Larger lessons from this year's tournament?

[Philadukie]

What a great season for Duke Basketball. I'm so proud of all the hard work our guys put into making it to the Final Four. And along their journey, they proved a lot of people (including many so-called experts) wrong.

With our success in mind, I wonder if there are also larger lessons to be learned (or relearned) from this year's tournament in general.

For instance, two immediately come to mind. Today's conventional wisdom now says that a team cannot succeed in the tournament without a superior, ultra-athletic point guard and/or a dominant post player. But look at all of the current Final Four teams. Michigan St. is playing without Lucas, and WVU without Bryant. And neither has a "dominant" front-court. And Butler? Other than Hayward, they don't have guys at the point or in the front-court who are superior, future NBA players.

What these teams have, like Duke, are a couple of excellent players, mixed with several committed role players at key positions, who all play great together as a team. It seems so obvious and yet so novel in today's college basketball world of SportsCenter highlights that a great team can have tremendous success.

To elaborate on the point further, look at Kentucky as the counter-example. Based on today's assumptions, they had everything you need to win it all. A hyper-explosive point guard and a dominant NBA-studded front-court. On paper, they were arguably the best collection of individual talent in the nation. And that's exactly what they turned out to be: a great collection of individuals, who, as some suspected, would collapse against the effort and will of a better team when everything was on the line.

But, of course, even supremely talented teams have off nights. So, then, look to Georgetown -- with Wright at point and Monroe in the paint they went out in the first round to Ohio. Kansas? The play of Collins and Aldrich couldn't fend off the fiery will and gutsy play of UNI. Both of these examples illustrate further that the conventional wisdom is wrong. A quick, slashing point guard and a monster big man are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for tournament success.

One final thought. Before the tournament began, I wondered what it might mean for college basketball if Kentucky won the national championship. I found it to be a rather depressing prospect that perhaps the college basketball landscape has changed so much that a "coach" could basically recruit his way to the national championship with one-and-done, future NBA stars. Of course, this didn't happen, and my instincts that they would fall before even arriving, if you will, were correct. Like the Fab 5, or even Calipari's own Memphis teams before them, they reaffirmed that great teams, with maturity, toughness, self-belief, a will to succeed to together, (and, yes, talent), can still beat the best collection of individual superstars when it matters most.

This is not to say that the best teams always win. (Kansas was still a very good team). But that the teams that play best together will, more often than not, be there in the end, competing to win it all. This is what makes college basketball so great and the NCAA tournament one of most enjoyable and inspiring sporting events around.

[Starter]

Terrific, thought-provoking post, nice job. I mirror most of these opinions.

I will say this -- with the exception of a wild first day, I've found this tournament a little lackluster in a non-Duke sense. I watched the Butler game yesterday and found it quite dry despite the best efforts of Gus Johnson. With the talent levels of the top programs diluted by early entries into the draft, and no such thing as a mid-major anymore at least in terms of talent, I find the tournament a lot less interesting than usual on the whole, matchup-wise. Just think of it this way, if Baylor had won today, the Final Four would have been Baylor, West Virginia, Butler and Michigan State. CBS would have had a coronary, and I personally would not have been excited about it at all as a college basketball fan. Duke being in it saves the Final Four.

And all that said, it definitely validates Krzyzewski's unwillingness to change his recruiting tactics and the way he does things. God bless him, he's getting it done, and he's getting it done his way. The same guys who lost in the first round to VCU a few years back are in the Final Four. Compare that to Calipari, who goes quick-hit and couldn't cash it in.

[Saratoga2]

I believe all of the teams in this years final four have earned their slots through tough, together play, good coaching and lots of ability. If you look at who gave the final four teams a goood fight, you can get a sense of who the other top teams were. Most eiither have exceptional talent, lots of BB experience and excellent coaching.

Duke beat an excellent Purdue team, who had a bad break when they lost Hummel. Duke also beat a very tough Baylor team who would have made a legitimate final four contestant.

