PDA

View Full Version : The all-important context for last night's loss



scottdude8
02-20-2020, 12:43 PM
The 2010 National Championship team lost by 14 at unranked N.C. State in late January. About a week later we lost again by 10+ points at Georgetown. In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In 2015 we ALSO lost at an unranked N.C. State by double digits. We followed up that loss with an embarrassing home loss to an unranked Miami squad by 16 (AT HOME). In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In fact, we've lost five of our last seven at N.C. State. And all those losing teams ended up having memorable seasons.

Last year's National Champions, Virginia, lost to us by 10 at home and lost by 10 in the ACC Tournament. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those two results in a vacuum.

The 2018 National Champions, Villanova, lost three of their last eight regular season games. All three of these losses were to unranked teams, including one at home. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

The 2017 National Champions, UNC (ugh), lost by 15 on the road to an unranked Miami team in late January, only put up 43 points in a loss to Virginia in late February, and dropped their last two contests against us by decisive margins (fun memories!). They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

I could go on and on and on.

The point: judging this team, or any team, based on one result, no matter how onerous, is a mistake. Every successful Duke team, and most National Champions more generally, have had bad losses at some point during the season. We're all human, and prone to recency bias. But this is the same team this morning as it was 24 hours ago, before an outlier poor performance.

Whether or not this team makes it to the Final Four or gets upset won't be dictated by one game. Should we adjust our expectations and recognize some important flaws that were revealed last night? Of course. But one game does not make the season.

Let's all take a deep breath and focus on winning the ACC.

SOB13
02-20-2020, 12:58 PM
My concern is not the one result, but the (increasing?) regularity with which this team is showing up not ready to play. Last night they ran into a team that was happy to make them pay. This team has to be locked in, especially on defense, to go far. And when they are, they can beat anyone. Hopefully they figure out the antidote for NOT in the next couple of weeks.

DukeDevilDeb
02-20-2020, 12:58 PM
The 2010 National Championship team lost by 14 at unranked N.C. State in late January. About a week later we lost again by 10+ points at Georgetown. In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In 2015 we ALSO lost at an unranked N.C. State by double digits. We followed up that loss with an embarrassing home loss to an unranked Miami squad by 16 (AT HOME). In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In fact, we've lost five of our last seven at N.C. State. And all those losing teams ended up having memorable seasons.

Last year's National Champions, Virginia, lost to us by 10 at home and lost by 10 in the ACC Tournament. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those two results in a vacuum.

The 2018 National Champions, Villanova, lost three of their last eight regular season games. All three of these losses were to unranked teams, including one at home. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

The 2017 National Champions, UNC (ugh), lost by 15 on the road to an unranked Miami team in late January, only put up 43 points in a loss to Virginia in late February, and dropped their last two contests against us by decisive margins (fun memories!). They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

I could go on and on and on.

The point: judging this team, or any team, based on one result, no matter how onerous, is a mistake. Every successful Duke team, and most National Champions more generally, have had bad losses at some point during the season. We're all human, and prone to recency bias. But this is the same team this morning as it was 24 hours ago, before an outlier poor performance.

Whether or not this team makes it to the Final Four or gets upset won't be dictated by one game. Should we adjust our expectations and recognize some important flaws that were revealed last night? Of course. But one game does not make the season.

Let's all take a deep breath and focus on winning the ACC.

The problem is, of course, that winning the ACC regular season was made infinitely more difficult by losing last night. If we focus on winning the ACC (regular season or tournament), each and every game between now and the end of the season is of critical importance. I'm sure the team knows that. I want them to KNOW that and take responsibility for it.

proelitedota
02-20-2020, 01:03 PM
It's not the one game. Its the pattern of digging themselves a big hole in first quarter that happens almost every single game.

chrishoke
02-20-2020, 01:06 PM
And who could forget the 1991 Duke team getting drubbed in the ACC Tournament by the Heels 96-74. We all know how that turned out.

kAzE
02-20-2020, 01:22 PM
From the ESPN article: "According to ESPN Stats & Information research, the game marked the first time an unranked opponent beat a top-10 Duke team by at least 20 since 1979"

It's great that our championship teams had some bad losses, but this one was really historically bad. And I'm not sure those other teams dropped a game at home to a team like Stephen F Austin, either. Not saying this team can't win a national championship, but I don't think it's fair to compare the team against past championship teams, especially when the ACC is such a weak conference this year.

Kedsy
02-20-2020, 01:25 PM
The problem is, of course, that winning the ACC regular season was made infinitely more difficult by losing last night.

Infinitely more difficult? In what way? We're basically in a three-way tie for first, right now. The other two teams play each other (so one of them will then be behind us, all other things being equal). And our remaining schedule is the easiest of the three teams. We still should be considered the favorite to win (or at least tie) the ACC regular season, unless we do a complete nosedive.

tbyers11
02-20-2020, 01:37 PM
Infinitely more difficult? In what way? We're basically in a three-way tie for first, right now. The other two teams play each other (so one of them will then be behind us, all other things being equal). And our remaining schedule is the easiest of the three teams. We still should be considered the favorite to win (or at least tie) the ACC regular season, unless we do a complete nosedive.

In my head I had us losing to either NCST or UVA (I did not picture us losing to NCST in this manner but that's another thread). If win the last 5 games, which is still quite possible, all we need is Louisville to lose at FSU or UVA and, at worst, we share the ACC title with FSU and would be the 1 seed in the ACC tourney via H2H victory over FSU.

So more difficult after last night, yes. But I agree that we are still the betting favorite.

Kedsy
02-20-2020, 01:51 PM
From the ESPN article: "According to ESPN Stats & Information research, the game marked the first time an unranked opponent beat a top-10 Duke team by at least 20 since 1979"

It's great that our championship teams had some bad losses, but this one was really historically bad. And I'm not sure those other teams dropped a game at home to a team like Stephen F Austin, either. Not saying this team can't win a national championship, but I don't think it's fair to compare the team against past championship teams, especially when the ACC is such a weak conference this year.

Then what are you saying?

Kedsy
02-20-2020, 01:58 PM
Of the past 20 national champions, 14 of 20 (70%) had double-digit losses at some point during the season (and six of the 14 had double-digit losses to unranked teams). Seven of the 20 (35%) had losses of 15+ (three to unranked teams), and three of the 20 (15%) had losses of 20+. The 2014 UConn champions lost by 33 to Louisville, earlier that season.

This is not to say this year's team will win the championship. It's merely to say last night's loss doesn't really change the championship calculus very much (if at all).

scottdude8
02-20-2020, 02:05 PM
All are making valid points here. That said, and I’m not sure how far back the DBR archives go to check this, but I’d bet that people were saying VERY similar things about the flaws of our teams back in 2015 and 2010. Yes, you can make the argument that this result is more concerning than any of the others, and that’s a reasonable position. But my point is that, at some point in every season, it’s pretty reasonable to look at the team and say “This isn’t a great team” following a bad stretch. Many of those teams end up still being special. This team still has that POTENTIAL, even after last night.

