PDA

View Full Version : Time to take Duke seriously as a Final Four contender



NM Duke Fan
02-24-2012, 09:01 AM
An article by Rob Dauster on NBC Sports:

"I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: winning is a skill. The confidence to execute in late-game situations and the mental capacity to perform under pressure is a trait that isn’t found in every player or team. Think about it like this: how many players that are good jump-shooters struggle from the free throw line? Its not always about technique. Confidence plays a role, too.

Its the same thing for executing under pressure.

They came back from 10 down in the final two minutes to beat North Carolina. They came back from 20 down in the final 11 minutes to beat NC State. They erased a 17 point deficit to force overtime in their loss to Miami. Most importantly, they are 24-4 on the season and 11-2 in ACC play.

While the reasons behind those big deficits are quite clear, you cannot talk about the Blue Devils without saying unequivocally that this group has put together as many impressive wins as anyone in the country."

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/24/its-time-to-take-duke-seriously-as-a-final-four-contender/related/

Matches
02-24-2012, 09:04 AM
The ability to stay composed under adversity, particularly in hostile environments, is definitely a good sign. This team is far tougher mentally than it appeared even just a few weeks ago.

It's still a team with flaws, and the wrong matchup in the 2nd round of the NCAAT could be fatal. But "contender" for the F4 is a fair assessment - Duke is in the discussion.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 09:04 AM
An article by Rob Dauster on NBC Sports:

"I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: winning is a skill. The confidence to execute in late-game situations and the mental capacity to perform under pressure is a trait that isn’t found in every player or team. Think about it like this: how many players that are good jump-shooters struggle from the free throw line? Its not always about technique. Confidence plays a role, too.

Its the same thing for executing under pressure.

They came back from 10 down in the final two minutes to beat North Carolina. They came back from 20 down in the final 11 minutes to beat NC State. They erased a 17 point deficit to force overtime in their loss to Miami. Most importantly, they are 24-4 on the season and 11-2 in ACC play.

While the reasons behind those big deficits are quite clear, you cannot talk about the Blue Devils without saying unequivocally that this group has put together as many impressive wins as anyone in the country."

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/24/its-time-to-take-duke-seriously-as-a-final-four-contender/related/

"Duke is the softest #1 seed ever."

Let's just go ahead and get that out of the way now.

Excellent article.

hq2
02-24-2012, 09:51 AM
They came back from 10 down in the final two minutes to beat North Carolina. They came back from 20 down in the final 11 minutes to beat NC State. They erased a 17 point deficit to force overtime in their loss to Miami.

I'd have more confidence in them in the NCAAs if they didn't fall that far behind in the first place.

Kedsy
02-24-2012, 09:52 AM
Well, I thought they were somewhat of a Final Four contender before, but maybe that's just me. A couple weeks ago, I think people were putting too much weight on close losses to FSU and Miami; now I think people are overly emphasizing one big win at FSU. In my opinion, any team's chances are not changed all that much by their performance in one game. (Except of course UNC losing by 33; that pretty much doomed their chances ;) ).

Two days ago, I heard there was no way Duke could get a #1 seed. Now we're a frontrunner? Come on. What's going to happen if we start slow against Virginia Tech tomorrow? Back to a #2 at halftime?

Has the team improved over the past month? Of course it has. Didn't you expect it to? Hopefully, we'll continue to improve. But whether we do or not, people should realize that college teams (and players) rarely "are what they are." When your team is filled with teenagers, everything changes constantly.

PADukeMom
02-24-2012, 09:55 AM
I'd have more confidence in them in the NCAAs if they didn't fall that far behind in the first place.

I agree with you on that point. It is way too early to even think about this. The next focus is Wake on Saturday.

Albert
02-24-2012, 10:05 AM
"Duke is the softest #1 seed ever."

Let's just go ahead and get that out of the way now.

Excellent article.


"[Whichever level of success Duke achieves] was because the Committee gave them a ridiculously easy road to [said level of success.]"

"[Whichever perceived failure resulting for Duke] just shows that they were always vastly overrated by the Committee."

mkline09
02-24-2012, 10:05 AM
"Duke is the softest #1 seed ever."

Let's just go ahead and get that out of the way now.

Excellent article.

LOL I love this. And I can hear it already. But realistically and I am by no way saying Duke deserves to be a No. 1 but they have kind of earned it to this point. Up until recently I didn't think they were playing well enough to be in the conversaton. Sure they've played a brutal schedule. Beaten MSU, Kansas, FSU, unc, Michigan and that is just the big name ranked teams. But they weren't playing great. However, in the last few weeks they are starting to come together while other teams seen as possibly a more natural No. 1 seed, like say Ohio State, seem to be fading a bit.

Still a lot of basketball to go and Duke still has its flaws and is far from a clear cut top seed but if the shoe fits.

Albert
02-24-2012, 10:10 AM
LOL I love this. And I can hear it already. But realistically and I am by no way saying Duke deserves to be a No. 1 but they have kind of earned it to this point. Up until recently I didn't think they were playing well enough to be in the conversaton. Sure they've played a brutal schedule. Beaten MSU, Kansas, FSU, unc, Michigan and that is just the big name ranked teams. But they weren't playing great. However, in the last few weeks they are starting to come together while other teams seen as possibly a more natural No. 1 seed, like say Ohio State, seem to be fading a bit.

Still a lot of basketball to go and Duke still has its flaws and is far from a clear cut top seed but if the shoe fits.

This was one of the best defensive teams in the country, and we put some points on them, especially from behind the arc. Our team has shored up the defense somewhat, but is capable of putting up a lot of points in a hurry. I don't know if that gets mentioned enough in the "cardiac kids" discussion.

devildeac
02-24-2012, 10:22 AM
I agree with you on that point. It is way too early to even think about this. The next focus is Wake on Saturday.

I hope they are focusing/feasting on the turkeys on Saturday and the Deacs after that ;>)) .

MChambers
02-24-2012, 10:22 AM
I agree with you on that point. It is way too early to even think about this. The next focus is Wake on Saturday.
Duke's playing VPI on Saturday, so a focus on Wake would not be good!

dyedwab
02-24-2012, 10:25 AM
But realistically and I am by no way saying Duke deserves to be a No. 1 but they have kind of earned it to this point.

this has been my issue all year - they don't seem to me to be good enough to be a #1 seed. But then I pay attention to the other teams that are competing for high seeds with us, and its hard to see who, other than Syracuse and KY, any teams that could get a #1 seed that are overwhelmingly better than us.

