MBB: Duke 95, NC State 60 Post-Game Thread

[JBDuke]

Put your post-game thoughts here.

[NYBri]

Best game this year! Love the changes K has made. I think we are back!

[chaosmage]

Now that was the best basketball I've seen out of us this year. Hands down. Started a little slow, but you could tell some of it was because of what I would call some major overhauls to the play style. Looked fantastic and the kids looked like they had a blast. Let's hope this keeps up!

Go Duke!

[Lunchab1es]

This is the way I had been hoping we would play all season :D. Let's hope it continues! Next play!

[FerryFor50]

State is bad. Duke is good and playing like it.

Result? 35 point win.

Hopefully can keep the machine running against Miami!

[NYBri]

Motion offense. Playing 11 deep. Full court pressure. Love it. We have talent. Let's use it.

[h8lightblue]

Presidential performance!

[uh_no]

certainly the most complete game we've played all year. rebounding took a bit to pick up.....but no complaints...great game all around.

[Indoor66]

The best passing I have seen this year. Everybody had their head up.

[FerryFor50]

Also, heckuva game by Hairston. 5 boards and a tip dunk. Precisely what Duke needs out of him.

[CLW]

Yes State is AWFUL but it was by far the best effort to date this season. The defensive intensity was there leading to a ton of turnovers which covers for our inability to rebound and/or defend the post.

[Indoor66]

Yes State is AWFUL but it was by far the best effort to date this season. The defensive intensity was there leading to a ton of turnovers which covers for our inability to rebound and/or defend the post.

Gee, we did both today. What happened?

[FerryFor50]

Gee, we did both today. What happened?

He must have missed that part of the game.

However, State was better on the glass to start the game. They were +10 at one point.

Kudos to Duke for closing that gap to edge them.

[wsb3]

My kind of game. My kind of effort..Love it. We kept the foot on them and did not allow them to get back up.

[NYBri]

Now that was the best basketball I've seen out of us this year. Hands down.

That was the best basketball I've seen out of us in maybe a couple of years.

[CLW]

Gee, we did both today. What happened?

I don't think many here question that two of the biggest holes this year is on the glass and defending the post. My point is simply you can cover for those problems by forcing a ton of turnovers.

Don't forget we did start out the game 0-13 in rebounds against State if memory serves.

[MartyClark]

Wow. I did not expect this result. On to Miami!

[Troublemaker]

State's big men had a combined 15 points and 7 turnovers.

LOL. Great gameplan, guys.

[AncientPsychicT]

That's what I'm talking about.

[uh_no]

That was the best basketball I've seen out of us in maybe a couple of years.

uhhh...we played some pretty darn good basketball at points last year...especially pre kelly injury...and that was against teams far better than this NCSU team.

we played pretty well, at least as well as we've played all year, but lets not go crazy....this was still against a pretty poor team. we'll see how we stack up against pitt in a couple weeks

[NYBri]

uhhh...we played some pretty darn good basketball at points last year...especially pre kelly injury...and that was against teams far better than this NCSU team.

we played pretty well, at least as well as we've played all year, but lets not go crazy....this was still against a pretty poor team. we'll see how we stack up against pitt in a couple weeks

Point taken. I'm just so glad to see some life injected back into this team that maybe my memory is cloudy. Well maybe I'm just suffering from Lehigh hangover. :)

[FerryFor50]

I don't think many here question that two of the biggest holes this year is on the glass and defending the post. My point is simply you can cover for those problems by forcing a ton of turnovers.

Don't forget we did start out the game 0-13 in rebounds against State if memory serves.

Actually you would find some that disagree with that.

Defending the post is not the same as allowing points in the paint. Against Duke this year, that has come off of dribble penetration.

And Kedsy has posted many times about how this is one of the best rebounding teams in years based on rebounding %.

[devildeac]

Welcome back, Mr. Parker:D.

[Indoor66]

He must have missed that part of the game.

However, State was better on the glass to start the game. They were +10 at one point.

Kudos to Duke for closing that gap to edge them.

Yea, but they play for forty minutes before they run the boxscore.

[Newton_14]

uhhh...we played some pretty darn good basketball at points last year...especially pre kelly injury...and that was against teams far better than this NCSU team.

we played pretty well, at least as well as we've played all year, but lets not go crazy....this was still against a pretty poor team. we'll see how we stack up against pitt in a couple weeks

Bad team or not we beat them down and more than double the point spread so it was a dominant performance on both ends. That's big. Winning by single digits or 11/12 points would have been far less impressive.

Today was a great team performance in all areas of the game.

Only goal for now is to go beat Miami and get the road monkey off our back. One game at a time for the forseeable future should be the mindset for this team. Work to improve each time out.

[jv001]

Also, heckuva game by Hairston. 5 boards and a tip dunk. Precisely what Duke needs out of him.

Very good game from Josh and maybe is best at Duke. It looks like the senior captain didn't like what the State bigs had to say about Duke's big men. GoDuke!

[OldPhiKap]

State's big men had a combined 15 points and 7 turnovers.

LOL. Great gameplan, guys.

Guess they should not have run their mouths about how they were going to kill us inside.

Inner monologue.

[porkpa]

I love that we played our bench extensively and they responded so well. We have a lot of talent on this team. So nice to see it being utilized.

[Furniture]

For the most part Sheed had a very good game. He did two or three times what many people had been asking for by driving to the basket and then passing off for an assist. Good to see Jabari back to a very good level.
Great performance by the team!

[timmy c]

State's big men had a combined 15 points and 7 turnovers.

LOL. Great gameplan, guys.

I was shocked by these numbers. As the game went on, and the refs allowed the physical play, I thought State would begin to pound it inside. I knew they were bad, but not this bad.

[jv001]

For the most part Sheed had a very good game. He did two or three times what many people had been asking for by driving to the basket and then passing off for an assist. Good to see Jabari back to a very good level.
Great performance by the team!

I think Rasheed led the team with 6 assists and only 2 turnovers. I like the way he runs the delay game offense. He has good court vision. At least today he did. GoDuke!

[kAzE]

Called it! (from the Virginia post-game thread):


Agreed with all of your points, but I think we do have a top 5 offense in the nation. It hasn't been great the past few games because our best offensive player is mired in an extended slump. Hood has been the one offensively consistent guy who has carried us through this rough stretch, but when Jabari gets hot again, with the way Jefferson and Sulaimon are playing right now, look out. Because of his ability to hit score from anywhere on the court, when Jabari is playing well, it opens up the offense for everyone else, and everything just becomes easier.

It hasn't materialized yet, but one of these days, we're going to have a game where 4 or 5 guys are just going to have it going offensively, and I hope it happens at Pitt or at Syracuse, because when it happens, it's going to be fun to watch, and everyone's going to see how good we can be. I love the motion offense, and I hope we continue to get better at it and keep sharing the ball. That's the key.

Amazing game, and so much fun to watch!! These were my big takeaways:

1. Welcome back, Jabari Parker! Jabari had his best game as a Duke Blue Devil today. It wasn't his career high in scoring, but it was easily far and away his best game defensively. He showed that he's capable of playing really great D when he wants to, and the effort was there all night long. On offense, his teammates did a great job of getting him the ball in great position to score, and he did a great job of finishing plays. GREAT game, and he was the MOTM in a game where 5 or 6 guys were deserving of MOTM.

2. It's clearly become a Thabo Sefolosha/James Harden situation with Matt Jones and Sulaimon. Jones has played well as a starter, and clearly deserves to stay in the lineup. Sulaimon should continue to come off the bench, but it's clear what their roles on the team are, judging by their respective usages and by the fact that Jones was on the floor in ultra-garbage time while Sulaimon was not.

3. Throwing a bone out there, not sure if this theory has legs, but I had originally thought that Sulaimon had issues playing with Hood and Parker on the floor at the same time, but in this game, he struggled somewhat in the first half and the start of the second until about the 15 minute mark or so, when Cook came out of the game. From that point on, it was the Sulaimon show, and he took over the game. It actually looked like James Harden out there, the way he was taking it to the hole, getting to the free throw line and hitting long range jumpers, just doing it all. He also showed great ability to create off the bounce at the end of a shot clock as well as continuing to be a nice distributor (in my opinion, he's always been a great passer). Call me crazy, but I think he's the back up point guard now. Thornton is a "point guard" in name only. Sulaimon does the job of a point guard when Cook isn't in the game, and I think he plays WAY better when Cook isn't on the floor. He's a much better slasher than Cook, and really, has the potential to be a better passer. He tends to turn over the ball and make more mistakes than Cook, but his ceiling as a distributor is, in my opinion much higher because he's more of a threat to get in the paint and finish through contact. Cook should obviously continue to be the starting point guard because of his steadiness and low turnover rate, but I think Sulaimon is showing enough PG chops that I think a redistribution of minutes at the PG position akin to what we saw tonight might be a good thing. It keeps both of them fresh and fuels our intense pressure D. Like I said, I originally thought he wasn't meshing well with Parker and Hood, but I think his game actually clashes more with Cook. He's just not a great off-the-ball player. Need to keep monitoring this situation to see if it holds up.

4. Jefferson: He just gets better and better every game. He does EVERYTHING that is a gap in everyone else's game. He's the ultimate glue guy, and it's amazing to see him gain confidence with every game. He's becoming one of the leaders on this team right now, and I'd bet the farm he's a captain next year.

5. It finally looks like a team out there. A cohesive unit on both ends of the floor. Really fun to watch. Just beautiful. Great game.

6. Josh Hairston can dunk?

7. That dunk attempt by Dawkins would have gone down as a top 5 Duke dunk . . . so close.

[MCFinARL]

Bad team or not we beat them down and more than double the point spread so it was a dominant performance on both ends. That's big. Winning by single digits or 11/12 points would have been far less impressive.

Today was a great team performance in all areas of the game.

Only goal for now is to go beat Miami and get the road monkey off our back. One game at a time for the forseeable future should be the mindset for this team. Work to improve each time out.

Couldn't agree more. One game at a time.

[uh_no]

Bad team or not we beat them down and more than double the point spread so it was a dominant performance on both ends. That's big. Winning by single digits or 11/12 points would have been far less impressive.

Today was a great team performance in all areas of the game.

Only goal for now is to go beat Miami and get the road monkey off our back. One game at a time for the forseeable future should be the mindset for this team. Work to improve each time out.

i'm not denying that we didn't look phenomenal in everything we did today, just long term, we need to stack up against a top tier team again to really judge our improvement....else we don't know if this is real improvement (as the eye test would appear) or simply wisconsin effect. we saw a similar performance against a similarly ranked eastern michigan team, and then we regressed again when we played the slightly better ND and much better clemson teams.

i'm not denying this isn't a great performance, it's something we ought to do to get where we want to be....just that we can't really say unequivocally that the team is much improved over a month ago until we see how we stack up against better teams as well.

obviously pitt is a hgue one, but the teams get better and better the next three games....with miami FSU and PITT.

The team can do a great deal over that stretch to convince me a corner has been turned. It can also convince me that the team is stagnating.

so to be clear....kudos today, keep showing performances like this as the teams get better.

[Furniture]

I was shocked by these numbers. As the game went on, and the refs allowed the physical play, I thought State would begin to pound it inside. I knew they were bad, but not this bad.

Or maybe Duke were just REALLY good today?

[Saratoga2]

All the players got in and played with energy. With so many able to play and contribute, the energy level is higher and the defense can apply pressure for 40 minutes. Applying pressure causes turnovers and makes our lack of size less of a problem. The motion offense, pushing the ball and hitting the open man just made us difficult to defend.

It is hard to single out players since just about everyone had shining moments but I would like to mention Rasheed who drove and dished several times to set up Parker and maybe Jefferson. Parker was back to his excellent scoring and good rebounding showing much more energy. The guy that I feel has made the most progress though is Amile. He is really smart and knows how to make the most of his opportunities. He seems to be in the right spot and doesn't turn the ball over. He is morphing into a star quality player as the season progresses.

Semi wasn't in as much as some but he knocked down his free throws. That is one strong looking kid.

One sad thought that I had is would Alex have transferred had we gone to this substitution strategy earlier? Having another 6'8" 225# player wouldn't hurt going forward. Oh well, I just liked the kid and hoped he would get the chance to Blossom at Duke.

[Indoor66]

i'm not denying that we didn't look phenomenal in everything we did today, just long term, we need to stack up against a top tier team again to really judge our improvement....else we don't know if this is real improvement (as the eye test would appear) or simply wisconsin effect. we saw a similar performance against a similarly ranked eastern michigan team, and then we regressed again when we played the slightly better ND and much better clemson teams.

i'm not denying this isn't a great performance, it's something we ought to do to get where we want to be....just that we can't really say unequivocally that the team is much improved over a month ago until we see how we stack up against better teams as well.

obviously pitt is a hgue one, but the teams get better and better the next three games....with miami FSU and PITT.

The team can do a great deal over that stretch to convince me a corner has been turned. It can also convince me that the team is stagnating.

so to be clear....kudos today, keep showing performances like this as the teams get better.

I have been waiting for a post like this since the Chat Room closed. :cool:

[OldSchool]

For the most part Sheed had a very good game. He did two or three times what many people had been asking for by driving to the basket and then passing off for an assist.

Six assists in 17 minutes. Very impressive. He is much more of a complete player when he is making plays for others as well as putting up shots.

[MCFinARL]

i'm not denying that we didn't look phenomenal in everything we did today, just long term, we need to stack up against a top tier team again to really judge our improvement....else we don't know if this is real improvement (as the eye test would appear) or simply wisconsin effect. we saw a similar performance against a similarly ranked eastern michigan team, and then we regressed again when we played the slightly better ND and much better clemson teams.

i'm not denying this isn't a great performance, it's something we ought to do to get where we want to be....just that we can't really say unequivocally that the team is much improved over a month ago until we see how we stack up against better teams as well.

obviously pitt is a hgue one, but the teams get better and better the next three games....with miami FSU and PITT.

The team can do a great deal over that stretch to convince me a corner has been turned. It can also convince me that the team is stagnating.

so to be clear....kudos today, keep showing performances like this as the teams get better.

So, if you aren't denying that we didn't look phenomenal, or that this isn't a great performance, I think that means you think we didn't look phenomenal and that this isn't a great performance--but I'm a bit tangled in the negatives....:)

[DukeBlueHeart4]

Hey guys! I missed the game today. Will there be a replay available online anywhere?

[bob blue devil]

tons of fun to watch; state is awful and our boys made them look like it - you can't ask for any more. i didn't see anything worth nitpicking in our performance, and there were a large number of folks who delivered heady, solid performances.

i loved watching rasheed deliver when given offensive point guard duties - it would be interesting to see how the first team would work if he spelled our enigmatic mr. cook in that role once in a while.

[meowmix911]

It's been fun watching Amile Jefferson improve over the course of this season, although he's obviously overshadowed by many other Duke stories. To date for the season, he is probably one of the most effective per minute rebounders that Duke has seen in quite some time. Reminds me a bit of Dennis Rodman. He has 118 boards in 351 played, minutes, or 14.5 boards per 40 minutes of play. He's quietly the most efficient rebounder in the ACC (or tied for a spot at the top).

I'm thinking this year that our team in tourney team exceeds expectations going into the tourney--that is I'm hoping that they continue to improve and gel in March, instead of peaking earlier as we've done in other seasons. Go Duke!

[SCMatt33]

I don't think many here question that two of the biggest holes this year is on the glass and defending the post. My point is simply you can cover for those problems by forcing a ton of turnovers.

Don't forget we did start out the game 0-13 in rebounds against State if memory serves.

NCSU did start 13-0 on the boards (including 7 offensive) in the first 6:27 of the game. Duke made up for it forcing 6 turnover in that time and had a 15-13 lead at the point of Duke's first rebound. In the final 33:33, however, Duke out-rebounded State 35-19 including 14-4 on offensive rebounds for a final line of 35-32 Duke and 14-11 Duke on the offensive end. Throw in Duke almost matching State's season high in turnovers in the first half alone, and a blowout was the result. So much for questioning Duke on the inside.

