PDA

View Full Version : More talented than people realize -- ha!



EagleDevil
03-13-2010, 11:29 AM
I haven't posted on these boards in years, but I've been reading DBR since the parquet days. This is the comment that drew me out:

"After watching [Friday's] games though, two things are pretty obvious: the league is more talented than people realize... How else can you explain it?"


You can explain it by observing that there is not a single really good team in the conference except for Duke (and even Duke is, of course, quite mortal)! Anyone can win because no one's any good.



Don't take my word for it, wait for the NCAAs. Another ACC team might win a game or two (there are a lot of other mediocre teams out there in the country, too), but they'll be gone soon.



The real problem is that we have little idea how good Duke is, though I fear the beating at Georgetown's hands may be a clue.


Get your heads out of the sand, DBR.

CDu
03-13-2010, 11:37 AM
I haven't posted on these boards in years, but I've been reading DBR since the parquet days. This is the comment that drew me out:

"After watching [Friday's] games though, two things are pretty obvious: the league is more talented than people realize... How else can you explain it?"


You can explain it by observing that there is not a single really good team in the conference except for Duke (and even Duke is, of course, quite mortal)! Anyone can win because no one's any good.



Don't take my word for it, wait for the NCAAs. Another ACC team might win a game or two (there are a lot of other mediocre teams out there in the country, too), but they'll be gone soon.



The real problem is that we have little idea how good Duke is, though I fear the beating at Georgetown's hands may be a clue.


Get your heads out of the sand, DBR.

Well, obviously the reason that there've been so many upsets is because the difference between the #3 and #12 teams in the ACC is not that much. Where exactly that range falls on a national scale remains to be seen, but I agree that it's in the 7-12 seed range. The #2 seed (which is probably a #5-6 seed) just had a bad game against a team that is more talented than its results have suggested.

As far as Duke, we just haven't had enough games against really good teams to know exactly where we fall. We've emphatically proven that we're way better than the middle of the pack (tons of blowout wins). But against the elite teams, we've had the misfortune of playing mostly on the road. Against true top-25 caliber teams, we've played only 4 games, with 3 being true road games. Who knows how the results would have turned out had we played those all at home or all on the road?

Obviously, we're mortal. We can be beaten by the right approach, that's for sure. But pretty much every team this year is pretty mortal. Aside from maybe Kansas, everybody has some substantive flaws.

Mudge
03-13-2010, 12:19 PM
I haven't posted on these boards in years, but I've been reading DBR since the parquet days. This is the comment that drew me out:

"After watching [Friday's] games though, two things are pretty obvious: the league is more talented than people realize... How else can you explain it?"


You can explain it by observing that there is not a single really good team in the conference except for Duke (and even Duke is, of course, quite mortal)! Anyone can win because no one's any good.



Don't take my word for it, wait for the NCAAs. Another ACC team might win a game or two (there are a lot of other mediocre teams out there in the country, too), but they'll be gone soon.



The real problem is that we have little idea how good Duke is, though I fear the beating at Georgetown's hands may be a clue.


Get your heads out of the sand, DBR.

Geez, I couldn't agree more-- though, last week, watching Louisville (a really bad, fatally flawed team, that can barely dribble the ball up the floor, let alone understand, score-time-shotclock situations) destroy a supposedly superior #1-ranked (at the time) Syracuse team (which missed umpteen point-blank layup opportunities), for the second time this year, no less-- convinced me that perhaps nobody in the country is that good.

Duke lost to Maryland-- a mediocre team by any standard-- when the refs allowed Vazquez to commit an obvious traveling violation, before he then made a circus shot to clinch the game... that doesn't make Maryland (and by the comparative property, everybody else in the ACC) a good team. Duke struggled with an extraordinarily mediocre (depleted down to poor) Virginia team yesterday, because when Duke doesn't make outside jump shots, the big guys do a poor job of filling the scoring gap. All the platitudes in the world about Zoubek playing his best basketball in his career doesn't change the fact that he (and Thomas) still can't be counted on to score, despite having inside position under the basket, and the ball-- Duke has no reliable inside scoring, other than Singler trying to post up, and if the other team doubles him, that is relatively easy to negate.

Duke's biggest weakness remains (as it has been for about 5 years now, since first Duhon and then Ewing left) an inability to stop a team with a quick point guard (playing under control, unlike Wake and GTech) who can drive past Duke's relatively slow-footed perimeter defense, to get inside, and dump off to big guys for open, point-blank shots... there are, unfortunately, at least 5-10 teams that possess the necessary pieces to exploit that weakness, and I will be (pleased but) surprised if Duke is still around after the second weekend of the tournament...

But hope for Duke basketball fans is just over the horizon-- I really like the carryover pieces of this team, if Singler remains next year, as the only thing lost of real importance is Scheyer (whose scoring may be replaced by Seth Curry)-- the key is Kyrie Irving: if he is all that they (the experts) say he is, we may finally be looking at the re-emergence of a dominant Duke basketball team... perhaps Irving can come out of Bobby Hurley's alma mater to take Duke back to the summit, just as Hurley himself did 20 years ago.

Spret42
03-13-2010, 12:35 PM
I haven't posted on these boards in years, but I've been reading DBR since the parquet days. This is the comment that drew me out:

"After watching [Friday's] games though, two things are pretty obvious: the league is more talented than people realize... How else can you explain it?"

You can explain it by observing that there is not a single really good team in the conference except for Duke (and even Duke is, of course, quite mortal)! Anyone can win because no one's any good.