West Virginia beat an ultra talented Kentucy team but faced little more getting to the final four. They may get their injured guard back to play us.

Butler really had a tough path beating a depleted but excellent Syracuse team and then beating another final four caliber team in Kansas State. Also it is hard to miss how well Xavier played in their loss to Kansas State.

Finally, Michigan State played a very tough Tennessee team and just got by Maryland. Kansas was an enigma.

While other teams showed flashes, this is my list of the best teams in the country at the time of the tournament.

Duke
Baylor
Purdue
WVa
Kentucky
Butler
Syracuse
Kansas State
Xavier
Michigan State
Tennessee
Maryland
Kansas?

What did these teams have in common? What it takes to compete at th highest level.

[bluepenguin]

With our success in mind, I wonder if there are also larger lessons to be learned (or relearned) from this year's tournament in general.

Check out this article in today's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/sports/ncaabasketball/29rhoden.html?ref=todayspaper

[bluepenguin]

CBS would have had a coronary, and I personally would not have been excited about it at all as a college basketball fan. Duke being in it saves the Final Four.
I would have been very excited to see new teams in the FF (although not as excited to see Duke - but only because I am a fan). And I worry that this sort of statement is what gives our non--fans fuel for their "conspiracy theories" and "Duke thinks its better than the rest of us" attitude.

[brevity]

Given the Elite 8, CBS got 75 percent of what it wanted: Duke, Michigan State, Butler. Kentucky is a much bigger draw than West Virginia.

CBS is going to treat Butler the way it treated George Mason in 2006, only better -- the hometown favorite, the movie Hoosiers come to life. But I don't think it's enough for them to want Butler to actually advance -- Michigan State has a more national following.

I would still enjoy a Duke-less Final Four if the games are good. I'll refer again to 2006, which was not a good year. None of the 3 games were particularly close, if memory serves. I suppose the first Florida juggernaut was impressive, but Joakim Noah was fairly annoying.

Going back to the original post, I've come to believe that college basketball's reverence of the point guard -- the coach on the floor, the playmaker, the quarterback -- is a sign of limited thinking. I know that's not a popular opinion amongst Duke fans, where the lineage of point guards goes all the way up the coaching tree (Wojo-Amaker-Coach K-Bobby Knight), and where the prevailing belief is that a Duke team without a point guard simply cannot function. (For what it's worth, I also think the QB position in football is overrated.)

What makes the tournament fun is seeing other (unfamiliar) styles of play, so very un-Duke but also successful. Seeing teams like Louisville 2009 and Tennessee 2010 work some magic with a handful of long, lean versatile forwards is kind of exciting. Would a Duke team that started 5 Grant Hills win a title? I don't know, but I'd really like to see that team.

Finally, has anyone compiled an All-Injury Team yet? Because that's the theme of this year's tournament. Kalin Lucas, Darryl Bryant, Robbie Hummel, Arinze Onuaku, and surely there must be a fifth.

[camion]

Going back to the original post, I've come to believe that college basketball's reverence of the point guard -- the coach on the floor, the playmaker, the quarterback -- is a sign of limited thinking. I know that's not a popular opinion amongst Duke fans, where the lineage of point guards goes all the way up the coaching tree (Wojo-Amaker-Coach K-Bobby Knight), and where the prevailing belief is that a Duke team without a point guard simply cannot function. (For what it's worth, I also think the QB position in football is overrated.)



But, but, but... we have a great point guard. He really is a coach on the floor, playmaker, quarterback. He just comes in a somewhat different package than expected.

:)

[CDu]

Given the Elite 8, CBS got 75 percent of what it wanted: Duke, Michigan State, Butler. Kentucky is a much bigger draw than West Virginia.

CBS is going to treat Butler the way it treated George Mason in 2006, only better -- the hometown favorite, the movie Hoosiers come to life. But I don't think it's enough for them to want Butler to actually advance -- Michigan State has a more national following.

Yeah, the CBS nightmare will be a WVU/Butler final. The best-case scenario for them is a Duke/MSU final. But really, they have to be cheering for Duke a LOT for ratings purposes.


