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.
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.