Don't take my word for it, wait for the NCAAs. Another ACC team might win a game or two (there are a lot of other mediocre teams out there in the country, too), but they'll be gone soon.

The real problem is that we have little idea how good Duke is, though I fear the beating at Georgetown's hands may be a clue.

Get your heads out of the sand, DBR.

Absolute agreement.

I think Duke can make a legitimate run at the final four. And even that is because overall, college basketball is in one of it's weaker years. (Jay Bilas is on TV right now making the same argument, he just called it the weakest at large year in a long time.)

Pat Forde's article wasn't anywhere close to ignorant. It was pretty much spot on. Maryland is a good tough gritty team etc, but no one can honestly think they are close to a great team. Every other ACC teams is very, very average.

We are ACC fans, we know good-to-great basketball when we see it and the ACC is just weak right now. Trying to convince yourself otherwise is foolish.

Duke 2001, 2002 or even 2004 team vs Duke 2010
Maryland 2001 and 2002 vs Maryland 2010

Honestly. Does anyone think those games would be close? And this Duke team could be a #1 seed!!

DevilHorns
03-13-2010, 12:37 PM
Its easy as avid Duke fans for us to over-analyze every little thing about our team. The Gtown game, as terrible as it was, was forever ago. Same with the Gonzaga game.

I wonder what UK fans think? they barely eek out every opponent by less than 10 pts. I wonder what Syracuse fans think, given that they've lost 2 in a row. I even wonder what Gtown fans think, as good as they have been of late, they're the most inconsistent team out there. What about WVU? needing all those late game theatrics to eek past non-tourney teams. What about Ohio State? A miracle heave to advance.

The fact is nobody feels confident this year. Duke has a lot of weapons and has better defense than 99% of the country. Though our bigs dont have the production that other teams have, we clearly have some of the best scoring options out there outside of them.

jv001
03-13-2010, 12:40 PM
Duke is fighting for a #1 seed in the NCAAa, playing in the ACC tourney, has some very good players, the best Coach in college bb and unc is NIT bound. If they get invited. NC State and Miami(two of ACC worst) are still playing. Virginia even won a game. But unc was one and done. Things don't get much better than this. Go Duke!

Kedsy
03-13-2010, 12:50 PM
I haven't posted on these boards in years, but I've been reading DBR since the parquet days. This is the comment that drew me out:

"After watching [Friday's] games though, two things are pretty obvious: the league is more talented than people realize... How else can you explain it?"

You can explain it by observing that there is not a single really good team in the conference except for Duke (and even Duke is, of course, quite mortal)! Anyone can win because no one's any good.

Don't take my word for it, wait for the NCAAs. Another ACC team might win a game or two (there are a lot of other mediocre teams out there in the country, too), but they'll be gone soon.

The real problem is that we have little idea how good Duke is, though I fear the beating at Georgetown's hands may be a clue.

Get your heads out of the sand, DBR.

The #1, #2, and #4 seeds all lost their first game in the Big East tournament, and the #3 seed only advanced by making a last second shot against the #11 seed.

What's the explanation for that? Is the Big East also weak? If so, where are all the strong teams who are going to put the hurt on the "mediocre" ACC teams? If you say it's because the Big East is so strong, but explain more or less the same thing happening in the ACC is because the ACC is so weak, then my only advice would be to put your head back in the sand.

BD80
03-13-2010, 12:57 PM
The #1, #2, and #4 seeds all lost their first game in the Big East tournament, and the #3 seed only advanced by making a last second shot against the #11 seed.

What's the explanation for that? Is the Big East also weak? If so, where are all the strong teams who are going to put the hurt on the "mediocre" ACC teams? If you say it's because the Big East is so strong, but explain more or less the same thing happening in the ACC is because the ACC is so weak, then my only advice would be to put your head back in the sand.

That's not really where you thought his head was, is it?

EagleDevil
03-13-2010, 01:07 PM
The #1, #2, and #4 seeds all lost their first game in the Big East tournament, and the #3 seed only advanced by making a last second shot against the #11 seed.

What's the explanation for that? Is the Big East also weak? If so, where are all the strong teams who are going to put the hurt on the "mediocre" ACC teams? If you say it's because the Big East is so strong, but explain more or less the same thing happening in the ACC is because the ACC is so weak, then my only advice would be to put your head back in the sand.


As a matter of fact, I do think the Big East is going to be better in the NCAAs (although I agree with an earlier poster that Syracuse is not a dominant team). Let's wait and see what happens...

rthomas
03-13-2010, 01:10 PM
Hey, as long as Duke gets all the calls we don't have to be good to get to the final four.

GoingFor#5
03-13-2010, 04:16 PM
As bad as the Georgetown loss was, that was pre-Zouberman. We may not be able to stop the penetration of quick guards (few teams can), but I feel pretty comfortable funneling them into one of the best interior defenses in college basketball. Of course if that quick guard is hitting pull-up Js nobody can do much to stop that, but overall I think we have the right ingredients to compete in March (and hopefully April).

Kedsy
03-13-2010, 04:36 PM
As a matter of fact, I do think the Big East is going to be better in the NCAAs (although I agree with an earlier poster that Syracuse is not a dominant team). Let's wait and see what happens...

Whether or not the Big East is better than the ACC (and it's hard to argue that the top of the Big East is better, and those are the teams that make the tournament), my point was it's disingenuous to use the fact that the lower teams in the ACC won in the tournament as evidence that the ACC is weak, while using the fact that the lower teams in the Big East won in their tournament as evidence that the Big East is strong.

