PDA

View Full Version : Weak Non-conference schedule



dukediv2013
12-05-2009, 02:24 PM
Why do we schedule such a weak non-conference schedule? I mean I know that Tulsa and some of these other teams are their conference champions, but in the Sweet Sixteen, is it more likely that we see Tulsa or Villanova or Texas?

The reason that teams like UNC have a better percentage in the NCAA tournament, right now, must be attributed to the strength of schedule.

Duvall
12-05-2009, 02:30 PM
The reason that teams like UNC have a better percentage in the NCAA tournament, right now, must be attributed to the strength of schedule.

Carolina played a much weaker non-conference schedule last year than Duke has this year. Didn't seem to hurt them much.

By January 30 Duke will have played Connecticut, Wisconsin, Gonzaga and Georgetown, all away from home, and all teams that will be ranked on Monday. The schedule is fine.

FireOgilvie
12-05-2009, 02:30 PM
Why do we schedule such a weak non-conference schedule? I mean I know that Tulsa and some of these other teams are their conference champions, but in the Sweet Sixteen, is it more likely that we see Tulsa or Villanova or Texas?

The reason that teams like UNC have a better percentage in the NCAA tournament, right now, must be attributed to the strength of schedule.

Yeah, I'm sure it's strength of schedule and has nothing to do with talent and experience, like NPOY Tyler Hansbrough and ACC POY Ty Lawson. UNC has not had as strong of a SOS as they do this year in the early season the last few years. NEXT.

dukediv2013
12-05-2009, 02:53 PM
Carolina played a much weaker non-conference schedule last year than Duke has this year. Didn't seem to hurt them much.

By January 30 Duke will have played Connecticut, Wisconsin, Gonzaga and Georgetown, all away from home, and all teams that will be ranked on Monday. The schedule is fine.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Playing UCONN at MSG is nothing like playing UK at UK or KU at KU. I don't attribute Duke's postseason lack of success only to scheduling, but I do recognize the fact that Duke never wants to play away from Durham (and MSG-Duke North) and it hurts the team down the stretch of the season.

I just remember us playing UK at UK in 2001, a hostile environment, and I remember that being extremely beneficial.

Duvall
12-05-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Playing UCONN at MSG is nothing like playing UK at UK or KU at KU. I don't attribute Duke's postseason lack of success only to scheduling, but I do recognize the fact that Duke never wants to play away from Durham (and MSG-Duke North) and it hurts the team down the stretch of the season.

How? During the stretch of the season, Duke is usually playing in hostile environments. More than enough opportunities to learn there.


I just remember us playing UK at UK in 2001, a hostile environment, and I remember that being extremely beneficial.

I'm pretty sure that never happened. I don't think we've played Kentucky at Kentucky since the 1980 Regional Semifinal.

Bob Green
12-05-2009, 02:57 PM
Why do we schedule such a weak non-conference schedule?

Please don't look past today's opponent. St. John's starts five juniors and plays nine players double-digit minutes. They have talent and the game isn't going to be a cakewalk. I predict the outcome will not have been decided with three minutes left in the game. Those last 180 seconds will be crucial.

Our non-conference schedule is okay.

dukediv2013
12-05-2009, 02:59 PM
Yeah, I'm sure it's strength of schedule and has nothing to do with talent and experience, like NPOY Tyler Hansbrough and ACC POY Ty Lawson. UNC has not had as strong of a SOS as they do this year in the early season the last few years. NEXT.

I shouldn't have said that SOS is THE reason for Duke's lack of success, but I think it is important that Coach K rethink the scheduling of these cupcakes like St. John's (even though it is our last time playing them) and schedule some tougher competition on the road before ACC play. I guess that was my point, I just articulated it in a different way.

dukediv2013
12-05-2009, 03:02 PM
How? During the stretch of the season, Duke is usually playing in hostile environments. More than enough opportunities to learn there.



I'm pretty sure that never happened. I don't think we've played Kentucky at Kentucky since the 1980 Regional Semifinal.

You're right... they played at a neutral site. Man I am off today. I will quit now.

Bob Green
12-05-2009, 03:02 PM
I just remember us playing UK at UK in 2001, a hostile environment, and I remember that being extremely beneficial.

We did not play at UK in 2001.

12/18/2001: We defeated UK 95-92 in East Rutherford, NJ.

Bob Green
12-05-2009, 03:04 PM
...but I think it is important that Coach K rethink the scheduling of these cupcakes like St. John's...

I sure hope the team doesn't share your over confidence. St. John's isn't a cupcake.

pfrduke
12-05-2009, 03:07 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Playing UCONN at MSG is nothing like playing UK at UK or KU at KU.

Of course, when the tournament rolls around, we play teams at neutral sites, and not at UK or at KU.

Also, did you watch the UCONN game? That crowd was not even neutral, let alone in our favor. The Huskies put a lot of fans in the building.

airowe
12-05-2009, 03:07 PM
Why do we schedule such a weak non-conference schedule? I mean I know that Tulsa and some of these other teams are their conference champions, but in the Sweet Sixteen, is it more likely that we see Tulsa or Villanova or Texas?

The reason that teams like UNC have a better percentage in the NCAA tournament, right now, must be attributed to the strength of schedule.

Ah-hem.

http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html

Duke SOS #2
UNC SOS #160

'nuff said.

I can bring up more if you want...

HCheek37
12-05-2009, 03:11 PM
Of course, when the tournament rolls around, we play teams at neutral sites, and not at UK or at KU.

Also, did you watch the UCONN game? That crowd was not even neutral, let alone in our favor. The Huskies put a lot of fans in the building.

There is a large difference in watching the game versus attending the game. The UConn fanbase was more located in several sections of the garden but Duke had way more fans overall. Watching the game on TV doesn't tell you everything about a crowd. Duke has a great NYC following and they were there supporting the team.

DukieTiger
12-05-2009, 03:15 PM
I just remember us playing UK at UK in 2001, a hostile environment, and I remember that being extremely beneficial.



We did not play at UK in 2001.

12/18/2001: We defeated UK 95-92 in East Rutherford, NJ.

I don't know how beneficial it was. Duke lost in the sweet 16 that year, ironically in Lexington, Ky.

