PDA

View Full Version : The AP top-10 streak is... dead.



Olympic Fan
12-02-2013, 04:21 PM
Duke slips in at No. 10 in the AP poll today -- that's the 118th straight top 10 ranking for Duke, the second-longest such streak in basketball history. UCLA still holds the record with 155 straight top 10 weeks in the mid-60s. The third longest streak was Kentucky's 91 straight in the mid-1990s.

Tomorrow night is a crucial game for Duke and the streak. It's our only game next week and with a loss, no doubt Duke drops into the second ten. With a win, the streak will likely continue -- and with our schedule, we should be safe at least until conference play opens in January.

I realize this isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I think it's a significant achievement -- one of those things we'll look back on when basketball historians reflect on the Krzyzewski era. It's a measure of consistency that only John Wooden has matched (with the help of Sam Gilbert).

Note: Duke is No. 8 in the coach's poll (although the streak only refers to the AP poll). Syracuse is up to No. 4 -- Duke and the 'Cuse are the ACC's only ranked teams in the AP. UNC made No. 25 in the coaches' poll.

CameronBornAndBred
12-02-2013, 04:24 PM
I looked for the heels in the AP..and can't find them...they must be there somewhere...hmmm.

DevilWearsPrada
12-02-2013, 04:27 PM
I looked for the heels in the AP..and can't find them...they must be there somewhere...hmmm.

:) Football AP ? Basketball AP? or both?

I am sure the Heels are somewhere to be found in Cheater Hill or H$LL ! GTHC

Wander
12-02-2013, 04:38 PM
Eh, this is an example of a reasonably meaningless statistic to me. I don't see much justification, for example, for Villanova to be ranked behind us right now. Don't get me wrong, Duke obviously has a ton of amazing stats to prove that we've been the best program over the past few decades, but I'd rather stick to the streak of NCAA tournaments or Sweet 16s or even the non-conference home winning streak.

chadlee989
12-02-2013, 04:51 PM
Eh, this is an example of a reasonably meaningless statistic to me. I don't see much justification, for example, for Villanova to be ranked behind us right now. Don't get me wrong, Duke obviously has a ton of amazing stats to prove that we've been the best program over the past few decades, but I'd rather stick to the streak of NCAA tournaments or Sweet 16s or even the non-conference home winning streak.

I disagree this is a huge record to me. I tend to agree with what the op said that this will be looked back on by basketball historians for years to come. Maybe as the greatest run ever. I had been checking all day today and actually checked late last night to see if the polls had been updated. So glad we stayed top ten. Now lets beat Michigan and keep it going.

CDu
12-02-2013, 04:51 PM
Eh, this is an example of a reasonably meaningless statistic to me. I don't see much justification, for example, for Villanova to be ranked behind us right now. Don't get me wrong, Duke obviously has a ton of amazing stats to prove that we've been the best program over the past few decades, but I'd rather stick to the streak of NCAA tournaments or Sweet 16s or even the non-conference home winning streak.

Agreed. We have sort of backed into the honor this year by virtue of a high preseason rank. Certainly Villanova (with 2top-25 wins including a road win over a team that beat us) has a better resume.

I mean, I am glad the streak is alive, but it is a bit dubious.

OldPhiKap
12-02-2013, 04:57 PM
I looked for the heels in the AP..and can't find them...they must be there somewhere...hmmm.

They've got #1 and #3 in two of their next three games. May not even be under "others receiveing votes" soon. (Of course, I thought that when they went to play Louisville).

This streak is a testament to the consistency of our program. I do think it is a big deal, and will be sad when it one day ends. Hopefully not this season.

Hell, UNC would like to still be considered for the "in the Top 25" streak.

dukebballcamper90-91
12-02-2013, 05:05 PM
No heels!!!!!!!

roywhite
12-02-2013, 05:18 PM
Eh, this is an example of a reasonably meaningless statistic to me. I don't see much justification, for example, for Villanova to be ranked behind us right now. Don't get me wrong, Duke obviously has a ton of amazing stats to prove that we've been the best program over the past few decades, but I'd rather stick to the streak of NCAA tournaments or Sweet 16s or even the non-conference home winning streak.

Yeah, this is nice, I guess, but a bit of a yawn IMO.

I mean, should we hang a banner for this?

flyingdutchdevil
12-02-2013, 05:20 PM
Yeah, this is nice, I guess, but a bit of a yawn IMO.

I mean, should we hang a banner for this?

I'd like to hang a banner for the program with the most consecutive years of having a "Plumlee" on the roster. 8, I believe?

Indoor66
12-02-2013, 05:36 PM
Yeah, this is nice, I guess, but a bit of a yawn IMO.

I mean, should we hang a banner for this?

The answer is NO, but they might!:cool:

Des Esseintes
12-02-2013, 05:36 PM
Eh, this is an example of a reasonably meaningless statistic to me. I don't see much justification, for example, for Villanova to be ranked behind us right now. Don't get me wrong, Duke obviously has a ton of amazing stats to prove that we've been the best program over the past few decades, but I'd rather stick to the streak of NCAA tournaments or Sweet 16s or even the non-conference home winning streak.

I guess I don't understand. Villanova having a better argument for #10 this one week means that Duke's almost unprecedented top-10 streak is "reasonably meaningless"? There were a couple times in Dimaggio's hitting streak when the defender really ought to have made the play. Went down as a hit, when it probably should have been an error. Does that make 56 games reasonably meaningless?

devildeac
12-02-2013, 05:37 PM
Good golly, I hope and pray Ozzie is not reading a thread about the streak...

:rolleyes::o

blUDAYvil
12-02-2013, 05:46 PM
Yeah, this is nice, I guess, but a bit of a yawn IMO.

I am in the "this matters to me" camp. For what they're worth, the rankings help provide context and meaning to every regular season game. They're far from perfect but many of us took pride in seeing Duke football achieve an AP Top 25 ranking recently (now Top 20!). That Duke MBB has done it for 118 straight weeks is staggering and I'd hate to see it end.

DBFAN
12-02-2013, 06:04 PM
Eh, this is an example of a reasonably meaningless statistic to me. I don't see much justification, for example, for Villanova to be ranked behind us right now. Don't get me wrong, Duke obviously has a ton of amazing stats to prove that we've been the best program over the past few decades, but I'd rather stick to the streak of NCAA tournaments or Sweet 16s or even the non-conference home winning streak.

I don't know if only using Villanova justifies us not being there. The fact is we could go up and down the top 25 with reasons for them to be where they are, and reasons for them not to be there. I don't know maybe UK shouldn't have been ranked number 1 to begin with, which creates the mess that the top 10 is. Yeah I like that one, let's go with that

Wander
12-02-2013, 06:13 PM
I guess I don't understand. Villanova having a better argument for #10 this one week means that Duke's almost unprecedented top-10 streak is "reasonably meaningless"? There were a couple times in Dimaggio's hitting streak when the defender really ought to have made the play. Went down as a hit, when it probably should have been an error. Does that make 56 games reasonably meaningless?

I don't think it does. The Villanova thing was just an example of a larger point: a pretty large percentage of polls throughout a college basketball season are based on projections, not results. It'd be like Harrison Barnes bragging about getting preseason 1st team All American that one year. I'd prefer to consider statistics that are objective (like X NCAA tournaments in a row) or at least based on results and not projection (like having Y national players of the year or ENDING the season in Z straight top ten AP polls).

NSDukeFan
12-02-2013, 06:28 PM
I don't think it does. The Villanova thing was just an example of a larger point: a pretty large percentage of polls throughout a college basketball season are based on projections, not results. It'd be like Harrison Barnes bragging about getting preseason 1st team All American that one year. I'd prefer to consider statistics that are objective (like X NCAA tournaments in a row) or at least based on results and not projection (like having Y national players of the year or ENDING the season in Z straight top ten AP polls).

I agree having x many players of the year is great and it is more important to end the year well, but I am a big fan of the streak. I think it shows remarkable consistency that a program could be considered top 25 every week for that long, but to be able to be considered for the top ten every week? Remarkable, IMO.

Des Esseintes
12-02-2013, 06:46 PM
I don't think it does. The Villanova thing was just an example of a larger point: a pretty large percentage of polls throughout a college basketball season are based on projections, not results. It'd be like Harrison Barnes bragging about getting preseason 1st team All American that one year. I'd prefer to consider statistics that are objective (like X NCAA tournaments in a row) or at least based on results and not projection (like having Y national players of the year or ENDING the season in Z straight top ten AP polls).

Those are, uh, *also* achievements, but they don't invalidate this one. I mean look at the leaderboard for this record. There's UCLA's unreal run, there's some distance, there us, there's JUST AS MUCH distance, then there's Kentucky. Other than UCLA, this period of consistency from Duke has blown away any other period from any other program since AP polls were around. Why in the world would we minimize that? Yes, preseason polling matters in maintaining the streak. But you know what else matters a great deal more? Winning. It means not letting injuries or youth or bad luck *ever* turn into a losing streak, plus recruiting well enough to replenish the cupboard *every* year. It's preposterously hard, which is why no one in the modern era has come near it. We have other preposterous accomplishments, too, but I fail to see how the dice roll that is Sweet 16 accomplishments is so much more meaningful. I mean, what was the better measure of Kyle and Nolan's senior year--losing to Arizona or staying dominant despite losing the best player in the country?

JPtheGame
12-02-2013, 07:03 PM
I love the streak and think its a pretty big deal. Human factors aside I think it shows an ability to stay consistently elite over a significant amount of time. Base hits don't mean much from game to game but when you string 56 games worth together, it means something.

gurufrisbee
12-02-2013, 10:52 PM
We SHOULD be in the top ten. There aren't ten teams in nation that could play on neutral floors against Kansas and Arizona and not lose them both by double figures.

Wander
12-02-2013, 11:00 PM
We SHOULD be in the top ten. There aren't ten teams in nation that could play on neutral floors against Kansas and Arizona and not lose them both by double figures.

So, by your metric, Cal Poly, San Diego State, Drexel, Wake Forest, Villanova, and UTEP would all be in the top 10? They all played Kansas or Arizona and did not lose by double figures.

Kedsy
12-03-2013, 12:05 AM
So, by your metric, Cal Poly, San Diego State, Drexel, Wake Forest, Villanova, and UTEP would all be in the top 10? They all played Kansas or Arizona and did not lose by double figures.

I think he said "and," rather than "or."

Wander
12-03-2013, 08:20 AM
I think he said "and," rather than "or."

What? The claim was that almost every team would lose by double figures to BOTH Arizona and Kansas on neutral courts.

BD80
12-03-2013, 09:34 AM
What? The claim was that almost every team would lose by double figures to BOTH Arizona and Kansas on neutral courts.

You do realize you're taking a knife into a gun fight?

Ichabod Drain
12-03-2013, 09:37 AM
So, by your metric, Cal Poly, San Diego State, Drexel, Wake Forest, Villanova, and UTEP would all be in the top 10? They all played Kansas or Arizona and did not lose by double figures.

