Interesting Question: Do we WANT to be No. 1?

[scottdude8]

When I told a buddy yesterday about Butler beating Indiana, his first response was negative—he dreaded Duke being ranked No. 1. In his mind, either A) some sort of curse brings about something bad when the Blue Devils are No. 1, or B) It brings way too much attention onto the team, often exposing faults and leads to a sort of overreaction when we eventually lose.

I'm of a somewhat opposite mindset: while I wholeheartedly believe ranking mean very little at this point (or really, any) in the season, I think come tourney time being in the spotlight for as long as we are No. 1 is positive in the selection committee's eyes because they end up watching us play more, and we end up playing in more "high-pressure" situations.

I'm curious to see what others feel about this question, or if people even care about the rankings at this point in the season. Any thoughts?

[jipops]

When I told a buddy yesterday about Butler beating Indiana, his first response was negative—he dreaded Duke being ranked No. 1. In his mind, either A) some sort of curse brings about something bad when the Blue Devils are No. 1, or B) It brings way too much attention onto the team, often exposing faults and leads to a sort of overreaction when we eventually lose.

I'm of a somewhat opposite mindset: while I wholeheartedly believe ranking mean very little at this point (or really, any) in the season, I think come tourney time being in the spotlight for as long as we are No. 1 is positive in the selection committee's eyes because they end up watching us play more, and we end up playing in more "high-pressure" situations.

I'm curious to see what others feel about this question, or if people even care about the rankings at this point in the season. Any thoughts?

If it's a problem, it's a nice problem to have. I'd love to be dealing with this conundrum every season.

That being said, it doesn't matter much to me anyways. But I'll certainly take the good start. More often than not, if we've been #1 at any point in the season, we've had substantial success towards the end.

[Bob Green]

Yes, I want Duke ranked #1. The guys have earned it by playing a tough early season schedule and prevailing. The #1 ranking allows the team to see the fruits of their labor. As far as excessive attention is concerned, Duke always receives maximum attention from the national media and opponents always bring their best game onto the court. The key now is to continue to work hard to improve in preparation for the tough ACC games in 2013.

[NSDukeFan]

I want the team to be #1 as much as possible because I love the impressive records coach K has at Duke in terms of years achieving the top ranking and weeks at# 1. I agree it is a great problem to have, though of course I would prefer to be at the top at the end. Fortunately, I don't think the two are exclusive.

[uh_no]

When I told a buddy yesterday about Butler beating Indiana, his first response was negative—he dreaded Duke being ranked No. 1. In his mind, either A) some sort of curse brings about something bad when the Blue Devils are No. 1, or B) It brings way too much attention onto the team, often exposing faults and leads to a sort of overreaction when we eventually lose.

I'm of a somewhat opposite mindset: while I wholeheartedly believe ranking mean very little at this point (or really, any) in the season, I think come tourney time being in the spotlight for as long as we are No. 1 is positive in the selection committee's eyes because they end up watching us play more, and we end up playing in more "high-pressure" situations.

I'm curious to see what others feel about this question, or if people even care about the rankings at this point in the season. Any thoughts?

classic case of selective perception.

when duke is #1 and loses, you remember it, if duke was #2 and lost, you wouldn't remember it as much....so it increases the amount you remember the bad things that would have happened regardless of the ranking

so no, I don't care....duke always has media attention, duke always has the "target on their backs"....#1 #2 or #100 doesn't mean a thing. but it's nice to be able to stick it in the face of UNC fans

[JNort]

classic case of selective perception.

when duke is #1 and loses, you remember it, if duke was #2 and lost, you wouldn't remember it as much....so it increases the amount you remember the bad things that would have happened regardless of the ranking

so no, I don't care....duke always has media attention, duke always has the "target on their backs"....#1 #2 or #100 doesn't mean a thing. but it's nice to be able to stick it in the face of UNC fans

I disagree I think it does matter maybe not much but yes it does actually matter. Kids growing up watching basketball (8,9,10 and years old) see you getting these high rankings and start keeping tabs on you by going onto the internet and looking at your stats and etc. These kids are potential fans, players, students that may not have a favorite team or are easily influenced by a ranking. Not to mention it helps Dukes and Coach K's legacy (already high but always getting higher) in basketball.

Just my .02

[sagegrouse]

We want to win every game. If we do and we are number one, so be it.

I don't ever want to lose -- nor do the coaches and players.

sagegrouse

[OldPhiKap]

Of course we want to be #1, and this squad has earned the ranking.

[Indoor66]

We want to win every game. If we do and we are number one, so be it.

I don't ever want to lose -- nor do the coaches and players.

sagegrouse

sage one, I am with you on this. I just want to win the next game - every next game.

[uh_no]

I disagree I think it does matter maybe not much but yes it does actually matter. Kids growing up watching basketball (8,9,10 and years old) see you getting these high rankings and start keeping tabs on you by going onto the internet and looking at your stats and etc. These kids are potential fans, players, students that may not have a favorite team or are easily influenced by a ranking. Not to mention it helps Dukes and Coach K's legacy (already high but always getting higher) in basketball.

Just my .02

I was referring to the likelihood of other teams beating us due to the #1 ranking (and consequentially a "curse" existing)...not to the overall effect.

and yes, i do think there is an impact on recruiting

[OZZIE4DUKE]

We want to win every game. If we do and we are number one, so be it.

