We lost to a better team last Sunday

[DukeTrinity11]

I'm finally ready to trust the eye test and reject the biases that have clouded me stemming from a combination of branding, seeding and dork polls.

South Carolina was simply a better overall basketball team than Duke this year and they had the best player on the court in Sindarius Thornwell. This loss was nothing like VCU, Lehigh or Mercer.

I can finally rest in peace over this season and am looking forward to next year. Go Duke!!

[eddiehaskell]

With SC's run to the final four, this season was somewhat salvaged in my mind. We lost to the hottest team in the country. It wasn't a 2nd round loss to a team that was blown out in the next round.

The SC team that beat us would've likely taken out all but a few 1-4 seeds in a second round home game.

If us Duke fans would've said SC outplayed their record without going on to a FF, we would've been accused of making excuses. By next year, I bet this loss will get lumped in with the others though.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I would agree that South Carolina is playing very well right now.

Lehigh also had the best player.

SoCal

[moonpie23]

Go cocks!!!!!!

[dukelifer]

I'm finally ready to trust the eye test and reject the biases that have clouded me stemming from a combination of branding, seeding and dork polls.

South Carolina was simply a better overall basketball team than Duke this year and they had the best player on the court in Sindarius Thornwell. This loss was nothing like VCU, Lehigh or Mercer.

I can finally rest in peace over this season and am looking forward to next year. Go Duke!!

Duke lost to a very hot team. Nice run by them - but we all know what is in store next year.

[subzero02]

I would agree that South Carolina is playing very well right now.

Lehigh also had the best player.

SoCal

I suspect the guy who was our best player for most of the year was sick for the game against south carolina but who knows. Playing them in south carolina was a factor; I think we probably would have beaten them in the Garden.

Their biggest strength is the consistency of their intensity throughout a game. They simply wear you down; they also don't seem to scare easily. I guess that lack of fear comes from seeing the scariest coach on any level every day during practice.

I also partially blame Kyrie Irving for this loss. IIRC, the last time we faced Martin he was at KSU and Kyrie dismantled his best player.

[subzero02]

Duke lost to a very hot team. Nice run by them - but we all know what is in store next year.

is it the same thing that was in store for Oregon?

[Troublemaker]

For me, the distinction of whether SC is better or not doesn't matter. As a program, Duke needs to control what it can control, which is how good a team Duke is. And it doesn't seem like Duke was a top-10 team this season based on -- as I've written before -- kenpom, the ACC being overrated, and a 6-man rotation that contained neither a true PG or true C.

Whether Duke was the #15 team that lost to the #25 team, or whether Duke was the #15 team that lost to the #10 team (or whatever), doesn't really matter to me. The program needs to produce a better team.

Now, that said, I am still proud of this team for the ACC championship run and for beating UNC twice (and also for the things we take for granted like going to class and not getting into trouble off the court). Not every Duke team wins a conference championship or beats UNC twice, so I do try to appreciate the teams that do. Like many Duke fans, I like to re-watch old games every now and then, and this team definitely produced some games that will get inserted into the rotation. For that, I am grateful.

[Devilwin]

Not going to say they were the better team all year. They were when it counted though.
The biggest issues we had were lack of a true point guard, the lack of development by our bigs, and so much time lost to injury by several players. This in itself kept our team from getting familiar with each other in a given lineup, and eventually led to our elimination. Hopefully, these issues can be fixed.

[jv001]

I don't know if SC was better than us, but I will say that SC was a better defensive team by far. I will say our offense was better than their offense. Put both together, I guess it makes this SC team better than us. I'm really glad to see the Gamecocks win games after defeating us. Would they have beaten us on a real neutral court? We'll never know. One thing for sure, the team that had the best chance of defeating the Uncheats, lost to them. That team is the Duke University Blue Devils. We have their number and they know it, ha ha :cool: GoDuke!

[JNort]

We didn't lose to a team that was even close to as good as Duke. We lost to a good team that had played better than us that day and with a style that frustrated our guys.