Going back to the original post, I've come to believe that college basketball's reverence of the point guard -- the coach on the floor, the playmaker, the quarterback -- is a sign of limited thinking. I know that's not a popular opinion amongst Duke fans, where the lineage of point guards goes all the way up the coaching tree (Wojo-Amaker-Coach K-Bobby Knight), and where the prevailing belief is that a Duke team without a point guard simply cannot function. (For what it's worth, I also think the QB position in football is overrated.)

What makes the tournament fun is seeing other (unfamiliar) styles of play, so very un-Duke but also successful. Seeing teams like Louisville 2009 and Tennessee 2010 work some magic with a handful of long, lean versatile forwards is kind of exciting. Would a Duke team that started 5 Grant Hills win a title? I don't know, but I'd really like to see that team.

Finally, has anyone compiled an All-Injury Team yet? Because that's the theme of this year's tournament. Kalin Lucas, Darryl Bryant, Robbie Hummel, Arinze Onuaku, and surely there must be a fifth.

I think the biggest takeaway is that in a six-round, single-elimination tournament, the best teams don't always win. This point is magnified when many of the best teams all have major flaws, as was the case this year:
- Syracuse committed a lot of turnovers and their defense is always endangered by a patient, well-organized opponent.
- Kentucky was a poor shooting team and often careless with the ball
- OSU was not a great rebounding team and was too reliant on one player
- Villanova was just a pretty weak defensive team

Each of those teams had major flaws that made it much more likely that they'd have a bad game before the Final Four. Kansas was a very well-balanced team, but they just happened to have terrible games from their two PG (4-21 shooting from Collins and Taylor) and couldn't overcome that.

[moonpie23]

it's hilarious what people think sometimes...i've got a good NCSU buddy who is a real hater and constantly predicts doom for duke at each "next" game scenario..

he predicted losses in the acc tourny, the first round of the ncaa, the 2nd round....

his main reason is that we can't compete with "real athletes"...


last night, he said he thought Zoubs and nolan were doing steroids... lol



oh, he's a TOTAL ncaa/cbs conspiracy nut...

[MChambers]

Would a Duke team that started 5 Grant Hills win a title? I don't know, but I'd really like to see that team.

You've got to be kidding. That team (or a team with 3 Grants and 2 Shanes) would win in a cakewalk. I'd love to see it.

[northernduke]

What I have found most invigorating about this tournament is the that the teams that have played together for several years are the teams headed to Indy. All four teams are tremendously talented and all four have come together as a cohesive unit. Not one relies solely on a star performer that is playing for an NBA lottery ticket. It's been exciting and as "ugly" as some games have been offensively, they been equally beautiful on the defensive side.

[4decadedukie]

You've got to be kidding. That team (or a team with 3 Grants and 2 Shanes) would win in a cakewalk. I'd love to see it.

I am not at all certain, although strictly athletically there is no question. However, there is a LOT more to winning (especially in tough games, against excellent teams, “down the stretch”) than pure athleticism: values, attitude, teamwork, tenaciousness, and so forth all count a great deal. This year's UNC-CH team, in my opinion, is perfect proof of my thesis; they had excellent athletic talent, but lacked many of the key attitudinal attributes, and their season failed as a result (and, yes, injuries played a part too, but in aggregate, their lack of determination and teamwork were decisive).

[MChambers]

I am not at all certain, although strictly athletically there is no question. However, there is a LOT more to winning (especially in tough games, against excellent teams, “down the stretch”) than pure athleticism: values, attitude, teamwork, tenaciousness, and so forth all count a great deal. This year's UNC-CH team, in my opinion, is perfect proof of my thesis; they had excellent athletic talent, but lacked many of the key attitudinal attributes, and their season failed as a result (and, yes, injuries played a part too, but in aggregate, their lack of determination and teamwork were decisive).

