New ESPN Top 10

[mph]

This time ESPN ranks (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2867148) the 10 programs based on their positioning for future success. UNC is ranked first. Duke comes in at #6, behind Florida, UCLA, Kentucky, and Ohio State.

Several interesting notes:

1. The explanation of UNC's ranking could have been written by members of this board. Roy is praised for using "the depth he recruits (unlike Duke)," and for not "going down the same road as schools like Duke and Florida and rolling out an alternate black jersey."

2. A look at the individual ballots (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2867179) reveals that Jay ranks Duke at #10, Duke's lowest ranking. I'm in agreement with what Gary said in another thread. Subconsciously or otherwise, Jay seems to actively work to avoid the "homerism" charge. I love "Duke-boy" as an analyst, but I always felt like we received a more objective take from Brad Daugherty. It's a strange world.

3. Kentucky gets too much love. Lunardi ranks them #1, which is just absurd. Jay and Andy Glockner rank them #2. There's a lot of reason for optimism in Lexington, but ranking Kentucky this high without Gillispie having coached his first game at UK is optimism run amuck. On what basis could one reasonably rank Kentucky ahead of UNC at this point? Do they have a better coach? Better recruiting potential? Better facilities?

[alteran]

'm in agreement with what Gary said in another thread. Subconsciously or otherwise, Jay seems to actively work to avoid the "homerism" charge. I love "Duke-boy" as an analyst, but I always felt like we received a more objective take from Brad Daugherty. It's a strange world.
Actually, I think Daugherty might have the same syndrome Jay has, but in reverse. He is one of the most complimentary commentators about Duke that I can think of.

I personally think that Bilas DOES "overcompensate" a little, but I truly don't care. He gives insightful analysis and certainly never engages in the cheap shots we see from virtually everyone else. He appears to be a well-liked and respected analyst, and represents us well. When he's around, I think people refrain from gratuitous cheap shots at the program.

He's a big, big plus for us on a network which does virtually everything it can to tear us down, short of making outright cheerleading against us as a matter of corporate policy.

[dukeENG2003]

Ten years from now, I'd like to look back at this list, and see if Ohio State actually has more success than Duke, b/c it certainly sounds like a laughable notion to me right now, there are only so many Greg Odens, and they won't all go to Ohio State. Heck, Matta did a great job of making the case for any future Gred Odens NOT to go to OSU with how underutilized he was

[EarlJam]

I hate UNC.

-EarlJam

[RepoMan]

Bilas' efforts to avoid a Duke bias are becoming almost laughable. Do you really think that, over the next ten years, Duke will have only the 10th best record? Texas? Indiana? Ohio State? All better?

That's goofy.

Perhaps someone with better research skills than me can determine when was the last time that Duke had the 10th best record over a 10 year span. I bet you have to go back a loooong time (well before the Back season).

Bilas is starting to lose credibility when it comes to Duke commentary. I've always liked him and hope I don't start thinking he is a bit of a tool.

[cspan37421]

I think Bilas just calls it like he sees it. When Duke fell out of the rankings after losing a bunch of ACC games last year, he said they would regroup and be fine (when it looked pretty bleak getting to 0.500 in conference play), and still get in the tournament. He was right. He didn't say Duke would go far, though. And his silence on that looks pretty wise in retrospect too. Another thing - Jay does his homework. He digs and digs for stories esp. those that aren't on the national radar, and his analysis is never without a good foundation, unlike some of their guys who just regurgitate platitudes and know nothing beyond what they read off the wires.

He's no Duke homer, but at least he's not against Duke. The days of being a lovable underdog ended no later than 1991. Duke doing well in basketball is not "news" and is not a story that can be sold. It is expected - and that's why there's piling on and sudden interest when we struggle.

A month ago at my son's soccer game someone said to me (after seeing my Duke cap) that they had a bad year this year. I said, yeah, it was a down year by their standards - they only won 2/3rds of their games. There are still a lot of teams that would like to do that poorly.

[SilkyJ]

I hate UNC.

-EarlJam

I like this guy.

Also, Bilas is a very intelligent analyst, but definitely over compensates.

Jay, I know you read this Board: Give us some love!!!

[MulletMan]

When you look at those lists, what does Duke not have in common with any other program on the list? Look closely and notice that every other school on those lists are large, state institutions with oodles of money being poured into athletics. There was a very interesting piece in SI a while back (sorry I don't have time to link it) basically talking about how schools like OSU and UF have absurd amounts of money, and money, in the future, might win championships through better recruits, better facilities, better whatever. It might not be that far fetched to think that if a giant like OSU decides to commit itself to having a top-notch basketball program, then it might be more successful than Duke.