Its all about perception and perspective. This team doesn't feel like a #1 seed compared to other Duke teams that have been #1 seeds. But compared to the other teams that are also in the mix this year for a #1 seed? Yeah, their are one.

Rudy
02-24-2012, 10:27 AM
. . . people should realize that college teams (and players) rarely "are what they are." When your team is filled with teenagers, everything changes constantly.
This is one of the reasons I love college basketball.

Kedsy
02-24-2012, 10:38 AM
But then I pay attention to the other teams that are competing for high seeds with us, and its hard to see who, other than Syracuse and KY, any teams that could get a #1 seed that are overwhelmingly better than us.

I don't know why everyone says Syracuse is overwhelmingly better. They have seven wins by 10 or fewer points against unranked teams (plus a loss against an unranked team at the time). Four of those seven close wins were played at home. All four of their games against ranked opponents were decided by 7 points or less (and three of those four games were at home). Their last three games were a 1 point, come-from-behind win against Louisville, a 10 point win at Rutgers (which was only a three point game with a couple minutes to play) and an 8 point win at home against South Florida. So the fact that we lost an OT game and a game on the last possession makes them "overwhelmingly" better than we are?

Matches
02-24-2012, 10:45 AM
Its all about perception and perspective. This team doesn't feel like a #1 seed compared to other Duke teams that have been #1 seeds. But compared to the other teams that are also in the mix this year for a #1 seed? Yeah, their are one.

Yeah, I think this is a bit of logical disconnect we all fall prey to at times. Either we're judging the team based on last year's team, or an archetypical Duke team, or our perception of what this team *should* be, rather than its actual competition.

We're #4 in the nation and have a stellar resume. We've beaten three of the other top contenders head-to-head, one on the road and one on a neutral court. A lot can happen between now and Selection Sunday, but as of today we absolutely are a #1 seed, and it's well-deserved.

COYS
02-24-2012, 10:46 AM
I'll be honest, I didn't expect Ohio St. to struggle as much in terms of W-L record. It definitely opens the door for Duke to take a number 1 seed. And while I don't think this team is at the level that we can definitively say it's one of the 4 best teams in the country, it is shaping up exactly as we all hoped earlier in the season. Austin took his lumps for a bit in January, but has had some incredible February games. In some ways, last night may have actually been his best. Yes, nothing will ever trump his UNC performance (the 26 points prior to the final three were at least as impressive), but he played with such maturity last night at FSU. He has become much less erratic with his decision-making and is getting his teammates involved more frequently (there have been a number of games where some better shooting from open shooters would have given him far more impressive assist totals). Meanwhile, the team as a whole has tightened up it's offensive execution in late game situations AND has begun to tighten up the D.

I've always felt that the individual talent level on this team was ahead of it's execution and focus, meaning that as the team matured and developed chemistry, the ceiling would get higher and higher. While I'm not convinced we're one of the 4 best teams in the country, our W-L record says otherwise and I am certain that we can end up as one of the 4 best as long as we continue on our current trajectory.

Troublemaker
02-24-2012, 11:02 AM
it is shaping up exactly as we all hoped earlier in the season. Austin took his lumps for a bit in January, but has had some incredible February games. In some ways, last night may have actually been his best. Yes, nothing will ever trump his UNC performance (the 26 points prior to the final three were at least as impressive), but he played with such maturity last night at FSU. He has become much less erratic with his decision-making and is getting his teammates involved more frequently (there have been a number of games where some better shooting from open shooters would have given him far more impressive assist totals).

Agreed. The key has always been Austin. He has the most talent on the team, and with the type of players we have on the roster --shooters and athletic big men that mostly can't create for themselves-- we needed him to become the consummate creator who sees the floor, makes good decisions, finds teammates and scores for himself when appropriate. That's a lot to ask of a freshman. But Austin has stepped up to the challenge, improved greatly as the season progressed, and he's become that lynchpin that we needed to put all his teammates in the proper role. I'm very proud of him. And intangibly, his attitude has been great, he's become more of a leader, and he's clutch. Coach K said that Austin played like a senior last night, which is high praise coming from Coach K. Love that kid.

I personally think that Duke is a top 4 team, but it doesn't matter that much if we're top 4 or top 8. It will come down to injuries and brackets. I think everyone's heart was in our throat last night when Austin went down, but thankfully he looks like he'll be okay. Hopefully the basketball gods will endow the team with good health and good matchups in our brackets. I'd rather be a top 8 team with those things going for us than a top 4 team without.

G man
02-24-2012, 11:06 AM
I think we all can agree that the offense is final four good, but the defense not so much. If our defense or our rebounding were closer to elite we might be one of the favorites. I do like that this team can close out games. We still have not had a game where we are firing on all cylinders. I think most would agree we are getting better. Man I love college ball.

Genedoc
02-24-2012, 11:12 AM
The defense just isn't good enough for us to weather a poor shooting night. There have been a lot of years where the book on Duke was "live by 3, die by 3" even when that wasn't the case at all. This year, the book fits. We don't defensively rebound well enough nor do we play defense well enough to weather a poor shooting night. Is this Duke team capable of getting to the FF? Yes, but it's also a lot more capable than many years of losing to a double digit seed that's got a couple of decent guards and catches Duke on a night when the shots just don't fall from 3 point range at nearly 40%

dukenilnil
02-24-2012, 11:16 AM
but the team seems to be wildly inconsistent, even with wins (one awful stretch or half, one brilliant run), that seems to be a focus/effort issue. Although, they seem to be working that out hopefully. I always think Duke has a final four team, an offshoot of having watched a series of late 80's Duke teams go 9-5 in conference and still make a Final Four run.

That said, what worries me the most is the drubbing in Columbus and the loss at Temple. Final Four teams generally don't get gobsmacked by anyone (with the notable exception of the '91 team which Kerlina destroyed in the ACC tourney).

It will be a fun tourney from excitment level, that's for sure.

Matches
02-24-2012, 11:18 AM
That said, what worries me the most is the drubbing in Columbus and the loss at Temple. Final Four teams generally don't get gobsmacked by anyone (with the notable exception of the '91 team which Kerlina destroyed in the ACC tourney).



