Roger Powell, who stood 6'5". And James Augustine provided a bit of offense in the paint, but make no mistake, he was not a banger and Illinois did not run its offense through him. Drive-and-kick can work in the college game, and work very well. Just ask Rick Pitino. I'm not sure it requires more luck than any other approach, as long as you have sufficient talent.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

^^^^^^^^^agree with DCDFD

Thank you, Wisteria. I hope my comment came across as much a question as a statement. I'd like to think we can build some good consistency with the strong talent we already have. We aren't bringing in anyone for either position this season, and we still haven't signed anyone to fill the role for the season after (and frankly I'm not sure anybody we're recruiting is of the "instant stud" variety anyway). I'd really love to hear some ideas from the board as to how we can build a consistent team around G, Jon, Greg, et al.

[wiscodevil]

markie, gerald and jon are more finishers than they are shooters. i'd throw kyle in their too. with 10 more lbs he is going to be abusing people inside with post moves and off the dribble. smith too seemed able to blow by people throughout the year and get to the tin.

certainly mcclure and thomas were inside scorers as well.

i think paulus and king were really the only "shooters" of the bunch.

we scored a lot of points this year and I for one don't think it was merely relying on the 3.

shots didn't go down yesterday. layups were blocked (and missed) and 3s were (very) open and didn't go down.

that said, i'd love an Elton Brand down low every year.

[Jumbo]

Great post. I always enjoy these monologues and the good discussion they generate. I think you've also hit on something that has tripped us up for the last few seasons.

Thanks. I agree with a good chunk of your post. Who wouldn't love a penetrating point guard? Who wouldn't love a low-block monster? Who didn't love the J-Will/Boozer combo? That said, those guys lost in the Sweet 16 against an Indiana team that didn't really have either type of player. So it's not a fool-proof solution. We can go back over time and find tons of team who had both and still flamed out in March. Why? Because stuff happens.

One other small bone to pick. Whatever you think of Greg Paulus now, everyone wanted him in 2005. Everyone. His final four basketball schools were Duke, UNC, Florida and Georgetown, I think. And everyone had Josh McRoberts rated at the top of his class (amazingly, above guys like Andrew Bynum). Now, in retrospect, neither guy matched his prep reputation. Greg has become a very good shooter, but as you've mentioned, he is not a penetrator. And Josh ... well, the less we say about him the better. But I don't think it's fair to say Duke didn't "bring in" X, when everyone else in the country wanted that same thing. If Duke is to be faulted for player evaluation, so too must UNC, Florida, Georgetown, etc. I also believe that Nolan Smith has it in him to be exactly what you want out of a point guard. Let's not be so quick to rush to judgment.

[jipops]

Now imagine these things had happened: Antonio Lang gets his finger on Scotty Thurman's three-pointer...

This has crept into my brain every time the tournament rolls around ever since that spring evening in '94. It's pretty much haunted me and is still the most heartbreaking loss I've ever felt in a college basketball game. A finger on that ball could have put Duke into a ridiculously amazing stratosphere and with a team that rode the back of one guy the entire season.

This luck applies to other programs as well. What if Freddie Brown hadn't thrown it right to Worthy, what if Webber hadn't dribbled into a corner and called a timeout that didn't exist. What if Lorenzo Charles didn't happen to be standing alone under the basket. What if Tyus Edney's miracle full court layup had trickled off the rim... I could go on and on.

[Jumbo]

I'd really love to hear some ideas from the board as to how we can build a consistent team around G, Jon, Greg, et al.

Oh, man, I'm happy to take this one. And include Kyle in there, for sure. Not only am I not worried about building a "consistent" team around them, I feel like we can build a top-flight team around them ... in many ways.