I'm just sayin'.

[SilkyJ]

very fair point regarding the big state schools. also worth noting that analysts are probably (over)emphasizing the perceived fall-off since the '01 run, and may see that as what is most likely to continue.

[dkbaseball]

Well, at least we made the top seven. Back in '89, Dukie V, supposedly our very own PR flack, named seven programs with a bright outlook for the '90s, Duke not among them. LSU, however, was. This was at a point when K had just gone to the final four three of four years, Laettner and Hurley were in school, and Grant Hill was in the truck. I get why the big, wealthy state schools are supposed to dominate in football, but hoops? One great coach, one great gym, and you've got all the recruits you need.

[mepanchin]

What I don't like about the list is how it completely ignores longer term, very telling trends in favor of very recent, and potentially very volatile trends. For instance, starting in 98-99, Florida's season by season records were: 22-9, 29-8 (final four year), 24-7, 22-9, 25-8, 20-11, and 24-8 before winning their national championship. That is, by no means, a statement to disparage Billy Donovan or Florida, but there is a great measure of consistency in those 7 seasons, resulting in 2 Sweet 16 visits (1 of which was a Final Four). Then, after losing 60% of their offense, a group of sophomores emerge together and make a great team who wins back to back championships. Why does Florida have such a bright future when their entire championship team is leaving and prior to those 2 years, they were a good, but not great, team?

I suppose I can see the OSU argument. Matta was improved in each of his 3 years, and continues to be a good recruiter - but without Greg Oden, his team would have probably been a 2 seed at best (the +/- on Oden is ridiculous). They will be good, but if they even win 1 championship in the next 10 years, I will be shocked.

I fully expect Duke, UNC and UCLA to each win a championship (at least) in the coming decade. Kentucky could, but why are people so excited about UK based on just getting a new coach? Seems premature to me. Kansas might, but it's Kansas. They will win the Big 12 like 8 times out of 10 and never make a Final Four.

[JasonEvans]

I think one factor in everyone's rankings could be the uncertainty about who will be Duke's coach in 10 years. There is at least a decent chance it will not be Coach K.

-Jason "still, #6 seems quite low, especially because the current recruiting has been so studly" Evans

[Buckeye Devil]

#6 sounds a little low, but it should not be shocking. Florida and UNC have won the last 3 NC's between them and UCLA has been to 2 F4's in a row. I don't think that Gillespie makes UK so high-especially when he was not the first choice.

I understand the OSU ranking as well. Accuse me of bias being from Ohio, but I believe that Matta will win a NC within the next 5 years and his handling of Greg Oden was not as bad as people out of Big 10 land seem to think.

Given the probable logic behind the ranking, I could see #4 at best. I would guess that if Duke is the fourth best program in the next 10 years, no one will complain. It would probably mean another NC and 1-2 other F4's. I will take that over the next decade and be quite happy.

[cspan37421]

Another factor that could be at play in Bilas' analysis - if not others too - is what they think Coach K can do in the next several years. Here's where I'm going:

Coach K has led teams to national championships 3 times. He is moving up the ladder in all-time wins (and not just by longevity - his winning % is truly exceptional).

What other active coach has 3 national championships? Who has the most all-time wins, also with a great winning percentage? Bobby Knight. But what has his last 20 years been like? Very good but not truly outstanding - no national championships, and how many final fours? 0? 1? I'm not sure, I don't think very many. He's averaged records of about 22-11 since then. Some analysts may think that K's success will follow the same path.

It could, but personally I doubt it. K does not have the temper problems - at least publicly - that Knight has/had, and there's virtually no chance he will HAVE to finish his coaching career somewhere else, as Knight has. K still recruits great; I'm sure you can say that about Knight (I have no doubt he's a great teacher, though). As long as there are the Brands, Boozers, Battiers, Dengs, Duhons, Dunleavys, Maggettes, Williamses, etc. to endorse K to young recruits (maybe with a video of Ferry twirling his NBA championship ring and Johnny Dawkins doing a fast-break reverse slam against David Robinson's Navy team - or how about Phil Henderson dunking on Alonzo Mourning!), I think K should continue to recruit well and there's not that much reason to believe that his effectiveness will wane in his later coaching years.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Does it really matter? Who cares what these guys think? It's what happens on the court that counts. Let the games begin!

[cspan37421]

Perceptions matter - just ask Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans. Also, it matters for hoops recruiting, because recruits let it matter. Sad but true.

[ikiru36]

Perceptions matter - just ask Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans. Also, it matters for hoops recruiting, because recruits let it matter. Sad but true.

Yeah, can't say I'm fond of the timing with two recruits currently in their final deliberations involving Duke, Kentucky and Florida. I could get conspiratorial over this but, nah.

I suppose it's a fun exercise to project such a thing, but it's also pretty bogus to put even Florida up there at all given the likelihood that Donovan will leave at least within the next 1-3 years, especially if they are particularly successful. And to put Kentucky ahead of Duke, with a new coach (from their 'B list' of candidates) who has one Sweet 16 to his credit, having just lost their former coach to Minnesota, seems downright silly. Unless they know Coach K to be retiring within the next 7 years (which would still likely leave Duke at that point in a better situation than Kentucky is in now), I still think we are likely to be #1 and it'd be hard to predict us below the Top 4 since our current "struggles" are so easily explained by a few year post-Deng/Livingston transition in recruiting philosophy.

Uh, just for starters, we have the best overall record over the past 10 years, we have the currently most successful group of University alumni in the NBA (based on at least salary and, arguably, performance), we're completing facility upgrades, have a Top 3 recruiting class this year and are the current leader for the #1 player in the following class, our Coach is the head coach of USA Basketball, and, if they are right about UNC, then the Duke/UNC rivalry will continue to fuel the more mythical intangibles surrounding the Duke program.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cspan37421]

ikiru36, K needs you on the recruiting trail. You'd have sold me on Duke if I knew nothing about them before!

My guess is that the projections for success of Gillespie at UK are b/c he turned around his previous program and garnered a reputation as a great recruiter. They figure if he was great at recruiting to Tex A&M then couple that with a storied program like KY and why wouldn't anyone want to go there.
Answer: b/c they could get all that and a lot more with Duke!

[cspan37421]

K still recruits great; I'm sure you can say that about Knight (I have no doubt he's a great teacher, though).

meant to say "I'm not sure you can say that about Knight" ...

:o

[Wander]

He's a big, big plus for us on a network which does virtually everything it can to tear us down, short of making outright cheerleading against us as a matter of corporate policy.

I don't particularly like ESPN but saying they do "virtually everything they can to tear us down" is laughable when you consider how often we're televised nationally.

[_Gary]

I don't particularly like ESPN but saying they do "virtually everything they can to tear us down" is laughable when you consider how often we're televised nationally.

Not really all the laughable. I'd suggest there's a difference between ESPN airing our games, which are huge money makers for them, and the studio personnel having an anti-Duke bias. I think it's more than obvious that a large number of the Sportscenter guys love tearing Duke down by perpetuating myths about Duke getting all the calls or something similar. In fact I believe someone who's relative worked behind the scenes at ESPN once told me that the bias was definitely evident.

Gary

[cspan37421]

If being biased TOWARD Duke would get them ratings, they'd do that instead. But the opposite is true, and this is what you get.

Same herd mentality behind why most folks love seeing the Yankees lose. We like the underdog in this country, and we're simply no longer that.

[_Gary]

But that doesn't explain why teams like UConn and UNC, both very successful as well, aren't treated the same way. Sorry, but I think it's more than just Duke being good. The dislike is too palpable for that.

Gary

[cspan37421]

True - the private school thing hurts in the sense that it gives the air of "cleverer than thou" elitism, not a school for the masses. But even UNC and UConn didn't have the 7 Final Fours in 9 years, did they? And have it dubbed the Duke Invitational.

Nearest comparison I can think of: was Notre Dame hated in football when they were really good under Holtz? Say by your average Wolverine, Buckeye, Gator, Seminole, Hurricane, or a non-grad from the state who identifies with one of those state schools?

[Classof06]

As far as the hate for Duke goes, being a private school is a huge factor. The student body makeup is of mostly affluent, privleged kids. That combined with the success of the basketball program, definitely produces an inferiority complex among outsiders. What other school in the nation is mentioned with the Harvards and Yales acadmically, but the UNCs and Kentuckys in basketball?

