Your Valuation of Postseason vs Regular Season

[awhom111]

I have a couple of offseason threads that I wanted to start and this is one of them.

How do you personally value the postseason versus wins in the regular season?

For me, I would obviously give up anything before the tournament for an NCAA title. If we literally lost every game in the regular season, then ran through the ACC Tournament before winning it all, I would take that. On the other end, nothing would make up for missing the NCAA tournament completely, not even winning the NIT.

The first is a rather extreme scenario and thankfully the second has not really been a fear recently, but how about in between? I must say that I am not one of those people who values losing later in the tournament that much more than losing early. I would probably trade a win against an ACC team that I do not care about for an additional win in the tournament, but not more than a few. Assuming they would not win either tournament or the ACC regular season, I would rather sweep UNC and lose in the NCAA first round than lose to them twice and lose in the national final for instance.

To try to place a figure on it, I would trade a win in the first round through the national semifinal for about two ACC regular season wins and one ACC tournament win (not including the final or a rivalry loss). I might take two tournament wins in exchange for a minor rivalry loss. I might settle for a regular season split with UNC for four tournament wins or so, but I would not take being swept by them in exchange for winning the ACC tournament and losing in the NCAA Final.

How about you? Do you highly value advancing additional rounds of the NCAA Tournament in comparison to regular season or ACC Tournament accomplishments? Do you feel much better about losing in the final versus the semifinal versus the Elite Eight versus the Sweet Sixteen?

[Wander]

Final Four and avoiding a historic upset are the postseason "steps" that matter aside from a title or missing the tournament. So I think it just matters whether these trading of wins cause or prevent any of the following from happening: national title, Final Four, loss in the first round as a 1 seed, ACC regular season title, ACC tournament title, win against UNC, making the tournament, undefeated conference season.

In other words, I wouldn't trade a regular season win against UNC to move from a second round loss to an Elite 8 loss. But I would easily drop from finishing 2nd in the ACC to 9th in the ACC if it somehow meant making the Final Four instead of the Sweet 16 (I'd probably drop from 1st to 9th in the same trade, but it's not as obvious a decision).

[SilkyJ]

The first is a rather extreme scenario and thankfully the second has not really been a fear recently, but how about in between? I must say that I am not one of those people who values losing later in the tournament that much more than losing early. I would probably trade a win against an ACC team that I do not care about for an additional win in the tournament, but not more than a few. Assuming they would not win either tournament or the ACC regular season, I would rather sweep UNC and lose in the NCAA first round than lose to them twice and lose in the national final for instance.

To try to place a figure on it, I would trade a win in the first round through the national semifinal for about two ACC regular season wins and one ACC tournament win (not including the final or a rivalry loss). I might take two tournament wins in exchange for a minor rivalry loss. I might settle for a regular season split with UNC for four tournament wins or so, but I would not take being swept by them in exchange for winning the ACC tournament and losing in the NCAA Final.

As you say, the extreme scenarios aren't very likely.

In general, everything is a hunt for a natty for me. Of course I cherish every win in the regular season, but I take any loss in the tournament like the death of a relative.

To put a figure on it, since '97 we basically lose b/w 5-10 games year (most being 11 in '07 and '16, least being 2 in '99). I'd take a 9-10-11 loss year if it meant a natty, every year.

Short of that, I'm not going to put figure on weighting a sweet 16 vs elite 8 vs 2nd round vs FF vs 1-2-3 regular season wins. In the end, we didn't win it all so its all moot.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Here's a thought for folks along these lines... How much value do you place in the NCAA semifinal game? Other than the obvious (you need a win to have a shot at the championship) does anyone view losses in the semi-final as substantially different than losses in the final?

Personally, I feel like there is a tier of greatness (making the final four) and an obvious tier above (champions!!!) but not much in between.

Sure, you can look at particular seasons and say "how different would our 1991 season be if Dean-o hadn't choked against Kansas," or "what if Kentucky had beaten Wisconsin in 2015?" but do we feel differently about our own teams that made the final four but didn't make the final game!

Food for thought. I wouldn't trade any level of ACC success for either result, but was wondering how everyone else felt.

[Bluedog]

It's almost overwhelming weighed to NCAA tournament success to say how a season went for most of the blue blood fanbases, which is why the tournament is so harsh because it's one and done and seemingly somewhat random/luck/unpredictable/unfair at times. I think most people would trade winning the ACC tournament (and beating the Cheats 2 out of 3) for a F4 appearance this year... likewise, obviously, nobody thinks this season where we were ACC champs was more successful than 2015 when we didn't win the ACC regular season or tournament. But I certainly appreciate regular season/conference tournament success eses as those are seem less random/subject to chance.

