PDA

View Full Version : Duke's Road Schedule



bluepenguin
11-29-2010, 06:31 PM
Deja vu?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/seth_davis/11/29/kemba.walker.uconn/1.html
Seth Davis complains about Duke's road schedule. He says: "

It's disappointing that Duke is not playing a true road games against a tough nonconference opponent this season. The Blue Devils played Marquette and Kansas State in Kansas City, they're playing Butler in the Meadowlands and they're playing St. John's in Madison Square Garden. Even their game at Oregon on Saturday was at the Rose Garden in Portland instead of on campus in Eugene. Duke's lone nonconference true road game is at UNC Greensboro on December 29. That's hardly a spine tingler."
Didn't we go through this last year?

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/seth_davis/11/29/kemba.walker.uconn/1.html#ixzz16iWr2P64

SilkyJ
11-29-2010, 06:42 PM
Didn't we go through this last year?


Yes, and it seemed to work just fine when we played Baylor on a "neutral court" in Houston and Butler on a "neutral court" in their hometown.

Since the NCAAs are played in major arenas and therefore never on a true "homecourt," maybe Seth should call it tactful and intelligent instead of disappointing. Afterall, most judgements of a season, particularly from the media, seem to rely on how you do in March, so preparing yourself for the tourney seems like a smart idea to me.

Also, St John's plays a significant # of games at MSG every year. In fact, they play half their home games there this year according to their website (http://www.redstormsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/stjo-m-baskbl-sched.html) (I think its 8 in Queens, 8 at MSG if you include the holiday tournament they seem to be hosting) and they are playing several in-conference games there, so its probably fair to say SJU thinks of it as their homecourt, and probably fair to call it a true road game for Duke.

And color me crazy, but don't you think Oregon WANTED the game to be played in the Rose Garden? Don't you think St John's WANTED the game to be in MSG? Bigger arena = more seats = more $$$

But hey, its not college bball season if someone (even someone as smart as Seth) isn't spewing some junk about us.

Wait -- I just remember we're ranked #1 and look ridiculously good. Back to happy land :)

Duvall
11-29-2010, 06:49 PM
Deja vu?
Didn't we go through this last year?


I'm pretty sure we go through Seth Davis idiocy every year.

Someone may want to cue him in to the fact that St. John's is playing a half dozen of its other home games in Madison Square Garden, for the simple reason that they can sell more tickets. What, Duke is supposed to stop them?

Duvall
11-29-2010, 06:50 PM
Finally, St John's plays a significant # of games at MSG every year. In fact, they play half their home games there this year according to their website (http://www.redstormsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/stjo-m-baskbl-sched.html) (I think its 8 in Queens, 8 at MSG) so its probably fair to call that a true road game.

It's not just fair - by NCAA rule that *is* one of St. John's homecourts. It's not really a matter for debate.

SilkyJ
11-29-2010, 07:58 PM
It's not just fair - by NCAA rule that *is* one of St. John's homecourts. It's not really a matter for debate.

I actually thought that was the case, which is why I looked up their sked. Should have gone another step and confirmed it. Done and done.

weezie
11-29-2010, 08:41 PM
I'm pretty sure we go through Seth Davis idiocy every year.



Yeah, too bad Duke can't play itself. Talk about your strength of schedule.
Sighhhh.

NovaScotian
11-29-2010, 08:49 PM
Didn't we go through this last year?


yea, we did. it was called losing at wisconsin in the big 10-acc challenge. and, i suppose, the georgetown, too.


It's not just fair - by NCAA rule that *is* one of St. John's homecourts. It's not really a matter for debate.

i am a former st john's fan, and i agree that msg is one of their homecourts, but let's not kid ourselves - playing in new york is never a hostile environment for duke. how many times has msg been referred to as 'cameron indoor north' on this board alone?


honestly, i don't think it's a gigantic deal to not have many true road non-conference games (in cfb this is how the elite programs take care of business - remember the stink alabama made about playing at duke this year). the point is, this comes at the cost of some vulnerability when duke finally does play on the road in truly hostile environments (see above re: wisconsin and georgetown (though georgetown was in the middle of the season)). if the point of non-conference games is to help prepare a team for conference play, you would think a coach would try to put his team into tough situations early - but seth is really underestimating how hard it was to play kstate in kc,

in the end, you can chalk this up to another sportswriter looking for something to say about this duke team other than "sweet sassy molassy. this is some team."

House G
11-29-2010, 08:55 PM
I would hardly call the venue for the CBE Classic a neutral site. I am guessing that 80% or more of the fans were for Kansas State. During the first couple of minutes of that game the KSU fans were extremely loud (think CIS) but Duke quickly silenced them by pulling out to a double-digit lead. Is the point that Duke somehow needs to prove itself on someone else's home court? Ask any of that KSU fans at that game what they think of Duke after that dominant performance.

gam7
11-29-2010, 09:30 PM
yea, we did. it was called losing at wisconsin in the big 10-acc challenge. and, i suppose, the georgetown, too.



i am a former st john's fan, and i agree that msg is one of their homecourts, but let's not kid ourselves - playing in new york is never a hostile environment for duke. how many times has msg been referred to as 'cameron indoor north' on this board alone?


honestly, i don't think it's a gigantic deal to not have many true road non-conference games (in cfb this is how the elite programs take care of business - remember the stink alabama made about playing at duke this year). the point is, this comes at the cost of some vulnerability when duke finally does play on the road in truly hostile environments (see above re: wisconsin and georgetown (though georgetown was in the middle of the season)). if the point of non-conference games is to help prepare a team for conference play, you would think a coach would try to put his team into tough situations early - but seth is really underestimating how hard it was to play kstate in kc,

in the end, you can chalk this up to another sportswriter looking for something to say about this duke team other than "sweet sassy molassy. this is some team."