Gee, I think that Grant and Shane would do just fine, given their values, attitude, teamwork, and tenaciousness. In fact, Shane's a very good, but not great athlete, at least by some definitions. Grant's an elite athlete, obviously, but had all of the intangible attributes you could ever want.

[CDu]

I am not at all certain, although strictly athletically there is no question. However, there is a LOT more to winning (especially in tough games, against excellent teams, “down the stretch”) than pure athleticism: values, attitude, teamwork, tenaciousness, and so forth all count a great deal. This year's UNC-CH team, in my opinion, is perfect proof of my thesis; they had excellent athletic talent, but lacked many of the key attitudinal attributes, and their season failed as a result (and, yes, injuries played a part too, but in aggregate, their lack of determination and teamwork were decisive).

So what part of Hill's and Battier's values, attitude, teamwork, tenaciousness, and so forth do you think wouldn't be a big positive toward a championship run? Remember that both of these guys completely changed their roles throughout their college careers for the best interest of their teams.

[Jderf]

I am not at all certain, although strictly athletically there is no question. However, there is a LOT more to winning (especially in tough games, against excellent teams, “down the stretch”) than pure athleticism: values, attitude, teamwork, tenaciousness, and so forth all count a great deal. This year's UNC-CH team, in my opinion, is perfect proof of my thesis; they had excellent athletic talent, but lacked many of the key attitudinal attributes, and their season failed as a result (and, yes, injuries played a part too, but in aggregate, their lack of determination and teamwork were decisive).

You forgot to mention that this happened despite having the greatest coach since Doherty... god, can't wait until next year when the papers start discussing the amazing turnaround Roy will inevitably put together "from scratch."

[RoyalBlue08]

Would a Duke team that started 5 Grant Hills win a title? I don't know, but I'd really like to see that team.


Yes they would. If we are talking Grant early in his NBA career, a team with 5 Grant Hills could have won an NBA title too.

[ncexnyc]

Geez, one tournament that goes against the grain and suddenly people want to forget all the previous ones and the lessons learned from them.

This was the perfect example of what makes March Madness so great taken to the umpteenth level. Does anyone really believe Ohio beats Georgetown 2 out of 3, let alone a 7 game series. How about UNI vs Kansas? Anyone willing to bet on UNI in a series? And I hate to say it, but if WVA shoots 3's the way they did Saturday, it will be a veeeeery long night for our team this upcoming weekend.

[Starter]

I would have been very excited to see new teams in the FF (although not as excited to see Duke - but only because I am a fan). And I worry that this sort of statement is what gives our non--fans fuel for their "conspiracy theories" and "Duke thinks its better than the rest of us" attitude.

It has nothing to do with that, and please don't paint me that way. I'm probably as savvy and objective a sports fan as you'd find, especially around here. I could have gone to Fairleigh Dickinson (like my father) and I still would think it completely lackluster if Baylor had won to complete a nondescript Final Four. When marquee teams like Kansas or Duke -- or even UNC (blasphemy) -- are involved, the games are more interesting and I find the brand of basketball more satisfying to watch. CBS could push Butler to the moon. It wouldn't matter if nobody tuned in to see them play MSU on Saturday afternoon.

By the logic cited above, Duke leanings aside, you're saying that you would have been at a comparable level of excitement for Duke-Kentucky (which would have been potentially the highest-rated tournament game of all time) and a potential Baylor-West Virginia Final Four matchup. Or, on the other side, Kansas-Syracuse or Butler-(a weak) Michigan State team. I don't think it's elitism to say that the college game is more exciting when you have matchups of the brand of basketball of the top traditional programs. Parity has brought everyone to the same level. And no, I don't think that's entirely great for the product we see.

Of course, if that allows Krzyzewski to dominate in the game's current climate... maybe the end result justifies that in a personal sense. Because hey, I am a Duke guy.

[Jderf]

If you had told me during the georgetown game that one of the two teams would make the final four and the other would go out in the first round, I would have been very wrong about which. Just goes to show how mistaken you can be when you try to make sweeping judgements based on just one game.

