PDA

View Full Version : Duke's Demise, Or Not



RockyMtDevil
04-06-2009, 07:06 PM
I think we all find it interesting that ESPN specifically is fascinated with the apparent funk Duke BB is in. Here's more perspective on how the perception is vastly over-hyped.

Most Tourny Wins this Decade:

Kansas 26
North Carolina 25
Michigan State 25
Duke 23
Florida 20
UCLA 20
Connecticut 20
Texas 17
Arizona 17
Maryland 16
Illinois 15
Wisconsin 15
Kentucky 14
Memphis 14
Syracuse 13
Oklahoma 13
Pittsburgh 13
Louisville 12
Oklahoma State 11
Xavier, Ohio 11
Gonzaga 11

Most Wins This Decade:
Duke with what 289?

Sweet 16 appearances this decade:
Duke 8; Kansas 7; Michigan St. 6; UCLA 6; North Carolina 5; UConn 5; Syracuse 4; Florida 3; Maryland 3.

Most Final Four Appearances This Decade:
Michigan Stat (4)
UNC (4)
Kansas (3)
UCLA (3)
Florida (3)
Duke (2)
Maryland (2)
Uconn (2)

Duke is holding her own, especially with 7 conference titles to add to this. We should be so lucky to have a "bad decade" like this every decade.

RockyMtDevil

roywhite
04-06-2009, 07:12 PM
Why limit this false perception to ESPN?

There are frequent posts on this forum about our "decline" and "failure" to recruit well.

brevity
04-06-2009, 07:21 PM
Like your stats. Just one thing...


Xavier, Ohio 11

C'mon. There's only one Xavier at the Division I level. It's not Miami, where you need the (OH) or (FL) to distinguish one from the other.

gwwilburn
04-06-2009, 10:23 PM
ESPN is always searching for drama. Just look at how many hours of their viewers' lives they have wasted with talk of TO, Rodger Clemens, A-Rod, Kobe, Isaiah Thomas, Jay Cutler, etc. And though we should all take this with a grain of salt, my grandfather, who graduated from State well longer than half a decade ago, will say that since UNC has a journalism school and Duke and NCSU do not, media organizations like ESPN, the N and O, etc, will always be ready to dig up dirt on any ACC school that's not an ugly color of blue.

Edouble
04-06-2009, 10:33 PM
Duke is holding her own, especially with 7 conference titles to add to this. We should be so lucky to have a "bad decade" like this every decade.

RockyMtDevil

In the '90s we played in half of the National Championship games. In the '00s we've played in 1. I hope the next ten years are better than the last ten.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
04-06-2009, 10:44 PM
In the '90s we played in half of the National Championship games. In the '00s we've played in 1. I hope the next ten years are better than the last ten.

Seriously. UNC (and Florida) have as many titles as we have trips past the Sweet 16, even though they went through a nasty coaching change. Gussy it up however you like, 2001 was nice but it's been a steep downhill since then.

Cameron
04-06-2009, 10:51 PM
C'mon. There's only one Xavier at the Division I level. It's not Miami, where you need the (OH) or (FL) to distinguish one from the other.


Yeah, what's up with that?

Xavier has been a basketball power (not a top power, but a power nonetheless) for the past decade-and-a-half. The Musketeers have had national players of the year, all-Americans, regional final qualifiers (nearly knocking off our Final Four team in the Elite Eight in '04), countless NBA products (Brian Grant, Tyrone Hill, James Posey, Lionel Chalmers, Ramon Sato, David West, etc.), some of the best coaches in all of the college game (Pete Gillen, Skip Prosser, Thad Matta, Sean Miller, etc.), and on and on.

They have overtaken Cincy as the top basketball school in the Queen City, and, despite losing Sean Miller to Arizona today, the Musketeers will likely have another preseason top ten team coming back next fall.

They play great basketball at Xavier, and are a power. No needs to classify them as Xavier, Ohio.

ice-9
04-06-2009, 10:58 PM
Seems like we have this conversation over and over.

YES, relative to other programs, Duke is still an elite school.

YES, relative to its own past, Duke has not performed as well.

Let's recognize these two facts can mutually exist!

roywhite
04-06-2009, 11:12 PM
Seriously. UNC (and Florida) have as many titles as we have trips past the Sweet 16, even though they went through a nasty coaching change. Gussy it up however you like, 2001 was nice but it's been a steep downhill since then.

Sorry, I just don't agree with this way of thinking.

Is the NCAA Tournament the sole determinant of program success?

How about great records, consistent national rankings, great players, ACC titles, etc. etc.?

What can be said is that Duke has not performed as well in the NCAA Tournament in the last 5 years as we did from 1986-1994 or from 1998-2004.

But the program has been excellent by any other measure. I hate to see so many fail to recognize that or celebrate that.

_Gary
04-06-2009, 11:31 PM
Seriously. UNC (and Florida) have as many titles as we have trips past the Sweet 16, even though they went through a nasty coaching change. Gussy it up however you like, 2001 was nice but it's been a steep downhill since then.

Amen to that. We want to be team we were in the late 80's and the 90's. We don't want to be the one we've been this decade. And certainly not the one we've been over the last 7 years. No way should that be "good enough" for anyone associated with Duke basketball (whether players, coaches, or fans).

Gary

Coballs
04-06-2009, 11:32 PM
Sorry, I just don't agree with this way of thinking.

Is the NCAA Tournament the sole determinant of program success?

How about great records, consistent national rankings, great players, ACC titles, etc. etc.?

What can be said is that Duke has not performed as well in the NCAA Tournament in the last 5 years as we did from 1986-1994 or from 1998-2004.

But the program has been excellent by any other measure. I hate to see so many fail to recognize that or celebrate that.

The NCAA Tournament is not the sole determinant of program success, but it is the by far the most important indicator. Final Fours and National Championships are what sets elite programs apart from very good programs. They have been the standard of success for Duke in the K era. Obviously, no program can reach the FF year in and year out. Our run in the late 80s - early 90s was exceptional and rare. But, by Duke standards, the last 5 years should not be considered a successful period. Regular season victories and ACC Championships are extremely important, but I hope and expect that deep tournament runs will continue to be our ultimate goal.

Duvall
04-06-2009, 11:34 PM
I can't believe we're going to have to put up with this nonsense for the rest of our lives.

dukie8
04-06-2009, 11:49 PM
I think a more telling stat is NCAAT wins over the past 4 years, particularly when Duke's incoming class 4 years ago was supposed to be one of the best ever. I quickly come up with the following:

1 UNC: 14
1 UCLA: 14
3 Memphis: 13
4 Florida: 12
5 Kansas: 11
6 Villanova: 9
7 Mich St: 8
7 Texas: 8
9 Louisville: 7
9 Pittsburgh: 7
9 UConn: 7
9 Georgetown: 7
13 Ohio St: 6
13 Xavier: 6
15 Duke: 5
15 Tennessee: 5
15 Illinois: 5
15 LSU: 5

DevilCastDownfromDurham
04-06-2009, 11:58 PM
But the program has been excellent by any other measure. I hate to see so many fail to recognize that or celebrate that.

"Excellent" is a relative term. Jyuwono's point that, relative to most programs we're still very good is well-taken. But the fact is that we've been the second (or third) best team in our state for half a decade (i.e. the non-childhood memory of a 16 year old recruit).

FWIW:
Record (ACC)
2001: 35-4 (13-3)
2002: 31-4 (13-3)
2003: 26-7 (11-5)
2004: 31-6 (13-3)
Total: 123-21 (50-14)
Avg: 30.75-5.25 (12.5-3.5)

2005: 27-6 (11-5)
2006: 32-4 (14-2)
2007: 22-11 (8-8)
2008: 28-6 (13-3)
2009: 30-7 (11-5)
Total: 139-34 (57-23)
Avg: 27.8-6.8 (11.4-4.6)

So we've been 3 games worse, and one worse in the ACC on top of our failure in the NCAAs (where, for better or worse, elite programs are measured) in the second half of the decade. We're still a top 10 program, but it's silly to suggest that we're even close to where we were at the beginning of the decade.

Duvall
04-07-2009, 12:02 AM
"Excellent" is a relative term. Jyuwono's point that, relative to most programs we're still very good is well-taken. But the fact is that we've been the second (or third) best team in our state for half a decade (.

Third? Come on.

Scorp4me
04-07-2009, 12:03 AM
The NCAA Tournament is not the sole determinant of program success, but it is the by far the most important indicator. Final Fours and National Championships are what sets elite programs apart from very good programs. They have been the standard of success for Duke in the K era. Obviously, no program can reach the FF year in and year out. Our run in the late 80s - early 90s was exceptional and rare. But, by Duke standards, the last 5 years should not be considered a successful period. Regular season victories and ACC Championships are extremely important, but I hope and expect that deep tournament runs will continue to be our ultimate goal.


No! No, no, no, no, no! The NCAA Tournament is not the most important indicator of program success. It's a one and one format that is GREAT for the fans and the talking heads, but a poor choice to be an objective indicator of a program's success.

Do I want to win the in the NCAA or even the ACC Tournament, of course I do. I certainly want to win it all. But if you have a consistent record of wins those things will take care of themselves. We could lose every game in a year, get hot at the end and go on a 10-0 run to end the season winning the NCAA Tournament, but I wouldn't consider it very successful. I'd consider it frakkin lucky.

And for the record beating UNC doesn't make a season successful either. It just means you don't have to listen to their fans the next day. Isn't it sad that for me is the highlight of beating them...not having to listen to their mouths.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 12:06 AM
No! No, no, no, no, no! The NCAA Tournament is not the most important indicator of program success. It's a one and one format that is GREAT for the fans and the talking heads, but a poor choice to be an objective indicator of a program's success.

Do I want to win the in the NCAA or even the ACC Tournament, of course I do. I certainly want to win it all. But if you have a consistent record of wins those things will take care of themselves. We could lose every game in a year, get hot at the end and go on a 10-0 run to end the season winning the NCAA Tournament, but I wouldn't consider it very successful. I'd consider it frakkin lucky.

And for the record beating UNC doesn't make a season successful either. It just means you don't have to listen to their fans the next day. Isn't it sad that for me is the highlight of beating them...not having to listen to their mouths.

Villanova fans would disagree with you about their '85 season and NC St fans would disagree with you about their '83 season.

Also, nobody complains about the NFL playoffs not being a true test of the best teams because of its one-and-done nature. That phenomenon seems to be highly concentrated with college basketball fans trying to justify their teams early exits in the NCAAT.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
04-07-2009, 12:12 AM
Villanova fans would disagree with you about their '85 season and NC St fans would disagree with you about their '83 season.

Truth. Which season do you feel better about: 2006 or 1991?

Coballs
04-07-2009, 12:24 AM
No! No, no, no, no, no! The NCAA Tournament is not the most important indicator of program success. It's a one and one format that is GREAT for the fans and the talking heads, but a poor choice to be an objective indicator of a program's success.


It may not be the best indicator of a team's success in any one given year, but tournament results are the best marker of a major program's success over a period of several years.

roywhite
04-07-2009, 12:39 AM
"Excellent" is a relative term. Jyuwono's point that, relative to most programs we're still very good is well-taken. But the fact is that we've been the second (or third) best team in our state for half a decade (i.e. the non-childhood memory of a 16 year old recruit).

FWIW:
Record (ACC)
2001: 35-4 (13-3)
2002: 31-4 (13-3)
2003: 26-7 (11-5)
2004: 31-6 (13-3)
Total: 123-21 (50-14)
Avg: 30.75-5.25 (12.5-3.5)

2005: 27-6 (11-5)
2006: 32-4 (14-2)
2007: 22-11 (8-8)
2008: 28-6 (13-3)
2009: 30-7 (11-5)
Total: 139-34 (57-23)
Avg: 27.8-6.8 (11.4-4.6)

So we've been 3 games worse, and one worse in the ACC on top of our failure in the NCAAs (where, for better or worse, elite programs are measured) in the second half of the decade. We're still a top 10 program, but it's silly to suggest that we're even close to where we were at the beginning of the decade.

When you're a top 10 program, is the glass half empty? There are, what 300+ schools playing major college basketball?

Really, do we have some entitlement to being in the top 5 or the top 3 or in the Final Four regularly? Yeah, I get the fact that our neighbor played tonight and we didn't. But all this dwelling on a (relative) decline is foolish.

I've been a Duke fan for over 40 years. Some folks need a little perspective.

eddiehaskell
04-07-2009, 12:50 AM
One final four or championship and all this talk will be forgotten.

Roy Williams had an 8 year stint at Kansas where he made ONE Elite Eight. He went 5 straight years without making it past the sweet 16. Who's talking about that now?

NashvilleDevil
04-07-2009, 01:12 AM
I've been a Duke fan for over 40 years. Some folks need a little perspective.

I wasn't born at the time but anyone who followed Duke during the dark days of the 70s has a ton of perspective when analyzing Duke's current situation in college basketball.

I think Duke will be back in a big way the next couple of years. This so called "slump" is not nearly as bad as the '94-95 and '95-'96 seasons. We all know what happened with one outstanding recruiting class Coach K can finally focus on Duke and not the US team. I think recruiting will be tremendous even if Duke does not get Wall.