I agree with NovaScotian. It's really a stretch (to be kind) if he intends it to be a criticism. His sentence structure is interesting though. He does not place blame on Duke - he easily could have said "it's disappointing that Duke did not schedule" good non-conference teams in true away games. He may just be saying that he'd like to see what Duke would do in a truly hostile away environment given how good they've been so far, not that Duke took the easy way out with its schedule. His implication though is kind of silly. You can't please all the people all of the time.

DevilHorns
11-29-2010, 09:50 PM
Dear Seth,

As you are a reputable college basketball analyst, I ask for your expert analysis regarding a simple question:

What is the point of the regular season schedule?

It seems from your recent blurb on Duke that you find it 'disappointing' that (in your opinion) they have failed to schedule 'true road games' against 'tough non-conference opponents.'

I guess beating #4Kansas State in Kansas City is technically not a 'true road game.' That's true. Before you offer your thoughts on the question above, I'd like to give it my best shot:

The regular season schedule should be manipulated and designed by the coach to optimize (to the extent possible) 1) seeding in the NCAA tournament and 2) preparation for the NCAA tournament.

As the NCAA tournament is played on neutral sites in big arenas, there should be no reason to try and schedule a tough away game at an away arena if the arrangement for a large neutral site can be worked out. Doing so is reckless from a coach's point of view. Playing at this away site does not offer better preparatory 'road experience' as NCAA tourney games are played at neutral sites; besides, there are plenty of tough 'road experience' games played in conference every year. But how about Baylor in Houston last year, or Butler in Indianapolis, wouldn't having good road experience benefit your team in those scenarios, you ask? Well that's a good point. That's why playing Kansas State in Kansas City and St. Johns in MSG is a good idea. Maybe there is a method to the madness after all. Do you think?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

hurleyfor3
11-29-2010, 09:54 PM
Seth is complaining about this? Where the hell has he been?

I'm certain he knows K vigorously "manages" his road schedule. It's a valid cirticism, although we did lose at Wisky last year, and it didn't harm us a whole lot in April.

SilkyJ
11-29-2010, 10:07 PM
but let's not kid ourselves - playing in new york is never a hostile environment for duke.


Yea, but clearly Seth's definition of a "true road game" has nothing to do with playing in a hostile environment, it means playing on that team's homecourt, i.e. their home stadium. Obviously the CBE game in KSC and Oregon game in Portland had a hometeam crowd, but he doesn't count those.

I'm not sure what his point is, maybe something to do with shooting at the rims you're used to, depth perception, maybe greybeard's judo physics, who knows, but that's his definition.

OZZIE4DUKE
11-30-2010, 08:40 AM
Everyone who really agrees about what Seth writes here about Duke's away schedule please raise your hand. ... Anyone? ... OK, I see you raising your hand in the back. There's always one in the crowd. That's one out of several hundred.

JG Nothing
11-30-2010, 08:54 AM
Deja vu?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/seth_davis/11/29/kemba.walker.uconn/1.html
Seth Davis complains about Duke's road schedule. He says: "

It's disappointing that Duke is not playing a true road games against a tough nonconference opponent this season. The Blue Devils played Marquette and Kansas State in Kansas City, they're playing Butler in the Meadowlands and they're playing St. John's in Madison Square Garden. Even their game at Oregon on Saturday was at the Rose Garden in Portland instead of on campus in Eugene. Duke's lone nonconference true road game is at UNC Greensboro on December 29. That's hardly a spine tingler."
Didn't we go through this last year?

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/seth_davis/11/29/kemba.walker.uconn/1.html#ixzz16iWr2P64

I think Davis' point is that the lack of a true road game for Duke is disappointing from a basketball fan's perspective. It is more fun to watch games played on campus because students are more involved and campus arenas have more character (Dean Dome excluded). For example, would you as a viewer rather see Duke play KU in Allen or some stadium in Kansas City?

Channing
11-30-2010, 08:55 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with what he writes. On one hand, it is obvious that K's scheduling strategy tries to mimic environments we are likely to face in the tournament. I get that and I think it is a sound and strategic approach.
However, I would like to see Duke go play UConn in Storrs or OSU in Columbus. I have seen threads on this board in the past that let me know I'm not alone either.

So, while K's strategy obviously works and I was thrilled with the dividends it paid last year, I am also somewhat disappointed (even if irrationally so) every year when I see no true road games at other good programs. Now, our reason for disappointment might be different. Seth may be disappointed because he thinks Duke isn't challenging itself properly. My disappointment is strictly as a fan wanting to see my team go into another teams gym and give it what they got.