Also, the whole playing "true road games" in the non-conference argument is sometimes made with the case that it prepares teams for the hostile environments of conference road-games- not necessarily for the NCAA tourney. And I would say Duke has done just fine in the ACC regular season the past decade, which is the time span to which this "criticism" is usually attributed.

Greg_Newton
12-05-2009, 03:38 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Playing UCONN at MSG is nothing like playing UK at UK or KU at KU. I don't attribute Duke's postseason lack of success only to scheduling, but I do recognize the fact that Duke never wants to play away from Durham (and MSG-Duke North) and it hurts the team down the stretch of the season.

I just remember us playing UK at UK in 2001, a hostile environment, and I remember that being extremely beneficial.

:confused: Playing UConn at MSG is as close as you can possibly get to a sweet 16 game. Playing UK at UK would not happen in the tournament.

And I don't know if I buy the argument that a tough schedule generally means better tourney performance. I mean, look at Memphis' 2008 runner up team's schedule: they had 2 games against ranked teams all year: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=235&year=2008 Duke had a pretty tough schedule that year (played 6 ranked teams), and bowed out in the 2nd round.

To me, it seems that sometimes teams can get worn down mentally by tournament time if they play too many "big games" throughout the season... it's a lot of pressure. I'm sure there are pros and cons both ways, but I don't think it's clear-cut that the tougher your schedule is, the better.

dukestheheat
12-05-2009, 05:08 PM
I will say that for awhile running now, excluding this year, our non-conference schedule HAS been not-so-strong. I do believe this part of our schedule, this year, is much improved.

dth.

CMARTZ
12-05-2009, 05:35 PM
Ah-hem.

http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html

Duke SOS #2
UNC SOS #160

'nuff said.

I can bring up more if you want...

I guess I must not understand SOS calculation because that makes no sense at all to me. Texas, Kentucky, and Michigan state have to count for something...

pfrduke
12-05-2009, 05:40 PM
I guess I must not understand SOS calculation because that makes no sense at all to me. Texas, Kentucky, and Michigan state have to count for something...

It's a to-date only ranking (so Kentucky and Texas weren't factored in yet).

CMARTZ
12-05-2009, 05:57 PM
It's a to-date only ranking (so Kentucky and Texas weren't factored in yet).

Ah ok, thanks for the explanation. That would seem to make it a very meaningless statistic.

arnie
12-05-2009, 07:21 PM
Ah ok, thanks for the explanation. That would seem to make it a very meaningless statistic.

The SOS table also has NCState's SOS at 39 vs. UNC at 160 prior to today. State toughest game has been Northwestern - I think the table is a total crock until more games are played.

Duvall
12-05-2009, 07:24 PM
The SOS table also has NCState's SOS at 39 vs. UNC at 160 prior to today. State toughest game has been Northwestern - I think the table is a total crock until more games are played.

It's important to remember that while UNC has played a couple of good teams in Syracuse and Michigan State, several of their OOC opponents to date have been *terrible*. FIU, NCCU, Valparaiso, Gardner-Webb - these teams are struggling, and really drag down UNC's SOS.

Kedsy
12-05-2009, 08:24 PM
The SOS table also has NCState's SOS at 39 vs. UNC at 160 prior to today. State toughest game has been Northwestern - I think the table is a total crock until more games are played.

It's not about more games being played. What people don't seem to realize about the RPI SOS is it is strictly based on the winning percentage of your opponents. Over the years K has been very clever about this and I have never understood why other schools don't schedule the way we do.

To explain, a game against a Coastal Carolina team that ends up 26-4 makes your SOS look a whole lot better than a game against a very tough Georgetown team that finishes the season 19-11. (Obviously I'm making the records up, but hopefully you get my point.) Thus far, Northwestern has a 6-1 record, so actually that does good things for State's RPI SOS. (Note also, this isn't necessarily true about your RPI rating, which includes your opponents' opponents' winning percentage; but it shows why it's not always wise to quote the SOS ranking because it is biased. Sometimes I wish Lunardi or some of ESPN's talking heads realized this, but since it often favors Duke I guess I don't care all that much.)

Exiled_Devil
12-05-2009, 08:52 PM
Why do we schedule such a weak non-conference schedule? I mean I know that Tulsa and some of these other teams are their conference champions, but in the Sweet Sixteen, is it more likely that we see Tulsa or Villanova or Texas?

The reason that teams like UNC have a better percentage in the NCAA tournament, right now, must be attributed to the strength of schedule.

From KenPom (http://www.kenpom.com/rpi.php?y=2009)- SOS for Duke the last 10 years:

2008 - 8
2007 - 3
2006 - 1
2005 - 4
2004 - 4
2003 - 32
2002 - 33
2001 - 6
2000 - 23
1999 - 3

If you think we have an issue with SOS, you have been watching the wrong team for a few years. We are consistently playing tough SOS.

Also, MSG is a second Home Court for Ucons more so than for us. We play 1 game a year there? They have played at least 3 games a year there since Calhoun started coaching.

Our schedule is fine. Consistently so. Just because it is not as exciting as playing UK or KU doesn't mean it is weak.

BlueintheFace
12-05-2009, 08:56 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/luke_winn/09/15/schedule/index.html

We don't... at least the "experts" and computers numbers (as have already been discussed) say we don't. In fact the only ones I have heard state we have an easy OOC schedule are tarheel fans.

Additionally, we are in the top 10 for SOS most years.

dukestheheat
12-05-2009, 09:12 PM
From KenPom (http://www.kenpom.com/rpi.php?y=2009)- SOS for Duke the last 10 years:

2008 - 8
2007 - 3
2006 - 1
2005 - 4
2004 - 4
2003 - 32
2002 - 33
2001 - 6
2000 - 23
1999 - 3

If you think we have an issue with SOS, you have been watching the wrong team for a few years. We are consistently playing tough SOS.

Also, MSG is a second Home Court for Ucons more so than for us. We play 1 game a year there? They have played at least 3 games a year there since Calhoun started coaching.

Our schedule is fine. Consistently so. Just because it is not as exciting as playing UK or KU doesn't mean it is weak.

...calls into question the non-conference SOS, which is broken into a subset of the SOS by KenPom.