I don't ever want to lose -- nor do the coaches and players.

sagegrouse


Of course we want to be #1, and this squad has earned the ranking.

Great minds think alike! And I agree with you too ;)

Going undefeated is always improbable. But not impossible, even in this day and age.

May this be the season we go 40 - 0! But all I really care about is winning the last game of the season! In April! :cool:

[Cameron]

Of course we want to be #1, and this squad has earned the ranking.

Great post. That pretty much sums it up.

[scottdude8]

Interesting, seems to be agreement here. I too don't see anything wrong about being No. 1... the only time I can see it being a problem is in an early season situation where we're clearly overrated, and then the rest of the season is played under the shadow of that former No. 1 ranking.

[oldnavy]

I like that it adds to the Duke stat of weeks ranked number one and the number of seasons Duke has held that spot. I really see no downside.

[NYBri]

Not being #1 is fighting the inevitable.

I also think this team is more suited to carry that title than any other team we've had at this point in the season for quite a while.

I say, "Bring it on!"

I LOVE THIS TEAM!

[Olympic Fan]

I can't understandhe mentality of some fans.

Why does negativity so often rule on this boar? I remember when Duke won in the Bahamas and there were posts about not playing the bench. Or maybe it's shooting too many threes. It's always something with some people.

Being No. 1 is a curse?

Duke is 207-31 as the No. 1 ranked team. That's 87 percent winning percentage. That's some curse.

Our 1991 nationl title game won it all without ever being ranked better than No. 5 -- but our 1992 title team was ranked No. 1 every week that season and it didn't seem to hurt.

The 2001 champs finished the season at No. 1. The 2010 champs were never ranked higher than No. 3. The 2006 team spent a lot of the season a No. 1 and slipped up in the Sweet 16.

So what?

I'm saying the idea of a "curse" is silly -- we spent much of the year at No. 1 in '86 and reached the title game. Ditto for 1999. Our worst years in the last quarter century -- 1995, 1996, 2007 -- we never reached No. 1. Maybe No. 8 is a curse -- we were 8th in the final poll last season and lost in the first round; we were No. 8 in the final 1997 poll and lost in the second round! Boy, I don't want to be No. 8!

I don't buy the idea that being No. 1 puts a bigger target on our back. When was the last time Duke lost on the road and the fans DIDN'T rush the court? Duke is ALWAYS a target.

I love being No. 1 ... and I think the players deserve the recognition.

At some point, they'll probably lose as the No. 1 team and all the naysayers will say I-told-you-so. But if Indiana had kept winning and stayed No. 1, Duke will probably lose the same game down the road as No. 2.

My point is that Duke's ranking has ZERO impact on te outcome of future games -- or good or bad. Lighten up and enjoy the ride.

[gumbomoop]

... this squad has earned the ranking.

This is the most pleasing aspect of Duke's impending #1 ranking. Pretty clearly the new #1 will be one of the undefeated teams already in the top 10. Michigan or Syracuse might get the odd first-place vote, but it would be seen, correctly, as odd, toward the disputatious, if not just a tad snarky.

Because, as OPK states forthrightly, these guys have earned it. It would require something approaching pretzel logic to claim Duke hasn't won more than its share, and more than any other team, of games against strong opponents. [Perhaps Chad Ford will "power-rank" Michigan ahead of Duke. Ok, not a crime.]

Duke might or might not beat Michigan, Syracuse, or Arizona were they to play soon. No one [right?] would yet claim Duke is easily, overwhelmingly, the best team in the country. Most will acknowledge that the rankings are just a rough snapshot of teams' performance at any point in the season. But if the rankings have a good faith, if imperfect, relationship to how teams have actually played, Duke is certainly #1 right now.

[gep]

I don't buy the idea that being No. 1 puts a bigger target on our back. When was the last time Duke lost on the road and the fans DIDN'T rush the court? Duke is ALWAYS a target.


This... I agree with entirely. Doesn't matter what the ranking... Duke will always have a target on their back. I like it... makes the games all that more exciting, especially on the road.


Of course we want to be #1, and this squad has earned the ranking.

I agree again. Always want to be #1. But, not #1 without some kind of proof, like pre-season when no games have yet to be played. This season, Duke started at, what, #8? We all thought that was reasonable. But through the games so far, especially against the higher ranked teams... and still undefeated... this team DESERVES to be #1. That's the reward for all the hard work they put in so far...

[roywhite]

Never got the impression that Coach K shied away from a #1 ranking in the polls.

When we're not #1, it's not like we hide in the weeds and the basketball world hardly notices us. Highly ranked or not (and quite often we are highly ranked), Duke usually gets the opponent's best shot.

Glad to see this group of players get the recognition of a #1 ranking.

[Jarhead]

My compliments to just about everybody who has posted in this thread. During a season, #1 is a nice prize for the players, coaches, and fans, alike. It is a reward to the players, and a reminder to them of how their good work gets them there. Just remember that, and work on it.

[-bdbd]

Great minds think alike! And I agree with you too ;)

Going undefeated is always improbable. But not impossible, even in this day and age.

May this be the season we go 40 - 0! But all I really care about is winning the last game of the season! In April!