Villanova has a pretty strong case.

johnb
12-03-2013, 09:59 AM
I agree having x many players of the year is great and it is more important to end the year well, but I am a big fan of the streak. I think it shows remarkable consistency that a program could be considered top 25 every week for that long, but to be able to be considered for the top ten every week? Remarkable, IMO.

While not generally mentioned, there is a lot of luck, personal idiosyncrasy, and randomness in all aspects of sporting accomplishment.

The word "auburn" wouldn't be uttered this week if they hadn't won with a once-in-a-decade sort of play and wouldn't be in the SEC championship game without two plays at the top of the sportscenter play of the week scoreboard (ie, skill was a precondition but a lot of luck was involved).

Voting determines all of the all american and POY awards, and there is a lot of regionalism/idiosyncrasy involved. Example: Jameis's Heisman will be determined, imho, by the character/personality of a semi-random AG who decides how to interpret apparently ambiguous information (ie, indict or not to indict).

And, while I'd prefer not to compare Duke teams, I thought the '86 and '99 teams were more deserving than, say, the 2010 team. Not more likable, necessarily, but I did think they were the best teams in their year, while the 2010 team overachieved (as in, they won but weren't probably the best overall team of the year). Similarly, if the final four games were best 3 of 5, I'd guess that we wouldn't have a NC banner in 2001.

All that is just a long-winded way to say that 118 is a tremendous marker of success. If we beat Michigan and string it out through next year and break UCLA's record, I should think a banner would be an excellent idea.

vick
12-03-2013, 10:50 AM
And, while I'd prefer not to compare Duke teams, I thought the '86 and '99 teams were more deserving than, say, the 2010 team. Not more likable, necessarily, but I did think they were the best teams in their year, while the 2010 team overachieved (as in, they won but weren't probably the best overall team of the year). Similarly, if the final four games were best 3 of 5, I'd guess that we wouldn't have a NC banner in 2001.

So, I agree with everything you posted about how many fans tend to underappreciate long streaks of excellence because chance plays a bigger role in tournament success than people want to believe. I think the specific point about 2010, though, deserves a little bit of push-back. If you look at objective measures--Kenpom, Sagarin, and Massey among others--Duke was #1 across the board (obviously these are post-tournament measures, but just as you shouldn't overvalue tournament play, you shouldn't ignore it either!). To the best of my recollection, most of the "Duke can't win" rhetoric in 2010 came not so much from what was on the court that year, but some lingering belief that because the team hadn't had much tournament success from 2005-2009 (relatively speaking), this meant that 2010 also couldn't get it done. I think a reasonable person could argue that over the course of the entire season Kansas might have been better than Duke, but that's about it. That team just wasn't the fluke that a lot of people tend to treat it as.

Sorry for the vaguely off-topic and rambling point, but it's always bugged me how the ACC champion and one-seeded 2010 team is the go-to example, even for Duke fans, for "not the best team," rather than the 1991 team which, you know, was neither of those things.

DukeAlumBS
12-03-2013, 10:56 AM
We SHOULD be in the top ten. There aren't ten teams in nation that could play on neutral floors against Kansas and Arizona and not lose them both by double figures.
I agree we played both right to later 2nd half, and lost by a couple or few points. I was at the Arizona game and was happy being up at the half. IMO our team was not on their game at Arizona. The ranking favor Syracuse, who has played a couple community colleges and a couple high schools.
I think out team will be fine
Later
Jimmy

sagegrouse
12-03-2013, 10:58 AM
If a major point of the posts above is that Duke doesn't deserve a top-ten ranking, then I suggest we move on to more productive topics. This board is for Duke fans and welcomed guests.

sagegrouse
'Tongue-in-cheek comment, of course'

OldPhiKap
12-03-2013, 11:25 AM
If a major point of the posts above is that Duke doesn't deserve a top-ten ranking, then I suggest we move on to more productive topics. This board is for Duke fans and welcomed guests.

sagegrouse
'Tongue-in-cheek comment, of course'

I for one, do not think we should be #10.

The USA-Today Coach's poll has us at #8. I defer to them.

Reilly
12-03-2013, 01:06 PM
...I thought the '86 and '99 teams were more deserving than, say, the 2010 team. ...

The 2010 team is considered the best team in the land by one computer:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2010-standings.html

[click on "SRS" to order the teams]

The 1999 team was also considered the best team in the land, by far.

The 1986 team, by this metric, was #3 (behind UNC and Kansas).

JasonEvans
12-03-2013, 03:31 PM
And, while I'd prefer not to compare Duke teams, I thought the '86 and '99 teams were more deserving than, say, the 2010 team. Not more likable, necessarily, but I did think they were the best teams in their year, while the 2010 team overachieved (as in, they won but weren't probably the best overall team of the year). Similarly, if the final four games were best 3 of 5, I'd guess that we wouldn't have a NC banner in 2001.


Wait, who do you think would be much better than us to win a 2 out of 3 meeting in 2001? Stanford? Michigan State?

-Jason "2 out of 3 and we win in 1999 and 1986 for sure... sigh" Evans

jimsumner
12-03-2013, 04:09 PM
Wait, who do you think would be much better than us to win a 2 out of 3 meeting in 2001? Stanford? Michigan State?

-Jason "2 out of 3 and we win in 1999 and 1986 for sure... sigh" Evans

I don't wonder about two-out-of-three. But I do wonder what might have happened if the NCAA reseeded going into the Final Four. Try 1986 with Kansas and Louisville slugging it out in the first game, while Duke plays LSU. Or 1999, when UConn gets that physical semifinal match with Michigan State, while Duke gets Ohio State.

Not too tough to envision a different ending. Duke and UConn meet in the 2004 title game, with better refs?

sagegrouse
12-03-2013, 04:30 PM
Wait, who do you think would be much better than us to win a 2 out of 3 meeting in 2001? Stanford? Michigan State?

-Jason "2 out of 3 and we win in 1999 and 1986 for sure... sigh" Evans


I assumed that John B. of sloop fame meant 1991 and UNLV as opponents. Time flies, etc., etc.

sage

Indoor66
12-03-2013, 04:31 PM
I assumed that John B. of sloop fame meant 1991 and UNLV as opponents. Time flies, etc., etc.

sage

Them damn bananas.

hurleyfor3
12-03-2013, 04:37 PM
2010 was #1 Pomeroy entering the NCAA Tournament.

Kedsy
12-03-2013, 05:38 PM
2010 was #1 Pomeroy entering the NCAA Tournament.

True. We were #1, followed by Kansas as #2 and Wisconsin as #3.

Olympic Fan
12-03-2013, 06:24 PM
I can't believe that some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.

Yeah, individual polls have their quirks and mistakes. There's a guy on CBS Sports who does a great column called Poll Attacks that ridicules stupid voters (he does not include the inclusion of Duke into the top 10 as one of this week's outrages). I wouldn't argue if the voters had put Villanova ahead of Duke this week -- disappointed, yes ... but certainly not outraged.

But the point of the thread is that Duke has a streak of 118 straight weeks in the top 10. It's a measure of consistency that only one other program in college basketball history has been able to match.

I'm sure there were weeks during Kentucky's 91 week streak and maybe even UCLA's 155 week streak that could be debated. But that doesn't detract from the magnificence of either streak. Just look around. Kentucky has a great program under Calipari, but they were out of the poll for a good part of last year. UNC has been out of the to 25 (much less the top 10) in two seasons since winning the title in 2009. Historically great programs such as UCLA and Indiana have been out of the top 10 more than they've been in it.

Staying in the top 10 week after week, season after season, is hard.

This streak is a great accomplishment for Coach K and Duke basketball and I'd like to see it last as long as possible.

That starts with beating Michigan tonight.

wilson
12-03-2013, 06:45 PM
I can't believe that some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.Some folks around here seem hell-bent on turning every thread into a debate, whether or not it's reasonable or on-topic or relevant in any way.
Seems to me like the neighborhood pub could stand to hire a bouncer.

devildeac
12-03-2013, 06:50 PM
Some folks around here seem hell-bent on turning every thread into a debate, whether or not it's reasonable or on-topic or relevant in any way.
Seems to me like the neighborhood pub could stand to hire a bouncer.

What? You didn't come here for an argument;):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

blUDAYvil
12-03-2013, 07:01 PM
Some folks around here seem hell-bent on turning every thread into a debate, whether or not it's reasonable or on-topic or relevant in any way.
Seems to me like the neighborhood pub could stand to hire a bouncer.

I disagree with your comparison of this thread to a "neighborhood pub." It might be offensive to the folk around here who are teetotalers. :cool:

matt1
12-03-2013, 07:10 PM
UNC has actually been unranked at some point each of the last four seasons. We were unranked for a total of one week (in 2007) in the period I can remember.

I can't believe that
some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.

Yeah, individual polls have their quirks and mistakes. There's a guy on CBS Sports who does a great column called Poll Attacks that ridicules stupid voters (he does not include the inclusion of Duke into the top 10 as one of this week's outrages). I wouldn't argue if the voters had put Villanova ahead of Duke this week -- disappointed, yes ... but certainly not outraged.

But the point of the thread is that Duke has a streak of 118 straight weeks in the top 10. It's a measure of consistency that only one other program in college basketball history has been able to match.

I'm sure there were weeks during Kentucky's 91 week streak and maybe even UCLA's 155 week streak that could be debated. But that doesn't detract from the magnificence of either streak. Just look around. Kentucky has a great program under Calipari, but they were out of the poll for a good part of last year. UNC has been out of the to 25 (much less the top 10) in two seasons since winning the title in 2009. Historically great programs such as UCLA and Indiana have been out of the top 10 more than they've been in it.

Staying in the top 10 week after week, season after season, is hard.

This streak is a great accomplishment for Coach K and Duke basketball and I'd like to see it last as long as possible.

That starts with beating Michigan tonight.

brevity
12-03-2013, 07:27 PM
Whether we deserve a top 10 ranking is a logical extension of this thread. I agree with most of what Olympic Fan said, but it's disingenous to start this thread -- that extended a remarkable streak, but set no numerically interesting milestone -- and then be up in arms when others mildly question whether the streak should have continued.

The DiMaggio comment is poignant, but not for its intended reason. The streak survives after all the quibbling is long forgotten. And maybe that's the lesson here: there is no asterisk. Dissenters should be welcome, but they should realize that their opinion will not be recognized by history.

OldPhiKap
12-03-2013, 07:31 PM
Them damn bananas.

Pretty sure it was the rum that got them.

Wander
12-03-2013, 07:42 PM
I can't believe that some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.


It's an internet message board. A well-reasoned argument that's topical to the subject you present is part of the game. Should everyone just respond with the reply-equivalent of a facebook like? Come on.