Tripping William
02-20-2020, 02:05 PM
Of the past 20 national champions, 14 of 20 (70%) had double-digit losses at some point during the season (and six of the 14 had double-digit losses to unranked teams). Seven of the 20 (35%) had losses of 15+ (three to unranked teams), and three of the 20 (15%) had losses of 20+. The 2014 UConn champions lost by 33 to Louisville, earlier that season.

This is not to say this year's team will win the championship. It's merely to say last night's loss doesn't really change the championship calculus very much (if at all).

I actually agree with your second paragraph assessment, but am curious: Did any of them have (a) a loss of 20+, (b) to an unranked team, (c) after February 15th?

HereBeforeCoachK
02-20-2020, 02:13 PM
I actually agree with your second paragraph assessment, but am curious: Did any of them have (a) a loss of 20+, (b) to an unranked team, (c) after February 15th?

Wouldn't be surprised if UConn did, because they were terrible all reagular season then caught lightning in a bottle for Big East and NCAAT....

kAzE
02-20-2020, 02:14 PM
Then what are you saying?

What I’m trying to say is, it’s hard to compare this team to past champions, because it’s strange year in college basketball, and especially the ACC.

In a normal year, this particular team would probably have a few more than 4 losses at this point, and we would be looking at our national championship chances very differently. But with such few great teams this year, we might be good enough if things go our way.

Kedsy
02-20-2020, 02:24 PM
I actually agree with your second paragraph assessment, but am curious: Did any of them have (a) a loss of 20+, (b) to an unranked team, (c) after February 15th?

In what way would that be predictive of anything?

Tripping William
02-20-2020, 02:32 PM
In what way would that be predictive of anything?

Didn't say it would be. I said it would satisfy a curiosity. So, never mind.

CDu
02-20-2020, 02:34 PM
What I’m trying to say is, it’s hard to compare this team to past champions, because it’s strange year in college basketball, and especially the ACC.

In a normal year, this particular team would probably have a few more than 4 losses at this point, and we would be looking at our national championship chances very differently. But with such few great teams this year, we might be good enough if things go our way.

Right. It's a bit too rosy a statement to say "we've had championship teams lose badly before, so everything is fine." This loss is one of the worst in the Coach K era.

Now, it doesn't necessarily mean the world is coming to the end. But it's totally reasonable to find this loss (especially on the heels of playing poorly in some recent games) concerning. Especially when we consider that our chances at the ACC regular season title, the ACC tourney #1, and a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney just took a big hit.

proelitedota
02-20-2020, 02:36 PM
Of the past 20 national champions, 14 of 20 (70%) had double-digit losses at some point during the season (and six of the 14 had double-digit losses to unranked teams). Seven of the 20 (35%) had losses of 15+ (three to unranked teams), and three of the 20 (15%) had losses of 20+. The 2014 UConn champions lost by 33 to Louisville, earlier that season.

This is not to say this year's team will win the championship. It's merely to say last night's loss doesn't really change the championship calculus very much (if at all).

I am not hung up on records, but this year's team is merely young team without lottery picks that benefited from a really easy schedule and really weak ACC.

If you look at Barttorvik, the number of "bad" (below 80) games we've had each of the past 9 seasons before March. It's unprecedented for us to have so many bad games in season before March.

2020: 6 (59, 66, 69, 75, 73, 21)
2019: 3 (78, 58, 44)
2018: 5 (62, 74, 72, 74, 79)
2017: 4 (40, 71, 62, 79)
2016: 3 (77, 75, 37)
2015: 4 (78, 75, 48, 68)
2014: 4 (72, 76, 76, 70)
2013: 5 (79, 29, 77, 74, 69)
2012: 4 (59, 56, 74, 78, 37)

I am not downplaying the potential of this team, but we should heed K's word that this is merely a good team that has a very good record on paper.

Kedsy
02-20-2020, 02:40 PM
What I’m trying to say is, it’s hard to compare this team to past champions, because it’s strange year in college basketball, and especially the ACC.

In a normal year, this particular team would probably have a few more than 4 losses at this point, and we would be looking at our national championship chances very differently. But with such few great teams this year, we might be good enough if things go our way.

I agree it's hard to compare. In fact, I agree with everything you say in this post. Personally, I think this year's Duke team is the least talented Duke team since 2016. Doesn't mean this year's model can't achieve big things.

But the point I've been trying to make is we shouldn't disqualify this team for anything based on the difference between a 22-point loss and a 15-point loss, or whether past losses by whoever came to unranked or ranked teams, or whether the loss came on February 19 or January 13. There's just not enough data to tell us whether these distinctions are meaningful.

The distinctions might not even be distinctions. State is a top 50 team according to Pomeroy; counting the home team advantage, it's probably the equivalent of at least top 30 or maybe even top 25 (meaning there might not be any meaningful difference between this unranked State team and a ranked team in some other team's ignominious defeat. This 22-point loss at NCSU is almost certainly a "better" loss than our 16-point loss at home to Miami in 2015, for example, so why would we treat it as something worse?

Kedsy
02-20-2020, 02:41 PM
Didn't say it would be. I said it would satisfy a curiosity. So, never mind.

Fine. I believe the answer is no.

kako
02-20-2020, 02:56 PM
The point: judging this team, or any team, based on one result, no matter how onerous, is a mistake. Every successful Duke team, and most National Champions more generally, have had bad losses at some point during the season. We're all human, and prone to recency bias. But this is the same team this morning as it was 24 hours ago, before an outlier poor performance.

Whether or not this team makes it to the Final Four or gets upset won't be dictated by one game. Should we adjust our expectations and recognize some important flaws that were revealed last night? Of course. But one game does not make the season.

Let's all take a deep breath and focus on winning the ACC.

As is generally felt, the reason Duke lost last night was that they did not come to play. It's the current flaw for this team, and it has shown up in more than just the State game. BC, Syracuse, Carolina, Clemson, etc. It doesn't matter if Duke won those games or not. They didn't come out hungry with a killer instinct. They have this ability, as seen just last weekend. But it's inconsistent. My own personal feeling is that this team starts to believe the hype, rest on its laurels and feel that the D-U-K-E on their jerseys will win the game alone. Of course it's absolutely not true and won't work.

On Duke's championship teams, there has always been a leader (or leaders) that remain focused and keep the team focused. Sure, losses happen, both by a point and by double digits. But it's one thing to have a bad shooting night, have a few bounces go the wrong way, get into foul trouble, etc. It's totally another to just not show up. Leaders keep the team on its toes, keep the fire burning, and won't accept just going through the motions. And right now, I think that's the problem. Jones is the leader on the court, but that's not how games are won or lost. It's everything else leading up to the game. Who is the leader of this team in the locker room, in the film room, in practice and on the sideline? Who is in the dorms keeping the team focused? Who is keeping the fire burning? Duke has the talent to win it all, but it will be pure luck if they do so without strong leadership.

