Duke in the NCAA Tournament - Post back-surgery/Leave of Absence Division

[mr. synellinden]

I think we need to take a hard look at Duke's performance in the NCAA tournament since the amazing 7 in 9 run from 1986 to 1994. Because those were the NCAA tournament glory years. The 1996 - 2009 years have been glory years in the sense of the regular season and ACC tourney, but in the NCAA tourney, they have been years of repeated collapses and disappointments. Why, I have no idea, but if you review year-to-year, it's not a pretty picture.

1996 - Duke, an 8 seed after missing the tournament for the first time in over a decade, loses to 9th seed Eastern Michigan, 75-60

1997 - Duke, a 2 seed, loses in the second round to a 10th seeded Providence team. Duke shoots 45% and Providence shoots 55%. Duke gets outrebounded by 19. (Duke is favored by 6.5). This is after Duke squeaks by 15th seeded Murray St. 71-68. (Duke is favored by 23.5 in that one)

1998 - Duke, a 1 seed, loses to second seeded Kentucky after blowing an 18 point lead with 9 minutes left. That team features freshmen Brand, Avery and Battier, sophomores James and Carrawell, junior Langdon and seniors McLoed and Wojo. (Duke is favored by 1)

1999 - Duke, one of the most dominating and talented teams in the school's history, considered the biggest favorite to win the NCAA since Duke in 1992 or UNLV in 1992, loses in the NCAA championship game to UConn. Duke shoots 41%, UConn shoots 56%. (Duke is favored by 9.5). On the way, Duke beats a 16 seed, a 9 seed, a 12 seed, a 6 seed, and 1 seeded Michigan St. in the Final Four.

2000 - Duke, after an amazing regular season, after losing Brand, Maggette and Avery to the NBA, after combining three veterans (Battier, James, Carrawell) with three outstanding freshman (Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy) gets a 1 seed and loses to 5 seed Florida in the Sweet 16. Duke shoots 42%, Florida shoots 47% (Duke is favored by 4.5)

2001 - Duke, a 1 seed, with five future NBA starters in its lineup, wins each game in the tourney by at least 10 points and captures the school's 3rd championship. (Duke is favored by 3.5)

2002, Duke, a 1 seed, with four future NBA starters in its starting lineup, loses to 5 seed Indiana in the Sweet 16 (Duke is favored by 13). Duke shoots 40%. Indiana shoots 50%.

2003, Duke a 3 seed, loses in the Sweet 16 to Kansas. Duke shoots 38.5% and 26.5% from 3pt. range. (Duke is an underdog at +3.5)

2004, Duke a 1 seed, reaches the final four and leads #1 overall seed UConn by 8 with less than four minutes left but loses. (Duke is an underdog at +2)

2005 - Duke, a 1 seed, loses to 5 seed Michigan St. in the Sweet 16 78-68 (Duke is favored by 4.5). Duke shoots 43% and 30% from 3 point range. MSU shoots 41% and 36%

2006 - Duke, the #1 overall seed in the tourney, loses in the Sweet 16 to #4 seed LSU, 62-54 (Duke is favored by 6). Duke shoots 28% and 19% from 3 point range

2007 - Duke, a #6 seed, loses to 11th seeded VCU, 79-77. (Duke is favored by 6.5). Duke shoots 46% and 27% from 3 point range.

2008 - Duke, a #2 seed, loses to 7th seed West Virginia 73-67. (Duke is favored by 4). This is after Duke needs a last second shot to beat 15th seeded Belmont in the first round, 71-70 (Duke is favored in that one by 20). Duke shoots 38% and 22% from 3 point range.

2009 - Duke, a #2 seed, loses to 3rd seeded Villanova 77-54. (Duke is favored by 2). Duke shoots 27% and 18% from 3 point range.

This is a staggering overview of Duke in the NCAA since 1996. Since then we have not beaten a team seeded above or equal to us. Our record against teams seeded below us in the regionals or later is 9-7. We have lost 5 times as a #1 seed before the Final Four. Since 1997 we have lost 10 NCAA games in which we were the favorite, and in some cases, huge favorites.

These are just the depressing facts. Every year we seem to say we ran into a bad matchup. LSU was a bad matchup. Michigan St. was a bad matchup. Nova was a bad matchup. I think it's more accurate to say Duke has become a bad tournament team. Just look at our shooting percentages over the years. They are horrific. And virtually all of these teams as been loaded with McDonald's All-Americans.

Again, why, I don't know. But it's ugly.

[RelativeWays]

Villanova is a bad matchup for any team without a legit post threat (see UCLA as well) as they essentially play 5 wing/foward type players and had better athletes than we. If you don't have the players to take advantage of their lack of size, its hard to win against them. Louisville is similar in that respect, they would have been terrible for us. LSU and MSU were not bad match ups (we beat MSU earlier that year) but those Duke teams were out of gas by that point. I don't think this team was out of gas, just confused, panicked and quickly overwhelmed in the second half.

[Bluedog]

I could write a similar looking or even more depressing results thread about any other team in the country. Really, what team has been more impressive in the tournament since 1996? You're highlighting the losing games, but not the games we win. It's also hard to live up to your seed when you're seeded 1 or 2 pretty much every year. Again, what school's list wouldn't look depressing? I think the ONLY schools besides us to even make the NCAA tourney every year since '96 are Arizona and Kansas. Is it more impressive for a team to make the tourny perhaps every 3 out of 4 years in the 4-7 seed range, but exceed their seeding when they make it? I don't think it is.

[blazindw]

This is a staggering overview of Duke in the NCAA since 1996. Since then we have not beaten a team seeded above or equal to us. Our record against teams seeded below us in the regionals or later is 9-7. We have lost 5 times as a #1 seed before the Final Four. Since 1997 we have lost 10 NCAA games in which we were the favorite, and in some cases, huge favorites.

Check your stats. We beat 1-seed Michigan State in '99.

[DukieInKansas]

I agree with Bluedog. Most teams would have a depressing history like this if you want to look at the glass as half full. (I tend to try to find the glass half full everytime.)

The unfortunate part of a post season tournament is that only one team ends their season with a victory. Everyone else ends the season with a loss and that will always be disappointing. I think the things our team has done over the years is pretty darn amazing. Sure, I would love it if we ended every season with a win. However, on any given night, a team can outplay themselves and beat a "better" team. Everyone gets psyched up to play Duke because, well, WE ARE DUKE!

I would rather have our players, our coaching staff, and our program over any other program/staff/players out there. I think they are an amazing group of young men and leaders and represent Duke University well. Thank you team.

[Atlanta Duke]

I think we need to take a hard look at Duke's performance in the NCAA tournament since the amazing 7 in 9 run from 1986 to 1994. Because those were the NCAA tournament glory years. The 1996 - 2009 years have been glory years in the sense of the regular season and ACC tourney, but in the NCAA tourney, they have been years of repeated collapses and disappointments. Why, I have no idea, but if you review year-to-year, it's not a pretty picture.

1996 - Duke, an 8 seed after missing the tournament for the first time in over a decade, loses to 9th seed Eastern Michigan, 75-60

1997 - Duke, a 2 seed, loses in the second round to a 10th seeded Providence team. Duke shoots 45% and Providence shoots 55%. Duke gets outrebounded by 19. (Duke is favored by 6.5). This is after Duke squeaks by 15th seeded Murray St. 71-68. (Duke is favored by 23.5 in that one)

1998 - Duke, a 1 seed, loses to second seeded Kentucky after blowing an 18 point lead with 9 minutes left. That team features freshmen Brand, Avery and Battier, sophomores James and Carrawell, junior Langdon and seniors McLoed and Wojo. (Duke is favored by 1)

1999 - Duke, one of the most dominating and talented teams in the school's history, considered the biggest favorite to win the NCAA since Duke in 1992 or UNLV in 1992, loses in the NCAA championship game to UConn. Duke shoots 41%, UConn shoots 56%. (Duke is favored by 9.5). On the way, Duke beats a 16 seed, a 9 seed, a 12 seed, a 6 seed, and 1 seeded Michigan St. in the Final Four.