[OldPhiKap]

ACC regular season meant much more when you had home and away's with everyone, and the league was small enough that you really had a feel for each team. Now, it's just preseason to get your NCAA seed.

I don't see that as a positive development, but that's where I am.

ACC tourney still matters a lot to me.

NCAA makes or breaks a year. I cannot put an arbitrary "I'm happy if we achieve X" because each team is different. I will say, though, that any Final Four is an achievement.

[Dukehky]

Good morning, campers. Today is evaluation day. The key word is value. Do you have any? Not yet.

Okay, let's go get our hands dirty.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Reg season is fun. You get to watch the team develop.

UNC games are amazing. Because it's the best college rivalry in sports.

ACC tournament is pretty good, but I actually prefer the reg season.

NCAA tournament? That's where legends are made and memories are created.

I value the reg season at 25%, ACC tourney at 5%, and NCAA tourney at 70%.

[MarkD83]

Good morning, campers. Today is evaluation day. The key word is value. Do you have any? Not yet.

Okay, let's go get our hands dirty.

I use the swag and DVD scale

My wife lets me buy unlimited swag for an NCAA championship. I also keep the DVD forever

For a final four maybe 1 or 2 t-shirts and I keep the elite 8 DVD

For an acc tournament win I get to buy about the same amount as for a final four. I also keep the dvds

A regular season championship gets me no swag and I don't keep regular season dvds. Except....

I also get no swag for wins against unc but keep the DVD of the wins

[MarkD83]

Let me expand on the DVD scale.

Time is a good metric for value. So with the DVDs I have collected or if some station is replaying Duke wins I would spend time rewatching...

1. Any National Championship
2. Any win against UNC in the ACC tournament
3. Any ACC championship
4. Any regular season win against UNC
5. Duke- UNLV in the 1991 Final Four - So this final four game does have value
6. 1990 Duke- UConn - Elite 8
7. Duke- Md Gone in 60 seconds game

As an aside the consensus on this board is that the two least liked opponents are 1) UNC and 2) Ky. I still have a cold spot in my heart for UConn. The 1999 and 2004 NCAA Championship Banners are in Storrs, CT and should be in Durham, NC.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Let me expand on the DVD scale.

Time is a good metric for value. So with the DVDs I have collected or if some station is replaying Duke wins I would spend time rewatching...

1. Any National Championship
2. Any win against UNC in the ACC tournament
3. Any ACC championship
4. Any regular season win against UNC
5. Duke- UNLV in the 1991 Final Four - So this final four game does have value
6. 1990 Duke- UConn - Elite 8
7. Duke- Md Gone in 60 seconds game

As an aside the consensus on this board is that the two least liked opponents are 1) UNC and 2) Ky. I still have a cold spot in my heart for UConn. The 1999 and 2004 NCAA Championship Banners are in Storrs, CT and should be in Durham, NC.

That's a damn good list.

[OldPhiKap]

Let me expand on the DVD scale.

Time is a good metric for value. So with the DVDs I have collected or if some station is replaying Duke wins I would spend time rewatching...

1. Any National Championship
2. Any win against UNC in the ACC tournament
3. Any ACC championship
4. Any regular season win against UNC
5. Duke- UNLV in the 1991 Final Four - So this final four game does have value
6. 1990 Duke- UConn - Elite 8
7. Duke- Md Gone in 60 seconds game

As an aside the consensus on this board is that the two least liked opponents are 1) UNC and 2) Ky. I still have a cold spot in my heart for UConn. The 1999 and 2004 NCAA Championship Banners are in Storrs, CT and should be in Durham, NC.

Add Duke-Ky in the Elite Eight, 1992, and you've got a pretty dandy box set for sale right there.

[mgtr]

If you are looking retrospectively, then I certainly agree with the lists which have been discussed -- those are the games which I would watch again and again. However, if you are looking prospectively, then I rate every game the same before it is played. I want to win the preseason exhibition games as much as the final game we play every season. Further, I want to win every game by at least 30 points. Now, I agree that is much more likely in the preseason than in the NCAA tournament.

[ipatent]

Let me expand on the DVD scale.

Time is a good metric for value. So with the DVDs I have collected or if some station is replaying Duke wins I would spend time rewatching...