K used to say that his teams always need a M-----F-----r, someone to keep those fires burning at all times. Coaches can only do so much, even legends like K. Laettner, Wojo, Battier, the Singler/Smith/Scheyer combo, Cook - they all had this role and did it well. Even guys on non-national championship teams like Meagher, Redick, the Plumlees, Allen... there were flaws, but in my mind's eye, they had that fire. I'm not sure who on this team is that guy. It's tough because the upperclassmen are role players at best. The team defers to Jones due to his status on the court... but for all his skills, he seems soft-spoken. His brother had Cook behind him, encouraging, pushing, because Cook wanted that banner. Jones has no Cook behind him that I can see. And though Carey is IMO the best player, he also seems like a gentle giant at times, and he's a freshman.

If someone on this team can seize this role, regardless of playing status, I think Duke can work through its other issues and challenge for all 3 championships (reg season, ACC, NCAA). I'm not in the locker room, in the dorms, etc. so I'm not going to venture who that would/should be. But someone needs to. This sleepwalking into games has to stop. The OP says taking a deep breath and focusing on winning the ACC is needed. I say sure, but IMO the team needs its M-----F----r, and they need it now.

9F

CDu
02-20-2020, 03:02 PM
This 22-point loss at NCSU is almost certainly a "better" loss than our 16-point loss at home to Miami in 2015, for example, so why would we treat it as something worse?

For what it is worth, Bart Torvik disagrees. This loss was substantially worse performance than the 2015 loss to Miami. It was the worst loss we've had since 2009 (@Clemson).

fuse
02-20-2020, 03:21 PM
Since apparently my willpower is so low and I no longer resist.

The only important context is the loss last night effectively ends the debate about a one seed for Duke.

jv001
02-20-2020, 03:25 PM
As is generally felt, the reason Duke lost last night was that they did not come to play. It's the current flaw for this team, and it has shown up in more than just the State game. BC, Syracuse, Carolina, Clemson, etc. It doesn't matter if Duke won those games or not. They didn't come out hungry with a killer instinct. They have this ability, as seen just last weekend. But it's inconsistent. My own personal feeling is that this team starts to believe the hype, rest on its laurels and feel that the D-U-K-E on their jerseys will win the game alone. Of course it's absolutely not true and won't work.

On Duke's championship teams, there has always been a leader (or leaders) that remain focused and keep the team focused. Sure, losses happen, both by a point and by double digits. But it's one thing to have a bad shooting night, have a few bounces go the wrong way, get into foul trouble, etc. It's totally another to just not show up. Leaders keep the team on its toes, keep the fire burning, and won't accept just going through the motions. And right now, I think that's the problem. Jones is the leader on the court, but that's not how games are won or lost. It's everything else leading up to the game. Who is the leader of this team in the locker room, in the film room, in practice and on the sideline? Who is in the dorms keeping the team focused? Who is keeping the fire burning? Duke has the talent to win it all, but it will be pure luck if they do so without strong leadership.

K used to say that his teams always need a M-----F-----r, someone to keep those fires burning at all times. Coaches can only do so much, even legends like K. Laettner, Wojo, Battier, the Singler/Smith/Scheyer combo, Cook - they all had this role and did it well. Even guys on non-national championship teams like Meagher, Redick, the Plumlees, Allen... there were flaws, but in my mind's eye, they had that fire. I'm not sure who on this team is that guy. It's tough because the upperclassmen are role players at best. The team defers to Jones due to his status on the court... but for all his skills, he seems soft-spoken. His brother had Cook behind him, encouraging, pushing, because Cook wanted that banner. Jones has no Cook behind him that I can see. And though Carey is IMO the best player, he also seems like a gentle giant at times, and he's a freshman.

If someone on this team can seize this role, regardless of playing status, I think Duke can work through its other issues and challenge for all 3 championships (reg season, ACC, NCAA). I'm not in the locker room, in the dorms, etc. so I'm not going to venture who that would/should be. But someone needs to. This sleepwalking into games has to stop. The OP says taking a deep breath and focusing on winning the ACC is needed. I say sure, but IMO the team needs its M-----F----r, and they need it now.

9F

I wish Baker was playing well enough to grab those minutes because he seems to have the attitude you're talking about. Tre is just too quiet to be the guy. Vernon is too quiet. Javin doesn't play enough or well enough to be the guy. Neither is Jack. It's usually a seasoned player that backs up the talk with the walk. I don't see one on this team. GoDuke!

Saratoga2
02-20-2020, 03:38 PM
As is generally felt, the reason Duke lost last night was that they did not come to play. It's the current flaw for this team, and it has shown up in more than just the State game. BC, Syracuse, Carolina, Clemson, etc. It doesn't matter if Duke won those games or not. They didn't come out hungry with a killer instinct. They have this ability, as seen just last weekend. But it's inconsistent. My own personal feeling is that this team starts to believe the hype, rest on its laurels and feel that the D-U-K-E on their jerseys will win the game alone. Of course it's absolutely not true and won't work.

On Duke's championship teams, there has always been a leader (or leaders) that remain focused and keep the team focused. Sure, losses happen, both by a point and by double digits. But it's one thing to have a bad shooting night, have a few bounces go the wrong way, get into foul trouble, etc. It's totally another to just not show up. Leaders keep the team on its toes, keep the fire burning, and won't accept just going through the motions. And right now, I think that's the problem. Jones is the leader on the court, but that's not how games are won or lost. It's everything else leading up to the game. Who is the leader of this team in the locker room, in the film room, in practice and on the sideline? Who is in the dorms keeping the team focused? Who is keeping the fire burning? Duke has the talent to win it all, but it will be pure luck if they do so without strong leadership.

K used to say that his teams always need a M-----F-----r, someone to keep those fires burning at all times. Coaches can only do so much, even legends like K. Laettner, Wojo, Battier, the Singler/Smith/Scheyer combo, Cook - they all had this role and did it well. Even guys on non-national championship teams like Meagher, Redick, the Plumlees, Allen... there were flaws, but in my mind's eye, they had that fire. I'm not sure who on this team is that guy. It's tough because the upperclassmen are role players at best. The team defers to Jones due to his status on the court... but for all his skills, he seems soft-spoken. His brother had Cook behind him, encouraging, pushing, because Cook wanted that banner. Jones has no Cook behind him that I can see. And though Carey is IMO the best player, he also seems like a gentle giant at times, and he's a freshman.

If someone on this team can seize this role, regardless of playing status, I think Duke can work through its other issues and challenge for all 3 championships (reg season, ACC, NCAA). I'm not in the locker room, in the dorms, etc. so I'm not going to venture who that would/should be. But someone needs to. This sleepwalking into games has to stop. The OP says taking a deep breath and focusing on winning the ACC is needed. I say sure, but IMO the team needs its M-----F----r, and they need it now.

9F

So what is coach K doing to correct some of the deficiencies we have been talking about? Other teams will watch rebroadast of this and other games and see how to make Duke look bad. So what changes in the rotation, defensive and offensive approaches will he institute? I will be interested in something other than saying the guys didn't want it enough.

scottdude8
02-20-2020, 03:39 PM
Since apparently my willpower is so low and I no longer resist.