Sadly enough, I think another one of the reasons for Duke hate is the way they defy common perceptions of college basketball. To be sure, we're still the only major college basketball program that consistently wins with white kids (not just one here or there). Second, our black kids don't have cornrows (Lance got rid of his upon his campus arrival--I'd imagine Coach K had a lot to do with that) or tattoos (not too many), and they're well-spoken. Many come from two-parent homes, and even if they don't go to the NBA, they're still successful. Believe it or not, that's hard for some people to handle.

Quote from Gary Williams:

"I think it's the Yankees Syndrome. They've been so successful. When they play a game on television, they're the best student body in the country, and all those things go into that. But any time you win as they have, people, just like anything else in our society, anything that's successful, like to see them taken down. I think that's why there's some animosity out there."

[ikiru36]

I don't particularly like ESPN but saying they do "virtually everything they can to tear us down" is laughable when you consider how often we're televised nationally.

Wander, that is a fair point, making clear the relative hyperbole involved in the former statement. Nevertheless, while Duke fans certainly benefit from the convenience which extensive TV coverage of Duke Men's hoops provides:

a) only some of it is on ESPN, much instead on FSN, Sunshine, CBS (though one could point out CBS Sports bias as well with Gregg Doyle on board)...etc.
b) to whatever extent there is a Duke bashing mentality by ESPN's analysts on TV and on their website (Simmons in particular), they seem to actively feed a form of dislike which helps the TV ratings of Duke games while, simultaneously, damaging Duke's reputation quite unfairly.

Such celebrity as this can be a fool's bargain. Eventually, hopefully, the truth will out over the lies and strawman arguments which abound.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ikiru36]

As far as the hate for Duke goes, being a private school is a huge factor. The student body makeup is of mostly affluent, privleged kids. That combined with the success of the basketball program, definitely produces an inferiority complex among outsiders. What other school in the nation is mentioned with the Harvards and Yales acadmically, but the UNCs and Kentuckys in basketball?

Sadly enough, I think another one of the reasons for Duke hate is the way they defy common perceptions of college basketball. To be sure, we're still the only major college basketball program that consistently wins with white kids (not just one here or there). Second, our black kids don't have cornrows (Lance got rid of his upon his campus arrival--I'd imagine Coach K had a lot to do with that) or tattoos (not too many), and they're well-spoken. Many come from two-parent homes, and even if they don't go to the NBA, they're still successful. Believe it or not, that's hard for some people to handle.

Quote from Gary Williams:

"I think it's the Yankees Syndrome. They've been so successful. When they play a game on television, they're the best student body in the country, and all those things go into that. But any time you win as they have, people, just like anything else in our society, anything that's successful, like to see them taken down. I think that's why there's some animosity out there."

I think that you will find Duke's relative diversity as regards "race" and family economic background to be far more in-line with various top State Universities than you imply. Having had fairly close involvement in the communities around 3 such schools (UNC-CH, Michigan-Ann Arbor, and Cal-Berkeley) the affluence of the student body's relative to their state as a whole is quite pronounced. Many in these various States feel that these "flagship" schools do serious damage to the overall public education system (serving the generally less-privileged), by siphoning massive proportions of State funds (due to the nepotism of their graduates in positions of power in the State). I'm just saying that the Duke 'elitism' argument is often an overstated strawman as well as the pot calling the kettle. When one then factors in Duke's impressive graduation rates among athletes of all backgrounds, this argument becomes yet more ludicrous and almost backwards.

As for the appearance of Duke's athletes as regards skin color or hairstyle, again, UNC and other comparable State schools ain't all that different (though Duke does, perhaps, more closely represent the diversity of its student body than most). The styling thing tends to be a preference which varies widely from school to school, with some enforcing more dress expectations than others. I, personally, would be both surprised and upset if Coach K were to have any specific rules about cornrows...etc., though perhaps he, like many coaches, encourages professional appearance (whatever that may mean).

As for the 2 parent home statement, I can think of a few Duke players for whom this wasn't the case, and unless you have stats re: other schools, I fear that stereotype is involved in your statement. I think that you are making a lot of largely erroneous assumptions both about the background of Duke's student body as well as about other schools as well.

While I think that much of what you state may be much of many people's negative perception of Duke, this is largely a mis-perception based on invalid assumptions, projection, and lies. We ain't no angels, but sure as heck, neither are those who tear Duke down with or without malice aforethought.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Classof06]

I think that you are making a lot of largely erroneous assumptions both about the background of Duke's student body as well as about other schools as well.