Spret42
03-13-2010, 05:24 PM
Whether or not the Big East is better than the ACC (and it's hard to argue that the top of the Big East is better, and those are the teams that make the tournament), my point was it's disingenuous to use the fact that the lower teams in the ACC won in the tournament as evidence that the ACC is weak, while using the fact that the lower teams in the Big East won in their tournament as evidence that the Big East is strong.

But it isn't entirely disingenuous. It is possible that one conference can be full of very good teams who beat up on each other while playing the game at a high level while the other is full of mediocre to middling teams beating up on each other without ever putting together the kind of play necessary to be really good.

I am not sure that is what is happening right now with the ACC and Big East. However using just a gut eyeball test, one can say the play in the ACC is fairly average, and the play in the Big East does look to be a bit if not more than a bit better.

sagegrouse
03-13-2010, 05:50 PM
Duke's biggest weakness remains (as it has been for about 5 years now, since first Duhon and then Ewing left) an inability to stop a team with a quick point guard (playing under control, unlike Wake and GTech) who can drive past Duke's relatively slow-footed perimeter defense, to get inside, and dump off to big guys for open, point-blank shots... there are, unfortunately, at least 5-10 teams that possess the necessary pieces to exploit that weakness, and I will be (pleased but) surprised if Duke is still around after the second weekend of the tournament...


We have heard your opinion many times, and some of us disagree with you vehemently (although the vehemence is missing from this particular post). Duke's half-court defense is the best I have seen this year and the best for Duke in many years. And this is against teams with lightning-quick guards. It's a five-man defense and is played flawlessly by the starters. If we continue to play as well, I like our chances against anyone, even if we don't shoot extraordinarily well.




But hope for Duke basketball fans is just over the horizon-- I really like the carryover pieces of this team, if Singler remains next year ....-- the key is Kyrie Irving.....

Re the underfined BF: You dont mind, do you, if a few of us retain a lot of hope for this year?

Here's your other quote:

Duke lost to Maryland-- a mediocre team by any standard....

Well, one "standard" I would offer, is "ACC Regular Season Co-Champion" with a record of 13-3.

Do you know there is a difference between "certainty" and "certitude?"

sagegrouse

mike88
03-13-2010, 06:39 PM
It is an accepted "fact" among many pundits that the ACC is weak this year. The fact that most of the top seeds lost in the ACCT is cited as supporting this point of view. A corollary is that Duke will not / cannot advance very far in the NCAAT, as they aren't very good either, and only have a good record b/c the ACC is so poor.

The alternate point of view is that the ACC is actually pretty strong when considered top to bottom. Ken Pomeroy, for example, has the ACC rated as the top conference based on his metrics (and Duke as the top team).

I watch so much ACC basketball and so little of the other conferences that I feel like I have little perspective on this question.

Since the NCAAT is a "one and done" format, it will be hard to get enough data to support or refute either point of view. But for those who think the ACC is terrible this year, what flaw do you see in Pomeroy's ratings that allow him to reach such an erroneous conclusion?

CDu
03-13-2010, 06:47 PM
It is an accepted "fact" among many pundits that the ACC is weak this year. The fact that most of the top seeds lost in the ACCT is cited as supporting this point of view. A corollary is that Duke will not / cannot advance very far in the NCAAT, as they aren't very good either, and only have a good record b/c the ACC is so poor.

The alternate point of view is that the ACC is actually pretty strong when considered top to bottom. Ken Pomeroy, for example, has the ACC rated as the top conference based on his metrics (and Duke as the top team).

I watch so much ACC basketball and so little of the other conferences that I feel like I have little perspective on this question.

Since the NCAAT is a "one and done" format, it will be hard to get enough data to support or refute either point of view. But for those who think the ACC is terrible this year, what flaw do you see in Pomeroy's ratings that allow him to reach such an erroneous conclusion?

It all depends on how you define good/bad. Do you define good as having a lot of very good/elite teams? If so, then the ACC looks weak. Do you define it as not having any really awful teams? If so, then we have a strong conference. Do you define it as having a high proportion of teams that are tourney-bound? Then we're as strong as anyone by that measure.

The reality is that this conference has one elite team, one good/very good team, several solid teams, and no terrible teams. Compared to the Big-12, Big-10, and Big East (each of whom have 4-5 teams in the top-20), we're pretty weak at the top. But we're stronger at the bottom than any other conference.

We're going to get a lot of teams into the tournament, which is good. But we're going to have a lot of teams lose in the first weekend (because most of them will be 6-11 seeds and thus heavy underdogs at some point in the first weekend), so that's not so good.

But again, it depends on whether you measure conference strength as depth/competitiveness or top-end quality.

mike88
03-13-2010, 06:52 PM
It all depends on how you define good/bad. Do you define good as having a lot of very good/elite teams? If so, then the ACC looks weak. Do you define it as not having any really awful teams? If so, then we have a strong conference. Do you define it as having a high proportion of teams that are tourney-bound? Then we're as strong as anyone by that measure.

The reality is that this conference has one elite team, one good/very good team, several solid teams, and no terrible teams. Compared to the Big-12, Big-10, and Big East (each of whom have 4-5 teams in the top-20), we're pretty weak at the top. But we're stronger at the bottom than any other conference.