I think there are a ton of counter-examples: Duke '10 (Georgetown), Maryland '02 (Duke) come immediately to mind.

phaedrus
02-24-2012, 11:25 AM
I think there are a ton of counter-examples: Duke '10 (Georgetown), Maryland '02 (Duke) come immediately to mind.

Butler lost to UW-Milwaukee last season. Twice.

I don't see how anyone can make sweeping statements about the supposed qualifications of Final Four teams after last season.

m g
02-24-2012, 11:26 AM
That said, what worries me the most is the drubbing in Columbus and the loss at Temple. Final Four teams generally don't get gobsmacked by anyone (with the notable exception of the '91 team which Kerlina destroyed in the ACC tourney).

In addition to the Georgetown smackdown, the 2010 Duke team got obliterated by a very mediocre NC State squad.

Kedsy
02-24-2012, 11:52 AM
The defense just isn't good enough for us to weather a poor shooting night.

I don't agree. Here are our seven worst three-point performances in games this year:

18.8% from three @ Maryland -- Duke W
20.0% from three @ Ohio State -- Duke L
25.0% from three vs. UVa -- Duke W
27.3% from three @ Ga Tech -- Duke W
27.6% from three vs. NC State -- Duke W
29.0% from three vs. Miami -- Duke L in OT, but the L was more about missed free throws than it was missed outside shots
29.4% from three vs. Washington -- Duke W

And most of those teams are NCAA tournament worthy (all but Maryland and Georgia Tech).

It's also worth noting that in our other two losses we shot 43% from three in each game.



Final Four teams generally don't get gobsmacked by anyone...


This isn't really true either. Here's a table just from the past three years:



Year Team # of double digit losses worst loss
---- ----- ----------------------- ----------
2011 UConn 3 17 pts
2011 Butler 2 15 pts
2011 VCU 5 20 pts
2011 UK 0
2010 Duke 2 14 pts
2010 Butler 0
2010 Mich St 2 18 pts
2010 West Va 2 15 pts (plus a 21 pt loss in Final Four)
2009 UNC 0
2009 Mich St 4 35 pts (plus a 17 pt loss in Final Four)
2009 UConn 3 11 pts
2009 Villanova 2 21 pts (plus a 14 pt loss in Final Four)


So, really, getting shellacked once or twice is more of the norm, rather than the exception.

jimsumner
02-24-2012, 12:19 PM
but the team seems to be wildly inconsistent, even with wins (one awful stretch or half, one brilliant run), that seems to be a focus/effort issue. Although, they seem to be working that out hopefully. I always think Duke has a final four team, an offshoot of having watched a series of late 80's Duke teams go 9-5 in conference and still make a Final Four run.

That said, what worries me the most is the drubbing in Columbus and the loss at Temple. Final Four teams generally don't get gobsmacked by anyone (with the notable exception of the '91 team which Kerlina destroyed in the ACC tourney).

It will be a fun tourney from excitment level, that's for sure.


1964 Michigan 83 Duke 67
1978 NC State 74 Duke 50
1978 Wake Forest 79 Duke 60
1989 UNC 91 Duke 71
1989 NC State 88 Duke 73
1990 North Carolina 79 Duke 60
1990 Georgia Tech 83 Duke 72
1991 Virginia 81 Duke 64
1991 North Carolina 96 Duke 74
1994 North Carolina 89 Duke 78
2010 NC State 88 Duke 74
2010 Georgetown 89 Duke 77

dukenilnil
02-24-2012, 01:02 PM
1964 Michigan 83 Duke 67
1978 NC State 74 Duke 50
1978 Wake Forest 79 Duke 60
1989 UNC 91 Duke 71
1989 NC State 88 Duke 73
1990 North Carolina 79 Duke 60
1990 Georgia Tech 83 Duke 72
1991 Virginia 81 Duke 64
1991 North Carolina 96 Duke 74
1994 North Carolina 89 Duke 78
2010 NC State 88 Duke 74
2010 Georgetown 89 Duke 77

Point taken

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 01:26 PM
1991 North Carolina 96 Duke 74


Of particular note, this butt-whooping was on Selection Sunday (i.e. the ACC Championship game and therefore the last game before the NCAA tournament started -- we all know what happened the next six games)

wilko
02-24-2012, 01:39 PM
I'm always hopeful that Duke can win EVERY game..
But for a Final Four run.... I think I'd need to see us win out our next 3 games to start drinking the cool-aid with BOTH hands.

Sure we have some flaws. Sure our guys ARE getting better every game.. I'd have a lot more confidence however, if we didn't fall behind and HAVE to make a comeback in the 1st place. I'd feel better if teams like Temple didn't seemingly find Blue Devil Kryptonite every time we play them.

I don't think we are taking too many 3's. Its a good weapon in our arsenal so why not use it?
It means opposing D's have to play us closer. That should allow better spacing for our guards to attack with the dribble or find a passing angle.

That said, I'm trying to kick back relax and enjoy it all more.

Genedoc
02-24-2012, 01:46 PM
I don't agree. Here are our seven worst three-point performances in games this year:

18.8% from three @ Maryland -- Duke W
20.0% from three @ Ohio State -- Duke L
25.0% from three vs. UVa -- Duke W
27.3% from three @ Ga Tech -- Duke W
27.6% from three vs. NC State -- Duke W
29.0% from three vs. Miami -- Duke L in OT, but the L was more about missed free throws than it was missed outside shots
29.4% from three vs. Washington -- Duke W

And most of those teams are NCAA tournament worthy (all but Maryland and Georgia Tech).

It's also worth noting that in our other two losses we shot 43% from three in each game.

I thought it was understood that we were discussing "against good team/en route to a Final Four" scenarios, in which case I stand by my assertion that Duke's defense is not good enough to survive a poor shooting night against most good teams. The Virginia game is the only counterpoint, and they're offensively challenged enough to negate our poor D. How we fare against a collection of teams with a KenPom that averages in the mid-90's isn't particularly relevant to how we'll fare in then NCAA tournament.

wilko
02-24-2012, 01:56 PM
ALSO
Stray observation that I'm not quite sure how to fully articulate.. it seems a bit too obvious...