Those ratings for Duke back to 2001 are:

2008: 41
2007: 10
2006: 6
2005: 46
2004: 24
2003: 108
2002: 59
2001: 17

While our overall SOS may have been decidedly higher, due most probably to the sheer strength of the statistical weight imparted by the usually-heavy ACC schedule, certainly our non-conference schedule strength, over the last 8 years I chose to look, has indeed been weaker overall.

As I stated earlier, it's stronger this year I believe.

dth.

Exiled_Devil
12-05-2009, 09:16 PM
It's not about more games being played. What people don't seem to realize about the RPI SOS is it is strictly based on the winning percentage of your opponents. Over the years K has been very clever about this and I have never understood why other schools don't schedule the way we do.

To explain, a game against a Coastal Carolina team that ends up 26-4 makes your SOS look a whole lot better than a game against a very tough Georgetown team that finishes the season 19-11. (Obviously I'm making the records up, but hopefully you get my point.) Thus far, Northwestern has a 6-1 record, so actually that does good things for State's RPI SOS. (Note also, this isn't necessarily true about your RPI rating, which includes your opponents' opponents' winning percentage; but it shows why it's not always wise to quote the SOS ranking because it is biased. Sometimes I wish Lunardi or some of ESPN's talking heads realized this, but since it often favors Duke I guess I don't care all that much.)

Didn't see this before I posted, and I have to agree that it deos seem to that we game the system a little.

However, I can't fully agree with this when instead of playing Coastal Carolina, we could have scheduled Charleston Southern - another big south team that is in the bottom instead of the top of their conference.

Coach K (Mike Cragg, IIRC) schedules great teams form minor conferences as our 'cupcakes'; some off-beat play types (princeton offense, all-zone defense, full-court press, etc); an early-season tourney; a high profile team from a major conference in NYC; and a major OOC game in January/February.

That recipe is smart one, IMO. It may also look nice on paper, but I think the logic has more to do with real performance than stats.

77devil
12-05-2009, 09:19 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Playing UCONN at MSG is nothing like playing UK at UK or KU at KU. I don't attribute Duke's postseason lack of success only to scheduling, but I do recognize the fact that Duke never wants to play away from Durham (and MSG-Duke North) and it hurts the team down the stretch of the season.

I just remember us playing UK at UK in 2001, a hostile environment, and I remember that being extremely beneficial.

For the record, Duke North is the Meadowlands.

Exiled_Devil
12-05-2009, 09:21 PM
...calls into question the non-conference SOS, which is broken into a subset of the SOS by KenPom.

Those ratings for Duke back to 2001 are:

2008: 41
2007: 10
2006: 6
2005: 46
2004: 24
2003: 108
2002: 59
2001: 17

While our overall SOS may have been decidedly higher, due most probably to the sheer strength of the statistical weight imparted by the usually-heavy ACC schedule, certainly our non-conference schedule strength, over the last 8 years I chose to look, has indeed been weaker overall.

As I stated earlier, it's stronger this year I believe.

dth.

Looking at that, I would say last year,2002 and 2005 were not strong, 2003 was weak, but those years when we were top 25 in OCC SOS are pretty strong.

Is there an easy way to see who else had that kind of consistency (or better)

77devil
12-05-2009, 09:21 PM
I will quit now.

Good idea. It is important that you get the facts right before posting.

DukieTiger
12-05-2009, 09:22 PM
Can you really isolate non-conference games as a measure of Duke's schedule strength though? If the criticism is that Duke's schedule is not strong enough to adequately prepare its team for postseason play, the whole schedule should be considered, no?

Additionally, as I have previously said- most of the criticism I have heard centers around Duke's lack of the "true road game." It would seem that a) Duke gets plenty of these in-conference, and b) the correlation between true road games and postseason success is likely not all that strong. The games in the postseason being played on a neutral court, as they are.

Once again, Duke's success in the ACC Regular Season seems to indicate that they get plenty of preparation out of their non-conference schedule.

**In response to Heat's post.

pfrduke
12-05-2009, 09:24 PM
...calls into question the non-conference SOS, which is broken into a subset of the SOS by KenPom.

Those ratings for Duke back to 2001 are:

2008: 41
2007: 10
2006: 6
2005: 46
2004: 24
2003: 108
2002: 59
2001: 17

While our overall SOS may have been decidedly higher, due most probably to the sheer strength of the statistical weight imparted by the usually-heavy ACC schedule, certainly our non-conference schedule strength, over the last 8 years I chose to look, has indeed been weaker overall.

As I stated earlier, it's stronger this year I believe.

dth.

Although, that's not a perfect way of looking at it either, because this includes the low-conference schools that play guarantee games in the pre-conference season. For example, in 2008 (when we were 41st), there were only 10 BCS conference teams with stronger non-con SOS. Among the other 30 teams above us were Mississippi Valley St, Yale, Miami OH, Tennessee St, Middle Tennessee, Chattanooga.

The "of the BCS schools" is, I suppose, a decent barometer, which gives us this:

2008: 11
2007: 6
2006: 2
2005: 13
2004: 7
2003: 30
2002: 19
2001: 6

There are 73 BCS schools in men's basketball (although the numbers going back a few years may vary), so in all but 2 seasons, we've been in the top 20% of major conference schools in non-conference schedule.

It's true that we typically don't have a "marquee" true-road game. I think the absence of that single game is over-weighted in people's general assessment of our SOS.

dukestheheat
12-05-2009, 09:59 PM
Can you really isolate non-conference games as a measure of Duke's schedule strength though? If the criticism is that Duke's schedule is not strong enough to adequately prepare its team for postseason play, the whole schedule should be considered, no?

Additionally, as I have previously said- most of the criticism I have heard centers around Duke's lack of the "true road game." It would seem that a) Duke gets plenty of these in-conference, and b) the correlation between true road games and postseason success is likely not all that strong. The games in the postseason being played on a neutral court, as they are.

Once again, Duke's success in the ACC Regular Season seems to indicate that they get plenty of preparation out of their non-conference schedule.

**In response to Heat's post.

...be noted, but the original poster posed a question about Duke's NON-conference schedule and was hoping for a discussion on that subset of the overall schedule. KenPom has data on that subset and looking at it, you'd have to admit that those numbers are not as strong. Whether that means anything, I'm not so sure, but the numbers are the numbers. And, like you, I've heard criticism of Duke's lack of 'true road games' but who cares about that? I just enjoy seeing the Devils play!

dth.