[OldSchool]

Phenomenal or par for the UVA performance?

Duke 69 UVA 65 = 4 point win
UVA 76 NC State 45 = 31 point win
4 + 31 = 35

Applying the transitive property of basketball, expected margin of victory = 35

Duke 95 NC State 60 = 35 point win

35 = 35 QED

[devildeac]

State's big men had a combined 15 points and 7 turnovers.

LOL. Great gameplan, guys.


Guess they should not have run their mouths about how they were going to kill us inside.

Inner monologue.

And we got 13/13 out of Amile and Josh in their 36 minutes. Just what the K ordered;).

[Troublemaker]

6. Josh Hairston can dunk?


kAzE, first off, great points about Sheed. I agree 100%

As for Josh, take a look at his high school clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Sp9I0rZts

A lot of people are surprised the first time they see that clip.

When Josh was a freshman, lots of people on this forum were railing on the coaching staff for not playing him enough. He was the key to stopping athletic 6'8" guys that gave us trouble, people surmised. Like when we lost to Arizona in the NCAAT, many folks were upset that Josh didn't get a chance to guard Derrick Williams and were worried that Josh was going to transfer. I'm completely serious.

Now that he's a senior, people crap all over him, thus completing Josh Hairston's loop.

Two years from now, when Marshall is a senior, people are going to crap on him and ask for him to be benched in favor of someone like Chase Jeter. Thus completing Marshall Plumlee's loop.

It's the Duke role player circle of life to be desired off the bench early in your career, then desired to be only seen in warmups later. Hakuna matata. "It means no jersey for the rest of your days."

[DesertDevil]

Great effort on the defensive end the entire game. Guys really hustled & made their D a priority.

AJ is really becoming a smart rebounder. Plays good position most of the time & finds his way into gaps when he's out of postion.

Jabari really let the game come to him today. Seemed like the last few games he was forcing the issue when it came to scoring. Glad to see him relax & just have fun playing the game today.

[kmspeaks]

It's been fun watching Amile Jefferson improve over the course of this season, although he's obviously overshadowed by many other Duke stories. To date for the season, he is probably one of the most effective per minute rebounders that Duke has seen in quite some time. Reminds me a bit of Dennis Rodman. He has 118 boards in 351 played, minutes, or 14.5 boards per 40 minutes of play. He's quietly the most efficient rebounder in the ACC (or tied for a spot at the top).

I loved watching Amile work on offense today and I'm becoming more and more excited to see how Duke uses him against Syracuse. Several times today he caught the ball at the elbow and rather then take an uncontested jumper he was patient and attacked either scoring or finding Jabari for an easy 2. It is very similar to the way Pitt is currently attacking the Cuse zone.

[porkpa]

Go figure college hoops. NC State beats Notre Dame. Notre Dame beats us. We destroy NC State.

[gurufrisbee]

Best game of the season. THIS was exactly what a lot of people (fans and so called experts) were thinking they would see from Duke this year - lots of offense weapons, lots of of depth, lots of effective pressuring of the ball over the court. A big reason it's finally working is Sheed - Coach K can sit the starting five including Jabari, Hood, and Cook and not be just dying on offense because of how well Sheed is playing right now. We're gonna still give up points in the paint (hopefully the ball pressure will stop more of those drives though) and we're still gonna get killed on rebounding (because anyone whose actually watching and not clingingly desparately to one misleading stat knows we're small and not good at rebounding), but THIS style of play can obviously overcome those items and be an extremely successful plan. Let's keep it up!

[GGLC]

Easily our best game of the year.

I loved the passing. I loved the aggressiveness. I loved seeing Amile and Andre drive. I loved the turnovers.

But yeah, that passing. Wow.

[GGLC]

Oh, and Matt's defense is a joy to watch. We're going to love having him on our team for years to come, I think.

[MChambers]

To me, what was most impressive was seeing that Coach K has finally decided to follow the advice this board: (1) playing Marshall more, (2) playing 10-11 players, and (3) dropping the Cook-Thornton backcourt. ;-)

Seriously, I liked most of what I saw today, obviously. I was very impressed by Amile's rebounding and his work against the zone. I also was happy to see Duke create some turnovers. I continue to be impressed by Andre taking the ball to the hoop and his JJ impression, running around screens.

[Furniture]

I Think Matt has an upside to come on offense too!

[Furniture]

To me, what was most impressive was seeing that Coach K has finally decided to follow the advice this board: (1) playing Marshall more, (2) playing 10-11 players, and (3) dropping the Cook-Thornton backcourt. ;-)

Seriously, I liked most of what I saw today, obviously. I was very impressed by Amile's rebounding and his work against the zone. I also was happy to see Duke create some turnovers. I continue to be impressed by Andre taking the ball to the hoop and his JJ impression, running around screens.

Sheed driving and dishing?

[roywhite]

Duke 95 -- NC State 60 (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=209379264)

Some of the team stats are amazing:

Turnovers: NCSU 21 Duke 8
Assists: NCSU 6 Duke 19
Steals: NCSU 3 Duke 14(!)

The killer weapon this Duke team has is the 3-point shot in transition, especially after a turnover. Too many shooters to cover--Parker, Hood, Cook, Thornton, Sulaimon, Dawkins can all hit that shot, particularly with room to shoot; the ball handlers know where to look and where to pass. Boom.

[-bdbd]

Kinda funny to see what a good mood everyone is in after Duke plays well and totally clubs another near-by team.

We really played terrific in most facets today.

Very smart to gameplan some early, easy buckets for Jabari - it seemed to jumpstart his confidence.

Terrific defensive intensity throughout. I hope that we see more full-court pressing this season. We have the horses.

Interior: Amile and MP3 both had good games, though different styles. MP3 just has a big presence that seems to scare dribblers fromn venturing too far down the lane. I also think his presence helps other Devils to get more rebounds (as MP3 captures a lot of opponent attention there). Amile just is terrific, when playing fluidly and with confidence, at finding the ball. He's also a smart player who loves to dish for open outside shooters. He really doesn't make a lot of mistakes.

Fun game to watch. Our best effort of the year. Let's please keep up the intensity. A tough 4-game stretch upcoming...

at MIA
vs FSU
at Pitt
at SYR

[Clay Feet POF]

Called it! (from the Virginia post-game thread):
...
Sulaimon does the job of a point guard when Cook isn't in the game, and I think he plays WAY better when Cook isn't on the floor. He's a much better slasher than Cook, and really, has the potential to be a better passer. He tends to turn over the ball and make more mistakes than Cook, but his ceiling as a distributor is, in my opinion much higher because he's more of a threat to get in the paint and finish through contact.
...
5. It finally looks like a team out there. A cohesive unit on both ends of the floor. Really fun to watch. Just beautiful. Great game.

Absolutely agree, With Sheed the half court attack mode is more active, and seems to increases our chances for assists I will look for it when we play Miami. I wonder if the coaches have/will notice and will make adjustments. I think that was a very catch on your part.

[devildeac]

Someone asked in chat about Duke's individual record for steals in a game of MBB. I forget who the winner was but the correct answer was Kenny Dennard with 11 vs the terps in 1979.

[MCFinARL]

Someone asked in chat about Duke's individual record for steals in a game of MBB. I forget who the winner was but the correct answer was Kenny Dennard with 11 vs the terps in 1979.

That is an AMAZING record. Don't know that anyone will ever touch it.

[ricks68]

Someone asked in chat about Duke's individual record for steals in a game of MBB. I forget who the winner was but the correct answer was Kenny Dennard with 11 vs the terps in 1979.

It was me.

ricks

[superdave]

Also, heckuva game by Hairston. 5 boards and a tip dunk. Precisely what Duke needs out of him.

Hairston almost had a second tip dunk. The one he got was cool and got Cameron rocking.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Duke 95 -- NC State 60 (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=209379264)

Some of the team stats are amazing:

Turnovers: NCSU 21 Duke 8
Assists: NCSU 6 Duke 19
Steals: NCSU 3 Duke 14(!)

The killer weapon this Duke team has is the 3-point shot in transition, especially after a turnover. Too many shooters to cover--Parker, Hood, Cook, Thornton, Sulaimon, Dawkins can all hit that shot, particularly with room to shoot; the ball handlers know where to look and where to pass. Boom.

Also 10 players with at least 12 minutes and none with more than 30. :D

[snowdenscold]

One huge criticism of the game today that apparently everyone has overlooked: we didn't get any points for Todd. He even looked somewhat open on a pick-and-roll. Very disappointed in the team :p


Seriously though, that was fun to watch.

[Indoor66]

Hey guys! I missed the game today. Will there be a replay available online anywhere?

You might check CBS.com

[jipops]

I think Tyler deserves mention here. This was one the better defensive efforts of his career. I felt like it was his D (and Quinn as well) that really set the tone for the game.

Also, Rodney had a sweet euro step on one of the breaks.

[NSDukeFan]

Also, heckuva game by Hairston. 5 boards and a tip dunk. Precisely what Duke needs out of him.
Pretty sure you aren't supposed to make any posts about Josh that don't also say that his minutes should be cut.

I don't think many here question that two of the biggest holes this year is on the glass and defending the post. My point is simply you can cover for those problems by forcing a ton of turnovers.

Don't forget we did start out the game 0-13 in rebounds against State if memory serves.
Add me to the list of those who question whether rebounding and defending the post are two of the biggest holes this year.

kAzE, first off, great points about Sheed. I agree 100%

As for Josh, take a look at his high school clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Sp9I0rZts

A lot of people are surprised the first time they see that clip.

When Josh was a freshman, lots of people on this forum were railing on the coaching staff for not playing him enough. He was the key to stopping athletic 6'8" guys that gave us trouble, people surmised. Like when we lost to Arizona in the NCAAT, many folks were upset that Josh didn't get a chance to guard Derrick Williams and were worried that Josh was going to transfer. I'm completely serious.

Now that he's a senior, people crap all over him, thus completing Josh Hairston's loop.

Two years from now, when Marshall is a senior, people are going to crap on him and ask for him to be benched in favor of someone like Chase Jeter. Thus completing Marshall Plumlee's loop.

It's the Duke role player circle of life to be desired off the bench early in your career, then desired to be only seen in warmups later. Hakuna matata. "It means no jersey for the rest of your days."
Amen. It's not a bad thing to also want to see the seniors play during their final year. Athletic new guy on the bench does not necessarily mean better than upperclassmen playing.

I loved watching Amile work on offense today and I'm becoming more and more excited to see how Duke uses him against Syracuse. Several times today he caught the ball at the elbow and rather then take an uncontested jumper he was patient and attacked either scoring or finding Jabari for an easy 2. It is very similar to the way Pitt is currently attacking the Cuse zone.
I really enjoy watching Amile play and would love to see him find some holes in the Syracuse zone. I can understand why, to my surprise, he was listed as a sure starter at the beginning of the year. He does so many things well and doesn't take anything off the table. I am liking his play more and more.

Best game of the season. THIS was exactly what a lot of people (fans and so called experts) were thinking they would see from Duke this year - lots of offense weapons, lots of of depth, lots of effective pressuring of the ball over the court. A big reason it's finally working is Sheed - Coach K can sit the starting five including Jabari, Hood, and Cook and not be just dying on offense because of how well Sheed is playing right now. We're gonna still give up points in the paint (hopefully the ball pressure will stop more of those drives though) and we're still gonna get killed on rebounding (because anyone whose actually watching and not clingingly desparately to one misleading stat knows we're small and not good at rebounding), but THIS style of play can obviously overcome those items and be an extremely successful plan. Let's keep it up!
Is that misleading stat rebounding, or rebounding %? Otherwise, I agree that Sulaimon's ability to create offence has been exciting to see again the past couple of weeks.

I am very excited to see the team performing as well as I expected they could and hope to see more of it going forward.

[Channing]

My favorite play of the gam was something I have been waiting a long time to see. Rasheed drove from the left side through the middle of the lane and then, when the defender stepped up he made a great pass to Parker for a dunk. When Rasheed is forcing things he tries to take a shot there. He, more than anyone, has the ability to break down the d off the dribble and the drop it off for an easy 2.

I have been critical of our offensive sets. It has seemed that, in the past few games, it was a lot of one on ones and perimeter passing. This game showed penetration into the lane and drop offs or kick puts with spectacular results.

I don't care if NCSU is awful ... They have two McDonald AAs out there as well as a highly sought after transfer. That's some talent.

[-jk]

I loved our offense - we took advantage of every opportunity offered. Out defense harangued constantly - State hadn't a clue what to do. I do have to add that they never attacked our Achilles' heel: there were almost no picks and thus no blown switches or hedges leading to easy baskets.

Overall, I'm very happy with today's effort

-jk

[Native]

I do have to add that they never attacked our Achilles' heel: there were almost no picks...

Is it bad that my first thought ran to football when reading this?

[Indoor66]

For the most part we played with patience. We allowed the game to come to us. There was not much forcing on offense.

[DukeHLM'13]

I think Tyler deserves mention here. This was one the better defensive efforts of his career. I felt like it was his D (and Quinn as well) that really set the tone for the game.


I really think that, above all the other things that we did well, the defense by the guards around the perimeter was what looked best today. Our guards all did a good job of staying with their men and keeping quick/active feet and hands that lead to most of the steals. I don't know how many times in the second half when we were putting the game away NCSU would have the ball only to have it stolen away because one of out guys would shoot out a hand at the right moment to get a steal or even just knock the ball loose and disrupt the offense.

I know that State isn't a great team, which probably made the defensive effort look better than it may actually have been, but this is one of those really basic things that if we keep doing it should make a huge difference going forward.

[Des Esseintes]

Best game of the season. THIS was exactly what a lot of people (fans and so called experts) were thinking they would see from Duke this year - lots of offense weapons, lots of of depth, lots of effective pressuring of the ball over the court. A big reason it's finally working is Sheed - Coach K can sit the starting five including Jabari, Hood, and Cook and not be just dying on offense because of how well Sheed is playing right now. We're gonna still give up points in the paint (hopefully the ball pressure will stop more of those drives though) and we're still gonna get killed on rebounding (because anyone whose actually watching and not clingingly desparately to one misleading stat knows we're small and not good at rebounding), but THIS style of play can obviously overcome those items and be an extremely successful plan. Let's keep it up!

I sed the same thing wen we went to the circus but lemme tell u u wood be suprised becuz they drive the little car around? the one with the clowns? my freind dave he says u watch theres gonna be like a hundred clowns come out that car and i said No way dave! its' so little! that car coont barely hold two clowns but dave said u just watch it all unfold. all mysteerious like, cuz thats the way dave is he thinks hes so cute. but then what do u know like 22 stupid clownz come climeing out that car! i was so maaad! dave what do u know, who told u? i asked. dave he just smild he said ur such a twit. so it just goes to show. i clobbered dave with a tire iron in the parking lot tho. not because the clown car thing but some other dum cute thing he did. i just think now its improtant to not alwys trust my eyes compleetly...

[duketaylor]

Great game for our guys today!! About time!! Maybe we're on to something! GO DEVILS!!

[kAzE]

kAzE, first off, great points about Sheed. I agree 100%

As for Josh, take a look at his high school clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Sp9I0rZts

A lot of people are surprised the first time they see that clip.

When Josh was a freshman, lots of people on this forum were railing on the coaching staff for not playing him enough. He was the key to stopping athletic 6'8" guys that gave us trouble, people surmised. Like when we lost to Arizona in the NCAAT, many folks were upset that Josh didn't get a chance to guard Derrick Williams and were worried that Josh was going to transfer. I'm completely serious.

Now that he's a senior, people crap all over him, thus completing Josh Hairston's loop.

Two years from now, when Marshall is a senior, people are going to crap on him and ask for him to be benched in favor of someone like Chase Jeter. Thus completing Marshall Plumlee's loop.