[MCFinARL]

For me, the distinction of whether SC is better or not doesn't matter. As a program, Duke needs to control what it can control, which is how good a team Duke is. And it doesn't seem like Duke was a top-10 team this season based on -- as I've written before -- kenpom, the ACC being overrated, and a 6-man rotation that contained neither a true PG or true C.

Whether Duke was the #15 team that lost to the #25 team, or whether Duke was the #15 team that lost to the #10 team (or whatever), doesn't really matter to me. The program needs to produce a better team.

Now, that said, I am still proud of this team for the ACC championship run and for beating UNC twice (and also for the things we take for granted like going to class and not getting into trouble off the court). Not every Duke team wins a conference championship or beats UNC twice, so I do try to appreciate the teams that do. Like many Duke fans, I like to re-watch old games every now and then, and this team definitely produced some games that will get inserted into the rotation. For that, I am grateful.

This all makes sense, and agreed if we want to see Duke advancing far into the tournament, the program has to produce a better, or at least deeper, team than it did this year. All that being said, I agree with the OP that it feels a little better to have lost to a team that is on a roll than it did to lose to one-hit wonder teams. And eventually it may make the players feel better, too, though I don't suspect it does right now--may even make them feel worse, as they can imagine their own path to the Final Four had they advanced out of the first weekend.

Now I am kind of liking the idea (perhaps fantastic) that South Carolina meets, and defeats, UNC in the final. That might at least cause a few Tarheel fans to hesitate before arguing that this year's UNC team was clearly better than this year's Duke team. :)

[Spanarkel]

With SC's run to the final four, this season was somewhat salvaged in my mind. We lost to the hottest team in the country. It wasn't a 2nd round loss to a team that was blown out in the next round.

The SC team that beat us would've likely taken out all but a few 1-4 seeds in a second round home game.

If us Duke fans would've said SC outplayed their record without going on to a FF, we would've been accused of making excuses. By next year, I bet this loss will get lumped in with the others though.

Agree with your post, but I can't wrap my mind around the fact that South Carolina was 3-6 in their last 9 games prior to the start of the NCAAT.

[Dukehky]

I'm finally ready to trust the eye test and reject the biases that have clouded me stemming from a combination of branding, seeding and dork polls.

South Carolina was simply a better overall basketball team than Duke this year and they had the best player on the court in Sindarius Thornwell. This loss was nothing like VCU, Lehigh or Mercer.

I can finally rest in peace over this season and am looking forward to next year. Go Duke!!

Nope. Sindarius Thornwell, as overlooked and good as he is, is never the best player on a basketball court that also has Jayson Tatum on it.

[MCFinARL]

Nope. Sindarius Thornwell, as overlooked and good as he is, is never the best player on a basketball court that also has Jayson Tatum on it.

Fair enough--but just as people in this thread are distinguishing between being a better team and being a team that is playing better, I think we might make the same distinction for Thornwell and Tatum in this game. Tatum had 15 points on 50% shooting (including 1 of 2 from the foul line), 3 rebounds, 1 assist, 5 turnovers, and 5 fouls in 34 minutes; Thornwell had 24 points on 43% shooting from the field and 75% (9 of 12) from the free throw line, 6 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 turnovers, a steal, and 1 personal foul in 36 minutes. A pretty good performance from Tatum, but not his best--and I would say not as good as Thornwell's in that particular game.

[53n206]

Mc Donalds All Americans, and 5 star recruits are mainly senior high school players around 18 years old playing against opponents of varying ages, size, and abilities. When they start playing in college they come up against players who are often older and, having a few years of unlimited food and strength coaching, are bigger and better than they were in H.S. It means that the thinner 5 stars may get pushed around a bit. I think we see that in our Duke teams. The "one and done" teams can be pushed around. We need some size with experience in order to excel. How to get there, I wish I knee.

