PDA

View Full Version : Perverse perception



Olympic Fan
05-13-2010, 03:58 PM
One of my pet peeves is the warped perception that Duke's basketball program suffered a major decline in the years before last season's national title ... when, in fact, Duke has been the single most consistent program in the country over the last decade (including the last 3-4 years).

I'll defend that statement later, but let me address two recent examples of historical revisionism that provoked this post.

In the Barry Jacobs article linked on the front page today, Barry writes (about the transfer of the Wear twins): "No, the Heels are not sliding into a Duke-blue eclipse."

And in the Andy Katz/Doug Gottlieb podcast on the front page of ESPN's basketball page, Gottlieb says (at about the 22 minute mark) about Duke: "They fixed what ailed their program. Look at the disfunction at North Carolina this year -- it's not that dissimmilar to what Duke went through before this year"

Excuse me?

I mean, I expect idiotic comments from Gottlieb, but Barry Jacobs knows better than that.

What Duke-blue eclipse is Barry talking about? Duke's worst season in more than a decade was in 2007, when Duke won 22 games and qualified for the NCAA Tournament.

Or is Barry talking about the two years that followed? 28 wins and a No. 9 finish in the AP poll? 30 wins, an ACC championship and a final No. 6 national ranking. Maybe he's talking about the year before the 2007 disappointment -- 32 wins, an ACC championship and a final No. 1 ranking ... or the year before that a No. 5 NCAA ranking, an ACC championship and a No. 1 NCAA seed. Or the Final Four year before that?

Frankly, I think Roy Williams would kill for that kind of "Duke-blue eclipse".

Duke's worst year in the last decade is significantly better than what UNC went through last season. And the years that preceded and followed it are right up there where UNC wants to get back to.

Look at this closely and it makes nonsense of Gottlieb's glib comment about Duke going through "before this year." If he means 1995 (the only year since 1984 that Duke has missed the NCAA Tournament), I guess that's right. But if he means 2007-09, it's not close.

Let's make it clear -- the last 10 years, Duke has won more games, had more top 10 finishes (nine) and more Sweet 16 appearances (eight) than anybody else in college basketball.

That's consistency. During that same period UNC has missed the NCAA THREE times, So has UConn. Kansas has been in the tourney every year, but haas only reached the Sweet 16 six times in this decade.

Then there is Michigan State. When the Spartans reached the Final Four this year there was a lot of praise for Tom Izzo's achievement -- six Final Fours in the last 12 years.

That is a great achievement -- during that span, Roy Williams has five Final Fours (two at Kansas; three at UNC). Coach K has four Final Fours.

But Izzo also only has one titlle in that span -- K, Roy, Calhoun nand Donovan all have two.

He has 32 NCAA wins in that 12-year span. K and Roy both have 35 wins. K has 10 Sweet 16s -- more than any other coach.

The point is that if you think Final Four appearances are the only thing that matter, then you have to rate Izzo as the nation's top coach over the last 12 years. If you take a broader view and look at more categories -- NCAA wins, NCAA titles, Sweet 16s, regular season wins, top 10 finishes -- then K has dominated the last 12 years.

Every program has ups and downs, great years and poor years. Over the last few years, Duke hasn't been going to the Final Four as often as it did in the late 1980s and 1990s. But Duke's "down" period has been far better than the down years endured by any other top powers.

One additional point. In Barry's article, he writes: "Even the notion that the Blue Devils have the upper hand in the rivalry after a single, surprising NCAA title in nearly a decade is open to strenuous debate."

Well, Barry, if that's all it was, it would be debateable. But is the perception that Duke's "upper hand" really based on just "a single, surprising NCAA title". What about Duke's regular season sweep head-to-head with the Tar Heels, including a 32-point beatdown in Cameron. What about Duke's ACC regular season co-championship (against UNC's ninth-place finish)? What about Duke's second straight ACC title (after UNC's first-game loss)?

The fact is that the perception that Duke has the upper-hand in the rivalry is based on the indisputable fact that Duke was significantly better than UNC last season and will start next season projected as the superior team again.

Yes, Duke's "upper hand" will be temporary -- maybe two, three years or so before UNC fights back. But what was UNC's previous "upper hand" but a three-year run that started in 2007?

The are ups and down in the rivalry, just as there are ups and downs in any program. Duke's downs have not been nearly as severe as those suffered by EVERYBODY else.

uh_no
05-13-2010, 04:06 PM
the point is, duke has ridiculously high tournament standards

it did not meet them over a period of three years

regardless of how consistent better than everyone else you are, we are the best program in the country, we set our sights higher than anyone else in the country, if for three years we ONLY make the sweet 16, then those can absolutely be considered down years on OUR scale regardless of how they look to everyone else

you can't have it both ways....

west_coast_devil
05-13-2010, 04:11 PM
Thank you!! I have been thinking that very same thing. You should send that well articulated and thought out post to the deserving "talking heads"....see if you get a response, although, I dont think there is anything to respond to except an apology for their lack of insight:D

Wander
05-13-2010, 04:12 PM
I think you're misreading the word "eclipse" as "abyss" or something similar. I interpreted a Duke-blue eclipse to mean that Duke is simply a much better program than UNC right now, not that Duke has been awful in the past.

But yes to everything else.

Duvall
05-13-2010, 04:13 PM
In defense of Barry Jacobs, his reference to a "Duke-blue eclipse" may have been a suggestion that North Carolina had fallen completely into Duke's shadow, like an eclipse.

duke1983
05-13-2010, 04:15 PM
I agree, but that's just the nature of the beast. When you're an elite team like Duke you're going to be held to a higher standard.