It's the Duke role player circle of life to be desired off the bench early in your career, then desired to be only seen in warmups later. Hakuna matata. "It means no jersey for the rest of your days."

I was kidding! My bad, kind of an inside joke, I always say that when Hairston dunks. (He's actually had like 3 or 4 this year) Everyone gives him a hard time, but his leadership is a valuable piece of our puzzle. The way he's willing to mix it up in the paint and take charges sets a good example for our young guys. I'm glad he's on the team.

[dukelifer]

I loved our offense - we took advantage of every opportunity offered. Out defense harangued constantly - State hadn't a clue what to do. I do have to add that they never attacked our Achilles' heel: there were almost no picks and thus no blown switches or hedges leading to easy baskets.

Overall, I'm very happy with today's effort

-jk

Effort was great. Passing was great- need to keep that up. Duke was rested and focused. The big question is how this line-change, pressing style will work on the road. Need to get over that hump next. State was folding the tent with 10 min to go. Most teams will fight til the end when Duke plays on their court. All in all - a well executed win.

[DukeBlueHeart4]

You might check CBS.com

Thanks! I scoured the site yesterday and didn't find it but, naturally, as soon as someone else suggests it I found it easily!

[slower]

I sed the same thing wen we went to the circus but lemme tell u u wood be suprised becuz they drive the little car around? the one with the clowns? my freind dave he says u watch theres gonna be like a hundred clowns come out that car and i said No way dave! its' so little! that car coont barely hold two clowns but dave said u just watch it all unfold. all mysteerious like, cuz thats the way dave is he thinks hes so cute. but then what do u know like 22 stupid clownz come climeing out that car! i was so maaad! dave what do u know, who told u? i asked. dave he just smild he said ur such a twit. so it just goes to show. i clobbered dave with a tire iron in the parking lot tho. not because the clown car thing but some other dum cute thing he did. i just think now its improtant to not alwys trust my eyes compleetly...

Seriously, though - when's your Comedy Central special? Keep the snark coming, my friend. I look forward to your snappy retorts more than anything else on DBR. Comedy gold. :)

[superdave]

I will echo what others said about the excellent D from our guards. Cook/Thornton/Sulaimon/Jones held Barber/Lewis/Lee to 6 assists and 10 turnovers. Lewis hit the floor one time, got tied up, lost possession and looked like he just wanted to go home. Barber kept getting yanked by Gottfried for "freshman instructional time" and was rattled. On the press, our guards stuck to Lewis/Barber which forced Lee to handle the ball a lot. That got State out of their comfort zone and caused TOs.

TJ Warren still [played well. Hood and Thornton were on him most of the time from what I recall. Our bigs did a good job of knowing when Warren was driving and helped some, but Warren seemed to react well. He's significantly better than last season and an All-ACC guy.

Have we found a new recipe for keeping up the defensive intensity? It goes something like this - pick up full court and try to get the ball out of the opponents' PGs hands, play the second unit enough to make sure intensity doesnt drop off, concentrate on help D.

[rsvman]

If you're the 8th or 9th guy in this rotation, that loss at Clemson was the best thing to ever happen for your PT.

We all knew that Coach K is capable of adapting game plans during the course of the season, but I'm not sure many of us saw this coming. Because it seems that the one sure thing about a K-coached team was that the rotation would always shrink as they season wore on. Never thought I'd see the rotation swell this late in the season!

Congrats to the coaching staff and the players. With this team, I think the expansion of the rotation was exactly what was needed. It will be interesting to see how they weather the upcoming stretch of games.

[Dev11]

I watch the game at hurleyfor3's place, Duke blows out opponent.

Resolved: I need to spend more time at hurleyfor3's place.

[Troublemaker]

I was kidding! My bad, kind of an inside joke, I always say that when Hairston dunks. (He's actually had like 3 or 4 this year)

No, it's my bad, kAzE. I wasn't trying to criticize you at all with my reply, of course, but I did miss your joke. And I'm usually pretty good at catching sarcasm and jokes. My bad. The point of my reply was mostly the Duke role player circle of life thing and also to get people who had never seen Josh in high school to look at that youtube video. He looks like freaking Tyrus Thomas or something against low-level high school competition!

[DukieInBrasil]

I haven't seen a Duke play that well, with consistent focus and intensity for the whole game at all this year, and maybe not for a couple of years. I think the line change substitutions have a big part to do with that, and that comes from trust. They trust that their hard work in practice is gonna pay off with some PT, the players trust that the other squad is gonna play with just as much intensity as they do (no drop off in team play, fewer wild swings in momentum for the opponent), and the coaching staff trusts that the squad on the court will be able to maintain the defensive focus while being able to score points.
I think this has also helped several of the players know and understand their roles much better, which has improved their play, i'm thinking of Sulaimon, Dawkins, Jones and MP3 here. Sulaimon has become a totally different player with these rotations, much better passing and much more confidence withe ball. Jones as well has become a different player, or at least much, much more useful; his defense is excellent but he's also hunting for his shot on O, driving and drawing contact (although he still is struggling mightily from 3). Dawkins just looks much more engaged in the game, better defense, more movement on offense. MP3 looks like he belongs on the court now, as compared to before. Although he hasn't done much statistically, i like what i see outta him.
I don't know how much of Jabari's funk was illness related (he mos def looked flu-ill for a game or two, plus maybe a game or 2 to recover from that), or whether it was more related to the type of offense we were running, but he played really well yesterday. He didn't force plays, and got the ball in places where he could make a scoring move quickly. Amile had a couple of beautiful interior assists for dunks to Jabari.
Let's hope this excellence carries over to Miami!!!

ps - i wanted to give a shout out to the two oft-maligned seniors, Tyler and Josh both played the role-player thing to perfection: delivering the goods without fanfare. Tyler with a stat-stuffer night: 6pts (2-2 3FGs), 3rebs, 3ast and FOUR steals!!! And Josh with a slightly less emphatic game, but that tip-dunk was NICE!!!

[kAzE]

I think the one thing I love the most about these past 2 games is the new rotation. It's brought so much more energy to our defense, and guys are playing with way more effort on both ends. The best part about it is that roles are starting to become clearly defined. I compared Sulaimon's role earlier in this thread to James Harden's role on the 2012 OKC Thunder team that made it to the NBA finals, and the more I thought about it, if there was ever a movie made about that Thunder team, we'd have a pretty good group of guys to fill that cast (and you'll notice my comparisons get progressively weaker, but it was fun):

Jabari Parker as Kevin Durant - Go-to-guy on offense, scores from everywhere on the floor, huge mismatch for anyone guarding him.

Rasheed Sulaimon as James Harden - First option on the second unit, penetrates, gets to the rim, and distributes the ball. Can hit the 3.

Josh Hairston as Kendrick Perkins - Tough guy veteran, physical player, but not a great athlete, is valuable more for his leadership than on court dominance.

Tyler Thornton as Derek Fisher - Tough, savvy veteran leader who isn't afraid to take or give out some punishment. Hits open 3s.

Matt Jones as Thabo Sefolosha - Defensive minded wing who starts at 2 guard. The best perimeter defender on the team, meshes well with the rest of the starting unit.

Amile Jefferson as Serge Ibaka - Power forward with insanely long arms. High energy glue guy type player.

Andre Dawkins as Daequan Cook - Sweet shooting guard off the bench.

Marshall Plumlee as Nick Collison - High energy guy off the bench.

Quinn Cook as Russell Westbrook - He's not the type of dominant athlete that Westbrook is, but he and Westbrook are the textbook definition of the "10%" guy:
I think Quinn falls into the Bill Simmons "10% theory," which is his way of defending guys like Russell Westbrook.

Rodney Hood as the Left-Handed Kevin Durant Understudy - Okay, the thunder didn't have 2 Kevin Durants, but Hood is the odd man out in terms of a guy with a similar role on that team. He's actually the Russell Westbrook in terms of offensive responsibility, but their games are totally different. What can I say, we're deeper than that Thunder team (comparatively, obviously, those guys are all NBA players).

[roywhite]

I think the one thing I love the most about these past 2 games is the new rotation. It's brought so much more energy to our defense, and guys are playing with way more effort on both ends. The best part about it is that roles are starting to become clearly defined. I compared Sulaimon's role earlier in this thread to James Harden's role on the 2012 OKC Thunder team that made it to the NBA finals, and the more I thought about it, if there was ever a movie made about that Thunder team, we'd have a pretty good group of guys to fill that cast (and you'll notice my comparisons get progressively weaker, but it was fun):



Interesting; I can see the comparison.

Thunder is also very good at rebounding and shot blocking -- not a strength for this Duke team, though the rebounding is coming on (use of platooning and more bench play in general seems to be a plus for rebounding)

[bbosbbos]

Really pessimistic after the Clemson game, thought the whole season is over. Then wins over UVA and NCST completely change everything. Hard to find words to describe my happiness. GO Duke!

[kAzE]

Interesting; I can see the comparison.

Thunder is also very good at rebounding and shot blocking -- not a strength for this Duke team, though the rebounding is coming on (use of platooning and more bench play in general seems to be a plus for rebounding)

Yeah, that's a really good point, but they were a great rebounding team not because of their bigs (Perkins and Ibaka were average rebounders at best, although Ibaka has gotten much better this year), but because of their perimeter guys. Westbrook is probably a top 3 rebounding guard in the league, and Durant has always been dominant on the glass.

But I digress, we've shown ourselves capable of being a good rebounding team, even against bigger teams that are typically good at rebounding. We beat Georgia tech on the boards, and they had outrebounded every opponent up until they played us. Last night against NCSt, they grabbed the first 13 rebounds of the game. It was 13-0 in their favor and we somehow still won the battle on the glass 35-32 against a massive front line. And by massive, I mean holy , Beejay Anya is a monster. What is he? Like, 6'9", 325? My God, weren't we in the mix for his recruitment? He's HUGE, like that dude from the green mile. He looked like a bear in a red tank top out there.

[cptnflash]

Has anyone been able to find a full game replay on CBSSports.com? I've looked and looked and can't find one. Would like to watch the glorious beatdown a second time if possible.

[kcduke75]

top

I missed it!%^$@

[dukelifer]

Yeah, that's a really good point, but they were a great rebounding team not because of their bigs (Perkins and Ibaka were average rebounders at best, although Ibaka has gotten much better this year), but because of their perimeter guys. Westbrook is probably a top 3 rebounding guard in the league, and Durant has always been dominant on the glass.

But I digress, we've shown ourselves capable of being a good rebounding team, even against bigger teams that are typically good at rebounding. We beat Georgia tech on the boards, and they had outrebounded every opponent up until they played us. Last night against NCSt, they grabbed the first 13 rebounds of the game. It was 13-0 in their favor and we somehow still won the battle on the glass 35-32 against a massive front line. And by massive, I mean holy , Beejay Anya is a monster. What is he? Like, 6'9", 325? My God, weren't we in the mix for his recruitment? He's HUGE, like that dude from the green mile. He looked like a bear in a red tank top out there.

Moment of the game is when Cook fouled Beejay and Beejay stared at Cook and Cook gave him a big smile to say - "you would crush me like a bug- can't we just be friends?"

[Newton_14]

Well, I finally saw the Duke team I had envisioned all summer long, play on Saturday. Had a house full of kids and parents as it was my daughters 9 yr old Bday party, so the sound was down and I was not able to focus in as well, but I watched it again today. First, the swarming defense, tip to final buzzer, creating turnovers that led to fast breaks and easy scores was a thing of beauty. My favorite secondary break of the day came in the second half, when Hood drove down the right side, hit Andre with a cross court pass, and Andre splashed the open 3. K gave a resounding Tiger Woods fist pump. Beautiful basketball.

I thought the tremendous pressure and fast breaking, baited NC State into speeding up themselves and rushing. That played right into Duke's hands. The Barber kid was especially rattled. That was really good defense all game long. Even in the halfcourt the guys were moving well, very active and creating havoc. Nothing came easy for State on offense. Also loved the hard foul on Anya by Quinn. Andre also had a hard foul to prevent an easy score. That is the mentality this group needs to embrace. As a team, they were just so attentive on defense, even when it was fast paced with guys pointing out assignments and picking up on that to move to the right spot. We even challenged inbounds plays better than all season. I hope they continue to do that game over game.

The deep bench will help tremendously in that arena too. As I expected, K went with the hockey line change two or three times early on, then switched it up but still substituting liberally, but mixing and matching units vs 5 replacing 5. I thought it a very key thing, that in a conference game that was reasonably close deep into the first half, that K had the guts to play it such that only one kid hit the 30 minute mark. Here is the breakdown of minutes: Hood-30, Parker-26, Cook-25, Amile-24, Jones-17, Rasheed-17, Tyler-15, Andre-13, MP3-13, Josh-12, Semi-6. 10 guys getting double figure minutes, and the 11th man getting 6. That is incredible balance, and managed in a manner, that no player seemed to have his rhythm broke, which is really key. The kids have adapted really well to the new scheme. For me, one of the biggest benefactor's to this new scheme is Quinn Cook. He had been playing 35+ mpg night in and night out and it really hurt his defense in my opinion. Quinn played some of the best defense of his career yesterday.

While that helps Quinn overall, it also changes things where the team is not nearly as reliant on Quinn having to be brilliant for them to be effective and win. I feel this new scheme minimizes that while also making it easier for Quinn to be brilliant, especially in the last 5 minutes of a tight game where he will now have more energy. As others have mentioned, the new approach has also helped both Rasheed and Jabari, especially when combined with the switch to motion offense as the staple. The Rasheed assists yesterday driving and dishing was awesome and the beneficuary on most of them was Jabari. Amile got a few of those as well, and once again Amile had a great game. My only issue is I want Amile to look to attack and score just a wee bit more. He has really great footwork and post moves off the dribble.

Andre Dawkins. What a game in just 13 minutes. The kid has developed into a very well rounded player. No longer just a catch and shoot guy. In the last 3 games alone, we have seen Andre do things he had never really done before. Clemson game: Comes from the weakside, and throws down a nasty putback dunk off a missed 3 by Quinn, and later fills the lane on a fastbreak attempt, receives the pass from Quinn and goes up hard drawing the foul. In all of the last 3 games he has made a concerted effort to put the ball on the floor and drive, either pulling up for a mid-range jumper, hitting a running floater, (2 or 3 of those already), going to the rim and drawing the foul to get to the line, and finally the play yesterday where he drove hard and tried to dunk on the big. (really hate the ref did not call the foul there as there was contact). Those plays are just huge for that kid. He has dribbled more in the last 3 games than I ever remember him dribbling in his first 3 years combined. Plus he is working his tail off on defense, getting steals, being disruptive to break up plays or cause a turnover, and just as importantly, fighting for and pulling down rebounds in traffic. What a wonderful asset to have coming off the bench.

I don't care how good or bad State is. This team could not do what they did yesterday to the likes of Drury, Vermont, ECU, Gardner-Webb, etc. Yesterday was a huge improvement in defense (and really offense too) compared to what they had been doing against any level of competition. That is a great sign moving forward. The best part though? They never let off the gas or got complacent with a lead. They just kept pounding and pounding and pounding, and the lead kept growing. That is Duke basketball and that is what this team needs.

I had said after UVA all I wanted was to see them build on that win and show improvement in the State game. I got my wish. In keeping with the same mindset, the only goal right now on 1/19/14, is to go to Miami, put on another solid performance, making a small improvement and progression over the State game, and exorcise the road demons by coming out of there with a victory. Forget everything else, just play well Wednesday and get the win against a dangerous Miami team.

Go Duke!

Edit: I forgot one of my key points I wanted to make. I said in the pre-game thread I thought it a huge mistake that the State kids called out our bigs in interviews prior to the game. They made some very disparaging remarks, that not only showed poor form, but serious inmaturity. When you are very young, playing on a very young team with almost no experience, and a team that will have to work hard just to be a bubble team, it is a horrible idea to make comments like that toward a perennial power that may or may not be as weak in that one area as you think. Never mind it was before going to play in a gym that is one of the most difficult arena's to play in on planet earth. I would imagine the message was delivered by our guys and the lesson has been learned. Really really dumb.