[wsb3]

Mc Donalds All Americans, and 5 star recruits are mainly senior high school players around 18 years old playing against opponents of varying ages, size, and abilities. When they start playing in college they come up against players who are often older and, having a few years of unlimited food and strength coaching, are bigger and better than they were in H.S. It means that the thinner 5 stars may get pushed around a bit. I think we see that in our Duke teams. The "one and done" teams can be pushed around. We need some size with experience in order to excel. How to get there, I wish I knee.

The difference in age, strength, maturity, (while we have more talent) we have seen play out not in our favor. Throw in a red shirt year & we have 18, 19 year old OAD playing against 22-23 year old grown men. At that stage of life 4 years is a huge difference.

Despite never seeing Mercer playing a game when I read how many seniors played in the rotation I had a bad, bad, feeling.

[Spanarkel]

The difference in age, strength, maturity, (while we have more talent) we have seen play out not in our favor. Throw in a red shirt year & we have 18, 19 year old OAD playing against 22-23 year old grown men. At that stage of life 4 years is a huge difference.

Despite never seeing Mercer playing a game when I read how many seniors played in the rotation I had a bad, bad, feeling.

Oregon's Dylan Ennis is 25: hope he and the Ducks can take it to the heels.

[Jeffrey]

IMO, S.C. played the best D we faced all season. Clearly, ACC 2017 D was not as great as many "experts" claimed.

IMO, Duke had much more talent than S.C. However, S.C. played much better team ball. Coach Martin got the most out of his players. I'm not sure Coach K did.

[wsb3]

Typically after the first weekend & Duke sadly not still in the tourney I tend to be outside more & let college basketball go...while hoping like heck the Heels lose to somebody... Come on Oregon..

I did watch SC-Fla. yesterday. We can debate whether they are better than us...though no doubt on that day they were better but they play Defense like Duke teams of old. Still blows my mind that we lost a game to a team that shot 7-35 in one half..

I think they will beat the Zags... & I won't be shocked if they cut down the nets. That defense will keep them in games & they have a senior that brings back fond memories of what college basketball use to be.

[campered]

I'm finally ready to trust the eye test and reject the biases that have clouded me stemming from a combination of branding, seeding and dork polls.

South Carolina was simply a better overall basketball team than Duke this year and they had the best player on the court in Sindarius Thornwell. This loss was nothing like VCU, Lehigh or Mercer.

I can finally rest in peace over this season and am looking forward to next year. Go Duke!!You very well could be right with your analysis. But in my "eye test", I saw an egregious error in tournament planning that very well could and did affect the outcome of the game. My "eye test" showed each time SC scored or made any type great play being offensive or defensive, the camera went to the crowd. Sure you saw Gamecock fans with their victory rags waving, as you would expect. Then, after a play one would see UNC fans rooting against Duke. UNC fans even waving Gamecock rags!! I tell ya, this was going on after every play SC made during the entire game. Talk about media bias!! The lead engineer of that broadcast made sure who the crowd was rooting for!! Talk about Home Court advantage! Sure we knew it would be, having to play in SC and having to play SC only an hour and half from their home, but to play them on a court that ended up with a CarolinaX2 fan base? UNC was in a different region, and had no business being in Greenville, especially playing before Duke, setting up the NC/SC onslaught of fans!! This is the NCAA tournament! Duke was in the East. Unc in the South. This scenario should have never happened in Greenville. Sure, I know we got beat by a team that played great, but how much of that greatness was buoyed on by that double whammy? I think the answer is obvious!! One could even make the case that SC did not belong in Greenville. Either way, the committee placing these teams together was unfair in an affair such as the NCAA Tournament. Any basketball fan with experience watching these games, should realize what a setup is, and was that night! That is my "Eye Test" result!!

[DukeTrinity11]

Nope. Sindarius Thornwell, as overlooked and good as he is, is never the best player on a basketball court that also has Jayson Tatum on it.
We"ll have to agree to disagree. Thornwell excels at the same things Tatum does, scoring in the paint and rebounding, but is a better 3 point shooter and a much better defender.

Tatum is a likely top 5 NBA lottery pick and is likely to be a NBA All-Star one day but he isn't better than Thornwell right now.