Here's the short version (I'll save the longer one for when I wade into the 2008-09 thread). I think Kyle, Jon and Gerald can all be top-notch college players -- next year. And they complement each other beautifully. I think Jon makes everyone better, and I'd put the ball in his hands more and utilize Greg more off the ball. I think Kyle will come back stronger, quicker and more experienced, meaning he'll be more willing to mix up his offensive game and take advantage of his considerable post skills. I love the idea of finally having a couple of seniors and a bunch of juniors. I love the idea of everyone getting a year better. I love envisioning the strides Nolan Smith can make. And I love the idea of the competition for playing time next to (and behind) Kyle among a group of guys with different skills sets -- Zoubek, Thomas, McClure, King and Czyz. That's a deep, deep team. I'd love to see Duke press the heck out of opponents and generate more offense of that full-court defense. But, either way, I think Duke will be more versatile offensively next year. The key will be replacing Markie's D too a sufficient level. If that happens, next year's team absolutely can win a national title, and I'm hardly a blind optimist.

[ArkieDukie]

What a great post, and a great perspective on the tournament. The tournament this year has already generated a fair number of those "what if" moments - including our win over Belmont. So many games have been decided by last-second shots. That's the magic and the heartbreak of the tournament.

I have enjoyed this season tremendously and am sorry it's over for our team. Thanks for taking us along for the ride, guys!

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Thanks. I agree with a good chunk of your post. Who wouldn't love a penetrating point guard? Who wouldn't love a low-block monster? Who didn't love the J-Will/Boozer combo? That said, those guys lost in the Sweet 16 against an Indiana team that didn't really have either type of player. So it's not a fool-proof solution. We can go back over time and find tons of team who had both and still flamed out in March. Why? Because stuff happens.

Oh, I agree completely. There is no "perfect" team, just more and less reliable teams.

One other small bone to pick. Whatever you think of Greg Paulus now, everyone wanted him in 2005. Everyone. His final four basketball schools were Duke, UNC, Florida and Georgetown, I think. And everyone had Josh McRoberts rated at the top of his class (amazingly, above guys like Andrew Bynum). Now, in retrospect, neither guy matched his prep reputation. Greg has become a very good shooter, but as you've mentioned, he is not a penetrator. And Josh ... well, the less we say about him the better. But I don't think it's fair to say Duke didn't "bring in" X, when everyone else in the country wanted that same thing. If Duke is to be faulted for player evaluation, so too must UNC, Florida, Georgetown, etc. I also believe that Nolan Smith has it in him to be exactly what you want out of a point guard. Let's not be so quick to rush to judgment.

That's a fair point (although Josh's HS back injuries had to be considered a giant red flag). I do remember a lot of people telling me that the class of 2005 was one of the weakest in memory. At the time I dismissed that as sour grapes over our incredible class, but now I'm not so sure.

My main argument, however, is actually related to your NCAA point. Just like the NCAAs, recruiting is absolutely filled with randomness and luck. Some guys pan out, some guys don't. I'll never let my UNC friends live down the fact that Gut said "no thanks" to JWill because they had Ron Curry and didn't need JWill's services. Anyway, because recruiting can be such a crap shoot, I strongly disagree with K's (former) MO of bringing in 2-3 years of 0-1 person classes followed by one bonanza of guys every 3-4 seasons. That, coupled with K's unwillingness (again past tense, I think/hope) to stockpile talent (iirc we still have never filled our allotment of schollys in K's tenure) just cuts things too close to survive a "disaster class" like 2005, especially when it's preceeded by 2 1-person classes and a 2-man class of Nelson and Dave.