[gep]

I haven't seen a Duke play that well, with consistent focus and intensity for the whole game at all this year, and maybe not for a couple of years. I think the line change substitutions have a big part to do with that, and that comes from trust. They trust that their hard work in practice is gonna pay off with some PT, the players trust that the other squad is gonna play with just as much intensity as they do (no drop off in team play, fewer wild swings in momentum for the opponent), and the coaching staff trusts that the squad on the court will be able to maintain the defensive focus while being able to score points.
I think this has also helped several of the players know and understand their roles much better, which has improved their play, i'm thinking of Sulaimon, Dawkins, Jones and MP3 here. Sulaimon has become a totally different player with these rotations, much better passing and much more confidence withe ball. Jones as well has become a different player, or at least much, much more useful; his defense is excellent but he's also hunting for his shot on O, driving and drawing contact (although he still is struggling mightily from 3). Dawkins just looks much more engaged in the game, better defense, more movement on offense. MP3 looks like he belongs on the court now, as compared to before. Although he hasn't done much statistically, i like what i see outta him.
I don't know how much of Jabari's funk was illness related (he mos def looked flu-ill for a game or two, plus maybe a game or 2 to recover from that), or whether it was more related to the type of offense we were running, but he played really well yesterday. He didn't force plays, and got the ball in places where he could make a scoring move quickly. Amile had a couple of beautiful interior assists for dunks to Jabari.
Let's hope this excellence carries over to Miami!!!

ps - i wanted to give a shout out to the two oft-maligned seniors, Tyler and Josh both played the role-player thing to perfection: delivering the goods without fanfare. Tyler with a stat-stuffer night: 6pts (2-2 3FGs), 3rebs, 3ast and FOUR steals!!! And Josh with a slightly less emphatic game, but that tip-dunk was NICE!!!

This post says it all for me... Thanks. I think back to Zoubs, where he says, somewhere between February/Maryland and the NC game... that he can play for 4 minutes all out, knowing full well that he'll have a 4 minute rest, and Miles/Mason coming in will continue the intensity and play. From what I gather, this 2-unit "team" gives each unit much the same feeling... at least through most of the beginnings of the game. Then in crunch time, whoever is the best matchup will be "fresh" to finish the game.

Also, the so-called second unit is really starters on many other teams. If fact, Josh, Tyler, Rasheed have started many games this year. Andre is a proven 4th year player, and a great 6th man in the normal rotation. Only Marshall is the somewhat "new one" to this. But I think with more playing time, he'll improve. This second unit is not really the bench players of most other teams. This second unit is really a good team, good enough to give the first unit a bit of rest and not have any drop off. I am enjoying this change. What a breath of fresh air.

[moonpie23]

this also means that opposing players and coaches have many more match ups to try to game plan against…..I like what i see so far….

[westwall]

I watch the game at hurleyfor3's place, Duke blows out opponent.

Resolved: I need to spend more time at hurleyfor3's place.
i
Please do -- remember, it's only weird if it doesn't work!

[DevilYouthCoach]

Moment of the game is when Cook fouled Beejay and Beejay stared at Cook and Cook gave him a big smile to say - "you would crush me like a bug- can't we just be friends?"


My son, Nick, and I were at the game on Saturday and loved seeing the Beejay/Quinn hard foul/altercation and hug/make-up. I guess not many people knew the story there, but those two guys were teammates on the DeMatha Catholic High School team of 2009 when DeMatha won the DC City Championship. Beejay was a huge, lumbering freshman on that team and Quinn was the terrific point guard for DeMatha and won the DC Player of the Year Award. Other DeMatha players that year included Jerian Grant (Syracuse), Victor Oladipo (Indiana, Orlando Magic), and James Robinson (Pitt). My son played on the DeMatha 9th grade team, so we watched a lot of games, and it has really been fun to watch these guys progress!

I also have a question for anybody on the board who may know: I haven't been to Cameron in 6 years, and I was stopped at the gate on Saturday by the ticket taker who said I was not allowed to bring a camera with a detachable lens to the game. He insisted that I leave my camera in the car before I could come into the game. Is this a regular rule at Cameron? If so, what is the reasoning? Almost all SLR cameras have detachable lenses.

[hustleplays]

Well, I finally saw the Duke team I had envisioned all summer long, play on Saturday. Had a house full of kids and parents as it was my daughters 9 yr old Bday party, so the sound was down and I was not able to focus in as well, but I watched it again today. First, the swarming defense, tip to final buzzer, creating turnovers that led to fast breaks and easy scores was a thing of beauty. My favorite secondary break of the day came in the second half, when Hood drove down the right side, hit Andre with a cross court pass, and Andre splashed the open 3. K gave a resounding Tiger Woods fist pump. Beautiful basketball.

I thought the tremendous pressure and fast breaking, baited NC State into speeding up themselves and rushing. That played right into Duke's hands. The Barber kid was especially rattled. That was really good defense all game long. Even in the halfcourt the guys were moving well, very active and creating havoc. Nothing came easy for State on offense. Also loved the hard foul on Anya by Quinn. Andre also had a hard foul to prevent an easy score. That is the mentality this group needs to embrace. As a team, they were just so attentive on defense, even when it was fast paced with guys pointing out assignments and picking up on that to move to the right spot. We even challenged inbounds plays better than all season. I hope they continue to do that game over game.

The deep bench will help tremendously in that arena too. As I expected, K went with the hockey line change two or three times early on, then switched it up but still substituting liberally, but mixing and matching units vs 5 replacing 5. I thought it a very key thing, that in a conference game that was reasonably close deep into the first half, that K had the guts to play it such that only one kid hit the 30 minute mark. Here is the breakdown of minutes: Hood-30, Parker-26, Cook-25, Amile-24, Jones-17, Rasheed-17, Tyler-15, Andre-13, MP3-13, Josh-12, Semi-6. 10 guys getting double figure minutes, and the 11th man getting 6. That is incredible balance, and managed in a manner, that no player seemed to have his rhythm broke, which is really key. The kids have adapted really well to the new scheme. For me, one of the biggest benefactor's to this new scheme is Quinn Cook. He had been playing 35+ mpg night in and night out and it really hurt his defense in my opinion. Quinn played some of the best defense of his career yesterday.

While that helps Quinn overall, it also changes things where the team is not nearly as reliant on Quinn having to be brilliant for them to be effective and win. I feel this new scheme minimizes that while also making it easier for Quinn to be brilliant, especially in the last 5 minutes of a tight game where he will now have more energy. As others have mentioned, the new approach has also helped both Rasheed and Jabari, especially when combined with the switch to motion offense as the staple. The Rasheed assists yesterday driving and dishing was awesome and the beneficuary on most of them was Jabari. Amile got a few of those as well, and once again Amile had a great game. My only issue is I want Amile to look to attack and score just a wee bit more. He has really great footwork and post moves off the dribble.

Andre Dawkins. What a game in just 13 minutes. The kid has developed into a very well rounded player. No longer just a catch and shoot guy. In the last 3 games alone, we have seen Andre do things he had never really done before. Clemson game: Comes from the weakside, and throws down a nasty putback dunk off a missed 3 by Quinn, and later fills the lane on a fastbreak attempt, receives the pass from Quinn and goes up hard drawing the foul. In all of the last 3 games he has made a concerted effort to put the ball on the floor and drive, either pulling up for a mid-range jumper, hitting a running floater, (2 or 3 of those already), going to the rim and drawing the foul to get to the line, and finally the play yesterday where he drove hard and tried to dunk on the big. (really hate the ref did not call the foul there as there was contact). Those plays are just huge for that kid. He has dribbled more in the last 3 games than I ever remember him dribbling in his first 3 years combined. Plus he is working his tail off on defense, getting steals, being disruptive to break up plays or cause a turnover, and just as importantly, fighting for and pulling down rebounds in traffic. What a wonderful asset to have coming off the bench.

I don't care how good or bad State is. This team could not do what they did yesterday to the likes of Drury, Vermont, ECU, Gardner-Webb, etc. Yesterday was a huge improvement in defense (and really offense too) compared to what they had been doing against any level of competition. That is a great sign moving forward. The best part though? They never let off the gas or got complacent with a lead. They just kept pounding and pounding and pounding, and the lead kept growing. That is Duke basketball and that is what this team needs.

I had said after UVA all I wanted was to see them build on that win and show improvement in the State game. I got my wish. In keeping with the same mindset, the only goal right now on 1/19/14, is to go to Miami, put on another solid performance, making a small improvement and progression over the State game, and exorcise the road demons by coming out of there with a victory. Forget everything else, just play well Wednesday and get the win against a dangerous Miami team.

Go Duke!

Edit: I forgot one of my key points I wanted to make. I said in the pre-game thread I thought it a huge mistake that the State kids called out our bigs in interviews prior to the game. They made some very disparaging remarks, that not only showed poor form, but serious inmaturity. When you are very young, playing on a very young team with almost no experience, and a team that will have to work hard just to be a bubble team, it is a horrible idea to make comments like that toward a perennial power that may or may not be as weak in that one area as you think. Never mind it was before going to play in a gym that is one of the most difficult arena's to play in on planet earth. I would imagine the message was delivered by our guys and the lesson has been learned. Really really dumb.

Thanks for this post. You and so many other posters have described the powerfully evident benefits of Coach K's generously playing his players -- not being stingy with minutes outside a strict rotation. What may be lost in precision of execution is trumped by the energy of an enthusiastic, united team, where who gets a few choice extra minutes is replaced by the zest to lay it all out on the court with their band of brothers. Our guys' joyful camaraderie these last two games was palpable and thrilling. Their intensity and fresh legs were obvious.

I am resisting the temptation to express again, as so many of us have done over the years, frustration in seeing Coach K play such a short bench. But I will point out that even Coach K said let summer that he envisioned a running, attacking offense, with many players contributing, given the deep bench that he had. Was it our players' limits who dictated a change in strategy early in the season? I don't think so. I think it was primarily due to Coach K's deeply ingrained views and habits.

I, and I know so many others, are fervently hoping that Coach K will not revert. I find it immensely encouraging that, according to reports, his assistant coaches suggested that he play more players. I wonder if they had felt this earlier, but the time was not right to have their views heard. Without our two game losses, would we have seen this change? Sometimes the deepest of losses can make us more open to others' support.

We know that trust is hugely important to Coach K. I am hoping that Coach K will continue to trust his players to be major, integral contributors, even if they are, technically, not the 6th or 7th best players.

[oldnavy]

Biggest disappointment for this game was that I didn't get to chant "GTHC, GTH!!" Otherwise, it was a wonderful game and I am really proud of how our guys played the full 40 minutes!!

We need to carry this show on the road this week.... Go Duke!

[CDu]

I am a bit late to the party for this discussion, but I thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts:

1. We beat a bad team and made them look bad in doing so. That's all you can ask from such a game.

2. I am loving the resurgence of Sulaimon. The guy is just a force with the ball in his hands. The last couple of games I've felt he's looked better off the dribble than anyone else on the team.

3. Tertiary comment #1: I had a chuckle in the second half "near scuffle" between Anya and Cook. Cook fouled Anya on a putback dunk attempt, and fell down. Anya leaned down to either help Cook up or say something to Cook. Dawkins then jumped in and shoved Anya away and the officials rushed in to separate the players. It was all apparently quite confusing to Anya (the DeMatha product) and Cook (also a DeMatha guy before transferring for his final year at Oak Hill), who are friends and were just chatting together. To prove to everyone that no ill will was shared, the two players hugged each other - twice. Funny stuff.

4. Tertiary comment #2: with under 2 minutes to go, the "we want Todd" chant began. And along with said chant, Cook was clapping his hands in unison with the chant. For any faults one might have with Cook, his presence as a teammate should not be one of them. The guy just seems to have an infectious personality.

[Olympic Fan]

1. We beat a bad team and made them look bad in doing so. That's all you can ask from such a game.


I think this is too simplistic ...

Yes, State HAS been bad at times this season -- they just lost at home to Virginia by 31 ... they lost at home to NCCU.

But they also beat Notre Dame at Notre Dame four days after the Irish beat Duke. They blasted Tennessee in Knoxville two weeks before the Vols blasted Virginia in Knoxville. Only some poor FT shooting prevented them from upsetting Missouri.

State is an erratic team. But were they simply bad Saturday or did Duke make them look bad?

[CDu]

I think this is too simplistic ...

Yes, State HAS been bad at times this season -- they just lost at home to Virginia by 31 ... they lost at home to NCCU.

But they also beat Notre Dame at Notre Dame four days after the Irish beat Duke. They blasted Tennessee in Knoxville two weeks before the Vols blasted Virginia in Knoxville. Only some poor FT shooting prevented them from upsetting Missouri.

State is an erratic team. But were they simply bad Saturday or did Duke make them look bad?

On average, State has been quite bad this year. I wouldn't trumpet wins over Notre Dame (Pomeroy's #84 team, and dropping since the Grant injury) and Tennessee (who has six losses, including losses to UTEP [#110] and at home against Texas A&M [#109]) as evidence that State is anything other than a bad team that can occasionally play okay. They had one fluky win over an inconsistent Tennessee team, and a win over a not-very-good Notre Dame team. They are bad. We beat up on them, which is good. But they are bad.

[devildeac]

K appears to have a different opinion:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/...-wolfpack.html

“Yeah,” Krzyzewski answered, “because I think (N.C.) State’s good.”

(I'm sure there's some "coachspeak" going on here and K's not gonna badmouth the Pack but...)

[CDu]

Have you ever heard Coach K say the opponent wasn't a good team? That is just not how he operates.

[Olympic Fan]

While I've never claimed State was a great team or even a contender, I did argue that it's too simplistic to simply call them a bad team. Twice they've gone on the road and beaten solid (again, not great, but solid) teams that have homecourt victories over two of the ACC's best teams ... and now, 48 hours after getting blown out by Duke, they bounce back and beat Maryland -- without TJ Warren!

Not a great team ... not even an NCAA team ... but NC State is not a "bad" team either.

PS ... They say Warren injured his ankle late in the Duke game. Not sure how late, but he was on the floor to the end of the game (he committed a foul with 15 seconds left and took the last shot of the game with 11 seconds left). I was asking a couple of friends what the hell Gottfried was doing risking his best player in the last minute of a 30-point blowout?

It's the same argument we had in football when Jimbo left Winston on the field in the final 10 minutes with FSU coasting in the ACC title game ... it's not about running it the score. It's about unnecessarily risking a key player ... anybody else old enough to remember Frank McGuire throwing away a Final Four in 1970 by playing John Roche late in an easy win over Wake in the ACC semifinals? Roche hurt his ankle, was terrible in the finals and South Carolina doesn't get to go to the NCAA Tournament.

[bob blue devil]

it all depends on your definition of bad


While I've never claimed State was a great team or even a contender, I did argue that it's too simplistic to simply call them a bad team. Twice they've gone on the road and beaten solid (again, not great, but solid) teams that have homecourt victories over two of the ACC's best teams ... and now, 48 hours after getting blown out by Duke, they bounce back and beat Maryland -- without TJ Warren!

Not a great team ... not even an NCAA team ... but NC State is not a "bad" team either.


i suppose; it depends on how you define bad. they are not below average for an ncaa division 1 mens basketball team in 2013-2014. that said, they are (to-date at least) demonstrably well below average for an acc team. that is bad in my book, and i think most woofies would agree.

[MChambers]

PS ... They say Warren injured his ankle late in the Duke game. Not sure how late, but he was on the floor to the end of the game (he committed a foul with 15 seconds left and took the last shot of the game with 11 seconds left). I was asking a couple of friends what the hell Gottfried was doing risking his best player in the last minute of a 30-point blowout?