Our D (rebounding, outlet passing, positioning) seems to thrive when the opponent misses shots... Its not especially adept at making O players *miss* shots (blocks, help rotation). But when we corral a rebound we know what to do. Our perimeter denial seems to making passing angles a bit more contested but blow-bys still happen..

throatybeard
02-24-2012, 02:06 PM
Most importantly, they are 24-4 on the season and 11-2 in ACC play.

Most importantly? I dunno, man, what's our "record by halfs?"

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 02:08 PM
Most importantly? I dunno, man, what's our "record by halfs?"

We have won 24 games when we outscored our opponent by the end of regulation.

We are only 1-3 when we have failed to do so.


Pretty important stuff right there.

Duvall
02-24-2012, 02:09 PM
I thought it was understood that we were discussing "against good team/en route to a Final Four" scenarios, in which case I stand by my assertion that Duke's defense is not good enough to survive a poor shooting night against most good teams. The Virginia game is the only counterpoint, and they're offensively challenged enough to negate our poor D. How we fare against a collection of teams with a KenPom that averages in the mid-90's isn't particularly relevant to how we'll fare in then NCAA tournament.

Well, part of the problem is that this team simply hasn't had many poor shooting nights. So looking for counterpoints is going to be a problem.

diveonthefloor
02-24-2012, 02:21 PM
Duke still 8th in the Sagarin ratings despite recent success. (I've always tended to favor Sagarin over other ratings methodologies.)

Of the teams ahead of Duke in the Sagarin, the only teams I think we have little chance to beat on a neutral floor are KY, OSU, and to a lesser extent Syracuse.
Not sure who will get the 4th number one seed out of the rest....they each have tough conference games left in addition to competitive conference tournaments.

I think one of the keys to this post season will be the referee assignments for some of the teams with thinner benches, most notably UNC. If UNC gets some refs who like to swallow the whistle, they could easily advance all the way. But if the get Karl, Teddy, or Jamie....they will go down early.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 02:35 PM
Duke still 8th in the Sagarin ratings despite recent success. (I've always tended to favor Sagarin over other ratings methodologies.)

Of the teams ahead of Duke in the Sagarin, the only teams I think we have little chance to beat on a neutral floor are KY, OSU, and to a lesser extent Syracuse.
Not sure who will get the 4th number one seed out of the rest....they each have tough conference games left in addition to competitive conference tournaments.

I think one of the keys to this post season will be the referee assignments for some of the teams with thinner benches, most notably UNC. If UNC gets some refs who like to swallow the whistle, they could easily advance all the way. But if the get Karl, Teddy, or Jamie....they will go down early.

There are a number of teams out there that can beat us on a given day. There is no team out there that we cannot beat if we execute like we are capable. Give me fourty minutes of focused effort, and I'll live with the results.

In K I trust.

Kedsy
02-24-2012, 02:51 PM
I'd feel better if teams like Temple didn't seemingly find Blue Devil Kryptonite every time we play them.

No offense, but this is a pretty myopic statement. The last time Temple beat us (before this year) was 1996. And we play them a lot. Coach K is 11-2 against Temple in his Duke career.

I'm trying to think of other teams "like Temple" who have beaten us, but it's hard to do. St. John's, maybe? They beat us last year, and before that in 2003. Coach K is 15-3 against the Johnnies in his Duke career. So they hardly beat us "every time we play them." Who else? Michigan? Georgetown? Neither seem to be "like Temple" to me, and I'm pretty sure Coach K's Duke teams have beaten both of them more than they've beaten us, anyway.

And if you're talking about conference teams, that's even sillier. Except for 2007, we haven't won fewer than twice as many conference games as we've lost since 1996.


I thought it was understood that we were discussing "against good team/en route to a Final Four" scenarios, in which case I stand by my assertion that Duke's defense is not good enough to survive a poor shooting night against most good teams. The Virginia game is the only counterpoint, and they're offensively challenged enough to negate our poor D. How we fare against a collection of teams with a KenPom that averages in the mid-90's isn't particularly relevant to how we'll fare in then NCAA tournament.

Well, I stand by my assertion as well. Virginia, NC State, Miami, and Washington will all either play in the NCAA tournament or be on the bubble and be just as good as teams that play in the NCAA tournament. They are all the equivalent of a 2nd round, or even 3rd round tournament game.

Jderf
02-24-2012, 02:51 PM
"Duke is the softest #1 seed ever."

I certainly hope so. The last time we had the softest #1 seed ever it seemed to work out pretty well.

UrinalCake
02-24-2012, 02:54 PM
I thought it was understood that we were discussing "against good team/en route to a Final Four" scenarios, in which case I stand by my assertion that Duke's defense is not good enough to survive a poor shooting night against most good teams.

How many teams are there in the country that could have a poor shooting night and still beat a top-10 opponent?

throatybeard
02-24-2012, 03:00 PM
How many teams are there in the country that could have a poor shooting night and still beat a top-10 opponent?

I dunno, depends on whether we're scoring by the half or the entire game.

BD80
02-24-2012, 03:03 PM
We have played the top three teams in the Big Ten (2-1), the top teams in the Big 12, Atlantic Sun, Southern, and Atlantic 10 Conferences (3-1), and the second place teams from the Pac-12 (UW is a win out of 1st) and Ivy League (2-0). Even one of our "weak" opponents, Colorado State, is 4th in the Mountain West and making a push for the Tourney. Add two games against the other top ACC teams UNC and FSU.

Sounds like a pretty solid resume. A solid #1 seed.

hq2
02-24-2012, 03:06 PM
possibly a more natural No. 1 seed, like say Ohio State, seem to be fading a bit.

Ahem. I suppose the selection committee won't look at how they played head-to-head?

tommy
02-24-2012, 03:09 PM
I thought it was understood that we were discussing "against good team/en route to a Final Four" scenarios, in which case I stand by my assertion that Duke's defense is not good enough to survive a poor shooting night against most good teams.

I don't think there are many teams -- good or not good -- who are good enough to survive a poor shooting night against Duke. It's happened only once this year. In our four losses, here were the opponents' shooting percentages:




FG%
3 point FG%


Ohio State
59.3%
57.1%


Temple
56.4%
50%


FSU
54%
50%


Miami
41%
30%

Kedsy
02-24-2012, 03:09 PM
Ahem. I suppose the selection committee won't look at how they played head-to-head?