I'm very happy to say that K seems to have recognized this problem and is bringing in 2-3 guys every season with a mix of studs and projects. I still can't figure out how "PG U" can't bring in a stud PG (Nolan averaged 1.3 assists this season and 1.4 TO's. I hope he's the future, but I'm not sold quite yet) and how our gaping hole at C hasn't attracted some top-tier recruit looking to be the next ECS. I'm not speaking rhetorically, I'm genuinely stunned at the fact. Still, it seems to be what it is, and I'd love to hear some ways that we can take what we do get (great swingmen) and turn that into a reliable monster year-in and year-out. If anyone can, I know it's K.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Here's the short version (I'll save the longer one for when I wade into the 2008-09 thread). I think Kyle, Jon and Gerald can all be top-notch college players -- next year. And they complement each other beautifully. I think Jon makes everyone better, and I'd put the ball in his hands more and utilize Greg more off the ball. I think Kyle will come back stronger, quicker and more experienced, meaning he'll be more willing to mix up his offensive game and take advantage of his considerable post skills. I love the idea of finally having a couple of seniors and a bunch of juniors. I love the idea of everyone getting a year better. I love envisioning the strides Nolan Smith can make. And I love the idea of the competition for playing time next to (and behind) Kyle among a group of guys with different skills sets -- Zoubek, Thomas, McClure, King and Czyz. That's a deep, deep team. I'd love to see Duke press the heck out of opponents and generate more offense of that full-court defense. But, either way, I think Duke will be more versatile offensively next year. The key will be replacing Markie's D too a sufficient level. If that happens, next year's team absolutely can win a national title, and I'm hardly a blind optimist.

Sorry to double-post but I think that's a great idea. I've been arguing for an all-out "40 Minutes of Nolan Richardson" look for a while. I am concerned that Z doesn't have a spot in that lineup (outlet passes and cherry-picking?), but intense pressure on ballhandlers, generating fast breaks for our numerous slashers/finishers, and running a secondary 3-point break with Greg, Taylor, and Jon sounds really, REALLY good to me. I also think it plays to the strengths (and away from the weaknesses) of "bigs" like Lance and Czyz very well.

It does put a lot of pressure on Nolan to become a reliable PG (as noted above his A and A/To #'s this season didn't jump out) since I think he's pretty clearly the best candidate to take up Nelson's mantle as our stopper at the point.

Still, I'm excited about next season in a way I wasn't 5 minutes ago and really looking forward to hearing you break down the specifics of this in later posts.

[Rich]

next year's team absolutely can win a national title, and I'm hardly a blind optimist.

Jumbo, just curious whether you would have said that (or, in fact, at any point did say that) about this year's team.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, just curious whether you would have said that (or, in fact, at any point did say that) about this year's team.

Man, that's a hard question. Midway through the ACC season, I think I had talked myself into that possibility. I knew we had weaknesses, I knew there would be tough matchups out there, but I thought we were good enough to make a run, for sure. After the ACC Tourney, I had a very slim amount of hope left. I thought we'd need a little luck (an upset here or there to open up the bracket). But I thought the team, if healthy, had one last run in them. We'll never know what would have happened if they'd stayed healthy. I highly doubt they'd have won a title, but I also think we'd be looking ahead to a game on Thursday, too.

Regardless, I think next year's team will be better. That tends to happen when you bring just about everyone back, especially when seven of your players were frosh/sophs.

[Saratoga2]

Yesterday's Duke loss and the tight games this afternoon got me thinking deeply, which is always a dangerous thing. We've discussed this before, but I think it's worth repeating: So much of what happens in March is based on randomness or luck.

Meanwhile, Duke plays perhaps its best half of defense of the season against West Virginia, yet leads by only five. Taylor King, as pure a shooter as we have, misses three wide-open treys. Are there basketball-related explanations for why he missed? Sure. He could have been nervous, out of rhythm, tired, whatever. But I submit that luck plays a part as well. Duke couldn't ask for much more when running its offense than to get him the looks he received. Based on percentages alone, he should have hit one. Bam, Duke is up eight. Based on how ridiculously open he was, two makes would not have been unreasonable. How would an 11-point lead have looked at the half? But they didn't go in. That's basketball.