It's the same argument we had in football when Jimbo left Winston on the field in the final 10 minutes with FSU coasting in the ACC title game ... it's not about running it the score. It's about unnecessarily risking a key player ... anybody else old enough to remember Frank McGuire throwing away a Final Four in 1970 by playing John Roche late in an easy win over Wake in the ACC semifinals? Roche hurt his ankle, was terrible in the finals and South Carolina doesn't get to go to the NCAA Tournament.
Actually, I'm pretty certain that Warren got hurt earlier in the second half, on a drive to the basket against Tyler Thornton. Warren stepped on Tyler's foot, more or less. Thornton was called for the foul, correctly.

[CDu]

While I've never claimed State was a great team or even a contender, I did argue that it's too simplistic to simply call them a bad team. Twice they've gone on the road and beaten solid (again, not great, but solid) teams that have homecourt victories over two of the ACC's best teams ... and now, 48 hours after getting blown out by Duke, they bounce back and beat Maryland -- without TJ Warren!

Not a great team ... not even an NCAA team ... but NC State is not a "bad" team either.

No, by ACC (or any other major conference) standards, they are a bad team. I think what you are trying to say is that "even a bad team can on occasion play decently." And that is true. For example, Boston college is a bad team (worse than State) that gave Syracuse a scare.

State is a bad team that can occasionally play decently. But, on average, they are a bad team.

They aren't a gawd-awful team like Va Tech or BC, but they are a bad team.

[oldnavy]

No, by ACC (or any other major conference) standards, they are a bad team. I think what you are trying to say is that "even a bad team can on occasion play decently." And that is true. For example, Boston college is a bad team (worse than State) that gave Syracuse a scare.

State is a bad team that can occasionally play decently. But, on average, they are a bad team.

They aren't a gawd-awful team like Va Tech or BC, but they are a bad team.

The only thing I would add, is that the delta between bad and good teams has shrunk quite a bit over the past 20 years.... there is a lot more talent (overall) in the game and therefore more parity.

[flyingdutchdevil]

No, by ACC (or any other major conference) standards, they are a bad team. I think what you are trying to say is that "even a bad team can on occasion play decently." And that is true. For example, Boston college is a bad team (worse than State) that gave Syracuse a scare.

State is a bad team that can occasionally play decently. But, on average, they are a bad team.

They aren't a gawd-awful team like Va Tech or BC, but they are a bad team.

Vermont can apparently play very well. Away from home. Against an athletic team. And score 90 points.

That game is going to stick with me for a while. Uggggggggggggggggggggly!

[Wander]

Only some poor FT shooting prevented them from upsetting Missouri.

and now, 48 hours after getting blown out by Duke, they bounce back and beat Maryland -- without TJ Warren!


The fact that a home win against Maryland and a home loss against Missouri are two of State's biggest accomplishments this season are proof enough that they are simply a bad team. Duke still played very well and we should be happy with that.



“Yeah,” Krzyzewski answered, “because I think (N.C.) State’s good.”

(I'm sure there's some "coachspeak" going on here and K's not gonna badmouth the Pack but...)


You answered your own question. If Coach K faced a team of Carolina players in a debate tournament, he'd compliment their reading skills. It's just the way coaches talk.

[daveyro]

I think the one thing I love the most about these past 2 games is the new rotation. It's brought so much more energy to our defense, and guys are playing with way more effort on both ends. The best part about it is that roles are starting to become clearly defined. I compared Sulaimon's role earlier in this thread to James Harden's role on the 2012 OKC Thunder team that made it to the NBA finals, and the more I thought about it, if there was ever a movie made about that Thunder team, we'd have a pretty good group of guys to fill that cast (and you'll notice my comparisons get progressively weaker, but it was fun):

Jabari Parker as Kevin Durant - Go-to-guy on offense, scores from everywhere on the floor, huge mismatch for anyone guarding him.

Rasheed Sulaimon as James Harden - First option on the second unit, penetrates, gets to the rim, and distributes the ball. Can hit the 3.

Josh Hairston as Kendrick Perkins - Tough guy veteran, physical player, but not a great athlete, is valuable more for his leadership than on court dominance.

Tyler Thornton as Derek Fisher - Tough, savvy veteran leader who isn't afraid to take or give out some punishment. Hits open 3s.

Matt Jones as Thabo Sefolosha - Defensive minded wing who starts at 2 guard. The best perimeter defender on the team, meshes well with the rest of the starting unit.

Amile Jefferson as Serge Ibaka - Power forward with insanely long arms. High energy glue guy type player.

Andre Dawkins as Daequan Cook - Sweet shooting guard off the bench.

Marshall Plumlee as Nick Collison - High energy guy off the bench.

Quinn Cook as Russell Westbrook - He's not the type of dominant athlete that Westbrook is, but he and Westbrook are the textbook definition of the "10%" guy:

Rodney Hood as the Left-Handed Kevin Durant Understudy - Okay, the thunder didn't have 2 Kevin Durants, but Hood is the odd man out in terms of a guy with a similar role on that team. He's actually the Russell Westbrook in terms of offensive responsibility, but their games are totally different. What can I say, we're deeper than that Thunder team (comparatively, obviously, those guys are all NBA players).


I've seen, and agree with, comments that Jefferson is a glue guy - does a bit of everything, brings intensity. Love the comparison with pros as quoted above. Looking at Duke, with the the exception of the three point shot , Jeff reminds me of Ryan Kelly in this regard. I'm sure someone with the time and memory (neither if which I have) can i.d. glue guys on previous great teams. Maybe Brian Davis, or Nate James, Dan Meagher, Billy King, stretch to Marty Clark(?)

In the pro's, my favoriate glue guy is Joe-whatever Noah. Heir to Rodman, without the lunacy, who was the utlimate glue guy ON THE COURT. Of the court......let's just say well never see Amile in a wedding dress.

[Lar77]

Actually, I'm pretty certain that Warren got hurt earlier in the second half, on a drive to the basket against Tyler Thornton. Warren stepped on Tyler's foot, more or less. Thornton was called for the foul, correctly.

Tyler gets called for the foul if he is within 20 feet of the play. He's got the "Daniel Ewing" disease.

[jv001]

Tyler gets called for the foul if he is within 20 feet of the play. He's got the "Daniel Ewing" disease.

But when TT fouls, he hurts you. He's tough as nails. Glad he's on our team. I just hope he doesn't hurt our own players in practice. GoDuke!

[GGLC]

Tyler gets called for the foul if he is within 20 feet of the play. He's got the "Daniel Ewing" disease.

I'll say I disagree with this and just leave it at that.

[Troublemaker]

Tyler gets called for the foul if he is within 20 feet of the play. He's got the "Daniel Ewing" disease.

His fouls are unfortunately real fouls almost all the time. He does get his money's worth for the fouls almost all the time, though.

[Kimist]

...I also have a question for anybody on the board who may know: I haven't been to Cameron in 6 years, and I was stopped at the gate on Saturday by the ticket taker who said I was not allowed to bring a camera with a detachable lens to the game. He insisted that I leave my camera in the car before I could come into the game. Is this a regular rule at Cameron? If so, what is the reasoning? Almost all SLR cameras have detachable lenses.


That's a new one on me. I know that for some time there has been a prohibition against spectators bringing "long lens" cameras and video cameras into Cameron....see below....but I never heard "detachable" become an issue.

Sounds like a bit of confusion...perhaps the visit of G H W Bush was a factor??

k


Prohibited Items

For the safety and game day experience of all guests, the following items are prohibited from entering the stadium:

Alcoholic beverages
Artificial noisemakers
Backpacks/bags larger than 8” x 11” x 12” (exception: medical reasons)
Balloons
Balls and Frisbees
Cameras w/lens over 4 inches
Coolers and Containers (ice chests, thermoses, cups, bottles, or other like containers)
Items obstructing sightlines of other guests (umbrellas may not be raised in the seating bowl)
Hazardous Materials
Illegal Drugs
Items obstructing sightlines of other fans (umbrellas may not be raised in the seating bowl)
Laser Pointers
Outside chairs (lounge chairs, folding chairs, etc.)
Outside food and beverage (exception: medical reasons)
Pets (except service animals)
Shoes with wheels (wheelies)
Video Cameras
Weapons

Duke University reserves the right to deny anyone or anything from entering the stadium. Any such items should be returned to your vehicle and/or discarded. All fans are subject to search before entering the stadium.

[Bob Green]

Tyler gets called for the foul if he is within 20 feet of the play.

Tyler Thornton gets called for a lot of fouls because he fouls a lot. It is his style. When he is on the court he plays intimidating defense, including hard fouls. Seeing as he isn't expected to play 25 minutes per game, it is a style that works for him.

[Lar77]

Tyler Thornton gets called for a lot of fouls because he fouls a lot. It is his style. When he is on the court he plays intimidating defense, including hard fouls. Seeing as he isn't expected to play 25 minutes per game, it is a style that works for him.

I agree completely with what you say: Thornton plays hard; often does commit fouls - hard fouls; often is guarding someone who is taller and mobile, for a reason, and the result of that situation is that he often gets caught with a foul. His is an important role on this team - hard, deny defense and leadership and hustle. Unlike many on this board, I think we are better with him than without him. My point was that refs seem to call him quite a bit for fouls by reputation. It happens.

[Ggallagher]

My son, Nick, and I were at the game on...........

I also have a question for anybody on the board who may know: I haven't been to Cameron in 6 years, and I was stopped at the gate on Saturday by the ticket taker who said I was not allowed to bring a camera with a detachable lens to the game. He insisted that I leave my camera in the car before I could come into the game. Is this a regular rule at Cameron? If so, what is the reasoning? Almost all SLR cameras have detachable lenses.

I wasn't aware of it, but it appears this has become a very widespread policy. I googled "detachable lens prohibition" and got the Acceptable Use Rights statement for about every major sporting event site in the country. I poked around on some photography forums that I use and found lots of discussion and unhappiness about the policy which seems to have become more common in the last four or five years.

Typically the excuses/reasons given are:
Protecting commerical rites of the event - you can't compete with the licensed or sanctioned professional photographers.
Maintaining security - you can hide stuff inside those things (some stadiums do allow detachable lenses, but their policies state that they may force you to detach the lens for inspectoion
Preserving the approriate experience for other customers - they don't want your lens, elbows, equipment, etc. intruding on the space of other paying customers.

Sounds like Cameron is just following crowd on this one.

[oldnavy]

Tyler Thornton gets called for a lot of fouls because he fouls a lot. It is his style. When he is on the court he plays intimidating defense, including hard fouls. Seeing as he isn't expected to play 25 minutes per game, it is a style that works for him.

I agree, and I love it! He plays hard and is basically a "pest". He is the type of player that I imagine most opponents just hate to play against.... nothing easy at all.

[Clay Feet POF]

Tyler Thornton gets called for a lot of fouls because he fouls a lot. It is his style. When he is on the court he plays intimidating defense, including hard fouls. Seeing as he isn't expected to play 25 minutes per game, it is a style that works for him.

And most importantly us.

[CDu]

I agree completely with what you say: Thornton plays hard; often does commit fouls - hard fouls; often is guarding someone who is taller and mobile, for a reason, and the result of that situation is that he often gets caught with a foul. His is an important role on this team - hard, deny defense and leadership and hustle. Unlike many on this board, I think we are better with him than without him. My point was that refs seem to call him quite a bit for fouls by reputation. It happens.

I honestly don't think he gets many "reputation" fouls. I think he earns his fouls.

[Des Esseintes]

Vermont can apparently play very well. Away from home. Against an athletic team. And score 90 points.

That game is going to stick with me for a while. Uggggggggggggggggggggly!

A huge amount of this stuff is perception and little more. Just for comparison's sake, both Vermont and N.C. State are higher ranked than the average Davidson team of the past four years. Is Davidson usually bad? Most of this board would say no. If we had pasted Vermont and gotten a scare out of Davidson, I think many on this board would have said, "Oh, a Bob McKillop team. A Bob McKillop team is always dangerous." And Vermont (kenpom #96) is not bad. They'll probably win their conference and make the tournament. They just had a bad record when we played them. Duke underperformed in that game, obviously, but we don't need to make more out of it than what it was.

That level on kenpom is pretty interesting, actually. Notre Dame is #86, Alabama is #88, Vermont is #96, N.C. State is #99. Against those teams, we have: lost on the road, won decisively if not spectacularly on a neutral court, eked out a home win, and danced joyously on the bones of the enemy fallen (at home). It's a level of mediocre teams that often play good teams close and every once in a while pull one out. Beating N.C. State by 35 is impressive.

[flyingdutchdevil]

A huge amount of this stuff is perception and little more. Just for comparison's sake, both Vermont and N.C. State are higher ranked than the average Davidson team of the past four years. Is Davidson usually bad? Most of this board would say no. If we had pasted Vermont and gotten a scare out of Davidson, I think many on this board would have said, "Oh, a Bob McKillop team. A Bob McKillop team is always dangerous." And Vermont (kenpom #96) is not bad. They'll probably win their conference and make the tournament. They just had a bad record when we played them. Duke underperformed in that game, obviously, but we don't need to make more out of it than what it was.

That level on kenpom is pretty interesting, actually. Notre Dame is #86, Alabama is #88, Vermont is #96, N.C. State is #99. Against those teams, we have: lost on the road, won decisively if not spectacularly on a neutral court, eked out a home win, and danced joyously on the bones of the enemy fallen (at home). It's a level of mediocre teams that often play good teams close and every once in a while pull one out. Beating N.C. State by 35 is impressive.

I enjoy Kenpom and I enjoy his stats too. But Kenpom is not the holy grail. And the Vermont game was, IMO, that bad. And I know a lot of posters - including some very respected ones around here - 100% agree with me.

Vermont's record going into the game was an abysmal 1-4. Those 4 losses are to teams ranked #76, #149, #51, and #216 in Kenpom (yes, I see the irony in using kenpom stats after I just said kenpom isn't the all and end all). In other words, there some okay losses (Providence and St. Joe's) and some unacceptable losses (Bryant, Wagner).

Look at Vermont going in: they had a terrible record, they lost to some mediocre and terrible teams, they were playing in one of the most difficult arenas in the country (if not the most difficult), the opponent was 10x more talented, 10x more athletic, and had a coach who was 100x better, and we were ranked in the top 10 across most statistical and human polls out there. And we barely won, 90-91, thanks to poor timing on the part of Vermont.

I've only been a Duke fan since 2003 (blame my parents for not having me at a younger age) and watched an average of 32 games a season. That's 320 games. And in my time as a fan, this was the worst game I've ever seen. Not the most painful and not the most emotional, but the worst I've ever seen us play.

[CDu]

A huge amount of this stuff is perception and little more. Just for comparison's sake, both Vermont and N.C. State are higher ranked than the average Davidson team of the past four years. Is Davidson usually bad? Most of this board would say no. If we had pasted Vermont and gotten a scare out of Davidson, I think many on this board would have said, "Oh, a Bob McKillop team. A Bob McKillop team is always dangerous." And Vermont (kenpom #96) is not bad. They'll probably win their conference and make the tournament. They just had a bad record when we played them. Duke underperformed in that game, obviously, but we don't need to make more out of it than what it was.

I would say that Davidson in 2010 (#196), 2011 (#149), and 2014 (#188) were bad-to-awful. I would say that the Davidson teams of 2012 (#73) and 2013 (#69) were mediocre, but definitely better than this year's State team.

And as flyingdutch has said, the Vermont game was abysmal on our part. There is no sugar-coating it. And I suspect that a lot of their current ranking is that they've played all patsies since facing us: Illinois State, San Francisco (loss by 11), Sonoma State, Quinnipiac (loss by 13), Massachusetts Lowell, Harvard (loss by 6), Lyndon State, Dartmouth, Yale, Albany, Maine, and UMBC. They are benefiting from the Wisconsin effect - play really bad teams and wallop them and your rating is artificially inflated.