[UrinalCake]

Experience plays a big role too. I did a quick roster check of starting lineups and discovered the following:

MSU: 1 senior, 1 junior, 2 soph, 1 fresh
WVU: 2 seniors, 1 junior, 2 soph
Butler: 1 senior, 1 junior, 3 soph
Duke: 3 seniors, 2 juniors

Having guys that have played together for a while provides a lot of intangibles in game situations. As opposed to a bunch of freshmen who are showcasing for the NBA.

[4decadedukie]

I absolutely agree that Grant and/or Shane would be terrific – and I certainly never intended to imply otherwise. My point had NOTHING to do with those superb individuals (and Blue Devils). Rather, I only wanted to suggest that athleticism alone is insufficient to ensure successes; it must be complemented by attitude, values, teamwork, and similar attributes. Again, PLEASE understand that every conceivable performance and attitudinal trait both Shane and Grant ever exhibited were, in my opinion, stellar; however, this is not always the case with equally gifted athletes.

[BlueandWhite]

Geez, one tournament that goes against the grain and suddenly people want to forget all the previous ones and the lessons learned from them.

This was the perfect example of what makes March Madness so great taken to the umpteenth level. Does anyone really believe Ohio beats Georgetown 2 out of 3, let alone a 7 game series. How about UNI vs Kansas? Anyone willing to bet on UNI in a series? And I hate to say it, but if WVA shoots 3's the way they did Saturday, it will be a veeeeery long night for our team this upcoming weekend.

Not so sure about that last sentence.

Stats on 3-point shooting from this past weekend's regional final games:

WVU from 3 point range: 10 of 23
Duke from 3 point range: 11 of 23

Say that both teams were again to shoot close to 50% from 3 point range on Saturday night -- in what other aspects of the game/matchups does WVU have any advantage over Duke that it would mean a "veeeery" long night for the Blue Devils?

[CDu]

Geez, one tournament that goes against the grain and suddenly people want to forget all the previous ones and the lessons learned from them.

This was the perfect example of what makes March Madness so great taken to the umpteenth level. Does anyone really believe Ohio beats Georgetown 2 out of 3, let alone a 7 game series. How about UNI vs Kansas? Anyone willing to bet on UNI in a series? And I hate to say it, but if WVA shoots 3's the way they did Saturday, it will be a veeeeery long night for our team this upcoming weekend.

Depends on what you mean by "great." In terms of immediate entertainment value, I completely agree. But in terms of determining who was the best team in college basketball for the year, I completely disagree. Unless you think Villanova (1985) and NC State (1983) were the best teams those years, or that Ohio and UNI were really better than Georgetown and Kansas.

[CDu]

Not so sure about that last sentence.

Stats on 3-point shooting from this past weekend's regional final games:

WVU from 3 point range: 10 of 23
Duke from 3 point range: 11 of 23

Say that both teams were again to shoot close to 50% from 3 point range on Saturday night -- in what other aspects of the game/matchups does WVU have any advantage over Duke that it would mean a "veeeery" long night for the Blue Devils?

Not to mention the fact that Duke is probably more likely to repeat their shooting performance, given that (a) we're a better shooting team by a wide margin and (b) we defend the 3 better than WVU by a wide margin.

It's certainly possible that WVU can beat us. They are a very good team, and well-balanced though not deep. One of the ways they can beat us is if we have a poor shooting night and don't crash the boards well while they have either a good shooting night and/or do pound the boards well. But it would be a bit surprising for WVU to outshoot us from the perimeter.

[Starter]

Depends on what you mean by "great." In terms of immediate entertainment value, I completely agree. But in terms of determining who was the best team in college basketball for the year, I completely disagree.

Right. And also, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. The first two days -- which I find to be more geared for the casual fan who doesn't watch college ball all season but loves filling out brackets and puffing their chests -- were great with all the upsets. Then you get to the second weekend, when the real fans are still watching, and you have games with Northern Iowa, Cornell and St. Mary's.