We're going to get a lot of teams into the tournament, which is good. But we're going to have a lot of teams lose in the first weekend (because most of them will be 6-11 seeds and thus heavy underdogs at some point in the first weekend), so that's not so good.

But again, it depends on whether you measure conference strength as depth/competitiveness or top-end quality.

I would say some combination of the number of teams we get in the tournament and their collective seeding and how those teams perform relative to their seeding, so more of the former than the latter (for me at least)

CDu
03-13-2010, 07:02 PM
I would say some combination of the number of teams we get in the tournament and their collective seeding and how those teams perform relative to their seeding, so more of the former than the latter (for me at least)

I'd say that any variation of "how they perform in the tournament" is not a good metric. A single-elimination tournament is not a good way to compare the quality of a conference. Basically, all of the folks who measure this stuff will agree that the tournament is a terrible measure of which conference is best (just like the ACC-Big Ten challenge is a terrible basis for conference comparison). Too many variables come into play in these situations that make it basically like comparing apples to oranges.

I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to "what makes a conference strong?" It's ultimately an opinion of what you value more.

The reason that the conference looks better in the Pomeroy (and competitive with the Big East in Sagarin) is because we're stronger at the bottom than most. The computer systems don't "round off" on the lower-tier stuff, and that boosts the ACC.

EagleDevil
03-13-2010, 07:06 PM
I watch so much ACC basketball and so little of the other conferences that I feel like I have little perspective on this question.

This is true of me, too, for the most part. That's why I say I'll wait and see.


But for those who think the ACC is terrible this year, what flaw do you see in Pomeroy's ratings that allow him to reach such an erroneous conclusion?

Totally fair question, but I don't know Pomeroy's formula. I admit I'm just using the "eye test."

In any case, it could be worse. We could have to watch the Pac-10!

DukeUsul
03-13-2010, 07:14 PM
I'd say that any variation of "how they perform in the tournament" is not a good metric. A single-elimination tournament is not a good way to compare the quality of a conference. Basically, all of the folks who measure this stuff will agree that the tournament is a terrible measure of which conference is best (just like the ACC-Big Ten challenge is a terrible basis for conference comparison). Too many variables come into play in these situations that make it basically like comparing apples to oranges.

I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to "what makes a conference strong?" It's ultimately an opinion of what you value more.

The reason that the conference looks better in the Pomeroy (and competitive with the Big East in Sagarin) is because we're stronger at the bottom than most. The computer systems don't "round off" on the lower-tier stuff, and that boosts the ACC.

Another reason I think the ACC ranks better in the Pomeroy system is that our league has much better defensive numbers, even if you just look at the top half of the conferences. The defensive ranking for the top half of the ACC are 3, 39, 1, 12, 10, 26. The defensive ranking of the top half of the Big East are 19, 22, 62, 34, 48, 79, 29, 138. Or, if you prefer you can choose the top six defenses from the ACC and the top 8 defenses from the Big East, regardless of order of finish. ACC is 1, 3, 10, 12, 20, 26 and the Big East is 19, 22, 28, 33, 34, 38, 43, 48.

I think the computer rankings take these things into consideration much more than people do in their opinions. Seeing Syracuse and Villanova play a 95-77 game makes them LOOK much better than Duke and FSU have a 70-56 barnburner.

http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=ACC

mike88
03-13-2010, 07:21 PM
Cdu, I agree that the NCAAT is too small a sample to draw conclusions about conference strength. I think you are right that Pomeroy better incorporates the bottom tier performance (or lack thereof), while human raters tend to remember the top performances only.

I just wonder whether Duke's high ratings in Pomeroy are a true reflection of a level of performance the pundits are missing, or whether the Pomeroy ratings are missing something that should have Duke ranked lower. Right now, it is hard to "feel" that Duke is the top performing team in the country, but again, I don't watch enough of other conferences to know the true performance of other teams relative to Duke.

BTW, I emailed KenPom about this question last night, too - his take would be interesting.

CDu
03-13-2010, 07:25 PM
Cdu, I agree that the NCAAT is too small a sample to draw conclusions about conference strength. I think you are right that Pomeroy better incorporates the bottom tier performance (or lack thereof), while human raters tend to remember the top performances only.

I just wonder whether Duke's high ratings in Pomeroy are a true reflection of a level of performance the pundits are missing, or whether the Pomeroy ratings are missing something that should have Duke ranked lower. Right now, it is hard to "feel" that Duke is the top performing team in the country, but again, I don't watch enough of other conferences to know the true performance of other teams relative to Duke.

BTW, I emailed KenPom about this question last night, too - his take would be interesting.

All of the ratings have Duke either as a #1 or #2, so I don't think it's specific to Pomeroy. I think this is in large part due to the fact that we generally take care of business against the bad teams we've played. I am REALLY sure of this with Pomeroy and Sagarin - we just demolished teams below us (especially in November/December, but also throughout ACC play), and that gets weighted heavily.

So while we have shown warts against some of the best teams we've played, we've probably won huge against teams we were supposed to beat moreso than anybody else. That's the reason our ratings appear to be inflated. Whereas people will look to performance in particular matchups and gloss over the wins against mediocre/bad teams (effectively devaluing those "weaker" wins), the computers don't take any perspective on particular games and do care about whether you win by 15 or 25 against Charlotte.

Mudge
03-15-2010, 10:32 AM
We have heard your opinion many times, and some of us disagree with you vehemently (although the vehemence is missing from this particular post). Duke's half-court defense is the best I have seen this year and the best for Duke in many years. And this is against teams with lightning-quick guards. It's a five-man defense and is played flawlessly by the starters. If we continue to play as well, I like our chances against anyone, even if we don't shoot extraordinarily well.