You're brushing aside the issues that come with an accomplishment that is largely based on projection and not results. I will again repeat that it's like taking pride in a preseason All American team selection - sure, it does imply something good about your reputation and what's expected of you, but it's not what you want to be bragging about.

The Villanova thing was just a minor example of one problem with using the streak as a meaningful statistic. But there's also the inverse problem - Florida was a top 10 team the moment they stepped on the court in fall 2005, but they didn't become ranked in the top 10 until December. Now, those few extra weeks wouldn't put the Gators anywhere near Duke's ballpark here. But are there other teams out there sometime in college basketball history that would have much longer poll streaks if they were ranked properly? I honestly don't know.

I strongly disagree that this is something that basketball historians will care about in the future. I follow the sport pretty closely outside of Duke, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone hold up UCLA's top 10 poll streak as one of the program's great accomplishments. I hear all sorts of statistics about the number of national championships, the number of final fours, the winning streaks, and the great players who were part of that program and their associated honors and records. Those are the types of things that Duke is also going to be remembered for.

I'll retract any implication I may have made that this streak is 100% meaningless - it's not like it says nothing about the program - but I stand by the opinion that it's not a well-formulated metric or important streak we should focus on. There are many far better statistics that demonstrate the program's consistency of excellence.

throatybeard
12-04-2013, 12:05 AM
Pretty sure it was the rum that got them.

They didn't have enough rum-protectors.

Des Esseintes
12-04-2013, 01:14 AM
It's an internet message board. A well-reasoned argument that's topical to the subject you present is part of the game. Should everyone just respond with the reply-equivalent of a facebook like? Come on.

You're brushing aside the issues that come with an accomplishment that is largely based on projection and not results. I will again repeat that it's like taking pride in a preseason All American team selection - sure, it does imply something good about your reputation and what's expected of you, but it's not what you want to be bragging about.
No. It's like taking pride in a preseason All-American selection that is followed by a postseason All-American selection for seven straight years and counting. If you don't want to brag about that, fine.


The Villanova thing was just a minor example of one problem with using the streak as a meaningful statistic. But there's also the inverse problem - Florida was a top 10 team the moment they stepped on the court in fall 2005, but they didn't become ranked in the top 10 until December. Now, those few extra weeks wouldn't put the Gators anywhere near Duke's ballpark here. But are there other teams out there sometime in college basketball history that would have much longer poll streaks if they were ranked properly? I honestly don't know.
You don't know if there are any uncredited 118-week-long streaks of top-10 play in college basketball history? The answer is no. There aren't any uncredited 118-week-long streaks of top-10 play in college basketball history.


I strongly disagree that this is something that basketball historians will care about in the future. I follow the sport pretty closely outside of Duke, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone hold up UCLA's top 10 poll streak as one of the program's great accomplishments. I hear all sorts of statistics about the number of national championships, the number of final fours, the winning streaks, and the great players who were part of that program and their associated honors and records. Those are the types of things that Duke is also going to be remembered for.
You act as though this streak is minor or arbitrary while ignoring the potential arbitrariness of the other potential measures. I mean, what does Kevin Durant's NPOY selection say about Texas basketball? I don't think Michigan State has ever had a Wooden National Player of the Year. Is that a data point suggesting UT has a more distinguished basketball history than Michigan State? BYU has 2! Did you all know BYU is tied for being the third most prestigious program in college basketball history! Whereas the top three of the top-10 streak is UCLA, Duke, and Kentucky. Which one of these has better historical descriptive power?


I'll retract any implication I may have made that this streak is 100% meaningless - it's not like it says nothing about the program - but I stand by the opinion that it's not a well-formulated metric or important streak we should focus on. There are many far better statistics that demonstrate the program's consistency of excellence.
I just don't get it. Consistently excellent play is what EVERYONE IN COLLEGE BASKETBALL IS TRYING TO DO. That is what this record shows. Complain all you want about preseason polls. Unlike, say, college football, preseason polls don't matter by season's end. You still have to be killing it. And Duke has--for 7 straight seasons. When Duke's streak breaks, an *extremely* long time will pass before anyone threatens its mark. Why wouldn't that speak in a very specific way to a very specific and admirable way Duke has excelled above its competition?

Skitzle
12-04-2013, 04:24 AM
Just for some perspective, I did some research.
Here's a list all the active streaks for weeks in the Top 10:


Team Strk
Duke 118
Mchgn St. 11
Kansas 11
Louisville 10
Arizona 5
Kentucky 5
Syracuse 5
Oklmha St. 5
Ohio St. 4
Wisonsin 2

For those who didn't know the streak includes preseason and postseason polls.

Duke's streak is pretty impressive.

OldPhiKap
12-04-2013, 07:23 AM
Just for some perspective, I did some research.
Here's a list all the active streaks for weeks in the Top 10:


Team Strk
Duke 118
Mchgn St. 11
Kansas 11
Louisville 10
Arizona 5
Kentucky 5
Syracuse 5
Oklmha St. 5
Ohio St. 4
Wisonsin 2
Tar Heels 0.

For those who didn't know the streak includes preseason and postseason polls.

Duke's streak is pretty impressive.

One small edit.

johnb
12-04-2013, 09:01 AM
...
And, while I'd prefer not to compare Duke teams, I thought the '86 and '99 teams were more deserving than, say, the 2010 team. Not more likable, necessarily, but I did think they were the best teams in their year, while the 2010 team overachieved (as in, they won but weren't probably the best overall team of the year). Similarly, if the final four games were best 3 of 5, I'd guess that we wouldn't have a NC banner in 2001.

All that is just a long-winded way to say that 118 is a tremendous marker of success. If we beat Michigan and string it out through next year and break UCLA's record, I should think a banner would be an excellent idea.


2010 was #1 Pomeroy entering the NCAA Tournament.


True. We were #1, followed by Kansas as #2 and Wisconsin as #3.


The 2010 team is considered the best team in the land by one computer:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2010-standings.html

[click on "SRS" to order the teams]

The 1999 team was also considered the best team in the land, by far.

The 1986 team, by this metric, was #3 (behind UNC and Kansas).


Wait, who do you think would be much better than us to win a 2 out of 3 meeting in 2001? Stanford? Michigan State?

-Jason "2 out of 3 and we win in 1999 and 1986 for sure... sigh" Evans



I assumed that John B. of sloop fame meant 1991 and UNLV as opponents. Time flies, etc., etc.

sage

Yes, I did mean to pick on '91 (though the Vegas upset was more surprising/exciting than any game I think I've watched--perhaps until this coming saturday). 20 years/10 years, they blur together.... I'm getting old.

And, as for '86, there were fewer metrics (and no DBR) available, and so I was going mostly on my own personal preference (watched the Kansas game from an empty hospital bed as a medical intern--I was on call and answered pages at the timeouts and halftime. a friend had a cat named pervis, and I avoided visiting until the cat finally died).

BD80
12-04-2013, 09:10 AM
One small edit.

The Helms Committee disagrees. unc has been in the top 10 since 1808.

ChillinDuke
12-04-2013, 09:34 AM
I can't believe that some have tried to turn this thread into a debate about whether we deserve top 10 status this week.

Yeah, individual polls have their quirks and mistakes. There's a guy on CBS Sports who does a great column called Poll Attacks that ridicules stupid voters (he does not include the inclusion of Duke into the top 10 as one of this week's outrages). I wouldn't argue if the voters had put Villanova ahead of Duke this week -- disappointed, yes ... but certainly not outraged.

But the point of the thread is that Duke has a streak of 118 straight weeks in the top 10. It's a measure of consistency that only one other program in college basketball history has been able to match.

I'm sure there were weeks during Kentucky's 91 week streak and maybe even UCLA's 155 week streak that could be debated. But that doesn't detract from the magnificence of either streak. Just look around. Kentucky has a great program under Calipari, but they were out of the poll for a good part of last year. UNC has been out of the to 25 (much less the top 10) in two seasons since winning the title in 2009. Historically great programs such as UCLA and Indiana have been out of the top 10 more than they've been in it.

Staying in the top 10 week after week, season after season, is hard.

This streak is a great accomplishment for Coach K and Duke basketball and I'd like to see it last as long as possible.

That starts with beating Michigan tonight.

I couldn't agree more. I understand that some can take exception to our current or other weekly rankings, but the streak stands as of right now and it's absolutely remarkable. Consider the ease with which someone can drop out of the Top 10. I imagine something as simple and common as a loss would be enough to knock someone out of the Top 10 if they were ranked 8 or higher. Two-game losing streak should do it for anyone 4 or higher (ish). And I'm probably being conservative. Now consider long-term injuries to players like Irving or Kelly (in recent years) which required a reworking of the team/lineup. Consider lineup shakeups like inserting guys like Elliot Williams into the lineup mid-season. Consider who we play year in and year out - our schedule is always one of the tops in the nation. Consider losing one-and-doners like Rivers or Irving or stud seniors like Plumlee, Singler, Scheyer, et al. Consider just normal variance in a given college season!

Just sit back and think about that. That's absolutely remarkable. And Skitzle's table sheds further basis for my amazement.

Wow.

- Chillin

vick
12-04-2013, 09:47 AM
I put the three longest streaks (UCLA, UK, Duke) into a graph. We didn't really spend all that much time in the 8-10 range, although a little more than Kentucky--though Duke was also ranked in the top 2 more than Kentucky. UCLA's streak was, as you might expect, insanely good.

3724

Caveat, did it by hand from a PDF file, so might have transposed a number here or there, but I think it's pretty accurate.

Dr. Rosenrosen
12-04-2013, 11:00 AM
I put the three longest streaks (UCLA, UK, Duke) into a graph. We didn't really spend all that much time in the 8-10 range, although a little more than Kentucky--though Duke was also ranked in the top 2 more than Kentucky. UCLA's streak was, as you might expect, insanely good.

3724

Caveat, did it by hand from a PDF file, so might have transposed a number here or there, but I think it's pretty accurate.
Interesting. Curious, what is each team's average rank across their respective streaks? (or maybe there is a better comparative stat)

vick
12-04-2013, 11:52 AM
Interesting. Curious, what is each team's average rank across their respective streaks? (or maybe there is a better comparative stat)

Not sure if there's a better one, but Duke's average is 5.1, UK's 4.8, and UCLA's 1.6. The median rank was 5 for both Duke and UK, and 1 (!) for UCLA.

The most intuitive way for me to look at the average rank is a CDF, which looks like:

3725

The way to read this is to look at the rank, and the percentage indicates the percent of times that the school was at least that rank during the streak (so, e.g., Duke being at 22% for 2 indicates that 22% of the time during its streak, Duke was ranked either 1 or 2). Duke's streak is a little more volatile than UK's, which you can see--more time in the 7-10 range, but also more time in the 1-2 slots.

Des Esseintes
12-04-2013, 12:27 PM
Not sure if there's a better one, but Duke's average is 5.1, UK's 4.8, and UCLA's 1.6. The median rank was 5 for both Duke and UK, and 1 (!) for UCLA.