2000 - Duke, after an amazing regular season, after losing Brand, Maggette and Avery to the NBA, after combining three veterans (Battier, James, Carrawell) with three outstanding freshman (Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy) gets a 1 seed and loses to 5 seed Florida in the Sweet 16. Duke shoots 42%, Florida shoots 47% (Duke is favored by 4.5)

2001 - Duke, a 1 seed, with five future NBA starters in its lineup, wins each game in the tourney by at least 10 points and captures the school's 3rd championship. (Duke is favored by 3.5)

2002, Duke, a 1 seed, with four future NBA starters in its starting lineup, loses to 5 seed Indiana in the Sweet 16 (Duke is favored by 13). Duke shoots 40%. Indiana shoots 50%.

2003, Duke a 3 seed, loses in the Sweet 16 to Kansas. Duke shoots 38.5% and 26.5% from 3pt. range. (Duke is an underdog at +3.5)

2004, Duke a 1 seed, reaches the final four and leads #1 overall seed UConn by 8 with less than four minutes left but loses. (Duke is an underdog at +2)

2005 - Duke, a 1 seed, loses to 5 seed Michigan St. in the Sweet 16 78-68 (Duke is favored by 4.5). Duke shoots 43% and 30% from 3 point range. MSU shoots 41% and 36%

2006 - Duke, the #1 overall seed in the tourney, loses in the Sweet 16 to #4 seed LSU, 62-54 (Duke is favored by 6). Duke shoots 28% and 19% from 3 point range

2007 - Duke, a #6 seed, loses to 11th seeded VCU, 79-77. (Duke is favored by 6.5). Duke shoots 46% and 27% from 3 point range.

2008 - Duke, a #2 seed, loses to 7th seed West Virginia 73-67. (Duke is favored by 4). This is after Duke needs a last second shot to beat 15th seeded Belmont in the first round, 71-70 (Duke is favored in that one by 20). Duke shoots 38% and 22% from 3 point range.

2009 - Duke, a #2 seed, loses to 3rd seeded Villanova 77-54. (Duke is favored by 2). Duke shoots 27% and 18% from 3 point range.

This is a staggering overview of Duke in the NCAA since 1996. Since then we have not beaten a team seeded above or equal to us. Our record against teams seeded below us in the regionals or later is 9-7. We have lost 5 times as a #1 seed before the Final Four. Since 1997 we have lost 10 NCAA games in which we were the favorite, and in some cases, huge favorites.

These are just the depressing facts. Every year we seem to say we ran into a bad matchup. LSU was a bad matchup. Michigan St. was a bad matchup. Nova was a bad matchup. I think it's more accurate to say Duke has become a bad tournament team. Just look at our shooting percentages over the years. They are horrific. And virtually all of these teams as been loaded with McDonald's All-Americans.

Again, why, I don't know. But it's ugly.

Couldn't say it better

Only 3 Final Fours, 2 NC appearances, and 1 NC (+ 8 ACC tournament championships) since 1994 - horrific/ugly/staggering

Glad you have your expectations in perspective - I went to Duke from 1972 - 1976 (no winning seasons and no ACC tournament wins in 4 seasons) - trust me that I witnessed more horrific/ugly/staggering Duke b-ball at Cameron than you have :D

Duke is a reputable private institution with at least minimal recruiting standards - 7 Final Fours in 9 seasons is not happening again at Duke or anywhere else in today's college ball setting - if you expect to have a team with a realistic chance to win it all every year become a Yankees fan

[tbyers11]

This is a staggering overview of Duke in the NCAA since 1996. Since then we have not beaten a team seeded above or equal to us. Our record against teams seeded below us in the regionals or later is 9-7. We have lost 5 times as a #1 seed before the Final Four. Since 1997 we have lost 10 NCAA games in which we were the favorite, and in some cases, huge favorites.


It is pretty difficult to beat a team seeded higher or equal to you when you are always 1 or 2 seed which we have been 11 out of the 14 years that you have mentioned. Barring a trip to the Final Four (or Elite 8 for the three times we have been a 2 in that span), pretty much every time that you lose it is going to be to a team seeded lower than you. In the one and done nature of the NCAA tourney, bad matchups and off-shooting nights happen. I want to try and look at whether how often they happen to Duke as a top seed is normal.

The overall winning percentage in the NCAA tourney for 1 seeds is 78.7% and the overall winning percentage for 2 seeds is 70.4% (These numbers are from Basketball State's Tournament Wiz (http://www.bbstate.com/wiz.php)). So if you weight the percentages for the # of times that we have been a 1 seed (8) or 2 seed (3) since 1996, you get 78.7*(8/11)+70.4*(3/11)= 76.4%. Statistically, we should win 76.4% of our games as a 1 or 2 seed in this span.

How did we actually do? Since 96, we are 26-7 (78.8%) in the tourney the 8 times we have been a #1 seed and 4-3 (57.1%) the 3 times we have been a 2 seed. Add those results up and you get 30-10 or 75.0%. We have won 75.0% of our games as a 1 or 2 seed since 1996.

75 is pretty close to 76.4, about the difference in winning one game in that span. So in the 11 times that we have been a 1 or 2 seed since 1996 we are ever so slightly below what is expected. We win one more game in any of our last four trips to the NCAA's and we are statistically normal. If you add in all of tourney appearances since 1986 as a 1 or 2 seed to the total, we greatly outperform the numbers, 80.8% actual vs 75.3 expected in 10 years as a #1 and 7 years as a #2. So I think our expectations in the last 13 years were set a little high based on our performances from 1986 thru 1994.

However, if you look at just since 2004, we are obviously trending down. This is worrisome and is the cause of much angst for me and all Duke basketball fans. Whether we have over-performed in the regular season or under-performed in the tourney has been the subject of much debate. I think some of both has taken place. Changes in NBA early entry and how long players stay in school combined with the constant requirement of Duke to require a little more in the academic sense from recruits than most basketball powers make the 7 Final Fours in 9 years highly unlikely to ever happen again.

Will we have the chance next year to improve upon our recent performances as high seeds? I don't know. Without Gerald we likely won't be a 1 or 2 seed or a legit National Championship contender. With Gerald and maybe an Eric Bledsoe, we likely will be a real contender and I hope we make it to at least a Final Four. I know that I will enjoy the ride either way and once the pain of this loss goes away in a couple of days I know that I will be looking forward to it.

[Lulu]

The initial post is a fantastic post. Bravo! I'm tired of the mindless defensiveness. The IP is exactly right in saying that there is a distinct trend at this point, but still, every year, it's written off as a bad matchup or some other unique excuse.

I do not believe it would nearly as easy to create a similar list for other teams, unlike what's been said above. Yes, all but one team loses their last game. This, however, is a phenomenal record of consistently underperforming in the final tournament/game of the season. We are losing to teams we shouldn't lose to, we are playing badly, and, sure, last night we lost to a team legitimately capable of beating us, but we didn't just lose, we got absolutely stomped by another team seeded below us. It's not a fluke, it's one of the most consistent stories in the tournament at this point if no one has noticed.

Technically we made the Sweet Sixteen, but could we have looked any more like we didn't belong?

If it hadn't been for that dang Clemson game I think everyone would finally see it (well, not really). It's mental. It's not being able to cope with the decision-making required of a less-structured offense in such a high pressure situation. It's missing shots because of the same added pressure. It's most of our players being scared to death of being at fault for an early DUKE loss. I wish there could be some discussion on this, but it looks like there's no number season-ending losses like this that will do the trick.

I don't even care what talent we recruit at the moment until we can bring in another "coach-on-the-floor", or someone with the killer instinct or arrogance to just flat-out refuse to lose, or even entertain the notion it's all over. That's what we need. (Yes, I had a few former players in mind. Sadly, a level of arrogance might be required to play for the Duke name.)

[tele]

These are just the depressing facts. Every year we seem to say we ran into a bad matchup. LSU was a bad matchup. Michigan St. was a bad matchup. Nova was a bad matchup. I think it's more accurate to say Duke has become a bad tournament team. .

So you're saying aways take the points in the games Duke loses?

[dukie8]

2004, Duke a 1 seed, reaches the final four and leads #1 overall seed UConn by 8 with less than four minutes left but loses. (Duke is an underdog at +2)

Uconn was a 2 seed that year -- not a 1 and not the #1 1.

[Newton_14]

I wrote this in another thread and I am going to write it yet again.