Oz, re. the bolded sentences.... 'not sure what the one statement has to do with the other! ;) :) :p

Like Olympic and others, I just want to win EVERY next game. Coach K has never been inclined to shy away from being everyone's top target. It simply comes with the territory if you want to be THE BEST. And that is always Duke's goal!

As an aside, back in the 80's when things like "number one rankings" were pretty new to us, well I was always quite excited about taking on that mantle. Over time, you kinda realize that it really doesn't matter. That the only thing that matters is being number one at the END of the season. So, sure, it is something nice to have -- but it is by no means a serious goal in and of itself. Just a byproduct. All the rest is just noise.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Great minds think alike! And I agree with you too ;)



Oz, re. the bolded sentences.... 'not sure what the one statement has to do with the other! ;) :) :p

-bdbd, it was a little self-deprecating humor. I was calling the two posters I quoted great minds, and then I agreed with them too.

[scottdude8]

I love how this thread has turned into a love-fest for the team. Now I can throw it in my friend's face how stupid his statement was :D

I said from the beginning of the year that I saw a lot of parallels between this year's team and 2010: a strong senior class, a bit of "addition by subtraction", and a bit of a chip on their shoulder. So excited for the rest of the year.

[throatybeard]

This question has been conclusively answered by this point, but here's one more answer.

Look at the history of who has been AP #1, and how many weeks. It's amazing. It's a compendium of the elite programs. It's a little skewed towards the modern era, because there are more polls now, since the season has begun a cancerous expansion earlier and earlier. But there are damn good programs like Wake Forest who wet themselves when ranked #1 for a hot minute. And we have threads debating whether this is even worthwhile, because we're so spoiled.

I wonder if they have such threads in Kentucky or at UNC. Maybe they do.

[scottdude8]

This question has been conclusively answered by this point, but here's one more answer.

Look at the history of who has been AP #1, and how many weeks. It's amazing. It's a compendium of the elite programs. It's a little skewed towards the modern era, because there are more polls now, since the season has begun a cancerous expansion earlier and earlier. But there are damn good programs like Wake Forest who wet themselves when ranked #1 for a hot minute. And we have threads debating whether this is even worthwhile, because we're so spoiled.

I wonder if they have such threads in Kentucky or at UNC. Maybe they do.

Again, this hasn't been much of a debate, which is good to see. Apparently my buddy is on his own in this discussion ;)

[brevity]

This sense of overcaution is silly. There are times in the past where I would be concerned that a Duke team is overrated, but this squad? At this point of the season? With that schedule? I'm extremely comfortable with their #1 ranking.

Also, the Duke program has a long and storied history of players who LIKE the target on their back. It's both bizarre and admirable. I want to see what this team can do now.

[throatybeard]

but this squad? At this point of the season? With that schedule?

I imagine this in Michael K. Williams' voice, standing in a steamy Baltimore alley.

[wk2109]

One thing we know for sure is that we won't see these shirts (http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf/2011/12/post_84.html) being sold in the Bryan Center.

(for those who don't want to click on the link, I'm referring to the shirts they made at Syracuse after reaching #1)

[Starter]

I'm ecstatic Duke is No. 1. I didn't expect it; not that I didn't think they were probably better than the preseason rankings, but few would have thought they'd look this good early on. Much like 2009-10 was sort of a surprise statement that Duke was still a totally elite team and program, it's fantastic that people are associating the team with that sort of success and stature when it didn't seem it would be that way at this juncture. I'd tend to think it can only help with recruiting. This isn't to say it will be the only factor for Jabari Parker, but it's at least nice that if he hasn't made up his mind yet, he'll likely be deciding between the No. 1 team in the country and one ranked somewhere between 15 and 19. After all, it's a kid who wants to compete for a national title during his one year in college. This isn't to say he can't do that at Michigan State, or more accurately that they can't do that if he goes there, but I like that Duke has this sort of team and ranking to offer him.

As for losing with the No. 1 ranking, I don't think it's defeatist to suggest that Duke will certainly lose games this year, probably 1-3 tough ACC games on the road. The one Duke team of recent vintage I thought might have gone undefeated -- and Kyrie Irving agrees with me -- was the team with him on it, before he injured himself. But even with him, Duke had won a couple of close games, and it's logical to think they'd have slipped up at some point. I couldn't care less what ranking they have when they lose a game or two, just that they bounce back in fine fashion and peak at the right time for postseason success.

[Newton_14]

I'm ecstatic Duke is No. 1. I didn't expect it; not that I didn't think they were probably better than the preseason rankings, but few would have thought they'd look this good early on. Much like 2009-10 was sort of a surprise statement that Duke was still a totally elite team and program, it's fantastic that people are associating the team with that sort of success and stature when it didn't seem it would be that way at this juncture. I'd tend to think it can only help with recruiting. This isn't to say it will be the only factor for Jabari Parker, but it's at least nice that if he hasn't made up his mind yet, he'll likely be deciding between the No. 1 team in the country and one ranked somewhere between 15 and 19. After all, it's a kid who wants to compete for a national title during his one year in college. This isn't to say he can't do that at Michigan State, or more accurately that they can't do that if he goes there, but I like that Duke has this sort of team and ranking to offer him.