1. Any National Championship
2. Any win against UNC in the ACC tournament
3. Any ACC championship
4. Any regular season win against UNC

Good list. I'd put a Final Four second, and the ACC Championship over any UNC win.

Postseason wins are the de facto main goal for a program of Duke's stature. The ACC regular season title used to mean more when there was a balanced schedule, and oh, for the days of a Tournament with number of teams that was an exponential of #2:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qUiE9VRzFg

[sagegrouse]

I racked up all the seasons since 1984 and counted NCAA wins, ACC record, and ACC champions.

It was a bit of work but insightful.

The question is, do any of the non-Final Four seasons measure up to any of the 12 Final Four seasons? Here are the best tests of that.

The 1989 Final Four team (big win over Georgetown in the regional finals) was 9-5 in the ACC (0.643) and lost to UNC in the ACC finals.

There are two obvious challengers. The 2000 team was 15-1 in the ACC and won the championship. The team won its first two matches but lost in the regional semis to Florida -- this team had a short bench and Mike Dunleavy was suffering from mono.

Then there is the 14-2 2006 team that won the ACC championship. JJ's final team lost to LSU in the regional semis.

A third might be the 1998 team, 15-1 in the ACC, that almost made the Final Four, giving up a big lead over Kentucky in the regional finals. This team lost to UNC (Jamison and Carter) in the ACC finals.

I would rate the 2000 and 2006 team as better (more rewarding to this fan) than the 1989 team -- but look at the trade-off: ACC champions and a much, much higher conference winning percentage.

With respect to the other years -- most teams with good NCAA results had good conference records, so winning goes along with winning.

[Indoor66]

I racked up all the seasons since 1984 and counted NCAA wins, ACC record, and ACC champions.

It was a bit of work but insightful.

The question is, do any of the non-Final Four seasons measure up to any of the 12 Final Four seasons? Here are the best tests of that.

The 1989 Final Four team (big win over Georgetown in the regional finals) was 9-5 in the ACC (0.643) and lost to UNC in the ACC finals.

There are two obvious challengers. The 2000 team was 15-1 in the ACC and won the championship. The team won its first two matches but lost in the regional semis to Florida -- this team had a short bench and Mike Dunleavy was suffering from mono.

Then there is the 14-2 2006 team that won the ACC championship. JJ's final team lost to LSU in the regional semis.

A third might be the 1998 team, 15-1 in the ACC, that almost made the Final Four, giving up a big lead over Kentucky in the regional finals. This team lost to UNC (Jamison and Carter) in the ACC finals.

I would rate the 2000 and 2006 team as better (more rewarding to this fan) than the 1989 team -- but look at the trade-off: ACC champions and a much, much higher conference winning percentage.

With respect to the other years -- most teams with good NCAA results had good conference records, so winning goes along with winning.

I am STUNNED by this correlation! :rolleyes:

(No disrespect meant - just irony!)

[Wander]

I am STUNNED by this correlation! :rolleyes:

(No disrespect meant - just irony!)

I know you're joking, but it's become weirdly fashionable on DBR lately to pretend that the NCAA tournament is a random number generator with no correlation to regular season success.

[ipatent]

The favorite usually doesn't win the NCAA Tournament, but it is rare that a team outside the next ten or so does.

[sagegrouse]

I racked up all the seasons since 1984 and counted NCAA wins, ACC record, and ACC champions.

It was a bit of work but insightful.

The question is, do any of the non-Final Four seasons measure up to any of the 12 Final Four seasons? Here are the best tests of that.

The 1989 Final Four team (big win over Georgetown in the regional finals) was 9-5 in the ACC (0.643) and lost to UNC in the ACC finals.

There are two obvious challengers. The 2000 team was 15-1 in the ACC and won the championship. The team won its first two matches but lost in the regional semis to Florida -- this team had a short bench and Mike Dunleavy was suffering from mono.

Then there is the 14-2 2006 team that won the ACC championship. JJ's final team lost to LSU in the regional semis.

A third might be the 1998 team, 15-1 in the ACC, that almost made the Final Four, giving up a big lead over Kentucky in the regional finals. This team lost to UNC (Jamison and Carter) in the ACC finals.

I would rate the 2000 and 2006 team as better (more rewarding to this fan) than the 1989 team -- but look at the trade-off: ACC champions and a much, much higher conference winning percentage.