Does that mean Temple's ahead of us, too? And Miami?

Besides, if they use head-to-head, Ohio State may be ahead of us but we've got Kansas, Michigan State, and UNC covered.

tommy
02-24-2012, 03:10 PM
Ahem. I suppose the selection committee won't look at how they played head-to-head?

Yes, they will look at that factor, along with how we played against Michigan State, Kansas, and UNC, all away from Cameron.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 03:36 PM
I dunno, depends on whether we're scoring by the half or the entire game.

I use Stableford Scoring (with handicap). Makes the game more interesting.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 03:38 PM
Ahem. I suppose the selection committee won't look at how they played head-to-head?

Point taken, although I think this would be more salient if it was one of the last 10 games of the season instead of the first 10. We don't get an advantage over Kansas, I do not think, because we beat them in Maui around Thanksgiving either.

CDu
02-24-2012, 03:43 PM
We have won 24 games when we outscored our opponent by the end of regulation.

We are only 1-3 when we have failed to do so.


Pretty important stuff right there.

Not sure I quite understand your math here...

That said, if we win out through the ACC tournament, I think there's no way we aren't a #1 seed. We will have arguably as good a resume as anyone in the country (when you consider home/road/neutral and the quality of opponents), and there certainly won't be 4 teams with better resumes.

It's been a strange season. This has been arguably the worst defensive team in memory for Duke. There are lots of obvious flaws. But the team just keeps winning, and they keep doing it against very good competition. Really, really impressive.

That said, losing against UNC and in the ACC tournament would put us squarely back in #2 seed status. And if we lose to VT or Wake, the same applies (though winning against UNC and winning the ACC tourney might still be enough for a #1 seed).

camion
02-24-2012, 03:47 PM
It is what it is. Unless it isn't.

wilko
02-24-2012, 03:53 PM
No offense, but this is a pretty myopic statement. The last time Temple beat us (before this year) was 1996. And we play them a lot. Coach K is 11-2 against Temple in his Duke career.

Nah, no offense taken. It wasn't specifically about Temple, just teams like Temple.


I'm trying to think of other teams "like Temple" who have beaten us, but it's hard to do. St. John's, maybe? They beat us last year, and before that in 2003. Coach K is 15-3 against the Johnnies in his Duke career. So they hardly beat us "every time we play them." Who else? Michigan? Georgetown? Neither seem to be "like Temple" to me, and I'm pretty sure Coach K's Duke teams have beaten both of them more than they've beaten us, anyway.

When I say a team "like" Temple -what I am talking about is that lower ranked athletic team that can on a dime turn off a systematic, coordinated offense and go freelance/playground to seemingly eat us alive. That's why we have dudes like Bootsy, that Az. guy from last year, the Tyrus guy from LSU (Shleden & JJ's last yr), Purvis Ellison from Louisville, Nova.... Its the "type" of team that can abandon a semblance of structure and go 1:1 to exploit match-ups. We do great when there is something to disrupt. remove that from the equation and we sputter a bit.

Last nights FSU game feels a lot like Baylor in 10' when we played them


And if you're talking about conference teams, that's even sillier. Except for 2007, we haven't won fewer than twice as many conference games as we've lost since 1996.

FSU is like a Temple, only better... tho we got last night... Quite a few of Valvanos State teams and Garylands teams fit this mold as well and gave us fits.

Kedsy
02-24-2012, 04:01 PM
When I say a team "like" Temple -what I am talking about is that lower ranked athletic team that can on a dime turn off a systematic, coordinated offense and go freelance/playground to seemingly eat us alive. That's why we have dudes like Bootsy, that Az. guy from last year, the Tyrus guy from LSU (Shleden & JJ's last yr), Purvis Ellison from Louisville, Nova.... Its the "type" of team that can abandon a semblance of structure and go 1:1 to exploit match-ups.

OK, now I understand. I'd still say you're employing selective memory, though. Obviously every big loss is etched in our memories, but for some reason we seem to forget all the wins against the same sorts of teams. I mean, St. John's has a team like that almost every year, but K is 15-3 against them (9-3 since the turn of the century). Baylor and West Virginia in 2010 were just as athletic as LSU in 2006 or Arizona last year, etc., etc.

Genedoc
02-24-2012, 04:03 PM
Well, I stand by my assertion as well. Virginia, NC State, Miami, and Washington will all either play in the NCAA tournament or be on the bubble and be just as good as teams that play in the NCAA tournament. They are all the equivalent of a 2nd round, or even 3rd round tournament game.
You don't have to beat a collection of bubble/NIT teams to make it to the FF. You get one crack at a bubble team, 2 if you're lucky.

Genedoc
02-24-2012, 04:05 PM
How many teams are there in the country that could have a poor shooting night and still beat a top-10 opponent?
Maybe 5-10 total, and I do not think we're one of them. I'd look at teams that defend and rebound like machines. Those types of teams can better survive a poor shooting night, be it from 2 or 3 because they defend and rebound.

Genedoc
02-24-2012, 04:06 PM
Well, part of the problem is that this team simply hasn't had many poor shooting nights. So looking for counterpoints is going to be a problem.
Fair point, and Duke can clearly beat any team in the country given their shooting proficiency.

phaedrus
02-24-2012, 04:22 PM
Not sure I quite understand your math here...


If I may, we didn't outscore Carolina in regulation, yet won.

MChambers
02-24-2012, 04:43 PM
You don't have to beat a collection of bubble/NIT teams to make it to the FF. You get one crack at a bubble team, 2 if you're lucky.
Some years, a team gets quite lucky and plays 3 or 4 bubble teams to make the Final Four.

CDu
02-24-2012, 04:59 PM
If I may, we didn't outscore Carolina in regulation, yet won.

Even in that scenario the math would be wrong. We would have 23 wins when we outscore the opponent in regulation and would be 1-4 when we don't.

In the more conventional interpretation we'd be 24-0 and 0-4, respectively.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 05:02 PM
If I was good at math, I'd be a doctor instead of a lawyer.

throatybeard
02-24-2012, 05:32 PM
If I were good at math, I could tell you what our record by halves is.

OK, I'll stop now. I promise.