In this "horrible" decade that everyone thinks it has been (2000 to present) Duke has:

Had 2 Final 4 appearances
Won 1 National Title
Won 7 ACC Championships
Won 14 of 23 games against unc
Won 6 of 10 games against unc in chapel hell
Made the NCAA Tourney every year
Went to 8 Sweet 16's

It is a great "slump". Really it is. And like I said in the other thread, if 2010 thru 2019 brings the same results, I will gladly take that right now.

People can criticize all they want to. This years team was in no way a dissapointment. They had a great year considering the limitations they faced. All year long the "experts" said there was not a great point guard or inside presence on this team, and they were pretty much right about that. Yet this team won 30 games against the strongest rated schedule in the country and won the ACC Championship in a year when the ACC was very strong.

I am only dissappointed at the way they lost last night. I had hoped if they were to lose it would be in a game that went to the wire. But they ran into a buzzsaw, and got hit with the best defense they had seen in years. My money is on Villanova to wipe the floor with Pitt, and I would not be shocked if they win the whole thing.

The program is on the rise again and headed in the right direction. There is good talent coming in next year, bringing much needed size in two very skilled big men, plus an outside chance of landing either a great or good point guard. 3 more very talented kids coming in 2010, with offers out to a couple more really good players as well.

The recruiting misses of the past can easily be erased from memory with a couple of key pickups in the next couple of years. I am very proud of what this years team accomplished and I am estatic about the immediate future of the program.

[Troublemaker]

I think we need to take a hard look at Duke's performance in the NCAA tournament since the amazing 7 in 9 run from 1986 to 1994. Because those were the NCAA tournament glory years. The 1996 - 2009 years have been glory years in the sense of the regular season and ACC tourney, but in the NCAA tourney, they have been years of repeated collapses and disappointments. Why, I have no idea
Again, why, I don't know.

I think you overstate how bad it's been for Duke from '95 to '09. Only a couple of programs wouldn't trade their results for ours during that time. However, the question you posed was why the difference in postseason results, and the answer is pretty easy, imo. Partly, it's because, in 1995, Coach K fell in love with the 3-pt shot. (The other two reasons are luck [or random variation] in a single-elimination tournament and NBA defections starting in 1999).

Here are Duke's 3-point field goal attempts per game since 1987 (when the NCAA adopted the line nationally). Green means less than 15 attempts per game. Red means greater than 15 attempts per game. (I'm displaying the total attempts and games here because it took me a tedious half hour or so to compile this data from goduke and I want to leave that stuff here for future reference if needed).

1987: 368 attempts / 33 gms = 11.12 attempts/gm
1988: 451 / 35 = 12.9
1989: 397 / 36 = 11.0
1990: 401 / 38 = 10.6
1991: 459 / 39 = 11.8
1992: 394 / 36 = 10.9
1993: 463 / 32 = 14.5
1994: 471 / 34 = 13.9
1995: 590 / 31 = 19.0
1996: 615 / 31 = 19.8
1997: 714 / 33 = 21.6
1998: 739 / 36 = 20.5
1999: 739 / 39 = 18.9
2000: 742 / 34 = 21.8
2001: 1057 / 39 = 27.1
2002: 830 / 35 = 23.7
2003: 672 / 33 = 20.4
2004: 722 / 37 = 19.5
2005: 763 / 33 = 23.1
2006: 707 / 36 = 19.6
2007: 520 / 33 = 15.8
2008: 816 / 34 = 24.0
2009: 890 / 36 = 24.7

[RelativeWays]

Technically we're trending upward over the last 3 years.

2007 22-11 1st round exit in the ACC tourney and NCAA tourney

2008 28-7 Semi final exit in the ACC Tourney and 2nd round exit in the NCAA tourney

2009 30-7 ACC Champs and 3 round exit from NCAA tourney.

People will see what they want to see I guess. I can help but wonder if anyone associated with the basketball team reads these posts that whine about our doom and gloom and think "you know, sometimes I hate our fans"
I'm not saying there isn't room for criticism but lets be real here. All those final 4s in the late 80's early 90s were not the norm for any basketball team, UNLV, Kansas and Michigan are the only teams during the same time period that had multiple FF appearances, and it was still half as many as Duke. Thats an anomaly and it won't be repeated by anyone unless they raise the age limit in the NBA.
Did you guys really forget the mid 90's? 95 we didn even make the NIT, THE NIT!!!!!!! All those FF appearances didn't amount to anything in 95. 96, we lost to Eastern Michigan, who hasn't been in the tourney since, at least VCU played 2 out of the last 3 NCAA tourneys. How about Providence in 97? Are they much different than WVU? What about Cal? I don't know what people are crying about. I want to see us improve but not at the expense of chasing ghosts of the pasts. Thats probably how UK got to be where they are now. Do we want Duke to be the next UK?

[dukie8]

Uconn also was favored by 4 -- not 2 -- in 2004 as Duhon hit the most expensive meaningless shot in the history of sports at the buzzer.

[Troublemaker]

Partly, it's because, in 1995, Coach K fell in love with the 3-pt shot.

As an aside, I've long held the belief (and only half-jokingly) that the 1995 season was the result of the Basketball Gods punishing Duke for changing its program into one that relies much more on the 3-pt shot. Thou shalt not chuck 3-pointers, they were saying.

Anyway, we're never going to recapture '86-'94. That's just a run that was special in college basketball history. It was aided by luck (Laettner's buzzer-beaters) in a time when players stayed in school, and furthermore, we had a more consistent offense that relied less on outside shooting. Back then, we didn't shoot ourselves out of games as much as we do now.

However, if we can get our recruiting back to an elite level, then we can recapture what we did from '96-'04 instead, which was pretty special, too. '86-'94, never again. '96-'04, doable. It starts with recruiting.

[MulletMan]

Uconn also was favored by 4 -- not 2 -- in 2004 as Duhon hit the most expensive meaningless shot in the history of sports at the buzzer.

In fact I believe the thread was UConn -2 or possibly -1.5. They were up by 4 when Duhon hit the three making the final score 79-78. Consequently UConn did not cover. If they had been -4, then the shot wouldn't have mattered nearly as much because those with bets at -4 would have pushed.

In fact, here's an article from ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2366871),

[RelativeWays]

Maybe they need to start passing out paper 3s at Cameron. Eventually the movement died at UK and State along with the popularity of that shot...and the relevance of the programs......so on second thought lets not do that.

You know the 2001 team did not need to be a bunch of 3 point chuckers to win, its just that everyone save Boozer was good at it. I do think the shot kinda ruined Dunleavy's game his junior year. Rather than make those spectacular slashes to the bucket, he'd chuck a 3.

I think I hate the 3.

[devildownunder]

Troublemaker, with the personnel we've had over the last 6 or 7 years, I don't think K has had much choice but to build the offense around 3pt shooting. Of course, that raises a chicken/egg question about whether he recruited for that style of team or has fielded that style of team because of his recruits.

I read in another post that K was asked whether he thought he needed a new inside presence and he said yes, and also said something like "it's not like we haven't been trying to get one". If those comments are true, it would seem that K doesn't really want us shooting 25 3s a game but he feels that's his best option, given who he has.

[Faison1]

The initial post is a fantastic post. Bravo! I'm tired of the mindless defensiveness. The IP is exactly right in saying that there is a distinct trend at this point, but still, every year, it's written off as a bad matchup or some other unique excuse.

I do not believe it would nearly as easy to create a similar list for other teams, unlike what's been said above. Yes, all but one team loses their last game. This, however, is a phenomenal record of consistently underperforming in the final tournament/game of the season. We are losing to teams we shouldn't lose to, we are playing badly, and, sure, last night we lost to a team legitimately capable of beating us, but we didn't just lose, we got absolutely stomped by another team seeded below us. It's not a fluke, it's one of the most consistent stories in the tournament at this point if no one has noticed.

Technically we made the Sweet Sixteen, but could we have looked any more like we didn't belong?

If it hadn't been for that dang Clemson game I think everyone would finally see it (well, not really). It's mental. It's not being able to cope with the decision-making required of a less-structured offense in such a high pressure situation. It's missing shots because of the same added pressure. It's most of our players being scared to death of being at fault for an early DUKE loss. I wish there could be some discussion on this, but it looks like there's no number season-ending losses like this that will do the trick.