Seriously, Vermont is a team that has lost to Wagner, Bryant by 23, San Francisco by 11, Quinnipiac by 13, and Harvard. To suggest that they are really a decent team seems crazy. They are bad, bad, bad. If they do win their conference, it will be because they are in one of the worst conferences in D-1, and they'll likely be a #16 seed.


Beating N.C. State by 35 is impressive.

I agree that beating State by 35 is impressive. In fact, that was one of the first things I said about the State game. That does not mean that State is not a bad team.

[Ichabod Drain]

Can we rank the whole ACC on a badness scale using various other adjectives as well so I can fiigure out where Duke and State stand in all this. :D

[Wander]

Can we rank the whole ACC on a badness scale using various other adjectives as well so I can fiigure out where Duke and State stand in all this. :D

Very good: Syracuse
Good: UVA, Pitt, Duke
Blah: Notre Dame, Clemson, Miami, FSU, UNC
Bad: NC State, Wake, Maryland
Ew: BC, VT, GT

Very scientific, of course

[CDu]

Can we rank the whole ACC on a badness scale using various other adjectives as well so I can fiigure out where Duke and State stand in all this. :D

I'd group them something like this:

Awful: BC, Va Tech, Ga Tech

Bad: Wake, State, Maryland, Miami

Mediocre/decent: Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU, UNC

Good/very good: Duke, UVa, Syracuse, Pitt

[Wander]

I'd group them something like this:

Awful: BC, Va Tech, Ga Tech

Bad: Wake, State, Maryland, Miami

Mediocre/decent: Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU, UNC

Good/very good: Duke, UVa, Syracuse, Pitt

Haha, almost the same. Nice.

[Des Esseintes]

I enjoy Kenpom and I enjoy his stats too. But Kenpom is not the holy grail. And the Vermont game was, IMO, that bad. And I know a lot of posters - including some very respected ones around here - 100% agree with me.
Of course kenpom is not a holy grail. But it has greater explanatory power than the five-game record a team had in November. Just to underline that last word: November. I'm almost of the opinion that a bad November loss isn't even possible, but whatever, let's move on.


Vermont's record going into the game was an abysmal 1-4. Those 4 losses are to teams ranked #76, #149, #51, and #216 in Kenpom (yes, I see the irony in using kenpom stats after I just said kenpom isn't the all and end all). In other words, there some okay losses (Providence and St. Joe's) and some unacceptable losses (Bryant, Wagner).

Look at Vermont going in: they had a terrible record, they lost to some mediocre and terrible teams, they were playing in one of the most difficult arenas in the country (if not the most difficult), the opponent was 10x more talented, 10x more athletic, and had a coach who was 100x better, and we were ranked in the top 10 across most statistical and human polls out there. And we barely won, 90-91, thanks to poor timing on the part of Vermont.

That's one explanation. Or, alternatively, since Vermont has played markedly better since then, they began the season playing below their true talent level. 5-game blips happen all the time. Sometimes they occur at the start of a season, and people get to generate elaborate narratives. CDu says Wisconsin effect. Maybe. Vermont has been a pretty decent program in recent times. They have a veteran team. It seems far more likely to me that they played terribly to start the season, righted the ship, and will do fine in conference play. That's not an awful team today regardless of their 1-4 record three months ago.



I've only been a Duke fan since 2003 (blame my parents for not having me at a younger age) and watched an average of 32 games a season. That's 320 games. And in my time as a fan, this was the worst game I've ever seen. Not the most painful and not the most emotional, but the worst I've ever seen us play.
I mean, seriously?

[Kedsy]

Very good: Syracuse
Good: UVA, Pitt, Duke
Blah: Notre Dame, Clemson, Miami, FSU, UNC
Bad: NC State, Wake, Maryland
Ew: BC, VT, GT

Very scientific, of course

Interestingly enough, Pomeroy ranks FSU as #16 (ahead of Duke) and ranks Clemson #32. Both (according to Pomeroy) are much better than the other "blah" teams.

[Kedsy]

That's one explanation. Or, alternatively, since Vermont has played markedly better since then, they began the season playing below their true talent level. 5-game blips happen all the time. Sometimes they occur at the start of a season, and people get to generate elaborate narratives. CDu says Wisconsin effect. Maybe. Vermont has been a pretty decent program in recent times. They have a veteran team. It seems far more likely to me that they played terribly to start the season, righted the ship, and will do fine in conference play. That's not an awful team today regardless of their 1-4 record three months ago.

My recollection is Vermont had some injuries early in the season. One of the injured players, 6'9" sophomore Ethan O'Day, has returned to the rotation for the past 11 games (playing 19+ mpg). I don't know how good this kid is, but it could at least be a partial explanation why the team has played better.

Or not. Who knows? Either way, I agree with you that the team's overall body of work is a better indicator than simply looking at "good wins" and "bad losses." Not only that, but for a team Pomeroy ranks as #96, road losses to #124 San Francisco or #149 Bryant aren't actually "bad" losses, they probably weren't favored in either game, so they're just losses. The home loss to #120 Quinnipiac probably shouldn't be considered a "bad" loss, either, although Vermont would have been the favorite. Really, the only bad loss on Vermont's resume this season is the loss to #216 Wagner, and even that was on the road.

[FerryFor50]

My recollection is Vermont had some injuries early in the season. One of the injured players, 6'9" sophomore Ethan O'Day, has returned to the rotation for the past 11 games (playing 19+ mpg). I don't know how good this kid is, but it could at least be a partial explanation why the team has played better.

Or not. Who knows? Either way, I agree with you that the team's overall body of work is a better indicator than simply looking at "good wins" and "bad losses." Not only that, but for a team Pomeroy ranks as #96, road losses to #124 San Francisco or #149 Bryant aren't actually "bad" losses, they probably weren't favored in either game, so they're just losses. The home loss to #120 Quinnipiac probably shouldn't be considered a "bad" loss, either, although Vermont would have been the favorite. Really, the only bad loss on Vermont's resume this season is the loss to #216 Wagner, and even that was on the road.

Yea, but what about "bad wins"? Or "good losses"?

Oh, they don't count those?

Then who cares if we beat Vermont by 1 or 100??

A win is a win. And all I care about is that Duke has played better since then. That game was an aberration.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I mean, seriously?

Yup. Can you think of a game where we had so much talent and so little to show for it?

[FerryFor50]

Yup. Can you think of a game where we had so much talent and so little to show for it?

Considering it was still a win, that's all I care about. They didn't play well on defense. Played pretty well on offense. And they haven't played as poorly since. Why harp on it?

[Duvall]

Yup. Can you think of a game where we had so much talent and so little to show for it?

I can think of about 840 games in which Duke came away with less to show for it.

It was a poor effort, historically poor on defense. But let's not go crazy here.

[CDu]

My recollection is Vermont had some injuries early in the season. One of the injured players, 6'9" sophomore Ethan O'Day, has returned to the rotation for the past 11 games (playing 19+ mpg). I don't know how good this kid is, but it could at least be a partial explanation why the team has played better.

Or not. Who knows? Either way, I agree with you that the team's overall body of work is a better indicator than simply looking at "good wins" and "bad losses." Not only that, but for a team Pomeroy ranks as #96, road losses to #124 San Francisco or #149 Bryant aren't actually "bad" losses, they probably weren't favored in either game, so they're just losses. The home loss to #120 Quinnipiac probably shouldn't be considered a "bad" loss, either, although Vermont would have been the favorite. Really, the only bad loss on Vermont's resume this season is the loss to #216 Wagner, and even that was on the road.

No, those were still bad losses. Discounting them because of the quality of Vermont's team just illustrates the point that Vermont is bad. And Wagner was an AWFUL loss. They lost to a team near the bottom third in the country by over 20. I don't care where you play, that's a terrible loss.


Yea, but what about "bad wins"? Or "good losses"?

Oh, they don't count those?

Then who cares if we beat Vermont by 1 or 100??

A win is a win. And all I care about is that Duke has played better since then. That game was an aberration.

Sure. Duke has definitely played better since. Nobody is arguing that we are a bad team. Nobody is saying that that game was anything other than an aberration. In fact, I'm barely sure how this thread came to discuss Vermont - I'm guess it was in relation to the idea that even bad teams can occasionally play good games. So calling that game an aberration actually further supports the point: bad teams sometimes play good games, just like good teams sometimes play bad games.

I feel like you're Don Quixote fighting the windmills on this one. You're arguing a completely separate argument from what is being discussed here.

The whole point (trying to bring it back full circle here) is that State is a bad team that has on occasion played a good game. Vermont is also a bad team who has occasionally played a good game.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Considering it was still a win, that's all I care about. They didn't play well on defense. Played pretty well on offense. And they haven't played as poorly since. Why harp on it?

Not harping. Just having an engaging argument with Des Esseintes.

But since I'm on the subject, there are a few important points about that game: ;)

1) I realized that we weren't a top 5 team after that game. Given our pre-season excitement, demolition of Davidson, and Jabari/Hood tandem, I honestly thought that we had the best odds of winning the tourney. Duke glasses or not, that's what I honestly believed. The Vermont game changed that for me. A lot has changed between now and then, but the Vermont game left me heartbroken.

2) I hope this is a game that Coach K talks to the team about for years to come. And I would be surprised if he didn't, especially against mediocre mid-majors. It can be used as a very effective tool to get players engaged on D.

[Des Esseintes]

Yup. Can you think of a game where we had so much talent and so little to show for it?

Let's start here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=290350228)


CLEMSON, S.C. -- Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski called a timeout in the final minute, gathered his beaten Blue Devils around him and let them listen as the Littlejohn Coliseum crowd celebrated a Clemson win like few others.

"They shouldn't forget this loss," Krzyzewski said. "This is as bad as you can play."

Trevor Booker scored 21 points and Terrence Oglesby had five 3-pointers in the 10th-ranked Tigers' 74-47 victory over Duke (No. 3 ESPN/USA Today, No. 4 AP).

Krzyzewski, typically a bright-side coach, found nothing satisfying about this defeat. The Blue Devils (19-3, 6-2 Atlantic Coast Conference) hadn't had a loss like this since the 1990 NCAA title game when UNLV beat the Blue Devils 103-73....

"What you take from anything," he said, "is the responsibility of what you've done."

"There are no excuses," he said....

"It was 40 minutes of them dominating," Krzyzewski said. "They just kicked our butts...."

"It's going to be tough to top that," Booker said. "We just played great. ... They quit at the end. We just got the job done...."

Gerald Henderson was the only one of Duke's four double-digit average scorers to hit that mark with 16. Kyle Singler, who came in averaging 16 points, had six on 2-of-8 shooting.

Krzyzewski spent most of the second half in his seat, hands over his mouth. Three times he subbed his entire squad to find a spark, but the Blue Devils never got closer than 20 points over the last 9 minutes.

It was Duke's fewest points this season, and its lowest scoring performance since a 54-51 win over Indiana in 2006.

Clemson was a good team that year, playing at its own house. But that cuts both ways. Duke utterly failed to bring a fight to one of its biggest threats for the conference title. If you're going to ask me which contest was an uglier, more frustrating watch, it's not even close. As Ferry said, we won the Vermont game, and scored 90 points to do it. Ain't nothing was working in Littlejohn that day. We go straight-up housed.

ETA: Also worth noting, Clemson was not the tenth-best team in the country that year. They played like heroes against us in that game, and it was their high-water mark. They tailed off significantly from that point and finished the season as a 7-seed in the tourney. Didn't stop them from cleaning our clock. What a team looks like at the point it plays Duke--these things do not align perfectly with the team's actual ability level. As is probably the case with Vermont this season, which played above its head against us after playing below itself to begin the year.

[Kedsy]

No, those were still bad losses. Discounting them because of the quality of Vermont's team just illustrates the point that Vermont is bad.

Bad compared to Duke, OK. But both Vermont and State are top 100 teams, according to Pomeroy, and I wouldn't call top 100 "bad" in the general sense. I don't think anybody's arguing that these teams are top 25 teams or anything.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Let's start here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=290350228)



Clemson was a good team that year, playing at its own house. But that cuts both ways. Duke utterly failed to bring a fight to one of its biggest threats for the conference title. If you're going to ask me which contest was an uglier, more frustrating watch, it's not even close. As Ferry said, we won the Vermont game, and scored 90 points to do it. Ain't nothing was working in Littlejohn that day. We go straight-up housed.

Yeah. I remember that game. Not fun.

I'm not gonna argue against you. I think that Clemson game helped to define our season that year, but the Vermont game was just so shocking, given the team, our home court advantage, and the fact that I lost a lot of faith in our team because of it. Rational or not, that's just me as a fan. I've since gained a lot more faith, but I'm sure I'll still remember this Vermont game even after the season ends.

For me, a bad win is sometimes worse than a good loss (I'm not defining the Clemson game as a good loss). I can honestly say that I felt 10x worse about the Vermont game than either of our 4 losses this year.

[CDu]

Bad compared to Duke, OK. But both Vermont and State are top 100 teams, according to Pomeroy, and I wouldn't call top 100 "bad" in the general sense. I don't think anybody's arguing that these teams are top 25 teams or anything.

And as I said, I think Vermont's surge in Pomeroy is based on the Wisconsin effect. Seriously: look at who they've played and the results they've gotten. Does anything in that REALLY suggest they're a top-100 team?

Since our game, they've played Illinois State (#130), @ San Francisco (#124) and lost by double digits, Sonoma State (apparently not D-1), Quinnipiac (#120) and lost by double digits, UMass-Lowell (#322), Harvard (#29), Lydson State (not a D-1 school apparently), Dartmouth (#223), Yale (#198), Albany (#217), Maine (#335), UMBC (#328), and New Hampshire (#343). Does losing a close game to Harvard, winning close-ish games against teams around #200 and blowing out teams outside the top-300 really suggest they are a top-100 team?

Pomeroy's efforts are fantastic, but even he admits that there are some flaws in the system that he hasn't quite figured out (most notably the Wisconsin effect). It would appear to me that Vermont is a classic case of this.

[Kedsy]

Pomeroy's efforts are fantastic, but even he admits that there are some flaws in the system that he hasn't quite figured out (most notably the Wisconsin effect). It would appear to me that Vermont is a classic case of this.

Well, his new formula this season was supposedly designed to blunt the Wisconsin effect. Has he already declared surrender on that?

By this point in the season, the teams are all "connected." Either his ratings have validity or they don't. If we start picking and choosing which we believe and which we don't, then it's hard to see the point in having ratings at all.

[Bob Green]

I've only been a Duke fan since 2003 (blame my parents for not having me at a younger age)...

You should thank your parents for sparing you the pain that was 1974: Neill McGeachy, 10-16, eight points in 17 seconds, yuck!

[CDu]

Well, his new formula this season was supposedly designed to blunt the Wisconsin effect. Has he already declared surrender on that?

By this point in the season, the teams are all "connected." Either his ratings have validity or they don't. If we start picking and choosing which we believe and which we don't, then it's hard to see the point in having ratings at all.

He attempted to do so. Doesn't mean it worked, or that it worked completely.

As for your second paragraph, I disagree. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we say that Pomeroy's system is better overall than most, but still has some systematic limitations that result in the occasional anomalous error like Vermont?

[jv001]

You should thank your parents for sparing you the pain that was 1974: Neill McGeachy, 10-16, eight points in 17 seconds, yuck!

Bob, isn't this the game Walter Davis threw in a long shot to more or less beat Duke. I may be wrong, but I also think this may be the game Duke's Steve Gray dribbled the ball of his own foot in those last 17 seconds. I've been trying to forget that game for a long, long time. GoDuke!

[Bob Green]

Bob, isn't this the game Walter Davis threw in a long shot to more or less beat Duke. I may be wrong, but I also think this may be the game Duke's Steve Gray dribbled the ball of his own foot in those last 17 seconds. I've been trying to forget that game for a long, long time. GoDuke!

My memory says Davis' long shot tied the game to send it into overtime.

