First championship game (K's new philosophy)

[Lord Ash]

I've seen a bit about K approaching the tourney different this year... taking an approach from Bobby Knight in which each game is a championship, instead of mini-tournaments of each weekend.

I don't know... I have to admit, I don't like this approach. The idea of trying to get guys "up" for six "championship" games in a row seems almost a bit forced. Players never just play a single championship game without a build up, they don't have a ton of experience with championship games, and they certainly don't play many of them.

I feel like the idea of mini-tournaments is just a bit more "natural". Every player plays dozens of tournaments through a lifetime. Heck, we play (and win) one every year in the pre-season. And I feel like the narrative, emotionally, just connects a bit better... you have one game you HAVE to win to make the "title" game, and then a "title" game. It just feels more natural to me.

I know I am not the two winningest coaches of all time, but I can't help but disagree with this approach a little bit. I just have a hard time imagining trying to have players stay "up" for six straight championship games is more realistic or doable than three "tournaments."

[Mike Corey]

Respectfully, your critique seems to hinge on the assumption that they wouldn't be "up" for the semifinal game each weekend--or "as up" as they would be for the title game.

This might add urgency to each game. Urgency that you would think would be present already--it is, after all, a single elimination tournament. But that urgency isn't always there when the expectations are to withstand the first weekend without breaking a sweat, which can often lead to not withstanding the first weekend without breaking a sweat.

[OldPhiKap]

K got it from Knight, and used it in 2010. So there may be something to it.

[Reilly]

I think Carolina uses this approach, and hangs a banner after each title.

[AGDukesky]

I think Carolina uses this approach, and hangs a banner after each title.

Heck, they don't even have to play an actual "championship" game to do that:p

Another UNC innovation - the Baker's Half-dozen...

[Li_Duke]

Is he's going with the new philosophy due to Duke losing in the first round of last year's tourney and this year's ACC tourney? The new approach might leave us more drained, but it lowers the risk of losing early.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Is he's going with the new philosophy due to Duke losing in the first round of last year's tourney and this year's ACC tourney? The new approach might leave us more drained, but it lowers the risk of losing early.
Sounds like he's been using for a couple of years already. Obviously Lehigh and MD games will make people question the usefulness of the approach despite success in 2010. But hey, we're still talking about kids. I like the urgency of it this year combined with three seniors who seem to be well motivated this week according to K's latest comments.

[jv001]

I heard Coach K on the Tim Brando show when he said he went from the; weekend championship to each game being a championship. He did say that he got the idea from Coach Knight. He's been using it for a while now but added it worked in 2010 but not so well in 2012. I like this idea especially after the Miami game, Maryland games. We can't come out flat and think we can get number 5. GoDuke!

[Lord Ash]

Respectfully, your critique seems to hinge on the assumption that they wouldn't be "up" for the semifinal game each weekend--or "as up" as they would be for the title game.

This might add urgency to each game. Urgency that you would think would be present already--it is, after all, a single elimination tournament. But that urgency isn't always there when the expectations are to withstand the first weekend without breaking a sweat, which can often lead to not withstanding the first weekend without breaking a sweat.

Hmm... Mike, I don't quite get what you mean about my critique hinging on the assumption they wouldn't be up for the semifinal game. Are you saying that *I* am assuming that they wouldn't get up for the semifinal game each weekend, or that that is what this new model is meant to avoid? I tend to think athletes WILL get up for a semi-final game in a two game tournament... that game is covered by the "Oh I want to make the title game!" motivation, and the title game is obviously covered by the "Oh I want to win the title!" motivation.

Here is an (admittedly extreme) example of what makes this not quite resonate with me:

Imagine if I said, to you, at the start of the year "Every game we play is a championship game." After all, each win leads to better seeding and better seeding leads to better chances to win a title, and so on. There is just no way that you can maintain that sort of level through an entire season.

This feels a bit similar. Obviously there is the difference of single elimination, but I still feel like six championship games in a row just seems so outside of what any player will ever experience in their life, and I cannot imagine it would be easy to stay "up" for them all.

On the other hand, we play lots of small tournaments all the time. The idea that players would get themselves "up" for a tournament like that, play through it, have the emotional release at the end of "mission accomplished", and then have time to build themselves up for a new tournament the next weekend just seems to fit human nature, and what basketball players are used to, a lot more naturally to me.

Hey, K won a bunch of titles the old way. I am not sure if he switched for 2010 (EDIT: Just saw that he did. Interesting!) There has to be SOMETHING to it:)

[OldPhiKap]

I think Carolina uses this approach, and hangs a banner after each title.

Post of the day. Can't spork, unfortunately.

On the topic, though -- I go with whatever K says when it comes to motivation.

[basket1544]

Everyone else plays against Duke as though that was their championship game and get up to play against us. I think it shows toughness that Duke plays up for all their games.