***edit*** JG Nothing beat me to the punch

JG Nothing
11-30-2010, 08:59 AM
I think Davis' point is that the lack of a true road game for Duke is disappointing from a basketball fan's perspective. It is more fun to watch games played on campus because students are more involved and campus arenas have more character (Dean Dome excluded). For example, would you as a viewer rather see Duke play KU in Allen or some stadium in Kansas City?

Here is a more relevant example: as a basketball fan, would you rather see Duke play Butler at the Meadowlands or Hinkle?

davekay1971
11-30-2010, 09:13 AM
I guess it would suck if I was a student at K-St or Oregon and didn't have gas money to get across state to the big game. Other than that, not sure who's disappointed besides Seth, or even why he's disappointed.

The K-St game was brilliant from a tactical POV. We're playing a top-tier team in a NCAAT environment - big stadium rather than a campus gym, mostly hostile crowd, national attention. Basically what Duke encounters every March. Think that won't help Kyrie, Seth, and the other young guys next March?

I could understand the complaint if all our challenging non-conference games happened at Cameron, and I'd agree that would be setting our guys up to not be prepared for the environment of the NCAAT. But that's not the case (and the one big non-conf game happening at Cameron, MSU, is the result of the every-other-year-at-home tendency of the ACC/Big10 challenge).

Sorry, Seth...Coach K engineers his non-conference schedule to help build his team for March. Once again, he's done a masterful job of it.

77devil
11-30-2010, 09:16 AM
Yes, and it seemed to work just fine when we played Baylor on a "neutral court" in Houston and Butler on a "neutral court" in their hometown.

Since the NCAAs are played in major arenas and therefore never on a true "homecourt," maybe Seth should call it tactful and intelligent instead of disappointing. Afterall, most judgements of a season, particularly from the media, seem to rely on how you do in March, so preparing yourself for the tourney seems like a smart idea to me.

Also, St John's plays a significant # of games at MSG every year. In fact, they play half their home games there this year according to their website (http://www.redstormsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/stjo-m-baskbl-sched.html) (I think its 8 in Queens, 8 at MSG if you include the holiday tournament they seem to be hosting) and they are playing several in-conference games there, so its probably fair to say SJU thinks of it as their homecourt, and probably fair to call it a true road game for Duke.

And color me crazy, but don't you think Oregon WANTED the game to be played in the Rose Garden? Don't you think St John's WANTED the game to be in MSG? Bigger arena = more seats = more $$$

But hey, its not college bball season if someone (even someone as smart as Seth) isn't spewing some junk about us.

Wait -- I just remember we're ranked #1 and look ridiculously good. Back to happy land :)


I think Davis' point is that the lack of a true road game for Duke is disappointing from a basketball fan's perspective. It is more fun to watch games played on campus because students are more involved and campus arenas have more character (Dean Dome excluded). For example, would you as a viewer rather see Duke play KU in Allen or some stadium in Kansas City?


Here is a more relevant example: as a basketball fan, would you rather see Duke play Butler at the Meadowlands or Hinkle?

I would prefer to see Duke play in whichever venues are better preparation for March, and I agree with Silky J's logic above that the big arena, semi-away sites accomplish that. I could not care less if Seth Davis prefers to watch "true" away games from a fan's perspective, if that is indeed his point. And I would prefer to watch Butler in MSG because I will be there.:)

Lord Ash
11-30-2010, 09:18 AM
Here is a more relevant example: as a basketball fan, would you rather see Duke play Butler at the Meadowlands or Hinkle?

The Meadowlands... otherwise I couldn't go!

sdotbarbee
11-30-2010, 09:35 AM
I agree with Devilhorns, I would rather coach K get us ready for the ACC and NCAA tourney's by playing good teams on "neutral" courts. I think it helps our guys, especially the young ones when we play at "neutral" sites because it is usually a bigger arena and they get a feel for it before tourney time. K also has us playing UNCG at the Greensboro Coliseum where the ACC tourney will be played, so our young guys will have a feel for it before we get to the ACC tourney. I for one think it is a great strategy and will pay off more then playing a "true" road game would.

trinity92
11-30-2010, 05:32 PM
I think Davis' point is that the lack of a true road game for Duke is disappointing from a basketball fan's perspective. It is more fun to watch games played on campus because students are more involved and campus arenas have more character (Dean Dome excluded). For example, would you as a viewer rather see Duke play KU in Allen or some stadium in Kansas City?

I don't know if this is the way Seth means it, although I certainly hope it is. Unfortunately, his complaint sounds so much like all the haters' (and by haters, I mostly mean unc and UK fans) frothing that K pads his win total by never scheduling a true away game OOC unless it's in the Big East, now Big Ten challenge.