As for losing with the No. 1 ranking, I don't think it's defeatist to suggest that Duke will certainly lose games this year, probably 1-3 tough ACC games on the road. The one Duke team of recent vintage I thought might have gone undefeated -- and Kyrie Irving agrees with me -- was the team with him on it, before he injured himself. But even with him, Duke had won a couple of close games, and it's logical to think they'd have slipped up at some point. I couldn't care less what ranking they have when they lose a game or two, just that they bounce back in fine fashion and peak at the right time for postseason success.

Good post Starter. I agree with you and with Oly. And for all of those who worry what the media will write if this team loses a game, the 2006-07 NCAA tourney loss to VCU taught me this: No matter what their record or ranking, if a Duke team loses a NCAA tourney game, the media will treat it as though Duke was the best team in the tourney and lost to a 13 or 14 seed or something. That's just the world we live in.

I celebrated the Indiana loss. I always want Duke to be ranked Number 1. As for the "target" on their back, we already get everyone else's best shot, again, 06-07 proves that. It is a permanent "target" caused by the D U K E on the front of the jersey. Being ranked 2nd, 3rd, or even 30th, isn't going to change how bad the opponent wants to win, or how bad the media wants the opponent to win.

[sagegrouse]

You hear this over and over -- teams with unbeaten records face too much pressure and would be better off with a loss or two.

Let me quote Big Jawn Thompson from his radio show a few years ago, responding to the same question:

"What are people talking about? When you are coaching, you try to have the best five players on the court at any moment; you call the best defensive and offensive plays every time down the court. Losing is good? How can you believe that?"

Anyway, I believe coaches do everything within their power to win every single game. And the title question may have merit -- but don't expect agreement from the head coaches.

sagegrouse
'The fiction comes about in part because coaches are really good at using losses as "teaching moments" with their teams'

[Lar77]

OK, so we're number 1 and will be for a while. So who doesn't want to be number 1? As others have documented, our record as a number 1 is very good and there does not appear to be significant correlation to being number 1 and tournament success. Does anyone think State or Carolina or FSU or Miami or Cornell is going to play us any harder because we're number 1? Our guys deserve this ranking. There are teams out there (including some we have beaten) that can beat us on any given night, but the attitude this team has shown so far is that it understands that each game is important and to bring its best. It's next play, next game, until nets get cut down. Congratulations to our team for this achievement and for more to come.

[johnb]

This question has been conclusively answered by this point, but here's one more answer.

Look at the history of who has been AP #1, and how many weeks. It's amazing. It's a compendium of the elite programs. It's a little skewed towards the modern era, because there are more polls now, since the season has begun a cancerous expansion earlier and earlier. But there are damn good programs like Wake Forest who wet themselves when ranked #1 for a hot minute. And we have threads debating whether this is even worthwhile, because we're so spoiled.

I wonder if they have such threads in Kentucky or at UNC. Maybe they do.


Agreed. There are many metrics for success besides winning the final game of the NCAA tournament, and from a Duke perspective, I don't see any good reason not to want to accumulate as many as possible. Since I don't actually play or coach, my potentially inflated sense of the team won't affect the outcome--I trust the actual team to recognize that it doesn't have the talent of, say, a '99 team that could waltz to the championship (oops)--and I don't think Carolina or NC State is going to play more effectively because we're 1 rather than number 2 or 7 or 12. And since the team's success isn't impacted by my looking ahead, I think about our setting records. Like the all-time top 10 streak, or the total number 1 rankings, or the number of different seasons where we get to number 1 or finish number 1 or get a number 1 seed. It's akin to total McD's A-A's, or NBA players, or 1st round picks, or lottery picks, or big guys to make it at the next level thereby solidifying Wojo's ability to coach (really) tall people.

Why?

Two categories. One is that such records matter to potential recruits, partly because such records matter to middle-aged sportswriters who fall back on these records as a shorthand for success when Duke goes to play in Oregon, New York or Chicago. And that's useful for recruiting because bball recruits like success--and perhaps more importantly to Duke's central mission, some percentage of the rest of the student body attends Duke at least partly as a result of the halo effect of sports success, even if they never actually attend a game.

Second: a neurotic identification with the overall team, most visibly represented by young athletes who I'll never meet, but also the whole stage of coaches, fans, etc. And since it's neurotic, I'd guess that setting records makes me feel like I've set the record, which is kinda funny, but then again so are people.

One technique for defeating our own boredom is to imagine that we've lost all these records, that since 1986, our combined W-L has been 402-437 with 3 NCAA tournaments and 7 NIT's, with a best finish of a sweet sixteen back in 1993. That we're on our 7th coach in that time, perhaps Jim Calhoun or Larry Brown, and, because neither football nor basketball has been successful, the ACC decided to cut loose the weakest links (say Duke and Wake Forest), and so we're scrambling to join up with UConn and Xavier and South Florida and Tulane. OK, so this has shifted into a "It's a Wonderful Life," but the message is clear: win while we can, and we'll win even more...

[poobear]

Are we # 1? On SI.com they have Duke listed #2 on both AP and coach's poll. Hope I read it wrong but that was the way it looked to me. It did have Ind. with a loss also.

[hudlow]

If only for one week Duke is ranked #1, these young men who play this game so well will be able to tell their kids and grandkids they were on the #1 ranked NCAA men's Division 1 team in the nation regardless of where they go afterwards...and it was Duke!