[DukeTrinity11]

You very well could be right with your analysis. But in my "eye test", I saw an egregious error in tournament planning that very well could and did affect the outcome of the game. My "eye test" showed each time SC scored or made any type great play being offensive or defensive, the camera went to the crowd. Sure you saw Gamecock fans with their victory rags waving, as you would expect. Then, after a play one would see UNC fans rooting against Duke. UNC fans even waving Gamecock rags!! I tell ya, this was going on after every play SC made during the entire game. Talk about media bias!! The lead engineer of that broadcast made sure who the crowd was rooting for!! Talk about Home Court advantage! Sure we knew it would be, having to play in SC and having to play SC only an hour and half from their home, but to play them on a court that ended up with a CarolinaX2 fan base? UNC was in a different region, and had no business being in Greenville, especially playing before Duke, setting up the NC/SC onslaught of fans!! This is the NCAA tournament! Duke was in the East. Unc in the South. This scenario should have never happened in Greenville. Sure, I know we got beat by a team that played great, but how much of that greatness was buoyed on by that double whammy? I think the answer is obvious!! One could even make the case that SC did not belong in Greenville. Either way, the committee placing these teams together was unfair in an affair such as the NCAA Tournament. Any basketball fan with experience watching these games, should realize what a setup is, and was that night! That is my "Eye Test" result!!
Completely agree, Duke played in a true road game environment vs. an eventual Final 4 team.

Could any team in the field have beaten SC in Greenville under those circumstances? We're lucky the Cocks were cold from the field in the 1st half or Duke would have been blown out right from the get go.

[Jeffrey]

We"ll have to agree to disagree. Thornwell excels at the same things Tatum does, scoring in the paint and rebounding, but is a better 3 point shooter and a much better defender.

Tatum is a likely top 5 NBA lottery pick and is likely to be a NBA All-Star one day but he isn't better than Thornwell right now.

I agree. Which one was POY in their conference and which one did not make FOY, first team, or second team in their conference?

[kako]

You very well could be right with your analysis. But in my "eye test", I saw an egregious error in tournament planning that very well could and did affect the outcome of the game. My "eye test" showed each time SC scored or made any type great play being offensive or defensive, the camera went to the crowd. Sure you saw Gamecock fans with their victory rags waving, as you would expect. Then, after a play one would see UNC fans rooting against Duke. UNC fans even waving Gamecock rags!! I tell ya, this was going on after every play SC made during the entire game. Talk about media bias!! The lead engineer of that broadcast made sure who the crowd was rooting for!! Talk about Home Court advantage! Sure we knew it would be, having to play in SC and having to play SC only an hour and half from their home, but to play them on a court that ended up with a CarolinaX2 fan base? UNC was in a different region, and had no business being in Greenville, especially playing before Duke, setting up the NC/SC onslaught of fans!! This is the NCAA tournament! Duke was in the East. Unc in the South. This scenario should have never happened in Greenville. Sure, I know we got beat by a team that played great, but how much of that greatness was buoyed on by that double whammy? I think the answer is obvious!! One could even make the case that SC did not belong in Greenville. Either way, the committee placing these teams together was unfair in an affair such as the NCAA Tournament. Any basketball fan with experience watching these games, should realize what a setup is, and was that night! That is my "Eye Test" result!!

One thing I've come to grips with is that Duke hate is real and sells tickets, ads, t-shirts, books, etc. It comes with the territory. So it's no surprise the cameras focus on Duke haters, Allen's trips or shoe cams, K being snarky, etc. Most of the basketball world laps it up. The only place Duke is really universally loved is Cameron. Playing in Greenville wasn't a favor, sure. But the Duke haters will come out wherever. As Duke, I expect K prepares a team for this. Is it easy to deal with? No. Should it be expected? Yes... Duke dealt with the weight of the entire free world against them in Indianapolis vs. Butler in 2010. Nobody wanted them to win, but they did. That's what winning Duke teams do.

BTW, if USC was playing UNC, I'd be waving Gamecock rags, too.