SupaDave
02-24-2012, 05:40 PM
Maybe 5-10 total, and I do not think we're one of them. I'd look at teams that defend and rebound like machines. Those types of teams can better survive a poor shooting night, be it from 2 or 3 because they defend and rebound.

If only we had a guy that could get 20 plus rebounds in a game...

mapei
02-24-2012, 06:13 PM
Even in that scenario the math would be wrong. We would have 23 wins when we outscore the opponent in regulation and would be 1-4 when we don't.

In the more conventional interpretation we'd be 24-0 and 0-4, respectively.

I'm having trouble following. Are you saying that we are undefeated except in overtime games??

MarkD83
02-24-2012, 06:27 PM
I'm having trouble following. Are you saying that we are undefeated except in overtime games??

No I think it means we are undefeated except when we lose. (Its friday and I am a little tired and punchy.)

Kedsy
02-24-2012, 08:33 PM
No I think it means we are undefeated except when we lose. (Its friday and I am a little tired and punchy.)

Well, since we lost our only overtime game, that's exactly what he's saying. That's why it's 0-4 and not 1-3.

UrinalCake
02-24-2012, 08:52 PM
I think he's drawing attention to the oddity of the UNC game which we won at/after the buzzer. Technically when the clock ran out we were losing by two points, while the ball was still in the air, but we still won the game. Thus you could say we were outscored in regulation.

CDu
02-24-2012, 09:16 PM
Well, since we lost our only overtime game, that's exactly what he's saying. That's why it's 0-4 and not 1-3.

Exactly. Any of the math has to sum to our record (24-4). The numbers in that post I referenced summed to 25-3. The issue is, as Kedsy noted, we are 0-4 (not 1-3) in games we didn't lead after regulation.

CDu
02-24-2012, 09:23 PM
I think he's drawing attention to the oddity of the UNC game which we won at/after the buzzer. Technically when the clock ran out we were losing by two points, while the ball was still in the air, but we still won the game. Thus you could say we were outscored in regulation.

I really didn't think this would require so many additional posts. We are 24-4. The numbers summed to 25-3. Therefore, there was an error somewhere (just depends on where). In your interpretatation of the post we would be 23-0 (not 24-0) in games we led after at regulation end (we have only led in 23 games right at the buzzer) and 1-4 (not 1-3) in other games.

Sorry to have spawned so many posts on something not intended to be at all cryptic.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2012, 09:51 PM
We're 28-0 in my mind.

Everything less than that is someone else's problem.

MCFinARL
02-25-2012, 10:08 AM
We're 28-0 in my mind.

Everything less than that is someone else's problem.

Hmmm.....remind me not to hire you as my investment advisor. ;)

OldPhiKap
02-25-2012, 10:13 AM
Hmmm.....remind me not to hire you as my investment advisor. ;)

Well, if you don't want your money to double every year, guaranteed, that's your loss.


"Bonds are for sissies. All in."

-- BrokePhiKap.

NM Duke Fan
02-25-2012, 10:16 AM
The crux of the matter to me, and what I had in mind when I posted the article, is that we have already beaten a few teams which have at least a moderate chance of making it to the final four. And yes, that even includes Florida State. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Duke also has a chance of being in that final four group. Yes, the team has some well-known weaknesses. But so do the vast majority of teams, it is not an exceptionally strong year for juggernaut teams. Kentucky is clearly a strong team in most aspects of the game, in a class of its own, but certainly not unbeatable! If Duke continues to improve its consistency, effort on D, communication, and passing, it can hang in there with just about any team. Austin has really matured his game in the last month, and this is a stronger team now which can do some real damage. The biggest problem I see is IF all the three point shooters have a bad night, then it will be a struggle to advance in the tournament. And fortunately there are enough of those shooters that usually one or two will come through.

uh_no
02-25-2012, 01:35 PM
The crux of the matter to me, and what I had in mind when I posted the article, is that we have already beaten a few teams which have at least a moderate chance of making it to the final four. And yes, that even includes Florida State. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Duke also has a chance of being in that final four group. Yes, the team has some well-known weaknesses. But so do the vast majority of teams, it is not an exceptionally strong year for juggernaut teams. Kentucky is clearly a strong team in most aspects of the game, in a class of its own, but certainly not unbeatable! If Duke continues to improve its consistency, effort on D, communication, and passing, it can hang in there with just about any team. Austin has really matured his game in the last month, and this is a stronger team now which can do some real damage. The biggest problem I see is IF all the three point shooters have a bad night, then it will be a struggle to advance in the tournament. And fortunately there are enough of those shooters that usually one or two will come through.

2-11 today from three. There are enough examples of us having poor shooting nights from three (OSU, washington, georgia tech, uva, maryland, ncsu, today) to think that we can't have off three point shooting nights. Last year we had just as many if not MORE shooters, and had 4 games in the last month of the season when we shot 25% or worse from 3 (michigan, maryland, unc, vt) we also shot 19% against st johns and 25% against fsu earlier in the year.

tendev
02-25-2012, 03:12 PM
If we can get a 1 seed, we basically have to win only three games against opponents who can beat us. Yes, we can beat any three teams in the country who won't be 1 seeds. So yes, we can get to the Final Four but we can lose to any one of those three opponents as well. In my heart, they always win the National Championship but in my head, they are anywhere from second round to Elite 8. I think we always have to battle expectations and teams who are jacked up to play us. And if a team gets on a roll against us and we let them get up by double digits, I don't expect we will be able to come roaring back like we have done against lesser teams like NC State, Miami. Carolina, I just see as an outlier, but maybe I am wrong. If the ACC is really weak, then we are in trouble because we have not exactly dominated the conference, though we are at the top of the standings.

OldPhiKap
02-25-2012, 03:21 PM
If we can get a 1 seed, we basically have to win only three games against opponents who can beat us. Yes, we can beat any three teams in the country who won't be 1 seeds. So yes, we can get to the Final Four but we can lose to any one of those three opponents as well. In my heart, they always win the National Championship but in my head, they are anywhere from second round to Elite 8. I think we always have to battle expectations and teams who are jacked up to play us. And if a team gets on a roll against us and we let them get up by double digits, I don't expect we will be able to come roaring back like we have done against lesser teams like NC State, Miami. Carolina, I just see as an outlier, but maybe I am wrong. If the ACC is really weak, then we are in trouble because we have not exactly dominated the conference, though we are at the top of the standings.