As a Duke fan I want this for the team....every year.

hud

[OldPhiKap]

Are we # 1? On SI.com they have Duke listed #2 on both AP and coach's poll. Hope I read it wrong but that was the way it looked to me. It did have Ind. with a loss also.

I believe the rankings come out this afternoon, and that ESPN has not updated the rankings (although the records are current)

[Jarhead]

Are we # 1? On SI.com they have Duke listed #2 on both AP and coach's poll. Hope I read it wrong but that was the way it looked to me. It did have Ind. with a loss also.

As of 11:56 AM the SI website shows AP and Coaches polls with the exact same votes for # 1 as they had last week. How does that happen. As far as I know, Noon is the time for release of both of those polls.

[UrinalCake]

The only reason I can think of for not wanting to be #1 is the fear that the team will become complacent and not practice or try as hard. I don't think that's too much of an issue for this years team, being as experienced as they are. Conversely, the advantage of being #1 is that the team develops confidence and believes it can beat anyone. In a close game, confidence is a big deal. But again, I don't think that applies too much because this team already has that and justifiably feels it is the #1 team regardless of whether or not Indiana lost.

As for painting a target on our backs, I think we want our players to have that experience. Come tourney time they'll be favored in most of their games so it's not a bad thing for them to practice dealing with that.

[Olympic Fan]

Relax ... the new polls aren't released until late afternoon ... check the ESPN rankings and if it says Week 6, that's last week. We're looking for week 7.

Just thought I'd mention a couople of other rankings.

Sagarin has Duke No. 1, ahead of No. 2 Florida and No. 3 Louisville

The RPI has Duke No. 1 (by a huge margin), ahead of No. 2 Michigan and -- an oddity -- No. 3 Colorado.

Pomeroy is the one dissent. He has Florida at No. 1, followed by No. 2 Indiana, No. 3 Louisville and No. 4 Duke

[1 24 90]

Relax ... the new polls aren't released until late afternoon ... check the ESPN rankings and if it says Week 6, that's last week. We're looking for week 7.

Just thought I'd mention a couople of other rankings.

Sagarin has Duke No. 1, ahead of No. 2 Florida and No. 3 Louisville

The RPI has Duke No. 1 (by a huge margin), ahead of No. 2 Michigan and -- an oddity -- No. 3 Colorado.

Pomeroy is the one dissent. He has Florida at No. 1, followed by No. 2 Indiana, No. 3 Louisville and No. 4 Duke

IMO, Pomeroy doesn't measure one intangible that Duke has over Florida and Indiana - POISE & FIGHT, respectively.

[uh_no]

not sure what you all are worried about.

duke is #1 by a mile, a near unanimous choice

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

[roywhite]

not sure what you all are worried about.

duke is #1 by a mile, a near unanimous choice

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

In that poll, and others.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings

[hurleyfor3]

Not sure what ppl were looking at earlier, but today's AP poll (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings) has us with 62 #1 votes and Michigan with the other three. Indiana dropped to sixth; Butler is in at 19th.

Let's turn the original question around, shall we?

Do we want unc to be #1?

Do we want Kentucky to be #1?

Do we want Kansas to be #1?

Do we want [program you despise or are concerned about being inferior to the most] to be #1?

Does anyone here answer "yes" to the above?

[gam7]

Not sure what ppl were looking at earlier, but today's AP poll (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings) has us with 62 #1 votes and Michigan with the other three. Indiana dropped to sixth; Butler is in at 19th.

Let's turn the original question around, shall we?

Do we want unc to be #1?

Do we want Kentucky to be #1?

Do we want Kansas to be #1?

Do we want [program you despise or are concerned about being inferior to the most] to be #1?

Does anyone here answer "yes" to the above?

These rankings make me think that many voters did not stay up to watch Arizona-Florida. Overall, Arizona was outplayed. Not sure how you could watch that game and rank Arizona ahead of Indiana, OSU, Louisville. The "undefeated" title carries more weight than it should in that case. If Bilas watched that Arizona game, expect him to rank Arizona significantly lower, and possibly even lower than Florida.

Also interesting, Miami and Maryland snuck in as others receiving votes.

[mgtr]

After feasting on Duke at #1, I studied the rest of the top ten. Pretty good crop, in my view. I am happy that we are past the point in our schedule where we have to play such teams until March. Based on what we have done so far -- with a seven footer sitting on the bench and a one legged guard (sort of), I am pretty darn happy. And if we should drop an ACC game along the way, I won't be as concerned as in earlier years. Go Duke!

[Jderf]

If Bilas watched that Arizona game, expect him to rank Arizona significantly lower, and possibly even lower than Florida.

Actually, even if Bilas didn't watch the game, I wouldn't be surprised if he did this. In cases where two closely-ranked teams go head to head, he's recently shown an odd tendency to rank the winning team lower.

[cptnflash]

Not sure what ppl were looking at earlier, but today's AP poll (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings) has us with 62 #1 votes and Michigan with the other three.

The fact that Michigan got three first place votes is absurd. Whoever cast those votes obviously has an agenda and should have their voting privileges revoked.

[Kedsy]

Also interesting, Miami and Maryland snuck in as others receiving votes.

Yeah, but how is UNC still in the top 25?

[Kedsy]

The fact that Michigan got three first place votes is absurd. Whoever cast those votes obviously has an agenda and should have their voting privileges revoked.