I have been coming to this site since it was juliovision because I love reading the breakdowns of the games and reading up on the players that have committed to Duke. The topics I hate reading are the ones complaining about Duke not getting to the Final Fours or Duke not being able to recruit kids anymore because of X. I know fans are going to vent but sometimes the venting takes the form of whining when discussing these subjects.

brooknon
04-07-2009, 01:19 AM
Sorry, I just don't agree with this way of thinking.

Is the NCAA Tournament the sole determinant of program success?

How about great records, consistent national rankings, great players, ACC titles, etc. etc.?

What can be said is that Duke has not performed as well in the NCAA Tournament in the last 5 years as we did from 1986-1994 or from 1998-2004.

But the program has been excellent by any other measure. I hate to see so many fail to recognize that or celebrate that.

It's funny bc back in the 90's and up to earlier this decade everyone loved to talk about how many final fours we had been to (7 final fours in 9 yrs or 3 national championships in x yrs) etc...and used that to define a standard of excellence. That was how we became to be defined as an elite program. And rightly so...that was the way we separated ourselves from other programs. Not any other reason. It was bc of unparalleled tournament success.

But now that we have had a streak of 5 pretty average to below avg yrs, "the tournament is not the sole determinant of a program's success?" Give me a break. Yes it is. If Memphis won the Conf-USA title and tourney every yr and never got to the final 4 or won a championship they wouldnt be considered the pre-eminent program in the country. You only get that by going to final four's and winning national championships. Thats what UCLA did and thats we did consistently over a long period of time which made us the pre-eminent program in college bball and the fact is we are not anymore. It's a painful fact. You can't use the tourney measuring stick only when it's in your favor...

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 01:21 AM
Sorry, I just don't agree with this way of thinking.

Is the NCAA Tournament the sole determinant of program success?

How about great records, consistent national rankings, great players, ACC titles, etc. etc.?

What can be said is that Duke has not performed as well in the NCAA Tournament in the last 5 years as we did from 1986-1994 or from 1998-2004.

But the program has been excellent by any other measure. I hate to see so many fail to recognize that or celebrate that.

Meanwhile, I fail to understand how those whose sense of accomplishment seems to make no distinction between 86-94, 98-04 and now can ever feel any sense of elation at truly winning big. Apparently, your sense of joy, accomplishment and elation does not vary, regardless of how the program performs (at least as long as it performs well relative to lower-level programs) so how do you appreciate the real GOLDEN eras?

Just askin'

Duvall
04-07-2009, 01:30 AM
a streak of 5 pretty average to below avg yrs

God help the poor unfortunate bastard that has to follow Michael William Krzyzewski.

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 02:49 AM
God help the poor unfortunate bastard that has to follow Michael William Krzyzewski.

While I don't disagree with this sentiment, in fairness, the statement about the last five years was WRT the tournament.

2009: sweet 16
2008: 2nd round
2007: first round
2006: sweet 16
2005: sweet 16

I think it's fair to consider that average to below average at Duke. And before anyone jumps up and down about that, do you honestly want to start thinking of a first-weekend loss in the tournament as an average (i.e. typical) way for the season to end. I know expectations can get out of hand but, c'mon, we're allowed to want something, aren't we?

flyingdutchdevil
04-07-2009, 07:43 AM
One final four or championship and all this talk will be forgotten.

Roy Williams had an 8 year stint at Kansas where he made ONE Elite Eight. He went 5 straight years without making it past the sweet 16. Who's talking about that now?

This is a really important point that eddiehaskell brought up. ESPN doesn't care about the regular season (and with the exception of Duke fans, who does?). What they care about is the post season, and that doesn't include the ACC Tourney.

If you compare pre-2005 and post-2005, there is a significant difference.

2 Final Fours vs. 0, 5 Sweet Sixteens vs. 3 - these stats make a difference. Remember, earlier in the decade, Duke was THE team. There was no one getting as much national attention or praise from the media. It's like when Team USA won the bronze. The bronze is really good, but it's not the gold. Of course the media is going to criticize.

dukestheheat
04-07-2009, 07:57 AM
No! No, no, no, no, no! The NCAA Tournament is not the most important indicator of program success. It's a one and one format that is GREAT for the fans and the talking heads, but a poor choice to be an objective indicator of a program's success.

Do I want to win the in the NCAA or even the ACC Tournament, of course I do. I certainly want to win it all. But if you have a consistent record of wins those things will take care of themselves. We could lose every game in a year, get hot at the end and go on a 10-0 run to end the season winning the NCAA Tournament, but I wouldn't consider it very successful. I'd consider it frakkin lucky.

And for the record beating UNC doesn't make a season successful either. It just means you don't have to listen to their fans the next day. Isn't it sad that for me is the highlight of beating them...not having to listen to their mouths.

...with your assertion that 'the NCAA Tournament (performance) is not the most important indicator of program success.'

You and I have jobs and with those, business plans in some form or another. We are graded on how we ultimately come out, year after year. The ultimate result for a college basketball team is performance in the NCAA tournament. The bottom line is the ultimate result: NCAA tourney prowess.

So, while regular season wins and ACC titles are very important, the relative measuring stick (for Duke relative to all other teams out there) is the Big One.

dth.

RepoMan
04-07-2009, 09:06 AM
Look. I'm as bummed as the next guy that we haven't gone further in the tournament the last few years. And, the fact that Carolina has had such success during that time is compounds the agony. Relentless grief from insufferable Tar Heel fans. Still . . .

I think it is a mistake to make any grand pronouncements about the last 4 years or so. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a razor thin line between success (which we have had) and exceptional success (which we want). Exacerbating the issue is the fact that the primary factor determining on which side of that line you lie is your success in recruiting talented players based on evaluations made when they are 16 years old. Talk about an inexact science! Throw on top the NBA angle, and its just very hard to manage.

Clearly, a couple of our semi-recent recruiting successes (which all teams envied we had them) turned out to be not as great as predicted. Thems the breaks.

You really need to take a longer view when you consider these sorts of things.

Wander
04-07-2009, 09:35 AM
The NCAA tournament is not as random or lucky as most people make it out to be. I'd say it's been six years in a row now that the best team in the country won the national championship.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 09:44 AM
Clearly, a couple of our semi-recent recruiting successes (which all teams envied we had them) turned out to be not as great as predicted. Thems the breaks.

I'm sorry but there is no way that you know that "all teams" evaluated the recruiting mis-evaluations the same way. Moreover, when you are Duke and it is very clear after the 2006 season that PG is going to be a significant issue going forward unless you recruit a new one, you go out and recruit one. I expect a little more from Duke than a shrug of the shoulders with a "Thems the breaks" attitude. If Roy had that attitude after his 2005 mass exodus, then he never would have assembled the pieces to his next NC.

The1Bluedevil
04-07-2009, 09:47 AM
The NCAA tournament is not as random or lucky as most people make it out to be. I'd say it's been six years in a row now that the best team in the country won the national championship.


Florida was the best team in 2006?

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 09:53 AM
The NCAA tournament is not as random or lucky as most people make it out to be. I'd say it's been six years in a row now that the best team in the country won the national championship.

The only time anyone ever talks about tournament success coming because of luck is when they haven't been very successful.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 10:05 AM
Florida was the best team in 2006?

Florida won its 6 games by 16, 22, 4, 13, 15 and 16 points. Not quite the domination we saw by UNC this year but not that far off. Duke and UConn may have been seeded higher but I have a hard time believing that they were "better" when UConn struggled mightily with 16 seed Albany, beat Kentucky by 4, Washington by 6 and then lost to GMU (the same GMU team that Florida beat by 15). I don't think a team better than Florida loses by 8 to LSU either. Which team was better than Florida that year? It's not like they got lucky in a game. They were crushing teams.

Scorp4me
04-07-2009, 10:12 AM
...with your assertion that 'the NCAA Tournament (performance) is not the most important indicator of program success.'

You and I have jobs and with those, business plans in some form or another. We are graded on how we ultimately come out, year after year. The ultimate result for a college basketball team is performance in the NCAA tournament. The bottom line is the ultimate result: NCAA tourney prowess.

So, while regular season wins and ACC titles are very important, the relative measuring stick (for Duke relative to all other teams out there) is the Big One.

dth.

So you're going to tell me that in your job (you chose the analogy), you do a great job through out the year. In fact, you work your but off. You have the highest efficiency rating througout the year. Joe Blow over there is your typical employee, does what he has to do to get by. He's mostly ontime, but never stays late and often has to be corrected for little mistakes. Big account comes up and he lands him and you don't. Do you think your boss will be excited? Heck yes he will, he's got that brand new account. But who do you think he'll turn to next year?

See I think continued success. Wins. Being ranked in the top 10 or even 25 for the 6 months of the regular season. They're more important to the overall perception of a program than the final 3 weeks. It only makes sense, you hear about it 10 times as long.

Now, I have no problem with a tournament determining who the champion is. Much like in the ACC where you have an unbalanced schedule, there is simply no other way to determine who the yearly champion is. If it weren't, then that stupid Helmes Championship would actually mean something. And certainly winning it all trumps anything else. Who actually remembers the runner-up or the other final four members after a few years?

But by your definition there are only what...1, 2...4 teams that are successful each year. And I just don't buy that.

This has nothing to do with Carolina or trying to take anything away from them. Heck they have the best of both worlds this year. But to say that Duke is falling simply because they don't play in one of the last 3 games of the season is ridiulous. As roywhite said we are one of the top 10 programs in the country. To believe we are entitled to be the best or one of the top 3 (or by your definition to be one of the remaining 4 teams) every year would make us...well, Tarheel fans!

The1Bluedevil
04-07-2009, 10:14 AM
If I remember right Donovan was quoted as saying minutes after the title game that year " I don't know if we are the best team, but we are national champs". Sure after looking back on the season it is easy to say they were the best team, but they were swept by Tennessee and had a 3 game losing streak mid way through conference play. I don't recall anyone that gets paid to talk college basketball ever saying they were a title contender until they destroyed Villanova.

Beat a 14 seed
11 seed
7 seed
10 seed in four of their 6 victories.

Ask John Thompson if he thinks Corey Brewer's shot from the floor to put them up 2 points late in the game was luck.

rotogod00
04-07-2009, 10:14 AM
"See I think continued success. Wins. Being ranked in the top 10 or even 25 for the 6 months of the regular season. They're more important to the overall perception of a program than the final 3 weeks. It only makes sense, you hear about it 10 times as long."

but in 2 or 3 years, who do you remember?

RPS
04-07-2009, 10:18 AM
Those of us who remember Terry Chili (and I do, fondly) have a helpful bit of perspective here. The doomsayers are overdoing it, I think, even if we haven't had the success we've wanted the past few years. We've made some mistakes and had a few tough breaks. We've been very good but not great and, more importantly to fans, not as good as we've been. But very good is still very good and I'm confident we'll be back on top sooner rather than later on account of the faith I have in K. Moreover, it seems to me that we're tiptoeing around what really sticks in our collective craw --Carolina has been better than we have since Ol' Roy arrived. I'm looking forward to a great '09-'10 season and am hoping we put this doom-n-gloom behind us...pronto.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 10:19 AM
So you're going to tell me that in your job (you chose the analogy), you do a great job through out the year. In fact, you work your but off. You have the highest efficiency rating througout the year. Joe Blow over there is your typical employee, does what he has to do to get by. He's mostly ontime, but never stays late and often has to be corrected for little mistakes. Big account comes up and he lands him and you don't. Do you think your boss will be excited? Heck yes he will, he's got that brand new account. But who do you think he'll turn to next year?

See I think continued success. Wins. Being ranked in the top 10 or even 25 for the 6 months of the regular season. They're more important to the overall perception of a program than the final 3 weeks. It only makes sense, you hear about it 10 times as long.

Now, I have no problem with a tournament determining who the champion is. Much like in the ACC where you have an unbalanced schedule, there is simply no other way to determine who the yearly champion is. If it weren't, then that stupid Helmes Championship would actually mean something. And certainly winning it all trumps anything else. Who actually remembers the runner-up or the other final four members after a few years?

But by your definition there are only what...1, 2...4 teams that are successful each year. And I just don't buy that.

This has nothing to do with Carolina or trying to take anything away from them. Heck they have the best of both worlds this year. But to say that Duke is falling simply because they don't play in one of the last 3 games of the season is ridiulous. As roywhite said we are one of the top 10 programs in the country. To believe we are entitled to be the best or one of the top 3 (or by your definition to be one of the remaining 4 teams) every year would make us...well, Tarheel fans!

I don't agree with your analogy. A more apt one would be that your company brings in a hotshot Harvard MBA. You chose the line of work, but all year this guy does a solid job but at the end of the year he completely drops the ball on whatever it is you do (maybe loses a big account, screws up the deal of the year, etc). Yes, this guy was good all year but, when it mattered most, he failed.