[MCFinARL]

You very well could be right with your analysis. But in my "eye test", I saw an egregious error in tournament planning that very well could and did affect the outcome of the game. My "eye test" showed each time SC scored or made any type great play being offensive or defensive, the camera went to the crowd. Sure you saw Gamecock fans with their victory rags waving, as you would expect. Then, after a play one would see UNC fans rooting against Duke. UNC fans even waving Gamecock rags!! I tell ya, this was going on after every play SC made during the entire game. Talk about media bias!! The lead engineer of that broadcast made sure who the crowd was rooting for!! Talk about Home Court advantage! Sure we knew it would be, having to play in SC and having to play SC only an hour and half from their home, but to play them on a court that ended up with a CarolinaX2 fan base? UNC was in a different region, and had no business being in Greenville, especially playing before Duke, setting up the NC/SC onslaught of fans!! This is the NCAA tournament! Duke was in the East. Unc in the South. This scenario should have never happened in Greenville. Sure, I know we got beat by a team that played great, but how much of that greatness was buoyed on by that double whammy? I think the answer is obvious!! One could even make the case that SC did not belong in Greenville. Either way, the committee placing these teams together was unfair in an affair such as the NCAA Tournament. Any basketball fan with experience watching these games, should realize what a setup is, and was that night! That is my "Eye Test" result!!

Don't disagree that Duke faced a rabidly hostile crowd, and that gave SC an advantage a 7 seed usually doesn't expect.

But it's not any great conspiracy for Duke and UNC to start out in the same pod. The pods on the first weekend are not allocated by tournament region but by closeness to home for the top-seeded teams. In the East, #1 seed Villanova went to Buffalo and #2 Duke to Greeneville--the closest location for both. Similarly, Greeneville was the closest location for South #1 seed North Carolina.

If anyone should have been moved from the site, it should have been South Carolina, not North Carolina.

[dukelifer]

is it the same thing that was in store for Oregon?

Well good point. But they did lose a key player. But I don't wish that on any team

[Newton_14]

I would like for Duke to not be in the same pod as unc ever again. It ends up being a problem to have to overcome every time.

[gep]

One thing I've come to grips with is that Duke hate is real and sells tickets, ads, t-shirts, books, etc. It comes with the territory. So it's no surprise the cameras focus on Duke haters, Allen's trips or shoe cams, K being snarky, etc. Most of the basketball world laps it up. The only place Duke is really universally loved is Cameron. Playing in Greenville wasn't a favor, sure. But the Duke haters will come out wherever. As Duke, I expect K prepares a team for this. Is it easy to deal with? No. Should it be expected? Yes... Duke dealt with the weight of the entire free world against them in Indianapolis vs. Butler in 2010. Nobody wanted them to win, but they did. That's what winning Duke teams do.

BTW, if USC was playing UNC, I'd be waving Gamecock rags, too.

For me... the "home court" advantage that South Carolina had was not an issue at all. As mentioned above, Butler also had a "home court" advantage. I read and heard a few times that the Butler players were so close to the Final Four venue that the slept in their own beds, and even went to class the morning of the championship game. And the stadium was ALL for Butler... whether Butler fans or Duke haters.

What if Duke actually lost (perish the thought, I know). Would Duke fans have griped about "home court" advantage for Butler? :confused:

As long as the game is not played at the opponent's normal/natural home court, I don't think "home court" should be an issue. Also, if/when Duke plays in Madison Square Garden (or Philadelphia?) doesn't the Duke fans consider that the "Cameron of the North"? How does that play with the other team. That Duke has "home court" advantage?

Rambling... thanks.

[Utley]

You can debate whether they are better and you can debate whether the refs should let them get away with some of what they get away with on defense, but you can't debate they played harder than us - and everybody else they played.

The Duke teams I love the most were the ones who always played harder. If I have a real beef with the one and done model, it is that some of those kids don't bring it on D like they do on O (this is true for some of our non OADs too).

We don't get to "select" players quite as much as we used to - but I would target the best PG and C I could get - and then fill it in with guys who play both ways - even if it means going a little lower in your targets. The mix really is key - but so hard to make happen.