I'm not going to sit here and blow smoke up your behinds and pretend that Duke didn't have weaknesses. Obviously, we lacked a post scorer. Obviously, we lacked a shot-blocker. Obviously, our point guard was a fantastic shooter, but he didn't routinely penetrate and struggled to keep opposing point guards out of the lane. And I hate excuses. But it's just as silly for some people to dismiss the impact the flu might have had on this team. The guys looked tired. Shots weren't falling. We were a step late for rebounds. We wilted in the second half despite playing a WAY deeper bench than WVA (not just in that game, but all season). It was bad timing. Bad luck. And a bad result.

We can look for trends, we can look for systemic issues, we can look for flaws. There's nothing wrong with that. It's healthy. But while we do that, I hope we can all keep in mind the impact one play here and one play there have left on Duke basketball. That's the game we play, the game we love. And, when you think about it, it's crazy at its core.

Tournament games seem to feature physical play and stepped up defense. It is really difficult to out talent your opponent so much that you have a significant advantage, so many games will be close and will be decided by a few good or bad plays. Injuries and health also play a part because depth can be impacted.

That said, it is very important for tournament teams to take care of the ball and avoid a lot of turnovers. It is hard to say that about our team this year. We have the same head down drives into a crowd in the tournament that cost us during the regular season. We also had a tendency to pick up silly fouls that put us at a handicap. In addition to King missing 3 three ball opportunities we also had plays counted as turnovers and others which perhaps should have been. Had we been better about those two areas, we also would have had several more shot opportunities in the first half and also been up by between 8 and 11 iat the end of the first half. That seems less to do with luck and more to do with not being smart with the ball.

Might there have been a sickness issue in the second half. It sure looked like it with poor rebounding and being out quicked to balls over and over again. Add to that the inability to score and the game was gone. Was that luck. Perhaps if some key players were truly sick.

Going into next season, we will need to improve on the number of turnovers, we will need to get more consistent inside play, especially rebounding, but also scoring and we will need to bring more balance into our attack. If we can do those things, we could go a long way in the tournament.

I think it is less about luck and more about recognizing the key areas of weakness and trying to improve in those areas.

[Ignatius07]

Here's the short version (I'll save the longer one for when I wade into the 2008-09 thread). I think Kyle, Jon and Gerald can all be top-notch college players -- next year. And they complement each other beautifully. I think Jon makes everyone better, and I'd put the ball in his hands more and utilize Greg more off the ball. I think Kyle will come back stronger, quicker and more experienced, meaning he'll be more willing to mix up his offensive game and take advantage of his considerable post skills. I love the idea of finally having a couple of seniors and a bunch of juniors. I love the idea of everyone getting a year better. I love envisioning the strides Nolan Smith can make. And I love the idea of the competition for playing time next to (and behind) Kyle among a group of guys with different skills sets -- Zoubek, Thomas, McClure, King and Czyz. That's a deep, deep team. I'd love to see Duke press the heck out of opponents and generate more offense of that full-court defense. But, either way, I think Duke will be more versatile offensively next year. The key will be replacing Markie's D too a sufficient level. If that happens, next year's team absolutely can win a national title, and I'm hardly a blind optimist.

Excellent post - we are clearly going to be very good next year, as we were for much of this season. This year's late-season demise is somewhat of a mystery to me. I don't believe anything involving the words "emotion" and "fatigue" in the same season. To me, this smacks of loser talk, people who are trying to make up any excuse for why there team didn't win. Now, REAL fatigue is a possibility, though, as Jumbo pointed out, we used a much deeper bench than most years, and WVU used a much shorter bench than we did!

Regardless, the future is bright, if not necessarily dazzlingly so. As I and others have remarked, having your weaknesses be at PG and C is a difficult situation since those are arguably the two most important positions in basketball. But (again, as someone pointed out), what coach in the country would not want to build around a nucleus of Gerald, Jon, and Kyle? Someone pointed out that those three and Greg could all make All-ACC next season. I agree that they all have the potential, though it's doubtful that 4 players from the same team could make it in the same year. In any event, I see Gerald, Jon, and Kyle as the three "knowns." Not that we know how good they will be, or how much they will improve, just that they will be very good next year, since each is on the cusp of 1st- or 2nd-team All-ACC in my opinion.