The only important context is the loss last night effectively ends the debate about a one seed for Duke.

You're very justified in making that statement! I would add the qualifier that it ends the debate if nothing unusual happens, but we've seen how unusual of a season this is. If Gonzaga wins out, SDSU wins out, and Kansas only loses to Baylor the rest of the way, Duke probably can't get a 1 seed (their resume certainly wasn't helped by Georgetown and Va Tech losing last night, as they both fell out of Q1 territory). But if Kansas falters, say in a rivalry game against Kansas State or early in the Big 12 tournament, that opens the debate back up (I'm not saying that it would be enough for Duke to get a 1 seed, just that there would be legitimate debate). You could potentially argue the same if Gonzaga loses again. If SDSU loses I can't imagine the NCAA giving them a top seed just to save face, in which case everything is back up for grabs. So I think the more accurate statement is that we no longer "control our own destiny" for a one seed.


I wish Baker was playing well enough to grab those minutes because he seems to have the attitude you're talking about. Tre is just too quiet to be the guy. Vernon is too quiet. Javin doesn't play enough or well enough to be the guy. Neither is Jack. It's usually a seasoned player that backs up the talk with the walk. I don't see one on this team. GoDuke!

Up until about two weeks ago I really thought Jack could be that guy. He plays with fire and toughness, despite his limitations, and is a senior leader. But something seems to have happened behind the scenes that have led to a drastic reduction in his PT, making it hard for him to claim that role.

I will say this: back in 2010 no one (except me!) ever thought Brian Zoubek would be the guy to bring toughness and physicality to a Duke team. But he was inserted into the starting lineup against Maryland, spontaneously evolved from Zoubek into Zoubeast, and the rest is history. It wouldn't shock me if we see Coach K make some significant lineup changes on Saturday to try to light a fire under some guys. Maybe it's getting Jack back in the starting lineup, maybe it's putting Joey in and telling him to do nothing but annoy the heck out of the opposition for brief bursts on the floor, maybe it's refocusing JG on being a defensive nightmare for the opposition (I love Jordan as much as anyone, but it was clear he was trying to force some things offensively last night). I would bet that K is going to try something to find that guy starting on Saturday, and whomever claims that role will also claim a lot of PT down the stretch.

CDu
02-20-2020, 03:51 PM
So I think the more accurate statement is that we no longer "control our own destiny" for a one seed.

I think this is a very fair way to put it. I would put our chances of getting that 1 seed as slim. But not impossible. And as you said, just winning out isn't going to be enough to get it (whereas I think winning out would have been enough prior to last night).


Up until about two weeks ago I really thought Jack could be that guy. He plays with fire and toughness, despite his limitations, and is a senior leader. But something seems to have happened behind the scenes that have led to a drastic reduction in his PT, making it hard for him to claim that role.

I think it was the return of Moore, and trying to get him more time at PF. And I think Moore's performance as a pseudo big in the UNC game was a big part of it. White was playing PF, and with Hurt and Moore taking more time at PF that meant less time for White.

I think Coach K sees the limitations of this squad, and is trying to play the long game. We probably need Moore to become that dynamic combo forward who can create matchup problems for opponents to really unlock our potential. White is a nice role player, and last year that was really huge because we had a team of high-usage stars and few role players. It's not like White has been bad this year, but I think Coach K sees that the team needs more playmakers on the court. Unfortunately, Moore is still SOOOOOOO shaky with the ball that he hasn't made the leap. And he might not make it at all this year. If not, things will get really tricky in March.


I will say this: back in 2010 no one (except me!) ever thought Brian Zoubek would be the guy to bring toughness and physicality to a Duke team. But he was inserted into the starting lineup against Maryland, spontaneously evolved from Zoubek into Zoubeast, and the rest is history. It wouldn't shock me if we see Coach K make some significant lineup changes on Saturday to try to light a fire under some guys. Maybe it's getting Jack back in the starting lineup, maybe it's putting Joey in and telling him to do nothing but annoy the heck out of the opposition for brief bursts on the floor, maybe it's refocusing JG on being a defensive nightmare for the opposition (I love Jordan as much as anyone, but it was clear he was trying to force some things offensively last night). I would bet that K is going to try something to find that guy starting on Saturday, and whomever claims that role will also claim a lot of PT down the stretch.

You can never rule out things turning around. And I'd be pretty surprised if there were no significant changes to either the lineup or strategy this weekend. Most likely the lineup.

scottdude8
02-20-2020, 04:14 PM
I think it was the return of Moore, and trying to get him more time at PF. And I think Moore's performance as a pseudo big in the UNC game was a big part of it. White was playing PF, and with Hurt and Moore taking more time at PF that meant less time for White.

...

You can never rule out things turning around. And I'd be pretty surprised if there were no significant changes to either the lineup or strategy this weekend. Most likely the lineup.

I think the combo of these two leads to the most likely scenario: K shifting to a "4 around 1" core lineup of Carey, Moore, Stanley, JG, and Tre. That lineup is limited from behind the arc, but has the potential to be bonkers-good defensively, and could potentially open things up more for Carey in the post. From that baseline I think you can mix-and-match based on opposition. Bigger opponent? Throw in Javin at the 4. Exploitable matchup at the 4 for Hurt? Throw him in. Need more shooting? AOC or Baker for JG, whomever is hot.

Again, it's speculation on my part, but I would guess in K's ideal world a lineup of those four guys would make a claim to the dominant role.

Dr. Rosenrosen
02-20-2020, 04:33 PM
I could have sworn I logged into DBR but damn it’s cold as ICe in here! Sheesh.

kAzE
02-20-2020, 04:42 PM
I could have sworn I logged into DBR but damn it’s cold as ICe in here! Sheesh.

Really? I think this is a perfectly normal day on DBR following a historically bad loss. We're upset, but we're not trashing our own team and spam-posting "It's over" (at least not sarcastically).

If this was IC, the top 3 topics would be:

1. "This team has no heart"
2. "Fire Coach K"
3. "F** these refs"

KandG
02-20-2020, 04:53 PM
Really? I think this is a perfectly normal day on DBR following a historically bad loss. We're upset, but we're not trashing our own team and spam-posting "It's over" (at least not sarcastically).



Agree with kAzE here. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised at how civil (yet frank) the discussion of the team's flaws has been.

dm9e24
02-20-2020, 05:16 PM
I could have sworn I logged into DBR but damn it’s cold as ICe in here! Sheesh.

After reading a lot of great post this is the best you have. A comparison to the carolina fan base.

What are your thoughts on the game.

Weak

Kedsy
02-20-2020, 05:18 PM
For what it is worth, Bart Torvik disagrees. This loss was substantially worse performance than the 2015 loss to Miami. It was the worst loss we've had since 2009 (@Clemson).

Interesting. If you give 3.5 pts for the home advantage, a 15-point home loss and a 22-point road loss ought to be the same. And I know you can't really compare Pomeroy ratings across seasons, but that Miami team was about 0.7 points better than this State team and that Duke team was almost 5 points better than this Duke team. Even ignoring the relative difference between the two Duke teams, if you count Cameron as a little bigger home advantage than 3.5, it ought to more than make up for Miami being a little better than State. Hence, I figured this loss was a little "better" than that one.