[Bike4Fun]

.though no doubt on that day they were better but they play Defense like Duke teams of old. Still blows my mind that we lost a game to a team that shot 7-35 in one half.. .

I agree that SC plays tenacious defense to the point that it can seem like 6 on 5. BUT, we had a 7 point lead at halftime and WE scored 51 points in the second half. 51!!! So how is that lock down defense played on us? I cannot wrap my brain around a 7pt half-time lead, scoring 51 the second half, and not winning. We were not like the Gators who stood around outside a zone when they had SC in foul-trouble, and we were not like the Gators who kept flinging up 3's without even trying to attack. We scored FIFTY-ONE!

So, I punished myself by trying to find out how epic their 65 was using their 2016-2017 halftime scores. Their previous high halftimes were against Lander when they put up 53 in a half. LANDER!, and against Marquette before us they put up 54 in the second half. USC's mean halftime scores throughout the year were 35.4 and it was quite normally distributed (yes, I did the stats). Putting up 65 in a half was 3.9 standard deviations above their mean. That's huge. The probability of them doing that by random chance was only 4.11E-05. Like, no way that was random. But, the reason for it is beyond me. It was supernatural. Did lightning hit them during halftime of the Marquette game? What were they doing in the locker room that changed the averages? I figure if we maybe had 2 more rebounds and 2 less turnovers over the course of the whole game, maybe we win because they get 4 fewer shots, maybe? I am still at a loss to understand what happened. This was not just chance. I'm searching for meaning.

[Ggallagher]

IMO, S.C. played the best D we faced all season. Clearly, ACC 2017 D was not as great as many "experts" claimed.

IMO, Duke had much more talent than S.C. However, S.C. played much better team ball. Coach Martin got the most out of his players. I'm not sure Coach K did.

There's a stat on the KenPom site that captures "Game Plan Defensive Efficiency". I think I understand it - anyone that's spent more time there than I have feel free to correct me. But what I see there about South Carolina supports your comment. In fifteen of the games they played this year, the S.C. defense was rated as among the top five that their opponent faced. And in seven of the S.C. games, their defense was rated as the #1 defense efficiency their opponent played against.

So whatever the stats are worth, they do make it look like S.C. is playing uncommonly strong defense.

[brevity]

Would Duke fans have griped about "home court" advantage for Butler? :confused:

Some would -- some probably did -- and they would be wrong. Butler wasn't assigned a hometown Final Four; they won 4 games to get there.

In 2006, top-seeded Connecticut lost in the Elite 8 to a 11 seed, George Mason, playing in the Verizon Center in DC, about 20 miles from their home court in Fairfax, VA. Rotten luck for Connecticut? Yes. Unfair to put George Mason in that region? No. They had to win a pod in Dayton by upsetting Michigan State and UNC just to play in DC.

South Carolina WAS assigned Greenville without earning it. Had they won the SEC Tournament to get there and had Duke lost to Louisville in the ACC Tournament (and had the Selection Committee been willing to overhaul their first draft), then yeah, I could see South Carolina heading the pod as a 4 seed and Duke as the 5. Duke could lose that matchup, and fans would at least understand that more ACCT wins might have prevented their being put in that position.

But Duke won the ACC Tournament. They earned a 2 seed, forcing the Committee to put down their room service and do all that hard extra thinking. And Duke was punished with an unfair pod that geographically favored the 7 seed. So Duke lost that matchup, and there was no lesson to learn.

[Jeffrey]

There's a stat on the KenPom site that captures "Game Plan Defensive Efficiency". I think I understand it - anyone that's spent more time there than I have feel free to correct me. But what I see there about South Carolina supports your comment. In fifteen of the games they played this year, the S.C. defense was rated as among the top five that their opponent faced. And in seven of the S.C. games, their defense was rated as the #1 defense efficiency their opponent played against.

So whatever the stats are worth, they do make it look like S.C. is playing uncommonly strong defense.

Thanks, I have never looked at KenPom and appreciate the insight.