Exiled_Devil
12-05-2009, 10:16 PM
It's true that we typically don't have a "marquee" true-road game. I think the absence of that single game is over-weighted in people's general assessment of our SOS.

+1
I think it is a black swan phenomenon, combined with the herd mentality of sportscasters that causes them to focus on too few teams through out the season. From casual conversations, people tend to focus on about 6 teams and then 'the field' in any given year. The sportscasters reinforce this, and when we don't play people from the highlight 6, people get disappointed.

Thanks for that research. I tried to do something similar, but was distracted by football and cookies.

DukieTiger
12-05-2009, 10:17 PM
...be noted, but the original poster posed a question about Duke's NON-conference schedule and was hoping for a discussion on that subset of the overall schedule. KenPom has data on that subset and looking at it, you'd have to admit that those numbers are not as strong. Whether that means anything, I'm not so sure, but the numbers are the numbers. And, like you, I've heard criticism of Duke's lack of 'true road games' but who cares about that? I just enjoy seeing the Devils play!

dth.

Oh I completely understand, and I was not questioning you or disagreeing with you- just the line of thinking that OOC is somehow more important to a team's postseason success.

Agree that our raw OOC numbers are not as strong, and as much as I disagree with much of the criticism of Duke's scheduling strategy, I will say that I certainly would love to see another big home and home series crop up sometime in the near future.

Kedsy
12-05-2009, 11:13 PM
Didn't see this before I posted, and I have to agree that it deos seem to that we game the system a little.

However, I can't fully agree with this when instead of playing Coastal Carolina, we could have scheduled Charleston Southern - another big south team that is in the bottom instead of the top of their conference.

I must be misunderstanding your point, but if we scheduled a bad team from a bad conference it would hurt our RPI SOS. The trick only works if you schedule good teams from bad conferences.

SCMatt33
12-06-2009, 01:16 AM
Going back to the original topic, I think the criticism was that Duke doesn't choose to play as many top 10-20 teams as others seem to (specifically UNC this year). The problem with scheduling games is that who Duke plays isn't determined the summer beforehand. It can happen years in advance. Carolina was going to play Kentucky this year whether Billy Gillespie was fired or not. It was a stroke of luck (good or bad depending on your point of view) that Kentucky ended up as a top-5 opponent rather than a bubble team or worse. For Duke, the game against Charlotte, which looked like a "cupcake that would still look good because their not that bad" win, could turn out to be a win against a top 40-50 team or better if they win the A-10 and some other OOC games.

Exiled_Devil
12-06-2009, 07:38 AM
I must be misunderstanding your point, but if we scheduled a bad team from a bad conference it would hurt our RPI SOS. The trick only works if you schedule good teams from bad conferences.

I was a little convoluted - but my main point is that even our 'cupcakes' are typically the top team in their (small) conferences. Looking at some of our ACC peers, they don't seem to schedule relatively good early teams.

Faison1
12-06-2009, 08:20 AM
Good idea. It is important that you get the facts right before posting.

Don't you think that's a bit harsh? dukediv2013 has created a thread that is bordering on 3 pages now in discussion. He/she was talking about non-conference scheduling, which dukestheheat showed is significantly weaker than Duke's total SOS.

I think we can all agree scheduling has changed over the years, most notably by limiting true home and home series, and opting for programs that are willing to play Duke's "away" game in large arena's for the ticket draw. That tactic in and of itself limits how many top 10-20 programs are willing to sign a contract with Duke.

I, for one, would rather see more true OOC home-and-home series. If you want to be a top 5 program, schedule like one. Play anybody and everybody.

Of course, that precludes any research on finances and the money Duke makes by playing in the neutral sites. And K says it's good for tournament experience. So, I understand all arguments.

camion
12-06-2009, 10:45 AM
Weak schedule? Compared to whom? We have played a tougher schedule so far than almost all of the top teams. We still have two top 100 teams to play before January including Gonzaga.

If you don't like the the RPI SoS, and I don't, let's try Sagarin. Of the top 20 ranked teams Duke has played the second toughest schedule through Saturday (The ranking includes the UNC-UK game). Here is a listing of the top 20 with Sagarin SOS ranking.


Team SOS Rank
1 Duke 29
2 Texas 138
3 West Virginia 52
4 Syracuse 296
5 Kansas 330
6 Purdue 162
7 Villanova 224
8 Wisconsin 106
9 Florida 282
10 Tennessee 186
11 Ohio State 293
12 North Carolina 136
13 Connecticut 147
14 Texas A&M 89
15 Vanderbilt 24
16 Kentucky 263
17 Kansas State 124
18 Michigan State 172
19 UNLV 99
20 Mississippi 121

airowe
12-06-2009, 11:14 AM
That Charlotte win over Louisville certainly helps things in our SOS...

Kedsy
12-06-2009, 12:28 PM
That Charlotte win over Louisville certainly helps things in our SOS...

That's true in Sagarin's system, but in RPI Charlotte's win over Louisville helps our SOS exactly the same as Charlotte's win over East Carolina.

Billy Dat
12-06-2009, 02:01 PM
I think our non-conference schedule is typically fine, it's hard to account for an opposing team's fortunes when you lock up a home and home that runs for several years. However, I would like to see two things simply as a fan:

1. A true home and home against a traditional power like Kansas or Kentucky or UConn just to have a chance to see us play in their gyms and to see them come to Cameron.

2. I'd like to see some more serious non-conference foes come to Cameron so that our non-conference home winning streak has some more meaning. It's an amazing streak, don't get me wrong, but we haven't had to defend it against a real big bully in some time. Again, I know that can be chalked up to the cycles of an opponent's rise and fall in a lot of cases.

pfrduke
12-06-2009, 02:09 PM
2. I'd like to see some more serious non-conference foes come to Cameron so that our non-conference home winning streak has some more meaning. It's an amazing streak, don't get me wrong, but we haven't had to defend it against a real big bully in some time. Again, I know that can be chalked up to the cycles of an opponent's rise and fall in a lot of cases.

We did beat Georgetown at home (by 9) the year they went to the Final Four.

Exiled_Devil
12-06-2009, 03:01 PM
I, for one, would rather see more true OOC home-and-home series. If you want to be a top 5 program, schedule like one. Play anybody and everybody.