The most intuitive way for me to look at the average rank is a CDF, which looks like:

3725

The way to read this is to look at the rank, and the percentage indicates the percent of times that the school was at least that rank during the streak (so, e.g., Duke being at 22% for 2 indicates that 22% of the time during its streak, Duke was ranked either 1 or 2). Duke's streak is a little more volatile than UK's, which you can see--more time in the 7-10 range, but also more time in the 1-2 slots.

Thanks for making these, Vick. I think I like your first graph best, because it accounts for length of streak. That UCLA maintained its high ranking throughout its streak AND ran its streak so much longer than anyone else is just crazy. Too bad basketball historians of the future will find it a pointless achievement.

vick
12-04-2013, 12:50 PM
Thanks for making these, Vick. I think I like your first graph best, because it accounts for length of streak. That UCLA maintained its high ranking throughout its streak AND ran its streak so much longer than anyone else is just crazy. Too bad basketball historians of the future will find it a pointless achievement.

Thanks. One thing, and I don't think there's anything real profound about it but it's interesting as trivia, is that you can make a pretty good case that the best team from each of these streaks didn't spend all that much time at #1. I'll leave picking Wooden's best team to the Jim Sumners and Olympic Fans of the world, but 1968 is often considered a plausible candidate for best all-time team, and it had the long string of #2s early on, after losing to Houston (later avenged). 1996 Kentucky was easily the best team of its streak and probably a top-10 all-time team, but it was only #1 for a few weeks before losing to Camby's UMass team, and only regained it for a couple of weeks toward the end of the year. Duke's 2010 championship team spent no time at all at #1. Probably nothing more than a statistical fluke but I still found it interesting.

Lar77
12-04-2013, 01:15 PM
Why not celebrate the streak, especially if and when we top the UCLA streak.

It is a testament to a strong program. And we have accomplished it in an era of one and dones. Not taking away from UCLA's remarkable achievement. Let them celebrate their accomplishment if they so choose.

Yes, the rankings are subjective, and no doubt influenced by status, projections of potential, etc. - so are the securities markets in much the same way.

We have banners celebrating Final #1 rankings and setting a transient mark of 903 wins (I guess some day that will be replaced by a final number). So why object to a banner honoring the streak when it happens. It will look good next to our fifth (sixth?) NCAA banner.

Olympic Fan
12-04-2013, 01:19 PM
Thanks. One thing, and I don't think there's anything real profound about it but it's interesting as trivia, is that you can make a pretty good case that the best team from each of these streaks didn't spend all that much time at #1. I'll leave picking Wooden's best team to the Jim Sumners and Olympic Fans of the world, but 1968 is often considered a plausible candidate for best all-time team, and it had the long string of #2s early on, after losing to Houston (later avenged). 1996 Kentucky was easily the best team of its streak and probably a top-10 all-time team, but it was only #1 for a few weeks before losing to Camby's UMass team, and only regained it for a couple of weeks toward the end of the year. Duke's 2010 championship team spent no time at all at #1. Probably nothing more than a statistical fluke but I still found it interesting.

I think most of us would agree that 1992 is K's greatest team ... and it did spend every week at No. 1 (despite losing two games).

The 1991 champs never reached No. 1 -- indeed, its highest rank was No. 5 (and they finished 6th)

The 2001 team spent four weeks in December at No. 1, then didn't get to No. 1 again until the final poll.

As you note, the 2010 champs were never ranked No. 1 -- its highest rank was the final No. 3.

Three of the four national title teams spent every week of the season in the top 10. The 1991 team had back-to-back weeks at No. 12 and No. 14, but that's it. The 2010 team hit rock bottom at No. 10.

gam7
12-04-2013, 01:25 PM
Just for some perspective, I did some research.
Here's a list all the active streaks for weeks in the Top 10:


Team Strk
Duke 118
Mchgn St. 11
Kansas 11
Louisville 10
Arizona 5
Kentucky 5
Syracuse 5
Oklmha St. 5
Ohio St. 4
Wisonsin 2

For those who didn't know the streak includes preseason and postseason polls.

Duke's streak is pretty impressive.

Thanks Skitzle. I've wondered about this. Also, if someone has the time and inclination, I'd be interested in seeing the number of weeks each school has been in the top 10 during the last 118 polls. For example, Kansas's active streak is only 11, but during our streak, has Kansas been ranked in the top 10 for 115 weeks? Or 50 weeks?

pfrduke
12-04-2013, 01:29 PM
I think most of us would agree that 1992 is K's greatest team ... and it did spend every week at No. 1 (despite losing two games).

The 1991 champs never reached No. 1 -- indeed, its highest rank was No. 5 (and they finished 6th)

The 2001 team spent four weeks in December at No. 1, then didn't get to No. 1 again until the final poll.

As you note, the 2010 champs were never ranked No. 1 -- its highest rank was the final No. 3.

Three of the four national title teams spent every week of the season in the top 10. The 1991 team had back-to-back weeks at No. 12 and No. 14, but that's it. The 2010 team hit rock bottom at No. 10.

Yes, but the 1991, 1992, and 2001 teams are not part of this current streak.

Skitzle
12-04-2013, 02:08 PM
Thanks Skitzle. I've wondered about this. Also, if someone has the time and inclination, I'd be interested in seeing the number of weeks each school has been in the top 10 during the last 118 polls. For example, Kansas's active streak is only 11, but during our streak, has Kansas been ranked in the top 10 for 115 weeks? Or 50 weeks?

Ask and you shall receive. This includes all of 2008, though Duke entered the number 10 spot in Week 3. So this is over the last 121 weeks not the last 118
3726


DataSource (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/mbasketball/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=top10app&from=2008&to=2014#.Up97-cQW301)

gam7
12-04-2013, 02:38 PM
Ask and you shall receive. This includes all of 2008, though Duke entered the number 10 spot in Week 3. So this is over the last 121 weeks not the last 118
3726


DataSource (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/mbasketball/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=top10app&from=2008&to=2014#.Up97-cQW301)

Haha, nice! I'll test this out again. Could you please bring me a large coffee, two sugars, light on the cream? Thanks in advance. :)

Would give you pitchforks, but it's not letting me!

grad_devil
12-09-2013, 02:20 PM
This week we've jumped up 2 spots to #8 in the AP, and 1 spot to #7 in the USA Today Coaches Poll

Other teams to note:


Arizona is the new #1 in both polls
UNC Jumps from unranked to #18 in AP (#21 Coaches)



Click here (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings) for the full list.

Olympic Fan
12-09-2013, 02:22 PM
Not to re-open the debate over the value of the streak, but Duke was just voted No. 8 in the latest AP poll (Dec. 9) to extend the top 10 streak even further.

Duke is No. 7 in this week's coaches poll.

flyingdutchdevil
12-09-2013, 02:26 PM
...then my interest in the polls is dwindled.

The 16th can't come soon enough...

ChillinDuke
12-09-2013, 02:28 PM
This week we've jumped up 2 spots to #8 in the AP, and 1 spot to #7 in the USA Today Coaches Poll

Other teams to note:


Arizona is the new #1 in both polls
UNC Jumps from unranked to #18 in AP (#21 Coaches)



Click here (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings) for the full list.

Kentucky dropped from 3 to 11 with a close loss at then #20 Baylor.

Kansas dropped from 6 to 15 with a buzzer-beater loss at then #36 Colorado (others receiving votes).

For losses like that, these seem to be bigger drops than I'm accustomed to in the polls. No?

- Chillin

uh_no
12-09-2013, 02:32 PM
...then my interest in the polls is dwindled.

The 16th can't come soon enough...

the wisconsin effect in true form

ChillinDuke
12-09-2013, 02:33 PM
By the way, I just checked RPI rankings on ESPN where we are listed...wait for it...63RD!!! Sandwiched by such powerhouses as #62 Mercer and #64 Bryant.

Is this a result of the RPI not being statistically valid this early in the season? Or is Ashton Kutcher going to pop up on my computer screen shortly?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/page/1/sort/RPI

- Chillin

-jk
12-09-2013, 02:35 PM
By the way, I just checked RPI rankings on ESPN where we are listed...wait for it...63RD!!! Sandwiched by such powerhouses as #62 Mercer and #64 Bryant.

Is this a result of the RPI not being statistically valid this early in the season? Or is Ashton Kutcher going to pop up on my computer screen shortly?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/page/1/sort/RPI

- Chillin

Is RPI ever valid for comparing teams?

-jk

Bluedog
12-09-2013, 03:46 PM
By the way, I just checked RPI rankings on ESPN where we are listed...wait for it...63RD!!! Sandwiched by such powerhouses as #62 Mercer and #64 Bryant.

Is this a result of the RPI not being statistically valid this early in the season? Or is Ashton Kutcher going to pop up on my computer screen shortly?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/page/1/sort/RPI

- Chillin

The problem is we've played 5 sub-150 teams in the RPI, which really brings down our rank. Going 2-2 against teams in the 50-100 range is better for your RPI than going 2-2 against two teams in the top 10 and two teams around 200, even though I'd probably argue the second schedule is "harder." FAU, UNCA, ECU, and Vermont are all 220+. Michigan being currently 154 doesn't help either! But, yeah, I think it's still too early and RPI isn't very precise, to say the least...Interesting though.

gotoguy
12-09-2013, 05:33 PM
Why not celebrate the streak, especially if and when we top the UCLA streak.

It is a testament to a strong program. And we have accomplished it in an era of one and dones. Not taking away from UCLA's remarkable achievement. Let them celebrate their accomplishment if they so choose.

Yes, the rankings are subjective, and no doubt influenced by status, projections of potential, etc. - so are the securities markets in much the same way.

We have banners celebrating Final #1 rankings and setting a transient mark of 903 wins (I guess some day that will be replaced by a final number). So why object to a banner honoring the streak when it happens. It will look good next to our fifth (sixth?) NCAA banner.

Yes the rankings are subjective and for that reason the only "poll" that's important IMHO is the seeding bracket for our region in the NCAA tourney. UCLA doesn't need to celebrate top 10 AP poll rankings when they can (before the one and done era) celebrate 88 consecutive wins. Nothing subjective about that.

Des Esseintes
12-09-2013, 06:02 PM
Yes the rankings are subjective and for that reason the only "poll" that's important IMHO is the seeding bracket for our region in the NCAA tourney. UCLA doesn't need to celebrate top 10 AP poll rankings when they can (before the one and done era) celebrate 88 consecutive wins. Nothing subjective about that.

Yeah, if any subjectivity is involved, an accomplishment is worthless. Somebody should hurry up and tell all the title-winning college football teams they have nothing to be proud of. Also, the first two Ali-Frazier fights were pointless, because judges ruled on the outcomes. Also, nothing worth mentioning has ever happened in gymnastics.

throatybeard
12-09-2013, 10:44 PM
Yeah, if any subjectivity is involved, an accomplishment is worthless. Somebody should hurry up and tell all the title-winning college football teams they have nothing to be proud of. Also, the first two Ali-Frazier fights were pointless, because judges ruled on the outcomes. Also, nothing worth mentioning has ever happened in gymnastics.

