[Gasp!] Shockingly Dismal Duke NCAA Streak Continues

[sagegrouse]

It has now been 16 years since Duke beat a higher seed in the NCAA tournament, when Grant Hill and the rest of the cast of the #2 Blue Devils knocked off Big Dog and the #1 Boilermakers in 1994. Sixteen years! What a scandal!

Of course,... there are one or two mitigating factors. :rolleyes: In the 15 tournament years since then, Duke has been seeded #1 nine years, making it impossible to beat a higher seed. Four of the #1 teams reached the Final Four, and two became National Champions. Three years of the past 15, Duke was a #2 seed and once each a #3, #6, and #8.

In fact, Duke has played a higher seed only once in 16 years, with the freshmen-laden #3 Devils losing to #2 Kansas in 2003.

Duke has a split record (1-1) playing teams that were equal seeds. Of course, this can only happen at the Final Four. And both of those games were in 1999 -- a win over #1 Mich State and a loss to #1 UConn.

Gee! Sportwriters and bloggers hard-up for material can have a field day.


"Even with two National Championships in the past ten years, Duke has not beaten a higher-seeded team in the NCAA tournament for over 15 years. The Devils are habitual underachievers, and this streak proves that Coach K is coasting into his retirement years."

Have a great weekend.

sagegrouse

[mailman2927]

some people need to get a life. duke is consistently good and earns a high seed which leads to very few opportunities to play higher seeded teams.

[hedevil]

I'm not gonna lie. If Duke wins 5 NC's in a row starting next year, I could care less if they played every one of the lowest possible seeds on the way to each title. Most people may not agree with me on this, but it's not duke's fault if other teams can't win the games they're supposed to win in the tournament, examples this year being WV over Kentucky and Northwestern over Kansas, etc, etc. Maybe everyone else is overrated or possibly not playing to their potential. That's what makes Duke great.

[Nrrrrvous]

some people need to get a life. duke is consistently good and earns a high seed which leads to very few opportunities to play higher seeded teams.

Wow, really?

[pfrduke]

I'm not gonna lie. If Duke wins 5 NC's in a row starting next year, I could care less if they played every one of the lowest possible seeds on the way to each title. Most people may not agree with me on this, but it's not duke's fault if other teams can't win the games they're supposed to win in the tournament, examples this year being WV over Kentucky and Northwestern over Kansas, etc, etc. Maybe everyone else is overrated or possibly not playing to their potential. That's what makes Duke great.

No, I agree with you completely. I would like as easy a road to the title as possible each and every year. Tournament strength and degree of difficulty is largely forgotten after a few season, but flags fly forever.

[MChambers]

some people need to get a life. duke is consistently good and earns a high seed which leads to very few opportunities to play higher seeded teams.

I think the OP was being sarcastic. He's been known to be that way. ;)

[Turtleboy]

Gee! Sportwriters and bloggers hard-up for material can have a field day.


"Even with two National Championships in the past ten years, Duke has not beaten a higher-seeded team in the NCAA tournament for over 15 years. The Devils are habitual underachievers, and this streak proves that Coach K is coasting into his retirement years."

Have a great weekend.

sagegrouseWhere is the quoted material from?

[sagegrouse]

Where is the quoted material from?

Sage Grouse made it up as a hypothetical future column for a brain-dead sports writer with a deadline, who knows that bashing Duke is the easiest route to 700 words.

sagegrouse

[sagegrouse]

some people need to get a life. duke is consistently good and earns a high seed which leads to very few opportunities to play higher seeded teams.

Usually I am as subtle as a blowtorch, but you do recognize that this is a piece of satire, don't you?

sagegrouse

[Lennies]

Usually I am as subtle as a blowtorch, but you do recognize that this is a piece of satire, don't you?

sagegrouse

Whenever somebody posts "some people need to get a life." on a message board about a college team it has to be satire.

[bluepenguin]

No, I agree with you completely. I would like as easy a road to the title as possible each and every year. Tournament strength and degree of difficulty is largely forgotten after a few season, but flags fly forever.
I also want to get all the calls!

[Tsetse0510]

I'm not gonna lie. If Duke wins 5 NC's in a row starting next year, I could care less if they played every one of the lowest possible seeds on the way to each title. Most people may not agree with me on this, but it's not duke's fault if other teams can't win the games they're supposed to win in the tournament, examples this year being WV over Kentucky and Northwestern over Kansas, etc, etc. Maybe everyone else is overrated or possibly not playing to their potential. That's what makes Duke great.

I agree with all you say, however I believe it was Northern Iowa that knocked off Kansas.

[hedevil]

Thanks for catching that. My bad. North, North, Northern Iowa. I got it!:D

[mailman2927]

i thought that was a quote from an article, i wasn't referring to sage. just to all the duke haters.

[LSanders]

Gee! Sportwriters and bloggers hard-up for material can have a field day.


"Even with two National Championships in the past ten years, Duke has not beaten a higher-seeded team in the NCAA tournament for over 15 years. The Devils are habitual underachievers, and this streak proves that Coach K is coasting into his retirement years."

sagegrouse


Yeah ... Same thing happened to those chumps Wooden coached ... Man they SUCKED!!
:cool:

[basket1544]

I would say that this was satire, except I heard this exact thing mentioned in the tournament over and over again. When they played any seed lower than them (which was every seed they played) it was brought up that Duke "always" loses to lower seeds. I kept wondering what seed was higher than a #1 seed so they could beat them.

[gep]

I would say that this was satire, except I heard this exact thing mentioned in the tournament over and over again. When they played any seed lower than them (which was every seed they played) it was brought up that Duke "always" loses to lower seeds. I kept wondering what seed was higher than a #1 seed so they could beat them.

Would the "overall' #1 seed count? or the "overall" second #1 seed? After all, they did make a big deal out of Duke being the "third" #1 seed... :rolleyes:

[turnandburn55]

But then again, #1 Duke "should" have gotten a #2 seed, and #2 WVU "shoudl" have gotten a #1 seed, right? So doesn't it all come out in the wash?

Or do Duke-haters get it both ways, after all?

[BD80]

Whenever somebody posts "some people need to get a life." on a message board about a college team it has to be satire.

Typically, it is not intended to be satire. It is ironic.


Thanks for catching that. My bad. North, North, Northern Iowa. I got it!:D

How have we done against "directional" schools in the tourney?

[-bdbd]

"Even with two National Championships in the past ten years, Duke has not beaten a higher-seeded team in the NCAA tournament for over 15 years. The Devils are habitual underachievers, and this streak proves that Coach K is coasting into his retirement years."



I was just assuming that that piece had come from the Raleigh News and Fishwrap, with their crack sports department of NC@CH-Journalism School sportswriters/editors.

Good find Sagegrouse!

;)

[davekay1971]

Would the "overall' #1 seed count? or the "overall" second #1 seed? After all, they did make a big deal out of Duke being the "third" #1 seed... :rolleyes:

Well, we beat the team that beat the team that beat the overall number 1 seed. Does that count?

Of course, we were beaten by the team that almost beat the team that beat the team that beat the overall number 1 seed...so we should immediately relinquish the title to the University of Maryland. Then they can riot again.