Get real. Michigan is undefeated and has played well. Perhaps someone actually watched some of their games and thought they were really, really good and that person wasn't as impressed by Duke's wins as you are. I'm not saying I agree with that reasoning, but it doesn't mean the voter has an agenda. The idea that everyone has to agree on the best team or have their privileges revoked is what is absurd in this scenario.

[uh_no]

Get real. Michigan is undefeated and has played well. Perhaps someone actually watched some of their games and thought they were really, really good and that person wasn't as impressed by Duke's wins as you are. I'm not saying I agree with that reasoning, but it doesn't mean the voter has an agenda. The idea that everyone has to agree on the best team or have their privileges revoked is what is absurd in this scenario.

further, people view their votes in the poll as different things. one voter might vote on who they think is the best team today, another might vote for the best resume thus far, one might vote on who had the best week, and yet another might vote for who they think will be best come spring. Perhaps those voters think that michigan has the higher ceiling this season (not that I agree, but it's certainly a valid opinion)

it's hard to criticize someone for voting one way when you don't even know what their impression of what they should be voting on is. Kedsy points out that regardless of the voters' perception of the poll, putting michigan one is certainly valid...and that's even more true if we consider other conceptions of the poll

[Duvall]

Get real. Michigan is undefeated and has played well. Perhaps someone actually watched some of their games and thought they were really, really good and that person wasn't as impressed by Duke's wins as you are. I'm not saying I agree with that reasoning, but it doesn't mean the voter has an agenda. The idea that everyone has to agree on the best team or have their privileges revoked is what is absurd in this scenario.

Well, the argument for Michigan over Duke is unusually weak for a 1 vs. 2 discussion - neither the Wolverines' body of work nor their margins of victory suggest an advantage over the Blue Devils. But poll voters are free to use their own standards, and it's hard to blame the two voters that had Michigan at #2 last week and Duke at #3 for bumping up both teams one spot. But a voter that had Duke at #2 last week and Michigan at #3 (http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,3/lang,en/p,49/r,V/s,22/t1,24/t2,/v,126/w,6/) that decided to move the Wolverines to #1 based on wins over 2-9 Binghamton and 4-5 West Virginia while Duke was off for exams?

Well, that's harder to explain.

[UrinalCake]

Fun fact mentioned on the radio as coming from the Duke Sports Information office - since Coach K's first year, every single player who came to Duke and stayed four years has been on a #1 ranked team at some point in their career. Pretty amazing recruiting pitch - come here and you will definitely be on the best team in the country.

[gumbomoop]

But a voter that had Duke at #2 last week and Michigan at #3 (http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,3/lang,en/p,49/r,V/s,22/t1,24/t2,/v,126/w,6/) that decided to move the Wolverines to #1 based on wins over 2-9 Binghamton and 4-5 West Virginia while Duke was off for exams?

Well, that's harder to explain.

I'd guess the explanation, or perhaps rationalization, is implied in your statement of the fact that Duke was idle, so stays at 2, whereas Mich played twice, won twice. A stretch, but not crazy.

[uh_no]

I'd guess the explanation, or perhaps rationalization, is implied in your statement of the fact that Duke was idle, so stays at 2, whereas Mich played twice, won twice. A stretch, but not crazy.

also, the pollsters tend to reward record over SOS...so michigan at 11-0 is "better" than duke at 9-0

[vick]

Actually, even if Bilas didn't watch the game, I wouldn't be surprised if he did this. In cases where two closely-ranked teams go head to head, he's recently shown an odd tendency to rank the winning team lower.

If the game is close, I don't see what's wrong with that. Home court advantage is generally worth 3-4 points, and Arizona beat Florida by 1, at home. Ken Pomeroy (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/the_head-to-head_fallacy) looked at this for the 2009-10 season, and team that won a home game by one or two points were only 16-52 in rematches played on the road. If you believed Florida is better than Arizona before that game, there's really no good reason to revise that view based on a one-point road loss, if history is your guide.

[Wander]

There's also the fact that Michigan was ranked ahead of Duke in the preseason - so voters who follow the "just drop a team that loses a few spots and leave everything the same" rule would still have Michigan above Duke.

Personally I think that logic is bogus and just don't see any reason to have anyone other than Duke as #1, but there are explanations that don't imply an anti-Duke agenda or something silly like that.

[devil84]

Fun fact mentioned on the radio as coming from the Duke Sports Information office - since Coach K's first year, every single player who came to Duke and stayed four years has been on a #1 ranked team at some point in their career. Pretty amazing recruiting pitch - come here and you will definitely be on the best team in the country.

Under K, Duke's first #1 ranking was in the 1985-1986 season. So the first two years of recruits -- Doug McNeely '84, Dan Meagher '85, and Todd Anderson '85 -- are the only three 4-year players that K recruited that played on teams that did not achieve a #1 ranking. However, they all were ranked; the class of '84 was ranked as high as #14 and '85 as high as #2. I guess you could say that McNeely was on K's first year team, and Meagher and Anderson committed in K's first year, so every player who committed after K's first year was on the best team in the country. A bit of a nit to pick, I guess. McNeely, Meagher, and Anderson are the answer to an interesting trivia question.

[OldPhiKap]

McNeely, Meagher, and Anderson are the answer to an interesting trivia question.