I don't even care what talent we recruit at the moment until we can bring in another "coach-on-the-floor", or someone with the killer instinct or arrogance to just flat-out refuse to lose, or even entertain the notion it's all over. That's what we need. (Yes, I had a few former players in mind. Sadly, a level of arrogance might be required to play for the Duke name.)

I try not to call other posters out, but you and mr. synellinden need to get a grip. Since K had his medical leave, a lot has changed in the college hoops world. Most notably, the widespread acceptance of leaving school early, even for programs like Duke. Before his leave, Duke did not have one early entrant. Post-leave, starting in '99, the flood gates opened. So, it's nearly impossible to maintain the kind of standards K had achieved, when your players are leaving, and no consistent senior leadership exists every year.

Over the same time period, what program has posted better numbers? UConn, with 2 championships? In between championships, they sucked! UNC? No. Kentucky? No. Kansas? No. Who was better? Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but I can't think of any program that has posted better numbers.

Now, I will agree that it has been a disappointing few years, but I think things are looking up. As I've mentoined before in other threads, please read Al Featherston's article comparing Dean and K's careers. Dean had a couple lulls during his tenure, so it's not unusual.

To put it in more personal terms, who among us in the professional world has sustained the ultimate in excellence for 30 years straight? It's really tough to do, with burnout, expectations, bosses, fans, and unbelievable factors that are out of your control.

So, I say, get real. As a fan base, we chide other fan bases for being irrational. This year was amazing. I am truly proud of everything the team achieved. On top of it, they seem to be nice kids with great heads on their shoulders. Looking back on this season, I will always remember G's smile when he celebrated the ACC Championship. I hope to see more of him in a Duke Uni.

[dukie8]

In fact I believe the thread was UConn -2 or possibly -1.5. They were up by 4 when Duhon hit the three making the final score 79-78. Consequently UConn did not cover. If they had been -4, then the shot wouldn't have mattered nearly as much because those with bets at -4 would have pushed.

In fact, here's an article from ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2366871),

My bad. It was 2 or 2.5. I was with a guy in Vegas who had $5000 on UConn. He wasn't too happy.

[buddy]

I think you overstate how bad it's been for Duke from '95 to '09. Only a couple of programs wouldn't trade their results for ours during that time. However, the question you posed was why the difference in postseason results, and the answer is pretty easy, imo. Partly, it's because, in 1995, Coach K fell in love with the 3-pt shot. (The other two reasons are luck [or random variation] in a single-elimination tournament and NBA defections starting in 1999).

Here are Duke's 3-point field goal attempts per game since 1987 (when the NCAA adopted the line nationally). Green means less than 15 attempts per game. Red means greater than 15 attempts per game. (I'm displaying the total attempts and games here because it took me a tedious half hour or so to compile this data from goduke and I want to leave that stuff here for future reference if needed).

1987: 368 attempts / 33 gms = 11.12 attempts/gm
1988: 451 / 35 = 12.9
1989: 397 / 36 = 11.0
1990: 401 / 38 = 10.6
1991: 459 / 39 = 11.8
1992: 394 / 36 = 10.9
1993: 463 / 32 = 14.5
1994: 471 / 34 = 13.9
1995: 590 / 31 = 19.0
1996: 615 / 31 = 19.8
1997: 714 / 33 = 21.6
1998: 739 / 36 = 20.5
1999: 739 / 39 = 18.9
2000: 742 / 34 = 21.8
2001: 1057 / 39 = 27.1
2002: 830 / 35 = 23.7
2003: 672 / 33 = 20.4
2004: 722 / 37 = 19.5
2005: 763 / 33 = 23.1
2006: 707 / 36 = 19.6
2007: 520 / 33 = 15.8
2008: 816 / 34 = 24.0
2009: 890 / 36 = 24.7

I tend to agree that we have come to rely far too much on the three, but I think the argument is more subtle. Based on your work (and thank you for that effort), the year in which we shot the most threes--2001--is the year we won a National Championship.

The three is a devastating weapon, but for us, but it seems to work best (1) when complemented with a credible inside game, and (2) when longer players are credible three point threats (think Battier and Dunleavy). Maybe that's why Kyle shoots so many. But recently we have had no credible inside threat, so when we face a defense such a Villanova's, there is no Plan B.

I think preceptions here are colored by the 2007 and 2008 results, as well as the disappointment of 2005 (Williams and Redick return for their senior year, but the team only makes the Sweet Sixteen). I think we cannot overemphasize the early departure of Deng, and the nonarrival of Livingston and Humphries. We had two completely empty years. Not only did that force young players to contribute before they were ready, but more importantly deprived them of the leadership of stellar upperclassmen.

1995 was a nadir, from which we rebounded to win several ACC championships (both regular season and tournament), had a three year stretch of 46-2 in the ACC regular season, won a National Championship, and made another Final Four. In that regard 2006 was also a nadir (not like 1995). It should have been Deng's junior year, Livingston should have been playing the point, and Humphries should have been the post, with McBob and Paulus as valuable reserves. Didn't happen. We have had to force feed players into the rotation. I see the program rebounding (and no, my glasses are not rose colored). I do agree that what we need is some arrogance, some players who not only refuse to lose, but refuse to let their teammates lose as well. Where the swagger comes from I don't know, although I think Kyle may have it.

[TriGuy]

. . . I don't even care what talent we recruit at the moment until we can bring in another "coach-on-the-floor", or someone with the killer instinct or arrogance to just flat-out refuse to lose, or even entertain the notion it's all over. That's what we need. (Yes, I had a few former players in mind. Sadly, a level of arrogance might be required to play for the Duke name.)

Nicely said. In many cases, at many schools, it takes one or two players who stuboornly refuse to lose in order to drag their teams to the promised land. This seems to be especially true for schools that are known for their "great programs" . . . those "great programs" can turn into comfort zones of repeated high performance. Not a bad thing, just habitually finishing short of 1st.

I was born in Nebraska and lived through 20+ years of watching Tom Osborne's great football program that could always be counted on for a top 20 (usually top 10) ranking, but couldn't quite close the deal. Then Tommie Frazier came along, put the team on his shoulders, and carried them to the national title (two, actually).

In Duke's case, Laettner had the arrogance needed in the early '90s, Battier and James had the no-quit, focused attitude in 2001.

Every so often, a team is blessed by a player who realizes that even though there may not be an "I" in "team", there is in "win".

As usual, just my $0.02 worth.

[devildownunder]

However, if we can get our recruiting back to an elite level, then we can recapture what we did from '96-'04 instead, which was pretty special, too. '86-'94, never again. '96-'04, doable. It starts with recruiting.

Amen to that. You can sugar coat it any way you want -- and many in these parts have tried -- but we are not putting the quality of talent on the floor that we have in the past. Some blame player development or circumstance, which may have something to do with it but I think the raw materials just aren't as strong these days.

Case in point, everyone in the nation is talking about our lack of a top-notch pg. We landed what was, supposedly, a blue-chipper at that position 4 years ago, but that didn't work out the way we thought. Now that part happens, what can you do? The troubling part is that 4 years later, we still haven't been able to address that issue successfully with new talent. That's the part that's troubling. And it's pretty much the same story with the big men.

[devildownunder]

I tend to agree that we have come to rely far too much on the three, but I think the argument is more subtle. Based on your work (and thank you for that effort), the year in which we shot the most threes--2001--is the year we won a National Championship.

The three is a devastating weapon, but for us, but it seems to work best (1) when complemented with a credible inside game, and (2) when longer players are credible three point threats (think Battier and Dunleavy). Maybe that's why Kyle shoots so many. But recently we have had no credible inside threat, so when we face a defense such a Villanova's, there is no Plan B.



I think your characterisation of our 3pt offense if true of all offenses. Balance is essential. No one wins at a high level without it.

[tele]

.
However, if you look at just since 2004, we are obviously trending down. This is worrisome and is the cause of much angst for me and all Duke basketball fans. Whether we have over-performed in the regular season or under-performed in the tourney has been the subject of much debate. I think some of both has taken place. Changes in NBA early entry and how long players stay in school combined with the constant requirement of Duke to require a little more in the academic sense from recruits than most basketball powers make the 7 Final Fours in 9 years highly unlikely to ever happen again.