Re the underfined BF: You dont mind, do you, if a few of us retain a lot of hope for this year?

Well, one "standard" I would offer, is "ACC Regular Season Co-Champion" with a record of 13-3.

Do you know there is a difference between "certainty" and "certitude?"

sagegrouse

Well, as a Duke fan, I hope you are correct, but I fear you are not-- I am just as worried about a possible Villanova matchup this year as last-- Scottie Reynolds is going to be just as hard (if not harder) to guard as he was last year, with the only difference being that Villanova's big guys are apparently not quite as good as last year's (so perhaps they won't murder us inside, after Reynolds does his best Ty Lawson imitation on us)... you'll notice that most of ESPN's pundits don't think we will get by Villanova (if they have us playing them), though I'd say there is fair amount of overhang from last year's bad loss coloring that viewpoint.

As for Maryland's ACC Co-Championship (regular season division), I think the mere fact that they managed to win that honor is a sad commentary on the lack of excellence in the ACC this year... we afforded them that position by 1) Playing an awful game againt NC State, and letting a bad team whip us; and then 2) Not rising to the occasion, when we played Maryland the second time, knowing that the undisputed league championship was on the line-- Maryland went toe-to-toe with us (with the aid of some very dubious and charitable refereeing decisions at crucial moments), and came out better-- not a good reflection on Duke for the NCAA tourney.

The really good Duke teams, that built that 9 out of 12 ACC championships record, did not lose games to really bad teams like NC State--and certainly did not get blown out by them. Maryland's team this year could not hold a candle to the teams that they had between 1998-2003, and neither could this year's Duke team measure up to those Duke teams from 1998-2004. I think that opinion is fairly safe and is issued with certitude, whether or not it qualifies as a certainty.

Memphis Devil
03-15-2010, 11:03 AM
Well, as a Duke fan, I hope you are correct, but I fear you are not-- I am just as worried about a possible Villanova matchup this year as last-- Scottie Reynolds is going to be just as hard (if not harder) to guard as he was last year, with the only difference being that Villanova's big guys are apparently not quite as good as last year's (so perhaps they won't murder us inside, after Reynolds does his best Ty Lawson imitation on us)... you'll notice that most of ESPN's pundits don't think we will get by Villanova (if they have us playing them), though I'd say there is fair amount of overhang from last year's bad loss coloring that viewpoint.

As for Maryland's ACC Co-Championship (regular season division), I think the mere fact that they managed to win that honor is a sad commentary on the lack of excellence in the ACC this year... we afforded them that position by 1) Playing an awful game againt NC State, and letting a bad team whip us; and then 2) Not rising to the occasion, when we played Maryland the second time, knowing that the undisputed league championship was on the line-- Maryland went toe-to-toe with us (with the aid of some very dubious and charitable refereeing decisions at crucial moments), and came out better-- not a good reflection on Duke for the NCAA tourney.

The really good Duke teams, that built that 9 out of 12 ACC championships record, did not lose games to really bad teams like NC State--and certainly did not get blown out by them. Maryland's team this year could not hold a candle to the teams that they had between 1998-2003, and neither could this year's Duke team measure up to those Duke teams from 1998-2004. I think that opinion is fairly safe and is issued with certitude, whether or not it qualifies as a certainty.

The only question I have for you is who deleted the "cur" from the beginning of your name and the "on" from the end?

Olympic Fan
03-15-2010, 11:11 AM
Just a couple of points that have come up in this thread:

-- I wonder if those of you using the "eye test" and feeling that Duke (and the ACC) are relatively mediocre are actually comparing this year's Duke and ACC teams to the rest of the nation THIS SEASON or to the college basketball you are used to seeing?

My point is that the quality of play in college basketball as a whole has declined over the last decade -- and especially overthe last five years or so. The early exit of so many talented players to the NBA has hurt the game -- not only by removing so many talented players before their sophomore or junior years, but also because quite a few of the guys who remain are treating the college game as an audition for the NBA... case in point, Georgia Tech's Iman Shumpert. He's a big, talented guard with a sweet-looking jump shot that's hard to defend because of his strength and the elevation he gets on his shot. His problem is that he believes he has to play point guard in the NBA, so he's demanded that role at Georgia Tech (and to land him, Paul Hewitt agreed). Unfortunately, Shumpert is a poor ballhandler and has no instincts as a floor leader. If he would take the role of a wing shooter/slasher, he could be a fine college player ... as a point guard or playmaker, he's a disaster.

There are tons of guys like Shumpert playing college basketball today who put their future NBA prospects ahead of team success.

Anyway, I'm just suggesting that when you look at Duke and the ACC and think "mediocre", you're right in comparison with the game we saw 20 years ago ... even 5 or 10 years ago. But it's true all over the country. Kentucky is a very talented team that relies on three freshmen in key roles. We see the highlights and they look spectacular ... if you actually watch their games and see their halfcourt disfunction, you'd see why they have to go to overtime to beat a team as bad as Stanford or twice to beat a team as mediocre as Mississippi State. Others in this thread have made the comparison between what when on in the ACC Tournament and what went on in the Big East ...