With respect to the other years -- most teams with good NCAA results had good conference records, so winning goes along with winning.

I spent time preparing the data then posted in haste because I had only a few minutes this AM.

I thought I'd look at every recent season and judge based on my own feelings, which seasons were equivalent -- especially when one involved a Final Four and the other didn't. The OP asked what sort of trade-offs from the regular and ACC season would we make to get a Final Four? If 2000 and 2006 are roughly equivalent to 1989, then the answer is five or six wins, including an ACC championship. The 2000 team was 15-1 and the 2006 team was 14-2 -- both won ACC's. The 1989 team was 9-5 and lost in the ACC finals to UNC in a close game. That's roughly five ACC wins and one more tournament win in exchange for a Final Four. Seems high.

Maybe 1988 is a better example: a FF team with an ACC championship but also 9-5 in the regualr season. If that's about the same as the other two mentioned, then it's five ACC games for a regional championship (two games). Naw. 1988 is a better season than 2000 and 2006 b3ecause of the ACC championship.

So, winning two regional NCAA games (ergo, a Final Four) is worth five regular season ACC games (18-game schedule) plus an extra win in the ACC tournament.

As to my inane remark that Final Four teams seem to do well in the regular season -- I was just pointing out the deficiencies in the data if you are ranking Duke teams along a frontier trading off NCAA wins vs. ACC wins. My apologies for not stating it better, and even further apologies for this pseudo-academic paragraph.

Kindly,
Sage

[MarkD83]

One addition about the 1988 team, they rank higher than other teams because they beat unc three times including the acc finals

[arnie]

One addition about the 1988 team, they rank higher than other teams because they beat unc three times including the acc finals

Yes, triple crown years are about as good as it gets. I rate any of those seasons equal to those with Final 4's and just behind 91,92,91,01,10,15 and ??.

[wsb3]

One addition about the 1988 team, they rank higher than other teams because they beat unc three times including the acc finals

That was very special. It had been so long since that happened. 65-66 season I believe.

Good thread.. One other comparison.. 2000 season. Would you take UNC season over ours because they made a Final Four (somehow) despite that we beat them both times head to head & won regular season & tourney. Personally I take ours. Probably helped that I knew there was no way in heck that UNC team would go all the way.

[MarkD83]

That was very special. It had been so long since that happened. 65-66 season I believe.

Good thread.. One other comparison.. 2000 season. Would you take UNC season over ours because they made a Final Four (somehow) despite that we beat them both times head to head & won regular season & tourney. Personally I take ours. Probably helped that I knew there was no way in heck that UNC team would go all the way.

It is very tempting to look at Duke's success and what we want in a season and wrap in UNC's results.

If we did that than 2010 is top of the list....NCAA Championship for Duke and NIT for UNC
2002 is also high on the list only because UNC went 8-20 and nothing Duke did....

So, I tend to just look at Duke's results. The exception is the head to head match-ups (mentioned above) since a Duke win is a UNC loss.

[fuse]

Its not really addressing the question, it is a rare win that is better than the next win.

[ipatent]

Expectations and a good feeling about the future count as well. In '84 we were coming off two straight losing seasons, played UNC with Jordan close twice, beat them a third time in the ACC Tournament and UNC tanked in the NCAAs against Indiana. No NCAA wins that year, but there was a feeling the team had a bright future, which of course it did.

No concerns about the stars bolting for the NBA.

That was a great season.

[OldPhiKap]

Another great thing about the '88 season was not only sweeping three games from UNC, but sweeping three games with our young coach against Dean Smith. Although K had beaten Dean a few times, and made the National Championship game in '86 obviously, the 1988 season established that there was a new force on the north end of 15-501 and not just a flash in the pan.

[Indoor66]

Another great thing about the '88 season was not only sweeping three games from UNC, but sweeping three games with our young coach against Dean Smith. Although K had beaten Dean a few times, and made the National Championship game in '86 obviously, the 1988 season established that there was a new force on the north end of 15-501 and not just a flash in the pan.

...and together with NC State's '84 Natty, the driving force for the cheating to have a gasoline boost? :mad:

[sagegrouse]

...and together with NC State's '84 Natty, the driving force for the cheating to have a gasoline boost? :mad:

Didn't State win in 1983? I think Georgetown won in 1984.