The two obvious questions are PG and C/low-post man. I really don't know how everybody is overlooking Nolan as a potential answer to the first question. This guy has shown flashes of HUGE potential, especially peaking in the middle of the season. Somebody mentioned his poor A/T ratio. First I would mention that his decision-making is the main problem, which I think is something that can be fixed. No, he won't be a world-beater at PG next year, but his skills at defense, ball handling, and scoring are all superior to Paulus. I hope he improves enough over the summer so that he will be a starter, with Paulus as a 6th man - maybe having Scheyer and Nolan split time at the PG. I just feel - like with Henderson coming into this year - if Nolan is not starting, it is not a good sign in that it means he is not harnessing his potential. Anyway, I expect Nolan to improve a lot. I'm not exactly sure what he needs to practice, other than perhaps avoiding charges while driving to the basket. He obviously needs to improve decision-making, as I mentioned - when to pass, etc - but I'm not sure how you address this necessarily other than maybe going to a PG camp and playing against elite talents.

The 5 is a more open question. I personally feel that Zoubek could steal this out from under Lance. Lance allows us to play more uptempo and brings a defensive versatility that Z can't touch, but Lance is simply not a true low-post scorer, whereas Zoubek could develop into a 10/8 guy next year. The LT/Z battle and (hopefully) Paulus/Smith battle should be very interesting.

[greybeard]

A guy I know said to me that he was sorry my school lost. He was talking about Cornell. Funny, I didn't know that they had. Really didn't care.

I have been a Duke fan for a lot of years; I also am a Georgetown fan for just about as long. I didn't get until that moment, when that guy said that he was really rooting for Cornell to win, the difference between me and most of the rest of you. For me it hurts, but for you guys it is different.

This team deserved better; you guys deserved better. I wish luck had played out differently; I wish it for the team and I wish it for you guys.

I wonder now what it would have been like to have gone to Duke, to have a basketball tradition that is fused with the great memories of a wonderful college experience, that allows that experience to come alive each time Duke takes the court. For me and my boyz, those feelings get animated much less frequently--somebody pops in from out of town, you pop in on somebody else, there is a wedding or something, a reunion every five years, and an occasional event like last year's Duke Cornell semi-final lax game.

BTW, while I am sad for you guys, I ain't gonna worry about you, even if you don't have a super quick point guard in the pipeline, or a heavy duty center. See, on that score, I watched your team play this year.

And, hell, we all knew going in that it was a long shot because of size, but no one could have predicted just how creative K and this team could be in creating inside out play from the wings, using a versatile 6'8" to play a myriad of rolls, and son of a gun, with just a little bit of luck, we still wouldn't be saying "what if, at least not yet.

It has been an honor to share the field of battle with you my Duke friends. A real honor. Cornell lost, for real? Bummer.

[wisteria]

A guy I know said to me that he was sorry my school lost. He was talking about Cornell. Funny, I didn't know that they had. Really didn't care.

I have been a Duke fan for a lot of years; I also am a Georgetown fan for just about as long. I didn't get until that moment, when that guy said that he was really rooting for Cornell to win, the difference between me and most of the rest of you. For me it hurts, but for you guys it is different.

This team deserved better; you guys deserved better. I wish luck had played out differently; I wish it for the team and I wish it for you guys.

I wonder now what it would have been like to have gone to Duke, to have a basketball tradition that is fused with the great memories of a wonderful college experience, that allows that experience to come alive each time Duke takes the court. For me and my boyz, those feelings get animated much less frequently--somebody pops in from out of town, you pop in on somebody else, there is a wedding or something, a reunion every five years, and an occasional event like last year's Duke Cornell semi-final lax game.

BTW, while I am sad for you guys, I ain't gonna worry about you, even if you don't have a super quick point guard in the pipeline, or a heavy duty center. See, on that score, I watched your team play this year.