I guess Torvik is probably analyzing offensive and defensive efficiencies rather than point differential, but since people were talking about 20-point losses as being worst than 15-point losses, I thought point differential was appropriate.


Laettner, Wojo, Battier, the Singler/Smith/Scheyer combo, Cook - they all had this role and did it well. Even guys on non-national championship teams like Meagher, Redick, the Plumlees, Allen... there were flaws, but in my mind's eye, they had that fire.

Wojo was never on a championship team (or even a Final Four team), and Allen and all three Plumlees were on championship teams.

But ignoring that, every single player you name was on the court for some number of lifeless drubbings. Singler, Smith, and Scheyer, for example, couldn't stop getting steamrolled 74-47 by Clemson in 2009. Cook was on the teams that lost to Lehigh and Mercer. Etc, etc. Those games (and others) weren't merely a missed shot here, a bad bounce there. They were examples of Duke coming out flat and not wanting it as much as our opponents.

I don't disagree that there are such things as leadership and leaders keeping the team focused, but how we view players in this regard is often a self-fulfilling view based on achievement. If Duke had lost to Utah in the Sweet 16 in 2015 (something that could easily have happened if a few things had gone slightly differently), for example, is there any chance of Quinn Cook being on your list? This year's team's place in history has yet to be written. If we make the Final Four I'm sure someone will be recognized as the player who drove us to get there, notwithstanding last night's performance.

CameronBlue
02-20-2020, 05:35 PM
Wojo was never on a championship team (or even a Final Four team), and Allen and all three Plumlees were on championship teams.

But ignoring that,

Despite your unwillingness to luxuriate in the P-slam fest, clearly a character flaw...you score mightily for this one. I may chuckle for a week.

Music man55
02-20-2020, 06:16 PM
As is generally felt, the reason Duke lost last night was that they did not come to play. It's the current flaw for this team, and it has shown up in more than just the State game. BC, Syracuse, Carolina, Clemson, etc. It doesn't matter if Duke won those games or not. They didn't come out hungry with a killer instinct. They have this ability, as seen just last weekend. But it's inconsistent. My own personal feeling is that this team starts to believe the hype, rest on its laurels and feel that the D-U-K-E on their jerseys will win the game alone. Of course it's absolutely not true and won't work.

On Duke's championship teams, there has always been a leader (or leaders) that remain focused and keep the team focused. Sure, losses happen, both by a point and by double digits. But it's one thing to have a bad shooting night, have a few bounces go the wrong way, get into foul trouble, etc. It's totally another to just not show up. Leaders keep the team on its toes, keep the fire burning, and won't accept just going through the motions. And right now, I think that's the problem. Jones is the leader on the court, but that's not how games are won or lost. It's everything else leading up to the game. Who is the leader of this team in the locker room, in the film room, in practice and on the sideline? Who is in the dorms keeping the team focused? Who is keeping the fire burning? Duke has the talent to win it all, but it will be pure luck if they do so without strong leadership.

K used to say that his teams always need a M-----F-----r, someone to keep those fires burning at all times. Coaches can only do so much, even legends like K. Laettner, Wojo, Battier, the Singler/Smith/Scheyer combo, Cook - they all had this role and did it well. Even guys on non-national championship teams like Meagher, Redick, the Plumlees, Allen... there were flaws, but in my mind's eye, they had that fire. I'm not sure who on this team is that guy. It's tough because the upperclassmen are role players at best. The team defers to Jones due to his status on the court... but for all his skills, he seems soft-spoken. His brother had Cook behind him, encouraging, pushing, because Cook wanted that banner. Jones has no Cook behind him that I can see. And though Carey is IMO the best player, he also seems like a gentle giant at times, and he's a freshman.

If someone on this team can seize this role, regardless of playing status, I think Duke can work through its other issues and challenge for all 3 championships (reg season, ACC, NCAA). I'm not in the locker room, in the dorms, etc. so I'm not going to venture who that would/should be. But someone needs to. This sleepwalking into games has to stop. The OP says taking a deep breath and focusing on winning the ACC is needed. I say sure, but IMO the team needs its M-----F----r, and they need it now.

9F

I agree completely. This team really needs somebody to lay claim to that title of M---- F-----r. I don't think it has to be their leading scorer, but someone who plays regularly and can become the person who has the personality to handle it. An upperclassmen would be great but Javin, Jack,AOC aren't showing it. Tre would be the obvious candidate, but like you said, seems a little soft spoken.Sadly,I just don't know if we have that person on this roster. I hope we find him soon.

Dr. Rosenrosen
02-20-2020, 06:35 PM
After reading a lot of great post this is the best you have. A comparison to the carolina fan base.

What are your thoughts on the game.

Weak
The intent of the thread seemed to be that folks should remember history and not get their shorts in a bunch. At which point I felt some folks did start to get their shorts in a bunch about historically bad losses, number of bad performances, lack of leadership and that the apocalypse was in fact upon us. I guess what I saw as a new version of the optimist thread was going in a decidedly different direction.

So, thanks for the wrist slap. I have shared thoughts elsewhere. BTW, since you yourself have offered no thoughts or insights on the game, what are they? I’m dying to know. Surely you didn’t drop in just to chide. Right?

wavedukefan70s
02-20-2020, 07:04 PM
Yes we got beat .it happens .
I do believe after the year of zion and company the losses are a little bit tougher to swallow this year.
We are still a very good team.tons of potential.

Ill be disappointed when and if we lose in the ncaa tourney.

CDu
02-20-2020, 07:06 PM
The intent of the thread seemed to be that folks should remember history and not get their shorts in a bunch. At which point I felt some folks did start to get their shorts in a bunch about historically bad losses, number of bad performances, lack of leadership and that the apocalypse was in fact upon us. I guess what I saw as a new version of the optimist thread was going in a decidedly different direction.

So, thanks for the wrist slap. I have shared thoughts elsewhere. BTW, since you yourself have offered no thoughts or insights on the game, what are they? I’m dying to know. Surely you didn’t drop in just to chide. Right?

I don’t think equating this discussion to folks “getting shorts in a bunch.” That doesn’t feel like the best way to further the discussion.

Dr. Rosenrosen
02-20-2020, 07:34 PM
I don’t think equating this discussion to folks “getting shorts in a bunch.” That doesn’t feel like the best way to further the discussion.
Fair enough. I’m putting myself on holiday.

devildeac
02-20-2020, 07:47 PM
Fair enough. I’m putting myself on holiday.

Hopefully, with a good imperial stout leftover from Christmas and/or Valentine's Day.

;)

brevity
02-20-2020, 07:50 PM
Of the past 20 national champions, 14 of 20 (70%) had double-digit losses at some point during the season (and six of the 14 had double-digit losses to unranked teams). Seven of the 20 (35%) had losses of 15+ (three to unranked teams), and three of the 20 (15%) had losses of 20+. The 2014 UConn champions lost by 33 to Louisville, earlier that season.