That's silly - you can say the same thing to anyone who won't play Duke at MSG. They shouldn't be afraid of playing us at a neutral site.

At the end of the day, there is no benefit for the team to play home and home OOC, just added excitement for the fans.

jimsumner
12-06-2009, 05:26 PM
"We did beat Georgetown at home (by 9) the year they went to the Final Four. "

Duke also beat Michigan State in December 2004. MSU returned the favor a few months later.

sagegrouse
12-06-2009, 05:41 PM
I think our away schedule is pretty darn tough. Duke plays away games every year against eight ACC teams, always including UNC and Maryland. Everyone loves it when Duke comes to town. All eight games are intense unless someone (Duke?) runs out to a big lead early.

Second, the things we care about are the ACC tournament and the NCAAs, which are played at neutral sites. Therefore, experience in these settings is useful, even better if we go to the exact venue (probably not happening this year, but UNC-G has a lot of home games with ACC teams who are prepping for the tournament in Gbo).

Third, Duke basketball drives the finances of the athletic program -- not football, as at most schools. Hence I see a financial motive in the scheduling. A few years ago Duke began being the promoter for games in New York: renting the hall (typically MSG) and paying the authority the going rate plus share of the gate. Taking on the risk, I gather, has been profitable. Invited teams presumably play for a guarantee. Duke gets to do this every year, as opposed to every other year in a home-and-home series.

Also, I believe, the Iron Dukes (as well as the Alumni Assoc. and Development Office) love it when we play in NY, Washington, Boston, or Chicago, because of the size and the ostensible wealth of donors there. I used to know out-pf-towners holding season tickets who made only one or two games a year. I was an out-of-towner (DC) in my seven years w/ season tickets, but I usually made six games a year. Even so, a game in DC was a bonus.

But, of course, I got the economic situation around redshirt schollies bolloxed up, so I'll let someone else correct me on the latter two points.

sagegrouse

weezie
12-06-2009, 08:09 PM
My goodness, look at how the year has flown by...time to put the decorations on the Christmas tree and once again discuss our "weak" non-con schedule.
Plus ca change....

Chris4UNC
12-06-2009, 08:18 PM
Why do we schedule such a weak non-conference schedule? I mean I know that Tulsa and some of these other teams are their conference champions, but in the Sweet Sixteen, is it more likely that we see Tulsa or Villanova or Texas?

The reason that teams like UNC have a better percentage in the NCAA tournament, right now, must be attributed to the strength of schedule.

Well, I have always heard that about Duke from some of my fellow Heel fans. One annoyed friend of mine often says when Duke does schedule a tough team it is always in Durham or in Durham II, a.k.a. Madison Square Garden. I however don't think it has hurt them too much. This year for example they have ended up playing and defeating a good UConn team. UNC has had a bear of a schedule so far this year, toughest in the country by far. #16 Ohio St. #9 Mich. St. #5 UK with #2 Texas coming up. It makes for a great resume especially if you win most of them. It is also going to make a young UNC squad that is good become great. But somehow Coach K has a logic to scheduling. In the end Duke always is tough, always wins most of their games.....you don't have to win national championships to have a good year. Didn't you guys win 30+ games last year? And the ACC tournament, how could I forget?

Chris4UNC
12-06-2009, 08:21 PM
My goodness, look at how the year has flown by...time to put the decorations on the Christmas tree and once again discuss our "weak" non-con schedule.
Plus ca change....

...don't sweat it. See my other reply if you will. Duke will be fine. Look at last year, 30 plus wins and an ACC Tourn. title. UNC's tough schedule (#16,9,5,and 2 coming up shortly) will help a young good Tar Heel team become even better but Duke will as always be great...unfortunately;)

Brian913
12-06-2009, 08:55 PM
There is a large difference in watching the game versus attending the game. The UConn fanbase was more located in several sections of the garden but Duke had way more fans overall. Watching the game on TV doesn't tell you everything about a crowd. Duke has a great NYC following and they were there supporting the team.

Are you kidding me? The crowd was, at a minimum 65% UCONN. Duke getting the lead shut them up, but anytime the lead shrank, they were loud again.

Faison1
12-06-2009, 09:11 PM
That's silly - you can say the same thing to anyone who won't play Duke at MSG. They shouldn't be afraid of playing us at a neutral site.

At the end of the day, there is no benefit for the team to play home and home OOC, just added excitement for the fans.

That's silly? My opinion is silly? You're silly! (Almost) Everything is done for the fans! Without fans, none of this would be possible. You think Duke only plays hoops to help "boys grow into men"? Of course not.

Opposing teams aren't afraid to play Duke on neutral sites. Many programs have stated that they don't want to do a home-and-home with Duke, because it offers a game at CIS, and the return in someplace like Meadowlands, the United Center, or MCI in DC. Part of the thrill for PLAYERS and FANS is to have a team like Duke come to their home court.

I think as recently as last year, Texas wanted to schedule a non-conference, but we were only offering the Meadowlands. So, UT said no, and the first team they turned to was UNC, who took them up on the offer. If you think UT is "afraid" to play us, they must be absolutely quaking in their boots when they play Chapel Hell in "neutral" Arlington, TX. Or worse yet, UNC must NOT be "afraid" of playing at a "neutral" site, while we were.

camion
12-06-2009, 10:33 PM
Well, UNC has had a bear of a schedule so far this year, toughest in the country by far. #16 Ohio St. #9 Mich. St. #5 UK with #2 Texas coming up.

By far? Well it depends on how you count. UNC has played Ohio St. Mich St. and UK. They will play Texas. They have also played four teams worse than any Duke has played including three rated below 300 in the Sagarin rankings. So UNC has played somewhat tougher at the top and a good bit easier at the bottom.

Bob Green
12-06-2009, 10:50 PM
UNC has had a bear of a schedule so far this year, toughest in the country by far. #16 Ohio St. #9 Mich. St. #5 UK with #2 Texas coming up.

You forgot to list #7 Syracuse. :)

Neals384
12-07-2009, 09:32 AM
Just speculating here...

I always thought the reason major conference teams scheduled teams from 2nd tier conferences was that they can get the lesser conference team to agree to visit them without having to agree to a game at that school the following year.

More home games = more ticket revenue and less travel expense.