Another analogy would be someone in a class who nails all the pop quizzes and the mid-term and had great participation every class during the semester and then bombs the final to get a B in the class. I'd rather be the person who does above average during the semester, nails the final and then walks away with the A or A-.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 10:32 AM
If I remember right Donovan was quoted as saying minutes after the title game that year " I don't know if we are the best team, but we are national champs". Sure after looking back on the season it is easy to say they were the best team, but they were swept by Tennessee and had a 3 game losing streak mid way through conference play. I don't recall anyone that gets paid to talk college basketball ever saying they were a title contender until they destroyed Villanova.

Beat a 14 seed
11 seed
7 seed
10 seed in four of their 6 victories.

Was Syracuse the best team in 03??

You didn't answer the question. Who was better? You only can beat the teams that advance in your bracket and Florida did that very impressively. Mich St, UNC and UConn all failed to beat that 11 seed that Florida managed to beat handily.

Tennessee was a 2 seed that year so I don't think that losing twice to them was any indication of being a bad team. That 3-game losing streak you cited was against Arkansas (on the road and in OT), Tennessee (by 4) and Alabama (on the road by 5). All 3 of those teams were NCAAT teams that year. I'm not sure how that little blip against quality in conference teams disqualifies them as the best team in the country.

The1Bluedevil
04-07-2009, 10:36 AM
Going into the tournament Duke and UCONN were both better. They had both won their leagues and Duke won their conference tournament.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 10:42 AM
Going into the tournament Duke and UCONN were both better. They had both won their leagues and Duke won their conference tournament.

Florida won the SECT. The question wasn't who was the best team 3 weeks before the end of the season. The question was who was the best team in 2006? Duke was by far the best team in the country in December of 2005 after its dismantling of #2 Texas. Duke was not one of the 2 best teams at the end of the season.

Scorp4me
04-07-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't agree with your analogy. A more apt one would be that your company brings in a hotshot Harvard MBA. You chose the line of work, but all year this guy does a solid job but at the end of the year he completely drops the ball on whatever it is you do (maybe loses a big account, screws up the deal of the year, etc). Yes, this guy was good all year but, when it mattered most, he failed.

Another analogy would be someone in a class who nails all the pop quizzes and the mid-term and had great participation every class during the semester and then bombs the final to get a B in the class. I'd rather be the person who does above average during the semester, nails the final and then walks away with the A or A-.

Alright we'll use your analogy. My dad had a German class once. Everyone in the course was failing. He took his finals and got a 16. All his friends failed the class and he passed with a D-. The professor decided anyone making over a 15 passed. But he still can't speak a lick of German. If he'd done well througout the year he might have actually learned something.

I think winning it all and doing well in the tournament is important. I'm not trying to take away from that or be an apologist. I just don't see how in a sport where there are over 300 teams and only one team wins it all you can be considered a failure for not being one of those every year.

But ok, let's assume I'm wrong. So are you only successful if you win it all? Is it trips to the final four? If so how many times do you have to make it there? And define recently? It just leaves out way too many good teams when you start doing that. I think we're just so focused on Duke that we lose our perspective of how good we actually are. Especially when our biggest rival just won the whole thing...for only the fifth time by the way. Most schools would look at where we are and love to trade. Carolina wouldn't today, but what about Kentucky? Florida? Or what about Michigan? State?

But ok, let's assume I'm wrong. So are you only successful if you win it all? If so what do you consider recently? Is it trips to the final four, if so how many times do you have to make it there? Again define recently? It just leaves out way too many good teams when you do that.

Just like winning it all doesn't make you elite I don't think that losing it makes you fail. You try to keep yourself in that top 10, top 25, whatev
Just like winning it all doesn't make you elite I don't think that losing it makes you fail. You try to keep yourself in that top 10, top 25, whatever you want to call it and each year someone else takes the top spot.

Again, some of the arguments just sound like Carolina fans. It'd be one thing if we were arguing this in 95, but we aren't. Perspetive. I guess we all have a different one.

The1Bluedevil
04-07-2009, 10:47 AM
Sorry when I think of best team I think of an entire season. If Mich State would have won last night would they have been the best team?

Reddevil
04-07-2009, 10:48 AM
I wasn't born at the time but anyone who followed Duke during the dark days of the 70s has a ton of perspective when analyzing Duke's current situation in college basketball.

I think Duke will be back in a big way the next couple of years. This so called "slump" is not nearly as bad as the '94-95 and '95-'96 seasons. We all know what happened with one outstanding recruiting class Coach K can finally focus on Duke and not the US team. I think recruiting will be tremendous even if Duke does not get Wall.

I have been coming to this site since it was juliovision because I love reading the breakdowns of the games and reading up on the players that have committed to Duke. The topics I hate reading are the ones complaining about Duke not getting to the Final Fours or Duke not being able to recruit kids anymore because of X. I know fans are going to vent but sometimes the venting takes the form of whining when discussing these subjects.


Look. I'm as bummed as the next guy that we haven't gone further in the tournament the last few years. And, the fact that Carolina has had such success during that time is compounds the agony. Relentless grief from insufferable Tar Heel fans. Still . . .

I think it is a mistake to make any grand pronouncements about the last 4 years or so. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a razor thin line between success (which we have had) and exceptional success (which we want). Exacerbating the issue is the fact that the primary factor determining on which side of that line you lie is your success in recruiting talented players based on evaluations made when they are 16 years old. Talk about an inexact science! Throw on top the NBA angle, and its just very hard to manage.

Clearly, a couple of our semi-recent recruiting successes (which all teams envied we had them) turned out to be not as great as predicted. Thems the breaks.

You really need to take a longer view when you consider these sorts of things.

So Carolina won, and all is gloomy for a day. Years from now, when we look back at this era - including the 2002-2009, and whatever happens until K retires, we will all embrace the memories. We are in the midst of a VERY special time for the program. This won't last forever. Don't forget to appreciate it. The glass is so much more than half-full. The kids are great. The program is run the right way. The excitement every year is amazing. If you're feeling down about a 30 win season, an ACC Championship, and a sweet 16 showing, ask yourself this question, "Does it only feel bad because unc won?" If Mich. St. had won, would the season seem better? Let's smell the royal blue roses, and admire what we are witnessing. Don't wait until 20 years from now to look back with adoration. Perspective; a longer view of the era; let it soak in. Oh, and 9F!

rotogod00
04-07-2009, 10:51 AM
"But ok, let's assume I'm wrong. So are you only successful if you win it all? Is it trips to the final four? If so how many times do you have to make it there? And define recently?"

personally, i'd say success at duke is 1 Final Four every 4 seasons and consistently playing on the 2nd weekend of the tournament (4 out of 5 years perhaps)

dukie8
04-07-2009, 10:57 AM
Alright we'll use your analogy. My dad had a German class once. Everyone in the course was failing. He took his finals and got a 16. All his friends failed the class and he passed with a D-. The professor decided anyone making over a 15 passed. But he still can't speak a lick of German. If he'd done well througout the year he might have actually learned something.

Your analogy again doesn't apply. If everyone, including your father, were failing all season, then how does that apply to Duke's typical season of winning a lot of regular season games and losing early in the NCAAT? Moreover, your father got a D-. Your analogy would apply to a team that loses most of its games during the regular season and then loses its first game of its conference tournament -- not Duke's situation.

Scorp4me
04-07-2009, 11:12 AM
Your analogy again doesn't apply. If everyone, including your father, was failing all season, then how does that apply to Duke's typical season of winning a lot of regular season games and losing early in the NCAAT? Moreover, your father got a D-. Your analogy would apply to a team that loses most of its games during the regular season and then loses its first game of its conference tournament -- not Duke's situation.

You're going to find something wrong with every analogy I fear. But in your class everyone does well, gets good grades, passes their mid terms, attends class, but ultimately your final grade is determined by a 1 question test in which 1 person passes and all others fail. Now maybe that is your perception of the college basketball world and perhaps there are others that share your perception. But even if I'm in the minority that wouldn't make it right. And that wouldn't stop me from going to the Dean and trying to argue the futility of that approach (or coming on a message board and doing the same =)

rotogod I think your post is great. Defining success in a way everyone could agree with would be great...although impossible on this board apparently, lol. Is that based on past Duke success? Obviously different schools would have different definitions of success. I think it'd be fun to apply our definition of success to a school like Michigan St. or vice versa. I think the results would be enligtening as to how haughty some of our beliefs are. And while I think the Duke's/Carolina's/Kentucky's of the world would have similar definitions I'd have to argue that we wouldn't be on the bottom by any means...or on top, at least not today. Ughh!

I fear too many are basing their current version of success on what Duke has accomplished in the past. Not wrong, but dangerous. Duke won back to back titles and did I see someone say 7 final fours in 9 years. Geez! That should never have happened. That's like UCLA's string of championships. And that was what 10...15...20 years ago. Back before Duke began losing players early and before parity established itself in college basketball. I think it's natural to compare teams to previous teams, just important to keep in mind that what happened then shouldn't happen now. Heck based on what Duke HAS accomplished I don't think Carolina would even be considered successful at the moment. They'd still have a ways to go.

Are we successful, I think so. As succesful as Carolina, no and it sucks. But right now who is? Would Kentucky trade with us right now, heck yes. Again perspective, zoom out! I'm not claiming to be completely right. I don't claim one thing as complete success. I just want people to quit claiming one thing as complete failure. As someone else said, you forget to enjoy this great time when you do.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 11:39 AM
This is a really important point that eddiehaskell brought up. ESPN doesn't care about the regular season (and with the exception of Duke fans, who does?). What they care about is the post season, and that doesn't include the ACC Tourney.

If you compare pre-2005 and post-2005, there is a significant difference.

2 Final Fours vs. 0, 5 Sweet Sixteens vs. 3 - these stats make a difference. Remember, earlier in the decade, Duke was THE team. There was no one getting as much national attention or praise from the media. It's like when Team USA won the bronze. The bronze is really good, but it's not the gold. Of course the media is going to criticize.

So ESPN is giving out national championships now?

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 11:43 AM
[QUOTE=Scorp4me;284156]I fear too many are basing their current version of success on what Duke has accomplished in the past. Not wrong, but dangerous. Duke won back to back titles and did I see someone say 7 final fours in 9 years. Geez! That should never have happened. That's like UCLA's string of championships. And that was what 10...15...20 years ago. Back before Duke began losing players early and before parity established itself in college basketball. I think it's natural to compare teams to previous teams, just important to keep in mind that what happened then shouldn't happen now. Heck based on what Duke HAS accomplished I don't think Carolina would even be considered successful at the moment. They'd still have a ways to go.

This is a good breakdown actually. There are far too many folks that don't know the names of the coaches before Coach K and the fact that K almost got run out of town. There is a sense of entitlement in this thread that is a bit unnerving.

What will you guys do if we NEVER win another national championship? Will you pick another team? Is that all that defines YOUR fanhood - championships?

You have to learn to enjoy a program in it's entirety.

This has inspired me. I think I'm about to start something new for the boards...

Devil in the Blue Dress
04-07-2009, 12:00 PM
This is a good breakdown actually. There are far too many folks that don't know the names of the coaches before Coach K and the fact that K almost got run out of town. There is a sense of entitlement in this thread that is a bit unnerving.

What will you guys do if we NEVER win another national championship? Will you pick another team? Is that all that defines YOUR fanhood - championships?

This has inspired me. I think I'm about to start something new for the boards...

SupaDave, you and RoyWhite seem to be able to see beyond today and Carolina's national championship. The very idea that the only acceptable index of success is a national championship is such a narrow, self defeating view. Defining ourselves or Duke in terms of what Carolina does or doesn't do is limiting and disappointing.

I've loved this year's team throughout the season and celebrate their achievements. The recent Chronicle article about student athletes at Duke makes excellent points about what's really important about these guys and their time at Duke.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 12:00 PM
[QUOTE=Scorp4me;284156]I fear too many are basing their current version of success on what Duke has accomplished in the past. Not wrong, but dangerous. Duke won back to back titles and did I see someone say 7 final fours in 9 years. Geez! That should never have happened. That's like UCLA's string of championships. And that was what 10...15...20 years ago. Back before Duke began losing players early and before parity established itself in college basketball. I think it's natural to compare teams to previous teams, just important to keep in mind that what happened then shouldn't happen now. Heck based on what Duke HAS accomplished I don't think Carolina would even be considered successful at the moment. They'd still have a ways to go.[QUOTE]

This is a good breakdown actually. There are far too many folks that don't know the names of the coaches before Coach K and the fact that K almost got run out of town. There is a sense of entitlement in this thread that is a bit unnerving.

What will you guys do if we NEVER win another national championship? Will you pick another team? Is that all that defines YOUR fanhood - championships?

This has inspired me. I think I'm about to start something new for the boards...

There's no sense of entitlement on here -- just a recognition that Duke is a far cry from the program it once was. Nobody expects Duke to win a NC every year or even go to the FF every year but it's been 5 straight years of teams getting upset in the NCAAT and, probably even worse, playing its best basketball in December. I don't think that it is that unreasonable to expect more than 5 NCAAT wins over the past 4 years when you have a HOF coach, 15 McD AAs over that time period and a very large basketball budget.