This is not to say this year's team will win the championship. It's merely to say last night's loss doesn't really change the championship calculus very much (if at all).

I was bored again, so...



YEAR
CHAMPION
MOST RECENT LOSS
WORST LOSS


2019
Virginia
#12 FSU 69-59 (neutral 3/15)
#2 Duke 81-71 (home 2/9)


2018
Villanova
NR Creighton 89-83 OT (road 2/24)
NR Butler 101-93 (road 12/30)


2017
UNC
#14 Duke 93-83 (neutral 3/10)
NR Miami 77-62 (road 1/28)


2016
Villanova
NR Seton Hall 69-67 (neutral 3/12)
#7 Oklahoma 78-55 (neutral 12/7)


2015
Duke
#11 N. Dame 74-64 (neutral 3/13)
NR Miami 90-74 (home 1/13)


2014
Connecticut
#5 Louisville 71-61 (neutral 3/15)
#11 Louisville 81-48 (road 3/8)


2013
Louisville
#25 N. Dame 104-101 5OT (road 2/9)
NR Villanova 73-64 (road 1/22)


2012
Kentucky
NR Vanderbilt 71-61 (neutral 3/11)
same (2 losses all season)


2011
Connecticut
#8 N. Dame 70-67 (home 3/5)
NR St. John's 89-72 (road 2/10)


2010
Duke
#22 Maryland 79-72 (road 3/3)
NR NC State 88-74 (road 1/20)


2009
UNC
#22 FSU 73-70 (neutral 3/14)
NR Boston Coll 85-78 (home 1/4)


2008
Kansas
NR Oklahoma St 61-60 (road 2/23)
#22 Kansas St 84-75 (road 1/30)


2007
Florida
NR Tennessee 86-76 (road 2/27)
NR Vanderbilt 83-70 (road 2/17)


2006
Florida
NR Alabama 82-77 (road 2/26)
NR So. Carolina 68-62 (road 1/25)


2005
UNC
NR Ga Tech 78-75 (neutral 3/12)
#4 Wake Forest 95-82 (road 1/15)


2004
Connecticut
#24 Syracuse 67-56 (road 3/7)
NR Ga Tech 77-61 (neutral 11/26)


2003
Syracuse
NR Connecticut 80-67 (neutral 3/14)
#3 Pittsburgh 73-60 (road 1/18)


2002
Maryland
NR NC State 86-82 (neutral 3/9)
#1 Duke 99-78 (road 1/17)


2001
Duke
#16 Maryland 91-80 (home 2/27)
same (3 losses by 1 or 2 pts)


2000
Michigan St
#16 Indiana 81-79 (road 2/26)
#13 Ohio St 78-67 (road 1/20)



"Worst Loss" is by number of points. To be honest, I was expecting a lot more mid-season mediocrity.

Observations:

* Every champion lost in February or March. (Aside from 2013 Louisville, every champion lost February 23 or later.)
* None of the most recent losses were by more than 13 points.
* Only single digit losses all season: 2006 Florida, 2009 UNC, 2013 Louisville, 2018 Villanova
* Losses by 20 or more points: 2014 Connecticut, 2016 Villanova
* Losses to mid-majors or low-majors: 2000 Michigan St (to Horizon's Wright St), 2003 Syracuse (to C-USA's Memphis), 2005 UNC (to WCC's Santa Clara), 2014 Connecticut (to fellow AAC teams only)

duke2x
02-20-2020, 08:05 PM
Since apparently my willpower is so low and I no longer resist. The only important context is the loss last night effectively ends the debate about a one seed for Duke.

This probably is the weakest group of 1 seeds of the 2000s, but I digress.

Last night had zero effect on Duke's NET ranking. We were #6 before the game and again today. What probably changed is where our #2 seed would be among bracketologists: Houston instead of NYC. It's like 2010 and 2015 all over again. ;)

proelitedota
02-20-2020, 08:55 PM
This probably is the weakest group of 1 seeds of the 2000s, but I digress.

Last night had zero effect on Duke's NET ranking. We were #6 before the game and again today. What probably changed is where our #2 seed would be among bracketologists: Houston instead of NYC. It's like 2010 and 2015 all over again. ;)

Was the NET ranking updated after last night?

kako
02-20-2020, 09:24 PM
I wish Baker was playing well enough to grab those minutes because he seems to have the attitude you're talking about. Tre is just too quiet to be the guy. Vernon is too quiet. Javin doesn't play enough or well enough to be the guy. Neither is Jack. It's usually a seasoned player that backs up the talk with the walk. I don't see one on this team. GoDuke!

I've been in my share of locker rooms. It doesn't have to be a guy who plays 39 minutes a game. It can be anyone. Someone needs to step up. K can give all the azz tearing speeches in the world, but it needs to also come from a player (or players). Sure, Jones would be ideal. But Baker would be fine. White would be fine. Heck, even Buckmire would be fine. They don't have to lead by example, they could just light fires. If this is truly a brotherhood and they've bought into it, then any brother can step up.




Wojo was never on a championship team (or even a Final Four team), and Allen and all three Plumlees were on championship teams.

But ignoring that, every single player you name was on the court for some number of lifeless drubbings. Singler, Smith, and Scheyer, for example, couldn't stop getting steamrolled 74-47 by Clemson in 2009. Cook was on the teams that lost to Lehigh and Mercer. Etc, etc. Those games (and others) weren't merely a missed shot here, a bad bounce there. They were examples of Duke coming out flat and not wanting it as much as our opponents.

I don't disagree that there are such things as leadership and leaders keeping the team focused, but how we view players in this regard is often a self-fulfilling view based on achievement. If Duke had lost to Utah in the Sweet 16 in 2015 (something that could easily have happened if a few things had gone slightly differently), for example, is there any chance of Quinn Cook being on your list? This year's team's place in history has yet to be written. If we make the Final Four I'm sure someone will be recognized as the player who drove us to get there, notwithstanding last night's performance.

I'm sure we want the same thing. But this team has made a habit of coming out weakly in many games, not just one or two here and there. After watching them game after game, IMO that's player leadership. It doesn't matter if the Duke team won it all, flamed out or even never made the tourney (re: Meagher). This team desperately needs a leader/MFer. A player that holds others accountable, pumps them up and gets in their faces. And yes, Cook would be on the list - he learned to be a leader (he absolutely wasn't one until his senior year). Such a leader doesn't guarantee a natty, but without one it's more likely not to happen. Your last sentence is key: If we make the Final Four I'm sure someone will be recognized... I submit that if Duke does get there, it's because someone stepped up. There's still time, but it has to happen to have a real shot.

9F

duke2x
02-20-2020, 09:51 PM
Was the NET ranking updated after last night?

Yes. I would expect Maryland to get the nod at #7 for the East with 4 losses.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2020, 06:53 AM
This probably is the weakest group of 1 seeds of the 2000s, but I digress.