And, hell, we all knew going in that it was a long shot because of size, but no one could have predicted just how creative K and this team could be in creating inside out play from the wings, using a versatile 6'8" to play a myriad of rolls, and son of a gun, with just a little bit of luck, we still wouldn't be saying "what if, at least not yet.

It has been an honor to share the field of battle with you my Duke friends. A real honor. Cornell lost, for real? Bummer.

Thanks grey, I think I really needed that. I'm a relatively new fan, because as an international student, before I came to Duke I knew nothing about college basketball. And now here I am, crying my hearts out after the season-ending loss. As a fan, I've watched the players (especially the soph class) coming, developing, taking a huge blow last year, regrouping, improving, peaking, falling, and finally exiting early yet again. During this course, as almost every Duke fan, I had to learn to endure the hatred from my fellow Chinese students who go to different schools. Coming from another culture, I had never experienced emotions as fierce as this. Sometimes I wonder whether it's wise to pour so much heart and love onto somthing that you really don't have any control. But too late, I'm a Duke fan through and through. After venting my frustration, I'll be back with all my support. We have a group of good kids and the future will be bright. Even if not, I'll still be with the team through all the lows.

Sorry if this is hijacking the thread. It's just that greybeard's post made me emotional.

[dukemomLA]

Both posts brought a smile to me face. DO NOT let us fanatic Duke fans become jaded. This year's team has brought me excitement and enjoyment every game. So...we lost to WVU, we need to get over it. Okay we've all had a couple of days of I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing and complaining and throwing things at walls.

But if we look back on this season, it's been full of players and coaches with grit and determination, toughness and creativity, giving 110% every game (...well, every game except maybe one).

As to the Tourney, I have a question that I ask myself: How can anyone (meaning me) watch so much CBB, tivo games on ESPN Full Court all year, read and listen to commentators from around the country, read every link that DBR provides, and STILL have such a disgusting, broken bracket??? (Love to hear from any CBB experts whose bracket is lookin' good.

I agree with Jumbo. Can't wait for next year's team to wow us -- and wow themselves. ....I'm almost in withdrawal already. GO DAVIDSON!

[bfree]

I just wanted to sign on to this paragraph.

To cheer myself up, I watched the first UNC game this afternoon (I highly recommend the experience) and was just astounded by what I saw. It was like watching an entirely different team. I think that the regression we saw from that high point has a bunch of different causes. A few of them:

1. Improvements in opposition coaching.
2. Lack of mid-season innovation by our coaching (which makes #1 easier).
3. The "freshman wall."
4. Gerald's injury.
5. Nelson's attempts to take over games (maybe that's what he thought he needed to do as the senior captain).
6. Greg's early success at hitting deep threes leading to multiple bad shots with a defender in his face.
7. Taylor King's harsh substitution pattern never letting him gain confidence.

And there are more.

I'm guessing Duke will basically be playing the same offense next year, so the question becomes how do you keep it rolling like we saw. That's what Coach needs to figure out. Because I think the spacing/drive/kick offense can work, but it needs something else... something to complete it so that it immune to a bad shooting night.

Anyway, my late night 2 cents. Great posts as always.

I love the idea of balance, and that's where I agree with you. If you can hit threes AND post up AND drive to the basket, you have a greater margin for error. You can score in multiple ways and draw fouls in the process. When Duke was playing well, it had two factors working in its favor -- threes and a relentless attack off the dribble. Markie got into the lane and didn't go into head-down mode. He pulled up sooner, changed directions, finished with both hands and kicked when he had to. Gerald got to the rim. Nolan was playing better. Jon got to the bucket. Kyle attacked bigger men off the bounce. Then Gerald got hurt. Kyle either lost his legs or just decided to shoot treys. Nolan looked confused. We didn't drive as well. And I think it's a fair assumption that if the team was sick, that affect their ability to beat people into the lane. It also affected jump shots.