Name three people who wanted to spit in Tom Sheehey's face, including the one who actually did it?


(That was one of my first conference games in Cameron -- maybe not a proud Duke moment, but one that sticks with me)

[JNort]

Well, the argument for Michigan over Duke is unusually weak for a 1 vs. 2 discussion - neither the Wolverines' body of work nor their margins of victory suggest an advantage over the Blue Devils. But poll voters are free to use their own standards, and it's hard to blame the two voters that had Michigan at #2 last week and Duke at #3 for bumping up both teams one spot. But a voter that had Duke at #2 last week and Michigan at #3 (http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,3/lang,en/p,49/r,V/s,22/t1,24/t2,/v,126/w,6/) that decided to move the Wolverines to #1 based on wins over 2-9 Binghamton and 4-5 West Virginia while Duke was off for exams?

Well, that's harder to explain.

Well maybe because the voter thinks that Michigan would beat Duke in a head to head match-up on a neutral site? Michigan does have the best 2 guard starting lineup in the country and college basketball is a guard game. Now granted I think Duke would win in said game but others may not.

[Duvall]

Well maybe because the voter thinks that Michigan would beat Duke in a head to head match-up on a neutral site? Michigan does have the best 2 guard starting lineup in the country and college basketball is a guard game. Now granted I think Duke would win in said game but others may not.

It seems unlikely that someone would come to that conclusion after - and only after - Michigan's two perfunctory wins over one atrocious team and one deeply mediocre team. Remember that *before* last week, Duke was rated higher. Isn't the simpler explanation that this voter just doesn't want to put Duke in the #1 spot?

[howardlander]

Yeah, but how is UNC still in the top 25?

I'm not sure if that's more or less amazing then the fact that the Coaches have UNC AHEAD of Butler. Did I miss something? Not only did Butler just beat Indiana while Carolina gave up 60 something points at home in the 2nd half to ECU, but Butler beat Carolina by 11 on a neutral court after leading by 29! Really?

Howard

[cptnflash]

It seems unlikely that someone would come to that conclusion after - and only after - Michigan's two perfunctory wins over one atrocious team and one deeply mediocre team. Remember that *before* last week, Duke was rated higher. Isn't the simpler explanation that this voter just doesn't want to put Duke in the #1 spot?

Yes, that is exactly what is going on in those three cases (along with the one coach who did the same thing). Normally I'm the last person to blame anything on a perceived anti-Duke bias, but this is clear as day.

[sagegrouse]

Well maybe because the voter thinks that Michigan would beat Duke in a head to head match-up on a neutral site? Michigan does have the best 2 guard starting lineup in the country and college basketball is a guard game. Now granted I think Duke would win in said game but others may not.


It seems unlikely that someone would come to that conclusion after - and only after - Michigan's two perfunctory wins over one atrocious team and one deeply mediocre team. Remember that *before* last week, Duke was rated higher. Isn't the simpler explanation that this voter just doesn't want to put Duke in the #1 spot?


Yes, that is exactly what is going on in those three cases (along with the one coach who did the same thing). Normally I'm the last person to blame anything on a perceived anti-Duke bias, but this is clear as day.

Over 90 percent of the voters in both ESPN and the Coaches' Poll selected Duke #1, the first time we have been in that position in almost two years.

We shouldn't be worried about three or four voters out in the tail of the distribution. Duke lost its best player and has no one on the roster who was better than second team All-ACC. If there are a few skeptics, so be it. And if the "anti-Duke bias" is limited to only four of nearly 100 voters in both polls, then we should be celebrating the progress we have made in the past couple of years.

sagegrouse

[UrinalCake]

I guess you could say that... every player who committed after K's first year was on the best team in the country.

Yes, I believe the actual stat was something to that effect. It only counted players who were recruited by Coach K, not the ones already there when he took over. And the incoming class from his first year didn't count. Sorry if I overstated things in my original post. Wish I could find an actual link, this was just something I heard on the radio that they said came from a source at Duke.

[scottdude8]

With regards to the Michigan question—while Duke definitively has a better resume, if certain voters are going on the so-called "eye-test" it isn't out of the realm of possibility to think Michigan deserves to be No. 1. Note: I DEFINITELY DON'T AGREE with this argument, but Michigan has looked fantastic all season, and has had a decent schedule (even though it doesn't compare with ours). So while I don't agree with this logic, it isn't completely unbelievable to think these voters might be voting on who they "think" is the better team and not on resume or performance to this point, instead of assuming an anti-Duke bias.

[Kedsy]

Yes, I believe the actual stat was something to that effect. It only counted players who were recruited by Coach K, not the ones already there when he took over. And the incoming class from his first year didn't count. Sorry if I overstated things in my original post. Wish I could find an actual link, this was just something I heard on the radio that they said came from a source at Duke.

Coach K recruited Meagher and Anderson, both of whom were freshmen in K's 2nd season. McNeely played in K's first season, but I'm not sure if he was a Bill Foster recruit or if K got him as a late signee.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Yes, I want Duke ranked #1. The guys have earned it by playing a tough early season schedule and prevailing. The #1 ranking allows the team to see the fruits of their labor. As far as excessive attention is concerned, Duke always receives maximum attention from the national media and opponents always bring their best game onto the court. The key now is to continue to work hard to improve in preparation for the tough ACC games in 2013.