[alteran]

My memory says Davis' long shot tied the game to send it into overtime.
My memory says that this game never happened. I was never ragged about it for weeks in elementary school and I never saw Billerman hassled over it at my high school. I'm going to have a beer and think about 2010, where we beat UNC by 173 points and won the natty without cheating, unlike some other schools.

What were we talking about?

[oldnavy]

Yea, but what about "bad wins"? Or "good losses"?

Oh, they don't count those?

Then who cares if we beat Vermont by 1 or 100??

A win is a win. And all I care about is that Duke has played better since then. That game was an aberration.

Thank goodness!!

I don't remember a worse "defensive" game from the Devils - EVER.... there may have been some, but giving up 90 in the way we did (~70% FG) was about as bad as it could be... only thing that saved us was we scored 91!!

[Newton_14]

My memory says Davis' long shot tied the game to send it into overtime.
That would be correct. I would have broken the tv remote had they existed at that time. Instead I just turned to my trademark "scream" over the years, which is "THEY ARE THE LUCKIEST TEAM ON PLANET EARTH!!!!!!!!!!"

Some games/moments/shots are unforgettable, and that was one of them...

[sagegrouse]

My memory says Davis' long shot tied the game to send it into overtime.


My memory says that this game never happened. I was never ragged about it for weeks in elementary school and I never saw Billerman hassled over it at my high school. I'm going to have a beer and think about 2010, where we beat UNC by 173 points and won the natty without cheating, unlike some other schools.

What were we talking about?

My strong memory is that I spent years 1972-1975 on the beaches of Santa Monica, CA and missed the meltdown of Duke Buckyball. The beaches were really nice and temps were about the same summer and winter. Also, my daughters were born there, including a future Duke grad.

[FerryFor50]

Yeah. I remember that game. Not fun.

I'm not gonna argue against you. I think that Clemson game helped to define our season that year, but the Vermont game was just so shocking, given the team, our home court advantage, and the fact that I lost a lot of faith in our team because of it. Rational or not, that's just me as a fan. I've since gained a lot more faith, but I'm sure I'll still remember this Vermont game even after the season ends.

For me, a bad win is sometimes worse than a good loss (I'm not defining the Clemson game as a good loss). I can honestly say that I felt 10x worse about the Vermont game than either of our 4 losses this year.

Another terrible game...

http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/2008/02/refs-make-up-for-years-of-duke-bias-in.html?m=1

All Duke starters fouled out.

Absolutely horrendous. And Wake wasn't that good. They were #69 in kenpom.

[DukieInBrasil]

My recollection is Vermont had some injuries early in the season. One of the injured players, 6'9" sophomore Ethan O'Day, has returned to the rotation for the past 11 games (playing 19+ mpg). I don't know how good this kid is, but it could at least be a partial explanation why the team has played better.

Or not. Who knows? Either way, I agree with you that the team's overall body of work is a better indicator than simply looking at "good wins" and "bad losses." Not only that, but for a team Pomeroy ranks as #96, road losses to #124 San Francisco or #149 Bryant aren't actually "bad" losses, they probably weren't favored in either game, so they're just losses. The home loss to #120 Quinnipiac probably shouldn't be considered a "bad" loss, either, although Vermont would have been the favorite. Really, the only bad loss on Vermont's resume this season is the loss to #216 Wagner, and even that was on the road.

Isn't Wagner Bobby Hurley's coaching destination these days?

[duke74]

You should thank your parents for sparing you the pain that was 1974: Neill McGeachy, 10-16, eight points in 17 seconds, yuck!

My senior year. Yuck is right!

[duke74]

Isn't Wagner Bobby Hurley's coaching destination these days?

Bobby's HC at Univ of Buffalo (AKA SUNY Buffalo). He joined UB after serving as assoc HC for brother Dan at URI. Both were at Wagner until the 2010 season I think.

[DU82]

Bobby's HC at Univ of Buffalo (AKA SUNY Buffalo). He joined UB after serving as assoc HC for brother Dan at URI. Both were at Wagner until the 2010 season I think.

Danny Hurley left Wagner for URI last season (end of 2012). Bobby was at URI as an assistant last season (2012-13) and as mentioned is now head coach at UB.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

My strong memory is that I spent years 1972-1975 on the beaches of Santa Monica, CA and missed the meltdown of Duke Buckyball. The beaches were really nice and temps were about the same summer and winter. Also, my daughters were born there, including a future Duke grad.

My strong memory is that I spent (most) of the years 1972-1975 at sea on the geophysical research ship R/V Vema and missed the meltdown of Duke Buckyball, although getting a definite foretaste before graduating. I also completely lost contact with my Duke girlfriend during that time - but everything has a purpose and works out in the end. Duke basketball and my life are both good. My daughter is getting married next fall. :D

However, Bucky was a complete disaster - no redeeming social value.

[duke74]

Danny Hurley left Wagner for URI last season (end of 2012). Bobby was at URI as an assistant last season (2012-13) and as mentioned is now head coach at UB.

Thanks. Had my years wrong...

[Wander]

Interestingly enough, Pomeroy ranks FSU as #16 (ahead of Duke) and ranks Clemson #32. Both (according to Pomeroy) are much better than the other "blah" teams.

Clemson just instantly dropped 12 spots, putting them much closer to the blahs. FSU's not there yet (in the computers), but give them time.

[Kedsy]

He attempted to do so. Doesn't mean it worked, or that it worked completely.

As for your second paragraph, I disagree. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we say that Pomeroy's system is better overall than most, but still has some systematic limitations that result in the occasional anomalous error like Vermont?

Here's the thing. What makes Vermont an occasional anomalous error? I think 8 of Pomeroy's top 10 are overrated. I think Kansas, Florida, and Duke are underrated. Why should we think he's right about Syracuse but wrong about Vermont? To me, either we can trust the computer or we can't. If you're good enough to tell which of the 351 teams are improperly rated and which aren't, then you're a lot better than I am.

[CDu]

Here's the thing. What makes Vermont an occasional anomalous error? I think 8 of Pomeroy's top 10 are overrated. I think Kansas, Florida, and Duke are underrated. Why should we think he's right about Syracuse but wrong about Vermont? To me, either we can trust the computer or we can't. If you're good enough to tell which of the 351 teams are improperly rated and which aren't, then you're a lot better than I am.

So first you are arguing that we should believe Vermont is decent because Pomeroy says so, but now you're saying you think Pomeroy is overrating 8 of the top 10? So which is it: according to your logic, if you think Pomeroy is wrong about 8 of the top 10, then you can't trumpet Vermont's top-100 Pomeroy rating as evidence that they are not bad. Seems like you are arguing just to argue here, because you have now argued both sides of the ledger.

Regardless, I can't understand why you can't see that any mathematical attempt to measure something that is not purely mathematical can result in a good overall approximation while missing wildly on some of the particulars.

[Kedsy]

So first you are arguing that we should believe Vermont is decent because Pomeroy says so, but now you're saying you think Pomeroy is overrating 8 of the top 10? So which is it: according to your logic, if you think Pomeroy is wrong about 8 of the top 10, then you can't trumpet Vermont's top-100 Pomeroy rating as evidence that they are not bad. Seems like you are arguing just to argue here, because you have now argued both sides of the ledger.

Regardless, I can't understand why you can't see that any mathematical attempt to measure something that is not purely mathematical can result in a good overall approximation while missing wildly on some of the particulars.

My point is it's impossible to know which ones are hits and which ones are misses.

I said I think 8 of the 10 are overrated to suggest that once you let the genie out of the bottle, you no longer have an objective system.

[CDu]

My point is it's impossible to know which ones are hits and which ones are misses.

I said I think 8 of the 10 are overrated to suggest that once you let the genie out of the bottle, you no longer have an objective system.

It is impossible to know with certainty. But we can make reasonably educated guesses. And Vermont's resume doesn't really suggest to me that they are a top-100 team, in spite of what Pomeroy suggests.

I agree that it is not a completely objective system. Luckily, since I am not using it as a hard-and-fast metric, I am not bound to your all-or-nothing system. I use Pomeroy not as a purely objective ordinal list, but rather a good starting point for discussion. If I see a team ranked #20 in Pomeroy and their resume looks reasonable, I conclude they are good. But I don't say that the #20 team is necessarily better than the #40 team. I think Pomeroy does a good job overall, but he misses the mark substantially in some cases. And when I compare Vermont's resume to their ranking, I conclude that they are most likely overrated.

[Kedsy]

It is impossible to know with certainty. But we can make reasonably educated guesses. And Vermont's resume doesn't really suggest to me that they are a top-100 team, in spite of what Pomeroy suggests.

I agree that it is not a completely objective system. Luckily, since I am not using it as a hard-and-fast metric, I am not bound to your all-or-nothing system. I use Pomeroy not as a purely objective ordinal list, but rather a good starting point for discussion. If I see a team ranked #20 in Pomeroy and their resume looks reasonable, I conclude they are good. But I don't say that the #20 team is necessarily better than the #40 team. I think Pomeroy does a good job overall, but he misses the mark substantially in some cases. And when I compare Vermont's resume to their ranking, I conclude that they are most likely overrated.

Of course you are not bound. If you can figure out which of the 351 Division I teams deserve their ranking and which don't, then more power to you. I know from experience that I can't tell which is which, so even if I think/feel a team is overrated (or underrated), if a valid computer system says a team is top 100 I don't quibble with it.

Out of curiosity, if Vermont isn't really a top 100 team, what are they? Top 120? Top 150? Bottom 10? On what would you base such a conclusion? "Resume" is kind of amorphous.

FWIW: Vermont is #93 in Sagarin Predictor, so it's not just Pomeroy that apparently got it wrong.

[Des Esseintes]

It is impossible to know with certainty. But we can make reasonably educated guesses. And Vermont's resume doesn't really suggest to me that they are a top-100 team, in spite of what Pomeroy suggests.

I agree that it is not a completely objective system. Luckily, since I am not using it as a hard-and-fast metric, I am not bound to your all-or-nothing system. I use Pomeroy not as a purely objective ordinal list, but rather a good starting point for discussion. If I see a team ranked #20 in Pomeroy and their resume looks reasonable, I conclude they are good. But I don't say that the #20 team is necessarily better than the #40 team. I think Pomeroy does a good job overall, but he misses the mark substantially in some cases. And when I compare Vermont's resume to their ranking, I conclude that they are most likely overrated.

Here's the thing, CDu. You're saying Vermont has a garbage resume for a top-100 team and must therefore be overrated by the machines. But have you looked at what a top-100 resume actually consists of? Here's Louisiana-Lafayette, ranked one kenpom spot higher than Vermont. You mentioned that Vermont has ugly losses to Bradley #149 and Wagner #217, with little of import accomplished against good teams except Duke.

Among their six losses, Louisiana-Lafayette has lost to:
#224 South Alabama
#227 Louisiana-Monroe
#292 Jackson St.

Aside from several non-DI wins, Louisiana-Lafayette has beaten:
#119 Houston
#35 La. Tech (on the road! Go Cajuns!)
#306 McNeese St
#161 Oakland
#259 Coastal Carolina
#228 Northwestern St.
#194 UT-Arlington
#250 Texas St.
#245 Troy

How is this better than the Vermont resume? The Ragin' Cajuns have one good win over La. Tech, which I would argue is *almost* as impressive as a 1-point loss in Cameron. Otherwise, a wasteland. Not a single top-100 victory, the majority 200-level and lower. This is what a top-100 resume looks like. It's ugly. Vermont's ranking is not an indictment of kenpom. Moreover, your mistake is exactly why we let computers do this kind of work. It is impossible for people to eyeball schedule quality once we get into the scrum of teams north of about 70. For those of us conditioned to following an every-day-is-Christmas program such as Duke, at least. We have a skewed sense of what constitutes reasonable quality at that level. We might think this looks like nothing to speak of, but the fact remains there are 351 Division I teams, and this sort of record puts you in the top third. Maybe you will say Louisiana-Lafayette benefits from the Wisconsin effect, too. For my part, when the numbers keep saying something different from my preconceived notions, it's time to reexamine my preconceived notions.

[Wander]

This is what a top-100 resume looks like. It's ugly. Vermont's ranking is not an indictment of kenpom. Moreover, your mistake is exactly why we let computers do this kind of work. It is impossible for people to eyeball schedule quality once we get into the scrum of teams north of about 70. For those of us conditioned to following an every-day-is-Christmas program such as Duke, at least. We have a skewed sense of what constitutes reasonable quality at that level. We might think this looks like nothing to speak of, but the fact remains there are 351 Division I teams, and this sort of record puts you in the top third. Maybe you will say Louisiana-Lafayette benefits from the Wisconsin effect, too. For my part, when the numbers keep saying something different from my preconceived notions, it's time to reexamine my preconceived notions.

I hear you, but two things:

1. Vermont is actually pretty consistent, so they're not too hard to figure out. They are 10-1 against teams ranked 200 or worse. They are 1-7 against teams ranked 150 or better.
2. You can actually now see teams' rankings through time on the site. Vermont was in the 150-200 range most of the year, then jumped up to its current ~100 ranking only after playing games against awful teams (ranked 218, 325, 338, 343).

Those two facts combined, and I think you can make a strong case that's consistent with CDu's posts: that Vermont is something like the ~175th best team.

[Kedsy]

I hear you, but two things:

1. Vermont is actually pretty consistent, so they're not too hard to figure out. They are 10-1 against teams ranked 200 or worse. They are 1-7 against teams ranked 150 or better.
2. You can actually now see teams' rankings through time on the site. Vermont was in the 150-200 range most of the year, then jumped up to its current ~100 ranking only after playing games against awful teams (ranked 218, 325, 338, 343).

Those two facts combined, and I think you can make a strong case that's consistent with CDu's posts: that Vermont is something like the ~175th best team.

You say you hear Des Esseintes point, but I'm not sure you really do. Louisiana-Lafayette is 2-3 against the top 150, and only 5-3 against teams ranked 200 or worse (9-6 overall against Div I teams). They have one more "good win," but two more "bad losses." Cleveland State is 1-8 against the top 150 and 2-0 against 200 or worse (9-9 overall against Div I teams). To me, those resumes don't look any better than Vermont's and yet Pomeroy ranks Louisiana-Lafayette #99 and Cleveland State #95. Depending on how well a team performed (over and above wins and losses, because if all you care about is wins and losses you might as well just look at the RPI), this is what a team ranked in the 90s looks like.

[Des Esseintes]

I hear you, but two things:

1. Vermont is actually pretty consistent, so they're not too hard to figure out. They are 10-1 against teams ranked 200 or worse. They are 1-7 against teams ranked 150 or better.
2. You can actually now see teams' rankings through time on the site. Vermont was in the 150-200 range most of the year, then jumped up to its current ~100 ranking only after playing games against awful teams (ranked 218, 325, 338, 343).

Those two facts combined, and I think you can make a strong case that's consistent with CDu's posts: that Vermont is something like the ~175th best team.

1. Vermont has rated #175 or below exactly *once* since kenpom began recording stats. This year's team starts five (5) seniors. Does it make intuitive sense that such a team would be its program's worst in a decade?

2. They have a resume similar to that of teams ranked near them. We should just assume they're worse anyway?

3. After a rough start to the season, they are currently undefeated in conference play and riding a 7-game winning streak, with an average victory margin of 26. Yeah, it's weak competition, but they are annihilating it. Plus, kenpom rankings seek to take quality of opponent into account. With his new formula, he seeks to do that more than ever. We don't even KNOW the Wisconsin effect still exists. At some point one must acknowledge that Vermont is rising in the rankings because it is playing much better.

4. They lost by 1 in Cameron and by 6 at Harvard. Is that "consistent" with sucking against top-100 competition? Your point #1 only holds up if you believe W-L has more explanatory power than tempo-free stats. In which case, you and I can just go our separate ways in this conversation right now.

To my eyes, it seems pretty clear people way overprivileged that early 1-4 record and don't want to let go of the narrative.