As a college basketball fan, I absolutely agree with you that I'd like to see Duke play "true" home and homes with the traditional top programs. I got a huge kick out of seeing Duke play at Indiana in the last couple (several?) years. I'd love to see us play at Allen or Rupp and then look forward to seeing KU and UK in Cameron. It's good for the game. I also think you battle-test a team just as much, if not more, at a hostile "true" road game. Unless you practice and play in a dome, there is always going to be an adjustment to final four arenas that I don't think our Meadowlands, Rose Garden and MSG experiences can duplicate.

cf-62
11-30-2010, 05:41 PM
yea, we did. it was called losing at wisconsin in the big 10-acc challenge. and, i suppose, the georgetown, too.



i am a former st john's fan, and i agree that msg is one of their homecourts, but let's not kid ourselves - playing in new york is never a hostile environment for duke. how many times has msg been referred to as 'cameron indoor north' on this board alone?


honestly, i don't think it's a gigantic deal to not have many true road non-conference games (in cfb this is how the elite programs take care of business - remember the stink alabama made about playing at duke this year). the point is, this comes at the cost of some vulnerability when duke finally does play on the road in truly hostile environments (see above re: wisconsin and georgetown (though georgetown was in the middle of the season)). if the point of non-conference games is to help prepare a team for conference play, you would think a coach would try to put his team into tough situations early - but seth is really underestimating how hard it was to play kstate in kc,

in the end, you can chalk this up to another sportswriter looking for something to say about this duke team other than "sweet sassy molassy. this is some team."

There are two teams that we play in the Garden where we are DEFINITELY in a hostile environment: UConn and St. John's. Don't kid yourself. It's a road game. Just as last year's Georgetown game was a road game on a neutral court.

dball
11-30-2010, 05:48 PM
In years past, we have had home and home games pretty regularly, but these have often been cancelled by the other school. If I'm not mistaken, this includes UCLA, Arizona and Georgetown more recently. MSU game is great but why would we schedule home and home with Big Pick A Number School when we already have the ACC/Big10 to 12 challenge?

From a dollars perspective, might Duke not benefit from scheduling big name schools in larger venues? Cameron is going to be sold out. The "Away" game income is limited to home school, for the most part, is it not? Do some of the other schools not also benefit financially more when playing in larger arenas?

Duvall
11-30-2010, 05:49 PM
There are two teams that we play in the Garden where we are DEFINITELY in a hostile environment: UConn and St. John's. Don't kid yourself. It's a road game. Just as last year's Georgetown game was a road game on a neutral court.

Last year's Georgetown game was played on Georgetown's only homecourt.

dball
11-30-2010, 05:56 PM
There are two teams that we play in the Garden where we are DEFINITELY in a hostile environment: UConn and St. John's. Don't kid yourself. It's a road game. Just as last year's Georgetown game was a road game on a neutral court.

Verizon Center is Georgetown's "home" court. Sometimes they will play a (meaning one) game on campus in their very very tiny gym but pretty much all home games are at the Verizon Center. Believe this year (for example), all home games in VC. Just like MSG is home court for St. John's.

Duvall
11-30-2010, 05:59 PM
I also think you battle-test a team just as much, if not more, at a hostile "true" road game.

Duke gets eight of those a year, every year. Well, seven plus a trip to the Student Activities Center. Not sure they need any more for team development, as opposed to fan entertainment.

gwlaw99
11-30-2010, 06:05 PM
He has been pretty high on Duke this year. I am guessing this is just one of those posts to show that, as a Duke alum, he is still unbiased and willing to criticize the program.

fgb
11-30-2010, 06:20 PM
i sort of wonder how many team would agree to a home-and-away with us? for years we had ucla, and arizona, and i know at least ucla opted out, supposedly because lavin thought it was helping k "steal" recruits out of california (not sure about zona). how many top twenty-five coaches are going to want to make that swap with us, and have to come into cameron the following year?

Channing
11-30-2010, 06:52 PM
what happened with the Arizona h/a? I have heard from UNC fans that coach K wanted a home game in Cameron and an away game at a neutral site and Lute (rightfully so if those are the facts) told him to pound sand. Is that really how it went down?

If K wanted a h/a with another top program I don't think he would have a problem finding a partner. UNC routinely plays at UK, at IU, at UT(A), etc.

sdotbarbee
11-30-2010, 07:20 PM
what happened with the Arizona h/a? I have heard from UNC fans that coach K wanted a home game in Cameron and an away game at a neutral site and Lute (rightfully so if those are the facts) told him to pound sand. Is that really how it went down?

If K wanted a h/a with another top program I don't think he would have a problem finding a partner. UNC routinely plays at UK, at IU, at UT(A), etc.

Duke normally does have a home/home with schools, we play St. Johns every year, Georgetown we played a home/home with in 09&10 and 06&07, IU in 06&07, and Temple in 07&08. So it's not like we don't play home/home's with other teams.

Duvall
11-30-2010, 07:46 PM
Duke normally does have a home/home with schools, we play St. Johns every year, Georgetown we played a home/home with in 09&10 and 06&07, IU in 06&07, and Temple in 07&08. So it's not like we don't play home/home's with other teams.

And UNC's series with Texas is being played at Cowboys Stadium and the Greensboro Coliseum.

tommy
11-30-2010, 07:49 PM
what happened with the Arizona h/a? I have heard from UNC fans that coach K wanted a home game in Cameron and an away game at a neutral site and Lute (rightfully so if those are the facts) told him to pound sand. Is that really how it went down?

If K wanted a h/a with another top program I don't think he would have a problem finding a partner. UNC routinely plays at UK, at IU, at UT(A), etc.

No, they played a home and home, and also one in the Meadowlands I believe. What went down is that in the game at McKale, which was in 1991, we got jobbed real bad by the officials. Really terrible, and we lost in double OT. That much I know, cuz I was there.

What I heard, but don't know for a fact, is that K vowed not to play there again. And we never have.