If Duke or Carolina win out, they should certainly be a #1.

Don't think either will do it, though.

All we can do is worry about our matches as they come, and execute like we should.

uh_no
02-25-2012, 03:22 PM
If we can get a 1 seed, we basically have to win only three games against opponents who can beat us. Yes, we can beat any three teams in the country who won't be 1 seeds. So yes, we can get to the Final Four but we can lose to any one of those three opponents as well. In my heart, they always win the National Championship but in my head, they are anywhere from second round to Elite 8. I think we always have to battle expectations and teams who are jacked up to play us. And if a team gets on a roll against us and we let them get up by double digits, I don't expect we will be able to come roaring back like we have done against lesser teams like NC State, Miami. Carolina, I just see as an outlier, but maybe I am wrong. If the ACC is really weak, then we are in trouble because we have not exactly dominated the conference, though we are at the top of the standings.

take a look at who we've beaten though, kansas, UNC, MSU....we could win the title, we could go out in the second round.....it all depends on the matchups and whether we can play defense or not

SupaDave
02-25-2012, 03:25 PM
If we can get a 1 seed, we basically have to win only three games against opponents who can beat us. Yes, we can beat any three teams in the country who won't be 1 seeds. So yes, we can get to the Final Four but we can lose to any one of those three opponents as well. In my heart, they always win the National Championship but in my head, they are anywhere from second round to Elite 8. I think we always have to battle expectations and teams who are jacked up to play us. And if a team gets on a roll against us and we let them get up by double digits, I don't expect we will be able to come roaring back like we have done against lesser teams like NC State, Miami. Carolina, I just see as an outlier, but maybe I am wrong. If the ACC is really weak, then we are in trouble because we have not exactly dominated the conference, though we are at the top of the standings.

The Big East has 9 teams with records of .500 or below in conference play.

The SEC has 6 teams of 12 with records of below .500 in conference play and three more that are a loss away from being .500.

The Big 12 has 5 of 10 teams with records of below .500 and the top of the conference is very hotly contested with Missouri having a better overall record than conference leader Kansas - who we beat.

The Big 10 has 6 of 12 teams with records of below .500 and two that are a loss away from .500. Ohio State has faded and we are quite familiar with Michigan and Michigan State.

Take from this what you may...

Supa "the Big 10 and Big 12 has got to be the most backwards thing I've ever seen" Dave

NYBri
02-25-2012, 03:38 PM
Seeding variables. Next two weeks will determine the difference between a #1 or potentially a #3.

#1

Beat Carolina and win ACCT. Guaranteed.
Lose to Carolina and win ACCT. #1 with some help from other tourneys.

#2
Beat Carolina and lose early in the ACCT.
Lose to Carolina and reach championship game in ACCT.
Lose to Carolina and not reach championship game in ACCT with help.

#3
Lose to Carolina and not make championship game in ACCT.

Of course if we lose to Wake, then all of the above are out the window.

Any others?

uh_no
02-25-2012, 03:38 PM
The Big East has 9 teams with records of .500 or below in conference play.

The SEC has 6 teams of 12 with records of below .500 in conference play and three more that are a loss away from being .500.

The Big 12 has 5 of 10 teams with records of below .500 and the top of the conference is very hotly contested with Missouri having a better overall record than conference leader Kansas - who we beat.

The Big 10 has 6 of 12 teams with records of below .500 and two that are a loss away from .500. Ohio State has faded and we are quite familiar with Michigan and Michigan State.

Take from this what you may...

Supa "the Big 10 and Big 12 has got to be the most backwards thing I've ever seen" Dave

wait....maybe i'm missing the point.....but you've pointed out that about half of every conference is below 500.....which is generally what you expect

SupaDave
02-25-2012, 03:47 PM
wait....maybe i'm missing the point.....but you've pointed out that about half of every conference is below 500.....which is generally what you expect

Actually it's a bit more. The Big East isn't that good as far I'm concerned. The Big 10 is beating on each other. The SEC is exceptionally weak. We actually beat the leader of the Big 12.

All that to say - what does it matter if the ACC is weak? A tough game is a tough game and they have them in every conference. Come tourney play I'm very happy with how Duke stacks up.

Wander
02-25-2012, 04:03 PM
#1

Beat Carolina and win ACCT. Guaranteed.
Lose to Carolina and win ACCT. #1 with some help from other tourneys.

#2
Beat Carolina and lose early in the ACCT.
Lose to Carolina and reach championship game in ACCT.
Lose to Carolina and not reach championship game in ACCT with help.

#3
Lose to Carolina and not make championship game in ACCT.


Good summary. A couple changes that are admittedly nit-picky.

I don't think we're officially guaranteed for a 1 seed if we win out. Kentucky, Syracuse, Missouri, and Ohio State all control their own destinies with respect to 1 seeds. I say I'm nitpicking because it is highly unlikely that both Missouri and Ohio State win out, and I suppose it's not impossible that the committee gives us the nod over win of these two teams anyway if all three of us win out. And this may be moot in two hours is Kansas beats Missouri. But the path is there.

On the flip side, assuming we don't lose to Wake, I don't think losing to UNC and early in the ACCT drops us to a 3 seed. Our resume is too good. But if other things happen, I guess it's possible. So I'd add "with help" there.

throatybeard
02-25-2012, 04:09 PM
As long as we're talking about lousy conferences, don't forget the Pac-12.

uh_no
02-25-2012, 04:12 PM
Actually it's a bit more. The Big East isn't that good as far I'm concerned. The Big 10 is beating on each other. The SEC is exceptionally weak. We actually beat the leader of the Big 12.

All that to say - what does it matter if the ACC is weak? A tough game is a tough game and they have them in every conference. Come tourney play I'm very happy with how Duke stacks up.

Yes but I'm failing to understand how citing which conferences have how many teams under 500 shows which conferences are weaker....especially when all of the conferences you cited have half their teams +-1 below 500...which is which is what you expect from any evenly distributed conference.

I agree with you that the big east isn't all that good...but i'm just unsure how the stats you provided support that hypothesis.

devildeac
02-25-2012, 04:33 PM
We're 28-0 in my mind.

Everything less than that is someone else's problem.