"You must spread some comments around before commenting on Des Essientes again."

Anyway, thumbs up on your devastatingly accurate sarcasm. I can't stand the argument you're satirizing.

The real question here is whether Torvill & Dean were better than the BYU team that won the national championship. I say hell yes.

juise
12-10-2013, 12:44 AM
Also, nothing worth mentioning has ever happened in gymnastics.

Duke would have broken UCLA's record years ago if it weren't for that rogue Russian AP pollster. ;)

gotoguy
12-10-2013, 01:04 AM
"You must spread some comments around before commenting on Des Essientes again."

Anyway, thumbs up on your devastatingly accurate sarcasm. I can't stand the argument you're satirizing.

The real question here is whether Torvill & Dean were better than the BYU team that won the national championship. I say hell yes.

I would prefer to argue whether Bob Hayes' 1964 gold medal performance in the 100M running in lane one on a cinder track was better than Fran's Klammer's gold medal downhill in 1976.

jay
12-10-2013, 01:34 AM
Yeah, if any subjectivity is involved, an accomplishment is worthless. Somebody should hurry up and tell all the title-winning college football teams they have nothing to be proud of. Also, the first two Ali-Frazier fights were pointless, because judges ruled on the outcomes. Also, nothing worth mentioning has ever happened in gymnastics.

You're appealing to the extreme here.

The reality is that rankings do precious little in college basketball other than entertain fans, create compelling matchups for the networks to advertise, give sports columnists something to write about every Monday and give SID's stuff to put in the yearly program and feed to reporters. They have positively zero to do with actually accomplishing anything.

The play a slightly larger role in college football. This has not more than once become a problem so much so that the entire post-season format has been altered to reduce the impact (somewhat) of these subjective polls.

Rankings are fun and an ego stroke. That does not, however, make them particularly useful, your apples-to-oranges comparisons notwithstanding.

Des Esseintes
12-10-2013, 03:11 AM
You're appealing to the extreme here.

The reality is that [actual regular season games] do precious little in college basketball other than entertain fans, create compelling matchups for the networks to advertise, give sports columnists something to write about every Monday and give SID's stuff to put in the yearly program and feed to reporters. They have positively zero to do with actually accomplishing anything.

The play a slightly larger role in college football. This has not more than once become a problem so much so that the entire post-season format has been altered to reduce the impact (somewhat) of these [regular season games].

[Results of games] are fun and an ego stroke. That does not, however, make them particularly [meaningful in the larger scheme of life].

Fixed it for you. Nothing in sports is imbued with a tremendous amount of intrinsic meaning. It has the value we assign to it. Which is fine, and I think most everyone here on this board would assign it a decently high value. But pretending polls are somehow a special site of meaninglessness when what we are discussing are *games* is, uh, silly.

JasonEvans
12-10-2013, 08:15 AM
They have positively zero to do with actually accomplishing anything.

Actually, the polls have everything to do with accomplishments, it is just about regular season accomplishments instead of only looking at the postseason. Just ask Kentucky last year -- they accomplished little during the regular season and found themselves unranked most of the season.

But, if you aer one of those folks who want to make late March into the only thing that matters, try this on for size. It has been shown time and again that there is a strong correlation between poll rankings and NCAA tournament seeding. A team that is #1 or 2 in the vaunted RPI but #10 in the polls is not getting a #1 seed, probably not getting even a #2 seed. But, a team ranked #1 or 2 in the country that is #10 in the RPI is getting a #1 seed. So, the rankings provide us with a measure of expectation and prediction for NCAA seeding. I think anyone would find some value in that.

The rankings are a measure of how you are performing in the regular season. Are they a perfect measure? No, of course not. No one has claimed they are. But, they do a good job of matching actual results in games with the "eye test" and subjective human observations to tell us which teams are the best in the country at any given moment. Again, I think most of us recognize there is value in that.

But, you are certainly entitled to disparage the value of rankings and of Duke truly remarkable streak all you want. Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on enjoying it if that is ok with you ;)

-Jason "a piece of me is bothered that some folks see college basketball as being all about how you perform in the NCAA tourney -- I generally find I enjoy the road to the end more than actually getting there" Evans

throatybeard
12-10-2013, 11:41 AM
I would prefer to argue whether Bob Hayes' 1964 gold medal performance in the 100M running in lane one on a cinder track was better than Fran's Klammer's gold medal downhill in 1976.

Lenny: If you ask me, Muhammad Ali, in his prime, was much better than anti-lock brakes.
Carl: Yeah, but what about Johnny Mathis versus Diet Pepsi?
Moe: Oh, I cannot listen to this again!

tommy
12-10-2013, 02:25 PM
I think what might be interesting is seeing how many of Duke's opponents in its streak were ranked teams vs. how many of UCLA's were. I have a feeling that Duke has played a lot more tough teams during our streak than UCLA did. Could be wrong about that. I'll see if my masochistic tendencies drive me to actually research this.

tommy
12-10-2013, 05:12 PM
I think what might be interesting is seeing how many of Duke's opponents in its streak were ranked teams vs. how many of UCLA's were. I have a feeling that Duke has played a lot more tough teams during our streak than UCLA did. Could be wrong about that. I'll see if my masochistic tendencies drive me to actually research this.

They did, and I was wrong. During its streak, UCLA played 288 games. 39 of them were against teams ranked in the AP Top 10. That's 13.5%. In its streak, Duke has played 216 games, 26 of which were against Top 10 teams. That's 12.0%.

However, I then looked at the comparison of the programs' matchups against Top 20 teams during their respective streaks. The UCLA streak was amassed over a period of 10 years. The first two, the AP only rated its Top 10; after that they went to a Top 20, so for comparison purposes I can't include Duke's games against teams ranked 21-25, because those didn't exist when UCLA had their streak. So UCLA played 56 of its 288 games in its streak against Top 20 teams, which is 19.4%. (understanding they potentially lose a little ground for the first two years, when AP only went 10 deep).

Duke has played 45 Top 20 opponents during its 216 game streak, which is 20.8%.

DevilYouthCoach
12-10-2013, 06:55 PM
Lenny: If you ask me, Muhammad Ali, in his prime, was much better than anti-lock brakes.
Carl: Yeah, but what about Johnny Mathis versus Diet Pepsi?
Moe: Oh, I cannot listen to this again!


This is the funniest comment I've read on the DBR boards ever! I guess it's because it's so wonderfully true.

jay
12-10-2013, 06:57 PM
Actually, the polls have everything to do with accomplishments, it is just about regular season accomplishments instead of only looking at the postseason. Just ask Kentucky last year -- they accomplished little during the regular season and found themselves unranked most of the season.

But, if you aer one of those folks who want to make late March into the only thing that matters, try this on for size. It has been shown time and again that there is a strong correlation between poll rankings and NCAA tournament seeding. A team that is #1 or 2 in the vaunted RPI but #10 in the polls is not getting a #1 seed, probably not getting even a #2 seed. But, a team ranked #1 or 2 in the country that is #10 in the RPI is getting a #1 seed. So, the rankings provide us with a measure of expectation and prediction for NCAA seeding. I think anyone would find some value in that.

The rankings are a measure of how you are performing in the regular season. Are they a perfect measure? No, of course not. No one has claimed they are. But, they do a good job of matching actual results in games with the "eye test" and subjective human observations to tell us which teams are the best in the country at any given moment. Again, I think most of us recognize there is value in that.

But, you are certainly entitled to disparage the value of rankings and of Duke truly remarkable streak all you want. Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on enjoying it if that is ok with you ;)

-Jason "a piece of me is bothered that some folks see college basketball as being all about how you perform in the NCAA tourney -- I generally find I enjoy the road to the end more than actually getting there" Evans

Fair enough. Was probably a bit extreme of me to suggest that rankings hold zero redeeming value. I just don't think they hold much redeeming value.

77devil
12-10-2013, 08:09 PM
This is the funniest comment I've read on the DBR boards ever! I guess it's because it's so wonderfully true.

I chuckled although I wonder if Throaty knows who Franz Klammer is.

Kedsy
12-22-2013, 02:39 PM
Nice article about the streak: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/66102340/

Someone may have mentioned it earlier in this thread, but I didn't realize the 2nd-longest active streak is 12. That alone should be enough to explain why Duke's streak is so noteworthy.

Indoor66
12-22-2013, 04:15 PM
Nice article about the streak: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/66102340/

Someone may have mentioned it earlier in this thread, but I didn't realize the 2nd-longest active streak is 12. That alone should be enough to explain why Duke's streak is so noteworthy.

Money quote is the last line -

"Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, Indiana, Michigan State, Louisville: All of these teams have swelled up and dipped down in the past three seasons. Not Duke, not for seven or eight years now. With a 2010 national championship still in the rear-view, the program remains as relevant and lording as ever."

ice-9
12-23-2013, 02:01 AM
Money quote is the last line -

"Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, Indiana, Michigan State, Louisville: All of these teams have swelled up and dipped down in the past three seasons. Not Duke, not for seven or eight years now. With a 2010 national championship still in the rear-view, the program remains as relevant and lording as ever."

That's not the last line of the article! Scroll down for more.

Ichabod Drain
12-23-2013, 01:15 PM
Streak stays alive. Duke drops to nine after being tied for eight with Villanova last week. Arizona stays on top and UNC drops to 19.

A few big matchups this weekend that could affect rankings including Kentucky and Louisville as well as Villanova and Syracuse.

FerryFor50
12-23-2013, 01:47 PM
Streak stays alive. Duke drops to nine after being tied for eight with Villanova last week. Arizona stays on top and UNC drops to 19.

A few big matchups this weekend that could affect rankings including Kentucky and Louisville as well as Villanova and Syracuse.

Wow. Win a game against an opponent just outside of the top 25 and drop a spot?

uh_no
12-23-2013, 01:51 PM
Wow. Win a game against an opponent just outside of the top 25 and drop a spot?

we were tied last week....so it's not like anyone jumped us....

Dr. Rosenrosen
12-23-2013, 01:52 PM
Wow. Win a game against an opponent just outside of the top 25 and drop a spot?
It's a new media-based conspiracy to end the streak...

ChillinDuke
12-23-2013, 02:12 PM
Wow. Win a game against an opponent just outside of the top 25 and drop a spot?

Well, perhaps a 21-point home win against ~#172 Rider showed more than a 19-point home win over ~#251 Gardner-Webb and a 17-point neutral court win over ~#31 UCLA. :rolleyes:

More likely, the voters see undefeated versus defeated and that's the end of the cognitive process.

I still don't get it, but that's the way it seems to go.