This period since 2004 also roughly corresponds to the "Duke gets all the Calls" campaign by Packer, Sweaty and their ilk. If I recall correctly, the Uconn win was abetted by at least one key no call at the end that favoured Uconn and harmed Duke. If your coaching strategy hinges on getting your opponent to foul and to get to shoot free throws (as Coach Knight has described his and Coach K's) then not getting all the calls you are due and have worked to get, puts your team at a serious disadvantage. How many times did Packer say, "Duke makes more free throws than their opponent attempts"? So if Duke's opponents know the seed is now planted, has been since around 2004, with the officials not to make more calls favoring Duke than their opponents, then Duke's opponents can foul with impunity, and know they are unlikely to be called for those fouls. (At least they won't get called for more fouls than Duke is, no matter how many fouls Duke's opponents commit). In fact, the more fouls they commit against Duke, the more fouls they can get away with making.

This means the Duke team which is in part playing to draw fouls and get to the line, is constantly playing up hill, and is much less likely to be successful (which is of course why Packer, Sweaty,Greenberg keep at it). Obviously, this is more likely to affect the outcome of close games than blowouts, and to be most noticeable when the number of uncalled fouls approximates or exceeds the margin of defeat. So not only isn't Duke getting all the calls, Duke isn't even getting the foul calls they are due. Makes it much harder to win a close game, Duke would need a margin of 7 or 8 or risk getting fouled out of the gym at the end of games. To say nothing of their chances of making a stirring comeback to win a game (cough * wake *cough).

Just a theory. Nothing new in coaches working the officials to get calls, but having the media and fan bases join in and do this before, during and after games is unheard of. I'm not suggesting this as the main reason for Nova's win, I think that had more to do with being able to compensate for one point guard, but not being able to do it for two Nova point guards.

[Lulu]

Everyone keeps shooting back with season-long stats. That's not the point, not at all. Everyone here will agree that Duke has had very successful seasons recently in terms of the overall W-L columns.

The focus, bluntly, is the collapse of the team in the tournament, when everything is on the line. Can anyone here possibly say that Duke has been playing its "A" game in our season-ending losses of late? It's more like our "F" game. I thoroughly enjoy the whole season, and love that Duke comes to play most every game (might have been slacking a little this year in that regard, but still more than most teams), but I hate that we cannot have an honest discussion about this without getting detoured with irrelevant comments, stats, or defensiveness. I've said this elsewhere, but there are a lot of teams who can still say they brought their "A" game, and just happened to lose in that final game - that has not been Duke for a number of years now.

Why is that such an awful thing to say? Especially when it seems so blatantly true? I'm inclined to think the players themselves might agree.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I think we cannot overemphasize the early departure of Deng, and the nonarrival of Livingston and Humphries. We had two completely empty years. Not only did that force young players to contribute before they were ready, but more importantly deprived them of the leadership of stellar upperclassmen.

This clearly an important part of the equation. But the problem isn't that we didn't get 4 years out of Deng, Hump, and Liv, it's that anyone expected that we would. When you recruit a top talent you have to expect that they won't be around for very long. Deng could have stuck around for another year, but the #2 player is his class just isn't likely to do so.

Similarly, we had two recruited PG's (Dock and Greg) that were clearly never going to be the answer at that position, yet we never made any moves to bring in backups/competition, instead forcing those guys to try to do something they couldn't or dragging SG's into a role that they couldn't hope to be successful at. Even when we were most successful with this, (Dan and Jon) what we did was get very conservative PG play that didn't turn the ball over very much. That's staunching the bleeding, not fixing the problem with dynamic, creative play that leads to easy baskets.

My point is, for the last few season we haven't been very nimble in terms of recruiting. We haven't done a good job of anticipating problems (like Liv doing what every person in Illinois told us he'd do: using us to boost hist stock and then leaving us in the lurch) or of fixing problems (like Greg and Sean not being legit PG's) in a timely fashion. Even if you think studs will stick around or underperforming guys will "get it", you just can't depend on it.

To the staff's credit, we've shown signs of being much better about this this year. Going after Wall was smart, even if it's a long shot. Looking at Beldsoe and Irving also signals a step in the right direction. As with so many issues, this slow-footed recruiting goes back to the Olympics and I expect to see it get much better very quickly as we have K and the staff's undivided attention again.

[Devilsfan]

Hey alot of other teams also made fools of themselves in front of their fans, supporters and a national tv audience while they stunk up the gym. Look at Memphis, Syracuse and Arizona. Remember the team from chapel hill last year against kansas?

[Diddy]

Will everyone here be so dismissive of the "Duke in Decline" argument if UNC or UCONN wins the tourney?

Given the possible recruiting scandal, and his health, there is a thought that Calhoun might call it a career if he wins it all. Retired, he would be outside the reach of the NCAA investigators (no subpoena power) and could retire owning 3 titles, in 10 years.

Conversely, UNC last won it all in 2005. The next year, Roy brought in a recruiting class that now forms the basis of a FF favorite. Should they win again, Roy appears to have the pieces in place to keep the train rolling.

Remember, as well as Roy recruited at Kansas, opponents always whispered that Roy would leave for UNC eventually. Well, Roy ain't going nowhere now. He is recruiting as well or better than he ever did at KU. For the last 4 years he has owned Duke. Should Gerald leave, that might continue next year. As for 2010, he has some good recruits in that class as well.

we are now going on 6 years since a meaningful Tournament run. For the last 4-5 years, Duke's season has usually ended in a bad loss to a team seded well below us.

We last won the title in 2001. For today's 17 year old recruits, that puts them at 11. Much younger than that and THEY WON'T REMEMBER DUKE AS A DOMINANT TEAM.

The 97 recruiting class was 12 or so when Laetner et al repeated. In 93 the hoops world watched as Hurley broke the Assist Record. In 94 Hill and Co lost a heart breaker on a lucky 3 in the Title game. 95 Toaded the Wet Sprocket, but the memories had been formed.

Battier and Burgess both spoke of falling in love with Duke during the Laetner glory years. That was my HS class as well, and I fell in love with the 91 team. I remember Ferry, but I don't remember Dawkins, Bilas, or any of that crew. Keep in mind that I was 10 during Christian's Frosh year, and I was older than most kids in my HS class.

My dad is a HS teacher in a public school, in North Carolina. He has students, basketball fans, who have never heard of Michael Jordan. Never seen him play, never seen a high light, and have no Idea who Spike Lee is or how he relates to Jordan.

Kids will forget. They will forget that Duke is an elite program. We aren't UK, UCLA, or UNC. They are large public schools with tons of hottie coeds (I loved the lasses at Duke, but don't do a side by side near the Old Well, cause that mess will break your heart), easier academics, and are surrounded by people who don't actively hate them. It used to be easier to find cocky kids who thrived on the opponents hatred, but today's youth ballers are so coddled that maybe they can't take being sneered at during a food (ie Beer) run on Sat night.

K rallied from 95 by riding the hearts and memories of kids who grew up expecting Duke to go to the Final Four. He is now recruiting kids who expect Duke to flame out in early in the tourney.

The longer we wait to turn it arround, the harder it will get.

Remember Indiana. They did not fall overnight, so much as they wandered vaguely downward.

[Diddy]

This clearly an important part of the equation. But the problem isn't that we didn't get 4 years out of Deng, Hump, and Liv, it's that anyone expected that we would. When you recruit a top talent you have to expect that they won't be around for very long. Deng could have stuck around for another year, but the #2 player is his class just isn't likely to do so.

Similarly, we had two recruited PG's (Dock and Greg) that were clearly never going to be the answer at that position, yet we never made any moves to bring in backups/competition, instead forcing those guys to try to do something they couldn't or dragging SG's into a role that they couldn't hope to be successful at. Even when we were most successful with this, (Dan and Jon) what we did was get very conservative PG play that didn't turn the ball over very much. That's staunching the bleeding, not fixing the problem with dynamic, creative play that leads to easy baskets.

My point is, for the last few season we haven't been very nimble in terms of recruiting. We haven't done a good job of anticipating problems (like Liv doing what every person in Illinois told us he'd do: using us to boost hist stock and then leaving us in the lurch) or of fixing problems (like Greg and Sean not being legit PG's) in a timely fashion. Even if you think studs will stick around or underperforming guys will "get it", you just can't depend on it.