When Duke was upset by Cal in '93, nobody felt that Duke was slipping because it had not -- it went to the finals the next year. Upsets happen even to the very best programs. However, when it is 5 years in a row, I find it shocking that it even is up for discussion.

roywhite
04-07-2009, 12:10 PM
[comments from Dukie8]
There's no sense of entitlement on here -- just a recognition that Duke is a far cry from the program it once was. Nobody expects Duke to win a NC every year or even go to the FF every year but it's been 5 straight years of teams getting upset in the NCAAT and, probably even worse, playing its best basketball in December. I don't think that it is that unreasonable to expect more than 5 NCAAT wins over the past 4 years when you have a HOF coach, 15 McD AAs over that time period and a very large basketball budget.

When Duke was upset by Cal in '93, nobody felt that Duke was slipping because it had not -- it went to the finals the next year. Upsets happen even to the very best programs. However, when it is 5 years in a row, I find it shocking that it even is up for discussion.

Well, it seems like a sense of entitlement to me, and a few others, judging by the responses. So we disagree on that point.

Beyond that, I don't see the point of so loudly and repeatedly making this claim. To bring it to our coach's attention? To diminish the efforts of our current players? To darken the outlook of those hopeless kool-aid drinkers (like myself) who actually appreciate 30 wins and an ACC title?

Ah, well...I've said my piece and will refrain from further comment in this thread. Go, Duke!

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 12:11 PM
[QUOTE=SupaDave;284173][QUOTE=Scorp4me;284156]I fear too many are basing their current version of success on what Duke has accomplished in the past. Not wrong, but dangerous. Duke won back to back titles and did I see someone say 7 final fours in 9 years. Geez! That should never have happened. That's like UCLA's string of championships. And that was what 10...15...20 years ago. Back before Duke began losing players early and before parity established itself in college basketball. I think it's natural to compare teams to previous teams, just important to keep in mind that what happened then shouldn't happen now. Heck based on what Duke HAS accomplished I don't think Carolina would even be considered successful at the moment. They'd still have a ways to go.

There's no sense of entitlement on here -- just a recognition that Duke is a far cry from the program it once was. Nobody expects Duke to win a NC every year or even go to the FF every year but it's been 5 straight years of teams getting upset in the NCAAT and, probably even worse, playing its best basketball in December. I don't think that it is that unreasonable to expect more than 5 NCAAT wins over the past 4 years when you have a HOF coach, 15 McD AAs over that time period and a very large basketball budget.

When Duke was upset by Cal in '93, nobody felt that Duke was slipping because it had not -- it went to the finals the next year. Upsets happen even to the very best programs. However, when it is 5 years in a row, I find it shocking that it even is up for discussion.

Depends on when you were living in this scenario. In 1993 we expected to win big quite frequently.

You're judging this basketball program based on 5 years? Are you serious? Based on your reasoning, Kansas should have scrapped their basketball program a long time ago.

Zoom out please! (I liked that)

dukie8
04-07-2009, 12:24 PM
[QUOTE=dukie8;284182][QUOTE=SupaDave;284173]

Depends on when you were living in this scenario. In 1993 we expected to win big quite frequently.

You're judging this basketball program based on 5 years? Are you serious? Based on your reasoning, Kansas should have scrapped their basketball program a long time ago.

Zoom out please! (I liked that)

How does recognizing that Duke has slipped dramatically in the past 5 years become a blanket negative statement on the history of Duke basketball? Are you serious? Based on your reasoning, everything at St John's, which is #7 all time in wins, currently is hunky-dory and no need to be critical of what has gone on there over the past 5 years.

Saratoga2
04-07-2009, 12:30 PM
Duke has a HOF coach who won with the Olympic team and who was praised by the all-star pros following that win. Duke has a basketball tradition second to none, good facilities and national exposure. Those would all seem to be reasons that would help us with recruiting.

Duke also has high academic standards and hasn't been recruiting in ways that perhaps Connecticut and Indiana had been accused of. Perhaps those interfere with our ability to attract some of the biggest time recruits, and we have missed on a number of those in the past few years. I am proud that the school has not sunk into the level of recruiting shenanagins that those schools appear to be guilty of.

Perhaps coach K has evolved his attitude regarding recruiting and is willing to go after really big time players who may only stay a year or two. No evidence of that to date, except with the Wall recruitment and perhaps Knight.

Love to see the team be more dominant again and feared in the tournament.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
04-07-2009, 12:32 PM
You're judging this basketball program based on 5 years? Are you serious?

How would you prefer to judge the current state of the program, if not by recent results? Obviously the Duke program is large enough that no 5-10 year period will define it. Bu if you want to have a sense of where we are right now and where we are trending, how we've done in the last several seasons seems as good a benchmark as any.

As a comparison, when we had our midseason swoon this year the season wasn't ruined, but it was clear that something wasn't working as well as it could. K recognized this and made a change (moving Jon to PG, adding Email, etc). If he'd just sat back and said "oh well, we've still got a nice overall record" no change would have been made and we probably wouldn't have gotten better. I hope that K is doing the same thing in a macro sense today. We've had a great 25 years, but the last 5 have been below the standards we've set for ourselves.

Obviously nothing we say or do will have any effect on the program itself since we're not players and coaches. In that light, I guess I can understand why some folks would be happier to just say "Duke is great, Trust in K" and leave it at that. I get that, but I think there's also a place for honest and critical (in the positive, academic sense of the term) discussion of the program. What have we done well? What could we do better? What are other programs doing that we might emulate or react to? Of course that won't change anything, but that's what makes discussion possible and valuable. Without that we'd just be an echo chamber/pep rally.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 12:39 PM
[QUOTE=SupaDave;284196][QUOTE=dukie8;284182]

How does recognizing that Duke has slipped dramatically in the past 5 years become a blanket negative statement on the history of Duke basketball? Are you serious? Based on your reasoning, everything at St John's, which is #7 all time in wins, currently is hunky-dory and no need to be critical of what has gone on there over the past 5 years.

Honestly now, you're comparing US to St. Johns? Wow.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 12:49 PM
How would you prefer to judge the current state of the program, if not by recent results? Obviously the Duke program is large enough that no 5-10 year period will define it. Bu if you want to have a sense of where we are right now and where we are trending, how we've done in the last several seasons seems as good a benchmark as any.

As a comparison, when we had our midseason swoon this year the season wasn't ruined, but it was clear that something wasn't working as well as it could. K recognized this and made a change (moving Jon to PG, adding Email, etc). If he'd just sat back and said "oh well, we've still got a nice overall record" no change would have been made and we probably wouldn't have gotten better. I hope that K is doing the same thing in a macro sense today. We've had a great 25 years, but the last 5 have been below the standards we've set for ourselves.

Obviously nothing we say or do will have any effect on the program itself since we're not players and coaches. In that light, I guess I can understand why some folks would be happier to just say "Duke is great, Trust in K" and leave it at that. I get that, but I think there's also a place for honest and critical (in the positive, academic sense of the term) discussion of the program. What have we done well? What could we do better? What are other programs doing that we might emulate or react to? Of course that won't change anything, but that's what makes discussion possible and valuable. Without that we'd just be an echo chamber/pep rally.

Yes - please look at those 5 years and tell me what we've got. A few #1 rankings, some ACC championships, some Maui Championships, never lost in the Big Ten Challenge, and have made the tourney every year.

Let's see here...

Going back to 2003-2004 we have been in the final four once and the sweet sixteen three times. We have won FIVE ACC championships.

A larger look going back to 1999 shows that even with ONE National Championship we've been LARGELY a sweet sixteen team.

Looks to me that we are right about where we should be - still performing at a high level.

See this is where perspective and FACTS come in instead of some mysterious sharp decline.

WHAT standard based on the FACTS are we not meeting?

dukie8
04-07-2009, 12:57 PM
[QUOTE=dukie8;284201][QUOTE=SupaDave;284196]

Honestly now, you're comparing US to St. Johns? Wow.

Where did I compare St John's to Duke? Do tell.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 01:01 PM
[QUOTE=SupaDave;284211][QUOTE=dukie8;284201]

Where did I compare St John's to Duke? Do tell.

You mention a program that has had LOSING records to somehow quantify the last few seasons at Duke when there's no comparison. Kansas was used to show that the lamenting of NCAA tourney appearances and wins is pointless b/c the next year could be YOUR year. Kansas' situation and success is much more similar to ours.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 01:07 PM
Yes - please look at those 5 years and tell me what we've got. A few #1 rankings, some ACC championships, some Maui Championships, never lost in the Big Ten Challenge, and have made the tourney every year.

Let's see here...

Going back to 2003-2004 we have been in the final four once and the sweet sixteen three times. We have won FIVE ACC championships.

A larger look going back to 1999 shows that even with ONE National Championship we've been LARGELY a sweet sixteen team.

Looks to me that we are right about where we should be - still performing at a high level.

See this is where perspective and FACTS come in instead of some mysterious sharp decline.

WHAT standard based on the FACTS are we not meeting?

What's with the random all-caps? No need to be yelling.

What part of a total of 5 NCAAT wins in the past 4 years despite having 15 McD AAs and a HOF coach doesn't qualify as a fact? You are aware that Duke won 5 or more NCAAT games in each of 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999 and 2001? I don't think that there is anything "mysterious" about the decline over the past 5 years. It's about as black and white as you can get when you objectively compare them to '86-'04.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
04-07-2009, 01:07 PM
Yes - please look at those 5 years and tell me what we've got. A few #1 rankings, some ACC championships, some Maui Championships, never lost in the Big Ten Challenge, and have made the tourney every year.

Let's see here...

Going back to 2003-2004 we have been in the final four once and the sweet sixteen three times. We have won FIVE ACC championships.

A larger look going back to 1999 shows that even with ONE National Championship we've been LARGELY a sweet sixteen team.

Looks to me that we are right about where we should be - still performing at a high level.

See this is where perspective and FACTS come in instead of some mysterious sharp decline.

WHAT standard based on the FACTS are we not meeting?

And that's a great counterargument based on recent results. I'm happy to engage that, and I will in a second, but I'm still confused by why you summarily dismissed evaluating the program based on recent results just a few posts ago.

Now, I agree with your post I'm quoting that we have historically been a program that is in the Sweet 16 on an average year. The difference I've noticed is that until 2005 our "blips" tended to be positive steps where we made a deep run to the Final Four every 3-4 years. Recently, our "blips" have gone the other ways, going out in the first and second round. We're still a top 10 program, but our "bad blips" in the tournament combined with losing ~3 more games per season suggests to me that in the last 5 years we're not quite where we were from 1999-2004. Maybe that was a unique situation that it's unrealistic to sustain and I'm hopeful that we're about to hit an upswing. But I don't think there's anything mysterious about the idea that this half-decade hasn't gone as well as the one preceding it.

Reddevil
04-07-2009, 01:10 PM
How would you prefer to judge the current state of the program, if not by recent results? Obviously the Duke program is large enough that no 5-10 year period will define it. Bu if you want to have a sense of where we are right now and where we are trending, how we've done in the last several seasons seems as good a benchmark as any.

Obviously nothing we say or do will have any effect on the program itself since we're not players and coaches. In that light, I guess I can understand why some folks would be happier to just say "Duke is great, Trust in K" and leave it at that. I get that, but I think there's also a place for honest and critical (in the positive, academic sense of the term) discussion of the program. What have we done well? What could we do better? What are other programs doing that we might emulate or react to? Of course that won't change anything, but that's what makes discussion possible and valuable. Without that we'd just be an echo chamber/pep rally.

Well, this is a good point. I guess having the word "Demise" in the thread title has some of us (guilty) a bit defensive. There are only a few qualified, elite C's, PF's and PG's to go around. Recruiting is tricky. Getting the right combination of guys on a 13 man roster at the right time is tough. Early entry, makes it even harder. How many elite, athletic, wide-body big men with great feet and hands are there in any given class? One or two tops right? Where do they live? Who do they like? Are they likely to go pro after a year or two? (probably) Sustaining a FF level of success is harder than ever. What Duke did for nearly 2 decades is amazing. Florida's back to back, and unc's 2 in 5 years is tough to duplicate. Lulls will happen, but demise - please.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
04-07-2009, 01:15 PM
Well, this is a good point. I guess having the word "Demise" in the thread title has some of us (guilty) a bit defensive. There are only a few qualified, elite C's, PF's and PG's to go around. Recruiting is tricky. Getting the right combination of guys on a 13 man roster at the right time is tough. Early entry, makes it even harder. How many elite, athletic, wide-body big men with great feet and hands are there in any given class? One or two tops right? Where do they live? Who do they like? Are they likely to go pro after a year or two? (probably) Sustaining a FF level of success is harder than ever. What Duke did for nearly 2 decades is amazing. Florida's back to back, and unc's 2 in 5 years is tough to duplicate. Lulls will happen, but demise - please.

I agree with most of this and mainly wanted to point out that "demise" was a deliberately incendiary term used to set up a straw man by the OP, who was arguing that things aren't as bad as many think they are. Anyone who thinks we're facing the program's demise is seriously overstating things and/or out of touch with reality.

I also agree that it's really, really tough to remain on top of the mountain. UNC has done it better than most and we're trying to catch up with them right now. It's inaccurate to say we're facing a "demise" but it's also inaccurate to say that everything's great and we have nothing to improve on.