- Chillin

Kedsy
12-23-2013, 02:18 PM
Well, perhaps a 21-point home win against ~#172 Rider showed more than a 19-point home win over ~#251 Gardner-Webb and a 17-point neutral court win over ~#31 UCLA. :rolleyes:

More likely, the voters see undefeated versus defeated and that's the end of the cognitive process.

I still don't get it, but that's the way it seems to go.

- Chillin

Well, a lot of these voters might look at the RPI, where Rider is #102 and UCLA is #68 (not nearly as big a difference as Pomeroy would suggest), and we're #39 compared to Villanova's #6. Or even if they look at Pomeroy, they might see Villanova's #5 vs. our #16. Or perhaps they're looking at common opponents and think that Nova's 4 point win over Kansas is better than our 9 point loss.

I think we're a better team than Villanova, but it's hard right now to fault someone for voting otherwise.

ChillinDuke
12-23-2013, 02:27 PM
Well, a lot of these voters might look at the RPI, where Rider is #102 and UCLA is #68 (not nearly as big a difference as Pomeroy would suggest), and we're #39 compared to Villanova's #6. Or even if they look at Pomeroy, they might see Villanova's #5 vs. our #16. Or perhaps they're looking at common opponents and think that Nova's 4 point win over Kansas is better than our 9 point loss.

I think we're a better team than Villanova, but it's hard right now to fault someone for voting otherwise.

Except that much of what you point out had been established prior to last week when those same people voted us tied with Nova at #8.

- Chillin

Kedsy
12-23-2013, 03:04 PM
Except that much of what you point out had been established prior to last week when those same people voted us tied with Nova at #8.

- Chillin

They were on the way up the few weeks before. Now that they've hung around the top ten for awhile, the factors I mentioned might carry more weight.

Or they might just throw darts. You can never tell with people who vote in polls...

NYBri
12-23-2013, 03:12 PM
Just keep winning and the streak will take care of itself.

I'd trade 10 streaks for a NC any day.

uh_no
12-23-2013, 03:45 PM
Well, perhaps a 21-point home win against ~#172 Rider showed more than a 19-point home win over ~#251 Gardner-Webb and a 17-point neutral court win over ~#31 UCLA. :rolleyes:

More likely, the voters see undefeated versus defeated and that's the end of the cognitive process.

I still don't get it, but that's the way it seems to go.

- Chillin

we were tied....so all it takes is a single voter to shuffle their votes and we "drop a spot"...and in reality, that's not even what happened

we got 1053 points last week...we got 1108 points this week...so we got 55 more points THIS week than last week....so pretending that somehow we got snubbed by the voters is silly....what likely happened is teams (namely uconn) lost last week so voters wanted to reallocate their votes (assuming they had uconn above nova or duke)....some gave their votes to nova, some gave their votes to duke....a few more gave votes to nova than duke...but each team got a healthy share

we were tied last week, we're 8 points down now.....out of 1000....that's like .8% difference....not a snub....lets calm down....the voters don't sit in a collective hive and say "oh well duke had a win, but lets screw them anyway"...they each vote and then the votes are tallied up and teams line up how they do....i'd imagine if you looked at any individual's ballot, they didn't vote duke lower this week than last week....the rankings just happened to work out that way....and it was exacerbated since we were tied last week

lets chill about something that is in no way scientific in nature.

ChillinDuke
12-23-2013, 04:01 PM
we were tied....so all it takes is a single voter to shuffle their votes and we "drop a spot"...and in reality, that's not even what happened

we got 1053 points last week...we got 1108 points this week...so we got 55 more points THIS week than last week....so pretending that somehow we got snubbed by the voters is silly....what likely happened is teams (namely uconn) lost last week so voters wanted to reallocate their votes (assuming they had uconn above nova or duke)....some gave their votes to nova, some gave their votes to duke....a few more gave votes to nova than duke...but each team got a healthy share

we were tied last week, we're 8 points down now.....out of 1000....that's like .8% difference....not a snub....lets calm down....the voters don't sit in a collective hive and say "oh well duke had a win, but lets screw them anyway"...they each vote and then the votes are tallied up and teams line up how they do....i'd imagine if you looked at any individual's ballot, they didn't vote duke lower this week than last week....the rankings just happened to work out that way....and it was exacerbated since we were tied last week

lets chill about something that is in no way scientific in nature.

I'm pretty chill.

Not sure what I said that made me appear so inflamed at the outrageous disparity between our and Nova's rankings.

Rather, I'm quite calmly (and admittedly) splitting hairs here. But the fact remains, we were voted tied with Nova last week. Add to that my view that we did "more better" than them insofar as this singular week went, and I feel it's an interesting disconnect.

I don't feel we got "snubbed" nor do I feel the voters wanted to "screw" us. Simply pointing out the oddities in this unscientific polling process as both you and I have done at various other times here on the board. Will I lose sleep tonight? Likely. But I attribute that almost entirely to the caffeinated coffee I just drank at 3:45PM and not to Duke's ranking in the polls.

- Chillin

uh_no
12-23-2013, 04:06 PM
I'm pretty chill.

Not sure what I said that made me appear so inflamed at the outrageous disparity between our and Nova's rankings.

Rather, I'm quite calmly (and admittedly) splitting hairs here. But the fact remains, we were voted tied with Nova last week. Add to that my view that we did "more better" than them insofar as this singular week went, and I feel it's an interesting disconnect.

I don't feel we got "snubbed" nor do I feel the voters wanted to "screw" us. Simply pointing out the oddities in this unscientific polling process as both you and I have done at various other times here on the board. Will I lose sleep tonight? Likely. But I attribute that almost entirely to the caffeinated coffee I just drank at 3:45PM and not to Duke's ranking in the polls.

- Chillin

not specifically you, CD, just the general befuddlement on this thread that we could have dropped a spot after such an impressive win

Saratoga2
12-23-2013, 04:14 PM
They did, and I was wrong. During its streak, UCLA played 288 games. 39 of them were against teams ranked in the AP Top 10. That's 13.5%. In its streak, Duke has played 216 games, 26 of which were against Top 10 teams. That's 12.0%.

However, I then looked at the comparison of the programs' matchups against Top 20 teams during their respective streaks. The UCLA streak was amassed over a period of 10 years. The first two, the AP only rated its Top 10; after that they went to a Top 20, so for comparison purposes I can't include Duke's games against teams ranked 21-25, because those didn't exist when UCLA had their streak. So UCLA played 56 of its 288 games in its streak against Top 20 teams, which is 19.4%. (understanding they potentially lose a little ground for the first two years, when AP only went 10 deep).

Duke has played 45 Top 20 opponents during its 216 game streak, which is 20.8%.

It hard to draw comparison to what teams have done in different eras. There were less teams then and student athletes tended to stay for longer periods (4 years). Now there is much more competition for recruits with the understanding that many will go to the NBA. I don't think comparisons can be drawn that are meaningful. UCLA was a great team in their era and no one doubts that. What Duke is doing is best compared to other teams in the same era.

JasonEvans
12-23-2013, 09:22 PM
we got 1053 points last week...we got 1108 points this week...so we got 55 more points THIS week than last week....so pretending that somehow we got snubbed by the voters is silly....what likely happened is teams (namely uconn) lost last week so voters wanted to reallocate their votes (assuming they had uconn above nova or duke)....some gave their votes to nova, some gave their votes to duke....a few more gave votes to nova than duke...but each team got a healthy share

we were tied last week, we're 8 points down now.....out of 1000....that's like .8% difference....not a snub....

Listen, uh_no. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge anti-Duke conspiracies and, worse still, present objective analysis and facts to prove the anti-Duke conspiracy theories wrong then I am going to be forced to revoke your DBR fan card.

I look forward to your acceptance of the reality of the GADA* in the future. Thanks for your support.

-Jason "GADA = Global Anti-Duke Alliance, Jay Bilas Founding member" Evans

FerryFor50
12-23-2013, 09:49 PM
not specifically you, CD, just the general befuddlement on this thread that we could have dropped a spot after such an impressive win

Befuddlement != being enraged or thinking there is a conspiracy.

Nothing you said explains why Nova got more votes. The argument was that they didn't deserve more votes.

Can you argue that Nova had a better week?

uh_no
12-23-2013, 09:55 PM
Befuddlement != being enraged or thinking there is a conspiracy.

Nothing you said explains why Nova got more votes. The argument was that they didn't deserve more votes.

Can you argue that Nova had a better week?

not everybody votes based on week by week results, often people vote based on seasons accomplishments, or record, or potential. it's even possible that the extra votes mainly came from people whose ordering last week was

duke
uconn
villanova

who are now forced to bump nova up a spot due to the uconn loss.

subzero02
12-23-2013, 10:52 PM
We'll, with Notre Dame's loss of Grant due to academic troubles, our chance of maintaining our streak for at least several more weeks increases significantly

throatybeard
12-24-2013, 12:12 AM
They are all against us! They all must die!

sagegrouse
12-24-2013, 12:29 AM
Befuddlement != being enraged or thinking there is a conspiracy.

Nothing you said explains why Nova got more votes. The argument was that they didn't deserve more votes.

Can you argue that Nova had a better week?

Duke is by far the highest ranked team with two losses. Ya' know the voters don't put a lot of thought into early-season voting -- who the heck knows how good anyone really is?

DBFAN
12-24-2013, 02:18 PM
While I understand looking at the entire season so far, I still can't figure out why after playing their best game of the year, after their D held down the best offense in the country to 63 pts, and just plain flat out playing better, why did they fall one spot. Aren't the voters also suppose to take account of a teams progress. I just find it to be extremely silly, and really have to wonder how much game play these voters actually watch

DBFAN
12-24-2013, 02:26 PM
So I just looked at the Coaches poll as well (only looked at AP In previous reply) and see that Wichita State jumps us, and UNC after losing to Texas and almost losing to Davidson only falls one spot. This is the COACHES poll, with people who should be held more accountable. I don't care who Wichita State beat or Villanova beat, their is no way on Earth those coaches pick those guys over us in a real life situation. Just don't get it

uh_no
12-24-2013, 03:01 PM
While I understand looking at the entire season so far, I still can't figure out why after playing their best game of the year, after their D held down the best offense in the country to 63 pts, and just plain flat out playing better, why did they fall one spot. Aren't the voters also suppose to take account of a teams progress. I just find it to be extremely silly, and really have to wonder how much game play these voters actually watch

duke got more points this week than last...so duke was rewarded for winning that game. just because they happened to fall somewhere else on the list doesn't mean that anybody voted irrationally...you simply can't take the final list and use it to infer how any individual voter voted.....it's simply likely that villanova benefitted more from uconn's loss than duke did....

think about it like this

5 voters voted last week as follows:

uconn villanova duke
uconn duke villanova
duke uconn villanova
villanova duke uconn
villanova duke uconn

in this scenario

duke would have 10
villanova would have 10
uconn would have 10

uconn loses

so this week everyone votes as follows

villanova duke uconn
duke villanova uconn
duke villanova uconn
villanova duke uconn
villanova duke uconn

duke would have 12 points
villanova would have 13 points
uconn would have 5

OMG DUKE DROPPED A SPOT!!!! THE VOTERS ARE MORONS AND DON'T WATCH THE GAMEZZZZZ

now tell me, which of the five voters in that scenario acted irrationally? That's how the polls work....voters all (mostly) vote rationally, and sometimes that produces results that go slightly against conventional wisdom....we got more points this week, therefore we weren't being snubbed by anyone. we are within a couple points of villanova, which is probably within whatever margin of error anyway....you could do the poll again today, and the point totals would probably be different.