CameronBornAndBred
12-07-2009, 10:03 AM
Just noticed this thread, and I think it's pretty funny that it was posted AFTER the loss to Wisconsin. There are a couple of other games that would not suprise me if we were to lose. Gonzaga in the Garden should be a really good game, and Georgetown at their place will be a very tough test.

allenmurray
12-07-2009, 10:59 AM
Good idea. It is important that you get the facts right before posting.

Is this how we want DBR (and by extension, Duke) to be seen by other fan bases? I though we strived for better.

Exiled_Devil
12-07-2009, 11:52 AM
That's silly? My opinion is silly? You're silly! (Almost) Everything is done for the fans! Without fans, none of this would be possible. You think Duke only plays hoops to help "boys grow into men"? Of course not.

Opposing teams aren't afraid to play Duke on neutral sites. Many programs have stated that they don't want to do a home-and-home with Duke, because it offers a game at CIS, and the return in someplace like Meadowlands, the United Center, or MCI in DC. Part of the thrill for PLAYERS and FANS is to have a team like Duke come to their home court.

I think as recently as last year, Texas wanted to schedule a non-conference, but we were only offering the Meadowlands. So, UT said no, and the first team they turned to was UNC, who took them up on the offer. If you think UT is "afraid" to play us, they must be absolutely quaking in their boots when they play Chapel Hell in "neutral" Arlington, TX. Or worse yet, UNC must NOT be "afraid" of playing at a "neutral" site, while we were.

Your logic was silly - you said "If you want to be a top 5 program, schedule like one. Play anybody and everybody." If that is true, it holds just as true for the other teams that don't want to play Duke in a large neutral arena.

Can you show how a home and home makes a program 'top 5' anyway? Top 5 in what?

And you are mistaken to think that everything done by a college team is for the fans. The fans are incidental. Duke basketball is for the betterment of the school and the students. Some students are fans, true. But the group that matters is 'student'. Not 'fan'.
Your 'of course not' is an accepted cynicism that masks the reality of the institution. If the TV and travel budgets went away, Duke would still field a basketball team - because it is not for the fans. Don;t mistake the trappings of success for the underlying purpose of the thing.

Faison1
12-07-2009, 01:21 PM
Your logic was silly - you said "If you want to be a top 5 program, schedule like one. Play anybody and everybody." If that is true, it holds just as true for the other teams that don't want to play Duke in a large neutral arena.

Can you show how a home and home makes a program 'top 5' anyway? Top 5 in what?

And you are mistaken to think that everything done by a college team is for the fans. The fans are incidental. Duke basketball is for the betterment of the school and the students. Some students are fans, true. But the group that matters is 'student'. Not 'fan'.
Your 'of course not' is an accepted cynicism that masks the reality of the institution. If the TV and travel budgets went away, Duke would still field a basketball team - because it is not for the fans. Don;t mistake the trappings of success for the underlying purpose of the thing.

Look, Exiled….I know a lot can be misconstrued through email and electronic communications like this. That’s why I am always very careful to avoid using certain words when discussing opinions. (And that’s all they are….opinions.) But calling me or my logic “silly” is just plain rude.

I will take it one step further. Your self-righteous tone is part of the reason Duke suffers from a bad PR perception. The overall attitude that we will only play teams with certain RPI’s and SOS’s, and on top of that, only at a neutral site of our choosing, creates an air entitlement.

In the 80’s, I had the distinct feeling that Coach K took all comers when making the schedule. I will admit I didn’t follow scheduling as much as I do now, but I certainly feel like something has changed since that time. I will also admit, as I did in a previous post, that I understand all arguments when it comes to finances, and tournament preparation. Being a fan, I don’t really like it, but who am I to argue? I guess I can always follow another team if I really had to.

Which brings me to your final point about the purpose of the program. I don’t even know where to begin. Maybe I’ll start with this: “The fans are incidental.” Are you kidding me? If it weren’t for the fans, Duke wouldn’t be able to field half the teams it does. You can call me cynical if you want, but reality is that all aspiring or good programs need fans. Fans pay the bills.

What do you think Duke’s athletic department, or even the school, would look like if we had a team like Rice University’s Basketball Team? Sure, it would be serviceable, and we could say we had a nice program for student-athletes, but it wouldn’t help increase annual student applications, and it probably wouldn’t inspire generous alumni contributions. It definitely wouldn’t have 3 separate community internet forums to discuss opinions about the team. I guess we could turn this into a chicken/egg discussion, but I will end now.

Exiled_Devil
12-07-2009, 02:26 PM
Look, Exiled….I know a lot can be misconstrued through email and electronic communications like this. That’s why I am always very careful to avoid using certain words when discussing opinions. (And that’s all they are….opinions.) But calling me or my logic “silly” is just plain rude.

I will take it one step further. Your self-righteous tone is part of the reason Duke suffers from a bad PR perception. The overall attitude that we will only play teams with certain RPI’s and SOS’s, and on top of that, only at a neutral site of our choosing, creates an air entitlement.

In the 80’s, I had the distinct feeling that Coach K took all comers when making the schedule. I will admit I didn’t follow scheduling as much as I do now, but I certainly feel like something has changed since that time. I will also admit, as I did in a previous post, that I understand all arguments when it comes to finances, and tournament preparation. Being a fan, I don’t really like it, but who am I to argue? I guess I can always follow another team if I really had to.

Which brings me to your final point about the purpose of the program. I don’t even know where to begin. Maybe I’ll start with this: “The fans are incidental.” Are you kidding me? If it weren’t for the fans, Duke wouldn’t be able to field half the teams it does. You can call me cynical if you want, but reality is that all aspiring or good programs need fans. Fans pay the bills.

What do you think Duke’s athletic department, or even the school, would look like if we had a team like Rice University’s Basketball Team? Sure, it would be serviceable, and we could say we had a nice program for student-athletes, but it wouldn’t help increase annual student applications, and it probably wouldn’t inspire generous alumni contributions. It definitely wouldn’t have 3 separate community internet forums to discuss opinions about the team. I guess we could turn this into a chicken/egg discussion, but I will end now.

Think what you will, and I may have had poor word choice, but your logic is faulty. How does Duke's not playing home and aways make them a 'not a top 5" program and on what metric are you examining it?