77devil
11-30-2010, 08:18 PM
what happened with the Arizona h/a? I have heard from UNC fans that coach K wanted a home game in Cameron and an away game at a neutral site and Lute (rightfully so if those are the facts) told him to pound sand. Is that really how it went down?

My recollection is that after feeling that Duke was hosed by the Pac 8 refs. at Arizona in 1991, that Coach K had no interest, to put it lightly, in renewing the first home and home with Arizona and Lute. But it's a pretty hazy recollection. I'll defer to Jim Sumner, et al. on this one.

sagegrouse
11-30-2010, 08:30 PM
My recollection is that after feeling that Duke was hosed by the Pac 8 refs. at Arizona in 1991, that Coach K had no interest, to put it lightly, in renewing the first home and home with Arizona and Lute. But it's a pretty hazy recollection. I'll defer to Jim Sumner, et al. on this one.

It was a horrible call that denied a clear-cut 3pt goal to Greg Koubek and cost Duke the game. I have never heard anyone express interest in going back to Tucson to play.

sagegrouse

Bluedevil114
11-30-2010, 09:13 PM
What is really the big deal playing a true road game? We play enough tough road games in the ACC. In the tournament you play neutral sites and that is what Coach K has learned is a better strategy for the Duke team.

This year playing KState in Kansas City and then Oregon at the Rose Center are neutral sites against home state teams. What is truely the difference?

I trust Coach K knows what he is doing.

rasputin
12-01-2010, 12:55 PM
What is really the big deal playing a true road game? We play enough tough road games in the ACC. In the tournament you play neutral sites and that is what Coach K has learned is a better strategy for the Duke team.

This year playing KState in Kansas City and then Oregon at the Rose Center are neutral sites against home state teams. What is truely the difference?

I trust Coach K knows what he is doing.

Several times last night, ESPN referred to Georgetown's win over Missouri, which was played in Kansas City, as a nice "road win."

UrinalCake
12-01-2010, 01:34 PM
What is really the big deal playing a true road game?

I think these criticisms started during the 2006-2009 timeframe when we were running up good records during the season but then exiting the tournament early (and by that I mean not on par with our success during the season and relative to our seeding). So people started saying that our regular-season record was padded by playing in Cameron so much.

I honestly think it's a fair criticism. Let us not forget that our record outside of Cameron last year was not that great throughout the regular season. In addition to the aforementioned OOC losses, we were 5-3 on the road in ACC play. The team played a LOT better in Cameron, they especially shot much better, and I was certainly concerned with what this would mean in the postseason.

Now of course we won it all so you could say that all of that concern was unfounded. Nevertheless, I don't see how it would be a bad thing to schedule more true road games against top teams. I think there's a psychological factor of putting yourself out there and not being afraid to play in someone else's gym.

Duvall
12-01-2010, 01:59 PM
I think these criticisms started during the 2006-2009 timeframe when we were running up good records during the season but then exiting the tournament early (and by that I mean not on par with our success during the season and relative to our seeding). So people started saying that our regular-season record was padded by playing in Cameron so much.

I honestly think it's a fair criticism. Let us not forget that our record outside of Cameron last year was not that great throughout the regular season. In addition to the aforementioned OOC losses, we were 5-3 on the road in ACC play. The team played a LOT better in Cameron, they especially shot much better, and I was certainly concerned with what this would mean in the postseason.

Except that this wasn't the case from 2006-2009. In 2006, Duke went 7-1 in conference home games and 7-1 in conference road games. In 2007, Duke went 4-4 in conference home and 4-4 in conference road games. In 2008, Duke went 7-1 in conference home games and 6-2 in conference road games. It's only in 2009 and 2010 that you see any kind of significant difference in home and road results for Duke.

The better explanation for why Duke racked up so many wins in the regular season is that they played really well in the regular season.

COYS
12-01-2010, 02:20 PM
The better explanation for why Duke racked up so many wins in the regular season is that they played really well in the regular season.

This is something that people tend to forget for some reason. I think when a high profile team like Duke goes out earlier than expected in the tourney, the reaction among pundits tends to be that the team just wasn't as good as everyone thought. The fact that Duke only rarely plays true OOC away games is used as evidence to "prove" that Duke wasn't actually good from the start. This, however, is a specious argument . . . especially when the bulk of the evidence points to the fact that Duke was a good team, both home and away, but didn't play well enough in the tournament to make a deep run.

UrinalCake
12-01-2010, 03:47 PM
Except that this wasn't the case from 2006-2009.

How many true OOC road games did they play these years against significant opponents? (checks google...)

2006-2007: beat St. John's
2007-2008: beat Davidson and Temple
2008-2009: beat Purdue and St. John's, lost to Michigan

That's pretty weak. Whether this had anything to do with their poor tournament performance, I don't know, but it seems like a fair enough area for criticism.