Love it! Channeling your inner Ozzie!

sagegrouse
02-25-2012, 04:36 PM
Good summary. A couple changes that are admittedly nit-picky.

I don't think we're officially guaranteed for a 1 seed if we win out. Kentucky, Syracuse, Missouri, and Ohio State all control their own destinies with respect to 1 seeds. I say I'm nitpicking because it is highly unlikely that both Missouri and Ohio State win out, and I suppose it's not impossible that the committee gives us the nod over win of these two teams anyway if all three of us win out. And this may be moot in two hours is Kansas beats Missouri. But the path is there.

On the flip side, assuming we don't lose to Wake, I don't think losing to UNC and early in the ACCT drops us to a 3 seed. Our resume is too good. But if other things happen, I guess it's possible. So I'd add "with help" there.

I posted this on another thread last week: There are eight contenders for #1 seed in five different conferences (Duke, UNC, Mich. State, Ohio State, Mizzou, Kansas, Syracuse and Kentucky). Assuming no one has a meltdown in the regular season (less likely now than a week ago), the candidates for #1 seeds will include Syracuse and Kentucky (whether they win their conference tournaments) and the tournament winners of the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC, provided they are one of the top two contenders. With no upsets, one of the teams will have to settle for being the top-ranked #2 seed, but I would be surprised if there weren't an upset.

sagegrouse

Kedsy
02-25-2012, 05:12 PM
#3
Lose to Carolina and not make championship game in ACCT.

Assuming we beat Wake and win our first ACCT game, I'd be very surprised if we drop as low as #3. Frankly, even if we lose our first ACCT game I'd be surprised, but I suppose it's possible.

Wander
02-25-2012, 05:28 PM
Assuming no one has a meltdown in the regular season (less likely now than a week ago), the candidates for #1 seeds will include Syracuse and Kentucky (whether they win their conference tournaments) and the tournament winners of the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC, provided they are one of the top two contenders. With no upsets, one of the teams will have to settle for being the top-ranked #2 seed, but I would be surprised if there weren't an upset.


Yeah, that's a good summary. And I think you can go to head-to-head matchups to decide which of the five gets left out. Duke is the odd team out if Mizzou and Ohio State are the other two, but gets a 1 seed if one of the other two (or both) are Michigan State, Michigan or Kansas. Based on head-to-head. Having that tough non-conference schedule could really pay off, even more than we thought.

rtnorthrup
02-25-2012, 05:31 PM
It's threads like this that account for why these boards go into meltdown when we lose regular season games. Look, we still have a shot at winning the ACC regular season title. We still have a very good shot at winning an ACC Championship. The brackets are not even out yet, and we are debating final four. If you only measure success by final fours, you will be disppointed more seasons than not.

We were a final four team last year and didnt get there. VCU was barely a tourney team and made the final four. This is way too early to start worrying about.

Kedsy
02-25-2012, 05:34 PM
Yeah, that's a good summary. And I think you can go to head-to-head matchups to decide which of the five gets left out. Duke is the odd team out if Mizzou and Ohio State are the other two, but gets a 1 seed if one of the other two (or both) are Michigan State, Michigan or Kansas. Based on head-to-head.

I could be wrong, but it would surprise me if head-to-head were that big a factor. I'd only expect it to come into play if two team's resumes were essentially identical otherwise.

Wander
02-25-2012, 09:07 PM
I could be wrong, but it would surprise me if head-to-head were that big a factor. I'd only expect it to come into play if two team's resumes were essentially identical otherwise.

That's really my point. That the teams would be otherwise very close in resume - they'd be both fighting for the same seed line after all. So the head-to-head result would be a tiebreaker of sorts.

Kedsy
02-25-2012, 09:35 PM
That's really my point. That the teams would be otherwise very close in resume - they'd be both fighting for the same seed line after all. So the head-to-head result would be a tiebreaker of sorts.

You could be right. My understanding is the committee doesn't put nearly as much weight on early-season results, though, so I'm not sure how much it would ultimately matter.

uh_no
02-25-2012, 10:01 PM
You could be right. My understanding is the committee doesn't put nearly as much weight on early-season results, though, so I'm not sure how much it would ultimately matter.

I don't think the beginning of the year is discounted so much as teams that finish strong get some bonus points. In the end none of us really know what the committee is going to do....they can explain individual decisions, but there doesn't always seem to be any pattern that can be applied universally.

ChillinDuke
02-25-2012, 10:10 PM
Good summary. A couple changes that are admittedly nit-picky.

I don't think we're officially guaranteed for a 1 seed if we win out. Kentucky, Syracuse, Missouri, and Ohio State all control their own destinies with respect to 1 seeds. I say I'm nitpicking because it is highly unlikely that both Missouri and Ohio State win out, and I suppose it's not impossible that the committee gives us the nod over win of these two teams anyway if all three of us win out. And this may be moot in two hours is Kansas beats Missouri. But the path is there.

On the flip side, assuming we don't lose to Wake, I don't think losing to UNC and early in the ACCT drops us to a 3 seed. Our resume is too good. But if other things happen, I guess it's possible. So I'd add "with help" there.

No way.

If both teams win out, I don't think Ohio State will be a #1 over us. Ohio State is currently ranked #9 while we are #4. The top 10 rankings generally approximate the top seeds. This says to me that we have Ohio State covered.

I think probably the same holds for Missouri, with less certainty to be sure.

- Chillin

PS - Head to head is just too small a sample to weigh too heavily. The entire body of work says we are ahead of Ohio State.

Wander
02-25-2012, 10:53 PM
If both teams win out, I don't think Ohio State will be a #1 over us. Ohio State is currently ranked #9 while we are #4.

Both teams winning out necessarily implies that #6 Michigan State loses at least twice more, #7 UNC loses at least twice more, and at least one of #3 Missouri and #5 Kansas lose at least once more, in addition to the loss #3 Missouri already sustained. It also means Ohio State will have won the regular season and conference tournament of the toughest conference.

Missouri lost today, so this doesn't really matter. But there's another possibility I hadn't thought of before that might still make it relevant. If Kansas, Ohio State, and Duke all win out, I don't know what happens. They all beat each other. KU and OSU played in better conferences, but Duke had a better non-conference schedule. It almost certainly won't matter since it's amazingly unlikely, but kinda fun to think about.