As to the Duke image issue - who really cares how opposing fans see Duke? There is no need for Duke to try to change image among haters. Sure, it makes barroom conversations more difficult for us fans,but the athletic department doesn't really need to invest in it.

Sure, Duke wouldn't be able to field the teams that it does not without fans. (Or travel budgets, or Nike contracts) But the team itself would exist. And the university would still have a top 10 business school, top 10 law school, top 10 Med school, top 10 Policy School, top English program, top 20 economics program ... I could go on.

The point - Basketball is not the end-all-be-all of the university and Duke would still be the top-notch institution it is without a top-notch basketball team. Applications would still be fine. Despite our local obsession at DBR with the basketball team, it is not the reason Duke is the university it is.

MulletMan
12-07-2009, 02:45 PM
1. A true home and home against a traditional power like Kansas or Kentucky or UConn just to have a chance to see us play in their gyms and to see them come to Cameron.



These types of contracts have been pursued by Duke in the past and have been refused because programs such as KU and yUK have little interest in coming into Cameron and facing the Crazies on national TV. That's why we see neutral site games against teams like Texas and Gonzaga. People with actual knowledge may correct me if I am wrong.

shoutingncu
12-07-2009, 04:45 PM
I linked an SI article when this topic came up a while back:
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12887

I won't link it again because it was pretty chock full o' Duke Bashing, as I recall, but I found the stuff on scheduling interesting because it was backed up by numbers (be it number of wins, or number of weekends played come March). Remember it's from a couple season ago.


At first glance, there would seem little reason to question Duke's scheduling practices. The Blue Devils' annual strength-of-schedule rating never dipped lower than 15th nationally from '02-'07 and was No. 1 twice. This year's schedule is currently fourth and includes seven nonconference opponents (New Mexico State, Illinois, Marquette, Wisconsin, Davidson and Pittsburgh) that reached last year's NCAA tournament. An eighth, Cornell, currently leads the Ivy League.

Give Duke credit for one thing: By no means does it load up on cupcakes like many other elite programs. However, in recent years, it has also shied away from playing nonconference games against elite opponents (note that only one of those seven tourney teams from last season, Pittsburgh, advanced beyond the first weekend) not to mention nonconference road games of any kind.


However, his philosophy seems to have deviated greatly from that of earlier in his career. Take a look at the nonconference schedules of Duke's nine Final Four teams from 1986-2001. They more frequently included elite opponents as well as far more games on opponents' home floors... Note that many of those teams finished with more regular-season losses than Duke's recent editions -- as many as seven to nine. However, it appears they also entered March far more battle-tested due to properly challenging themselves.

Duvall
12-07-2009, 04:52 PM
I linked an SI article when this topic came up a while back:
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12887

I won't link it again because it was pretty chock full o' Duke Bashing, as I recall, but I found the stuff on scheduling interesting because it was backed up by numbers (be it number of wins, or number of weekends played come March). Remember it's from a couple season ago.

Ah yes, the column in which Stewart Mandel showed that he thought that post hoc ergo propter hoc made for a compelling argument. Dude should stick to fluffing SEC football; at least he's good at that.

stickdog
12-07-2009, 05:53 PM
RPI Forecast (http://www.rpiforecast.com/) projects Duke's final non-conference RPI SOS to be 8th and UNC's final non-conference RPI SOS to be 96th.

Sagarin's rankings (http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/cbsend.htm) say that to this point in the season, Duke's SOS is 31st and UNC's is 134th.

Ken Pomeroy's rankings (http://kenpom.com/rate.php) say that to this point in the season, Duke's SOS is 31st and UNC's is 140th.

striker219
12-07-2009, 05:54 PM
...and because some people like to compare SOS between Duke and UNC, the following are SOS numbers through all games played as of Sunday, December 6.

Ken Pomeroy
Duke - 31
UNC - 140

Jeff Sagarin
Duke - 31
UNC - 134

Warren Nolan
Duke - 1
UNC - 126

StatSheet.com
Duke - 3 (projected 17)
UNC - 152 (projected 38)

TeamRankings.com
Duke - 1
UNC - 126

striker219
12-07-2009, 05:55 PM
And clearly stickdog had a similar thought.

Greg_Newton
12-07-2009, 05:56 PM
Interesting that Charlotte is now ranked 37th by the AP after destroying an injury-depleted Louisville. Guess that was an even better win than we thought...

dukeblue39
12-07-2009, 08:18 PM
If you look at Dukes nonconferance schedule before the season,it did look weak but a few teams are better than expected.Arizona st.,UCONN,Wisconsin(which is playing much better than Mich.st),andStJohns are all better than predicted.Duke also plays at Georgetown.Dukes schedule is pretty tough.Oh I forgot ,Duke also plays Gonzoga in a couple weeks.Duke schedules just the right blend of top 20 teams and top midmajor teams.Thats why dukes schedule will be rated top 5.

gumbomoop
12-08-2009, 07:55 AM
Worthy, NCAA-hopeful opponents would also include:

Long Beach St.
Iowa St.
Tulsa

JG2111
12-09-2009, 03:36 AM
The schedule Duke comes out with on a year to year basis is boring. They play in the same venues every year. Their are all these great tourneys now to start the season and we go to the same ones in rotation. I don't care what the computer rankings give them for SOS every season. I love the fact that I saw Wake go play at Gonzaga last week. UNC is going to Arlington to play Texas. That is a real neutral game. The only excitement we get is when they announce we have a road game in the Big Ten challenge. If I was a big time prospect and was choosing where to attend school I would want to play home and homes with Kansas, Kentucky, Florida, etc. Just a thought.

Bob Green
12-09-2009, 06:06 AM
The schedule Duke comes out with on a year to year basis is boring. They play in the same venues every year. Their are all these great tourneys now to start the season and we go to the same ones in rotation.

I disagree with this statement. A bit of research shows there is no set rotation to Duke's participation in early season tournaments:

By tournament

NIT Season Tip-Off: 1985, 1996, 2000, 2005, 2009
2K Sports Classic: 1999, 2008
Maui Invitational: 1992, 1997, 2001, 2007
Great Alaskan Shootout: 1995, 1998, 2003
CBE Classic: 2006

By year

2009: NIT Season Tip-Off
2008: 2K Sports Classic
2007: Maui Invitational
2006: CBE Classic
2005: NIT Season Tip-Off
2004: None
2003: Great Alaskan Shootout
2002: None
2001: Maui Invitational
2000: NIT Season Tip-Off
1999: 2K Sports Classic
1998: Great Alaskan Shootout
1997: Maui Invitational
1996: NIT Season Tip-Off
1995: Great Alaskan Shootout

And so on and so forth. As far as the boring label is concerned, I never consider any basketball game Duke is participating in boring.