To the staff's credit, we've shown signs of being much better about this this year. Going after Wall was smart, even if it's a long shot. Looking at Beldsoe and Irving also signals a step in the right direction. As with so many issues, this slow-footed recruiting goes back to the Olympics and I expect to see it get much better very quickly as we have K and the staff's undivided attention again.

POTT (post of the thread)

It is not enough that we missed on some kids. And we missed badly on some. Its that we did nothing to correct it. We used to badmouth Deano, and now Roy, for recruiting over kids. What do we owe these players? Support? As students, fellow Dukies, and people, ALWAYS. They are getting a free, great education. Not to mentiont connections that will aid them every step of their life after Duke.

On court though, it is a meritocracy. The best get to play. If you can recruit a better player, then that kid gets to play. No one gets a spot due to seniority.

If K could find recruits better than any current players, I would expect current players to be shown the bench.

K does seem to be more fluid now. Bledsoe and Wall are great steps in my mind. I think we get Bledsoe, if his academics are in order. He might change the game for us next year.

K made some horrific mistakes. But at least he appears to be correcting them, finally.

[jgehtland]

Everyone keeps shooting back with season-long stats. That's not the point, not at all. Everyone here will agree that Duke has had very successful seasons recently in terms of the overall W-L columns.

The focus, bluntly, is the collapse of the team in the tournament, when everything is on the line. Can anyone here possibly say that Duke has been playing its "A" game in our season-ending losses of late? It's more like our "F" game. I thoroughly enjoy the whole season, and love that Duke comes to play most every game (might have been slacking a little this year in that regard, but still more than most teams), but I hate that we cannot have an honest discussion about this without getting detoured with irrelevant comments, stats, or defensiveness. I've said this elsewhere, but there are a lot of teams who can still say they brought their "A" game, and just happened to lose in that final game - that has not been Duke for a number of years now.

Why is that such an awful thing to say? Especially when it seems so blatantly true? I'm inclined to think the players themselves might agree.

This is, and I'm sorry, insane. Here are the teams that, THIS YEAR, got blown out in their final game (only including "brand name" programs):

* Wake
* Minnesota
* Maryland
* BC
* UCLA
* LSU
* Syracuse
* Memphis
* Purdue
* Arizona

Look at 2008:

* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Arkansas
* Notre Dame
* Oklahoma
* Pitt
* Wisconsin
* Tennessee
* Michigan State
* Stanford
* Xavier
* Texas
* UNC

You want me to keep going? Duke lost in 2008 to WVU, by 6. Wisconsin, the 3, lost to Davidson, the 10, by 17. Heck, UConn lost to San Diego State in the first round.

How about '07?

* Marquette
* Texas
* Pitt
* Memphis
* UNC
* Kansas

Every loss I've mentioned here was by between 12 and 35(!!) points. Every year, programs go down in flames in a bad game at the end of the year. UNC the last two! KU and FL played in the NIT this year!

If you want to assume that Duke needs to be in the FF every year, then live that way. But stop telling people that we aren't having an "honest" discussion. We are. You have an opinion, which seems largely based on an inability to recognize success as anything other than a big win in the NC or a close loss to a larger seed. Whereas, in the real world, Duke has been more consistent, and more consistently excellent, than any other team this decade or last. If that isn't good enough, no problem. But that doesn't make my experience of this team less "honest", nor my opinion less valid. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them disingenuous, or dishonest. Sheesh.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

We last won the title in 2001. For today's 17 year old recruits, that puts them at 11. Much younger than that and THEY WON'T REMEMBER DUKE AS A DOMINANT TEAM.

...

Kids will forget. They will forget that Duke is an elite program. We aren't UK, UCLA, or UNC. They are large public schools with tons of hottie coeds (I loved the lasses at Duke, but don't do a side by side near the Old Well, cause that mess will break your heart), easier academics, and are surrounded by people who don't actively hate them. It used to be easier to find cocky kids who thrived on the opponents hatred, but today's youth ballers are so coddled that maybe they can't take being sneered at during a food (ie Beer) run on Sat night.

K rallied from 95 by riding the hearts and memories of kids who grew up expecting Duke to go to the Final Four. He is now recruiting kids who expect Duke to flame out in early in the tourney.

The longer we wait to turn it arround, the harder it will get.

Remember Indiana. They did not fall overnight, so much as they wandered vaguely downward.

Yup, that's the nightmare scenario. In college basketball both success and failure have a major snowball effect, and I think everyone is concerned that HS kids will get used to the idea that Duke isn't the school for them for any number of reasons (too rich, too white, too much hate) but mostly because the perception of Duke is that we don't win.

I think we do need to keep in mind that K has been essentially doing half of his job since 2004, but he's back now. K is the guy who built us up from where we were in the early 1980's, so there's no reason he can't do it again starting from a much better place as a HoF legend. I'm happy with what I've seen so far as a first step, but I think you're 100% correct that there's a window that is closing. Kids today still remember J.J. and Shel, but they won't for much longer. K's name still means something to coaches and fans, but it's won't always to 16 year old kids.

I'm hopeful that we can put together a monster class in 2010 and make the sort of run that puts Duke back in everyone's minds as a team that is feared and respected. But the clock is ticking and, without any natural home turf for recruiting or built in geographic fan base our margin for error is razor thin. It would really help to get a good break like Wall and lord knows we're more than due for a sleeper to explode or a kid like Josh Smith to surprise everyone and sign up. The concerns you mention are very real (and I think not completely recognized by some older Duke alums who don't live in-state) but K's track record speaks for itself. If anybody can right the ship, he's definitely the guy.

[_Gary]

This is, and I'm sorry, insane.

I beg to differ. I concur wholeheartedly with the thread creator, Lulu, DevilCastDown and Diddy. This is just honest, heartfelt discussion here. It's all about expectations and rationalizations as best I can tell. Here's the bottom line: Have we lived up to DUKE expectations in the NCAA Tourney, based on our seeding and our overall play in the regular season, over the period of time in question? I think the honest answer has to be a resounding NO.

This discussion is not about comparing Duke to other programs. It's about how Duke has done in the Tournament when it had a reasonable expectations (being a #1 or #2 seed going in). And even beyond the seeding, it's just about how good a team we've had in each individual season and whether or not we've exceeded those reasonable expectations in the Tourney or fallen short of them. I can't believe anyone would or could suggest that, in the time frame we are discussing, Duke has had more Tourney runs where we've exceeded reasonable expectations more than we have fallen short of them. No way, no how.

Those are the cold, hard facts folks. We are playing below reasonable expectations far more than we are exceeding them during this stretch. With the teams we've been able to assemble since '95 there's no way we should only have 3 Final Fours and only 1 National Championship. I will never believe that and can't believe anyone else thinks that we meant reasonable expectations on the whole. We blew a huge lead to Kentucky late in '98. We had the greatest team I've ever seen assembled and couldn't win in '99. We had the full cast back for what should have been another FF run in '02 and flamed out. We did lose what I considered the championship game to UConn in '04 when reasonable people could say they were every bit as good as us. But that one hurt because we had a solid lead late and couldn't hold it (officiating aside). A few more memorable early flame outs in the JJ years. Come on. We have not meant reasonable expectations during the run in question. Why can't we just all admit that.

The worst part in all of this is that our neighbors down the road are out and out whipping us on the recruiting trail and there's no sign of them slowing down.

[DukeDevilDeb]

Couldn't say it better

Only 3 Final Fours, 2 NC appearances, and 1 NC (+ 8 ACC tournament championships) since 1994 - horrific/ugly/staggering

Glad you have your expectations in perspective - I went to Duke from 1972 - 1976 (no winning seasons and no ACC tournament wins in 4 seasons) - trust me that I witnessed more horrific/ugly/staggering Duke b-ball at Cameron than you have :D

Duke is a reputable private institution with at least minimal recruiting standards - 7 Final Fours in 9 seasons is not happening again at Duke or anywhere else in today's college ball setting - if you expect to have a team with a realistic chance to win it all every year become a Yankees fan


... for saying what some of us know and all of us MUST realize. In truth, we have had a better record than a lot of teams over the last decade including FFs in 1999, 2001,and 2004. This year we won 30 games without a true point guard OR a big man. How many teams can say that?