RepoMan
04-07-2009, 01:26 PM
What's with the random all-caps? No need to be yelling.

What part of a total of 5 NCAAT wins in the past 4 years despite having 15 McD AAs and a HOF coach doesn't qualify as a fact? You are aware that Duke won 5 or more NCAAT games in each of 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999 and 2001? I don't think that there is anything "mysterious" about the decline over the past 5 years. It's about as black and white as you can get when you objectively compare them to '86-'04.

Feel free to be unhappy. It certainly is a legitimate response. I'm unhappy too. But, 5 years basically spans the length of a recruiting class. A recruit that doesn't meet expectations is felt for that lentgh of time, and vice versa for one who exceeds expectations (with the caveat being that, nowadays, the ones that exceed expectations are less likely to stay).

You compare the present to 1990 - 1992, but the same core guys were on each of those teams. Laettner, Hurley, Hill -- you just don't get guys like that playing on the same team for a protracted period all that often.

I agree that Duke would benefit if it had a superior talent at PG (especially) or in the post. Heck, based on his televised interview, K agrees. But between wish and reality there is a huge gap. Not everyone is going to come to Duke. Not everyone who comes is going to meet or exceed expectations.

I hope we snag Wall or some of the other premier recruits we are seeking. We've certainly had our share over the years, and there is no reason to think that we won't get some more in the future. But Duke doesn't hame some sort of "right" to get them. We have to "recruit" them, and not everyone says yes.

PS: I just don't get the repeated "15 McD AA" references. I mean, obviously, we have had talented teams. That is why we have won alot of games. Just as obviously we have had some holes, some of which have been caused by some of those McD AAs not meeting expectations, which is why we haven't gone as far in the NCAA as we would have liked. The presence of "15 McD AAs" doesn't compensate for what we have been missing. While I agree that some recruits have not met expectations, given the reality of the talent we have had over the past 4 years, I don't think we have really underperformed much in the tournament.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 01:35 PM
Feel free to be unhappy. It certainly is a legitimate response. I'm unhappy too. But, 5 years basically spans the length of a recruiting class. A recruit that doesn't meet expectations is felt for that lentgh of time, and vice versa for one who exceeds expectations (with the caveat being that, nowadays, the ones that exceed expectations are less likely to stay).

You compare the present to 1990 - 1992, but the same core guys were on each of those teams. Laettner, Hurley, Hill -- you just don't get guys like that playing on the same team for a protracted period all that often.

I agree that Duke would benefit if it had a superior talent at PG (especially) or in the post. Heck, based on his televised interview, K agrees. But between wish and reality there is a huge gap. Not everyone is going to come to Duke. Not everyone who comes is going to meet or exceed expectations.

I hope we snag Wall or some of the other premier recruits we are seeking. We've certainly had our share over the years, and there is no reason to think that we won't get some more in the future. But Duke doesn't hame some sort of "right" to get them. We have to "recruit" them, and not everyone says yes.

PS: I just don't get the repeated "15 McD AA" references. I mean, obviously, we have had talented teams. That is why we have won alot of games. Just as obviously we have had some holes, some of which have been caused by some of those McD AAs not meeting expectations, which is why we haven't gone as far in the NCAA as we would have liked. The presence of "15 McD AAs" doesn't compensate for what we have been missing. While I agree that some recruits have not met expectations, given the reality of the talent we have had over the past 4 years, I don't think we have really underperformed much in the tournament.

What?! Sanity. Don't you dare bring that in the mix!

Lots of these guys have never heard of Bucky Waters or Neill McGeachy. Some of you TRULY (yep random caps so you'll know what I want to be stressed) can't seem to process that we haven't always been on the winning side of things.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 01:40 PM
Feel free to be unhappy. It certainly is a legitimate response. I'm unhappy too. But, 5 years basically spans the length of a recruiting class. A recruit that doesn't meet expectations is felt for that lentgh of time, and vice versa for one who exceeds expectations (with the caveat being that, nowadays, the ones that exceed expectations are less likely to stay).

You compare the present to 1990 - 1992, but the same core guys were on each of those teams. Laettner, Hurley, Hill -- you just don't get guys like that playing on the same team for a protracted period all that often.

I agree that Duke would benefit if it had a superior talent at PG (especially) or in the post. Heck, based on his televised interview, K agrees. But between wish and reality there is a huge gap. Not everyone is going to come to Duke. Not everyone who comes is going to meet or exceed expectations.

I hope we snag Wall or some of the other premier recruits we are seeking. We've certainly had our share over the years, and there is no reason to think that we won't get some more in the future. But Duke doesn't hame some sort of "right" to get them. We have to "recruit" them, and not everyone says yes.

PS: I just don't get the repeated "15 McD AA" references. I mean, obviously, we have had talented teams. That is why we have won alot of games. Just as obviously we have had some holes, some of which have been caused by some of those McD AAs not meeting expectations, which is why we haven't gone as far in the NCAA as we would have liked. The presence of "15 McD AAs" doesn't compensate for what we have been missing. While I agree that some recruits have not met expectations, given the reality of the talent we have had over the past 4 years, I don't think we have really underperformed much in the tournament.

The 15 McD AA references is to address the issue of whether it is reasonable to even expect Duke to be winning NCAAT games from a talent standpoint. I think if that number were 0 or 1, it would be unreasonable to expect sustained NCAAT excellence. For example, Rutgers or Northwestern fans wouldn't be upset with just 5 NCAAT wins in 4 years given the level of their personnel. Now whether those 15 were the right positions or even worthy of AA status is a discussion for another thread.

Unlike you and other people, I hope we don't get Wall. There is a lot to be said about how K runs the program and, other than the Maggette mess, there isn't a whiff of improprieties. I'd rather have Duke never go back to another FF than to stoop to the level of UConn, Memphis, USC or Indiana to try and get back there. Maybe Wall is different than what I have read but he seems like just the kind of player K used to avoid like the plague.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 01:50 PM
What's with the random all-caps? No need to be yelling.

What part of a total of 5 NCAAT wins in the past 4 years despite having 15 McD AAs and a HOF coach doesn't qualify as a fact? You are aware that Duke won 5 or more NCAAT games in each of 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999 and 2001? I don't think that there is anything "mysterious" about the decline over the past 5 years. It's about as black and white as you can get when you objectively compare them to '86-'04.

Are you actually really trying to use those years? Our BEST seasons? Come on. That's like 6 times in FORTY years. Really?

1994 - lost in championship game - didn't make the tourney the next year. Is that what you want?

Also, why is 1986 the cutoff date? It probably hurts for you to realize that we only went to the NIT in 1981 and in 1982 and 1983 - we went NOWHERE.

And lastly - I want you guys to take a look at the tourney records from 1995 - 2001. It is largely indicative of our situation now - both of which show gradual improvement after a "down" season. Then maybe you'll understand what BUILDING a program is about.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 01:52 PM
The 15 McD AA references is to address the issue of whether it is reasonable to even expect Duke to be winning NCAAT games from a talent standpoint. I think if that number were 0 or 1, it would be unreasonable to expect sustained NCAAT excellence. For example, Rutgers or Northwestern fans wouldn't be upset with just 5 NCAAT wins in 4 years given the level of their personnel. Now whether those 15 were the right positions or even worthy of AA status is a discussion for another thread.

Unlike you and other people, I hope we don't get Wall. There is a lot to be said about how K runs the program and, other than the Maggette mess, there isn't a whiff of improprieties. I'd rather have Duke never go back to another FF than to stoop to the level of UConn, Memphis, USC or Indiana to try and get back there. Maybe Wall is different than what I have read but he seems like just the kind of player K used to avoid like the plague.

Sounds to me like you're giving Mickey D's way too much credit.

gumbomoop
04-07-2009, 02:03 PM
personally, i'd say success at duke is 1 Final Four every 4 seasons and consistently playing on the 2nd weekend of the tournament (4 out of 5 years perhaps)

I'll sign on to this criterion, as long as it's confined to on-court success, i.e., discounting [which we should not] campus presence, classroom achievement, etc.

But yes, in my semi-halucinatory "entitled" state of being, I think we should make a F4 every 4-5 years [and win one every 8-10], and definitely make Sweet 16/Elite 8 most of the time.

As for demise, well, we're in a bit of a slump, but I'm really impressed with MP2, Kelly, as well, have heard fine things about '10 and after [getting Barnes or Knight would delight], and believe that K will entice strong improvement from Nolan and EWill, which is key to 09-10. Singler is 09-10 conf POY, Scheyer is 2d team all-ACC, and K should certainly be able to get substantially improved productivity down low from MP1, MP2, and Z [I'm on record as thinking Z should redshirt].

Even without G/Wall/Bledsoe, your basic "worst case scenario" for 09-10, we're preseason top 6-7. In this scenario, to repeat: relentless fierceness, not to mention improved confidence from improved ballhandling, make Nolan and EWill key to deep run.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 02:07 PM
Are you actually really trying to use those years? Our BEST seasons? Come on. That's like 6 times in FORTY years. Really?

1994 - lost in championship game - didn't make the tourney the next year. Is that what you want?

Also, why is 1986 the cutoff date? It probably hurts for you to realize that we only went to the NIT in 1981 and in 1982 and 1983 - we went NOWHERE.

And lastly - I want you guys to take a look at the tourney records from 1995 - 2001. It is largely indicative of our situation now - both of which show gradual improvement after a "down" season. Then maybe you'll understand what BUILDING a program is about.

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here? Do you actually think that the past 5 years at Duke have been great despite the fact that the best basketball was played in December in each of them and the team was upset in the NCAAT by a lower seeded team in each of them? What am I missing if you actually think that that the past 5 years in any way resemble any 5-year stretch from '86-'04? The '95-'01 stretch you referenced included 1 trip to the Elite 8, 1 trip to the Finals and a NC. I'm not exactly sure how that stretch compares to the past 5 years, which doesn't even include a trip to the Elite 8.

Lastly, you reference the early 80s and how bad Duke was then. Ya think? Do you really think that people today think that Duke was good then? They don't. Duke stunk then but how does that have anything to do with the fact that Duke has slipped over the past 5 years vis-a-vis the previous 20?

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 02:31 PM
I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here? Do you actually think that the past 5 years at Duke have been great despite the fact that the best basketball was played in December in each of them and the team was upset in the NCAAT by a lower seeded team in each of them? What am I missing if you actually think that that the past 5 years in any way resemble any 5-year stretch from '86-'04? The '95-'01 stretch you referenced included 1 trip to the Elite 8, 1 trip to the Finals and a NC. I'm not exactly sure how that stretch compares to the past 5 years, which doesn't even include a trip to the Elite 8.

Lastly, you reference the early 80s and how bad Duke was then. Ya think? Do you really think that people today think that Duke was good then? They don't. Duke stunk then but how does that have anything to do with the fact that Duke has slipped over the past 5 years vis-a-vis the previous 20?

This should say "I only picked Duke b/c they won a lot of games when I was a kid!"

Please go do some research on Vic Bubbas AND then go notice that the team built after 1995, something that it appears we are doing now.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 02:40 PM
This should say "I only picked Duke b/c they won a lot of games when I was a kid!"

Please go do some research on Vic Bubbas AND then go notice that the team built after 1995, something that it appears we are doing now.

Huh? I didn't exactly "pick" Duke. I think getting 2 degrees there somehow qualifies me as someone who might have a legitimate reason to root for Duke. Had I gone to UNC, UVA or any other ACC school, I highly doubt that I would follow Duke basketball. Do you really think that most people just "pick" Duke when they are young and don't have any other deeper ties to the school?

What does doing research on Vic Bubbas have anything to do with your failure to recognize that the past 5 years are demonstrably worse than any other 5 year stretch over the past 25 years?

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 02:50 PM
Huh? I didn't exactly "pick" Duke. I think getting 2 degrees there somehow qualifies me as someone who might have a legitimate reason to root for Duke. Had I gone to UNC, UVA or any other ACC school, I highly doubt that I would follow Duke basketball. Do you really think that most people just "pick" Duke when they are young and don't have any other deeper ties to the school?

What does doing research on Vic Bubbas have anything to do with your failure to recognize that the past 5 years are demonstrably worse than any other 5 year stretch over the past 25 years?

Sigh. B/c that's what you sound like. 1995-1999 are easily worse than the last 5 years. Especially as expectations go considering those teams all finished first in the ACC but the 1995/1996 teams. Nuff said.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 03:01 PM
Sigh. B/c that's what you sound like. 1995-1999 are easily worse than the last 5 years. Especially as expectations go considering those teams all finished first in the ACC but the 1995/1995 teams. Nuff said.

You are entitled to your opinion but I would take any 5-year stretch that includes (1) a team on the short list of greatest teams ever, which played in the NC game and (2) a team that played in the Regional Finals over a 5-year stretch whose best team couldn't get past the Sweet 16.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 03:22 PM
You are entitled to your opinion but I would take any 5-year stretch that includes (1) a team on the short list of greatest teams ever, which played in the NC game and (2) a team that played in the Regional Finals over a 5-year stretch whose best team couldn't get past the Sweet 16.