I think another part of the reason the media criticizes our schedule is that they like to root for the little guy. The mid-major schools HAVE to schedule tough OOC games because they don't get tested in conference and it's the only way to improve their strength of schedule. Since the big schools don't like to travel, the mid-majors are always going on the road. Schools like Duke (and other powerhouse schools too) are seen as uppity and snobbish, refusing to leave their home gym because they're afraid they might actually lose. And every time a mid-major does spring an upset, it only adds fuel to the fire.

uh_no
12-01-2010, 03:52 PM
2006-2007: beat St. John's
2007-2008: beat Davidson and Temple
2008-2009: beat Purdue and St. John's, lost to Michigan


if you're gonna make any sort of connection between duke's regular season and their tournament performance its absolutely ridiculous to split the season into OOC and ACC....a road game is a road game.....you could even make the argument that the ACC games should have MORE of a correlation to tournament performance......

anyway, Duvall pointed out that dukes ACC schedule (and likely thus their overall BCS schedule) had similar performances at home and on the road.....its then silly to turn around and take a marginal subset of the season and say that it is a counterexample....

yeah you can look at the whole season and see that the road record is marginally worse, but that is to be expected anyway

UrinalCake
12-01-2010, 04:32 PM
Yeah, I suppose my logic is somewhat circular. A summary of what I think I'm trying to say is as follows:

- From 2006-2009 we did not choose to play on the road much at all. Thus we were criticized for it.
- In 2009-2010 we finally did schedule a couple road games, but we mostly lost them. On top of that, we played poorly in ACC road games too.
- This year we've scheduled a couple OOC road games, but I think we could do more.

sagegrouse
12-01-2010, 05:02 PM
Yeah, I suppose my logic is somewhat circular. A summary of what I think I'm trying to say is as follows:

- From 2006-2009 we did not choose to play on the road much at all. Thus we were criticized for it.
- In 2009-2010 we finally did schedule a couple road games, but we mostly lost them. On top of that, we played poorly in ACC road games too.
- This year we've scheduled a couple OOC road games, but I think we could do more.

Mr. UC:

I contributed to this thread earlier but have not gone back to view every single one of the intervening posts. So I hope this isn't redundant.

We could undoubtedly "do more" out-of-conference road games. But why would we, and why does it matter?

Let me (ahem) decompose the problem into two components: (1) How good are the OOC teams Duke chooses to play? (2) Where should the games be played?

I haven't heard anyone arguing that Duke is scheduling teams that are too easy to beat. Duke will probably play the top team in the Big Ten every year. Duke regularly schedules preseason tournaments with other good teams (elementary, my dear Watson: those are the tournaments that attracts fans and TV coverage and pay the most bucks). And Duke has its annual New York game against another really good team (this year Butler at the Meadowlands).

Duke has also had home-and-homes with Georgetown, Temple, St. John's, and previously Michigan -- teams that in some years are very good and more than occasionally win the game. Should Duke have more home-and-home series with top teams, as opposed to tournaments or neutral site games?

I can't think of a single reason to prefer more home-and-homes over the other challenges. I think it is a dollar issue for Duke: more money is important to a program that is supporting so much of the athletic department, and neutral site games that Duke promotes bring in a lot of revenue. Moreover, it enables Duke to schedule games where a lot of Duke alumni reside (which, for younger alumni, if my children and their friends are good examples, seem to be the major cities in the US -- New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Los Angeles).

I am not impressed with the "competitive" arguments that true road games are a better test of a team. So what? The post-season events are all held on neutral sites. Does this mean Duke's standing in the polls is inflated compared to other teams? Who would those teams be? I don't see big differences among Duke, UConn, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas, but maybe I haven't seen all the evidence.

What's the other argument: denying opposing fans the opportunity to see the Devils in action? Well, neutral site games would seem to be even better.

Sorry, I just don't get the argument for more OOC road games.

sagegrouse

uh_no
12-01-2010, 05:20 PM
Things that winning the national championship proved last year:

K still has it
coaching the USA team hasn't hurt the program
alarmingly unathletic teams can win the national championship
'tired legs' is a myth and we can win with our star guys playing big minutes the whole season
road performance is not indicative of tournament performance (and for duke, over the past 4 years has a negative correlation...)

77devil
12-01-2010, 05:31 PM
Mr. UC:

I contributed to this thread earlier but have not gone back to view every single one of the intervening posts. So I hope this isn't redundant.

We could undoubtedly "do more" out-of-conference road games. But why would we, and why does it matter?

Let me (ahem) decompose the problem into two components: (1) How good are the OOC teams Duke chooses to play? (2) Where should the games be played?

I haven't heard anyone arguing that Duke is scheduling teams that are too easy to beat. Duke will probably play the top team in the Big Ten every year. Duke regularly schedules preseason tournaments with other good teams (elementary, my dear Watson: those are the tournaments that attracts fans and TV coverage and pay the most bucks). And Duke has its annual New York game against another really good team (this year Butler at the Meadowlands).

Duke has also had home-and-homes with Georgetown, Temple, St. John's, and previously Michigan -- teams that in some years are very good and more than occasionally win the game. Should Duke have more home-and-home series with top teams, as opposed to tournaments or neutral site games?

I can't think of a single reason to prefer more home-and-homes over the other challenges. I think it is a dollar issue for Duke: more money is important to a program that is supporting so much of the athletic department, and neutral site games that Duke promotes bring in a lot of revenue. Moreover, it enables Duke to schedule games where a lot of Duke alumni reside (which, for younger alumni, if my children and their friends are good examples, seem to be the major cities in the US -- New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Los Angeles).

