FEARLESS Predictions: 2014-15 Season

[DavidBenAkiva]

I was thinking this morning (shocking, I know!) about the upcoming team. I got to wondering what would be common things we can expect to hear from the TV announcers during games. Here's a few that I thought of:


Marshall Plumlee could start for any other team in the country
This is the deepest team Coach K has ever had
Jahlil Okafor is looking like the #1 pick in the NBA Lottery
Justise Winslow is a real glue guy
Rasheed Sulaimon is one of the best guards in the country
Grayson Allen doesn't look like he can jump, but he really can
Quin Cook has developed into a real leader
Amile Jefferson is underrated


In the form or 'Things broadcasters say when calling a Duke basketball game,' what are your fearless predictions for the year?

[OldPhiKap]

I predict that we will miss Collins and Wojo more than many think. Not that others cannot step up, but they were a big part of keeping the machine humming efficiently on and off the court.

[superdave]

I was thinking this morning (shocking, I know!) about the upcoming team. I got to wondering what would be common things we can expect to hear from the TV announcers during games. Here's a few that I thought of:


Marshall Plumlee could start for any other team in the country
This is the deepest team Coach K has ever had
Jahlil Okafor is looking like the #1 pick in the NBA Lottery
Justise Winslow is a real glue guy
Rasheed Sulaimon is one of the best guards in the country
Grayson Allen doesn't look like he can jump, but he really can
Quin Cook has developed into a real leader
Amile Jefferson is underrated


In the form or 'Things broadcasters say when calling a Duke basketball game,' what are your fearless predictions for the year?



This team will be significantly better on defense than last year's team.

Super "Out on a limb, I know" Dave

[flyingdutchdevil]

This team will be significantly better on defense than last year's team.

Super "Out on a limb, I know" Dave

A team consisting of a NY Strip Steak, a hard boiled egg, a tuna fish sandwich, a bad of Cheetos, and a home-made lasagna could play better D than our team last year.

I believe you are right; better D, more experience on the perimeter, and a man-child named Winslow. On top of that, it is addition by subtraction (only on the D end, obviously. On the O end, we lose a ton).

[Bluegrassdevil1]

1. Duke loses in February: "You gotta wonder, have the Devils peaked? Could we see another Mercer, VCU, Lehigh defeat?"

2. Okafor or Jones slumps for a week or so in the early ACC: Okafor- "Is Duke too guard-orientated to help Okafor recover?" Jones- "Is Duke putting too much pressure on the freshman?"

3. Cook goes through his yearly "pout-fest": "You gotta wonder if the senior's ever going to get over losing his spot?"

4. Duke loses at the Yum: "Does Pitino have K's number?" "Is U of L the new kings of the ACC?"

5. Duke loses BIG: "They don't have a power forward, and without a big man to bail Okafor out, it's hard to see them making it past the first weekend."

6. Okafor does not live up to expectations (and I am unsure if ANYONE ever could): "The naysayers about the Devils not developing big man may have just found their strongest piece of evidence."

7. Duke wins the national championship/makes the Final Four: "Not to take anything away from Duke, but you gotta say their road to the championship was the easiest of the remaining teams." (the 2004/2010 path evidence)

8. Lack of fruitful stats from Jefferson, Plumlee, Cook, and Jones: "Can the Blue Devils get enough from their big four (Okafor, Winslow, Jones, Sheed) to off-set the lack of production from their supporting players?"

9. Duke plays UK for the national championship: "I think the world may explode at 9:25 in Indianapolis on Monday, April 6th."

10. UK-Duke title game: "You gotta wonder, does the winning coach walk away and become the Cavs' new coach?"

[hurleyfor3]

Two round-of-64 exits in the last three years.

[throatybeard]

I predict that we won't win the national championship, and that 93% of our fans will act like a two year old that has had a lollipop stolen and been hit in the face with a 1968 hard-shelled American Tourister suitcase.

[Duvall]

Two round-of-64 exits in the last three years.

That's not really how predictions work.

[hurleyfor3]

That's not really how predictions work.

Read the first post again.

[kAzE]

In order of increasing boldness:

- Duke sweeps Carolina with relative ease
- Amile Jefferson and Quinn Cook are named co-captains of the team
- This is the best Duke squad since 2011
- Duke will be ranked #1 in both polls at some point this season
- Tyus Jones is the starting point guard by mid-February, and gets serious attention from NBA scouts as a potential lottery pick
- Justise Winslow is projected as a top 5 pick by the end of the year
- Jahlil Okafor wins national freshman of the year, first team All-ACC, ACC rookie of the year, becomes the #1 pick in the 2015 NBA draft
- Duke wins the ACC regular season championship with a 16-2 record
- Duke earns a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament in the East Region
- Duke wins the ACC tournament
- Duke wins the 2015 National Championship 72-70 over Kentucky, John Calipari leaves to coach in the NBA, UK fans blow up twitter, Duke fans smugly hold this over their heads for generations to come

[OldPhiKap]

Len Elmore will comment that "Duke is getting all the calls right now," and lament the end of the "Duke - Maryland rivalry"

[Duvall]

Read the first post again.

A mere detail. (Thanks.)

[gofurman]

Two round-of-64 exits in the last three years.

Unrelated but still burns me. Lehigh w McCollum and VCU w their guard ...ok, MAYBE. But Mercer who had NO SUPER FAST GAURD (IE, they were the perfect matchup ! ) will always burn me. One of Ks worst-ever coaching jobs. E.V.E.R

Sure they had all seniors but so do most every mid-major these days. That's what you have to contend with. Super youngsters or less talented upperclassmen. Horrible, Horrible job by K.

[Native]

National Championship.

The stars are aligning.

[jipops]

Much of this board begs all year for Winslow to start instead of a small perimeter of Cook-Jones-Sulaimon...but it doesn't happen.

Amile starts killing it with a reliable 12 ft jumper

Winslow plays a lot of minutes as a power forward subbing in for Amile. He'll also be featured as a primary ball handler.

Semi plays very few minutes (I base this only on Winslow's superior ball and defensive skills, though I have no clue how much Semi has improved)

Cook boasts a wonderful a/to ratio all season long

The team is better defensively than in '13-'14, but not as much as we would like to see.

Freshman Okafor will average 15 and 11 yet many will think he should be doing more.

K settles in to a 7 man rotation by mid January with Plumlee and Winslow coming off the bench.

[Kedsy]

According to many posters on this board:

-- whoever isn't playing should be playing and if K doesn't play them it's conclusive proof that he should retire;

-- (related) how can Coach K play a 7-man rotation when he has his deepest team evah!?!

-- whichever freshman recently had a good game is the best player in Duke history;

-- (right up until the NCAAT begins) this Duke team is either the best team we've ever had or won't get past the first round -- but there's absolutely no chance of anything in between.

[kAzE]

This thread is going to fun to look at once next year is winding down :)

[hurleyfor3]

According to many posters on this board:

-- whoever isn't playing should be playing and if K doesn't play them it's conclusive proof that he should retire;

-- (related) how can Coach K play a 7-man rotation when he has his deepest team evah!?!

-- whichever freshman recently had a good game is the best player in Duke history;

-- (right up until the NCAAT begins) this Duke team is either the best team we've ever had or won't get past the first round -- but there's absolutely no chance of anything in between.

I think that's every year, but perhaps that's your point.

[Kedsy]

I think that's every year, but perhaps that's your point.

You are a wise individual.

[kAzE]

According to many posters on this board:

-- whoever isn't playing should be playing and if K doesn't play them it's conclusive proof that he should retire;

-- (related) how can Coach K play a 7-man rotation when he has his deepest team evah!?!

-- whichever freshman recently had a good game is the best player in Duke history;

-- (right up until the NCAAT begins) this Duke team is either the best team we've ever had or won't get past the first round -- but there's absolutely no chance of anything in between.

Well, to be fair to the bi-polar posters of this message, this has actually been true more times than not this decade :)

2010: Championship
2011: lost in regional semis
2012: 1st round exit
2013: lost in regional finals
2014: 1st round exit

The 2010 team wasn't anywhere close to being the best Duke team ever, but hyperbole aside, it was at least one of the best teams we've had.

[CameronBornAndBred]

In chat, Loran will say that our defense sucks. And that our offense sucks.
During a game that we win by 17. :p

[jv001]

1) This Winslow kid doesn't look like a freshman. Wow he can really play.
2) Coach K hasn't let USA basketball interfere with his duties as the Duke coach.
3) Marshall Plumlee has come a long way since his freshman year. He'll get consideration for lots of minutes.
4) Jahill Okafor is the real deal. He's going to be a good pro.
5) This Duke team will be as good as Quinn Cook and Tyus Jones are.
6) Look at all that past Duke experience on the bench next to K.
7) And from Len Elmore, the refs didn't see that little push from that Duke player. Should have been called a foul on Duke.

GoDuke!

[roywhite]

If this video from DukeBluePlanet is any indication, the team is serious about conditioning.

Duke Basketball: Summer Work 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PeeNYSWUWA#t=60)

[kAzE]

If this video from DukeBluePlanet is any indication, the team is serious about conditioning.

Duke Basketball: Summer Work 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PeeNYSWUWA#t=60)

Oh man, I hope Winslow is allowed to keep his hair. I like it. Have we ever had a player with dreads?

[SoCalDukeFan]

Optimistic

Coach K focuses on getting the most out of the entire team, wins the NC.

Pessimistic

Coach K gets enamored with the frosh, never gets the team to play to potential, loses in 1st or 2nd round.

SoCal

[throatybeard]

In chat, Loran will say that our defense sucks. And that our offense sucks.
During a game that we win by 17. :p

Asack keeper.

Wait, he doesn't play here anymore? Dang.

[lotusland]

I've already picked the guys I'm rooting hardest for this year:

1. Quinn Cook is proving his doubters wrong by putting together an All ACC Season at PG for Duke
2. Semi Ojeleye has seemingly come from out of nowhere to become a key rotation player and contributor for Duke this year

[Kedsy]

According to many posters on this board:

...this Duke team is either the best team we've ever had or won't get past the first round -- but there's absolutely no chance of anything in between.


Optimistic

Coach K focuses on getting the most out of the entire team, wins the NC.

Pessimistic

Coach K gets enamored with the frosh, never gets the team to play to potential, loses in 1st or 2nd round.


Well, I enjoy being a prophet so soon, but I didn't really expect both extremes in the same post... :(

[SoCalDukeFan]

Well, I enjoy being a prophet so soon, but I didn't really expect both extremes in the same post... :(

From all reports the talent is there for a very good team. Coach K is the best. So if the talent works together it should be a very good year.

But, last year's team was certainly more talented than a first round loss to Mercer would indicate. Other teams with frosh stars have also underperformed (they did have injury issues). I think last year style of play got changed to take advantage of Parker and Hood but the change was hard on others to accept or adopt. Will we have strength at the point or a problem as neither gets the minutes they want? Will we emphasize Okafur at the expense of Rasheed?

While I am less optimistic than many on this board, I fully understand that it could be a great season.

SoCal

[Clay Feet POF]

I think the big story will be T Jones and Q Cook playing together. They will be the constant propelling this team. Jones will help Cook have his best year, and T Jones will learn from Quinn experiences. I think assists will skyrocket this year.

[Duke3517]

I think sweet 16 or elite 8 is the most realistic outcome. I like Duke's size this year. Could be a huge year for Jefferson. I wish Duke had that Ryan Kelly or Kyle Singler type player on their team. How do you all feel about Duke's perimeter shooting?

[Kedsy]

How do you all feel about Duke's perimeter shooting?

Quinn Cook and Rasheed Sulaimon are going to take a lot of three point shots this season. Last season they combined for 3.1 three-point makes out of 8 three-point attempts (38.6%). This year they'll shoot a lot more. If they keep a similar percentage (or improve), we'll be OK.

[Kedsy]

But, last year's team was certainly more talented than a first round loss to Mercer would indicate.

I get why you (and others) are nervous -- Duke has lost in the first round of the NCAAT in two of the last three seasons. But three seasons isn't much of a sample. If we look at the entirety of Coach K's Duke career, here's what we get:

Total seasons when Duke is ranked in the pre-season top 10: 24

Of those 24 seasons, Duke....

...lost in first round: 2 (2014 and 2012 and never before)
...lost in second round: 3 (1997, 1993, 1985)
...made Sweet 16: 6
...made Elite Eight: 2
...made Final Four: 3
...made Final Two: 3
...won championship: 4
...missed tournament: 1 (1995)

Put another way, in the past 17 seasons, the only seasons when a Duke team ranked in the pre-season top 10 didn't at least make the Sweet 16 were 2012 and 2014. Those seasons were the anomalies, not the norm.

Could we lose in the first round again? Sure, almost anything's possible. But it's not likely. It's certainly not anywhere close to as likely as some people seem to think it is.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I get why you (and others) are nervous -- Duke has lost in the first round of the NCAAT in two of the last three seasons. But three seasons isn't much of a sample. If we look at the entirety of Coach K's Duke career, here's what we get:

Total seasons when Duke is ranked in the pre-season top 10: 24

Of those 24 seasons, Duke....

...lost in first round: 2 (2014 and 2012 and never before)
...lost in second round: 3 (1997, 1993, 1985)
...made Sweet 16: 6
...made Elite Eight: 2
...made Final Four: 3
...made Final Two: 3
...won championship: 4
...missed tournament: 1 (1995)

Put another way, in the past 17 seasons, the only seasons when a Duke team ranked in the pre-season top 10 didn't at least make the Sweet 16 were 2012 and 2014. Those seasons were the anomalies, not the norm.

Could we lose in the first round again? Sure, almost anything's possible. But it's not likely. It's certainly not anywhere close to as likely as some people seem to think it is.

You are right and believe me I think Coach K is probably the best college basketball coach of all time. We are very lucky that he has been at Duke. And its more than the wins.

But the wins were not done with one and dones as primary players. Christian Laettner said or tweeted after the Mercer game which he did not see as he was in an airplane something like -"Coach K's defense takes more than a year to learn."

HOWEVER I think Coach K is very competitive and will make adjustments when he sees them as necessary.

SoCal

[uh_no]

I get why you (and others) are nervous -- Duke has lost in the first round of the NCAAT in two of the last three seasons. But three seasons isn't much of a sample. If we look at the entirety of Coach K's Duke career, here's what we get:

Total seasons when Duke is ranked in the pre-season top 10: 24

Of those 24 seasons, Duke....

...lost in first round: 2 (2014 and 2012 and never before)
...lost in second round: 3 (1997, 1993, 1985)
...made Sweet 16: 6
...made Elite Eight: 2
...made Final Four: 3
...made Final Two: 3
...won championship: 4
...missed tournament: 1 (1995)

Put another way, in the past 17 seasons, the only seasons when a Duke team ranked in the pre-season top 10 didn't at least make the Sweet 16 were 2012 and 2014. Those seasons were the anomalies, not the norm.

Could we lose in the first round again? Sure, almost anything's possible. But it's not likely. It's certainly not anywhere close to as likely as some people seem to think it is.

while what you say is true, there's hardly enough data to 2 of the last 3 years constitutes a temporary deviation from the norm, or a downward trend. It's impossible to know.

personally I think it is a new trend, and NOT because "K has slipped" or some bull like that. The fact is that the high player turnover in this era lends itself to higher program variability from year to year. In fact I think the fact that K's teams have still be constantly rated so highly (top 10 streak) is a testament to K's ability to continue to coach in the era....IT's just that we can't expect 7 final fours in 9 years...I'm not sure those kind of numbers will EVER be matched , let alone by K. Not to mentin, in 2 of the past 4 years, we've been seriously marred by injury troubles which no doubt inhibited last season performance (kyrie and ryan)

speaking of tredy-ness, I want to recall last year and our defensive efficiency throughout the season...After a couple of good performances in february, I think it was you (and apologies if it wasn't) who claimed that a couple good performances on D indicated an upward trend, and I urged caution lest it be an anomaly. It took the rest of the season to really establish that it was anomolous. I think the same caution needs to be applied here. It will take the next 3-5 years to really establish how much the past few years do or do not indicate a trend.

[Kedsy]

But the wins were not done with one and dones as primary players. Christian Laettner said or tweeted after the Mercer game which he did not see as he was in an airplane something like -"Coach K's defense takes more than a year to learn."

Number of freshmen in Duke's top 7 minute-getters, selected seasons:

2014: 1
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 0*
2010: 1
2004: 1
2001: 1
1999: 1
1994: 1
1992: 1
1991: 1
1990: 1
1989: 1
1988: 0
1986: 1

* would have been 1 if Kyrie hadn't gotten hurt.

First, I realize most of the freshmen alluded to here weren't "one and dones," but for the purposes of whether or not a player knows Duke's defense, I can't see how a freshman who later turns out to stay beyond his freshman year is any different from a one-and-done, at least during that player's freshman season.

Second, some people seem to count Rodney Hood as a one-and-done, but he clearly wasn't. He not only played a year in college before he transferred, he also practiced Duke's defense for an entire year before playing this past season.

Third, I realize none of the above teams necessarily have a direct bearing on the 2014-15 team, since our upcoming season will probably feature 3 freshmen in our top 7 minute-getters -- perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare to the 2007 team (3 freshmen in top 7) or the 1998 team (2 freshmen in top 7 plus Elton Brand who would have been among the top 7 if he hadn't gotten hurt). Of course using those two teams wouldn't be that helpful, either, since the 2007 team lost in the first round and the 1998 team made the Elite Eight. Certainly no consensus there.

My point is simply this: 10 of Duke's 11 Final Four teams under Coach K had the exact same number of freshmen in our top 7 minute-getters as the 2012 and 2014 teams did. In other words, the "wins were done" with just as many freshmen among our top 7 as the embarrassing losses.

Blaming the one-and-dones is convenient, but I don't think accurate.

[uh_no]

Number of freshmen in Duke's top 7 minute-getters, selected seasons:

2014: 1
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 0*
2010: 1
2004: 1
2001: 1
1999: 1
1994: 1
1992: 1
1991: 1
1990: 1
1989: 1
1988: 0
1986: 1


5 year rolling count of freshman top 7 minute getters (i think the chart would be even more egregious counting top 5 or top 3 in minutes...so we should probably just look at average freshman minutes to avoid using an arbitrary distinction at number of players...but anyway):

1990: 3
1991: 3
1992: 4
1993: 3
1994: 4
1995: 3
1996: 2
1997: 1
1998: 1
1999: 1
2000: 1
2001: 2
2002: 2
2003: 2
2004: 2
2005: 2
2006: 1
2007: 1
2008: 1
2009: 0
2010: 1
2011: 2
2012: 3
2013: 4
2014: 5
2015: 6 (projected, with okafor and jones)

so what we see here is that the past 5 year stretch has seen the most consistent use of freshmen likely ever, and by far the most since the early '90s. Further, in the old days, a lot of those freshmen players went on to become phenomenal upper classmen...often POY players while they were in college . for instance, last year, yeah we only started 1 freshman, but in the old days, Kyrie would have been a senior on that team....I that would have made a difference in our perimeter defense and pressure situation offense.

freshman can certainly an issue, but just as big of an issue is turnover...and I would contend the players surrounding freshmen aren't as good as they were when top guys could stay a few years. The top guys go, and that's pretty much what the chart shows....incoming freshman are on par with older guys on the team, hence consistently seeing top playing time now more than at any time in the K era...are incoming players more prepared to compete at this level? are upperclassmen not as good as they used to be? I suspect it's a little of both....more good players leave early, and nobody can jump straight to the NBA anymore...in fact, that might be supported by the data....

in the early 90's, most players went to college and stayed a few years....even NBA ready guys....so you would expect to see guys ready to contribute....then in the late 90's and early '00s, elite guys could jump straight, but players at college would usually stay a couple years at least..leaving less room for the lesser talented incoming frosh....now in the late '00, good players come and stay for 1 year...leading to higher minutes for frosh again....would be interesting to see if there's any nationwide trend

[Kedsy]

5 year rolling count of freshman top 7 minute getters (i think the chart would be even more egregious counting top 5 or top 3 in minutes...so we should probably just look at average freshman minutes to avoid using an arbitrary distinction at number of players...but anyway):

I don't understand your chart. For the five years ending in 2007, for example, we had 9 freshmen among our top 7 minute-getters (3 in 2007; 2 in 2006; 1 in 2005; 1 in 2004; and 2 in 2003). But your chart says 1. What am I missing?

[uh_no]

I don't understand your chart. For the five years ending in 2007, for example, we had 9 freshmen among our top 7 minute-getters (3 in 2007; 2 in 2006; 1 in 2005; 1 in 2004; and 2 in 2003). But your chart says 1. What am I missing?

i was confused by your chart :)

i had assumed the non-listed years were 0.

[Henderson]

I was thinking this morning (shocking, I know!) about the upcoming team. I got to wondering what would be common things we can expect to hear from the TV announcers during games.

*****

In the form or 'Things broadcasters say when calling a Duke basketball game,' what are your fearless predictions for the year?

I predict some TV announcers are going to say, "Well, I thought X about Duke, but having seen the obscure statistics trotted out by certain DBR posters and the passion with which they defend and reinforce those statistics, I've completely changed my mind. I no longer care about what happens on the court. I just want historical statistics from now on."

[Kedsy]

i was confused by your chart :)

i had assumed the non-listed years were 0.

Sorry, my bad. Here's the full chart for Coach K's entire time here:



Season Frosh in top 7 Rolling 5-year average
------- ------------- ---------------------
2015 3 6
2014 1 4
2013 1 3
2012 1 4
2011 0* 6
2010 1 8
2009 0 8
2008 2 9
2007 3 9
2006 2 7
2005 1 6
2004 1 8
2003 2 8
2002 1 8
2001 1 8
2000 3 8
1999 1 8
1998 2* 8
1997 1 6
1996 1 6
1995 3 6
1994 1 4
1993 0 4
1992 1 4
1991 1 4
1990 1 4
1989 1 4
1988 0 4
1987 1 8
1986 1 8
1985 1 7
1984 1
1983 4
1982 1
1981 0


* - would have been one more freshman in the top 7 if not for Irving and Brand injuries


So actually it's almost the opposite of what you'd expect. In the two 1st-year-exit years, we had the same or fewer freshmen in the rotation (using the rolling 5-year) as every single Final Four season. To use your language, the 2012 to 2014 (again, rolling 5-year) period had the least consistent use of freshmen ever.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Number of freshmen in Duke's top 7 minute-getters, selected seasons:


Blaming the one-and-dones is convenient, but I don't think accurate.

for me is that the one and dones (Irving, Rivers, Parker) were so good that to some extent they became the primary focus and roles were changed so that they could perform their best. I see a big difference in say a Grant Hill coming in and complementing Laettner/Hurley and a Jabari Parker coming in and becoming the focus of the offense and having every other player adjust.

SoCal

[Kedsy]

freshman can certainly an issue, but just as big of an issue is turnover...and I would contend the players surrounding freshmen aren't as good as they were when top guys could stay a few years.

Here's a slightly different table that may support your point quoted above.



Season Frosh in top 7 Rolling 4-year average Non-freshmen who made the rotation as freshmen
2015 3 6 1
2014 1 4 1
2013 1 4 1
2012 1 3 1
2011 1* 4 3
2010 1 6 4
2009 0 7 6
2008 2 8 5
2007 3 7 3
2006 2 6 3
2005 1 5 3
2004 1 5 4
2003 2 7 2
2002 1 6 4
2001 1 8 4
2000 3 8 2
1999 1 6 5
1998 3* 8 5
1997 1 6 5
1996 1 5 4
1995 3 5 2
1994 1 3 2
1993 0 3 3
1992 1 4 3
1991 1 3 2
1990 1 3 2
1989 1 3 2
1988 0 3 3
1987 1 4 3
1986 1 7 6
1985 1 7 6
1984 1 6 5
1983 4
1982 1
1981 0


* -- this time I'm counting Irving and Brand

Here, I'm using a four-year rolling average, to correspond to the maximum four years players can spend at school (not counting redshirts, but no redshirt would have affected this table). The last column shows how many guys in our rotation had the opportunity to also be in the rotation (i.e., top 7 minute-getters) when they were freshmen. Next year, for example, only Rasheed Sulaimon meets this criteria.

As you can see, the past three seasons are only seasons where we've had only one non-freshman who made the top-7 rotation when he was a freshman. Next season will continue that trend. This would seem to support your point.

That said, the 1991 champions and the 1989, 1990, and 1994 Final Four teams only had two such players. And while the 1986 runners up had 6 such players, so did the 1985 and 2009 NCAAT disappointments. The 2007 and 2008 NCAAT disappointments had 3 and 5 such players, respectively, not that different from the 2001 and 2010 national champs (4 and 4). The 1984, 1996, and 1997 NCAAT disappointments had 5, 4, and 5.

I'd also note that if you add the current year's freshmen to the last column, giving us a count of all players on the roster good enough to make the Duke rotation as a freshman, then the 2012, 2013, and 2014 teams still all had the lowest count (2), but next year's roster will have 4, same as 1992 and more than all the other Final Four teams from 1988 to 1994 (although less than the Final Four teams from 1986 (7), 1999 (6), 2001 (5), 2004 (5), and 2010 (5)). Still wouldn't explain 1997 (6) and 2007 through 2009 (6, 7, and 6), though.

I conclude that it's possible early entry has made our upperclass core weaker in recent years, although that's presumably true for other national powers as well. I don't believe, however, that reliance on one-and-done freshmen was the major contributing factor to our two recent early exits.

[Kedsy]

for me is that the one and dones (Irving, Rivers, Parker) were so good that to some extent they became the primary focus and roles were changed so that they could perform their best. I see a big difference in say a Grant Hill coming in and complementing Laettner/Hurley and a Jabari Parker coming in and becoming the focus of the offense and having every other player adjust.

It's possible, I suppose, though with Kyrie only playing 8 regular-season games, I don't think he belongs in this conversation at all.

It seems to me your argument boils down to saying the problem lies in the fact that a freshman was our best player. But that would mean our early NCAAT exits were either (1) due to Austin Rivers and Jabari Parker being too good, which doesn't make any sense to me; or (2) due to the casts surrounding the star freshmen not being good enough, which might be true (though I don't think so, especially last season), but if that's the reason, then the problem wasn't really the star freshmen, was it? It was everyone else.

Also, since next year's cast around Jahlil Okafor appears to be very strong and deep, it wouldn't appear as if your argument should extend to next season.

[Duvall]

for me is that the one and dones (Irving, Rivers, Parker) were so good that to some extent they became the primary focus and roles were changed so that they could perform their best. I see a big difference in say a Grant Hill coming in and complementing Laettner/Hurley and a Jabari Parker coming in and becoming the focus of the offense and having every other player adjust.

SoCal

What about a Bobby Hurley coming and becoming the focus of the offense and having every other player adjust? That worked out pretty well in the end.

Well, not the end of the end. But the beginning and middle of the end worked out well.

[Wander]

The 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all. You had posters here tying themselves into knots trying to convince each other that, hey, if you just remove the Vermont game from the statistics or look at the most recent 4.7 games or only consider games played on prime-numbered days or something that the defense wasn't really that bad, but it was always a fool's errand. It's hard to imagine that Jones, Winslow, and Okafor won't be an upgrade (defensively) over Parker, Dawkins, and Hood though, so we should be in better shape.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all. You had posters here tying themselves into knots trying to convince each other that, hey, if you just remove the Vermont game from the statistics or look at the most recent 4.7 games or only consider games played on prime-numbered days or something that the defense wasn't really that bad, but it was always a fool's errand. It's hard to imagine that Jones, Winslow, and Okafor won't be an upgrade (defensively) over Parker, Dawkins, and Hood though, so we should be in better shape.

I agree about how D derailed us in '12 and '14. But what makes you think that Jones and Okafor are upgrades, given that they are a) freshman and b) not known for their defensive chops (and in some cases, Jones's defense has been called a liability)? Winslow is coming in with a defensive reputation, but he still may struggle. High school is very different from college.

Parker was worse than atrocious on D, Dawkins was also pretty subpar, and Hood looked like he lost a lot of concentration during numerous defensive possessions (although he did win Duke's Defensive Player of the Year Award. Which is shocking. Like you, I also thought Hood had some pretty bad D). But I am not sold on the freshman coming in a being decent at D. It's a learning curve, especially at the 1 and the 5, and I hope they come along quick. I'm still not sold that defense is not going to be a weakness next year.

[Duke3517]

The 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all. You had posters here tying themselves into knots trying to convince each other that, hey, if you just remove the Vermont game from the statistics or look at the most recent 4.7 games or only consider games played on prime-numbered days or something that the defense wasn't really that bad, but it was always a fool's errand. It's hard to imagine that Jones, Winslow, and Okafor won't be an upgrade (defensively) over Parker, Dawkins, and Hood though, so we should be in better shape.

They might be better defenders but how fast will they pick up Coach K's system? That is why I am really confused of the new trend to bring these fantastic high school prospects in when their ambitions are mainly to play in the nba. Someone has to better explain that to me.

[Kedsy]

That is why I am really confused of the new trend to bring these fantastic high school prospects in when their ambitions are mainly to play in the nba. Someone has to better explain that to me.

Because bringing in really good players is preferable to bringing in not-so-good players?

[sagegrouse]

The 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all. You had posters here tying themselves into knots trying to convince each other that, hey, if you just remove the Vermont game from the statistics or look at the most recent 4.7 games or only consider games played on prime-numbered days or something that the defense wasn't really that bad, but it was always a fool's errand. It's hard to imagine that Jones, Winslow, and Okafor won't be an upgrade (defensively) over Parker, Dawkins, and Hood though, so we should be in better shape.


I agree about how D derailed us in '12 and '14. But what makes you think that Jones and Okafor are upgrades, given that they are a) freshman and b) not known for their defensive chops (and in some cases, Jones's defense has been called a liability)? Winslow is coming in with a defensive reputation, but he still may struggle. High school is very different from college.

Parker was worse than atrocious on D, Dawkins was also pretty subpar, and Hood looked like he lost a lot of concentration during numerous defensive possessions (although he did win Duke's Defensive Player of the Year Award. Which is shocking. Like you, I also thought Hood had some pretty bad D). But I am not sold on the freshman coming in a being decent at D. It's a learning curve, especially at the 1 and the 5, and I hope they come along quick. I'm still not sold that defense is not going to be a weakness next year.

IMHO (where the H is typically silent), I believe the coaches are doing some soul-searching, and there will be a new approach to teaching defense to a young team. Like the Dutchman, I refuse to believe that "new players" are the automatic solution to repair the defense.

Somehow, I believe the defensive improvement will or should be led by Rasheed, Amile, Quinn, Marshall and Semi. Although I agree that wide-bodied Jahlil could provide immediate help on the inside, both in defensive stops and rebounds.

[Duvall]

They might be better defenders but how fast will they pick up Coach K's system? That is why I am really confused of the new trend to bring these fantastic high school prospects in when their ambitions are mainly to play in the nba. Someone has to better explain that to me.

New trend? When exactly was it not Duke's goal to bring in fantastic high school prospects with ambitions to play in the NBA?

[flyingdutchdevil]

Somehow, I believe the defensive improvement will or should be led by Rasheed, Amile, Quinn, Marshall and Semi. Although I agree that wide-bodied Jahlil could provide immediate help on the inside, both in defensive stops and rebounds.

While I agree, I'm not that this is possible. Rasheed is a competent defender, but I feel that he actually got worse as a defender from freshman to sophomore year (I think it's because our team hated playing defense and that diffused to all players). I absolutely think that Rasheed will bounce back to be our best defensive player this year. Amile is a solid rebounder and solid on-ball defender, but he's currently not good and far from great. He'll be playing his natural position, so I hope that the experience + natural position = good defender (maybe even better). Semi is a beast, but I'm not really sure what to expect. I mean, we basically saw zero Semi last year to make any conclusions. I thought Marshall played really solid D, but with Okafor on the floor for at least 25 min, Marshall's contributions are important but not season-changing. And that leaves Quinn. Every year, this board has said that Quinn's D has gotten better. And while Quinn's steals have gone up from freshman to sophomore year, his on-ball defending has still been pretty atrocious. I like calculated gambling, but Quinn often does risky gambling and he often gets burned.

In summary, I have a lot of hope for Rasheed and Amile, I am unsure about Semi and Marshall, and Cook hasn't shown defensive improvement in three years.

[Kedsy]

The 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all.

Well, except lots of teams won one or more NCAA games with worse defenses than Duke (including Mercer in 2014 and Lehigh in 2012 and VCU's 2011 Final Four team), so poor defense doesn't entirely explain the first round loss, does it?

[watzone]

Speaking of predictions - The Sporting News ranks are as follows 1- Zona, 2- Kentucky, 3- Wisconsin (who Duke plays), 4- Duke, 5- UNC and at 7th and 8th are Louisville and Virginia. Yep, that's four top ten teams from the ACC.

[Troublemaker]

They might be better defenders but how fast will they pick up Coach K's system? That is why I am really confused of the new trend to bring these fantastic high school prospects

Freshman starters at Duke have produced all levels of defense ranging from poor (e.g. Parker, Paulus) to great (e.g. GHill, Battier, Duhon).

Here's a list of Duke freshmen under Coach K that started at least 10 games. (Note: I compiled this list pretty quickly. Could be errors.)

83 - Alarie, Bilas, Dawkins, Henderson
84 - Amaker
86 - Ferry
89 - Laettner
90 - Hurley
91 - GHill
94 - Capel
95 - Langdon, Price, Wojciechowski
96 - Domzalski
97 - Carrawell
98 - Battier, Brand
00 - Williams, Boozer
01 - Duhon
03 - Redick, SWilliams
04 - Deng
06 - McRoberts, Paulus
07 - Scheyer, Henderson, Thomas
08 - Singler
09 - EWilliams
11 - Irving (only started 8 games due to his injury)
12 - Rivers
13 - Sulaimon
14 - Parker

JMO, but looking at that list, I think it would be more fair to expect solid defense (let's say a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10) from freshman starters than poor defense. And for someone like Winslow who comes in with a great reputation on defense, I think if he becomes a starter, it would be fair to expect good defense out of him.

Jabari was obviously the most recent freshman starter and a poor defender who had trouble picking up the defense, but I don't believe that should be the default expectation of a freshman starter going forward.

[SoCalDukeFan]

[QUOTE=Duvall;742326]What about a Bobby Hurley coming and becoming the focus of the offense and having every other player adjust? That worked out pretty well in the end.

is that Hurley was a traditional point guard and allowed Duke to use him as they did say Amaker. I think there was very little change in the basic roles of the other key players. Laettner had to do more because Ferry graduated but that was just the way it was.

SoCal

[SoCalDukeFan]

IMHO (where the H is typically silent), I believe the coaches are doing some soul-searching, and there will be a new approach to teaching defense to a young team. Like the Dutchman, I refuse to believe that "new players" are the automatic solution to repair the defense.

Somehow, I believe the defensive improvement will or should be led by Rasheed, Amile, Quinn, Marshall and Semi. Although I agree that wide-bodied Jahlil could provide immediate help on the inside, both in defensive stops and rebounds.

Looking for adjustments.

SoCal

[Wander]

I agree about how D derailed us in '12 and '14. But what makes you think that Jones and Okafor are upgrades, given that they are a) freshman and b) not known for their defensive chops (and in some cases, Jones's defense has been called a liability)? Winslow is coming in with a defensive reputation, but he still may struggle. High school is very different from college.

Parker was worse than atrocious on D, Dawkins was also pretty subpar, and Hood looked like he lost a lot of concentration during numerous defensive possessions (although he did win Duke's Defensive Player of the Year Award. Which is shocking. Like you, I also thought Hood had some pretty bad D). But I am not sold on the freshman coming in a being decent at D. It's a learning curve, especially at the 1 and the 5, and I hope they come along quick. I'm still not sold that defense is not going to be a weakness next year.

I was a little surprised that Hood got the defensive player award too, but I also don't have a better alternative from that team: I did think he was better than Parker, and remember him having a great defensive game against Pitt's star player. Anyway, to simplify things a bit, I guess I'm thinking something like Tyus = Dawkins, Winslow = Hood, and Okafor > Parker, plus the returning players will be better than last year, so the defense overall improves.



Well, except lots of teams won one or more NCAA games with worse defenses than Duke (including Mercer in 2014 and Lehigh in 2012 and VCU's 2011 Final Four team), so poor defense doesn't entirely explain the first round loss, does it?


So what? If Duke scores 44 points in a tournament game and loses, we can't cite lack of scoring as the reason for the loss because one time a team won a tournament game scoring 43 points?

[Duke3517]

Because bringing in really good players is preferable to bringing in not-so-good players?

I tried to be proper but I meant high school players who bolt for the nba after a year of college.

[Newton_14]

In chat, Loran will say that our defense sucks. And that our offense sucks.
During a game that we win by 17. :p

In the next chat Loran will reiterate that the defense sucks and we just can't compete despite our 9-1 record heading into that game. "Our secondary is terrible, our D-line is terrible, and our LB's suck"

"Just being honest here guys"

;)

[uh_no]

In the next chat Loran will reiterate that the defense sucks and we just can't compete despite our 9-1 record heading into that game. "Our secondary is terrible, our D-line is terrible, and our LB's suck"

"Just being honest here guys"

;)

someone will reference past years ken-pom ratings indicating that all top performers in the tournament are high in kenpom....and will be promptly reminded that historical kenpom numbers are post-tourney

[OldPhiKap]

In the next chat Loran will reiterate that the defense sucks and we just can't compete despite our 9-1 record heading into that game. "Our secondary is terrible, our D-line is terrible, and our LB's suck"

"Just being honest here guys"

;)

Sometimes Chatbot kicks me out. Sometimes I leave on my own accord.


But I will say -- Loran knows a bit about college football.

[Kedsy]

So what? If Duke scores 44 points in a tournament game and loses, we can't cite lack of scoring as the reason for the loss because one time a team won a tournament game scoring 43 points?

Well, first of all, I said "lots of teams" get past the first round despite poor defense, not "one time." Second, even in your example, you'd be more accurate if you said a reason, rather than the reason. Finally, your statement that "[t]he 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all." isn't correct. There were many reasons we lost, including pure chance. Your statement was an over-generalization.

Mercer lost 9 games in 2013-14. Five of those losses (more than half) came to teams with worse defenses than Duke (according to Pomeroy's post-tourney numbers). I expect that Duke's subpar defense didn't help, but it's clearly inaccurate to say Duke "lost because our defense sucked" and "that's all."


I tried to be proper but I meant high school players who bolt for the nba after a year of college.

The problem is when you're recruiting them you don't necessarily know which players will bolt after one year and which won't. These days, any top 10 player who has a good freshman year also has a decent chance of bolting after that season. Are you suggesting we shouldn't go after any top 10 players? That would probably stop our reliance on one-and-dones, but it would also make it a lot harder to compete.

[uh_no]

Well, first of all, I said "lots of teams" get past the first round despite poor defense, not "one time." Second, even in your example, you'd be more accurate if you said a reason, rather than the reason. Finally, your statement that "[t]he 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all." isn't correct. There were many reasons we lost, including pure chance. Your statement was an over-generalization.

Mercer lost 9 games in 2013-14. Five of those losses (more than half) came to teams with worse defenses than Duke (according to Pomeroy's post-tourney numbers). I expect that Duke's subpar defense didn't help, but it's clearly inaccurate to say Duke "lost because our defense sucked" and "that's all."



The problem is when you're recruiting them you don't necessarily know which players will bolt after one year and which won't. These days, any top 10 player who has a good freshman year also has a decent chance of bolting after that season. Are you suggesting we shouldn't go after any top 10 players? That would probably stop our reliance on one-and-dones, but it would also make it a lot harder to compete.

how many one and dones were on:
uconn 2014
UL 2013
Uconn 2011
duke 2010
UNC 2009

in fact, the only teams that won national championships with significant dependence on one and done talent were UK 2012, and Syracuse, in 2003.

while the tournament is largely chance, and it's true that it's more likely to be won by a team that doesn't have one and done players simply because there are a lot more of them (than teams that do have one and done players), I think it's silly to say "its a lot harder to compete"...as has been proven false by 5 of the last 6 champions.

[OldPhiKap]

how many one and dones were on:
uconn 2014
UL 2013
Uconn 2011
duke 2010
UNC 2009

in fact, the only teams that won national championships with significant dependence on one and done talent were UK 2012, and Syracuse, in 2003.

while the tournament is largely chance, and it's true that it's more likely to be won by a team that doesn't have one and done players simply because there are a lot more of them (than teams that do have one and done players), I think it's silly to say "its a lot harder to compete"...as has been proven false by 5 of the last 6 champions.

To echo - Mercer was a group of upperclassmen. The good Butler teams we're made up of upperclassmen. UVa last year won with grind-it-out talent.

On the college level, experience counts. In the pro ranks, freakish athletic ability counts. That's why the key to our season this year is how Quinn plays, not one of our freshmen phenoms.

[johnb]

I predict much of the country will still hate Duke, and here's a map to prove it:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/08/12/yep-maryland-and-virginia-still-really-hate-duke/

[CameronBornAndBred]

I predict much of the country will still hate Duke, and here's a map to prove it:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/08/12/yep-maryland-and-virginia-still-really-hate-duke/
Love Rickman's tweet. Also love seeing that the Heels are the most hated in NC.

[pfrduke]

Love Rickman's tweet. Also love seeing that the Heels are the most hated in NC.

Yeah, that's really remarkable. It, the University of Washington, Mississippi State, and Louisville are the only schools most hated in their own state. The latter two make more sense - I'm surprised Oregon didn't win out in Washington, but the Cougar people really don't like the Huskies, as do all of the transplanted Oregon alums, so I guess the outnumber the Husky fans who may have split animosities.

[Kedsy]

how many one and dones were on:
uconn 2014
UL 2013
Uconn 2011
duke 2010
UNC 2009

in fact, the only teams that won national championships with significant dependence on one and done talent were UK 2012, and Syracuse, in 2003.

while the tournament is largely chance, and it's true that it's more likely to be won by a team that doesn't have one and done players simply because there are a lot more of them (than teams that do have one and done players), I think it's silly to say "its a lot harder to compete"...as has been proven false by 5 of the last 6 champions.

I didn't say "one and dones." I said top 10 talent, which are potential one-and-dones. Because if you want to ensure you don't get one-and-dones, the only way to do that is not recruit the top talent.

And while it's true that UConn won some natties with lesser talent (though the 2011 team had a #15 and a #16 recruit, so not so much lesser), your beloved Huskies also won this past year out of a 7-seed, so not exactly a reproducible model. Kentucky in 2012 had 3 top 10 guys plus a #11 guy. Duke in 2010 had a top 10 guy (Kyle Singler), plus a #14, two #18s, and a #20. UNC in 2009 had 3 top 10 guys plus a #15. Kansas in 2008 had a top 10 guy plus a #11 and a #14. UNC in 2005 had 4 top 10 guys plus a #11. Duke in 2001 had 4 top 10 guys plus a #16.

Put another way, I didn't say it's impossible to compete without top 10 talent, I said it's a lot harder to compete. And it is.


To echo - Mercer was a group of upperclassmen. The good Butler teams we're made up of upperclassmen. UVa last year won with grind-it-out talent.

Please take a look at the aggregate amount of post-season success those three schools have had over the past 10 (or 15 or 20, or even 5) years. Yeah, Butler captured lightning in a bottle but had to do it from a #8 and a #5 seed, and hasn't had much success before or since. The other schools haven't had any real post-season success at all, and only sporadic regular season success.

Be honest: how many Duke fans would be satisfied with the records of any of the schools you mention?

[Wander]

Well, first of all, I said "lots of teams" get past the first round despite poor defense, not "one time." Second, even in your example, you'd be more accurate if you said a reason, rather than the reason. Finally, your statement that "[t]he 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all." isn't correct. There were many reasons we lost, including pure chance. Your statement was an over-generalization.

Mercer lost 9 games in 2013-14. Five of those losses (more than half) came to teams with worse defenses than Duke (according to Pomeroy's post-tourney numbers). I expect that Duke's subpar defense didn't help, but it's clearly inaccurate to say Duke "lost because our defense sucked" and "that's all."


Yes, part of the reason why Duke lost is also that Quinn Cook hit 70% of his 3's instead of 90% of his 3's and that Mercer players didn't all contract the bubonic plague right before the game. I'll withdraw the "that's all" part.

More seriously, yes, I agree that of course it was possible for Duke to beat Mercer even with a bad defense, and we'd probably do so 7 out of 10 times. I was speaking more broadly. The team had bad defense from tip-off of the first game all the way through the NCAA tournament, and I don't see any reason to analyze beyond that as to why the team fared poorly. I'll change my statement to "our defense sucking is the primary reason why we lost in 2012 and 2014."

[Kedsy]

More seriously, yes, I agree that of course it was possible for Duke to beat Mercer even with a bad defense, and we'd probably do so 7 out of 10 times. I was speaking more broadly. The team had bad defense from tip-off of the first game all the way through the NCAA tournament, and I don't see any reason to analyze beyond that as to why the team fared poorly. I'll change my statement to "our defense sucking is the primary reason why we lost in 2012 and 2014."

This might be semantic at this point. I agree the team had bad defense for most (if not all) of the season. But I believe we would have beaten Mercer closer to 9 times out of 10, and the same with Lehigh in 2012, so I'm not sure bad defense was even the primary reason we lost. Especially in 2012, when I believe Ryan Kelly's injury was the primary reason we lost.

Because if we agree bad defense was a core characteristic of the team, and we also agree that Duke would have beaten Mercer the vast majority of the time (whether 90% or 70%), then it follows that bad defense was not the primary reason we lost (since we would have had bad defense and still won the vast majority of the time). Like I said, it might be semantic, and I'll be happy to agree to disagree.

[pfrduke]

This might be semantic at this point. I agree the team had bad defense for most (if not all) of the season. But I believe we would have beaten Mercer closer to 9 times out of 10, and the same with Lehigh in 2012, so I'm not sure bad defense was even the primary reason we lost. Especially in 2012, when I believe Ryan Kelly's injury was the primary reason we lost.

Because if we agree bad defense was a core characteristic of the team, and we also agree that Duke would have beaten Mercer the vast majority of the time (whether 90% or 70%), then it follows that bad defense was not the primary reason we lost (since we would have had bad defense and still won the vast majority of the time). Like I said, it might be semantic, and I'll be happy to agree to disagree.

Mercer shot 25-45 from the field, went to the line 28 times, turned the ball over only 8 times, and scored 78 points in a ~64 possession game. We scored 1.11 points per possession and lost by 7. If you don't call that bad defense, I don't know what to tell you.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Mercer shot 25-45 from the field, went to the line 28 times, turned the ball over only 8 times, and scored 78 points in a ~64 possession game. We scored 1.11 points per possession and lost by 7. If you don't call that bad defense, I don't know what to tell you.

Good offense?

;)

[Kedsy]

Mercer shot 25-45 from the field, went to the line 28 times, turned the ball over only 8 times, and scored 78 points in a ~64 possession game. We scored 1.11 points per possession and lost by 7. If you don't call that bad defense, I don't know what to tell you.

I did call it bad defense. I merely said bad defense was only one out of several reasons why we lost.

[Listen to Quants]

while what you say is true, there's hardly enough data to 2 of the last 3 years constitutes a temporary deviation from the norm, or a downward trend. It's impossible to know.

personally I think it is a new trend, and NOT because "K has slipped" or some bull like that. The fact is that the high player turnover in this era lends itself to higher program variability from year to year. In fact I think the fact that K's teams have still be constantly rated so highly (top 10 streak) is a testament to K's ability to continue to coach in the era....IT's just that we can't expect 7 final fours in 9 years...I'm not sure those kind of numbers will EVER be matched , let alone by K. Not to mentin, in 2 of the past 4 years, we've been seriously marred by injury troubles which no doubt inhibited last season performance (kyrie and ryan)

speaking of tredy-ness, I want to recall last year and our defensive efficiency throughout the season...After a couple of good performances in february, I think it was you (and apologies if it wasn't) who claimed that a couple good performances on D indicated an upward trend, and I urged caution lest it be an anomaly. It took the rest of the season to really establish that it was anomolous. I think the same caution needs to be applied here. It will take the next 3-5 years to really establish how much the past few years do or do not indicate a trend.

Makes a lot of sense. Early entry may also mean that the best college teams now are not as good, relative to the lesser teams, as they used to be. If the teams bunch together the variability increases of course. Might be there is additional game-to-game variability from the greater youth of the best teams (early entry again).

[Kedsy]

Makes a lot of sense. Early entry may also mean that the best college teams now are not as good, relative to the lesser teams, as they used to be. If the teams bunch together the variability increases of course. Might be there is additional game-to-game variability from the greater youth of the best teams (early entry again).

Here's some raw data aggregating first round upsets and Final Four composition to test your theory:



Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tot Upsets 10 to 12 13 to 15 F4a F4b F4c F4d Tot #1s F4 Sum
---- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------- -------- -------- --- --- --- --- ------- ------
2014 1 2 3 0 1 0 7 6 1 1 2 7 8 1 18
2013 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 5 3 1 4 4 9 1 18
2012 2 2 2 1 0 2 9 6 3 1 2 2 4 1 9
2011 1 3 1 1 0 0 6 5 1 3 4 8 11 0 26
2010 3 2 1 1 1 0 8 6 2 1 2 5 5 1 13
2009 3 1 3 1 0 0 8 7 1 1 1 2 3 2 7
2008 1 1 2 2 0 0 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 4 4
2007 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 6
2006 2 2 2 1 1 0 8 6 2 2 3 4 11 0 20
2005 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 3 2 1 1 4 5 2 11
2004 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 2 2 3 1 8
2003 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 2 3 3 1 9
2002 1 2 3 1 0 0 7 6 1 1 1 2 5 2 9
2001 2 2 2 2 0 1 9 6 3 1 1 2 3 2 7
2000 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 5 8 8 1 22
1999 4 0 2 1 1 0 8 6 2 1 1 1 4 3 7
1998 3 2 1 1 1 0 8 6 2 1 2 3 3 1 9
1997 2 0 1 0 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 1 4 3 7
1996 2 1 2 1 0 0 6 5 1 1 1 4 5 2 11
1995 1 1 1 1 2 0 6 3 3 1 2 2 4 1 9
1994 2 1 2 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 2 2 3 1 8
1993 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 5
1992 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 3 2 1 2 4 6 1 13
1991 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 5 3 1 1 2 3 2 7
1990 1 1 2 0 1 0 5 4 1 1 3 4 4 1 12
1989 1 4 1 1 1 0 8 6 2 1 2 3 3 1 9
1988 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 2 2 1 1 2 6 2 10
1987 2 0 1 2 1 0 6 3 3 1 1 2 6 2 10
1986 1 1 1 0 2 0 5 3 2 1 1 2 11 2 15
1985 0 3 1 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 1 2 8 2 12
1984 2 1 1 na na na 4 4 na 1 1 2 7 2 11
1983 2 2 1 na na na 5 5 na 1 1 4 6 2 12


The first year high school seniors were not allowed to go straight to the NBA was 2006, so the "one-and-done era" began in the 2006-07 season. The 64-team tournament started in 1985. In order to get four 8-season periods (since the one-and-done era has been 8 seasons), I added 1983 and 1984 to the table, but it's not apples-to-apples since in those tournaments the top 4 seeds got byes (meaning there were no 2 vs. 15, 3 vs. 14, or 4 vs. 13 games in those years).

Comparing the four 8-season blocks:



Tot Upsets 10-12 upsets 13-15 upsets #1s in F4 F4 Sum
---------- ------------ ------------ --------- ------
2007-2014 6.75 5.13 1.63 1.50 12.63
1999-2006 6.00 4.63 1.38 1.50 11.63
1991-1998 5.88 4.00 1.88 1.75 8.63
1983-1990 5.71* 3.88 1.83 1.75 11.38


* -- adding 8-year average for 7 to 10 upsets and 6-year average for 13 to 15 upsets

Clearly there has been an increase in upsets over time, though not so much as you might think (basically a one upset per tournament difference between earliest period and latest period) and not consistently (for example, upsets by seeds 13 to 15 was more prevalent in the earlier time periods). Similarly, fewer 1-seeds have made the Final Four, but that trend didn't start in the one-and-done era and it isn't that much of a decrease (a quarter of a 1-seed per season, i.e., one fewer 1-seed every four years). It's hard to see a trend in the sum of the seeds of the four Final Four teams. Three of the past four seasons have been very high, but take away just one improbable run (say, Wichita State staving off UK and beating Louisville in 2014 or Kansas beating VCU in 2011), the average for the period would have been essentially equal to the average from 1983 to 1990.

I'll leave it to those better versed in statistics to tell me if the increase in upsets is truly significant, or if the data from the one-and-done period is really more variable.

[sagegrouse]

Tot Upsets 10-12 upsets 13-15 upsets #1s in F4 F4 Sum
---------- ------------ ------------ --------- ------
2007-2014 6.75 5.13 1.63 1.50 12.63
1999-2006 6.00 4.63 1.38 1.50 11.63
1991-1998 5.88 4.00 1.88 1.75 8.63
1983-1990 5.71* 3.88 1.83 1.75 11.38


* -- adding 8-year average for 7 to 10 upsets and 6-year average for 13 to 15 upsets

Clearly there has been an increase in upsets over time, though not so much as you might think (basically a one upset per tournament difference between earliest period and latest period) and not consistently (for example, upsets by seeds 13 to 15 was more prevalent in the earlier time periods). Similarly, fewer 1-seeds have made the Final Four, but that trend didn't start in the one-and-done era and it isn't that much of a decrease (a quarter of a 1-seed per season, i.e., one fewer 1-seed every four years). It's hard to see a trend in the sum of the seeds of the four Final Four teams. Three of the past four seasons have been very high, but take away just one improbable run (say, Wichita State staving off UK and beating Louisville in 2014 or Kansas beating VCU in 2011), the average for the period would have been essentially equal to the average from 1983 to 1990.

I'll leave it to those better versed in statistics to tell me if the increase in upsets is truly significant, or if the data from the one-and-done period is really more variable.

Kedsy: I didn't verify your calculations, but let me offer two things: (1) the upsets for 10-12 in the past eight years is about two standard deviations away from the first eight years. Interesting, borderline significant, but obviously not definitive. (2) There are a heckuva lot of things that would explain an upward trend in upsets other than one-and-done players. Here's one alternative hypothesis:

As some historians summarized a few years ago, there were about 30 major basketball programs in the 1960s, where winning was extremely important and the schools put a lot of emphasis on recruiting, coaching and player support. Those observers estimated that in the early 1990s there were more than 100 programs that were really focused on winning and determined to do so. Today, I would estimate that there are more than 200 who will fund recruiting, pay really good salaries to coaching staffs, and clean house if the program isn't successful.

Another hypothesis would say that there are a lot more skilled and talented players who play basketball and train year around from the 12-13 on. These players are drawn by a big increase in college scholarships, the huge salaries of a few NBA players (well, more than a few) but by a worldwide basketball industry.

Both alternatives to the onset of the one-and-done rule would tend to explain why competition is fiercer and there are more upsets in NCAAs.

[Kedsy]

Kedsy: I didn't verify your calculations, but let me offer two things: (1) the upsets for 10-12 in the past eight years is about two standard deviations away from the first eight years. Interesting, borderline significant, but obviously not definitive. (2) There are a heckuva lot of things that would explain an upward trend in upsets other than one-and-done players. Here's one alternative hypothesis:

As some historians summarized a few years ago, there were about 30 major basketball programs in the 1960s, where winning was extremely important and the schools put a lot of emphasis on recruiting, coaching and player support. Those observers estimated that in the early 1990s there were more than 100 programs that were really focused on winning and determined to do so. Today, I would estimate that there are more than 200 who will fund recruiting, pay really good salaries to coaching staffs, and clean house if the program isn't successful.

Another hypothesis would say that there are a lot more skilled and talented players who play basketball and train year around from the 12-13 on. These players are drawn by a big increase in college scholarships, the huge salaries of a few NBA players (well, more than a few) but by a worldwide basketball industry.

Both alternatives to the onset of the one-and-done rule would tend to explain why competition is fiercer and there are more upsets in NCAAs.

Thanks. The calculations themselves were performed by a spreadsheet, so they ought to be right. Your explanation makes sense to me, though it also seems odd that even though the 10-12 upsets are up, the 13-15 upsets are down. Again, I have no idea if that difference is statistically significant, but especially since this conversation had its origins in people trying to explain Duke's recent first round losses (both of which came in the 13-15 category), it's an oddity that ought to be explored before any explanation is accepted.

For example, another possible explanation for the increased upsets at the 10 to 12 level is the seeming larger number of high major teams getting low (10 to 12) seeds (I haven't actually run the numbers on this, but it sure seems that way to me). You almost never see a high major in the 13 to 15 seeds, though, so that may explain the dichotomy. And if that's the case, then all the other explanations become minor undercurrents. Because it really shouldn't be so surprising that the 4th place Big 12 team beat the 5th place Big East team (which was an actual 10 over 7 "upset" in 2013).

And if my possible explanation is true, then it may be we need to look primarily at the 13 to 15 range, which would appear to show the exact opposite of the hypothesis that's been advanced (that there are more upsets and competition is fiercer now than in days gone by). Who knows?

[sagegrouse]

Thanks. The calculations themselves were performed by a spreadsheet, so they ought to be right. Your explanation makes sense to me, though it also seems odd that even though the 10-12 upsets are up, the 13-15 upsets are down. Again, I have no idea if that difference is statistically significant, but especially since this conversation had its origins in people trying to explain Duke's recent first round losses (both of which came in the 13-15 category), it's an oddity that ought to be explored before any explanation is accepted.

For example, another possible explanation for the increased upsets at the 10 to 12 level is the seeming larger number of high major teams getting low (10 to 12) seeds (I haven't actually run the numbers on this, but it sure seems that way to me). You almost never see a high major in the 13 to 15 seeds, though, so that may explain the dichotomy. And if that's the case, then all the other explanations become minor undercurrents. Because it really shouldn't be so surprising that the 4th place Big 12 team beat the 5th place Big East team (which was an actual 10 over 7 "upset" in 2013).

And if my possible explanation is true, then it may be we need to look primarily at the 13 to 15 range, which would appear to show the exact opposite of the hypothesis that's been advanced (that there are more upsets and competition is fiercer now than in days gone by). Who knows?

Well,.... in any regime, the 13-15 upsets are gonna be rare -- therefore, differences are unlikely to be statistically significant.

When I said I didn't follow your calculations, I meant that I just waded in, calculated some sample means and sample std. deviations without any particular research into what you were calculating, which -- in hindsight -- seems perfectly done.

Quite frankly, one-and-done oughta make a big difference in the success, or lack thereof, of the teams that recruit the top talent. But then -- but then, they have been playing all season with young players. Why should they automatically perform worse in the postseason than in the regular season? I thought, for example, that Kentucky in 2013-14 improved steadily throughout the season, reaching the final game.

[Kedsy]

Well,.... in any regime, the 13-15 upsets are gonna be rare -- therefore, differences are unlikely to be statistically significant.

Thanks again. The more I think about it, the more I think there's nothing here. Which is, in itself, something, I suppose. To wit, there's nothing (or at most, very little) to suggest the one-and-done era has had a significant effect on major NCAAT upsets, and nothing to suggest "high player turnover in this era lends itself to higher program variability from year to year." Certainly nothing that would support the hypothesis, seemingly held by many, that recruiting one-and-dones has been or (perhaps more importantly) will be detrimental to Duke's post-season hopes.

[Duke3517]

Well, first of all, I said "lots of teams" get past the first round despite poor defense, not "one time." Second, even in your example, you'd be more accurate if you said a reason, rather than the reason. Finally, your statement that "[t]he 2012 and 2014 teams lost because our defense sucked. That's all." isn't correct. There were many reasons we lost, including pure chance. Your statement was an over-generalization.

Mercer lost 9 games in 2013-14. Five of those losses (more than half) came to teams with worse defenses than Duke (according to Pomeroy's post-tourney numbers). I expect that Duke's subpar defense didn't help, but it's clearly inaccurate to say Duke "lost because our defense sucked" and "that's all."



The problem is when you're recruiting them you don't necessarily know which players will bolt after one year and which won't. These days, any top 10 player who has a good freshman year also has a decent chance of bolting after that season. Are you suggesting we shouldn't go after any top 10 players? That would probably stop our reliance on one-and-dones, but it would also make it a lot harder to compete.


Not necessarily... But recruit guys who want to develop at the college level and also have just as much of a emphasis on academics like they have with basketball. Not saying none of the one and done's had a huge passion for academics. There is a reason why these mid majors are all of a sudden making deep runs in the NCAA tournament. They are able to sustain a team for a 3-4 year margin.

[Henderson]

Not necessarily... But recruit guys who want to develop at the college level and also have just as much of a emphasis on academics like they have with basketball. Not saying none of the one and done's had a huge passion for academics. There is a reason why these mid majors are all of a sudden making deep runs in the NCAA tournament. They are able to sustain a team for a 3-4 year margin.

Those mid-majors of whom you speak would love to have the players we recruit and give us their recruits instead. They don't intentionally eschew the best players available out of HS; they just can't generally land them. You're advocating an approach that seeks mediocrity, an approach not taken by any D1 coach as far as I know.

[Duke3517]

I apologize that those athletes have to develop their skills first. I wouldn't call 3-4 star recruits mediocre, they just need to develop.

[fidel]

I was thinking this morning (shocking, I know!) about the upcoming team. I got to wondering what would be common things we can expect to hear from the TV announcers during games. Here's a few that I thought of:


Marshall Plumlee could start for any other team in the country
This is the deepest team Coach K has ever had
Jahlil Okafor is looking like the #1 pick in the NBA Lottery
Justise Winslow is a real glue guy
Rasheed Sulaimon is one of the best guards in the country
Grayson Allen doesn't look like he can jump, but he really can
Quin Cook has developed into a real leader
Amile Jefferson is underrated


In the form or 'Things broadcasters say when calling a Duke basketball game,' what are your fearless predictions for the year?


This is best read with a high-pitch, nasal voice in your head:

"JAHLIL OKAFOR! DIAPER DANDY! DID YOU SEE THAT? I MEAN, DID YOU SEE THAT? I TELL YOU, MICHAEL KRZYZEWSKY RELOADS! HE SIMPLY RELOADS! HE GETS THE BEST PLAYERS YEAR OVER YEAR BECAUSE HE IS A TOP COACH YEAR AFTER YEAR! HE IS THE BEST, AND I MEAN THAT! I MEAN THAT! GREAT COACH, GREAT UNIVERSITY, GREAT KIDS!"

The real guessing game is what stories he will tell every time he covers Duke. Collins gone (Doug's little boy, Chicago), Wojo gone (epitome of Duke Basketball, Polish), Parker gone (father ill, NBA heritage), Hood gone (best player in practice last year, butterfly stomach)...

[Listen to Quants]

Thanks again. The more I think about it, the more I think there's nothing here. Which is, in itself, something, I suppose. To wit, there's nothing (or at most, very little) to suggest the one-and-done era has had a significant effect on major NCAAT upsets, and nothing to suggest "high player turnover in this era lends itself to higher program variability from year to year." Certainly nothing that would support the hypothesis, seemingly held by many, that recruiting one-and-dones has been or (perhaps more importantly) will be detrimental to Duke's post-season hopes.

Kedsy, thank you for the spreadsheet work. Above and beyond the call, and not the first time. It does suggest that the variance isn't increased much by the increasing one and doness.

As to how really to test the 'higher variance' theory, that is tough. Time series are tricky as many things usually change across the time considered. (Time series with break points, like the changes in NBA eligibility rules, allow a model fitting then a statistical testing of whether a dummy variable standing in for the break point adds significant power ... but that is waaay more work than the idea deserves)

[sagegrouse]

Kedsy, thank you for the spreadsheet work. Above and beyond the call, and not the first time. It does suggest that the variance isn't increased much by the increasing one and doness.

As to how really to test the 'higher variance' theory, that is tough. Time series are tricky as many things usually change across the time considered. (Time series with break points, like the changes in NBA eligibility rules, allow a model fitting then a statistical testing of whether a dummy variable standing in for the break point adds significant power ... but that is waaay more work than the idea deserves)

I am still having trouble formulating the hypothesis. Let's see.... "One-and-done" players go primarily to the elite programs. Their loss means that the elite programs are less experienced than other teams in the NCAA. This means they are not as good as they otherwise would be. Therefore, they have less impressive seasons and more losses. That translates, as far as I see, to a lower NCAA seed. Then why, prithee tell, should there be more upsets than before the OAD era? Surely no one would say that a less experienced team would perform less well in the NCAAs than in the regular season because, in fact, by tournament time the team will have played together for almost an entire season.

The only possibility I can think is that the OAD clause compresses the ability differences among teams, making upsets more likely.

But then, as I said before, there could be other factors at work. College hoops is on a roll with far more serious teams than 25 or, especially, 50 years ago. Moreover, the amount of skilled hoops teenagers, who play basketball exclusively and train year around, has increased the available talent. Both reasons would argue for less difference in the ability of teams and better competition among teams; ergo, more upsets in the NCAAs.

I think this is a case where the data are confounded, and it is impossible to ferret out the effects of the OAD clause.

[Listen to Quants]

I am still having trouble formulating the hypothesis. Let's see.... "One-and-done" players go primarily to the elite programs. Their loss means that the elite programs are less experienced than other teams in the NCAA. This means they are not as good as they otherwise would be. Therefore, they have less impressive seasons and more losses. That translates, as far as I see, to a lower NCAA seed. Then why, prithee tell, should there be more upsets than before the OAD era? Surely no one would say that a less experienced team would perform less well in the NCAAs than in the regular season because, in fact, by tournament time the team will have played together for almost an entire season.

The only possibility I can think is that the OAD clause compresses the ability differences among teams, making upsets more likely.

But then, as I said before, there could be other factors at work. College hoops is on a roll with far more serious teams than 25 or, especially, 50 years ago. Moreover, the amount of skilled hoops teenagers, who play basketball exclusively and train year around, has increased the available talent. Both reasons would argue for less difference in the ability of teams and better competition among teams; ergo, more upsets in the NCAAs.

I think this is a case where the data are confounded, and it is impossible to ferret out the effects of the OAD clause.

How about this: the distribution of team quality is vaguely gaussian with few really good teams. Knocking those teams back toward the middle reduces the average difference (variance) between the top 65 teams (which themselves make up the 'right hand' side of the distribution.

or ... exactly what you said

[Mcluhan]

To echo - Mercer was a group of upperclassmen. The good Butler teams we're made up of upperclassmen. UVa last year won with grind-it-out talent.

On the college level, experience counts. In the pro ranks, freakish athletic ability counts.

I know this isn't your main point, but if anything, you're more likely to win in college on "freakish athletic ability" alone than you are in the NBA. Teams without veteran leadership never, ever get to the deeper rounds of the NBA playoffs, let alone the Finals.

[Troublemaker]

My fearless prediction (I'm defining fearless as "silly, but I can kinda also see a logical way it could happen") is that Semi Ojeleye will start at PF. I'm rooting for it to happen, rooting for Semi to have had a great summer, for him to be mentally ready for high-major Div 1 ball, for him to be a stretch 4 for Duke this season, which would give Jahlil space to operate inside and Tyus space to work his pick-n-roll magic.

Many of the lineup debates this offseason will center around Quinn vs Justise as the 5th starter to go with assumed starters Jahlil, Amile, Sheed, and Tyus. Basically, the debate seems to be, "Do we complete that lineup with more shooting/experience or with more defense/size?" I think Semi can be the compromise that puts more shooting on the court and allows Justise to stay in the lineup and provide his defense, rebounding and size at SF. So, my fearless prediction would lead to a Tyus - Sheed - Justise - Semi - Jahlil starting lineup. I'm a big fan of Amile, but I prefer the stretch 4 in this scenario.

So, like I said, sort of a silly prediction considering how little Semi played last season. And yet, I wouldn't be knocked over with shock if it happened.

[dragoneye776]

My fearless prediction (I'm defining fearless as "silly, but I can kinda also see a logical way it could happen") is that Semi Ojeleye will start at PF. I'm rooting for it to happen, rooting for Semi to have had a great summer, for him to be mentally ready for high-major Div 1 ball, for him to be a stretch 4 for Duke this season, which would give Jahlil space to operate inside and Tyus space to work his pick-n-roll magic.

Many of the lineup debates this offseason will center around Quinn vs Justise as the 5th starter to go with assumed starters Jahlil, Amile, Sheed, and Tyus. Basically, the debate seems to be, "Do we complete that lineup with more shooting/experience or with more defense/size?" I think Semi can be the compromise that puts more shooting on the court and allows Justise to stay in the lineup and provide his defense, rebounding and size at SF. So, my fearless prediction would lead to a Tyus - Sheed - Justise - Semi - Jahlil starting lineup. I'm a big fan of Amile, but I prefer the stretch 4 in this scenario.

So, like I said, sort of a silly prediction considering how little Semi played last season. And yet, I wouldn't be knocked over with shock if it happened.

I'm not sure that he will start at PF, but he may very well become Amile's backup if we want to play with a stretch 4. On GoDuke.com, he is currently listed as 6-8, despite measuring at 6-6.5 when we first recruited him.

http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=22727&SPID=1845&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&SORT_ORDER=3&Q_SEASON=2014&PRINTABLE_PAGE=

[Kedsy]

For example, another possible explanation for the increased upsets at the 10 to 12 level is the seeming larger number of high major teams getting low (10 to 12) seeds (I haven't actually run the numbers on this, but it sure seems that way to me). You almost never see a high major in the 13 to 15 seeds, though, so that may explain the dichotomy. And if that's the case, then all the other explanations become minor undercurrents. Because it really shouldn't be so surprising that the 4th place Big 12 team beat the 5th place Big East team (which was an actual 10 over 7 "upset" in 2013).

OK, I was curious if the above theory carried any weight so I compiled some more data. This table shows the number of high major upset wins ("HM") vs. mid-major/low-major upset wins ("MM/LM"):



Year HM 10-12 win MM/LM 10-12 win HM 13-15 win MM/LM 13-15 win HM 10-12 loss MM/LM 10-12 loss HM 13-15 loss MM/LM 13-15 loss
2014 2 4 0 1 2 4 1 0
2013 5 0 0 3 4 1 3 0
2012 4 2 0 3 1 5 3 0
2011 2 3 0 1 4 1 1 0
2010 3 3 0 2 4 2 2 0
2009 5 2 0 1 6 1 1 0
2008 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0
2007 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
2006 3 3 0 2 5 1 2 0
2005 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 0
2004 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0
2003 2 2 0 1 1 3 0 1
2002 1 5 0 1 4 2 1 0
2001 1 5 0 3 6 0 3 0
2000 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0
1999 1 5 1 1 5 1 2 0
1998 3 3 0 2 3 3 2 0
1997 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 0
1996 3 2 0 1 4 1 1 0
1995 2 1 0 3 2 1 3 0
1994 1 4 0 0 3 2 0 0
1993 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 0
1992 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 0
1991 1 4 1 2 4 1 3 0
1990 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 0
1989 2 4 0 2 5 1 1 1
1988 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 0
1987 1 2 0 3 2 1 3 0
1986 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 1
1985 3 1 0 1 3 1 1 0
1984 0 4 na na 3 1 na na
1983 0 5 na na 3 2 na na


Aggregating the data into the same four time periods as my earlier post:



Year HM 10-12 win MM/LM 10-12 win HM 13-15 win MM/LM 13-15 win HM 10-12 loss MM/LM 10-12 loss HM 13-15 loss MM/LM 13-15 loss
2007-2014 2.88 2.25 0.00 1.63 3.13 2.00 1.63 0.00
1999-2006 1.25 3.38 0.13 1.25 3.50 1.13 1.25 0.13
1991-1998 1.63 2.38 0.13 1.75 2.50 1.50 1.88 0.00
1983-1990 1.13 2.75 0.00 1.83 2.75 1.13 1.50 0.33


Splitting the data to show who the wins were against (e.g., the first column shows high major upset wins against other high major teams; fourth column shows mid-major/low-major wins against other mid-major/low-major teams, etc.):



AVG 10 to 12 10 to 12 10 to 12 10 to 12 13 to 15 13 to 15 13 to 15 13 to 15
SPLIT HM vs. HM HM vs. MM/LM MM/LM vs. HM MM/LM vs. MM/LM HM vs. HM HM vs. MM/LM MM/LM vs. HM MM/LM vs. MM/LM
2007-2014 1.75 1.13 1.38 0.88 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.00
1999-2006 0.88 0.38 2.63 0.75 0.13 0.00 1.13 0.13
1991-1998 0.75 0.88 1.75 0.63 0.13 0.00 1.75 0.00
1983-1990 0.88 0.25 1.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.33


Note that the above contains data not found in the detailed grid above.

Finally, a summary grid showing the number of upset wins by mid-majors/low-majors vs. the number of upset wins by high-majors:



upset wins MM/LM HM
2007-2014 3.88 2.88
1999-2006 4.63 1.38
1991-1998 4.13 1.75
1983-1990 4.58 1.13


Bottom line, the "one and done era" shows the fewest percentage of upset wins by mid- or low-majors, and by far the highest percentage of upset wins by high-majors. Which, to me, seems to argue the opposite of the increased variability theory -- basically, while we're seeing a small overall increase in the number of "upsets" in the NCAA tournament, it seems the explanation would actually either be (a) there may be a lessening of the talent gap, but if so that lessening is between the top high-majors and the middling high-majors, NOT between high-majors and non-high-majors; or (b) we're simply seeing an increased number of high-major teams in lower seeds.

My guess is it's the latter, i.e., the seeming increase in upsets in recent years is solely due to the difference in the way the committee seeds the teams.

Either way, the evidence doesn't at all support the idea that the one-and-done era has shrank the advantage high-major teams have over non-high-major teams. If anything, it shows the opposite.

[tommy]

Kedsy, you are far better with aggregating, presenting, and analyzing data than I am, but I was intrigued by the issue raised, and I was having a little bit of a hard time reading your data. I tried to format mine and use the code and /code, and it's just really hard to keep data aligned and looking good and readable, so I looked at all the tournaments too and put the results in "tables." It seems to work a little better.

So, like you, I looked at the following numbers. How many of the #10, 11, and 12 seeds were given to "high major" teams (defined in a minute) and how many to non-high major teams. Of those teams, both HM's and non-HM's, how many pulled first round "upsets" -- meaning a 12 beat a 5, an 11 beat a 6, or a 10 beat a 7. And then, of those upsets, how many of them were pulled against high major opponents in those 5, 6, or 7 positions?

The first chart is all the data, which is really not all that interesting. The smaller, summary charts, like you did -- and I used the same date ranges -- are more accessible and provide more food for thought. At least I think so.

In terms of "methodology" I considered as "high majors" any teams in the ACC, Big 10, Big East, Big 12, SEC, or Pac-12, plus a few others that just seemed like high majors to me. For instance, I included as "high majors" Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis when they were in Conference USA, and DePaul in the '80s, as they were a national power at that time. Teams I did not consider to be "high major" despite their sometimes being among the best teams in the country in a given year, included UNLV, Gonzaga, BYU, Butler, New Mexico, Xavier, Temple, Utah, and West Virginia prior to their entrance into the Big East. I'm sure many would disagree on those categorizations, but there it is.

Also, sometimes the total number of 10-12 seeds does not add up to 12. I think in '83 and '84 it was still less than a 64 team tournament, and that affected how they seeded teams. Not sure about that. And then in recent years, as they moved to 68, sometimes they've had 5 or 6 teams seeded 12 or 13, and had glorified play-in games.




10-12 HM's
Upsets
Upsets vs HM's
10-12 non HM's
Upsets
Upsets vs HM's


83
0


16
0



84
0


17
0



85
8
3
3
4
1
0


86
6
3
2
6
0



87
4
1
1
8
2
1


88
6
0

6
2
1


89
8
3
3
4
3
3


90
4
1
1
8
3
2


91
3
1
1
9
4
3


92
2
1
0
10
2
1


93
6
0

6
2
1


94
2
1
0
10
4
3


95
5
2
1
7
1
1


96
6
3
3
6
2
2


97
6
2
2
6
1
1


98
6
3
0
6
3
2


99
1
1
1
11
5
5


00
2
1
1
10
2
2


01
3
1
1
9
5
5


02
3
1
1
9
6
5


03
4
2
1
8
2
1


04
2
0

10
3
3


05
3
1
0
9
2
2


06
4
3
3
8
3
2


07
5
0

7
2
2


08
5
2
2
7
2
0


09
6
5
4
6
2
2


10
5
3
3
7
3
1


11
9
2
1
5
3
3


12
7
3
0
6
3
1


13
8
5
4
5
0



14
8
2
0
6
4
3




OK so here's the chart breaking it down into time periods and averaging. First, the HM's.




10-12 HM's
Total Upsets
Upset %
Upsets vs HM's
% of upsets coming vs HM's


1983-90
4.50
1.38
0.31
1.25
0.91


1991-98
4.50
1.63
0.36
0.88
0.54


1999-06
2.75
1.25
0.45
1.00
0.80


2007-14
6.63
2.75
0.42
1.75
0.64



And now, how did the non-HM's do?





10-12 non-HM's
Total Upsets
Upset %
Upsets vs HM's
% of Upsets Coming vs HM's


1983-90
8.63
1.38
0.16
0.88
0.64


1991-98
7.50
2.38
0.32
1.75
0.74


1999-06
9.25
3.50
0.38
3.13
0.89


2007-14
6.13
2.38
0.39
1.50
0.63












The most obvious thing to me is that, as you suggested, the HM teams have indeed been getting more of the 10-12 seeds sent their way than in previous years. From 1999-2006 the HM's only got 2.75 of the 12, and the non-HM's got 9.25. But in the latest stretch, 2007-14, the HM's are now getting MORE of these seeds than are the non-HM's -- 6.63 to 6.13. Big change.

I also noticed that the non-HM's are performing pretty much as well as the HM's are when starting from these seed positions though. Their upset % is not far off of the HM's upset %, and they're having as much success -- or more - as are the HM's in upsetting HM's from the 10-11-12 seed spots in the first round. They've fallen off in this measure in the latest period, but so have the HM's in the 10-12 spots. They're all having a lower % of their upset wins come against HM teams.

I'm sure those smarter and more analytical than I will see trends here that I'm not seeing. Or maybe nobody will care at all! But the sense that people have that the HM teams are snagging more of the 10-12 seeds than they ever did before is certainly borne out by the data.

[Listen to Quants]

Kedsy, .... <snip>
The most obvious thing to me is that, as you suggested,
....
<snip>

I'm sure those smarter and more analytical than I ....

Since I am neither Kedsy, nor smarter, nor more analytical than you, I am obviously invited to reply. Nonetheless: a lot of experience with big, nasty data sets in time series form would lead me, seeing this stuff, to suggest "this is only good for creating hypothesis to be tested in a real experiment with some Gosh Darn control", dust my hands off and walk away. The trouble I think is that so many factors, known and unknown, vary with time that unless the effect is really massive, nothing much can be said beyond "interesting."

[kAzE]

In order of increasing boldness:

- Duke sweeps Carolina with relative ease
- Amile Jefferson and Quinn Cook are named co-captains of the team
- This is the best Duke squad since 2011
- Duke will be ranked #1 in both polls at some point this season
- Tyus Jones is the starting point guard by mid-February, and gets serious attention from NBA scouts as a potential lottery pick
- Justise Winslow is projected as a top 5 pick by the end of the year
- Jahlil Okafor wins national freshman of the year, first team All-ACC, ACC rookie of the year, becomes the #1 pick in the 2015 NBA draft
- Duke wins the ACC regular season championship with a 16-2 record
- Duke earns a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament in the East Region
- Duke wins the ACC tournament
- Duke wins the 2015 National Championship 72-70 over Kentucky, John Calipari leaves to coach in the NBA, UK fans blow up twitter, Duke fans smugly hold this over their heads for generations to come

I would just like to say that my fearless predictions are going swimmingly thus far...

Check out Chad ford's latest big board: justise is already #6 http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/mock/?season=2015&version=3&source=Chad-Ford-Big-Board

However, getting #1 over Kentucky might be a bit rough, I didn't expect them to be this good this early.

At least give me some props for being on the justise train as early, if not earlier than anyone. He is a beast.

[Kedsy]

At least give me some props for being on the justise train as early, if not earlier than anyone. He is a beast.

He's also a freshman, which the Army game seemingly illustrated. I'd like to see more before I anoint him a beastly top five 2015 NBA draft pick.

[kAzE]

He's also a freshman, which the Army game seemingly illustrated. I'd like to see more before I anoint him a beastly top five 2015 NBA draft pick.

Chad's big board is based off what he's getting from real NBA GMs. The draft is based on potential, and an off game on November just illustrates that he's young, as you said. The point is, he's already shown that his ceiling is pretty high.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Chad's big board is based off what he's getting from real NBA GMs. The draft is based on potential, and an off game on November just illustrates that he's young, as you said. The point is, he's already shown that his ceiling is pretty high.

Yeah, Kaze, I'm giving you this. I thought Justise was gonna be good, just not this good. He is playing like a top-5 pick right now, but so many lottery picks are established in March. I hope Justise keeps this going.

[Duvall]

He's also a freshman, which the Army game seemingly illustrated. I'd like to see more before I anoint him a beastly top five 2015 NBA draft pick.

Maybe, but while it's probably too early to say how good a player Winslow is at the moment - seven games! - I bet the NBA has seen enough *potential* from Winslow to be willing to use a high pick on him, regardless of how the rest of the season unfolds.

[Kedsy]

Chad's big board is based off what he's getting from real NBA GMs. The draft is based on potential, and an off game on November just illustrates that he's young, as you said. The point is, he's already shown that his ceiling is pretty high.

I get all that. But a couple more off-games and the real NBA GMs probably won't be so high on him. Don't get me wrong, I think Justise is great and I think he's *the* major piece that's making our defense better, but it's way too early to call him a top five pick, even if that's what the GMs are saying at this moment.


Maybe, but while it's probably too early to say how good a player Winslow is at the moment - seven games! - I bet the NBA has seen enough *potential* from Winslow to be willing to use a high pick on him, regardless of how the rest of the season unfolds.

Maybe. I don't know. I don't think anyone else knows, either, at this point.

He has skills, but he doesn't yet look like a guy who could score at will at the next level, meaning he'd be more of a "3 and D" guy, except his shot isn't quite there yet. If I had to guess about his upside, I'd probably think someone like Kawhi Leonard, who was picked 15th, which frankly would seem to be a more reasonable place for Justise than top 5, at least in my opinion.

[kAzE]

I get all that. But a couple more off-games and the real NBA GMs probably won't be so high on him. Don't get me wrong, I think Justise is great and I think he's *the* major piece that's making our defense better, but it's way too early to call him a top five pick, even if that's what the GMs are saying at this moment.



Maybe. I don't know. I don't think anyone else knows, either, at this point.

He has skills, but he doesn't yet look like a guy who could score at will at the next level, meaning he'd be more of a "3 and D" guy, except his shot isn't quite there yet. If I had to guess about his upside, I'd probably think someone like Kawhi Leonard, who was picked 15th, which frankly would seem to be a more reasonable place for Justise than top 5, at least in my opinion.

Well, regardless, I already nailed the co-captains and Tyus starting :)

I think the Okafor predictions are on track to happen. Just hope we can put it all together for banner #5.

[Kedsy]

Just hope we can put it all together for banner #5.

I think this is something we can all agree with. ;)

[CDu]

I would just like to say that my fearless predictions are going swimmingly thus far...

Check out Chad ford's latest big board: justise is already #6 http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/mock/?season=2015&version=3&source=Chad-Ford-Big-Board

However, getting #1 over Kentucky might be a bit rough, I didn't expect them to be this good this early.

At least give me some props for being on the justise train as early, if not earlier than anyone. He is a beast.

Most of those fearless predictions weren't all that bold. Suggesting that Tyus Jones would start, for example, was something many on this board said. Same for the captains. But I'll certainly be willing to give you tentative credit for your call on Winslow, with the caveat that a lot can happen as the season progresses.

Though I may have to give you a demerit for your call (in another thread) that Okafor would average 4 assists per game. ;)

[mr. synellinden]

If I had to guess about his upside, I'd probably think someone like Kawhi Leonard, who was picked 15th, which frankly would seem to be a more reasonable place for Justise than top 5, at least in my opinion.

Yeah, except if they reheld the 2011 NBA Draft today, Leonard would probably be drafted 3rd behind Kyrie and Klay Thompson - and definitely in the top 5.

Interesting question - if you had the 1st choice in that draft today, would you take Irving or Thompson?

[Kedsy]

Yeah, except if they reheld the 2011 NBA Draft today, Leonard would probably be drafted 3rd behind Kyrie and Klay Thompson - and definitely in the top 5.

Implicit in your statement is the assumption that NBA GMs learn from the past. While history suggests otherwise.

[luvdahops]

Chad's big board is based off what he's getting from real NBA GMs. The draft is based on potential, and an off game on November just illustrates that he's young, as you said. The point is, he's already shown that his ceiling is pretty high.

I think you may be drinking a little too much Chad Ford Kool-Aid. Many NBA organizations limit the access their personnel grant to guys like Ford, even off the record. He undoubtedly has some real NBA contacts, and probably more than others trolling the Draft space, but likely gets more of his information from scouts than GMs. And at this stage of the season, beyond the likely Top 2-3 picks, there is still a ton of exploration and opinion forming going on by everyone.

Justise could very well end up being a Top 5 pick. The potential is certainly there. But I wouldn't be putting too much stock in Chad Ford's early December Big Board as an argument.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think you may be drinking a little too much Chad Ford Kool-Aid. Many NBA organizations limit the access their personnel grant to guys like Ford, even off the record. He undoubtedly has some real NBA contacts, and probably more than others trolling the Draft space, but likely gets more of his information from scouts than GMs. And at this stage of the season, beyond the likely Top 2-3 picks, there is still a ton of exploration and opinion forming going on by everyone.

Justise could very well end up being a Top 5 pick. The potential is certainly there. But I wouldn't be putting too much stock in Chad Ford's early December Big Board as an argument.

Winslow's predicted placement
NBAdraft: 8
DraftExpress: 4
Chad Ford: 5

Given, it's a) only three sites and b) early December, but it's very telling regarding Winslow's place, especially by those with more NBA credibility than anyone on DBR. My gut feeling? He isn't going to be top 5, but he'll be top 10.

[kAzE]

Most of those fearless predictions weren't all that bold. Suggesting that Tyus Jones would start, for example, was something many on this board said. Same for the captains. But I'll certainly be willing to give you tentative credit for your call on Winslow, with the caveat that a lot can happen as the season progresses.
Really?? Other than the captains and Tyus starting, I'd say I'm pretty far out on a limb for a lot of these:


In order of increasing boldness:

- Duke sweeps Carolina with relative ease
- Amile Jefferson and Quinn Cook are named co-captains of the team
- This is the best Duke squad since 2011
- Duke will be ranked #1 in both polls at some point this season
- Tyus Jones is the starting point guard by mid-February, and gets serious attention from NBA scouts as a potential lottery pick
- Justise Winslow is projected as a top 5 pick by the end of the year
- Jahlil Okafor wins national freshman of the year, first team All-ACC, ACC rookie of the year, becomes the #1 pick in the 2015 NBA draft
- Duke wins the ACC regular season championship with a 16-2 record
- Duke earns a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament in the East Region
- Duke wins the ACC tournament
- Duke wins the 2015 National Championship 72-70 over Kentucky, John Calipari leaves to coach in the NBA, UK fans blow up twitter, Duke fans smugly hold this over their heads for generations to come

Also, back before practices started, there was a poll on who people thought would start at point guard, and Tyus only got like 30% of the vote, so I wouldn't say "many" people were on that train of thought back when we made these predictions.



Though I may have to give you a demerit for your call (in another thread) that Okafor would average 4 assists per game. ;)

Yeah, that was aggressive . . . the first few games got me pretty hyped up, and (news flash) I'm a pretty optimistic fan by nature. There's only 2 guys on the team averaging 4 assists, and that's Tyus Jones (6.0) and Quinn Cook (4.0). I think I expected us to feed him much more often in the post than we currently are. If I had to guess, I'd say right now we're posting him up and actually getting him the ball on about 1 out 5 possessions when he's in the game, whereas I thought that number would be closer to 1 out of 3 earlier in the year. I didn't expect Winslow and especially Cook to take this many shots, but it seems to be working really well, and the team is sharing the ball better than I had imagined. We're averaging a robust 20.1 assists a game, which is 2nd in the nation. So actually, I'm kind of glad we don't have to rely on Okafor as much as I had envisioned. That said, it's a completely different team when he's not on the floor, so I hope he stays out of foul trouble when we need him.

Still, I think it's obvious that he's very good at passing from the post (the huge hands allow him to make some passes that most players wouldn't be able to do, and he has good enough vision to find the open man), so I think his assist numbers are going to increase as he gets even more comfortable down low. Right now, he's very good, but he's been turning it over kind of often lately, with the aggressive double teams that he's been seeing. Teams are starting to collapse on him before he even catches the ball, which leads to him catching it in an awkward position or trying to do too much with it. He can definitely improve on his passing numbers, maybe get to 2.0 assist a game, which, in hindsight, is actually pretty fantastic for a college big man.

[CDu]

Really?? Other than the captains and Tyus starting, I'd say I'm pretty far out on a limb for a lot of these:

well, none of the bolded ones have happened, so they were moot. Of the three one could reasonably discuss right now, two were not very bold. That would be "most" of them. ;)

But beyond that, I would say the following weren't bold:

Best Duke squad since 2011: people have been salivating for this group for over a year. Many felt we should be #1, and for the first time in a long time we have an elite post scorer and at least one elite PG. That formula has usually portended good things. Also, it isn't like this squad was facing outlandish competition for the honor. In the 3 years since 2011, we have no ACC titles (regular season or tournament), no Final Four appearances, and two first-game exits in the NCAA Tourney. So I wouldn't call it bold to predict that this highly-touted, top-5 yeam would be the best in our last 4 years.

Duke will be ranked #1 in both polls at some point: I don't have the time to check, but I would guess this has happened in over half of the last 15 seasons. Why would that be overly bold?

Jahlil Okafor predictions: He was the top-rated recruit and folks were calling him the next Tim Duncan. Predicting him as frosh of the year, first-team All-ACC, and the. #1 pick seem pretty standard predictions.

Duke will win the ACC regular season at 16-2: We were pretty widely regarded as the top team in the conference. So the only part of that that's bold is the actual record. If you eventually get that, then kudos for a good guess.

Duke will win the ACC tourney: see previous comment.

Duke gets 1 seed in East: see previous two comments.

The only bold calls were easily sweeping UNC, Winslow, and the title over UK and ensuing chaos. And two of those three are far from certain at this point.