So you'll also take the year of no tourney and the two years building up to that success as well then right?

dukie8
04-07-2009, 03:29 PM
So you'll also take the year of no tourney and the two years building up to that success as well then right?

Definitely, although I think that '96-'97 and '07-'08 basically are a wash. I would without question rather have a super team followed by mass defections and a rebuilding year or 2 (think Florida or Ohio St in '07) that leads to another FF run versus sustained plodding of 0, 1 or 2 NCAAT wins for many consecutive years.

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 03:54 PM
Definitely, although I think that '96-'97 and '07-'08 basically are a wash. I would without question rather have a super team followed by mass defections and a rebuilding year or 2 (think Florida or Ohio St in '07) that leads to another FF run versus sustained plodding of 0, 1 or 2 NCAAT wins for many consecutive years.

All it really sounds like you need is just a little patience.

Wander
04-07-2009, 04:03 PM
never lost in the Big Ten Challenge

Am I the only one that laughed out loud when I read this part?

RepoMan
04-07-2009, 04:04 PM
Unlike you and other people, I hope we don't get Wall. There is a lot to be said about how K runs the program and, other than the Maggette mess, there isn't a whiff of improprieties. I'd rather have Duke never go back to another FF than to stoop to the level of UConn, Memphis, USC or Indiana to try and get back there. Maybe Wall is different than what I have read but he seems like just the kind of player K used to avoid like the plague.

Like you, all I know is what I read. So, I guess neither of us really have a clue. Haven't met the kid. Haven't met his mother. Haven't met the coaches who are advising him. So, to suggest (even with your disclaimer) that he is the kind of player K used to avoid like the plague is just unfair. I mean, you have no basis to say anything about the kids character, really. Maybe we should trust the guy who actually has spoken with him and has recruited him and who, as you suggest, has a long history of recruiting kids with great character. But, I think we have another thread for this, we digress . . .

SupaDave
04-07-2009, 04:23 PM
Am I the only one that laughed out loud when I read this part?

If we lose (and we eventually will) it will be one more thing for folks to complain about!

brooknon
04-07-2009, 08:19 PM
If we lose (and we eventually will) it will be one more thing for folks to complain about!


Hahahaha I wont complain...I will be happy when we lose. After all isnt that the goal? hahaha.


...some Maui Championships

Now we are measuring ourself by Maui championships?? That's the new standard?? A tournament at the beginning of the season as opposed to the tourney at the end?? hahahaha.

And McD AA are not all created equally...some of the guys we have should never have been McD AA. I feel that when Duke signs a recruit his value is erroneously inflated sometimes and he ends up on those teams because of the program's status (quickly changing). That's my opinion.

Johnboy
04-07-2009, 09:35 PM
Sorry, but there are a lot of people on this thread who sound like (spoiled) Carolina fans did in 1986-1992 when we heard "the game has passed Dean by" - then Dean won his second NCAA title in 1993. We're on our way back, and we've been consistently excellent for .

If you're complaining about this season, you're stone crazy. Sorry, but it's just repulsive. I'm done with this thread. Good work, SupaDave.

Johnboy, T '85 <--Here's some perspective for ya.

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 09:35 PM
Florida won the SECT. The question wasn't who was the best team 3 weeks before the end of the season. The question was who was the best team in 2006? Duke was by far the best team in the country in December of 2005 after its dismantling of #2 Texas. Duke was not one of the 2 best teams at the end of the season.

Very true, unfortunately. We trended down during that season after being dominant early. We did rebound to win the ACC tourney, though. that was nice.

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 09:40 PM
"See I think continued success. Wins. Being ranked in the top 10 or even 25 for the 6 months of the regular season. They're more important to the overall perception of a program than the final 3 weeks. It only makes sense, you hear about it 10 times as long."

but in 2 or 3 years, who do you remember?

To illustrate this point, here is a link to the all-time winningest programs (http://www.ncaa.org/stats/m_basketball/all_time_wins/2004_all_time_wins.pdf), by total wins and by percentages.

Look at how high st. john's and some other programs, that haven't had any tourney success to speak of in the last 20 years, are on that list. Now ask yourself what kind of profile they have and what the general perception is of those programs.

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 09:48 PM
You're going to find something wrong with every analogy I fear. But in your class everyone does well, gets good grades, passes their mid terms, attends class, but ultimately your final grade is determined by a 1 question test in which 1 person passes and all others fail. Now maybe that is your perception of the college basketball world and perhaps there are others that share your perception. But even if I'm in the minority that wouldn't make it right. And that wouldn't stop me from going to the Dean and trying to argue the futility of that approach (or coming on a message board and doing the same =)


I fear too many are basing their current version of success on what Duke has accomplished in the past. Not wrong, but dangerous. Duke won back to back titles and did I see someone say 7 final fours in 9 years. Geez! That should never have happened. That's like UCLA's string of championships. And that was what 10...15...20 years ago. Back before Duke began losing players early and before parity established itself in college basketball. I think it's natural to compare teams to previous teams, just important to keep in mind that what happened then shouldn't happen now. Heck based on what Duke HAS accomplished I don't think Carolina would even be considered successful at the moment. They'd still have a ways to go.

Are we successful, I think so. As succesful as Carolina, no and it sucks. But right now who is? Would Kentucky trade with us right now, heck yes. Again perspective, zoom out! I'm not claiming to be completely right. I don't claim one thing as complete success. I just want people to quit claiming one thing as complete failure. As someone else said, you forget to enjoy this great time when you do.


I think there is a bit of a straw man here. Regarding putting your classroom example in bball terms, is there anyone here who really thinks Duke's season is a failure if it doesn't end in a national championship? I mean people's definitions of success vary greatly but I haven't heard anyone say anything like that.

chrisM
04-07-2009, 09:51 PM
But now that we have had a streak of 5 pretty average to below avg yrs,

In the NCAA tournament, Duke has performed below seed average in each of the last five years. So Duke was by definition below average each of the past five years. Not relative to it's own history, but relative to the performance of all the teams with that seed since the tournament expanded to 64.

According to http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3286167
Duke was 1.36 games below average in 2005, did the same in 2006, were 1.26 games below average in 2007, were 1.43 games below average in 2008, and were a mere 0.43 games below average in 2009.

So all told, Duke has averaged 1.16 fewer NCAA tournament wins over the past five years than an average team given that spot by the committee would have done. As the linked article notes, over his lifetime K has overachieved seeding so much that he is +0.543, but the past few years have not been near as good for him.

Chris

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 09:56 PM
[QUOTE=dukie8;284201][QUOTE=SupaDave;284196]

Honestly now, you're comparing US to St. Johns? Wow.

Well, to the way of thinking you and others have expressed on this board, there really isn't that much difference.

That's the part I don't understand. Those of you who get so upset that some people aren't satisfied seem to be arguing that we all should be satisfied with anything, with the fact that Cameron is still standing or something. You don't seem to make any distinction based on performance -- 91, 92, 95, 07 or this year are all the same to you it seems. I don't get it.

Scorp4me
04-07-2009, 10:09 PM
I think there is a bit of a straw man here. Regarding putting your classroom example in bball terms, is there anyone here who really thinks Duke's season is a failure if it doesn't end in a national championship? I mean people's definitions of success vary greatly but I haven't heard anyone say anything like that.

It was my third attempt, but what they hey I got nothing better to do, here's my fourth attempt. Already 4 pass and everyone else fails. That seems to be what everyone is upset about that we didn't make the final four. Actually it's the fact that Carolina won that has everyone on edge I think, but never the less, we'll let 4 pass.

And I agree, whole heartedly with JohnBoy. He couldn't be more right.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 10:11 PM
Like you, all I know is what I read. So, I guess neither of us really have a clue. Haven't met the kid. Haven't met his mother. Haven't met the coaches who are advising him. So, to suggest (even with your disclaimer) that he is the kind of player K used to avoid like the plague is just unfair. I mean, you have no basis to say anything about the kids character, really. Maybe we should trust the guy who actually has spoken with him and has recruited him and who, as you suggest, has a long history of recruiting kids with great character. But, I think we have another thread for this, we digress . . .

I trust what Watzone has to say on the matter and if you read his comments here, Wall doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person who would fit into K's system:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=255810#post255810

Seeing the words "handlers" and "needs, needs, needs" attached to a high school player who also has someone running interference with the media doesn't exactly bring images to my mind of the next Grant Hill or Elton Brand. More like OJ Mayo.

dukie8
04-07-2009, 10:20 PM
It was my third attempt, but what they hey I got nothing better to do, here's my fourth attempt. Already 4 pass and everyone else fails. That seems to be what everyone is upset about that we didn't make the final four. Actually it's the fact that Carolina won that has everyone on edge I think, but never the less, we'll let 4 pass.

And I agree, whole heartedly with JohnBoy. He couldn't be more right.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with UNC winning. Why are you trying to obfuscate the real issue, which has been occurring for 5 years and counting and which is completely independent of UNC winning? It really doesn't bother me at all that UNC won. They had by far the best team this year, haven't had a whiff of cheating and graduate their players. The same cannot be said for many other top programs.

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 10:33 PM
This should say "I only picked Duke b/c they won a lot of games when I was a kid!"

Please go do some research on Vic Bubbas AND then go notice that the team built after 1995, something that it appears we are doing now.

You do realize how much this sounds like "back in MY day!" right?

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 10:39 PM
Sorry, but there are a lot of people on this thread who sound like (spoiled) Carolina fans did in 1986-1992 when we heard "the game has passed Dean by" - then Dean won his second NCAA title in 1993. We're on our way back, and we've been consistently excellent for .

If you're complaining about this season, you're stone crazy. Sorry, but it's just repulsive. I'm done with this thread. Good work, SupaDave.

Johnboy, T '85 <--Here's some perspective for ya.

I'm on record ON THIS BOARD as stating that I was thrilled with this season (first time in a while i have felt that way, actually). I think this group achieved the absolute most that it could and did so battling adversity almost every step of the way.

There is a big difference between appreciating and enjoying what we have but still hoping for something more and being a spoiled brat. People who post here about hoping to see us perform better in the tournament or whatever deserve a better reception than "back in my day, we walked to school every day in the snow, uphill, both ways, and we were THANKFUL for it." Every season just doesn't elicit the same joy for me, regardless of on-court performance; I really don't understand those of you for whom that does seem to be the case.

devildownunder
04-07-2009, 10:52 PM
It was my third attempt, but what they hey I got nothing better to do, here's my fourth attempt. Already 4 pass and everyone else fails. That seems to be what everyone is upset about that we didn't make the final four. Actually it's the fact that Carolina won that has everyone on edge I think, but never the less, we'll let 4 pass.

And I agree, whole heartedly with JohnBoy. He couldn't be more right.

If people were calling for K's head or something, I'd agree with you. That's not the case. In fact, all I see are a bunch of posts lamenting the lack of a top-flight point guard or inside scoring presence, something K himself has done publicly lately. Wanting to win big isn't being a spoiled-brat fan. Demanding it at all times without compromise is.

And do you really think that K, behind closed doors, is 100% satisfied with the program's performances in march -- and absence in April -- in recent years?

RepoMan
04-08-2009, 09:24 AM
I trust what Watzone has to say on the matter and if you read his comments here, Wall doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person who would fit into K's system:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=255810#post255810

Seeing the words "handlers" and "needs, needs, needs" attached to a high school player who also has someone running interference with the media doesn't exactly bring images to my mind of the next Grant Hill or Elton Brand. More like OJ Mayo.

Think you might want to read that post more closely. There is a distinction made between what the kid says and what the surrounding adults say. When you consider the differing eras, as well as the differing circumstances of their childhood, I think comparing Wall to Hill is a little unfair.

dukie8
04-08-2009, 10:02 AM
Think you might want to read that post more closely. There is a distinction made between what the kid says and what the surrounding adults say. When you consider the differing eras, as well as the differing circumstances of their childhood, I think comparing Wall to Hill is a little unfair.

I'm going by what Watzone wrote -- not what the recruit or what other 3rd parties say. Do you have some reason to dispute Watzone's statements that Wall is blanketed by "handlers" and had someone standing between Wall and the media? I don't care what era we are talking about, K has avoided guys like this like the plague in the past. Name one player ever to play for Duke that had a posse/entourage in the stands for games.

ArnieMc
04-08-2009, 12:57 PM
Please go do some research on Vic Bubbas AND then go notice that the team built after 1995, something that it appears we are doing now.


What does doing research on Vic Bubbas have anything to do with your failure to recognize that the past 5 years are demonstrably worse than any other 5 year stretch over the past 25 years?

Personally, I think that, for the last decade, 7 ACC Titles, 2 Final Fours, 1 National Championship, and an NCAA record for most wins in a decade is pretty good, particularly, since we did it with young men who are a credit to the University. Yes, we could have won a few more, or we could have won a few less. I hope we do even better next decade.

Neals384
04-08-2009, 08:52 PM
a little perspective... We lived in the Bay Area in the 80's & 90s and became rabid 49er fans.

We thought the domination would last forever. We were very disappointed when they only won one super bowl in the 90s, compared to 4 in the 80s.