-- Duke's critics are making too much of the loss to Georgetown. Did the Hoyas expose a flaw in Duke's defense as some have suggested? Or was it merely a bad day by a Duke team that was tired and unfocused? Personally, I think it was the latter (if the former, why hasn't anybody else exploited those supposed flaws?). We're just used to seeing K's teams play all out at all times -- we're not used to Duke simply having a bad game.

It's funny, but a week after Georgetown pounded Duke, they did almost exactly the same thing to Villanova. But I didn't hear anybody suggest that Georgetown "exposed" the Wildcats.

-- Speaking of Villanova, let me say I'm on my knees praying for a rematch with the Wildcats. One, that would mean a trip to the Elite Eight -- which hasn't happened since 2004 -- but also I'd love Duke's chances in a rematch. Go back and look at the times Duke was embarrassed by somebody and see what happened the next time they met. Heck, a year ago, Clemson did the same thing to us that Villanova did -- I still remember the team's focus and purpose when they played Clemson again this year ... we hammered them in Cameron, then went to Littlejohn and destroyed them -- easily our best true "road" game of the year.

The best parallel might be 1990-91 and UNLV. The Rebels dominated a tired, sick Duke team in the 1990 national title game. Given another chance in the 1991 semifinals (against an even better Vegas team), Duke played its best game of the year and beat the Rebels.

No, I respect 'Nova, but I'm chomping at the chance for a rematch.

-- Finally, the knock on State. Another bad game for Duke, another poor performance. Does losing to a team like State mean Duke isn't any good? Well, State won at Marquette -- listen to that again ... they won AT Marquette -- a big East NCAA team that beat most of the top teams in the BE. What does that say about the Big East???

I'll be interested to see what Duke -- and the rest of the ACC -- do in the NCAA tournament. I agree that you can't use one one-and-done tournament to prove anything about a team or a league. But the ACC has endured four straight seasons of NCAA mediocrity -- UNC is the only ACC team to do anything from 2006-2009. It's time for the league to step up.

I think Duke's NCAA struggles are a bit overblown by those spoiled by K's success in the 1980s and 1990s. The fact is that Duke has more first round wins, more second round wins (which means more Sweet 16 appearances) than anybody in college basketball in this decade.

But I'm not blind to the fact that we did have a horrible (for us) two year run in 2007-08 -- 1-2 with only a last-gasp victory (thanks Gerald) over Belmont. And last year's Sweet 16 appearance merely highlighted Duke's REAL NCAA problem this decade -- it's 2-6 record in the Sweet 16 games.

That's a barrier that this Duke team needs to break. And I really think it's possible.

Matches
03-15-2010, 11:15 AM
I definitely didn't come away from the ACC-T with the impression that the ACC was playing particularly good bball this year. Clearly there was a lot of balance, and the fact that most of the games were close kept things interesting, but the level of play really wasn't very good in most of the games.

I don't spend much time following the computer rankings - I tend to rely on my (admittedly unscientific) eye test, and that test told me this was a down year for the ACC. Lots of mediocre teams, no really wretched ones, but no great ones either. I love this Duke team but I don't think it is a vintage model. If things bounce our way I think we can go far in the tourney but I wouldn't stack us against the "great" Duke teams of the past.

Matches
03-15-2010, 11:17 AM
Just a couple of points that have come up in this thread:

-- I wonder if those of you using the "eye test" and feeling that Duke (and the ACC) are relatively mediocre are actually comparing this year's Duke and ACC teams to the rest of the nation THIS SEASON or to the college basketball you are used to seeing?

My point is that the quality of play in college basketball as a whole has declined over the last decade -- and especially overthe last five years or so.

A fair point, and I'll confess I have a hard time leaving prior seasons out of my thought process.

Richard Berg
03-15-2010, 12:04 PM
Another ACC team might win a game or two (there are a lot of other mediocre teams out there in the country, too), but they'll be gone soon.
Good chance you're right. But so what? Who are you going to pick instead? I think there's a darn good chance that Kentucky gets upset by Texas/GTech or Wisconsin. And frankly, while I don't expect them to win, FSU's defense is going to give Syracuse fits (pending an updated injury report).


But hope for Duke basketball fans is just over the horizon-- I really like the carryover pieces of this team, if Singler remains next year, as the only thing lost of real importance is Scheyer
You don't think losing both of our starting big men is important? Just a paragraph ago you said that our inability to score inside was a big weakness. Say what you will about Zoubek, but right now he has MUCH better hands than Miles and is far better at establishing inside position than Mason.

Spret42
03-15-2010, 12:12 PM
-- I wonder if those of you using the "eye test" and feeling that Duke (and the ACC) are relatively mediocre are actually comparing this year's Duke and ACC teams to the rest of the nation THIS SEASON or to the college basketball you are used to seeing?
/

I am absolutely comparing them to the overall college basketball I am used to seeing both in the ACC and the country. I am down on college basketball over all. It is the reason I asked about what people thought would happen if the 2002 Duke/Maryland teams played this years versions of those teams.

Using the eye test it is fairly tough to conclude that the ACC was very good this year no matter what you compare it to.

camion
03-15-2010, 01:39 PM
The eye test generally favors offense over defense. The computer ratings are more evenhanded. I'm quoting below an earlier post illustrating why ACC games were more often than not, ugly this year. The ACC is dominated by defense. The conference may actually be weak or it may be the ACC teams will cause their opponents to have bad games. We'll see shortly and the discussion will continue.