Kedsy
05-13-2010, 04:18 PM
In the Barry Jacobs article linked on the front page today, Barry writes (about the transfer of the Wear twins): "No, the Heels are not sliding into a Duke-blue eclipse."

I agree with most of what you say, but I think Jacobs meant that UNC's luster was not being eclipsed by Duke's success. I don't think he was saying (or even implying) that Duke had been down.


Note: alas, Wander and Duvall beat me to the response here, and probably said it better than I did, to boot.

ElSid
05-13-2010, 04:30 PM
I did a double take when I read eclipse, too, but I think in the context he's saying that Duke's program is not eclipsing UNC's program. Even though, as you point out, Duke has eclipsed just about everyone by most measures, except in titles or final fours. Pretty important, but not everything.

As for Gottlieb, I think he's just not salvageable. There is almost nothing similar to what UNC went through last year and what Duke "went through" during the aughts. Gottlieb has done plenty to demonstrate his misunderstanding of college basketball and proclivity to disparage Duke. He gets along well with J-Will and says some nice things about him; but, otherwise, he will go out of his way to paint Duke in a negative light. At least he's saying we "fixed" our program, whatever that really means. Honestly, I thought he sounded drunk the night he made the "alarmingly unathletic" comments.

jdj4duke
05-13-2010, 04:34 PM
In the Barry Jacobs article linked on the front page today, Barry writes (about the transfer of the Wear twins): "No, the Heels are not sliding into a Duke-blue eclipse."


I read that part as his not believing that Duke will own UNC for the foreseeable future, and that their last campaign was a blip.

Other than those different inferences, that, as they say, is that. Not much to disagree or with which to argue, but ask if we would trade another NC for a couple of previous Sweet 16 appearances, and I think the answer is pretty clear. A championship (or two) resets the bar much higher nationally. That is where we get evaluated.

I love the ACC championships, but outside our little conference circle, those don't mean much to the wider audience. I don't remember who won any other conference championships during the last 5 years, but I sure remember who won the whole thing. That, for better or worse, is against whom we get compared.

It will be very interesting, if UNC doesn't bounce back in a very big way next year, to see if they get dirt thrown over them the way Duke did.

And I do think that there is great potential for them to sit in the shade of Duke blue eclipse for a year or two more.

miramar
05-13-2010, 04:38 PM
Duke hasn't had a slide like Carolina's in fifteen years, and certainly there has been no eclipse, but we were clearly off our game for a three-year period, and couldn't get past the sweet sixteen for five years.

So while rumors of our demise were obviously exaggerated, the program was not at its best until this season, particularly in the post season. In 2007 Duke was 0-1 in the ACC and 0-1 in the NCAAs. In 2008 we were 1-1 and 1-1, but the victory in the NCAAs was a one-point win over mighty Belmont. 2009 was much better at 3-0 and 2-1, but that improvement was overshadowed by that 77-59 shellacking against Villanova.

Add the near-misses in recruiting, the recruits who didn't play as well as expected, and the unexpected transfers, and many concluded that the program was in crisis. I think most of us knew better, realizing that recruiting is not an exact science and that NCAA success is often based on matchups that you can't control.

Nevertheless, I think those perceptions hurt our recruiting, so they are important whether true or not. As Jacobs says, "Williams’ tenure at North Carolina seemed charmed almost from the moment he returned as head coach for the 2003-04 season," which also contributed to those perceptions. Let's not forget that exactly six months ago today, Harrison Barnes announced his decision to play at UNC, and the conventional wisdom was that if we couldn't get a supposedly Duke guy like Barnes, then we would never be able to compete with Carolina in recruiting.

So much for perceptions.

BleedsP287
05-13-2010, 07:05 PM
I agree with the overall point that Duke has actually been dominant in the recent decade. The perception by some that the program has been in decline is attributable almost entirely to lack of recent success in the NCAA tournament (until this year). And that, given a stretch in the 90s when we went to 7 of 9 final fours for example, is seen as a decline.

But as you note, at the same time that "decliine" was happening we were setting records for overall win totals and owning the ACC tournament.

Still, it is nice to stop the slide in our NCAA performance. The NC this year was extra sweet, partly because I didn't even hope hard for it until late in the regular season when I began to think it might be possible, and partly because the guys this year were such good people it was really good to see them get it. I miss Jon, Zoub, and LT already, but we won!

Scorp4me
05-13-2010, 08:06 PM
I like many of you had to read "eclipse" twice to get the correct interpretation. And agree that Gottlieb seems to be really a joke.

But Olympic's oint is still valid. Carolina has a season like they had and everyone says they'll be back, it's not as bad as Duke was, whatever excuse is handy. Duke has a "down" year and we're in a decline, can't compete, broken. It's really becoming quite comical to be honest. It was annoying before when it was just trashing Duke, but the lengths people go to defend Carolina...maybe they will be back, maybe it was just a blip on the radar...but no one seemed to want to give Duke that chance.

DukeDevilDeb
05-13-2010, 10:27 PM
I think everyone is right who has said that Duke has been the dominant team over the last decade--most clearly in terms of # of wins. Also, we have without question owned the ACC tournament for a long time.

But if this is true (that Duke is the most dominant), why was Roy Williams named Coach of the Decade (2000-2009)? Simply because of the NCs, one of which was won with Matt's recruits?

Inquiring minds want to know! :cool: