Unlikeliest of Duke Championships

[Orange&BlackSheep]

I am constantly hearing references to this National Championship run as being Coach K's greatest coaching effort and the most unlikely of the five. This makes completely no sense to me. So for silly season argument's sake, I give you my order (from least likely to most) and rationale:

#1 1991 -- The only championship won not as a #1 seed. Had to defeat one of college basketball all time great teams in UNLV, a team that had obliterated Duke the previous year (without Grant Hill and with a sick Bobby Hurley). I don't have the info, but I am quite sure that Duke's odds of winning according to Vegas had to have been the longest odds of the five by a wide margin. Leading up to the tournament, this team also got completely blown out by Carolina in an ACC tourney final I would rather forget.

--- I really find it difficult to separate #2 & #3 ... would love to hear arguments defending or contradicting my choice ---

#2 2010
#3 2015 -- I entered this exercise thinking I would choose 2015 here because of our inconsistency and the presence of undefeated Kentucky (and the match-up problem that particular squad would have poised for this Duke team), but I split hairs and went with 2010. This team definitely found itself once Z entered the starting lineup and Coach K redefined how this team was going to win (with an incredibly high offensive rebound/possession rate etal). But it was constantly playing with fire winning close games. Both 2010 and 2015 had mid-season slumps against ACC foes. 2010 won the ACC tournament (two very close games) while 2015 of course did not. But 2015 has two Top 5 NBA draft picks in an above average draft and a 3rd (Tyus Jones), 4th (Grayson Allen), or even 5th pick (Quinn Cook) who all may compete favorably with the NBA legacies of Lance Thomas, the Plumlee Bros, and Ryan Kelly (who was not a factor for the 2010 team though on it). I think the tournament brackets that each team faced were comparable except that Baylor was a much more dangerous #3 than the 2015 had in its path. So for that reason I think we had *slightly* more championship expectations for 2015 than 2010.

--- I don't think I even need to create arguments for the last two.
#4 2001
#5 1992

Thoughts?

[hurleyfor3]

'15 would've beaten '10, so I'd say '10 was unlikelierer.

[flyingdutchdevil]

'15 would've beaten '10, so I'd say '10 was unlikelierer.

On top of that, the 2010 team didn't have great individualistic basketball talent for an NC team. There were zero lottery picks, 3 first rounders (Nolan, MP1, MP3), and currently five players active in the NBA (Kelly, LT, and MP2 start for terrible teams, MP1 is having issues breaking the Bucks rotation, and Singler is doing his best to fill in for KD). The 2015 has at least 2 lottery picks (Okafor, Winslow), another 2 guaranteed first rounders (Tyus, Grayson), and up to 3 additional future NBAers (Cook, M Jones, AJ). In terms of sheer talent, the 2015 team is way better. The 2010 team just had such insane chemistry, arguably the best of any Duke team I've ever seen.

[MChambers]

I think you have to decide as of what date you're measuring. Unlikeliest at the start of the season, the start of the NCAA tournament, or the Final Four? When you discuss 1991, you seem to be focusing on the Final Four, but it's not clear that you're doing so for the other seasons.

I still vote for 2010, FWIW.

[ns7]

'15 would've beaten '10, so I'd say '10 was unlikelierer.

Perhaps, but according to kenpom.com, 2010 was rated as the best team in the nation heading into the NCAA tournament. So I'd argue that 2010 was a likelier champion than 2015.

[Duvall]

I am constantly hearing references to this National Championship run as being Coach K's greatest coaching effort and the most unlikely of the five. This makes completely no sense to me.


Here's the thing - 2010 might have been the year that Krzyzewski did his best coaching, in terms of building a champion that was one of the top two teams in the country without any high-end NBA talent, but 2015 felt like the year that Krzyzewski did the most coaching. In 2010, Duke had a plan, the plan worked, and Duke executed it well enough to win a title. This season seemed to feature more course corrections and schematic shifts and high-stakes gambles, even if Duke had more talent to work with than they did in 2010.

[Orange&BlackSheep]

I think you have to decide as of what date you're measuring. Unlikeliest at the start of the season, the start of the NCAA tournament, or the Final Four? When you discuss 1991, you seem to be focusing on the Final Four, but it's not clear that you're doing so for the other seasons.

I still vote for 2010, FWIW.

I would say unlikeliest as the tournament begins is the metric. Also, please note that I am ranking the likelihood of winning the national championship not rating Coack K's nebulous "coaching job". It is a tie for first amongst these five years for his job.

2010 as more unlikely than 1991? I really don't think there is a legit argument lurking there. They were #1 Kenpom. 1991 was so far behind UNLV (etal?) by any metric ...

[wsb3]

I am constantly hearing references to this National Championship run as being Coach K's greatest coaching effort and the most unlikely of the five. This makes completely no sense to me. So for silly season argument's sake, I give you my order (from least likely to most) and rationale:

#1 1991 -- The only championship won not as a #1 seed. Had to defeat one of college basketball all time great teams in UNLV, a team that had obliterated Duke the previous year (without Grant Hill and with a sick Bobby Hurley). I don't have the info, but I am quite sure that Duke's odds of winning according to Vegas had to have been the longest odds of the five by a wide margin. Leading up to the tournament, this team also got completely blown out by Carolina in an ACC tourney final I would rather forget.

--- I really find it difficult to separate #2 & #3 ... would love to hear arguments defending or contradicting my choice ---

#2 2010
#3 2015 -- I entered this exercise thinking I would choose 2015 here because of our inconsistency and the presence of undefeated Kentucky (and the match-up problem that particular squad would have poised for this Duke team), but I split hairs and went with 2010. This team definitely found itself once Z entered the starting lineup and Coach K redefined how this team was going to win (with an incredibly high offensive rebound/possession rate etal). But it was constantly playing with fire winning close games. Both 2010 and 2015 had mid-season slumps against ACC foes. 2010 won the ACC tournament (two very close games) while 2015 of course did not. But 2015 has two Top 5 NBA draft picks in an above average draft and a 3rd (Tyus Jones), 4th (Grayson Allen), or even 5th pick (Quinn Cook) who all may compete favorably with the NBA legacies of Lance Thomas, the Plumlee Bros, and Ryan Kelly (who was not a factor for the 2010 team though on it). I think the tournament brackets that each team faced were comparable except that Baylor was a much more dangerous #3 than the 2015 had in its path. So for that reason I think we had *slightly* more championship expectations for 2015 than 2010.

--- I don't think I even need to create arguments for the last two.
#4 2001
#5 1992

Thoughts?

Good post. I think when you are right in the moment after a championship it easy to get caught up in the moment. This was a great coaching job no doubt but the best, the most unlikely champion..uh no..

As you pointed out the first one was not that likely with UNLV returning every key player from a NC team & being undefeated. 2010 is a good argument for the most unlikely.

I might differ with you just a bit on the 2001 team. I know we had great talent but I do think that was a great coaching job. Once Boozer went down in a loss to Maryland at home Coach K was almost perfect from that point on. In fact, we never lost again that season. Go to UNC and run them off their court. Win the ACC tourney, make it to the sweet 16 still without Boozer.. Working Boozer back into the lineup the next round without hurting the changes made to play without him, & then Final Four weekend..coming back from 22 down against Maryland..

But I am just glad to be debating such things. DUKE 91,92,01,10,15

[Faustus]

Going into the 2010 season the summer/fall before, we on the forum here weren't even sure we had enough guards to field a team and compete, much less win a national championship.

I also remember thinking after blasting past the regionals in 1991 and still without that first championship, "What a shame to get to the Final Four again, only to have UNLV waiting again." I was reminded of that again this year with Kentucky looming in Indianapolis. Ha.

[MartyClark]

I vote for 2010. IIRC, Elliot Williams had left and I was very concerned about Duke's athletic ability and ball handling.

Gottlieb made his "remarkably unathletic" remark early that season. Duke got smacked by Georgetown midseason.

But then ... Jon Scheyer plays remarkable basketball. Brian Zoubek improves greatly midseason. Lance Thomas played D and got rebounds. Nolan Smith . . .

I loved that team. But I really love this team.

As others have stated, 2015 has more NBA style talent. These are two very different teams but, by golly, they both were remarkable.

[jimsumner]

I think we may be placing too much emphasis on eventual NBA draft status.

Grayson Allen may well end up a first-round draft pick, which means he would be drafted higher than Kyle Singler or Jon Scheyer. But both were much better players in 2010 than was Allen in 2015. Miles and Mason Plumlee from that 2010 team were eventually drafted higher than either Singler or Scheyer. But neither was as important.

Or go back to 1992. Cherokee Parks and Tony Lang eventually were drafted off that team. Thomas Hill was not. But Hill was significantly more important to that team.

Talent plus experience can be an attractive combination.

Note that this team was the first Duke team to win it all without first winning either the ACC regular-season title and/or the ACC-Tournament title. Note it also was the first Duke team to win a title without playing in the ACCT title game. Only the third (1990, 1994) to make the FF without playing three games in the ACCT.

Add to that the preponderance of freshmen in the rotation and I think this title was more unlikely than the one in 2010.

[MChambers]

I would say unlikeliest as the tournament begins is the metric. Also, please note that I am ranking the likelihood of winning the national championship not rating Coack K's nebulous "coaching job". It is a tie for first amongst these five years for his job.

2010 as more unlikely than 1991? I really don't think there is a legit argument lurking there. They were #1 Kenpom. 1991 was so far behind UNLV (etal?) by any metric ...
If you're saying when the tourney starts, then yes 1991 would be unlikeliest. We were a #2 seed. In all the others, we were a #1 seed.

If you're saying when the season starts, I'd say 2010.

[MChambers]

Add to that the preponderance of freshmen in the rotation and I think this title was more unlikely than the one in 2010.
The game has, unfortunately, changed in this regard, with the one and done phenomenon, so I'd disagree on this.

Can't we just do this objectively, by looking at preseason rankings?

[MarkD83]

The game has, unfortunately, changed in this regard, with the one and done phenomenon, so I'd disagree on this.

Can't we just do this objectively, by looking at preseason rankings?

I think some combination of pre-season rankings, regulare season record, finish in ACC tournament and NCAA seed would be the best way.


Here is without preseason rankings:
2015: 29-4, Lost in ACC semis, #1 seed
2010: 29-5, Won ACC tournament, #1 seed
2001: 29-4; Won ACC tournament, #1 seed
1992: 28-2; Won ACC tournament, #1 seed
1991: 26-7; Lost in ACC finals; #2 seed

[Wander]

On top of that, the 2010 team didn't have great individualistic basketball talent for an NC team. There were zero lottery picks, 3 first rounders (Nolan, MP1, MP3), and currently five players active in the NBA (Kelly, LT, and MP2 start for terrible teams, MP1 is having issues breaking the Bucks rotation, and Singler is doing his best to fill in for KD). The 2015 has at least 2 lottery picks (Okafor, Winslow), another 2 guaranteed first rounders (Tyus, Grayson), and up to 3 additional future NBAers (Cook, M Jones, AJ). In terms of sheer talent, the 2015 team is way better. The 2010 team just had such insane chemistry, arguably the best of any Duke team I've ever seen.

Well, you're looking at the 2010 talent in hindsight and the 2015 talent in the present day, so it's not a total apples to apples comparison. If you were making this list two days after the 2010 championship, you would probably call Kyle Singler a "guaranteed first rounder" and a possible lottery pick. The flip side is that Tyus and especially Grayson are not "guaranteed" first rounders (I think Singler was probably projected higher in the 2010 draft than Tyus is in the 2015).

I think the bottom line is that 2015 obviously has much more talent at the top and that does matter a lot, but 2010 might actually have as much or more talent in the other tiers, for example Mason/Miles/Andre/Ryan vs Marshall/Amile/Grayson. That matters too, as countless examples like the Heat vs the Spurs have shown us.

I think the 2010 team is still quite a bit underrated, by Duke fans and non-Duke fans alike.

[MarkD83]

Even with my last post with some facts in it, 2010 and 2015 still feel to me like the most unexpected.

1991 occurred after Duke had been to the Final Four in 1998, 89 and 90 so it just felt like getting to the Final Four was "easier". I know this is just a feeling but back then it was a strong feeling.
1992 occurred after 1992 and 4 straight Final Fours.
2001 occurred after an elite eight, national runner-up and a Sweet 16.
2010 occurred after a loss in the first round, a loss in the second round, a loss in the Sweet 16. There felt like a bit of a progression going on.
2015 occurred after a loss in the first round, an elite eight and a loss in the first round, so my expcetations were a Sweet 16 appearance would be great.

(Boy are we spoiled fans or what!!!)

[flyingdutchdevil]

Well, you're looking at the 2010 talent in hindsight and the 2015 talent in the present day, so it's not a total apples to apples comparison. If you were making this list two days after the 2010 championship, you would probably call Kyle Singler a "guaranteed first rounder" and a possible lottery pick. The flip side is that Tyus and especially Grayson are not "guaranteed" first rounders (I think Singler was probably projected higher in the 2010 draft than Tyus is in the 2015).

I think the bottom line is that 2015 obviously has much more talent at the top and that does matter a lot, but 2010 might actually have as much or more talent in the other tiers, for example Mason/Miles/Andre/Ryan vs Marshall/Amile/Grayson. That matters too, as countless examples like the Heat vs the Spurs have shown us.

I think the 2010 team is still quite a bit underrated, by Duke fans and non-Duke fans alike.

Maybe, but 2010 never had a lottery. The closest lottery would be MP2 had he gone after his freshman year, and that wouldn't be a guarantee (Singler was considered a late first rounder, if I recall, after 2010. Not a lottery). Also, it's pretty clear that Tyus Jones is a first rounder. He's in the mid/late first round on all relevant mock drafts. Before the beginning of the season, many scouts/GMs argued that Grayson would be the second best NBA player of the bunch (I don't think they realized at that point what amazing talent Winslow has). I'd be shocked to see him not be a first round in 1-2 years.

Also, it's important to note that Mason Plumlee averaged 3.7 points as a freshman, so his talent was raw. Ryan Kelly averaged 1.2 ppg and wasn't part of Coach K's tight rotation. During the Butler game, only five players averaged double figure minutes with MP1 adding 9. That's really a 5.5-6 man rotation, and can be argued that only those 6 players should be considered in the talent pool analysis. Compare that with 2015, where 7 players averaged 20+ minutes in the final game.

I don't believe the 2010 team is underrated. Three of the starting five - and the starting five were easily the best players that year - aren't playing in the NBA (and two of them aren't playing at all). This team won it with chemistry and players all understanding their roles which led to incredible offensive and defensive efficiency.

[Wander]

Maybe, but 2010 never had a lottery. The closest lottery would be MP2 had he gone after his freshman year, and that wouldn't be a guarantee (Singler was considered a late first rounder, if I recall, after 2010. Not a lottery). Also, it's pretty clear that Tyus Jones is a first rounder. He's in the mid/late first round on all relevant mock drafts. Before the beginning of the season, many scouts/GMs argued that Grayson would be the second best NBA player of the bunch (I don't think they realized at that point what amazing talent Winslow has). I'd be shocked to see him not be a first round in 1-2 years.


I'm just saying that it was also pretty clear that Singler was a first rounder a few days after the 2010 championship. Is it really that unthinkable that Tyus returns the school and drops a little bit in the draft? I don't think that will occur because I'm higher on Tyus than most people here, but much stranger things have happened.



Also, it's important to note that Mason Plumlee averaged 3.7 points as a freshman, so his talent was raw. Ryan Kelly averaged 1.2 ppg and wasn't part of Coach K's tight rotation. During the Butler game, only five players averaged double figure minutes with MP1 adding 9. That's really a 5.5-6 man rotation, and can be argued that only those 6 players should be considered in the talent pool analysis. Compare that with 2015, where 7 players averaged 20+ minutes in the final game.


That's fair, but it's also creating a bit of a moving target. Are we talking about raw NBA talent or how good they are as college players? If the former, then I stand by my original statement that the 2010 bench is actually more talented than the 2015 bench as best we can tell now, and I think it's a mistake to only count the one final game of the season. If the latter, that's fine, but then we need to talk about how a junior Kyle Singler is probably a better player in college than a freshman Justise Winslow (or at least comparable).

[Orange&BlackSheep]

2015--> 9:1
2010--> 8:1
2001--> 2:1

This goes against my argument .... slightly.

[freshmanjs]

2015--> 9:1
2010--> 8:1

This goes against my argument .... slightly.

Those are not the odds the casinos were giving in Vegas. I placed a pre tourney bet on March 18 at aria on Duke to win it. 6-1.

[PSurprise]

Ok, what do y'all think? Who wins the 2010 v. 2015 game? Singler, Scheyer, Smith, et al. v. Jones, Oak, Winslow, et al.
Personally, I think this year's team would win based on sheer talent, but there's a part of me that thinks that the 2010 team would play them very close, and it would be a low-scoring slugfest.

[GGLC]

Here's the thing - 2010 might have been the year that Krzyzewski did his best coaching, in terms of building a champion that was one of the top two teams in the country without any high-end NBA talent, but 2015 felt like the year that Krzyzewski did the most coaching. In 2010, Duke had a plan, the plan worked, and Duke executed it well enough to win a title. This season seemed to feature more course corrections and schematic shifts and high-stakes gambles, even if Duke had more talent to work with than they did in 2010.

Can't spork you, so wanted to say that this is a great post.

[Orange&BlackSheep]

Those are not the odds the casinos were giving in Vegas. I placed a pre tourney bet on March 18 at aria on Duke to win it. 6-1.

you could have made a lot more money on that bet:

Uses Bovada not Aria (http://www.oddsshark.com/ncaab/college-basketball-futures)

[freshmanjs]

you could have made a lot more money on that bet:

Uses Bovada not Aria (http://www.oddsshark.com/ncaab/college-basketball-futures)

Bovada had Duke as much more of an underdog than Vegas consensus. For the purpose of this thread I don't think it makes sense to use that outlier.

[Orange&BlackSheep]

Bovada had Duke as much more of an underdog than Vegas consensus. For the purpose of this thread I don't think it makes sense to use that outlier.

Bet365 had Duke 10:1 pre-tourney. I think Vegas has narrower odds since they have more overhead.

[EKU1969]

(Boy are we spoiled fans or what!!!)[/QUOTE]

Yes, we are! But, isn't that great?! Duke is one of just a few programs to have this feeling and it is both a blessing and a curse, but Duke does it best! UK, kU, UCLA (not as recently), and unfortunately UNC are the others. I'll take Duke every time!

[Reilly]

If you're saying when the season starts, I'd say 2010.


... Can't we just do this objectively, by looking at preseason rankings?

Pre-season AP rankings:

2015: 4
2010: 9
2001: 2
1992: 1
1991: 6

So, 2010 is the most unlikely, then 1991, then 2015, based on pre-season AP rankings.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/

[subzero02]

I vote for 2010. IIRC, Elliot Williams had left and I was very concerned about Duke's athletic ability and ball handling.

Gottlieb made his "remarkably unathletic" remark early that season. Duke got smacked by Georgetown midseason.

But then ... Jon Scheyer plays remarkable basketball. Brian Zoubek improves greatly midseason. Lance Thomas played D and got rebounds. Nolan Smith . . .

I loved that team. But I really love this team.

As others have stated, 2015 has more NBA style talent. These are two very different teams but, by golly, they both were remarkable.

Elliot Williams left the program after the 2008-2009 season but before the start of 2009-2010 run. Olek left during the winter break, his departure took place after Gottlieb's remarkably unathletic comments(a win over uconn over thanksgiving break).Also, how can you talk about the 2010 title team and mention every starter but Kyle "crazy eyes" Singler, one of the most stone cold players ever to wear a Duke uniform.

[mr. synellinden]

Pre-season AP rankings:

2015: 4
2010: 9
2001: 2
1992: 1
1991: 6

So, 2010 is the most unlikely, then 1991, then 2015, based on pre-season AP rankings.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/

The question is unlikeliest at what point of evaluation? Pre-season or pre-tournament? Talent and first-round picks aside, keep in mind that the 2010 team won every championship it could have won. It won the pre-season NIT. It won the ACC regular season title. It won the ACC tournament. It won the South region and it won the Final Four.

I think the 2010 and 2015 teams have remarkable similarity going into the tournament. Both were #1 seeds but not thought of as having a real chance to win the title. Kansas was a strong favorite in 2010 with Kentucky a bit of a distant second. In 2015, Kentucky was an overwhelming favorite with the other #1 seeds and some of the 2s (Arizona, Gonzaga) considered to have better chances than Duke. In 2010 Baylor was a popular South region champion pick and in 2015, most experts predicted Gonzaga. In 2010, Duke pulled away late in a tight regional final game to beat Baylor, and in 2015, Duke pulled away late in a tight regional final game to beat Gonzaga. Also, in both seasons Duke won a blowout in the semi-finals (21 vs. WVU, 20 vs. MSU) and then won a tight, low-scoring championship game. And both teams won the championship with great defense. In the end, in both seasons, Duke proved it was the best team. I really believe that objectively.

One other parallel that I was thinking about during the championship game. If you were to go back to 1991, when Duke was trying to back up the monumental upset over an undefeated UNLV, in the championship game Kansas missed several layups or close shots they ordinarily would make. Duke played well in the championship game, but a major factor in that win was some luck that Kansas did not make more of those "easy" shots. This year, Wisconsin was trying to back up their monumental upset over an undefeated Kentucky team, Duke missed several layups and easy shots they ordinarily would make. Okafor missed 3 or 4 shots that he hasn't missed all season and Winslow missed 1 or 2, including a late layup. Duke could have won the game by 10 or more if it made those, but was still tough enough to win.

One other thought, Okafor's two late baskets, one of which was after fighting through a bear hug intentional foul and the other was after grabbing an offensive rebound, may have been made possible by the fact that he was very well rested from having spent much of the second half on the bench. On the other hand, after the emotional and physical game against Kentucky and late in a tight game, Kaminsky had to have been fatigued. I actually think he and Dekker were tired in the second half, which may explain why they didn't make more of an effort to get to the basket against a team in foul trouble. Dekker in particular, who was guarded by a foul-plagued Winslow and a much shorter M. Jones hardly made any impact after his early second half layup (on which he traveled by the way and Raftery called that out). And Kaminsky couldn't take advantage of being guarded by a much shorter Jefferson. Again, fatigue could have been a big factor.

[NSDukeFan]

Ok, what do y'all think? Who wins the 2010 v. 2015 game? Singler, Scheyer, Smith, et al. v. Jones, Oak, Winslow, et al.
Personally, I think this year's team would win based on sheer talent, but there's a part of me that thinks that the 2010 team would play them very close, and it would be a low-scoring slugfest.

I think I'm picking 2010, if we're picking at the start of the tournament. They were a well oiled machine that was ridiculous with a lead at the end of the year. They had as good a chance to win that year as anyone with how they were playing. I think it is unfair to penalize their memory because their pro careers haven't gone as well as could have been expected. Zoubek didn't get a chance at the pros because of his back, Scheyer didn't because if his eye and things didn't work out for Nolan. In my biased opinion, they all could have played in the NBA had circumstances been better for them. Singler was obviously a first rounder after 2010, but wasn't after 2011 because of his senior year shooting slump. This year's team has more potential in the pros at this point, but Okafor and Justise wouldn't have dominated Zoubs and Lance, but the three S's were far superior to Cook, Jones and Jones, IMO. I love both teams and had good feelings about their potential to make a run going into each tournament, but I agree with Wander that 2010 was very underrated, even by Duke fans.

[sagegrouse]

I think I'm picking 2010, if we're picking at the start of the tournament. They were a well oiled machine that was ridiculous with a lead at the end of the year. They had as good a chance to win that year as anyone with how they were playing. I think it is unfair to penalize their memory because their pro careers haven't gone as well as could have been expected. Zoubek didn't get a chance at the pros because of his back, Scheyer didn't because if his eye and things didn't work out for Nolan. In my biased opinion, they all could have played in the NBA had circumstances been better for them. Singler was obviously a first rounder after 2010, but wasn't after 2011 because of his senior year shooting slump. This year's team has more potential in the pros at this point, but Okafor and Justise wouldn't have dominated Zoubs and Lance, but the three S's were far superior to Cook, Jones and Jones, IMO. I love both teams and had good feelings about their potential to make a run going into each tournament, but I agree with Wander that 2010 was very underrated, even by Duke fans.

Pro careers are largely irrelevant to the discussion. The 2010 team started three seniors and two juniors. The 2015 team started three freshman, a sophomore and a junior. Not exactly apples to apples. Moreover, giving 2010 a lot of credit for Mason, who barely played, is kinda silly.

[COYS]

Here's my order from most surprising to least surprising

1991
2015
2010
2001
1992

I dig this thread, as it raises so many fun hypotheticals, not the least of which is imagining some of Duke's greatest playing against other Duke greats in a hypothetical Duke Champions' League type tournament. Seriously, I'm enjoying taking a moment to imagine how such a tournament might work out. Entry into the Champions League could be determined by just that -- winning a Championship. All ACC Tourney Champs, NCAA Champs, or NCAA Region Champs would be eligible. That's a lot of teams (because we're a lucky fan base), so we could do this UEFA/FIBA style and have pool play followed by the knock-out rounds. It would get really interesting if we allowed pre-Coach K teams to enter . . .

Anyway, back to reality,

I vote for 1991 to be the most unlikely, whether you mean at the start of the season or at the start of the NCAAT. No one thought that team wasn't good, but there were just SO MANY OTHER really good teams that year, and of course UNLV had completely out-classed Duke the year before. I get that the team had made a habit of getting to the Final Four. But UNLV loomed as a much larger barrier to the 1991 team than even UK this year. UNLV had proven itself by winning the whole thing, already. They returned their team and, given the natural improvement of the players, promised to be even better. In fact, they were better . . . until they met Duke. This year, UK promised to be good, but they were only mediocre the year before (by UK standards) and needed an insane amount of late game heroics to make it to the title game. An awesome feat, no doubt, but nothing compared to what UNLV did in 1990. Yes, they added an amazing recruiting class, but again the talent was young. UNLV had won the whole thing the year before, steamrolling Duke along the way, AND they were equally and/or more talented plus more experienced heading into 1991. Laettner wasn't the Laettner of Legend, yet. Hurley was a talented but mistake-prone point guard. Grant Hill was a signature recruit, but in comparison to the returning talent at UNLV, he couldn't be expected to single-handedly turn around Duke's fortunes. Anyway, I say the 1991 team was the most unexpected champion despite it not being that much of a surprise that they made it to the Final Four. After getting waxed by the Heels in the ACCT Final, even going into the NCAAT, it would have been tough to pick Duke to finally have what it takes to win a title and knock of juggernaut UNLV along the way.

As for second place on the list, my vote is for this season. Maybe this is my own personal bias showing, but by the time March rolled around, I thought the 2010 team had the best chance in the country to win the title. Actually, I thought the team was in good shape almost all of the season. Perhaps this is due to having become an addict to efficiency-based stats by this point, but the 2010 was always near the top of the efficiency rankings and rose to the top (and started playing unbelievably well) after the big lineup change that saw Zoubek start ahead of either Plumlee. I never bought UK as they seriously lacked outside shooting and were reliant on freshman. That was a talented team, but it wasn't nearly as deep as this year's UK squad, even if Boogie and John Wall are probably higher end talents than anyone except maybe Towns from UK this season.

Also, Jon was an absolute MASTER at imposing Duke's preferred pace on EVERYONE we played. The offense made so few live-ball mistakes that opposing teams basically never had a chance to run. In the half court, our team was incredibly strong and tough with a good defender at every single position. Zoubs and Lance had become masters of hedging. Nolan was a lockdown defender. And Jon and Kyle might be two of Duke's most underrated defenders. That team had excellent guard play, stout defense, a foolproof offense that was actually designed to work even when the shots weren't falling (through offensive rebounding), and tons of experience. I actually thought we'd be able to handle Kansas if we'd had to face them.

I know the 2010 team had been coming off of three disappointing tournament runs in a row, but the 2010 team was so different I didn't think that mattered. You never go into the tournament thinking that the title is inevitable. But, I definitely thought the 2010 Blue Devils had the best shot of anyone. I was even someone who didn't care too much when John Wall chose UK because I couldn't wait to see what the master of efficiency Jon Scheyer could do at the helm of the offense for a full season.

The 2015 team certainly had the talent to win it all. In fact, based on our play in some of the biggest games of the season, I suspected that when they were playing their best, they could beat anyone. However, I didn't think the team's style was as fool-proof as the 2010 team. We played at a faster (though not breakneck) pace and our lapses usually allowed the other team to get out and score easy buckets in chunks. Also, our defensive inconsistencies were red flags. I thought that on talent alone we could make the Elite 8 and possibly (depending on matchups) the Final Four. However, I also thought the team would have to show a sudden commitment to focus to win the title, even though the talent was there. Despite all the big wins and the continued improvement of the defense after the first ND game, I was still concerned about the team maintaining focus to win 6 games. In fact, I was almost more concerned that we had underrated, non-name-brand teams in our bracket like Utah and SDSU, as I thought it might be easier for our guys to lose focus in those games than it was when we played UNC, Louisville, and Wisconsin. Needless to say, everything worked out great and the team came together on defense just like we all hoped it would. They never lost focus and they won the big one. However, they still fit in as the second-most surprising team, for me.

As for the other teams, injuries in '92 and '01 could make those titles seem slightly more unlikely . . . in fact, the injury to Carlos is what made me move 2001 ahead of 1992. I thought there was no way Shane would leave Duke without a title. I just didn't think it was possible. And I loved the ability of the guards to enforce their will on opposing teams -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqOOREQkEoE (and also, the third basket Jason scored in that video where he just decides to explode to the hoop past four UCLA defenders STRAIGHT DOWN THE GUT OF THE LANE makes me so sad we never got to see him fulfill his pro potential).
Still, there were enough other talented teams out there that I was slightly worried that the talented but relatively thin Duke team might have a disadvantage against someone at some point in the tournament without Boozer.

In 1992, despite the injuries, the team had been to the Final Four every single season over the past few years and they had finally gotten over the hump. They had taken the place of UNLV in 1991 as the inevitable winners. I was too young to have any objective opinion of the team, myself, but even despite the injuries, none of them were too severe and by the time the NCAAT started, they were the clear favorites to take the title. That team was ridiculously balanced with talent and depth at basically every position.

[Olympic Fan]

Here's the thing - 2010 might have been the year that Krzyzewski did his best coaching, in terms of building a champion that was one of the top two teams in the country without any high-end NBA talent, but 2015 felt like the year that Krzyzewski did the most coaching. In 2010, Duke had a plan, the plan worked, and Duke executed it well enough to win a title. This season seemed to feature more course corrections and schematic shifts and high-stakes gambles, even if Duke had more talent to work with than they did in 2010.

Trying to parse Coach K's best coaching jobs is a pretty tough task.

Yeah, the way he re-built the 2010 team in February was spectacular. The way he re-built the defense of this year's team down the stretch was incredible. But don't forget his response in 2001 when Carlos Boozer broke his foot in the last week of the regular season -- he totally revamped the way his team played and made it better.

That's not to knock his job in 1991 -- he didn't settle on a lineup until very late and masterminded one of the great upsets in tournament history ...

There's a reason he's the GOAT

[ns7]

I think the 2010 and 2015 teams have remarkable similarity going into the tournament. Both were #1 seeds but not thought of as having a real chance to win the title. Kansas was a strong favorite in 2010 with Kentucky a bit of a distant second. In 2015, Kentucky was an overwhelming favorite with the other #1 seeds and some of the 2s (Arizona, Gonzaga) considered to have better chances than Duke. In 2010 Baylor was a popular South region champion pick and in 2015, most experts predicted Gonzaga. In 2010, Duke pulled away late in a tight regional final game to beat Baylor, and in 2015, Duke pulled away late in a tight regional final game to beat Gonzaga. Also, in both seasons Duke won a blowout in the semi-finals (21 vs. WVU, 20 vs. MSU) and then won a tight, low-scoring championship game. And both teams won the championship with great defense. In the end, in both seasons, Duke proved it was the best team. I really believe that objectively.


I agree with most of what you say except for two point
1) Duke 2010 was #1 in Pomeroy before the tournament. Vegas had Duke with the second best title odds. I'd call that a serious chance
2) Duke 2010 had the best offense in the country. That team was so good at ORs and avoiding turnovers.

[COYS]

I agree with most of what you say except for two point
1) Duke 2010 was #1 in Pomeroy before the tournament. Vegas had Duke with the second best title odds. I'd call that a serious chance
2) Duke 2010 had the best offense in the country. That team was so good at ORs and avoiding turnovers.

I'd add a caveat to point number 1. Duke had the second best odds in large part because a lot of the rest of the country didn't buy them as champions, which affected how bets were placed. I think that if everyone had taken a more objective stance in evaluating the teams, Duke would have been a SLIGHT favorite over Kansas.

[ns7]

I'd add a caveat to point number 1. Duke had the second best odds in large part because a lot of the rest of the country didn't buy them as champions, which affected how bets were placed. I think that if everyone had taken a more objective stance in evaluating the teams, Duke would have been a SLIGHT favorite over Kansas.

I made a mistake here, Duke was actually 8-1 odds to win the title in 2010. UK and Syracuse were also higher. Duke was third in preseason odds at 8-1 also.

http://www.masslive.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/03/odds_to_win_2010_ncaa_basketball_tournament.html

[MarkD83]

I did a little more data analysis and am now leaning towards 2015 as the unlikeliest.

All of the other 4 Duke NCAA Champions finished first (or tied for 1st) in the ACC regular season and made it to the ACC tournament championship with the 1992, 2001 and 2010 teams winning the ACC tournament.

So 2015 with a 2nd place finish and losing in the ACC semis had not "hung a banner" before making it to the Final 4 and winning the championship.

If you expand this to the other 7 Coach K Final Four teams,

1986 1st Regular / Tournament champion
1988 3rd / Champion
1989 2nd / ACC Finals
1990 2nd / Not in Finals
1994 1st / Not in Finals
1999 1st / Champion
2004 1st / ACC Finals

So only 1990 is comparable to 2015 and they are at the bottom of the list of ACC accomplishments.

I can add in the two Elite 8 teams that Coach K has coached and they look like this.

1998 1st / ACC Finals
2013 2nd / Not in Finals

I can then add the eight Sweet 16 teams that Coach K has coached and they look like this.

1987 3rd / Not in Finals
2000 1st / Champion
2002 2nd / Champion
2003 2nd / Champion
2005 3rd / Champion
2006 1st / Champion
2009 2nd / Champion
2011 2nd / Champion


So during Coach K's tenure, the 12 teams that have won the ACC regular season and the 13 teams that have won the ACC tournament championship have been to at least the Sweet 16. This means the 2015 team going into the NCAAs may have looked more like the teams that lost before the Sweet 16 than won a National Championship like the 2015 National Championship Team.

(And if you hadn't guessed this contribution has nothing to do with determining who is the most unlikeliest of the 5 Duke NCAA Championship Teams :)

If you are counting the 1997 team was first in the ACC regular season but lost in the round of 32.