I am not impressed with the "competitive" arguments that true road games are a better test of a team. So what? The post-season events are all held on neutral sites. Does this mean Duke's standing in the polls is inflated compared to other teams? Who would those teams be? I don't see big differences among Duke, UConn, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas, but maybe I haven't seen all the evidence.

What's the other argument: denying opposing fans the opportunity to see the Devils in action? Well, neutral site games would seem to be even better.

Sorry, I just don't get the argument for more OOC road games.

sagegrouse


Things that winning the national championship proved last year:

K still has it
coaching the USA team hasn't hurt the program
alarmingly unathletic teams can win the national championship
'tired legs' is a myth and we can win with our star guys playing big minutes the whole season
road performance is not indicative of tournament performance (and for duke, over the past 4 years has a negative correlation...)

I think these just about cover it. The only point I will add is that Coach K knows better how to schedule his teams than all the armchair coaches on this board. In K we (should) trust.

dball
12-01-2010, 05:47 PM
How many true OOC road games did they play these years against significant opponents?

Since the big schools don't like to travel, the mid-majors are always going on the road. Schools like Duke (and other powerhouse schools too) are seen as uppity and snobbish, refusing to leave their home gym because they're afraid they might actually lose. And every time a mid-major does spring an upset, it only adds fuel to the fire.

Don't see any logic to this. If you travel 2500 miles from your home gym to play in an arena that holds a huge majority of fans from the opposing school, how is that not a road game? How does that follow "big schools don't like to travel"?

This whole separation of "road games", "true road games", "neutral site games" is pretty new. For much of K's early tenure, a road game was generally in some other school's gym (as it had been forever and ever) because that was how it was done. Other than a very few, highly anticipated games like UCLA-Houston in the Astrodome, regular season games were not played in large arenas and most schools -- even the big state schools -- did not have huge on campus arenas that are prevalent today. Heck, when the Indoor Stadium was built it could hold nearly twice the undergraduate population -- must have seemed ridiculous back then. Who needs a 'stadium' for basketball?

The "game of the week" was available and C.D. Chesley broadcast many ACC games but nationally most games were not televised until mid or late 80s and renting a huge arena for a couple of college teams was pretty dicey.

As exposure has grown and with Duke's success, it's now possible to host games in large venues because people want to see the Blue Devils. If you live on the West Coast, how often can you travel to Cameron? If you do, can you actually secure a ticket? Duke plays Virginia at their new JPJ arena next February. Already, I've seen ads for "tickets needed" and that place holds about 16,000.

Travel is travel. If I fly 3000 miles for a business meeting, I'm not sure if there's any more pressure on me going to the company office or meeting in the hotel conference room.

As far as battle-tested, it seems to me simulating environments you might face later would be most useful. In particular, shooting lines and lighting can be quite different in larger arenas.

Now, strictly as a fan, nothing is cooler than having your team play well on the other guy's home court. But, IMO, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when looking at the overall environment.

nmduke2001
12-01-2010, 06:41 PM
I think that Seth is obligated to say something "bad" about Duke since he is a Duke grad. Otherwise, he would seem like a homer. Bilas does the same thing.

throatybeard
12-01-2010, 07:44 PM
1H) Why won’t Krzyzewski schedule [any true road games/better opponents/games close to my house/team we used to play]?


I will say this. Duke-KSU in Kansas City (250 mi). Let's say I had unlimited money and no one-year old at home. I wouldn't have bothered to get over there from Saint Louis. I have a flat panel. HD, son.

Duke-KSU in Manhattan (350 mi) or Duke-KU in Lawrence (300 mi), or Duke-Mizzou in Columbia (150 mi)? I'd bust my butt to see it in person. And this is me, a football guy.

UrinalCake
12-02-2010, 11:36 AM
sagegrouse, 77devil, and dball - all excellent points, and I can't really refute anything you've said. In my defense, I will say the following:

- The best reason I can think of to play a true road game is that it challenges your team. Playing on the road is really difficult, and is not something you can simulate in practice. I understand that the purpose of the regular season is to prepare for the tournament, and that the tournament is played in large, neutral site arenas. Nevertheless, I still think that challenging your team in a way that goes beyond what you will encounter in the tournament can only help your team develop in the long run. Playing on the road out of conference presents an even further challenge, as the referees are different, the building is unfamiliar even to the veteran players, and the opposing team is unfamiliar to the players and coaches.

- I've heard Coach K say in the past that he likes to "schedule a loss." By that he means he wants his schedule to be challenging enough that the team will probably lose a game along the way. When you're the #1 team in the country, it seems to me that the best way to do this is to play in someone else's gym.

- Temple, St. John's, and Michigan have not been relevant for at least a decade. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking these games provide much of a challenge for us. I can't recall the last time either of these teams were ranked when we played them. Georgetown is a quality opponent and I hope we continue a home-and-home with them, especially with how well we recruit in the DC area.

Ok, well I'm going to head over to the post-game thread and bask in our big win last night. Thanks for the discussion!

-jk
12-02-2010, 12:42 PM
First, I don't recall K ever scheduling a loss. He tends to build a schedule that is appropriate for what he expects of his team, making sure they will be appropriately challenged.

I'll offer a different angle: Given the vile reception we receive in many road games, I don't really blame K for being reluctant to schedule a game in UK, KU, UCon, or other schools with high profile programs and emotional fans.