Since 2000, it would be nice the if the 49ers just made the playoffs once in a while. The 90's were wonderful, we just didn't know it - we were too spoiled.

Duke fans, enjoy the ride!

Ultrarunner
04-09-2009, 12:30 AM
...with your assertion that 'the NCAA Tournament (performance) is not the most important indicator of program success.'

You and I have jobs and with those, business plans in some form or another. We are graded on how we ultimately come out, year after year. The ultimate result for a college basketball team is performance in the NCAA tournament. The bottom line is the ultimate result: NCAA tourney prowess.

So, while regular season wins and ACC titles are very important, the relative measuring stick (for Duke relative to all other teams out there) is the Big One.

dth.

I never attended Duke so take this for what it's worth -

The measuring stick for a "college basketball team" should be the character and accomplishments of the graduates after they leave Duke.

By your measure, many a fine man doesn't "grade" out. Maybe we should focus a bit on why Duke exists when we consider this question rather than focus on why Duke basketball exists. The latter is a subset of the former not vice versa.

/rant

Kfanarmy
04-09-2009, 12:44 AM
In the NCAA tournament, Duke has performed below seed average in each of the last five years. So Duke was by definition below average each of the past five years. Not relative to it's own history, but relative to the performance of all the teams with that seed since the tournament expanded to 64.

According to http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3286167

a Number 1 seed that doesn't win the tournament has a 66% chance of losing to a lower seed...and I'm guessing number 1's historically have a 50% or less chance of reaching the final four. The lower your ranking, the more likely you are to Overachieve. example a 13 seed that wins one game has overachieved. I personally believe Duke's recent history has caused them to be slightly higher ranked throughout the season, ultimately making their seeding higher than it should have been, but I don't buy data that suggests a number one that doesn't reach the final four, or a number two that doesn't reach the elite eight, etc have necessarily underachieved. I would agree there have been underachieving NCAA tourney performances, based more on how losses occurred than to who or in which round of the tournament. I just don't think the whole numbers game in the ncaa tourney analysis fully accounts for all the variables.

Greg_Newton
04-09-2009, 01:55 AM
...I don't buy data that suggests a number one that doesn't reach the final four, or a number two that doesn't reach the elite eight, etc have necessarily underachieved.

I believe the original poster was comparing Duke's performance to the average performance of that seed ever since the 64-team field was introduced, which accounts for variables like high seeds often slightly "underachieving" their seed. He was saying Duke underperformed the average performance by a team of their seed, not the "expected" performance dictated by the seed.

I'm a little torn on this debate. I respect what the moderators and others are doing in trying to keep this board from being a place where fans come to trash their team, and some posts are certainly over the top. However, there's no need to ridicule supportive fans who are simply disappointed that their boys did not advance further.

It should go without saying that we all are extremely proud of and grateful for the program's perennial success and class, and that we would support the program, coaches and players no matter what. That doesn't mean you can't want your team to be great and be disappointed in the result when your team loses. It's what makes you an emotionally involved fan, and I don't think K or anyone else would expect anything less from his supporters.

There's a big difference between hope and expectation, and between disappointment and dissatisfaction. It's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed that Duke has lost in the first weekend the last few years, and this is very different than being disappointed in Duke. Just my two cents.

jma4life
04-09-2009, 02:27 AM
Yea, I think that the contention is that Duke has underperformed relative to what other similarly seeded teams do, not based on the assumption that one seeds make final 4, 2 seeds elite 8, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with admitting that is probably true. If it happens the next two years, I will be a little concerned. At this point, it's not a statistically significant sample size. Plus, let's not forget that K made 7 final fours in a 9 year period. The degree of underperformance the last few years is not in the same league as the "exceeded-performance" during that period imo.

Matches
04-09-2009, 08:30 AM
I'm a little skeptical of the "underperformance" metric, because I think it ignores the inherent unpredictability of the tournament. One could say we underperformed our seed this year, but the reality is that a 2 vs 3 game is a tossup. There's just not a significant difference between those teams, and it isn't a shock or an upset if 3 beats 2. In some cases 1 vs 4 isn't even all that significant a difference.

It's just hard for me to judge a team by deciding where their seed says they "should" have gotten. The '05 team, for example, "should" have been a FF teams based on its seed, but I don't think the loss to MSU was a choke job or a letdown - the team was gassed and had overacheived to get to that point.

The '06, '07 and '08 losses were disappointing to me in a way that '05 and '09 were not.

Wander
04-09-2009, 08:57 AM
Here's some perspective: we're not in the 1970's anymore.

Despite the absurd attacks by some (accusing someone of picking Duke because they won a lot of games when they were a kid? Really?), most people actually realize that Duke wasn't always as good as we are now, and that Coach K got off to a tough start.

But we don't measure ourselves by Maui championships or winning in the Big Ten challenge, sorry. It's not good enough to merely be better than the Georgia Techs and Nebraskas of the world, or even the Wake Forests or Ohio States. We compare ourselves to Kansas, UNC, UCLA, UConn, Memphis, Michigan State, Kentucky, Louisville, and so on. We're that type of program now, and there's absolutely nothing unreasonable about having expectations that match that. That doesn't mean expecting to go to the Final Four every year or freaking out if we have a down year every once in a while. But do I expect to get past the Sweet 16 more than twice a decade? Yes, I do. If that's entitlement, then I'm damn proud to be entitled.

(of course, it's not entitlement at all, it's just a recognition that we've underperformed relative to where our program is recently, at least in March)

dukie8
04-09-2009, 09:47 AM
I never attended Duke so take this for what it's worth -

The measuring stick for a "college basketball team" should be the character and accomplishments of the graduates after they leave Duke.

By your measure, many a fine man doesn't "grade" out. Maybe we should focus a bit on why Duke exists when we consider this question rather than focus on why Duke basketball exists. The latter is a subset of the former not vice versa.

/rant

I disagree. One of my best friends played basketball at Princeton and the character and accomplishments of its graduates is incredible but I (and he) never would claim that the Princeton basketball program somehow outshines Duke's because of this. Also, nobody on this thread has been trying to answer the question of why Duke basketball exists so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

SupaDave
04-09-2009, 09:59 AM
I disagree. One of my best friends played basketball at Princeton and the character and accomplishments of its graduates is incredible but I (and he) never would claim that the Princeton basketball program somehow outshines Duke's because of this. Also, nobody on this thread has been trying to answer the question of why Duke basketball exists so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Ok - b/c you're asking for this. Princeton has this little thing called,ya know, the PRINCETON offense. Most seem to think it's pretty brilliant... Wow, have you no idea how much Princeton basketball is responsible for?

Also, I believe you're missing his perspective - Duke basketball exists b/c of STUDENT-athletes.

dukie8
04-09-2009, 10:13 AM
Ok - b/c you're asking for this. Princeton has this little thing called,ya know, the PRINCETON offense. Most seem to think it's pretty brilliant... Wow, have you no idea how much Princeton basketball is responsible for?

Also, I believe you're missing his perspective - Duke basketball exists b/c of STUDENT-athletes.

I can't tell if your post is serious or not. That other poster was referring to what players do AFTER they graduate, which, unfortunately for you, has absolutely nothing to do with the Princeton offense (initial cap only).

Also, your argument that "Duke basketball exists b/c of STUDENT-athletes" makes absolutely no sense. Duke basketball exists because a long time ago Duke University decided that it should field a men's basketball team (there are a myriad of reasons why a school would have chosen to have fielded a basketball team 100 years ago) and it has continued fielding a team ever since. It's the same reason why Wake has a basketball team, why NC St has a basketball team, why UNC has a basketball team and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the athletes also are students. The athletes are students in every sport at every school for that matter.

SupaDave
04-09-2009, 10:40 AM
I can't tell if your post is serious or not. That other poster was referring to what players do AFTER they graduate, which, unfortunately for you, has absolutely nothing to do with the Princeton offense (initial cap only).

Also, your argument that "Duke basketball exists b/c of STUDENT-athletes" makes absolutely no sense. Duke basketball exists because a long time ago Duke University decided that it should field a men's basketball team (there are a myriad of reasons why a school would have chosen to have fielded a basketball team 100 years ago) and it has continued fielding a team ever since. It's the same reason why Wake has a basketball team, why NC St has a basketball team, why UNC has a basketball team and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the athletes also are students. The athletes are students in every sport at every school for that matter.

(shakes head) Sigh, go read your post. You managed to demean your friend and the value of Princeton basketball in regards to Duke. However, those who truly love basketball value what Princeton has brought to the table for so many years which includes it's stellar individuals.

And you're still missing the point, to break it down to something as base as the fact that "Duke wanted a basketball team" seriously undermines what collegiate athletics has stood for at Duke University and various other institutions.

SupaDave
04-09-2009, 10:42 AM
Here's some perspective: we're not in the 1970's anymore.

Despite the absurd attacks by some (accusing someone of picking Duke because they won a lot of games when they were a kid? Really?), most people actually realize that Duke wasn't always as good as we are now, and that Coach K got off to a tough start.

But we don't measure ourselves by Maui championships or winning in the Big Ten challenge, sorry. It's not good enough to merely be better than the Georgia Techs and Nebraskas of the world, or even the Wake Forests or Ohio States. We compare ourselves to Kansas, UNC, UCLA, UConn, Memphis, Michigan State, Kentucky, Louisville, and so on. We're that type of program now, and there's absolutely nothing unreasonable about having expectations that match that. That doesn't mean expecting to go to the Final Four every year or freaking out if we have a down year every once in a while. But do I expect to get past the Sweet 16 more than twice a decade? Yes, I do. If that's entitlement, then I'm damn proud to be entitled.

(of course, it's not entitlement at all, it's just a recognition that we've underperformed relative to where our program is recently, at least in March)

Ok - so now I will call YOUR post ridiculous. What? Since WHEN does Duke compare itself to those programs?

Memphis? You really think we compare ourselves to Memphis? UCLA is the upper echelon - we do not compare ourselves to them - they are the impossible and quite the barometer. We should be so lucky for K to achieve what Wooden did. What has Kentucky done in the last FIVE years? They've had four coaches in the last twelve years. UConn? Success by any means necessary? I think so. Michigan State? You wouldn't even have mentioned them before the tourney. Louisville? Pitino's a good coach and all but I never wonder how they're team is gonna look.

You should count your blessings.

Here's some perspective for you - there are nearly 350 teams eligible for the NCAA tourney but every year only 65 teams get a chance. Duke has been invited 24 times in the last 25 years. Memphis has been 21 times in the last 55 years.

Kfanarmy
04-09-2009, 10:52 AM
However, there's no need to ridicule supportive fans who are simply disappointed that their boys did not advance further.

I certainly didn't intend to ridicule anyone, I simply disagree with most seeding-based tournament performance analysis. So I offer my apologies to ChrisM if my post sounded that way.

dukie8
04-09-2009, 11:24 AM
Michigan State? You wouldn't even have mentioned them before the tourney.

Where have you been the past 11 years? They have been to the FF 5 times in that span and even managed to squeak out a NC in 2000.


Louisville? Pitino's a good coach and all but I never wonder how they're team is gonna look.

What is this supposed to mean? Are you concerned about their uniforms? Since it appears that you weren't aware of what Mich St has done over the past decade, do you need to be reminded that Louisville has been to 1 FF and 2 other Elite 8s in the past 5 years? Not bad for a team that you aren't worried about how they are gonna [sic] look.

SupaDave
04-09-2009, 11:39 AM
Where have you been the past 11 years? They have been to the FF 5 times in that span and even managed to squeak out a NC in 2000.



What is this supposed to mean? Are you concerned about their uniforms? Since it appears that you weren't aware of what Mich St has done over the past decade, do you need to be reminded that Louisville has been to 1 FF and 2 other Elite 8s in the past 5 years? Not bad for a team that you aren't worried about how they are gonna [sic] look.


And your point? Yes - these programs have been successful but we still do not compare ourselves to them. We compare ourselves to Duke - as evidenced by this ENTIRE thread.

Memphis Devil
04-09-2009, 12:00 PM
You two should start your own thread. This is great stuff. This has been the best thing going on the boards for the last two weeks. I have a few suggestions for topics of debate: Dukie8 - The increased rate of extinction of certain marine life is alarming, SupaDave - Marine life has always been around, sometimes it dies sometimes it doesn't; Dukie8 - The last two seasons of Seinfeld were just not up to par with the first two, SupaDave - Seinfeld was one of the greatest sitcoms of all time.

I think this works! Feel free to run with this and color me in.

dukie8
04-09-2009, 12:00 PM
And your point? Yes - these programs have been successful but we still do not compare ourselves to them. We compare ourselves to Duke - as evidenced by this ENTIRE thread.

My point is that you continue making arguments that don't make any sense. Anyone who thinks that Mich St just appeared this year on the national scene hasn't been paying very much attention to college basketball the past 10 years.

Do you really believe that Duke basketball compares itself only to Duke basketball? Ever hear of a school called UNC? Also, why are you using the term "we"? Are you a part of the Duke basketball program? If you meant to write "the fans," then, once again, you are wrong because most people do compare Duke to the other elite programs. If you had been paying attention to this thread, you would have noticed that multiple people in this very thread do just that.