While I think that much of what you state may be much of many people's negative perception of Duke, this is largely a mis-perception based on invalid assumptions, projection, and lies. We ain't no angels, but sure as heck, neither are those who tear Duke down with or without malice aforethought.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


To begin, much of what I'm trying to state is EXACTLY the negative perception of Duke and I agree it's very invalid and based on a lot of false assumptions. But to take it further, saying that all perceptions of Duke are false is a step I'm not willing to take. I think Duke's "elitist" stereotype is overrated, but stereotypes do come from somewhere; very very many of the undergraduates at Duke do come from affluent families, and I'm talking all colors included. IMO, to say Duke doesn't have a higher proportion of wealthy kids than most other schools is wrong. This is a school that up until a couple of years ago, didn't even offer financial aid to international students, and given the presence of International students on campus, I think that says a lot.

Furthermore, as a black male who actually knew more than a few of the basketball players during my years at Duke, I think it would be flat-out wrong to say that Duke doesn't break the mold of the common perceptions of the black student athlete; whether those perceptions are right or wrong. I've heard not a few, but several black and white fans alike make such observations. Duke brings in not only special kinds of players, but special people, and their African-American student-athletes are no exception. If you can name me other schools that bring in kids like Grant Hill, Luol Deng, Shelden Williams, Jason Williams, Gerald Henderson, Carlos Boozer (from Alaska for God's sakes) let me know. When I turn on the TV and see that almost 10% of Ohio State's football program comes from one of the toughest neighborhoods in Cleveland, or see Real Sports on HBO when a U Miami professor says 20% of his black students couldn't even read, then yeah, I think there certainly is a difference. Luol Deng's father was a member of the Sudanese Parliament!

Duke's kids are undoubtedly coming from unique backgrounds when I compare them to the majority of black student-athletes I come across, on TV or in person. I don't think that's an outlandish statement by any stretch of the imagination. Are there players at Duke that didn't come from 2-parent homes or homes with a consistent fatherly presence? Of course, but given the state of Black America, one with more than enough one-parent homes, I'd be more than willing to bet that Duke's percentage is lower than many other Division 1A basketball programs. I do not have facts to back that up, but that makes me no less confident in that assertion.

I'm not saying I know everything about Duke and other colleges. But after spending 4 of the last 5 years of my life on Duke's campus, I'm confident I have a good feel for both the university and the student body which makes it up. I'm as aware as anyone that Duke has a lot of way off-base assumptions pinned to it, but not all of these assumptions are necessarily negative and not all of them are necessarily off-base.

[watzone]

You know, it's funny that ESPN just jumped into sports, trying to make it something more. Whoever they hire are considered experts and will tell you that. In truth, you can take a lot of knowlegable sports figures and come up with a much different results.

What's that? You are right, they are about entertainment, but trying to predict the future of college basketball is impossible. So, we are going to have a new poll everytime a major change comes along? If Donovan leaves in the next two years, UF's #2 ranking is toast.

UNC? They face the same task that Duke does in replacing a coach in say seven years or so.

I guess I am amazed at how some people make this out to be a big deal when it is for entertainment. It is the opinion of a few, not the whole. It's kind like predict Dukes record if they sign Greg Monroe thread or what will Duke record be when Coach K leaves.

I can accept those opinions that talk of the facts based on the past, but when we get into ten years down the road ... I won't waste my time on that.

[yancem]

Here's a little more "Top 10" to chew on:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2863684

I think that this list might be even more absurd than the programs one. While I'll admit that the back-to-back championships by FL was impressive. I think that if they hadn't won the title in '06 the '07 team wouldn't have made the top 5. UNC '05 seems to be over ranked as well and I'll let you guys argue the disrepect for the Duke '99 and '01 teams, I don't have the time right now to write a proper dissertation. :)

[ikiru36]

Class of 06,

Thank you for clarifying (to me, since perhaps it was already clear to others) that you were pointing out "Duke Haters" perception of Duke, while not generally agreeing with that perspective yourself.

Also, I fully agree with your point about stereotypes sometimes having factual basis, albeit exaggerated or over-generalized. I do stand by my point that while Duke's student body is certainly more affluent than the average school, I have had a number of friends at Duke on major need based scholarship or whose parents had not completed college while knowing many UNC or Michigan students from extremely affluent backgrounds. Just pointing out that while Duke's student body is (probably well) above average as regards educational/financial privilege, this applies to far from everyone and many flagship State Universities have student bodies above average in this regard as well.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Classof06]

No worries, it's all good. I agree 100% with what you're saying.