ETA: I missed Kedsy's previous post, which makes the schedule argument much better than I did. Thank you.

[CDu]

Here's the thing, CDu. You're saying Vermont has a garbage resume for a top-100 team and must therefore be overrated by the machines. But have you looked at what a top-100 resume actually consists of? Here's Louisiana-Lafayette, ranked one kenpom spot higher than Vermont. You mentioned that Vermont has ugly losses to Bradley #149 and Wagner #217, with little of import accomplished against good teams except Duke.

Among their six losses, Louisiana-Lafayette has lost to:
#224 South Alabama
#227 Louisiana-Monroe
#292 Jackson St.

Aside from several non-DI wins, Louisiana-Lafayette has beaten:
#119 Houston
#35 La. Tech (on the road! Go Cajuns!)
#306 McNeese St
#161 Oakland
#259 Coastal Carolina
#228 Northwestern St.
#194 UT-Arlington
#250 Texas St.
#245 Troy

How is this better than the Vermont resume? The Ragin' Cajuns have one good win over La. Tech, which I would argue is *almost* as impressive as a 1-point loss in Cameron. Otherwise, a wasteland. Not a single top-100 victory, the majority 200-level and lower. This is what a top-100 resume looks like. It's ugly. Vermont's ranking is not an indictment of kenpom. Moreover, your mistake is exactly why we let computers do this kind of work. It is impossible for people to eyeball schedule quality once we get into the scrum of teams north of about 70. For those of us conditioned to following an every-day-is-Christmas program such as Duke, at least. We have a skewed sense of what constitutes reasonable quality at that level. We might think this looks like nothing to speak of, but the fact remains there are 351 Division I teams, and this sort of record puts you in the top third. Maybe you will say Louisiana-Lafayette benefits from the Wisconsin effect, too. For my part, when the numbers keep saying something different from my preconceived notions, it's time to reexamine my preconceived notions.

Bingo. The bolded part summarizes my response to your argument here. You've identified another team with the same weak schedule artificially inflating their ranking. If I see more examples that are consistent with my argument (i.e., that success against an incredibly weak schedule can actually artificially inflate a team's Pomeroy ranking), I don't feel the need to reexamine my preconceived notions.

[CDu]

1. Vermont has rated #175 or below exactly *once* since kenpom began recording stats. This year's team starts five (5) seniors. Does it make intuitive sense that such a team would be its program's worst in a decade?

Each season is different.


2. They have a resume similar to that of teams ranked near them. We should just assume they're worse anyway?

They are 11-8, with no wins (one almost win, yes) against teams in the top-100. Aside from those two good games against Duke and Harvard, they have either looked awful or played incredibly awful opponents (or both). Against teams even arguably in the top half of D-1, they are 1-6 with two close losses and the rest comfortable losses or worse. They have a blowout loss outside of the top-200.

State, for comparison, is 6-7 against teams in the top-half of D-1, including two blowout wins, two very close losses, and two blowout losses. They have no losses to teams outside the top-200.

Do you really think those resumes are similar? Because it seems to me that, aside from two blowout losses by State and two close losses by Vermont, nothing suggests they are in the same ballpark at all.


3. After a rough start to the season, they are currently undefeated in conference play and riding a 7-game winning streak, with an average victory margin of 26. Yeah, it's weak competition, but they are annihilating it. Plus, kenpom rankings seek to take quality of opponent into account. With his new formula, he seeks to do that more than ever. We don't even KNOW the Wisconsin effect still exists. At some point one must acknowledge that Vermont is rising in the rankings because it is playing much better.

It's not just weak competition. It is the absolute weakest competition in all of D-1. I don't have to acknowledge that Vermont is playing much better, because I don't know that they are. The level of competition they're facing has just dropped so drastically that we really can't tell if they are playing better. My intuition tells me that it is mostly the level of competition. You may feel free to disagree.

And while we don't know that Pomeroy still has a Wisconsin effect, we know that it has historically had that problem. And we also don't know that his tweaks have actually fixed the problem.


To my eyes, it seems pretty clear people way overprivileged that early 1-4 record and don't want to let go of the narrative.

Since that 1-4 start, they've played Duke and Harvard close, they've lost by double-digits to two sub-125 teams, and they've played a bunch of patsies. I don't think that's anywhere near definitive evidence that the 1-4 start was a mirage.

[greybeard]

They say every team brings their best to Duke. Maybe Vermont's "best" is way better than its average game. It seems like it just from the points scored against Duke. So, it seems to me that Duke's win was a good one, not that it played bad. Duke's defense can never be counted upon; it scored a whole lot of points to beat a Vermont team that apparently was playing out of its collective mind. Losing to a poor team by a normal score, imo, would have been a bad lose, and winning, not meaningful, especially if close. Beating a team with a score like this is terrific fun, lets the team "air it out," which K might have wanted his team to do, and the win, imo, should count for more than otherwise.

[Kedsy]

They are 11-8, with no wins (one almost win, yes) against teams in the top-100. Aside from those two good games against Duke and Harvard, they have either looked awful or played incredibly awful opponents (or both). Against teams even arguably in the top half of D-1, they are 1-6 with two close losses and the rest comfortable losses or worse. They have a blowout loss outside of the top-200.


Louisiana-Lafayette is 9-6 against Division I with one win against the top 100 and 3 losses to sub-200.
Cleveland State is 9-9 against Division I with zero wins against the top 100 (0-5).
Delaware is 13-7 with zero wins against the top 100 (0-6) and a loss to a sub-200.

And yet including Vermont we're talking about Pomeroy's #93, #95, #98, and #99 teams.

I'll grant that they've all feasted on some incredibly awful teams. But do you think they're all overrated recipients of the Wisconsin effect? If so, then we're back to my argument yesterday. Either the computer works or it doesn't. If it's OK to discount 4 of the 10 teams rated in the 90s (and maybe more, but I don't feel like going through every team's schedule and think four is enough to make my point), then why stop there? Why not discount every team's rating if we don't think they're really that good?

Once we go down this rabbit hole, we no longer have an objective system.

[Des Esseintes]

Each season is different.
Of course every season is different. But programs have track records. More importantly, they have coaching staffs and players carried year over year. If Vermont has an incredibly veteran team and hasn't played at 175-level in years, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to say why we should toss out the objective data and JUST ASSUME Vermont sucks way harder than usual. You can't just hand wave at the question by saying each season is a snowflake.


They are 11-8, with no wins (one almost win, yes) against teams in the top-100. Aside from those two good games against Duke and Harvard, they have either looked awful or played incredibly awful opponents (or both). Against teams even arguably in the top half of D-1, they are 1-6 with two close losses and the rest comfortable losses or worse. They have a blowout loss outside of the top-200.

State, for comparison, is 6-7 against teams in the top-half of D-1, including two blowout wins, two very close losses, and two blowout losses. They have no losses to teams outside the top-200.

Do you really think those resumes are similar? Because it seems to me that, aside from two blowout losses by State and two close losses by Vermont, nothing suggests they are in the same ballpark at all.

See, this is bizarre analysis. You say that except for two strong games against high-level competition, they have sucked against high-level competition. BUT THEY HAD TWO STRONG GAMES AGAINST HIGH LEVEL COMPETITION! It's not the Wisconsin effect. No, they didn't win those games, but if you put any credence in the philosophy behind tempo-free statistics, that shouldn't matter. You are slapping a warped lens on Vermont by saying their only quality performances are against awful competition. They are lately crushing bad competition, after performing weakly against some good teams and strongly against other good teams. They were poor against *more* good teams than not, but come on--NO team is going to distribute its performances with perfect evenness of expected quality across its schedule. You are taking what it is not even an especially pronounced bit of random variation and making up a story about it.

Also, maybe their resume is like State's, and maybe it isn't. It is like Louisiana-Monroe's directly above them, whose schedule I grabbed at random, and it is like the schedules of the teams Kedsy pulled up. Your response was to say that Louisiana-Monroe is Wisconsin effect, too. How much of the kenpom board is Wisconsin-effected? Does that seem likely, that all these random schools are benefiting from an effect that is rare enough to be named after the single school that has been shown to regularly display it? Or, perhaps, are you just not super-familiar with what a 100-level team's resume looks like? I know that I am not, but maybe you spend your free time putting Horizon League teams into their proper tiers. People have really interesting private lives on DBR.


It's not just weak competition. It is the absolute weakest competition in all of D-1. I don't have to acknowledge that Vermont is playing much better, because I don't know that they are. The level of competition they're facing has just dropped so drastically that we really can't tell if they are playing better. My intuition tells me that it is mostly the level of competition. You may feel free to disagree.
Then we disagree. You can only play your schedule, and Vermont is doing the very best they possibly could against that schedule at this point. 26 point average victory margin! And, again, you're just going to dismiss that as meaningless. By your logic, Vermont cannot prove it has gotten one scintilla better for the entire rest of the regular season, no matter how well they play. That strikes me as bizarrely narrow-minded. That schedule might not tell us if Duke is a title contender; I think it has some power to tell us if Vermont belongs in the top half of D1.


And while we don't know that Pomeroy still has a Wisconsin effect, we know that it has historically had that problem. And we also don't know that his tweaks have actually fixed the problem.


Since that 1-4 start, they've played Duke and Harvard close, they've lost by double-digits to two sub-125 teams, and they've played a bunch of patsies. I don't think that's anywhere near definitive evidence that the 1-4 start was a mirage.
We're agreed that we don't know the Wisconsin effect still exists. But you are just going to assume, against both the objective data (kenpom ranking) and reasonable traditional explanations (played poorly to start the season, turned the corner; program with an established better-than-Davidson pedigree) that Vermont is awful based on this maybe-not-even-real-and-in-any-case-uncommon phenomenon. Look, you're a smart guy and a good writer, but I've basically never heard you admit to being on the losing side of an argument. You dig in with more stubbornness than almost anyone I've ever seen. That's fine. It's good to stick to your guns much of the time. But in this instance, I think you are letting your previous position stand in the way of looking with clear eyes at the data.

[Wander]

3. After a rough start to the season, they are currently undefeated in conference play and riding a 7-game winning streak, with an average victory margin of 26. Yeah, it's weak competition, but they are annihilating it. Plus, kenpom rankings seek to take quality of opponent into account. With his new formula, he seeks to do that more than ever. We don't even KNOW the Wisconsin effect still exists. At some point one must acknowledge that Vermont is rising in the rankings because it is playing much better.

You might be right - I'm just uneasy that their rise through the rankings has occurred while playing teams ranked 300+, that's all. It looks like 3 of their next 4 are against significantly better teams, so if they're still ranked in the top 100 after that, I'll concede.

[CDu]

Of course every season is different. But programs have track records. More importantly, they have coaching staffs and players carried year over year. If Vermont has an incredibly veteran team and hasn't played at 175-level in years, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to say why we should toss out the objective data and JUST ASSUME Vermont sucks way harder than usual. You can't just hand wave at the question by saying each season is a snowflake.

You're making the assumption that they haven't systematically overrated by Pomeroy. That assumption is critical here in referencing their recent history as evidence that they should be top-100 this year. But is that assumption correct? If their conference is perennially awful (it is), and if Pomeroy systematically overvalues teams who beat up on awful comp (it has admittedly done so coming into this season), why shouldn't we question those previous rankings for the same reason I'm questioning their ranking this season?

You don't believe that Vermont is systematically overrated based on beating up patsies. So you believe their past rankings. I believe that they are systematically overrated and have been for years. Thus, I don't believe those past rankings, either.


See, this is bizarre analysis. You say that except for two strong games against high-level competition, they have sucked against high-level competition. BUT THEY HAD TWO STRONG GAMES AGAINST HIGH LEVEL COMPETITION! It's not the Wisconsin effect. No, they didn't win those games, but if you put any credence in the philosophy behind tempo-free statistics, that shouldn't matter. You are slapping a warped lens on Vermont by saying their only quality performances are against awful competition. They are lately crushing bad competition, after performing weakly against some good teams and strongly against other good teams. They were poor against *more* good teams than not, but come on--NO team is going to distribute its performances with perfect evenness of expected quality across its schedule. You are taking what it is not even an especially pronounced bit of random variation and making up a story about it.

I've acknowledged that Vermont played well against Duke and Harvard. But in looking at their full resume against decent teams, they've been awful. You seem to want to put your eggs in the basket of those two good games and their performances against the bottom of the bottom feeders of D-1. I prefer to look at their performances against all of the decent teams in D-1. And they've not been competitive enough in those games, in my opinion. Nothing bizarre about my analysis. Just a different point of view.


Then we disagree. You can only play your schedule, and Vermont is doing the very best they possibly could against that schedule at this point. 26 point average victory margin! And, again, you're just going to dismiss that as meaningless. By your logic, Vermont cannot prove it has gotten one scintilla better for the entire rest of the regular season, no matter how well they play. That strikes me as bizarrely narrow-minded. That schedule might not tell us if Duke is a title contender; I think it has some power to tell us if Vermont belongs in the top half of D1.

Vermont is certainly doing the best they can against an awful schedule. But when they've played decent teams, they generally stunk. Yes, they had 2 good performances against good teams. The rest of their performances have stunk.

I'm not blaming Vermont for their awful conference schedule. I'm just saying that their rise in Pomeroy has come specifically against that schedule. And when they had their chances against decent teams, they've mostly (not all of the time, obviously) floundered.

I just disagree iwth your last sentence in this section. I don't really believe that playing teams in the bottom 50 in the nation should be evidence that they should be in the top third of the country.

Ultimately, it will all be moot, because they'll likely win their crappy conference again. And in doing so, they'll make their Pomeroy ranking irrelevant.


We're agreed that we don't know the Wisconsin effect still exists. But you are just going to assume, against both the objective data (kenpom ranking) and reasonable traditional explanations (played poorly to start the season, turned the corner; program with an established better-than-Davidson pedigree) that Vermont is awful based on this maybe-not-even-real-and-in-any-case-uncommon phenomenon. Look, you're a smart guy and a good writer, but I've basically never heard you admit to being on the losing side of an argument. You dig in with more stubbornness than almost anyone I've ever seen. That's fine. It's good to stick to your guns much of the time. But in this instance, I think you are letting your previous position stand in the way of looking with clear eyes at the data.

Again - if my assumption is correct (about the Wisconsin effect), then I'd argue that Vermont's recent history is evidence of the Wisconsin effect. They've been in the same awful conference for years.

As for the last few sentences, I argue vehemently when I vehemently believe I'm right. I won't apologize for that. But I readily admit to being wrong when someone proves me wrong. The trick is to try hard to avoid getting in arguments where I can be proven wrong so that I don't have to admit it very often. ;)

But in a situation like this, ultimately I'm not going to "admit I'm wrong," just like you aren't going to admit you're wrong. We both think we're right. And neither side is going to be able to produce evidence to prove the other wrong. You can't prove to me that Vermont's recent dominance of the sisters of the poor is clear evidence that Vermont really has turned the corner (and not just evidence of playing really bad teams), and I can't prove to you that Vermont's recent rise in Pomeroy is more the result of the Wisconsin effect. Short of either of those things, neither of us is going to back down.

And that's fine - feel free to believe that Vermont is really a top-100 type of team. Heck, you might be right. I'll continue to believe that Vermont is being overrated by Pomeroy's system. And heck, I might be right.

[oldnavy]

They say every team brings their best to Duke. Maybe Vermont's "best" is way better than its average game. It seems like it just from the points scored against Duke. So, it seems to me that Duke's win was a good one, not that it played bad. Duke's defense can never be counted upon; it scored a whole lot of points to beat a Vermont team that apparently was playing out of its collective mind. Losing to a poor team by a normal score, imo, would have been a bad lose, and winning, not meaningful, especially if close. Beating a team with a score like this is terrific fun, lets the team "air it out," which K might have wanted his team to do, and the win, imo, should count for more than otherwise.

They were not playing out of their mind, they were making layups!

We played middle school defense at best in that game.