I am glad Coach K and the team did not lose a game to keep us from being number 1.
Also kind of nice to see Butler win a big game.

SoCal

[gumbomoop]

I'm not sure if that's more or less amazing then the fact that the Coaches have UNC AHEAD of Butler. Did I miss something? Not only did Butler just beat Indiana while Carolina gave up 60 something points at home in the 2nd half to ECU, but Butler beat Carolina by 11 on a neutral court after leading by 29! Really?

Not to mention the fact that IU beat UNC handily.

But your post has got me thinking about UNC and Butler, and which is the better team? I don't refer here to the coaches' poll. Rather, just thinking aloud here, comparing the teams, probably rambling.....

C -- Advantage Butler. Hard to know who plays the 5 for Heels, and it's maybe going to be an ongoing problem for Roy. I've posted somewhere else that his best team is probably McAdoo and 4 perimeter guys. Anyhow, Butler's experienced Andrew Smith is right now a better player than James or Hubert, and better than Johnson, who really isn't a 5.

PF -- Advantage UNC. But not by as much as I'd have thought 2 months ago. I thought, and think, McAdoo can be "great," but other posters, understandably, remain to be convinced. Butler's Khyle Marshall is an undersized 4, but no slouch. He'd battle McAdoo, and in fact had the better game when the teams played in Maui. Anybody care to say PF is advantage Butler?

From here, specific-position-comparison gets dicey, for a couple of reasons: (1) Butler doesn't seem to have a PG, while Strickland and Paige seem to share the spot for UNC; and (2) Butler seems to have an all-purpose guy in 6'4"/225 Roosevelt Jones, who is a kind of point-forward.

Thus, maybe it works to discuss the other guys on each team as perimeter players. At first glance, eye-testing and, you know, reputation-testing, UNC seems to have a solid advantage. Heaven knows Bullock, Hairston, McDonald, Strickland, with a bit of Tokoto thrown in, should give UNC perimeter advantage. But Rotnei Clarke is so far more consistent, and better, than any of those guys. And though Bullock, Hairston, and McDonald all sport a better 3-bomb% than Kellen Dunham, Dunham appears to be clutch in big-game situations.

Don't know whether Roosevelt Jones will build on his strikingly confident performance v. IU, but he looked pretty impressive.

Again, UNC should have the overall advantage on the perimeter. But do they?

The Heels do not have the advantage on the bench, by which I do not refer to players 8-10. Less coyly, Stevens is the better game coach. Easily?

If we imagine a Butler-UNC rematch, I suppose this time the Heels would be prepared [see previous paragraph]. Which team would win? Which team would play to its potential? Which team is tougher?

[subzero02]

Yes, I want Duke ranked #1. The guys have earned it by playing a tough early season schedule and prevailing. The #1 ranking allows the team to see the fruits of their labor. As far as excessive attention is concerned, Duke always receives maximum attention from the national media and opponents always bring their best game onto the court. The key now is to continue to work hard to improve in preparation for the tough ACC games in 2013.

Can I get an Amen from the congregation?

[Olympic Fan]

Coach K recruited Meagher and Anderson, both of whom were freshmen in K's 2nd season. McNeely played in K's first season, but I'm not sure if he was a Bill Foster recruit or if K got him as a late signee.

Doug McNeely definitely was Coach K's first recruit at Duke. He was a Texas kid that K had been looking at for Army.

Billy Foster was recruiting two kids that spring -- a big white guy who ended up signing with Minnesota (can't recall his name) and guard Freddie Brown -- the kid who found infamy in the 1982 title game. Foster didn't recruit many players -- usually one or two or three a year.

McNeely wasn't on the Duke radar before K was signed.

A year later, K recruited Dan Meagher from Canada, Jay Bryan from Denver and Todd Anderson from Minnesota. But the "big name" recruit in that class -- his first real class -- was Greg Wendt, a 6-4 guard-forward from Detroit.

That was the Class that Almost Was. K finished second that year for Chris Mullins, Uwe Blab, Bill Wennington, Jimmy Miller, Todd Bertenkamp and am kid named Williams who went to Florida.

[Atlanta Duke]

If the Mayan calendar is correct, the world will end with Duke at no. 1. Coincidence?:D

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8762604/indiana-falls-duke-claims-no-1-grantland-ncaa-basketball-power-rankings

[throatybeard]

Doug McNeely definitely was Coach K's first recruit at Duke. He was a Texas kid that K had been looking at for Army.

Billy Foster was recruiting two kids that spring -- a big white guy who ended up signing with Minnesota (can't recall his name) and guard Freddie Brown -- the kid who found infamy in the 1982 title game. Foster didn't recruit many players -- usually one or two or three a year.

McNeely wasn't on the Duke radar before K was signed.

A year later, K recruited Dan Meagher from Canada, Jay Bryan from Denver and Todd Anderson from Minnesota. But the "big name" recruit in that class -- his first real class -- was Greg Wendt, a 6-4 guard-forward from Detroit.

That was the Class that Almost Was. K finished second that year for Chris Mullins, Uwe Blab, Bill Wennington, Jimmy Miller, Todd Bertenkamp and am kid named Williams who went to Florida.

The main reason I'm thrilled to read this post is I need to see Uwe Blab's name again.