[OldPhiKap]

...and together with NC State's '8[3] Natty, the driving force for the cheating to have a gasoline boost? :mad:

Yup. Valvano's NC, K's emergence, and Bobby Cremins' recruiting streak really put Dean on his heels (so to speak) in the wake of Jordan's group moving on after '82. Duke landing Dawkins, et. al. for the 1983 season and Danny Ferry for the '85 season probably added fuel to the fire.

But since we know the whole cheating scheme was really about women's basketball, I'm sure our conjecture is without basis . . . .

(and Sage is right -- G'Town won in '84)

[Indoor66]

Didn't State win in 1983? I think Georgetown won in 1984.

Point stands even if the calendar was off.😎

[MarkD83]

Didn't State win in 1983? I think Georgetown won in 1984.

Georgetown also won in 1982....except Freddy Brown passed the ball to James Worthy.

Michigan also won in 1993....except Chris Webber called a time out.

It is so much fun to mention these things to a UNC fan and see how much they protest ;)

[devildeac]

Georgetown also won in 1982...except Freddy Brown passed the ball to James Worthy.

Michigan also won in 1993...except Chris Webber called a time out.

It is so much fun to mention these things to a UNC fan and see how much they protest ;)

And dean was cheating in 1993, too, so add that to your list of mentions. ;)

[ipatent]

Yup. Valvano's NC, K's emergence, and Bobby Cremins' recruiting streak really put Dean on his heels (so to speak) in the wake of Jordan's group moving on after '82. Duke landing Dawkins, et. al. for the 1983 season and Danny Ferry for the '85 season probably added fuel to the fire.

But since we know the whole cheating scheme was really about women's basketball, I'm sure our conjecture is without basis . . . .

(and Sage is right -- G'Town won in '84)

As the fake classes started in '93 it was probably the back to back titles, i.e. K had two then and Dean still had one.

[devildeac]

As the fake classes started in '93 it was probably the back to back titles, i.e. K had two then and Dean still had one.

I thought the fake classes started in the 1988-89 time frame and increased "moderately" around 92-93. My recollection of all the charts/graphs has been fuzzied/dulled/dimmed given all the info I've read here:eek:.

[NSDukeFan]

I really enjoy the regular season and watching the team progress. I enjoy watching the preseason tournaments and big matchups early on where the coaching staff often has the team further ahead than some other teams and we see some great battles. That Tyler Thornton corner three against Kansas to win that stacked tournament sure was fun. I also enjoy getting the chance to see some of the end of the bench players get a chance to show their stuff in some of the other early season games as the team struggles around exam and Christmas time. Then, there is always the question of how long will it take the new team to learn to win on the road and/or big games in ACC play. I like that every week has two games that will greatly affect our perception of the team and the ACC standings. It's fun to also think about how Duke and the rest of the conference stacks up compared to the rest of the country and how might that affect NCAAT seeding. I always like the end of ACC play and the two big games with the used to be university NC. I like the ACCT (not sure about Tuesday) where every game is big and hope to get to see a smorgasbord of basketball some year soon.
At this point of the year, everything happens so fast as the team is always two and then one loss(es) away from never playing again. It's so final, which makes it so dramatic and exciting. NCAA championships trump all, Regional Championships are next and then ACCT Championships, but after that, a few regular season wins can certainly trump an extra NCAAT round for me.
I don't know how to objectively value regular season vs. postseason. I am very excited for the regular season to start as we wonder if this team will learn how to win the big games and is there anything remotely approaching 82-50.

[PeteZaHut]

Good morning, campers. Today is evaluation day. The key word is value. Do you have any? Not yet.

Okay, let's go get our hands dirty.

Thanks Uncle Tony

[PeteZaHut]

In the end, championships are the most important thing, but by championships I mean national championships. Winning the ACC tournament is great, but doesn't mean much with out a national title to follow it. I really disagree with Coach K in that I think putting up a regular season championship banner is embarrassing. I also think final four banners are embarrassing if you didn't win the championship. I don't want to celebrate 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place. There's a great old interview with Derek Jeter where they ask if he would rather miss the playoffs, lose early in the playoffs, or lose in the World Series. His response was that it doesn't matter - you lost.

That all being said, nothing is more important to me now than a win against North Carolina in Cameron. I may take that over a national title if I had to choose between the two. Luckily, they're not mutually exclusive.

[Li_Duke]

500 - National Championship
50 - Final Four
20 - NCAA tournament berth
9 - Sweet 16
9 - ACC tournament champ
9 - ACC regular season champ
5 - UNC game
2 - Home regular season game (non-UNC)
1 - Regular season game (non-UNC)