Another reason I think the ACC ranks better in the Pomeroy system is that our league has much better defensive numbers, even if you just look at the top half of the conferences. The defensive ranking for the top half of the ACC are 3, 39, 1, 12, 10, 26. The defensive ranking of the top half of the Big East are 19, 22, 62, 34, 48, 79, 29, 138. Or, if you prefer you can choose the top six defenses from the ACC and the top 8 defenses from the Big East, regardless of order of finish. ACC is 1, 3, 10, 12, 20, 26 and the Big East is 19, 22, 28, 33, 34, 38, 43, 48.

I think the computer rankings take these things into consideration much more than people do in their opinions. Seeing Syracuse and Villanova play a 95-77 game makes them LOOK much better than Duke and FSU have a 70-56 barnburner.

http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=ACC

Mudge
03-15-2010, 01:45 PM
The only question I have for you is who deleted the "cur" from the beginning of your name and the "on" from the end?

You've found me out.

Mudge
03-15-2010, 01:53 PM
Good chance you're right. But so what? Who are you going to pick instead? I think there's a darn good chance that Kentucky gets upset by Texas/GTech or Wisconsin. And frankly, while I don't expect them to win, FSU's defense is going to give Syracuse fits (pending an updated injury report).


You don't think losing both of our starting big men is important? Just a paragraph ago you said that our inability to score inside was a big weakness. Say what you will about Zoubek, but right now he has MUCH better hands than Miles and is far better at establishing inside position than Mason.

I will not lament the passing on of Zoubek and Thomas... Unlike the loss of Duhon, Ewing, and Williams (whose skills we have not yet ever suitably replaced), I believe that our current and future big people will more than fill in the gaps left by their absence.

killerleft
03-15-2010, 01:56 PM
The only question I have for you is who deleted the "cur" from the beginning of your name and the "on" from the end?

Whoo-hoo!

Matches
03-15-2010, 02:07 PM
The eye test generally favors offense over defense.

It can, if the person attached to the eyes doesn't appreciate good defense.

The games this weekend, though, were littered with unforced errors, mental mistakes, missed FTs and other shortcomings that had very little to do with the quality of defense that was being played. Most of the teams in attendance that didn't have the words "Wake" and "Forest" on their jerseys played hard, but not particularly well.

sagegrouse
03-15-2010, 02:29 PM
Well, as a Duke fan, I hope you are correct, but I fear you are not-- I am just as worried about a possible Villanova matchup this year as last-- Scottie Reynolds is going to be just as hard (if not harder) to guard as he was last year, with the only difference being that Villanova's big guys are apparently not quite as good as last year's (so perhaps they won't murder us inside, after Reynolds does his best Ty Lawson imitation on us)... you'll notice that most of ESPN's pundits don't think we will get by Villanova (if they have us playing them), though I'd say there is fair amount of overhang from last year's bad loss coloring that viewpoint.

As for Maryland's ACC Co-Championship (regular season division), I think the mere fact that they managed to win that honor is a sad commentary on the lack of excellence in the ACC this year... we afforded them that position by 1) Playing an awful game againt NC State, and letting a bad team whip us; and then 2) Not rising to the occasion, when we played Maryland the second time, knowing that the undisputed league championship was on the line-- Maryland went toe-to-toe with us (with the aid of some very dubious and charitable refereeing decisions at crucial moments), and came out better-- not a good reflection on Duke for the NCAA tourney.

The really good Duke teams, that built that 9 out of 12 ACC championships record, did not lose games to really bad teams like NC State--and certainly did not get blown out by them. Maryland's team this year could not hold a candle to the teams that they had between 1998-2003, and neither could this year's Duke team measure up to those Duke teams from 1998-2004. I think that opinion is fairly safe and is issued with certitude, whether or not it qualifies as a certainty.

The title to this message is about the only time you will hear me quoting Ronald Reagan.:)

This is beginning to be fun. The DBR Boards are sort of like Roy Williams's press conferences -- self-administered Rorschach Tests. They tend to reveal fears and trepidations (or unwarranted optimism) rather than an analysis of facts.

I thought the three so-called "bottom-feeders" that we beat this weekend looked like pretty good teams. Many others will feel differently. I thought that Georgia Tech, with a really solid PG, would be a highly ranked team. If someone else looked at those teams and saw lots of mistakes, well, so be it.

Since January, almost all play has been within conference, so there is no standard for comparing the ACC with anyone else, except "outliers" (my term) like the G'town debacle. It seems to me that the "young" squads in the ACC (Miami and GT, e.g.) should improve a heckuva lot between November and March, and I would argue that they have. UNC is young, however, and if anything, the Heels have gotten worse relative to the other conference teams. Duke is playing much better now than a month ago. While Scheyer may have slipped a bit in scoring, Kyle Singler is playing better than he ever has. The team offense and defense seems to be more highly meshed. Better team play, Kyle and Zoubs. Those are three important areas for improvement.

WRT Villanova, several of us have mentioned here that the Cats have won only two of their last seven games. I'll worry about Nova, if we have reason to, starting a week from Saturday (before the possible Sunday match-up). Moreover, I'll take K any day in a return match. I don't see anything unusual about the Cats this year, except that it is their turn to be saddled with Taylor King. I would worry about a return match with Georgetown because of Greg Monroe. We can't use Zoubs very effectively against the Hoyas, but I still think we would have a good chance to win. Which would be for the NC.