So I just looked at the Coaches poll as well (only looked at AP In previous reply) and see that Wichita State jumps us, and UNC after losing to Texas and almost losing to Davidson only falls one spot. This is the COACHES poll, with people who should be held more accountable. I don't care who Wichita State beat or Villanova beat, their is no way on Earth those coaches pick those guys over us in a real life situation. Just don't get it

the coaches have always been open that they don't really watch the games other than the ones they're prepping for...whether THEY actually vote rationally is debatable

OldPhiKap
12-24-2013, 03:07 PM
While I understand looking at the entire season so far, I still can't figure out why after playing their best game of the year, after their D held down the best offense in the country to 63 pts, and just plain flat out playing better, why did they fall one spot. Aren't the voters also suppose to take account of a teams progress. I just find it to be extremely silly, and really have to wonder how much game play these voters actually watch


So I just looked at the Coaches poll as well (only looked at AP In previous reply) and see that Wichita State jumps us, and UNC after losing to Texas and almost losing to Davidson only falls one spot. This is the COACHES poll, with people who should be held more accountable. I don't care who Wichita State beat or Villanova beat, their is no way on Earth those coaches pick those guys over us in a real life situation. Just don't get it

We are being punished because devildeac hates Christmas and small children.

Or, uh_no nailed it.

Could be a mixture of both, I suppose.

brevity
12-24-2013, 03:13 PM
I don't care who Wichita State beat or Villanova beat, their is no way on Earth those coaches pick those guys over us in a real life situation. Just don't get it

There's your problem. I don't know if "I pay less attention than the voters" is the best argument. Also, spending time each week evaluating the top 25 by determining who might beat who head-to-head is a massive waste of time. You can start out that way, but by sometime in January you'll be comparing the potential #22 and #23 teams in your mind before you, predictably, break. Then you wear ties that match your highlighters and talk about "the eye test," because that's all you can do to talk about basketball without fracturing the last functional corner of your mind.

Rankings have almost nothing to do with head-to-head matchups, whether hypothetical or real. A lifetime ago I made a Sweet 16-type power ranking every week over the course of a season. It's exhausting. Schools you like keep beating each other up. Schools you don't like have the audacity of continuing to win. You die a little inside when you have to place Team B ahead of Team A, even though Team A beat Team B ages ago. After a while you start to see about 3 teams worthy of being a 1 seed, one solid 2 seed, and about 12 teams you'd love to stick at the 4 seed. Or worse, you can only find about 11 teams for your rankings, and you need to dip into a very large middle tier and pick 5 teams you thought you'd written off. It gets ugly. I'd hate to be a nationally published voter, even if I could hide amongst a large group.

So to be honest, I'm not even sure if "I pay more attention than the voters" is all that great an argument either. I recommend everyone try to run their own polls for a whole season and see how it goes. (You can still reach your notepad from that comfortable armchair.) You want to rank Duke #1 every week? Fine, it's your poll. You'll still learn a valuable lesson just from sorting out everyone else.

There were times that I did pay more attention than the voters, but now I am happy to leave the work to them.

DBFAN
12-24-2013, 05:30 PM
So while I agree that the rankings and Polls at this time of the year don't mean much, that is not the perception of the general public. You always want to strive to be thought of in the best light. Like it or Not there are benefits to being perceived as a better team. And all the big teams receive those benefits. But what really bothers me is that, no matter how trivial it may be, the streak is important. It may not matter in the short term, but in the long run it is an amazing feat, and for these kids to somehow be slighted,even tho they busted their humps, and played great ball last week, is a shame. Especially because people weren't paying attention, or just don't care. It prob wouldn't have bothered me as much if I hadn't seen that UNC only fell 1 spot, even tho they lost one, and nearly lost to a team that we could have beaten by 40 if K had wanted to

JasonEvans
12-25-2013, 09:35 AM
Please note that some posts that got far, far afield from the point of this thread have been moved here (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?32681-Holiday-themed-funny-stuff-%28moved-from-another-thread%29).


-Jason

gam7
12-26-2013, 02:17 PM
I put together a precise list of the number of AP Top 10 appearances by program since the beginning of Duke's streak. I started with the numbers since the beginning of the 2007-08 season, and then just subtracted out the appearances by teams during the first three weeks of that season when Duke was ranked outside of the Top 10. I will update periodically.

Here it is:


The Duke Streak: AP Top 10 Appearances Since 11.26.07

Total polls: 121

Team Appearances Percentage
Duke 121 100.0%
Kansas 89 73.6%
Syracuse 74 61.2%
UNC 67 55.4%
Mich St. 64 52.9%
Ohio St. 62 51.2%
UK 51 42.1%
Louisville 47 38.8%
Uconn 43 35.5%
Pitt 42 34.7%
Texas 42 34.7%
Nova 35 28.9%
G'town 32 26.4%
Purdue 27 22.3%
Memphis 25 20.7%
Indiana 24 19.8%
Florida 24 19.8%
Tennessee 23 19.0%
Michigan 23 19.0%
Arizona 22 18.2%
Mizzou 22 18.2%
UCLA 21 17.4%
Gonzaga 21 17.4%
WVU 18 14.9%
Baylor 17 14.0%
Oklahoma 16 13.2%
K State 16 13.2%
Notre Dame 14 11.6%
SDSU 13 10.7%
Wisconsin 13 10.7%
Marquette 12 9.9%
Wake 12 9.9%
Wash St. 10 8.3%
Xavier 10 8.3%
BYU 9 7.4%
OK State 8 6.6%
Miami 7 5.8%
Stanford 6 5.0%
New Mexico 5 4.1%
Butler 5 4.1%
Minn 3 2.5%
Clemson 3 2.5%
NC State 2 1.7%
Murray St. 2 1.7%
Texas A&M 2 1.7%
Illinois 2 1.7%
Vandy 1 0.8%
Cincinnati 1 0.8%
FSU 1 0.8%
Oregon 1 0.8%
VCU 1 0.8%
Wichita St. 1 0.8%

luburch
12-30-2013, 12:50 PM
Duke moves up to #7 this week.

NYBri
12-30-2013, 12:50 PM
Onward. We jumped up to #7 with losses to 'Nova and L'ville.

Just keep winning and the polls/streak will take care of itself.

gam7
12-30-2013, 06:16 PM
Below is an updated (as of 12.30.13) table of AP Top 10 appearances by program since the beginning of Duke's streak.


The Duke Streak: AP Top 10 Appearances Since 11.26.07

Total polls: 122

Team Appearances Percentage
Duke 122 100.0%
Kansas 89 73.0%
Syracuse 75 61.5%
UNC 67 54.9%
Mich St. 65 53.3%
Ohio St. 63 51.6%
UK 51 41.8%
Louisville 47 38.5%
Uconn 43 35.2%
Pitt 42 34.4%
Texas 42 34.4%
Nova 35 28.7%
Georgetown 32 26.2%
Purdue 27 22.1%
Memphis 25 20.5%
Indiana 24 19.7%
Florida 24 19.7%
Tennessee 23 18.9%
Michigan 23 18.9%
Arizona 23 18.9%
Mizzou 22 18.0%
UCLA 21 17.2%
Gonzaga 21 17.2%
WVU 18 14.8%
Baylor 18 14.8%
Oklahoma 16 13.1%
K State 16 13.1%
Notre Dame 14 11.5%
Wisconsin 14 11.5%
SDSU 13 10.7%
Marquette 12 9.8%
Wake 12 9.8%
Washington St. 10 8.2%
Xavier 10 8.2%
BYU 9 7.4%
OK State 9 7.4%
Miami 7 5.7%
Stanford 6 4.9%
New Mexico 5 4.1%
Butler 5 4.1%
Minn 3 2.5%
Clemson 3 2.5%
NC State 2 1.6%
Murray St. 2 1.6%
Texas A&M 2 1.6%
Illinois 2 1.6%
Oregon 2 1.6%
Wichita St. 2 1.6%
Vandy 1 0.8%
Cincinnati 1 0.8%
FSU 1 0.8%
VCU 1 0.8%

subzero02
12-30-2013, 06:45 PM
I put together a precise list of the number of AP Top 10 appearances by program since the beginning of Duke's streak. I started with the numbers since the beginning of the 2007-08 season, and then just subtracted out the appearances by teams during the first three weeks of that season when Duke was ranked outside of the Top 10. I will update periodically.

Here it is:


The Duke Streak: AP Top 10 Appearances Since 11.26.07

Total polls: 121

Team Appearances Percentage
Duke 121 100.0%
Kansas 89 73.6%
Syracuse 74 61.2%
UNC 67 55.4%
Mich St. 64 52.9%
Ohio St. 62 51.2%
UK 51 42.1%
Louisville 47 38.8%
Uconn 43 35.5%
Pitt 42 34.7%
Texas 42 34.7%
Nova 35 28.9%
G'town 32 26.4%
Purdue 27 22.3%
Memphis 25 20.7%
Indiana 24 19.8%
Florida 24 19.8%
Tennessee 23 19.0%
Michigan 23 19.0%
Arizona 22 18.2%
Mizzou 22 18.2%
UCLA 21 17.4%
Gonzaga 21 17.4%
WVU 18 14.9%
Baylor 17 14.0%
Oklahoma 16 13.2%
K State 16 13.2%
Notre Dame 14 11.6%
SDSU 13 10.7%
Wisconsin 13 10.7%
Marquette 12 9.9%
Wake 12 9.9%
Wash St. 10 8.3%
Xavier 10 8.3%
BYU 9 7.4%
OK State 8 6.6%
Miami 7 5.8%
Stanford 6 5.0%
New Mexico 5 4.1%
Butler 5 4.1%
Minn 3 2.5%
Clemson 3 2.5%
NC State 2 1.7%
Murray St. 2 1.7%
Texas A&M 2 1.7%
Illinois 2 1.7%
Vandy 1 0.8%
Cincinnati 1 0.8%
FSU 1 0.8%
Oregon 1 0.8%
VCU 1 0.8%
Wichita St. 1 0.8%

Very interesting... I was surprised that syracuse and pitt were so high on the list

uh_no
12-30-2013, 10:08 PM
Very interesting... I was surprised that syracuse and pitt were so high on the list

pitt has had some very good teams, think back to 2009, they were a #1 seed and one of the best teams in the country.....so that's about 20 polls worth for that year alone

johnb
12-31-2013, 12:55 AM
Below is an updated (as of 12.30.13) table of AP Top 10 appearances by program since the beginning of Duke's streak.