Also, back before practices started, there was a poll on who people thought would start at point guard, and Tyus only got like 30% of the vote, so I wouldn't say "many" people were on that train of thought back when we made these predictions.

I would say that 30 percent would indeed constitute many. Not "most", but it wasn't like you were out on a limb all alone. Heck, some folks were concerned that Jones was so good he would render Cook obsolete.

PS - I totally agree with your more toned down assessment of Okafor.

[flyingdutchdevil]

well, none of the bolded ones have happened, so they were moot. Of the three one could reasonably discuss right now, two were not very bold. That would be "most" of them. ;)

But beyond that, I would say the following weren't bold:

Best Duke squad since 2011: people have been salivating for this group for over a year. Many felt we should be #1, and for the first time in a long time we have an elite post scorer and at least one elite PG. That formula has usually portended good things. Also, it isn't like this squad was facing outlandish competition for the honor. In the 3 years since 2011, we have no ACC titles (regular season or tournament), no Final Four appearances, and two first-game exits in the NCAA Tourney. So I wouldn't call it bold to predict that this highly-touted, top-5 yeam would be the best in our last 4 years.

Duke will be ranked #1 in both polls at some point: I don't have the time to check, but I would guess this has happened in over half of the last 15 seasons. Why would that be overly bold?

Jahlil Okafor predictions: He was the top-rated recruit and folks were calling him the next Tim Duncan. Predicting him as frosh of the year, first-team All-ACC, and the. #1 pick seem pretty standard predictions.

Duke will win the ACC regular season at 16-2: We were pretty widely regarded as the top team in the conference. So the only part of that that's bold is the actual record. If you eventually get that, then kudos for a good guess.

Duke will win the ACC tourney: see previous comment.

Duke gets 1 seed in East: see previous two comments.

The only bold calls were easily sweeping UNC, Winslow, and the title over UK and ensuing chaos. And two of those three are far from certain at this point.



I would say that 30 percent would indeed constitute many. Not "most", but it wasn't like you were out on a limb all alone. Heck, some folks were concerned that Jones was so good he would render Cook obsolete.

PS - I totally agree with your more toned down assessment of Okafor.

Wow. CDu is a tough sell. If there were life on Mars, I wonder if he'd be impressed... ;)

Kaze - I'm 100% with you. "Most" are certainly bold. I get excited about Duke basketball pretty easily, so seeing your list and seeing that you're right so far has me salivating.

I disagree with CDu on most of his points, especially about using historicals as a comp for this group. Given that UK is looking better than the Sixers (okay, Army probably looks better than the Sixers), a few of these are tough bets (ranked #1, winning it all). Also, Duke hasn't had much success winning anything ACC-related in the last three years despite being favorites during the pre-season in 2013-14 (and possibly 2012-2013, but I don't have the data).

I'm with with Kaze.

[luvdahops]

Winslow's predicted placement
NBAdraft: 8
DraftExpress: 4
Chad Ford: 5

Given, it's a) only three sites and b) early December, but it's very telling regarding Winslow's place, especially by those with more NBA credibility than anyone on DBR. My gut feeling? He isn't going to be top 5, but he'll be top 10.

I assume you realize that all of these sites are operating on the same set of (fairly limited) information, and check each other's work with some frequency as well. Not saying that I have more NBA credibility than any of them (though I am a Bulls season ticket holder), just that they are far less "in the flow", in terms of real information gathering and assessment, than they would have you believe.

As I said, Justise certainly has the potential to be a Top 5 pick. But there is a lot of basketball still to be played, and opinions formed. Differentiating yourself as a swingman is a lot tougher than say a center or point guard these days, too.

[CDu]

Wow. CDu is a tough sell. If there were life on Mars, I wonder if he'd be impressed... ;)

Kaze - I'm 100% with you. "Most" are certainly bold. I get excited about Duke basketball pretty easily, so seeing your list and seeing that you're right so far has me salivating.

I disagree with CDu on most of his points, especially about using historicals as a comp for this group. Given that UK is looking better than the Sixers (okay, Army probably looks better than the Sixers), a few of these are tough bets (ranked #1, winning it all). Also, Duke hasn't had much success winning anything ACC-related in the last three years despite being favorites during the pre-season in 2013-14 (and possibly 2012-2013, but I don't have the data).

I'm with with Kaze.

I guess we disagree on the definition of bold. I will never consider it bold to pick the preseason favorite to win the conference regular season or tourney. I mean, if that is bold, what would qualify as not bold?

As for UK, no team has gone wire-to-wire unbeaten in like 40 years (if not longer). I would guess that at least 4 or 5 teams get the honor most years. So I would call it more bold to say that UK will go wire-to-wire than to say that a top-5 team will eventually get to #1 at some point. I am not saying we will likely get there, but I would say the odds are at least 1 in 4. So again, there aren't many teams for which that would be a less bold prediction.

I mean, none are sure things at all. But relatively speaking, they just don't seem that bold.

[AncientPsychicT]

I guess we disagree on the definition of bold. I will never consider it bold to pick the preseason favorite to win the conference regular season or tourney. I mean, if that is bold, what would qualify as not bold?

As for UK, no team has gone wire-to-wire unbeaten in like 40 years (if not longer). I would guess that at least 4 or 5 teams get the honor most years. So I would call it more bold to say that UK will go wire-to-wire than to say that a top-5 team will eventually get to #1 at some point. I am not saying we will likely get there, but I would say the odds are at least 1 in 4. So again, there aren't many teams for which that would be a less bold prediction.

I mean, none are sure things at all. But relatively speaking, they just don't seem that bold.

39 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975%E2%80%9376_Indiana_Hoosiers_men%27s_basketbal l_team)

[CDu]

39 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975%E2%80%9376_Indiana_Hoosiers_men%27s_basketbal l_team)

Which is like 40 years. The "if not longer" referred to my not knowing whether or not Indiana was preseason #1 that year (apparently they were).

[JohnJ]

well, none of the bolded ones have happened, so they were moot. Of the three one could reasonably discuss right now, two were not very bold. That would be "most" of them. ;)

But beyond that, I would say the following weren't bold:

Best Duke squad since 2011: people have been salivating for this group for over a year. Many felt we should be #1, and for the first time in a long time we have an elite post scorer and at least one elite PG. That formula has usually portended good things. Also, it isn't like this squad was facing outlandish competition for the honor. In the 3 years since 2011, we have no ACC titles (regular season or tournament), no Final Four appearances, and two first-game exits in the NCAA Tourney. So I wouldn't call it bold to predict that this highly-touted, top-5 yeam would be the best in our last 4 years.

Duke will be ranked #1 in both polls at some point: I don't have the time to check, but I would guess this has happened in over half of the last 15 seasons. Why would that be overly bold?

Jahlil Okafor predictions: He was the top-rated recruit and folks were calling him the next Tim Duncan. Predicting him as frosh of the year, first-team All-ACC, and the. #1 pick seem pretty standard predictions.

Duke will win the ACC regular season at 16-2: We were pretty widely regarded as the top team in the conference. So the only part of that that's bold is the actual record. If you eventually get that, then kudos for a good guess.

Duke will win the ACC tourney: see previous comment.

Duke gets 1 seed in East: see previous two comments.

The only bold calls were easily sweeping UNC, Winslow, and the title over UK and ensuing chaos. And two of those three are far from certain at this point.



I would say that 30 percent would indeed constitute many. Not "most", but it wasn't like you were out on a limb all alone. Heck, some folks were concerned that Jones was so good he would render Cook obsolete.

PS - I totally agree with your more toned down assessment of Okafor.

You need to suck it up and give credit where credit is due.

I'm with Kaze on this one too.

[CDu]

You need to suck it up and give credit where credit is due.

I'm with Kaze on this one too.

I already gave Kaze tentative credit on the Winslow call. None of the other so-called bold ones have happened yet, so there is no "sucking it up" to be done. And as I've said, I think only a few of them would be worthy of much credit in my opinion. I stand by that opinion. I certainly don't "need" to do anything. :)

It doesn't take much gumption to suggest that the preseason conference favorite will be the team to win the conference regular season and tournament.

It doesn't any stretch to suggest that the predicted ACC champion will get the #1 seed in the East. Now that the Big East is no longer relevant, the ACC champ is always going to be the frontrunner for the #1 seed in the East.

It doesn't take much of a reach to say that this group (whom everyone has been talking up ever since we got Okafor and Jones) will do better than any of our last 3 teams (again, winning the ACC regular season and tourney would seal that). In fact, the #1 seed in the East and best team since 2011 are all the same prediction as us winning the ACC regular season and tourney, as if we do the latter then the former two are pretty much a given.

It doesn't take too much bravery to say that a preseason top-5 team will wind up #1 at some point. It basically comes down to a 50/50 that we beat Wisconsin, because it's an almost certainty that UK will lose at some point, and a win at Wisconsin would likely put us #2 in both polls (if not #1 in one of them).

And it doesn't take much guts to predict that the #1 rated freshman (and by many accounts the #1 guy on draft boards) will be the national freshman of the year and #1 draft pick.

If we dominate UNC twice and when the championship in a final against Kentucky, I'll absolutely give Kaze credit. But the rest not so much. And, as I said, let's wait until those other things actually happen before we need to worry about who should be "sucking it up" and giving props, no?

[arnie]

Duke will win the ACC regular season at 16-2: We were pretty widely regarded as the top team in the conference.

.

Not regarded as top team in conference by local writers. Our own Laura Keeley predicted us to finish 3rd and general consensus was a 1st place finish by the vaunted Heels. Things have changed a lot in past month.

[CDu]

Not regarded as top team in conference by local writers. Our own Laura Keeley predicted us to finish 3rd and general consensus was a 1st place finish by the vaunted Heels. Things have changed a lot in past month.

I take the opinion of local writers on sports about as highly as I take the opinion of my 2-month old. The general consensus by the experts was Duke was the favorite. Some felt otherwise, most did not.

[Duvall]

I take the opinion of local writers on sports about as highly as I take the opinion of my 2-month old. The general consensus by the experts was Duke was the favorite. Some felt otherwise, most did not.

Did the experts even read the conference schedules? College basketball's national writers aren't exactly an impressive lot.

[CDu]

Did the experts even read the conference schedules? College basketball's national writers aren't exactly an impressive lot.

I view national writers the same as I do local writers. Both are trained to write, not to analyze basketball. You and I and many of our posters (kaze included) are as qualified if not moreso to predict. That isn't who I meant by experts.

[Duvall]

I view national writers the same as I do local writers. Both are trained to write, not to analyze basketball. You and I and many of our posters (kaze included) are as qualified if not moreso to predict. That isn't who I meant by experts.

Who were you referring to, then?

[CDu]

I view national writers the same as I do local writers. Both are trained to write, not to analyze basketball. You and I and many of our posters (kaze included) are as qualified if not moreso to predict. That isn't who I meant by experts.


Did the experts even read the conference schedules? College basketball's national writers aren't exactly an impressive lot.

Just to clarify on my admittedly vague response. Not only was Duke the overwhelming pick by the ACC and national media (whose opinions I don't value), we were also the runaway fave in a poll of ACC coaches taken by Jeff Goodman. And ESPN's college bball analysts also picked Duke.

[Kedsy]

You need to suck it up and give credit where credit is due.

I'm with Kaze on this one too.

I'm going to throw my weight behind CDu. Most of the predictions weren't that bold. I think plenty of people believed (and believe) that Duke is the best team in the ACC, and thus predicting Duke wins the regular season and/or tournament (as well as #1 seed in the East) is not particularly bold. Picking Jahlil (the #1 rated recruit nationally) as freshman of the year, first-team AA, and #1 draft pick was a pretty standard prediction among Duke people and non-Duke people alike.

Kaze's predicted Duke record of 16-2 would probably qualify as bold, but as Duke is currently 0-0, it's really hard to judge the accuracy of that one.

I'm not even sure I'd call sweeping UNC bold, because I don't think UNC is all that good, but maybe I'd give it semi-bold. Saying Duke will beat UK in the national championship game would be bold for a national commentator, but on a Duke basketball website, every year plenty of people pick Duke to win the natty. So in my opinion, the only truly bold prediction was Justise as a top five pick, and frankly, with Justise averaging 6ppg in our last two games, that one is still far from likely.

[arnie]

I take the opinion of local writers on sports about as highly as I take the opinion of my 2-month old. The general consensus by the experts was Duke was the favorite. Some felt otherwise, most did not.

I don't disagree with you, but for those living in the triangle we get quite a bit of Duke denigration during bball season. Even today during prime drive time after 5, Adam Gold's features were the State fight song and Kenny Smiths argument with Charles Barkley. Kenny Smith is beloved in this area, so their disagreement is important news. I digress.

[CDu]

I don't disagree with you, but for those living in the triangle we get quite a bit of Duke denigration during bball season. Even today during prime drive time after 5, Adam Gold's features were the State fight song and Kenny Smiths argument with Charles Barkley. Kenny Smith is beloved in this area, so their disagreement is important news. I digress.

No disagreement here. As a fellow resident of the Triangle, I feel your pain. Not sure how it relates to the discussion about where Duke was rated before the season. But I do agree that the Triangle is much heavier on UNC/State talk than Duke talk. Though that makes sense since those fans make up a VAST majority of the listening audience.