The Villanova game was extremely painful for all of us to watch, made all the more so by the fact that--because we finally made the Sweet 16--we really, really, really had a chance to win the NC. Come on. This team has been very good since THE SWITCH, but an appropriate and realistic goal was making the Sweet 16, and we did that.

My sense is that Kyle will stay. I wish I knew about G, but I think the odds are good that he's gone... how would you feel about leaving for the NBA with your final college game looking like that one did? I think he should stay, but his father obviously doesn't. Wish I knew what G himself wanted to do.

Thanks to all the great guys on a team that gave us a wonderful end to the season and much hope for next year. Greg, Marty, and Dave, you will truly be missed. And as we always say...

Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Maxwell1977]

This is, and I'm sorry, insane. Here are the teams that, THIS YEAR, got blown out in their final game (only including "brand name" programs):

* Wake
* Minnesota
* Maryland
* BC
* UCLA
* LSU
* Syracuse
* Memphis
* Purdue
* Arizona

Look at 2008:

* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Arkansas
* Notre Dame
* Oklahoma
* Pitt
* Wisconsin
* Tennessee
* Michigan State
* Stanford
* Xavier
* Texas
* UNC

You want me to keep going? Duke lost in 2008 to WVU, by 6. Wisconsin, the 3, lost to Davidson, the 10, by 17. Heck, UConn lost to San Diego State in the first round.

How about '07?

* Marquette
* Texas
* Pitt
* Memphis
* UNC
* Kansas

Every loss I've mentioned here was by between 12 and 35(!!) points. Every year, programs go down in flames in a bad game at the end of the year. UNC the last two! KU and FL played in the NIT this year!

If you want to assume that Duke needs to be in the FF every year, then live that way. But stop telling people that we aren't having an "honest" discussion. We are. You have an opinion, which seems largely based on an inability to recognize success as anything other than a big win in the NC or a close loss to a larger seed. Whereas, in the real world, Duke has been more consistent, and more consistently excellent, than any other team this decade or last. If that isn't good enough, no problem. But that doesn't make my experience of this team less "honest", nor my opinion less valid. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them disingenuous, or dishonest. Sheesh.

Bingo.

[Lulu]

This is, and I'm sorry, insane. Here are the teams that, THIS YEAR, got blown out in their final game (only including "brand name" programs):

* Wake
* Minnesota
* Maryland
* BC
* UCLA
* LSU
* Syracuse
* Memphis
* Purdue
* Arizona

Look at 2008:

* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Arkansas
* Notre Dame
* Oklahoma
* Pitt
* Wisconsin
* Tennessee
* Michigan State
* Stanford
* Xavier
* Texas
* UNC

You want me to keep going? Duke lost in 2008 to WVU, by 6. Wisconsin, the 3, lost to Davidson, the 10, by 17. Heck, UConn lost to San Diego State in the first round.

How about '07?

* Marquette
* Texas
* Pitt
* Memphis
* UNC
* Kansas

Every loss I've mentioned here was by between 12 and 35(!!) points. Every year, programs go down in flames in a bad game at the end of the year. UNC the last two! KU and FL played in the NIT this year!

If you want to assume that Duke needs to be in the FF every year, then live that way. But stop telling people that we aren't having an "honest" discussion. We are. You have an opinion, which seems largely based on an inability to recognize success as anything other than a big win in the NC or a close loss to a larger seed. Whereas, in the real world, Duke has been more consistent, and more consistently excellent, than any other team this decade or last. If that isn't good enough, no problem. But that doesn't make my experience of this team less "honest", nor my opinion less valid. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them disingenuous, or dishonest. Sheesh.

Utter nonsense. The scores don't even matter. If you actually watched the game you don't even need a score to know that Duke played poorly last night. I'm certain there's not a single player on the team thinking to themselves, "Yeah, we played well, we just got beat". I don't purport to read minds or anything, but our big 3, which I consider Henderson, Singler, and Scheyer, are probably asking themselves why they made such poor decisions, took such ill-advised shots at times, and couldn't calm themselves down enough to make shots and play better together. There's zero chance they feel good about how they played.

Stop trying to make my comments into what they are not. This team did have a great season and I never said anything otherwise. They had a poor final game, as have many recent Duke teams. It is a trend; that is what this conversation is supposed to be about. No one said Duke isn't great, and one the most achieving basketball schools of all-time.

Actually, how am I being cast as the bad fan here? I believe in our guys whereas it appears from many of the comments here that a lot of people have just written them off as "no-talents-that-Coach-K-couldn't-possibly-do-anything-with-so-we-just-have-to-recruit-better". All I've said, in effect, is that it would be nice to have a leader or player with whatever attribute it takes to not crack under the pressure of being Duke, and who's able to instill that in the rest of team as much as possible come tourney time.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit disappointed had we lost that game after playing well (upset, sure). We did not play well; that's the disappointment; that's the trend in question.

[mr. synellinden]

Couldn't say it better

Only 3 Final Fours, 2 NC appearances, and 1 NC (+ 8 ACC tournament championships) since 1994 - horrific/ugly/staggering

Glad you have your expectations in perspective - I went to Duke from 1972 - 1976 (no winning seasons and no ACC tournament wins in 4 seasons) - trust me that I witnessed more horrific/ugly/staggering Duke b-ball at Cameron than you have :D

Duke is a reputable private institution with at least minimal recruiting standards - 7 Final Fours in 9 seasons is not happening again at Duke or anywhere else in today's college ball setting - if you expect to have a team with a realistic chance to win it all every year become a Yankees fan

I wish I knew how to mult-quote, but I can't. However, as Lulu noted, the point of this thread is not to say that for the past 13 years we haven't been an elite program that has for the most part remained a fixture in the top 10 or 20. I don't expect Duke to make the Final Four every year. As a fan i am not of the mentality that any year that ends shy of a championship is a disappointment.

The purpose of the thread, however, is to take a critical look at how poorly we've performed as a high seed many times in recent years. You can't say you can "write a similar looking or even more depressing results thread about any other team in the country" as Bluedog did because there are no other teams that have been seeded #1, 2 or 3 as many times as we have for the past 13 years. We were a #1 seed in 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 04, 05, 06. That's an amazing accomplishment in itself, but our performance as a 1 seed is another matter. Half of those years we lost in the Sweet 16. Twice we lost a huge lead at the end of the game (98, 04). We lost as a #2 seed 3 times (once to a 10 seed, once to a 7 seed and once to a 3 seed in a game in which we were blown out).

Since our championship year of 01, we have had the following shooting % in losses:

02 40% - 37% (3 pt.)
03 39% - 27% (3 pt.)
05 43% - 30% (3 pt.)
06 28% - 19% (3 pt.)
07 46% - 27% (3 pt.)
08 38% - 22% (3 pt.)
09 27% - 18% (3 pt.)

Take a good look at that -- In 7 games, 6 of which were games where we were seeded 1, 2 or 3, we shot over 43% once, and since 02, our highest 3 pt. % is 30%.


We can also talk about recruiting misses and strategy and lack of back up plans, etc. But we have consistently had remarkable regular seasons, an unprecedented run of ACC championships, yet consistent flameouts in the tourney as a high seed. Can we just keep saying every time we had a bad matchup? Or can we look at whether our offensive approach in the tournament is lacking? That's what I'm trying to foucs on. It's not about expecting us to win the title every year, as Atlanta Duke said. BUT, if you are seeded 1, 2, or 3 in the tournament, it is not unreasonable to think you have a chance to win the tournament and play better than Duke has, especially since 01. It's not like we should look at these years as a Dean-like lull as Faison1 wrote. Because we are winning the ACC, ranked very high nationally and going into the tourney ranked as a high seed. We should expect to do better than we've done.

Thank you Lulu and Gary for seeing the purpose and focus of this thread.