WRT to Maryland, I was just pulling your chain. You said "mediocre by any standard," and I offered something better than your metric -- the ACC Regular Season Championship. I hope you will agree that Maryland is the most interesting team in the ACC. Gary seems to be doing it with smoke and miirrors, but the team has some assets. Greivis, Hayes and Mosley can play as well as any outside trio in the conference, including Duke's big three. The two keys are for the guards to have a great game and for Jordan Williams at center to play like a senior. Then I think they are truly dangerous. Are they as good as the UMd teams with Dixon, Baxter, Blake and wilcox? Maybe not, but I would pay to go to the game. (Mostly to see if Gary could yell at both benches at the same time.):):rolleyes:

Are Singler, Scheyer and Smith as good as the 2002 team with JWill, Boozer and Dunleavy? Or the 2001 team with Battier added. Probably not, but if Zoubek is really on, it would be a great game. This team has the same amount of experience as the 2001 and 2002 juggernauts, which is the primary failing of teams in college hoops these days.

sagegrouse

Indoor66
03-15-2010, 08:45 PM
The only question I have for you is who deleted the "cur" from the beginning of your name and the "on" from the end?

Well played and totally fitting.

EagleDevil
03-21-2010, 11:49 PM
Update... I was one for two:

1) I was wrong about the Big East. Even if Syracuse and WVU make deep runs, the BEast was really embarrassed in the first weekend.

2) I was right about the ACC. No one left but Duke.

Go Duke!

Vincetaylor
03-22-2010, 12:43 AM
The ACC had a terrible showing in the tourney as expected. I was almost positive from the beginning of 2010 that Duke would be the only team standing in the Sweet 16 and that proved to be the case. This year's conference is extremely weak relative to past years and it is also weak relative to the rest of the country in a down year. The sad thing is that the NCAA field could be even weaker next year if a bunch of guys go pro as expected. The one positive to come out of the talent drain in college basketball is that we should see more St.Mary's, Northern Iowas, and Cornells have greater tourney success in years to come.

pfrduke
03-22-2010, 01:47 AM
The ACC had a terrible showing in the tourney as expected. I was almost positive from the beginning of 2010 that Duke would be the only team standing in the Sweet 16 and that proved to be the case. This year's conference is extremely weak relative to past years and it is also weak relative to the rest of the country in a down year. The sad thing is that the NCAA field could be even weaker next year if a bunch of guys go pro as expected. The one positive to come out of the talent drain in college basketball is that we should see more St.Mary's, Northern Iowas, and Cornells have greater tourney success in years to come.

Terrible is not quite fair. Two teams underperformed (Maryland and Clemson), and one of those teams did so because of a 3 at the buzzer (and because they got abused on the glass all game). Two teams overperformed (GT and Wake), and while Wake got stomped by Kentucky, Georgia Tech played step for step with a very good Ohio State team. And two teams, so far, performed to seed - Duke looked very impressive in two first round wins, and FSU fought well against the Zags, but came up just short.

Our record as to seed is not any worse than the Big XII (losses by a 1, 7, 8, favored 5, win by a 10, 2 S16), Big East (losses by a 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 9, 2 S16) Big Ten (overachievement by Purdue (not by seed number, but by expectation) and MSU, poor performance by Wisconsin), or SEC (loss by a 4 and a 10, 2 S16, but no wins over anyone higher than a 9 seed).

It wasn't a vintage year for the ACC. But all 6 teams that played in the tourney this year fared reasonably well.

mgtr
03-22-2010, 01:56 AM
Jay Bilas made the point as early as (I think) December. He said he thought there were some good teams across the country this year, but no great teams. The results so far from this tourney seem to support that view.

DevilHorns
03-22-2010, 02:21 AM
Jay Bilas made the point as early as (I think) December. He said he thought there were some good teams across the country this year, but no great teams. The results so far from this tourney seem to support that view.

Everyone including my 2 year old cousin knew that.

A random note, but what do you guys feel about some of the journalists at ESPN "calling" the upsets. Unless you pick the upset on your bracket, it doesn't count. (I'm pointing at you Pat Forde, who wrote about how dangerous UNI was but still had KU going to the Four).

Heck every team in the tourney is "dangerous."

weezie
03-22-2010, 08:20 AM
Everyone including my 2 year old cousin knew that.


Smart baby! Is he/she looking for an agent?! :)

EagleDevil
03-22-2010, 11:05 AM
Terrible is not quite fair. Two teams underperformed (Maryland and Clemson), and one of those teams did so because of a 3 at the buzzer (and because they got abused on the glass all game). Two teams overperformed (GT and Wake), and while Wake got stomped by Kentucky, Georgia Tech played step for step with a very good Ohio State team. And two teams, so far, performed to seed - Duke looked very impressive in two first round wins, and FSU fought well against the Zags, but came up just short.

Our record as to seed is not any worse than the Big XII (losses by a 1, 7, 8, favored 5, win by a 10, 2 S16), Big East (losses by a 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 9, 2 S16) Big Ten (overachievement by Purdue (not by seed number, but by expectation) and MSU, poor performance by Wisconsin), or SEC (loss by a 4 and a 10, 2 S16, but no wins over anyone higher than a 9 seed).

It wasn't a vintage year for the ACC. But all 6 teams that played in the tourney this year fared reasonably well.

I don't think playing to seed is a good measure of success. As teams like St. Mary's, Washington, and Cornell have shown, playing well means showing that you were underseeded.

The bracket-makers knew the ACC was down, seeded the teams accordingly, and the teams proved them mostly right (with the exception of GT, which got "hot" at the end of the season).

p.s. A 9-seed win in the 8-9 game is not an upset.