Last night had zero effect on Duke's NET ranking. We were #6 before the game and again today. What probably changed is where our #2 seed would be among bracketologists: Houston instead of NYC. It's like 2010 and 2015 all over again. ;)

I still feel very strongly that a top #2 seed and likely a #1 seed are still very much in play.

I could be mistaken, but there is a LOT of basketball left for all teams to play.

arnie
02-21-2020, 07:16 AM
Yes we got beat .it happens .
I do believe after the year of zion and company the losses are a little bit tougher to swallow this year.
We are still a very good team.tons of potential.

Ill be disappointed when and if we lose in the ncaa tourney.

Will agree we’re overall a very good team with more exaggerated highs and lows than most years. However, I don’t have expectations that we can win the whole thing. We’ve been in two final fours since JJ’s sophomore year; I’ll be ecstatic if we reach that goal this year.

This team has similar flaws to recent OAD teams with little production from 3-4 year players. If they take down the Heels again; I’ll consider the season a roaring success😀.

arnie
02-21-2020, 07:20 AM
Will agree we’re overall a very good team with more exaggerated highs and lows than most years. However, I don’t have expectations that we can win the whole thing. We’ve been in two final fours since JJ’s sophomore year; I’ll be ecstatic if we reach that goal this year.

This team has similar flaws to recent OAD teams with little production from 3-4 year players. If they take down the Heels again; I’ll consider the season a roaring success😀.

Sorry, my mobile device autocorrected “Cheats” to “Heels”. Anyone know how to fix this?

HereBeforeCoachK
02-21-2020, 07:21 AM
Sorry, my mobile device autocorrected “Cheats” to “Heels”. Anyone know how to fix this?

Sounds like your auto correct is working in reverse.........shouldn't it correct Heels to Cheats?

budwom
02-21-2020, 08:06 AM
ah, no big deal losing a game. The only worrisome aspect for me was State's ability to beat our guys off the dribble time and time again...this will be what teams with good guards will try to do in the tournament, get Carey into foul trouble...
State didn't even have to attempt a three until well into the first half...

BandAlum83
02-21-2020, 10:21 AM
For what it is worth, Bart Torvik disagrees. This loss was substantially worse performance than the 2015 loss to Miami. It was the worst loss we've had since 2009 (@Clemson).

You’re saying this loss was worse than the loss to SFA? Why? Because if the margin?

duke2x
02-21-2020, 10:59 AM
I still feel very strongly that a top #2 seed and likely a #1 seed are still very much in play. I could be mistaken, but there is a LOT of basketball left for all teams to play.

I think the statement that Duke was far behind SDSU for the last #1 before the NCSU loss is driving that conversation. The debate for Duke really comes down to the following seeds as of today: East #2, South #2, West #2. East #1 and #3+ seeds are longer shots. All that I want is to avoid Duke's Haunted Mansions of Anaheim and Tampa. I don't see this team beating a Pac-12 team like OR or CO out west. I'm seeing a couple ways to put Wojo v. Hurley in Duke's pod in Greensboro. :mad:

scottdude8
02-21-2020, 11:02 AM
Was the NET ranking updated after last night?

Still at No. 6 (https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings) as of this morning!

flyingdutchdevil
02-21-2020, 11:04 AM
I still feel very strongly that a top #2 seed and likely a #1 seed are still very much in play.

I could be mistaken, but there is a LOT of basketball left for all teams to play.

I don't wanna say the #1 seed has sailed, but I think it's very, very, very challenging for Duke to get this. Not because Duke can't. But they need to a) win out and b) have at least one of the Zags, SDSU, Dayton lose. And I think the Zags and SDSU aren't losing. Also, safe to say Baylor or Kansas is getting a 1 seed. And that leaves Duke to beat out Dayton, Maryland, and the loser of the Kansas/Baylor feud. It's doable, but more lies within the other teams' losing than Duke winning.

scottdude8
02-21-2020, 11:14 AM
Yes. I would expect Maryland to get the nod at #7 for the East with 4 losses.


I still feel very strongly that a top #2 seed and likely a #1 seed are still very much in play.

I could be mistaken, but there is a LOT of basketball left for all teams to play.

Here's what I'd say: right now, while we no longer "control our own destiny" for a No. 1 seed (we'd need either multiple KU losses (preferably including an early Big 12 tourney loss), a Gonzaga loss, or an SDSU loss), we still do "control our own destiny" for the No. 2 seed in the East (and/or the top No. 2 seed).

Why? Well for starters, if Dayton jumps us for the "top" 2 seed, they'll be going to Indianapolis based on location preference. So they aren't really competition for New York.

The competition for New York comes from Maryland. After our loss they seemed to have jumped us for the moment (that's what Lunardi (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology), for one, indicates). But there are a few factors going against Maryland. First, the computers are not high on the Terps, probably thanks to them having a lot of very close victories against bad teams, even at home, that happened months back that we've forgotten about. Of the 6 rankings metrics included on the Team Sheets (NET/KPI/SOR/BPI/POM/SAG), Maryland is currently 8/8/5/11/8/4. In contrast, Duke remains more highly judged by the computers, with rankings of 6/3/8/1/5/6. Second, our non-conference resume is superior to the Terps: their best win was over Marquette on a Neutral site. Meanwhile, our non-conference includes the neutral court win over Kansas and the road win over MSU. Finally, Maryland has a much tougher schedule coming up, including three road games against Big Ten teams at or near the bubble, and their two home games are against the two Michigan teams. While all of those are Q1 opportunities, they're also very tough games to win.

TL;DR: I think that the Bracketologists putting Maryland in the East over us right now are being influenced by a combination of recency bias and B1G fervor, because if you did a "blind resume" test I think Duke's would win quite handily at the moment. That, combined with a daunting upcoming schedule for the Terps, means that if we take care of business we can/should still find ourselves in the East.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2020, 11:14 AM
I don't wanna say the #1 seed has sailed, but I think it's very, very, very challenging for Duke to get this. Not because Duke can't. But they need to a) win out and b) have at least one of the Zags, SDSU, Dayton lose. And I think the Zags and SDSU aren't losing. Also, safe to say Baylor or Kansas is getting a 1 seed. And that leaves Duke to beat out Dayton, Maryland, and the loser of the Kansas/Baylor feud. It's doable, but more lies within the other teams' losing than Duke winning.

Well, obviously if we tack on more losses it's called moot point. But I don't see it as unlikely in the slightest that the door will be cracked a bit between now and selection Sunday. In fact, I'd say it's much more likely that one or more of those teams falter than it is Duke runs the table from here.

Good thing I'm not posting in the optimistic thread!

devildeac
02-21-2020, 11:16 AM
I don't wanna say the #1 seed has sailed, but I think it's very, very, very challenging for Duke to get this. Not because Duke can't. But they need to a) win out and b) have at least one of the Zags, SDSU, Dayton lose. And I think the Zags and SDSU aren't losing. Also, safe to say Baylor or Kansas is getting a 1 seed. And that leaves Duke to beat out Dayton, Maryland, and the loser of the Kansas/Baylor feud. It's doable, but more lies within the other teams' losing than Duke winning.