[hurleyfor3]

I think Carolina uses this approach, and hangs a banner after each title.

And when that doesn't work, they let someone else declare them "champions" 15 years after the fact, and hang a banner for that.

[OldSchool]

Maybe this "championship game" approach will work with this team. To me, the point is not so much getting "up" for the game as it is maintaining a high level of concentration for the entire 40 minutes. We're just not good enough to beat good teams in the NCAA tournament if we have significant portions of the game where we are not maintaining a mental edge. Heck, we let Albany get the game back into single digits late in the second half by losing focus. We can't afford to do that against better teams.

[throatybeard]

This seems to me a distinction without a difference.

[dcdevil2009]

This seems to me a distinction without a difference.

I can see it as being a useful strategy to avoid looking past a particular opponent. Not that it it proves anything, but Duke has tended to do better in the "championship" games of the weekend-as-mini-tournament approach for the first two weekends of the tournament. While he's got three first round losses to four second round losses, two of the latter came in his first two years. His eight Sweet Sixteen losses to one Elite Eight loss and three Final Fours to two runner-ups also suggest that Duke performs better in "championship" games than "semi-final" games, especially if you take into account the theoretically better competition Duke faces in the second weekend games. So, although you still have to win both to advance (and the success could be explained by the short turnaround favoring the better coached team), there is some evidence to suggest that K's teams perform better when they are playing for a "championship" as opposed to the opportunity to play in one.

Edit: my point might fall apart if you consider the last two years as "championships" instead of the first mini-tournament game.

[El_Diablo]

This seems to me a distinction without a difference.

Thank you--I thought it was just me!

[Papa John]

This seems to me a distinction without a difference.

You mean, like "I've decided from now on to buy six eggs instead of half a dozen"?

I agree...

[Lord Ash]

Actually, I think the psychology of sports is pretty important, and the approach to a game is a huge part of that.

[OldSchool]

Actually, I think the psychology of sports is pretty important, and the approach to a game is a huge part of that.

Before today, we had lost the first game of the last two post-season tournaments. Clearly something wasn't working in terms of getting the team to play their best in that first tournament game.

If I were on the coaching staff, I would focus in-game on trying to nip in the bud those stretches when we seem to lose a bit of our mental concentration, but no doubt they are trying to do exactly that.

[El_Diablo]

Actually, I think the psychology of sports is pretty important, and the approach to a game is a huge part of that.

So much so that one particular approach can lead to either a national championship or a first-round loss to a 15-seed?

[Lord Ash]

I doubt it, but I guess in a tourney where a loss sends you home it is possible. Did K said it made that big of a difference?

[Edouble]

Actually, I think the psychology of sports is pretty important, and the approach to a game is a huge part of that.

This has nothing to do with psychology. This is about physiology!

[throatybeard]

So much so that one particular approach can lead to either a national championship or a first-round loss to a 15-seed?

Naw man, see, if we think of the first round game against Lehigh as a final, we'll win it. But if we think of it as a semifinal, Austin won't be able to hit a bull in the butt with a banjo.

But if we think of the first round game against Albany as a championship. {magic second step a la underpants gnomes on South Park}. PROFIT!!!!

[Ian]

So much so that one particular approach can lead to either a national championship or a first-round loss to a 15-seed?

In extreme cases, sure. Rick Ankiel went from strike out 190 batters in 175 innings with a 3.50 ERA in the national league to the next year where he walked 17 batters in 4.1 innings in AAA ball while posting and ERA 20.77.

All because psychological condition that made him unable to throw strikes.

[oldnavy]

I got the feeling that this approach was more for the staff and their preparation in the sense that time was better spent focusing on the next game vice, planning for two games. Granted, the staff's prep will influence how the players are prepped, but I am not sure this is approach is meant as a means of psyching the players up per se.

[CDu]

Before today, we had lost the first game of the last two post-season tournaments. Clearly something wasn't working in terms of getting the team to play their best in that first tournament game.

If I were on the coaching staff, I would focus in-game on trying to nip in the bud those stretches when we seem to lose a bit of our mental concentration, but no doubt they are trying to do exactly that.

But we have been using this new approach since 2010, so there hasn't been any change in philosophy since our last two tourneys.

[jv001]

I would say that last years loss in was due to not playing defense and not Coach Ks new approach to winning championships. Our offense was pretty efficient but was subject to letdowns. In other words, we didn't get it to Mason enough against Lehigh. GoDuke!

[CDu]

I would say that last years loss in was due to not playing defense and not Coach Ks new approach to winning championships. Our offense was pretty efficient but was subject to letdowns. In other words, we didn't get it to Mason enough against Lehigh. GoDuke!

Oh, I agree that it isn't the strategy that led to the loss. My point was that this isn't a change in strategy as a result of the recent tourney struggles. The new philosophy came before the two first round exits, so it cannot be an attempt to correct those issues.