I've been to Duke games in dozens of arenas, and the atmosphere is almost always electric, but it can be fun or toxic. Playing the NCAA sub in Rupp was awful - and UK wasn't even there. I went to a Duke game at Phog, and one Duke fan was almost arrested into protective custody; KU also had a policy to video the fans for evidence later for whatever might happen - it wasn't just us.

We catch enough abuse in ACC games, and it's not just Maryland. Mickey had to be escorted out of State with a police escort after one game - the students had been relentless and wouldn't quit after the game. I was accosted by Clemson fans. We all remember how the Redicks were treated at VaTech.

Why subject ourselves to that elsewhere when we can play a marquee match-up in an arena that helps us in March?

-jk

post thought: that said, I suspect Izzo could keep his crowd under control enough, and an ongoing series would be a blast!

Billy Dat
12-03-2010, 12:23 PM
I can't think of a single reason to prefer more home-and-homes over the other challenges. I think it is a dollar issue for Duke: more money is important to a program that is supporting so much of the athletic department, and neutral site games that Duke promotes bring in a lot of revenue.

This is the factor that has really made me come around on this issue. I used to beat the drum for more home-and-homes against the likes of UK and UConn, but now I have backed off for the reasons well laid out by others. The money issue is one where I really wish we had some more transparency, only for the sake of curiosity. While I am sure the Iron Dukes do well enough passing the hat around, I think K realized a long time ago that his program was going to have to make fundraising an important and ongoing effort. When K, last year, talked about how big state schools with huge alumni bases have built in defenders (this was in regards to the "Why are so many people Anti Duke?" debate), I am sure the same can be extended to people who donate money to the school's teams. K has to work that much harder to raise the money. He's spoken about how many of the scholarships are now endowed, meaning that the men's hoops team is less and less reliant on the financial status of the university and the overall athletic department. I am not sure how the money for the K Center was raised...but the fact is that the richer the program is, the better the facilities, the better the recruiting pitch. If renting out the Meadowland and inviting Texas makes us a couple hundred grand or more, I think that's better than playing Kansas in Allen Fieldhouse. I am actually surprised more programs haven't emulated Duke's tactics - but I bet Brad Stevens, Mark Few and others who seem smart and run emerging non-State-school-powerhouses-at-small-liberal-arts-colleges are taking notes.

77devil
12-03-2010, 02:06 PM
This is the factor that has really made me come around on this issue. I used to beat the drum for more home-and-homes against the likes of UK and UConn, but now I have backed off for the reasons well laid out by others. The money issue is one where I really wish we had some more transparency, only for the sake of curiosity. While I am sure the Iron Dukes do well enough passing the hat around, I think K realized a long time ago that his program was going to have to make fundraising an important and ongoing effort. When K, last year, talked about how big state schools with huge alumni bases have built in defenders (this was in regards to the "Why are so many people Anti Duke?" debate), I am sure the same can be extended to people who donate money to the school's teams. K has to work that much harder to raise the money. He's spoken about how many of the scholarships are now endowed, meaning that the men's hoops team is less and less reliant on the financial status of the university and the overall athletic department. I am not sure how the money for the K Center was raised...but the fact is that the richer the program is, the better the facilities, the better the recruiting pitch. If renting out the Meadowland and inviting Texas makes us a couple hundred grand or more, I think that's better than playing Kansas in Allen Fieldhouse. I am actually surprised more programs haven't emulated Duke's tactics - but I bet Brad Stevens, Mark Few and others who seem smart and run emerging non-State-school-powerhouses-at-small-liberal-arts-colleges are taking notes.

Good points on the money aspect with which I agree along with the other reasons I and others have written. But I suspect it takes a marquee program in a good match up game to make the numbers work and Butler and Gonzaga, and practically everyone else, will likely never fit the profile. Duke is one of a few, maybe the only non state university, that can consistently fill up MSG or the Meadowlands for a regular season game. It's vital that it's in the NYC or Washington D.C. metro area where there is a large east coast alumni and fan base from which to draw.

St. Johns and Georgetown draw big crowds for Big East rivalry games at MSG and the Verizon Center, but they have rich histories in a major conference in major population centers. They are the exceptions in my view and are likely to remain so.

Bluedog
12-03-2010, 03:03 PM
St. Johns and Georgetown draw big crowds for Big East rivalry games at MSG and the Verizon Center, but they have rich histories in a major conference in major population centers. They are the exceptions in my view and are likely to remain so.

Georgetown sold out a grand total of two games last season at the Verizon Center - against Duke and against Syracuse. Most games they have about 12,000 show up for a stadium of 20,000.

77devil
12-03-2010, 08:26 PM
St. Johns and Georgetown draw big crowds for Big East rivalry games at MSG and the Verizon Center, but they have rich histories in a major conference in major population centers. They are the exceptions in my view and are likely to remain so.


Georgetown sold out a grand total of two games last season at the Verizon Center - against Duke and against Syracuse. Most games they have about 12,000 show up for a stadium of 20,000.

I wrote big crowds, not sell outs, for certain Big East games. Attendance against U Conn, ND and Cincy exceeded 15,000 last year and was higher for Pitt and Marquette the year before.