Much better choice of terms than potentially "fighting it out" with Kansas for a #1 vs #2 seed. :rolleyes:

flyingdutchdevil
02-21-2020, 11:21 AM
Well, obviously if we tack on more losses it's called moot point. But I don't see it as unlikely in the slightest that the door will be cracked a bit between now and selection Sunday. In fact, I'd say it's much more likely that one or more of those teams falter than it is Duke runs the table from here.

Good thing I'm not posting in the optimistic thread!

I am a perpetual pessimist (I call myself a realist, though. I think those who call themselves realists are pessimists at heart).

I can guarantee that the Zags are getting a 1 seed. The WCC sucks and, even if they lose 1 game, their resume will still give them a 1 seed.

I can guarantee that Baylor or Kansas are getting a 1 seed. They are 2 of the top teams in the country and leaders in the B12. One may falter; both will be very unlikely.

To me, that would leave SDSU, the other Baylor/Kansas, Dayton, Maryland, and Duke for the other two 1 seeds. Could Duke beat out 3 of those 4 teams? Yes, but it will require some luck from the basketball gods.

For starters, we need to pray Baylor spanks Kansas this weekend and in the tournament.

flyingdutchdevil
02-21-2020, 11:22 AM
Much better choice of terms than potentially "fighting it out" with Kansas for a #1 vs #2 seed. :rolleyes:

Always looking to brawl with posters, huh, devildeac?

Tripping William
02-21-2020, 11:24 AM
Here's what I'd say: right now, while we no longer "control our own destiny" for a No. 1 seed (we'd need either multiple KU losses (preferably including an early Big 12 tourney loss), a Gonzaga loss, or an SDSU loss), we still do "control our own destiny" for the No. 2 seed in the East (and/or the top No. 2 seed).

Why? Well for starters, if Dayton jumps us for the "top" 2 seed, they'll be going to Indianapolis based on location preference. So they aren't really competition for New York.

The competition for New York comes from Maryland. After our loss they seemed to have jumped us for the moment (that's what Lunardi (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology), for one, indicates). But there are a few factors going against Maryland. First, the computers are not high on the Terps, probably thanks to them having a lot of very close victories against bad teams, even at home, that happened months back that we've forgotten about. Of the 6 rankings metrics included on the Team Sheets (NET/KPI/SOR/BPI/POM/SAG), Maryland is currently 8/8/5/11/8/4. In contrast, Duke remains more highly judged by the computers, with rankings of 6/3/8/1/5/6. Second, our non-conference resume is superior to the Terps: their best win was over Marquette on a Neutral site. Meanwhile, our non-conference includes the neutral court win over Kansas and the road win over MSU. Finally, Maryland has a much tougher schedule coming up, including three road games against Big Ten teams at or near the bubble, and their two home games are against the two Michigan teams. While all of those are Q1 opportunities, they're also very tough games to win.

TL;DR: I think that the Bracketologists putting Maryland in the East over us right now are being influenced by a combination of recency bias and B1G fervor, because if you did a "blind resume" test I think Duke's would win quite handily at the moment. That, combined with a daunting upcoming schedule for the Terps, means that if we take care of business we can/should still find ourselves in the East.

To be honest (and, frankly, more than a little selfish), I only really care about two things: (1) that Duke plays the first weekend in Greensboro (cuz I have tickets and, for once, it would actually be a good thing to stay local because Carolina fans aren't going to flood the arena); and (2) that Duke plays the second weekend in MSG (because, well, they survived the first weekend and because home-away-from-home).

And I believe Duke controls its own destiny/fate about those things (even though Jim Sumner would rightly observe that destiny/fate is not something that can actually, literally be controlled).

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2020, 11:24 AM
To me, that would leave SDSU, the other Baylor/Kansas, Dayton, Maryland, and Duke for the other two 1 seeds. Could Duke beat out 3 of those 4 teams? Yes, but it will require some luck from the basketball gods.

For starters, we need to pray Baylor spanks Kansas this weekend and in the tournament.

I disagree. I think if we TCB, the odds are high that we leapfrog those teams as conference regular season champs, conference tournament champs, with four losses and a win over Kansas.

flyingdutchdevil
02-21-2020, 11:25 AM
Would you rather be a 1-seed with Kansas as your 2-seed or a 2-seed with either SDSU or Dayton as your 1-seed? Basically, be a 1-seed with a fantastic 2-seed or a top 2-seed with a weak 1-seed?

Let's assume both options are in New York.

flyingdutchdevil
02-21-2020, 11:28 AM
I disagree. I think if we TCB, the odds are high that we leapfrog those teams as conference regular season champs, conference tournament champs, with four losses and a win over Kansas.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2020, 11:30 AM
I guess we'll just have to disagree.

And I'm sure we both hope we get to find out if I'm right!

I just don't see SDSU, and Kansas, and Maryland and Dayton all making a stronger case than a Duke ten game win streak at this point in the season.

flyingdutchdevil
02-21-2020, 11:34 AM
And I'm sure we both hope we get to find out if I'm right!

I just don't see SDSU, and Kansas, and Maryland and Dayton all making a stronger case than a Duke ten game win streak at this point in the season.

I hope you're right, but I just don't see it right now. Too many obstacles and the ACC Tournament will not be fun.

scottdude8
02-21-2020, 11:34 AM
Would you rather be a 1-seed with Kansas as your 2-seed or a 2-seed with either SDSU or Dayton as your 1-seed? Basically, be a 1-seed with a fantastic 2-seed or a top 2-seed with a weak 1-seed?

Let's assume both options are in New York.

FWIW, I see it as unlikely that the first scenario would happen. If Kansas drops down to the 2 line it is extremely likely they'll be the top No. 2 seed and thus go to Indianapolis.

But to answer the question, for me the answer is that you always want a 1 seed. You always want the statistically easier path to the Final Four. We can overanalyze all we want, but there's a reason a vast majority of NCAA Champions come from the one line.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2020, 11:39 AM
I hope you're right, but I just don't see it right now. Too many obstacles and the ACC Tournament will not be fun.

I'm not predicting that we win out. I'm just saying that all this talk of a #1 seed being out of reach is premature. It's certainly unlikely, but if we win games, I believe the path will be there Selection Sunday.

devildeac
02-21-2020, 11:39 AM
Always looking to brawl with posters, huh, devildeac?

'K, you Stated that well.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2020, 11:50 AM
Would you rather be a 1-seed with Kansas as your 2-seed or a 2-seed with either SDSU or Dayton as your 1-seed? Basically, be a 1-seed with a fantastic 2-seed or a top 2-seed with a weak 1-seed?

Let's assume both options are in New York.

I take NYC over all options. Honestly, Dayton scares me more than Kansas. Of those options, I'd pick SDSU's 2 I guess. But, I still think there's more shifting to happen so more variables on the table.

flyingdutchdevil
02-21-2020, 11:51 AM
'K, you Stated that well.

You should Bill yourSelf as a lover, not a fighter