The Duke Streak: AP Top 10 Appearances Since 11.26.07

Total polls: 122

Team Appearances Percentage
Duke 122 100.0%
Kansas 89 73.0%
Syracuse 75 61.5%
UNC 67 54.9%
Mich St. 65 53.3%
Ohio St. 63 51.6%
UK 51 41.8%
Louisville 47 38.5%
Uconn 43 35.2%
Pitt 42 34.4%
Texas 42 34.4%
Nova 35 28.7%
Georgetown 32 26.2%
Purdue 27 22.1%
Memphis 25 20.5%
Indiana 24 19.7%
Florida 24 19.7%
Tennessee 23 18.9%
Michigan 23 18.9%
Arizona 23 18.9%
Mizzou 22 18.0%
UCLA 21 17.2%
Gonzaga 21 17.2%
WVU 18 14.8%
Baylor 18 14.8%
Oklahoma 16 13.1%
K State 16 13.1%
Notre Dame 14 11.5%
Wisconsin 14 11.5%
SDSU 13 10.7%
Marquette 12 9.8%
Wake 12 9.8%
Washington St. 10 8.2%
Xavier 10 8.2%
BYU 9 7.4%
OK State 9 7.4%
Miami 7 5.7%
Stanford 6 4.9%
New Mexico 5 4.1%
Butler 5 4.1%
Minn 3 2.5%
Clemson 3 2.5%
NC State 2 1.6%
Murray St. 2 1.6%
Texas A&M 2 1.6%
Illinois 2 1.6%
Oregon 2 1.6%
Wichita St. 2 1.6%
Vandy 1 0.8%
Cincinnati 1 0.8%
FSU 1 0.8%
VCU 1 0.8%


interesting--thanks for the effort.

I was a little surprised by butler being so low.

if anyone wants an additional project, how does college football compare in regards to its tendency for the top programs to dominate the polls?

CameronBornAndBred
01-04-2014, 06:13 PM
We now know how long the streak lasts.

uh_no
01-04-2014, 06:15 PM
We now know how long the streak lasts.

'twas a good run

flyingdutchdevil
01-04-2014, 06:15 PM
Please close this thread. Thanks

arnie
01-04-2014, 06:17 PM
We now know how long the streak lasts.

Yep. Didn't deserve to win - team has a lot of issues, as have been thoroughly dissected on the threads.

PSurprise
01-04-2014, 06:44 PM
Maybe the rest of the top 10 (and 20) will lose this week. There's still hope!! :)

pfrduke
01-04-2014, 06:52 PM
Maybe the rest of the top 10 (and 20) will lose this week. There's still hope!! :)

OK State has already helped us out (of course, they're above us, so not much help).

Oregon (#10) will have a tough matchup at Colorado. Florida (#12) needed a late push to beat Richmond at home. Iowa State (#13) looked good on the road at Texas Tech - I could see them jumping a bunch of spots as they're still undefeated. Baylor (#9) is inactive, which doesn't help. Wichita St (#9) hosts Northern Iowa and is likely to win. If Oregon loses, I think the question is whether people put Florida ahead of us - if not, I could see us staying at 10 (behind ISU, Baylor, and WSU). If Oregon wins, I think we're 11 regardless.

PSurprise
01-04-2014, 07:03 PM
Maybe the rest of the top 10 (and 20) will lose this week. There's still hope!! :)

Haha, completely forgot it's already Saturday. That'll make it a little more difficult :)

YmoBeThere
01-04-2014, 07:18 PM
All good things eventually come to an end. Besides, the streak really didn't mean anything anyway...

FerryFor50
01-05-2014, 07:25 PM
OK State has already helped us out (of course, they're above us, so not much help).

Oregon (#10) will have a tough matchup at Colorado. Florida (#12) needed a late push to beat Richmond at home. Iowa State (#13) looked good on the road at Texas Tech - I could see them jumping a bunch of spots as they're still undefeated. Baylor (#9) is inactive, which doesn't help. Wichita St (#9) hosts Northern Iowa and is likely to win. If Oregon loses, I think the question is whether people put Florida ahead of us - if not, I could see us staying at 10 (behind ISU, Baylor, and WSU). If Oregon wins, I think we're 11 regardless.

Looks like Colorado did the job. Maybe Duke drops to #10 to keep the streak alive. :)

CameronBornAndBred
01-05-2014, 08:23 PM
Looks like Colorado did the job. Maybe Duke drops to #10 to keep the streak alive. :)
I still think we drop to at least 11. But you never know....

Ima Facultiwyfe
01-05-2014, 08:28 PM
This would be a good year to come back and win an NC!
Love, Ima

uh_no
01-05-2014, 09:58 PM
This would be a good year to come back and win an NC!
Love, Ima

what year isn't?

NSDukeFan
01-05-2014, 10:12 PM
what year isn't?

2010. That team had some fatal flaws exposed in the NC State and Georgetown games. I didn't enjoy that run to the championship at all. Ok, maybe not quite true. Yeah, I agree a run to an NC is always fun. Usually, the rest of the year is as well.

jv001
01-06-2014, 07:37 AM
AP poll= too many unc grads voting = Duke dropping below number 10. GoDuke!

Dev11
01-06-2014, 12:52 PM
We're #16, one of two ranked ACC teams (Syracuse remains at 2). We're behind Colorado and Kentucky.

http://collegebasketball.ap.org/poll

FerryFor50
01-06-2014, 12:54 PM
We're #16, one of two ranked ACC teams (Syracuse remains at 2). We're behind Colorado and Kentucky.

http://collegebasketball.ap.org/poll

wow..... 16????

I could understand 4-5 spots. But 9?

uh_no
01-06-2014, 12:59 PM
wow..... 16????

I could understand 4-5 spots. But 9?

what have we done to deserve being ranked at all? our best win is against a team that isn't ranked anymore, and in our two tests against currently ranked teams, we've failed.

we were up in the top 10 on name and reputation, and we haven't lived up to it.....we had a bad quarterly earnings, and we just got thwacked by investors....gotta give em a reason to get back on board.

Blue KevIL
01-06-2014, 01:02 PM
Don't think I have ever seen a Top-10 team drop 9 slots before for a two-point loss to a high-major opponent like Notre Dame.
Seems like the AP voters had itchy trigger fingers and could not wait to pounce on Duke for a loss of any kind.

Oh well... Next Play

CDu
01-06-2014, 01:05 PM
what have we done to deserve being ranked at all? our best win is against a team that isn't ranked anymore, and in our two tests against currently ranked teams, we've failed.

we were up in the top 10 on name and reputation, and we haven't lived up to it.....we had a bad quarterly earnings, and we just got thwacked by investors....gotta give em a reason to get back on board.

I agree. There is nothing about this team's performance that suggests we should be in the top-15. We lost to an unranked team. We lost to a very young team that is ranked below us at #18. We haven't beaten a single top-25 team all season.

I would argue that we really shouldn't have been in the top-10 this past week. Looking at the 15 teams above us, I don't see a single team against whom we have a strong argument. I think the 9-spot drop was more an acknowledgement that we were being overrated previously rather than a specific statement about the quality of our loss this past week.

Des Esseintes
01-06-2014, 01:05 PM
Don't think I have ever seen a Top-10 team drop 9 slots before for a two-point loss to a high-major opponent like Notre Dame.
Seems like the AP voters had itchy trigger fingers and could not wait to pounce on Duke for a loss of any kind.

Oh well... Next Play

Nah. We were the highest-ranked two-loss team. We fell as hard as we did because we have three losses. These positions aren't birthrights. In any case, the beauty of polls is that they take care of themselves as long as you win.

Matches
01-06-2014, 01:06 PM
I love it. Great little bit of motivational fodder for K this week.

Bay Area Duke Fan
01-06-2014, 01:09 PM
Let's see what happens the next ten weeks.

Rankings aren't really important. It's championships that count.

CDu
01-06-2014, 01:09 PM
Nah. We were the highest-ranked two-loss team. We fell as hard as we did because we have three losses. These positions aren't birthrights. In any case, the beauty of polls is that they take care of themselves as long as you win.

Exactly. We were probably over-spotted coming into last week (borderline top-10 team at best based on results this season). We lost, which bumped us after correction for the previous situation.

We are currently the #2 team with 3 losses. The only team above us with 3 losses is Kentucky, who has a more impressive resume (all of their losses are to ranked teams, and they actually have a win over a team in the top-25).

There isn't a single team against whom I could make a reasonable argument that Duke should be ranked above. The pollsters have it right this week - they had it wrong in previous weeks.

We have top-10 talent. We have not played top-10 basketball this season, though.

And as Bay Area Duke Fan says, it really doesn't matter. Win games. The rest will fall into place.

uh_no
01-06-2014, 01:10 PM
Don't think I have ever seen a Top-10 team drop 9 slots before for a two-point loss to a high-major opponent like Notre Dame.
Seems like the AP voters had itchy trigger fingers and could not wait to pounce on Duke for a loss of any kind.

Oh well... Next Play

i'm not sure that is the case as it took them three losses before we dropped big....more leeway than some other teams had....

Blue KevIL
01-06-2014, 01:10 PM
Nah. We were the highest-ranked two-loss team. We fell as hard as we did because we have three losses. These positions aren't birthrights. In any case, the beauty of polls is that they take care of themselves as long as you win.

Normally, I'd agree... but I'm confused as to how Iowa moves up two spots -- and reaches its highest ranking of the season -- after losing at Wisconsin last night.

Highlander
01-06-2014, 01:10 PM
wow..... 16????

I could understand 4-5 spots. But 9?

If I look at our record objectively, it is tough for me to explain why we were in the top 10 last week. There were a number of teams directly below us with better overall records. We were the only team in the top 10 with more than 1 loss, and now we have 3. We have no marquee wins, but no bad losses either (SOS only helps you if you win some of your tough games, and we have not). We basically got a pass on the Zona game since they are #1, but ND was our first loss to an unranked team. In addition, Kansas (who was top 5 when they beat us), has dropped 4 games including one to SD State this week, making our loss there look less forgivable.

Based on what I have seen so far, I don't think we have earned a place in the top 10, and have been ranked higher than we deserved because of our prestige. So I see this as a bit of a market correction.

CDu
01-06-2014, 01:12 PM
Normally, I'd agree... but I'm confused as to how Iowa moves up two spots -- and reaches its highest ranking of the season -- after losing at Wisconsin last night.

A close loss at Wisconsin (#4 in the country and undefeated and arguably the hardest place to go and get a win) is no reason to drop in the rankings.

This was not a case of the pollsters looking to hammer Duke. If anything, it was a correction for us being over-ranked for the previous couple of weeks.

hurleyfor3
01-06-2014, 01:48 PM
In any event, we can shut up now.