This phenomenon shouldn't exactly something come as a surprise given that every elite team and its fans do just that. Do you think that the Yankees and Mets don't compare themselves to each other? Kentucky and Louisville in NCAAB? Ohio St and Michigan in NCAAF? Celtics and Lakers in the NBA?

SupaDave
04-09-2009, 12:14 PM
you two should start your own thread. This is great stuff. This has been the best thing going on the boards for the last two weeks. I have a few suggestions for topics of debate: Dukie8 - the increased rate of extinction of certain marine life is alarming, supadave - marine life has always been around, sometimes it dies sometimes it doesn't; dukie8 - the last two seasons of seinfeld were just not up to par with the first two, supadave - seinfeld was one of the greatest sitcoms of all time.

I think this works! Feel free to run with this and color me in.

rotflmao!

Wander
04-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Memphis? You really think we compare ourselves to Memphis? UCLA is the upper echelon - we do not compare ourselves to them - they are the impossible and quite the barometer. We should be so lucky for K to achieve what Wooden did. What has Kentucky done in the last FIVE years? They've had four coaches in the last twelve years. UConn? Success by any means necessary? I think so. Michigan State? You wouldn't even have mentioned them before the tourney. Louisville? Pitino's a good coach and all but I never wonder how they're team is gonna look.


Please, stop. You know very well what I was saying. I never claimed that every one of these schools is more successful than Duke, or that we should do things their way. I was just pointing out a few schools that are elite programs nowadays, ie on about the same level with Duke. They're just better points of comparison than "24 tournaments in 25 seasons" or a nonsense statistic like that.

I'm grateful that I basically never have to worry about my team missing the NCAA tournament, but we all know making the field of 65 is not a significant measure of success for us with where our program is now. And yes, like it or not, success is relative to where your program is. It's why I can be really excited about a 4-8 season for Duke football, or why I was happier than usual that our women's team got a 1 seed this year.

I'm just a little disappointed with our results the past few years, I think we can realistically do better. That's not anywhere near an unreasonable feeling to have, nor does it lack any perspective.

And please, if you feel the need to respond, try and keep it logical and on-topic, instead of spouting off on the Princeton offense or something else that has absolutely zero relevance.

CDu
04-09-2009, 12:19 PM
I certainly didn't intend to ridicule anyone, I simply disagree with most seeding-based tournament performance analysis. So I offer my apologies to ChrisM if my post sounded that way.

What do you disagree with with respect to the article you posted? It is as logical an approach as you're going to find. It accounts for both the advantage of having a high seed as well as the difficulty with meeting expectations when you're a high seed.

- If you simply look at tournament record as the measure of tournament achievement, you're going to bias toward teams with higher seeds and unfairly punish teams with lower seed (for example: a 12 seed has not underachieved in the tourney by losing in the first round, while a 1-seed has underachieved by losing in the second round).
- If you simply go by seeding, you introduce the opposite problem. As you said before, with this metric a team with a high seed has very little room to overachieve, whereas a 9 seed (or worse) has no way to underachieve.

The article takes out both biases. It considers the performance of all teams with a particular seed, and uses that as the barometer. That way, you know what a #1 seed (or other seed) can generally be expected to do based on past performance of #1 seeds. This format illustrates that #1 seeds shouldn't be expected to reach the Final Four (average achievement has them losing in the Elite 8). #2 seeds should expect to lose in either the Sweet-16 or Elite-8 (2.43 wins is pretty borderline). #3 seeds should lose in the Sweet-16. At the other end, 10 seeds should have a good shot at winning their first-round game, while 11 and 12 seeds are a coin-flip to win a game.

Based on what typical #2 seeds did, we didn't technically underachieve this year (though you could argue that getting blown out is underachieving. However, we have, for the most part, underachieved over the last decade in the tournament, even when controlling for our high seeding. In six of the last ten years, we've underachieved relative to what other similar seeds have done. We've overachieved in two other years (2001 and 2004), and met expectations in two others (2003 and 2009).

Neals384
04-09-2009, 02:42 PM
You two should start your own thread. This is great stuff. This has been the best thing going on the boards for the last two weeks. I have a few suggestions for topics of debate: Dukie8 - The increased rate of extinction of certain marine life is alarming, SupaDave - Marine life has always been around, sometimes it dies sometimes it doesn't; Dukie8 - The last two seasons of Seinfeld were just not up to par with the first two, SupaDave - Seinfeld was one of the greatest sitcoms of all time.

I think this works! Feel free to run with this and color me in.

When the gloves come off in hockey, it's a brave man who tries to break them up!

Ultrarunner
04-09-2009, 11:53 PM
I Duke basketball exists because a long time ago Duke University decided that it should field a men's basketball team (there are a myriad of reasons why a school would have chosen to have fielded a basketball team 100 years ago) and it has continued fielding a team ever since. It's the same reason why Wake has a basketball team, why NC St has a basketball team, why UNC has a basketball team and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the athletes also are students. The athletes are students in every sport at every school for that matter.

I think the question that should be considered is why Duke established a basketball program 100 years ago. I also can come up with myriad reasons why they did - to develop the character of young men, to build their bodies and to build comradarie come immediately to mind.

Two reasons they didn't? They didn't establish a basketball program to be a FF contender every year and they didn't establish for fans to complain about on-the-court success at the expense (possibly) of the young men themselves.

The establsihment of the basketball team had everything to do with the students. It was a recognition that learning takes place in many environments, not just the lecture hall and was intended to further the development of the young men, their supporters and the wider community.

Coballs
04-10-2009, 12:30 AM
I think the question that should be considered is why Duke established a basketball program 100 years ago?

So that we'd have something to go obsess about on the Duke Basketball Report forum, obviously.

Ultrarunner
04-11-2009, 12:53 AM
So that we'd have something to go obsess about on the Duke Basketball Report forum, obviously.

Well, that too!:)

chrisM
04-11-2009, 01:18 AM
I certainly didn't intend to ridicule anyone, I simply disagree with most seeding-based tournament performance analysis. So I offer my apologies to ChrisM if my post sounded that way.

I certainly did not feel ridiculed.

I do feel that I'm not making my point clearly, however. Let me try and explain again. I am not saying that a #1 seed should never lose to a seed below it and should always make the Final Four. I am not comparing Duke against that metric. You are right that it's a pretty poor one.

I am observing that, over the past 25 years (the 64/5 team tournament era) all 1 seeds have collectively won, on average, slightly more than three games. All two seeds have collectively won, on average, 2+ games. Sometimes they won the championship, and sometimes they lost in the first round, but over that long stretch of time we can create an expected value for what a team should do for every single ranking. Over the past five year stretch Duke has been below average every single year, for most of that time significantly (losing a round earlier than average in four of the past five years).

If five years isn't a long enough period of time to judge a coach's recent level of performance than what would be? In modern NCAA Basketball world, five years is a geologic epoch: Kentucky has had three different coaches during that period. Duke has had three different cores, built around JJ/Shel, McBob/GP, and GH/Singler, during that period.

Chris

chrisM
04-11-2009, 01:44 AM
I'm a little skeptical of the "underperformance" metric, because I think it ignores the inherent unpredictability of the tournament.

Errr, in what way? Especially when averaged over a large set of years? As I see it, it neatly accounts for that, because it tracks it over the years. George Mason makes the final four? That's four victories for 11 seeds- now all 11 seeds will have those extra wins, and the seeds they beat won't be as high as they would have been. Santa Clara beats Arizona? Notch up another for a 15 seed, drop the 2's down some. With a large enough data set (and we have over 100 examples of each seed) this expected value has some meaning.

Would I stake my life savings on it? Not so much, but this is basic probability math.


One could say we underperformed our seed this year, but the reality is that a 2 vs 3 game is a tossup. There's just not a significant difference between those teams, and it isn't a shock or an upset if 3 beats 2. In some cases 1 vs 4 isn't even all that significant a difference.

Historically, 2's have won 2.41 games, and 3's have won 1.78- actually very close to what the 4's have won, which is 1.53. 1's have won 3.32 games, on average. So you can see that there is _quite_ a gap between 1's and 2's, a smaller gap down to threes, and then 4's are very close behind.

So you can see that, historically, a 2 vs. 3 is not a toss-up- the 2's win far more often than not, hence the 0.63 game expected win advantage. (Now, some of that difference is the chance that the three has been upset earlier and never got to face the 2 seed, so it isn't a straightforward bit of math to determine the 2 vs 3 win rate, but it is clear that 2's do better than 3's in the tournament.)

Chris

dukestheheat
04-11-2009, 10:25 AM
I never attended Duke so take this for what it's worth -

The measuring stick for a "college basketball team" should be the character and accomplishments of the graduates after they leave Duke.

By your measure, many a fine man doesn't "grade" out. Maybe we should focus a bit on why Duke exists when we consider this question rather than focus on why Duke basketball exists. The latter is a subset of the former not vice versa.

/rant

...an interest in Scorp4me's point that performance in the NCAA tourney isn't the best indicator of a program's success (I am paraphrasing).

I made the point, then, that I respectfully disagreed with his assertion on this matter, because performance in the NCAA Big Dance truly is considered the relative measure of program success.

I am focusing on the success of the team while they're in school, only; the NCAA tourney puts many successful teams together and they all fight it out while they're on equal footing.

The greatest result in the NCAA is NCAA tourney performance, and the ultimate prize is the National Championship trophy. It is Duke's performance at that level since 1985 which has netted it the title of 'elite team'. IF Duke had won every ACC tourney since 1985 (and I know we've won many of them) but washed out in the first round of every NCAA tourney since 1985, Duke would not be considered an elite team.

dth.

dukestheheat
04-11-2009, 10:56 AM
So you're going to tell me that in your job (you chose the analogy), you do a great job through out the year. In fact, you work your but off. You have the highest efficiency rating througout the year. Joe Blow over there is your typical employee, does what he has to do to get by. He's mostly ontime, but never stays late and often has to be corrected for little mistakes. Big account comes up and he lands him and you don't. Do you think your boss will be excited? Heck yes he will, he's got that brand new account. But who do you think he'll turn to next year?

See I think continued success. Wins. Being ranked in the top 10 or even 25 for the 6 months of the regular season. They're more important to the overall perception of a program than the final 3 weeks. It only makes sense, you hear about it 10 times as long.

Now, I have no problem with a tournament determining who the champion is. Much like in the ACC where you have an unbalanced schedule, there is simply no other way to determine who the yearly champion is. If it weren't, then that stupid Helmes Championship would actually mean something. And certainly winning it all trumps anything else. Who actually remembers the runner-up or the other final four members after a few years?

But by your definition there are only what...1, 2...4 teams that are successful each year. And I just don't buy that.

This has nothing to do with Carolina or trying to take anything away from them. Heck they have the best of both worlds this year. But to say that Duke is falling simply because they don't play in one of the last 3 games of the season is ridiulous. As roywhite said we are one of the top 10 programs in the country. To believe we are entitled to be the best or one of the top 3 (or by your definition to be one of the remaining 4 teams) every year would make us...well, Tarheel fans!

...but to jump back onto it, Duke is considered an elite team based on results in the NCAA tourney since about 1985.

And over to the job analogy that I used: yes, if Joe Blow (the slacker) gets the ultimate prize, the big account, then HE gets the great reward in terms of the big bonus at the end of the year. He gains elite status because, year-after-year, he's able to win the one that counts in terms of increasing our business performance, which is OUR measuring stick relative to other companies (other teams) out there.

It's our end-of-game performance which nets us our accolades; I'm not sure what the subjective cut-off point for that would be with the 'pundits', but I wouldn't be surprised if the Sweet 16 would be it. ?

dth.

Scorp4me
04-13-2009, 01:01 AM
...but to jump back onto it, Duke is considered an elite team based on results in the NCAA tourney since about 1985.

And over to the job analogy that I used: yes, if Joe Blow (the slacker) gets the ultimate prize, the big account, then HE gets the great reward in terms of the big bonus at the end of the year. He gains elite status because, year-after-year, he's able to win the one that counts in terms of increasing our business performance, which is OUR measuring stick relative to other companies (other teams) out there.

It's our end-of-game performance which nets us our accolades; I'm not sure what the subjective cut-off point for that would be with the 'pundits', but I wouldn't be surprised if the Sweet 16 would be it. ?

dth.

How ironic, I hadn't looked at this thread since...well my last post which was quite a few days ago I think. Looks like we've both been out of it.

I think our different perspective comes in what should be considered for program success and what is considered for program success.

I'll take just the ACC before expansion as an example. At that time with everyone playing everyone twice I always argued that the regular season championship was a better indicator than the tournament. But since we no longer play a round robin format the ACC tournament is the only thing that can be used to determine the winner. Since we don't have a round robin format in the NCAA (I realize that'd be hundreds of games) the NCAA tournament is the only way to determine a winner.

Now I still think that 20+ games over the course of a season is a better indicator of success than a one and done tournament. That would be my assertation. But if you're arguing that perception of a program is more determined by that end of year tournament, then I suppose I can see that.

A kind of what is and what should be. So I see your side of the argument.