[RelativeWays]

You know before the holes won the NC in 05 it had been 12 years since their last title, how old were Sean May and the gang then? Not to mention they were pretty wretched in the early part of the decade. Yet they were able to recover and they've had a successful run over the pat 4-5 years, like our run in the late 90's early part of this decade. UConn went through the exact same slump we did after winning the NC in 04 until they just now made the Elite 8. Keep in mind they didn't even make the field in 2007. Some of you are buying into the whole Duke decline a bit too much, the reality is its the natural ebb and flow of college basketball. Sure, Duke needs to adapt to the current environment and I think the program is trying to adjust, but its not in decline. Look at IU, look at UK, those are programs in decline, serious decline and yet they are still considered part of the college basketball royalty. Our program is nowhere near either of those, and while we aren't quite where UConn or UNC is right now, its not a far fetched pipe dream to get back there. In some ways we're similar to Michigan St. We're usually in the mix, and we're capable of more. The consistent super excellence some of you demand just doesn't exist in sports nowadays. It did, but it seems Nadal has put an end to him finally.

[mr. synellinden]

You know before the holes won the NC in 05 it had been 12 years since their last title, how old were Sean May and the gang then? Not to mention they were pretty wretched in the early part of the decade. Yet they were able to recover and they've had a successful run over the pat 4-5 years, like our run in the late 90's early part of this decade. UConn went through the exact same slump we did after winning the NC in 04 until they just now made the Elite 8. Keep in mind they didn't even make the field in 2007. Some of you are buying into the whole Duke decline a bit too much, the reality is its the natural ebb and flow of college basketball. Sure, Duke needs to adapt to the current environment and I think the program is trying to adjust, but its not in decline. Look at IU, look at UK, those are programs in decline, serious decline and yet they are still considered part of the college basketball royalty. Our program is nowhere near either of those, and while we aren't quite where UConn or UNC is right now, its not a far fetched pipe dream to get back there. In some ways we're similar to Michigan St. We're usually in the mix, and we're capable of more. The consistent super excellence some of you demand just doesn't exist in sports nowadays. It did, but it seems Nadal has put an end to him finally.

The point is, with all our recruiting misses, lack of a true point, etc., we are not in decline in terms of regular season/ACC tourney performance. We are in decline in terms of not meeting expectations in the NCAA tourney. We can either say, Coach K is getting us to outperform our talent level in the regular season, or we can wonder why he is not getting us to perform or outperform in the NCAA.

[Kedsy]

This is, and I'm sorry, insane. Here are the teams that, THIS YEAR, got blown out in their final game (only including "brand name" programs):

* Wake
* Minnesota
* Maryland
* BC
* UCLA
* LSU
* Syracuse
* Memphis
* Purdue
* Arizona

Look at 2008:

* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Arkansas
* Notre Dame
* Oklahoma
* Pitt
* Wisconsin
* Tennessee
* Michigan State
* Stanford
* Xavier
* Texas
* UNC

You want me to keep going? Duke lost in 2008 to WVU, by 6. Wisconsin, the 3, lost to Davidson, the 10, by 17. Heck, UConn lost to San Diego State in the first round.

How about '07?

* Marquette
* Texas
* Pitt
* Memphis
* UNC
* Kansas

Every loss I've mentioned here was by between 12 and 35(!!) points. Every year, programs go down in flames in a bad game at the end of the year. UNC the last two! KU and FL played in the NIT this year!

If you want to assume that Duke needs to be in the FF every year, then live that way. But stop telling people that we aren't having an "honest" discussion. We are. You have an opinion, which seems largely based on an inability to recognize success as anything other than a big win in the NC or a close loss to a larger seed. Whereas, in the real world, Duke has been more consistent, and more consistently excellent, than any other team this decade or last. If that isn't good enough, no problem. But that doesn't make my experience of this team less "honest", nor my opinion less valid. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them disingenuous, or dishonest. Sheesh.

Amen, brother. Anybody who says that our track record over the past decade or decade and a half represents underachievement is being deluded by his (or her) sense of entitlement.

[Scorp4me]

Wow, the more I read this thread the sicker I am becoming of some of our own fans. Want to know who you sound like? Just like those powder blue tarheels 8 miles up the road. It's not Carolina or the players I detest so much most of the time, it's the we're entitled to the world attitudes the fans have. Always thinking they deserve to win. If they lose something is wrong.

Afraid people are going to think Duke doesn't win? You serious? I mean have you actually thought about what you're saying? Always in the top 10, almost always seeded high, winning their conference tournament. You're only basis is that "recent" tournament success...a one and done tournament...is not good. Wanna know how many schools have won a NC in the last 10 years. I'll bet you it isn't more than 10 schools and we're one of them.

Sugar coat your argument all you want but you're just whining cause you lost. 30 wins and all you can complain about is the last loss. But it's an embarassing one. But it's as a high seed. But, but, but.

It's because of 3's. It's because of recruiting. It's this, it's that. The fact is the college basketball world has changed and Duke and K has done a great job of adjusting with it. Tell me if we're not shooting 3's who do you want scoring inside? Tell me, what how would you like K to recruit better when top flight players are going to not just the Duke and the Carolina's but everywhere. Tell me how to fix this, tell me how to fix that. On second thought, don't.

When we fail to make the tournament then I'll consider your argument. Hey it happened in 95 so I don't make that offer lightly. But your aguments about Duke "not winning enough" just make us look like the pasty blue fans and that just makes me sick.

Forgive me if I got personal I have certainly tried not to. Obviously everyone on here is emotionally invested in Duke (or a troll), but I hate to come on here and feel like I've logged onto IC.

[Kedsy]

The point is, with all our recruiting misses, lack of a true point, etc., we are not in decline in terms of regular season/ACC tourney performance. We are in decline in terms of not meeting expectations in the NCAA tourney. We can either say, Coach K is getting us to outperform our talent level in the regular season, or we can wonder why he is not getting us to perform or outperform in the NCAA.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the best team always wins in the one-and-done NCAA tournament, or if they don't there's something wrong with the team (or the coach or the recruiting, etc.).

One could argue more persuasively that if we truly had such gaping holes it would show more clearly during the regular season. Teams with gaping holes win all the time in the NCAAs, usually against teams that had very little wrong with them except they got outplayed in their final game of the year.

Since no team in the nation has had the consistent success you seem to require during the time period in question, perhaps it is your expectations that need adjustment rather than K's approach.

[Diddy]

You know before the holes won the NC in 05 it had been 12 years since their last title, how old were Sean May and the gang then? Not to mention they were pretty wretched in the early part of the decade. Yet they were able to recover and they've had a successful run over the pat 4-5 years, like our run in the late 90's early part of this decade. UConn went through the exact same slump we did after winning the NC in 04 until they just now made the Elite 8. Keep in mind they didn't even make the field in 2007. Some of you are buying into the whole Duke decline a bit too much, the reality is its the natural ebb and flow of college basketball. Sure, Duke needs to adapt to the current environment and I think the program is trying to adjust, but its not in decline. Look at IU, look at UK, those are programs in decline, serious decline and yet they are still considered part of the college basketball royalty. Our program is nowhere near either of those, and while we aren't quite where UConn or UNC is right now, its not a far fetched pipe dream to get back there. In some ways we're similar to Michigan St. We're usually in the mix, and we're capable of more. The consistent super excellence some of you demand just doesn't exist in sports nowadays. It did, but it seems Nadal has put an end to him finally.

Are there any noticable ways in which Duke is different that UK, UNC, IU, or UCONN.

UConn has a, shall we say, unique take on ethics. It may be catching up, but we don't know.

UNC, IU, UK, and UCLA are large PUBLIC, schools in states where they are beloved the length and breadth of the land. Most of those are solid recruiting grounds.

UNC's dry run happened to coincide with a dry run here in NC in HS BBall talent. UNC gets most of the good ones in NC, South VA, and SC. Their return to the NC included a SC kid from just over the border who grew up in a region that bleeds Baby Blue. Rashad McCants was a NC native in WNC where UNC is a religion. Williams (the good one) was from GA. All regional recruits.

UK is getting, and will always get, the best local recruits.

IU is getting back on the horse in strong Indiana.

Howland is locking down California, Oregon, and Washington.

Duke can't ever count on that. Most of the kids near Durham actively hate Duke university. It is generational hatred. We recruit nationally. There is not a region of the country where we can look and say "Duke is the team to beat for any kid in this region."

Yes, we got a few locals. Both Plumlees, Kelly, and Shav. All perimeter bigs with reps for not mixing it up down low. And the Plums are Indiana transplants at a school with a lot of carpetbaggers.

See the difference?

[MulletMan]

And again... we're done. Can you guys tell that my tolerance is running low? Go watch a game or go for a run or something.