JG2111
12-09-2009, 01:54 PM
Bob let's do some research. We can't play in Alaska anymore so that is out. They just announced we are playing in the CBE classic next year. If you believe Bruce Pearl we are doing Maui in 2011 which is fine because Maui is a great tourney. I am just saying with tourneys like Orlando, Puerto Rico, etc. it would be nice to see us somewhere besides MSG. Once a season in MSG or Jersey is fine. I just think Duke needs to get out of their comfort zone. You are right Duke games are not boring.

sagegrouse
12-09-2009, 02:07 PM
Bob let's do some research. We can't play in Alaska anymore so that is out. They just announced we are playing in the CBE classic next year. If you believe Bruce Pearl we are doing Maui in 2011 which is fine because Maui is a great tourney. I am just saying with tourneys like Orlando, Puerto Rico, etc. it would be nice to see us somewhere besides MSG. Once a season in MSG or Jersey is fine. I just think Duke needs to get out of their comfort zone. You are right Duke games are not boring.

When the number of alumni and donors in Orlando, Puerto Rico, or Billings, Montana equal or exceed the number in NY and DC, then I gah-rahn-tee that Duke will schedule games there.:D:D:D

sagegrouse
'And then there was the flap at American U. in 2005. The faculty was raising hell about University President Ladner having a nice house and travelling first class. Mind you, all the faculty wanted the President to do was to raise money for AU. Somehow, he was supposed to do this without entertaining or getting in position to meet donors.'

dyedwab
12-09-2009, 02:25 PM
. I am just saying with tourneys like Orlando, Puerto Rico, etc. it would be nice to see us somewhere besides MSG. Once a season in MSG or Jersey is fine. I just think Duke needs to get out of their comfort zone.

Like playing Iowa State in Chicago on January 6th? :)

From my perspective, the argument about the so-called weak non-conference schedule is that we don't play highly competitive non-conference opponents at their home gym very often. For example, Wisconsin and Georgetown are this year's only games like that, and many people dismiss Georgetown because the Verizon Center is really an NBA arena.

Now, I would generally agree that I would like to see more games at opponents home gyms and their return trips to Cameron. And not because they are great tourney prep, or helps us get to the Final Four, or whatever. I just think great inter-conference matchups with excited home crowds are fun too watch as a hoops fan.

But the fact that Duke can essentially create two games (Gonzage and IA State) at NBA-sized arenas not anywhere near Durham says much more positive things about Duke's program than negative.

MulletMan
12-09-2009, 02:39 PM
Bob let's do some research. We can't play in Alaska anymore so that is out. They just announced we are playing in the CBE classic next year. If you believe Bruce Pearl we are doing Maui in 2011 which is fine because Maui is a great tourney. I am just saying with tourneys like Orlando, Puerto Rico, etc. it would be nice to see us somewhere besides MSG. Once a season in MSG or Jersey is fine. I just think Duke needs to get out of their comfort zone. You are right Duke games are not boring.

Perhaps Duke should go to Cancun and play in a hotel ballroom with uneven floors and chandeliers hanging from the ceilings?

The Orlando tourney field has yet to be good, and as much as I like the teams and games that have gone on in Puerto Rico the last two seasons, the fact is that all of those games are played in an empty-to-half-filled gym.

The best teams go to the best pre-season tourneys. That's why everyone wants to go to Maui or play in the preseason NIT. And while you may not like seeing Duke in the Garden each year, the players may enjoy playing in such a historic venue. Considering how we shot against ASU and UConn, I would hardly say that this Duke team is in a comfort zone in MSG.

Furthermore, its good for Duke to play in NBA-style arenas, because this is the type of set up they will have to win regional and national titles in.

pfrduke
12-09-2009, 04:12 PM
Perhaps Duke should go to Cancun and play in a hotel ballroom with uneven floors and chandeliers hanging from the ceilings?

A friend of mine was in Cancun for that this year, and said they had waiters serving cocktails in the crowd. I'm all for it. :D

tbyers11
12-09-2009, 06:37 PM
Perhaps Duke should go to Cancun and play in a hotel ballroom with uneven floors and chandeliers hanging from the ceilings?

The Orlando tourney field has yet to be good, and as much as I like the teams and games that have gone on in Puerto Rico the last two seasons, the fact is that all of those games are played in an empty-to-half-filled gym.

The best teams go to the best pre-season tourneys. That's why everyone wants to go to Maui or play in the preseason NIT. And while you may not like seeing Duke in the Garden each year, the players may enjoy playing in such a historic venue. Considering how we shot against ASU and UConn, I would hardly say that this Duke team is in a comfort zone in MSG.

Furthermore, its good for Duke to play in NBA-style arenas, because this is the type of set up they will have to win regional and national titles in.

I disagree that the Orlando field has yet to be good.
2008 - Gonzaga, Maryland, Mich St, Ok St, Georgetown, Tennessee, Wichita St, Siena
2009 - Alabama, Baylor, Creighton, FSU, Iona, Marquette, Michigan, Xavier
2010 - BC, Cal, Georgia, Manhattan, Notre Dame, Temple, Texas A&M, Wisconsin

It will never be as good as Maui, but the 2008 field was loaded. 2009 was fairly weak and 2010 looks meh this early, but you place Duke in there instead of BC and it is a much stronger field.

I understand the prestige of the Preseason NIT and MSG (along with the numerous NYC alums and NBA arena factors), but UConn, LSU and Az St as the marquee teams this year wasn't that strong. Next year's purported seeds in the CBE field (from the link on the front page today) of Gonzaga, Marquette and Kansas St isn't anymore impressive than matchups against Cal, Notre Dame or Wisconsin that could occur in Orlando.

I think the Orlando tourney compares favorably to the CBE in Kansas City but that might just be because I live here and would love for Duke to play 3 games in my backyard :D