Pat Forde's take on Duke

[rsvman]

Pat Forde wrote a column right after the Superbowl to welcome hard-core football fans to the college basketball season. The column attempt to catch people up on what has happened so far this season. It's a pretty good read.

His take on Duke falls right into some discussions that we've been having on this board over the past weeks. It may or may not represent a typical non-Duke-fan's view of the Blue Devils. He wrote:

"Duke is doing what Duke does, winning more games than most of us expected, without yet convincing anyone it can avoid another March meltdown.

The Blue Devils have had yet another accomplished regular season, racking up early victories over Kentucky, Minnesota, VCU, Louisville and Ohio State. But with (sic) forward Ryan Kelly--out for six games and counting--some vulnerability has been exposed in a blowout loss to Miami and a loss at North Carolina State.

Thsi looks like the 16th time in the last 17years that Duke will get a top-three NCAA tourney seed--an incredible run of consistency. But there have been 11 flameouts in the Sweet 16 or earlier in that time, often in either shocking upsets or surprising blowouts. (Last year it was No. 15 seed Lehigh doing the honors.) Often, the Devils have looked tired, past their peak or simply not athletic enough come elimination time."


He then adds this:

"Of course, it should be noted that there have been some high points since the mid-90s as well: Duke has won two national titles and been to four Final Fours. Kelly's health may decide whether this team booms or busts in the Big Dance."


Fair? Representative of most people's thoughts?

I like how two national titles and four Final Fours becomes an afterthought in the commentary. I've seen posters on this board guilty of the same sort of flawed thinking, though. I suppose it is human nature to put more emphasis on an unexpected first-round loss than on an unexpected championship run.

[Big Pappa]

Pat Forde wrote a column right after the Superbowl to welcome hard-core football fans to the college basketball season. The column attempt to catch people up on what has happened so far this season. It's a pretty good read.

His take on Duke falls right into some discussions that we've been having on this board over the past weeks. It may or may not represent a typical non-Duke-fan's view of the Blue Devils. He wrote:

"Duke is doing what Duke does, winning more games than most of us expected, without yet convincing anyone it can avoid another March meltdown.

The Blue Devils have had yet another accomplished regular season, racking up early victories over Kentucky, Minnesota, VCU, Louisville and Ohio State. But with (sic) forward Ryan Kelly--out for six games and counting--some vulnerability has been exposed in a blowout loss to Miami and a loss at North Carolina State.

Thsi looks like the 16th time in the last 17years that Duke will get a top-three NCAA tourney seed--an incredible run of consistency. But there have been 11 flameouts in the Sweet 16 or earlier in that time, often in either shocking upsets or surprising blowouts. (Last year it was No. 15 seed Lehigh doing the honors.) Often, the Devils have looked tired, past their peak or simply not athletic enough come elimination time."


He then adds this:

"Of course, it should be noted that there have been some high points since the mid-90s as well: Duke has won two national titles and been to four Final Fours. Kelly's health may decide whether this team booms or busts in the Big Dance."


Fair? Representative of most people's thoughts?

I like how two national titles and four Final Fours becomes an afterthought in the commentary. I've seen posters on this board guilty of the same sort of flawed thinking, though. I suppose it is human nature to put more emphasis on an unexpected first-round loss than on an unexpected championship run.

I don't have a problem with the characterization of this year's team by Forde. We were (are) an elite team with Ryan, but without him we have shown that on a poor shooting night from deep we are a team that has a grind-it-out win against Wake (14.3% from 3) and a blowout loss to Miami (17.4% from 3). Simply put, without Ryan fully integrated back into the lineup (meaning not the same way Kyrie was in 2010-2011) we are a poor shooting night away from a Lehigh loss and a string of GREAT basketball away from a championship run like 2010.

Although I agree with his assessment of this year's team, I think throwing "Duke has won two national titles and been to four Final Fours" in at the end isn't completely fair.

[dyedwab]

Forde's view seems to be a common, relatively fair, but lean-negative view of Duke - something that I think is consistent when Forde writes about the Blue Devils

I would point out one thing. He views Duke's history as, boiled down, "wins more than we expect, loses earlier than it should." That seems to be an internally contradictory take on Duke's performance (and, as you point out, makes 2 NC's and a 4FF's a parenthetical aside). A more positive way to put it is that Duke is consistently better than its talent, but worse than its record. I would strongly disagree, but I think that many fans and sportswriters would argue the first point, and agree with the second one.

On Forde himself, there is no way to research what I am gonna say to prove its accuracy, but my memory on this is as follows. Tony Kornhesier, on his radio show in the DC market, the week before the tournament starts, asks "friends of the show" to give their tournament picks. One of the questions is always "which will be the first #1 seed to lose." Forde called in in 2010 and said "Duke". While it was not an uncommon response that year, I recall Forde's vehemence in essentially arguing that Duke shouldn't have been a one-seed. I'm not sure I saw what he wrote after Duke won :-).

Again, take my memory for what its worth, but I find Forde to be a good hoops writer, but one who is more like to see the negative than the positive about Duke

[COYS]

Although I agree with his assessment of this year's team, I think throwing "Duke has won two national titles and been to four Final Fours" in at the end isn't completely fair.

This is an understatement! Only UCONN, UNC, and Florida can claim to join Duke as multiple title winners since 2000. In fact, when you factor in two titles each for those guys, there aren't that many titles left to go around to other schools (MichState, Syracuse, Kentucky, Maryland, Kansas). Duke has been, at worst, a top 5 program since 2000, even factoring in the tournament.

Perhaps another way to look at this is to ask the question which school would you trade Duke's on court performance for? UNC? You'd have to swallow the 'Doh! years and 2010 to go along with those two titles. UCONN? You'd have to be ok with sanctions and less impressive regular seasons. Florida? Again you have to be ok with some NIT years sprinkled in. Michigan State has made a lot of final fours but have not been able to close it out for a title since 2000. Syracuse has had some good teams, but Carmelo Anthony was needed to lead them to their only title. UK had some really meagre years that included some tourney flameouts with Tubby at the helm and the Gillepsie seasons. Even Calipari's success comes with the cloud of Calipari's reputation for living in the ethical grey area. Kansas has only had one title despite managing to transition from Williams to Self without missing a beat. This has included more than a few surprising upsets in the tournament. Finally, there are many schools who have not won titles in this span who wouldn't give up anything to claim Maryland's record since 2000.

I will say this, though. Even though I am not one of those people who really feels like Duke has any perennial flaw that always makes us susceptible to losing early in the tournament (it was our alarmingly un-athletic team that won the title, of course!), I like the fact that people think it's significant news that Duke hasn't been the most obviously dominant team since 2000. I like the fact that "only" winning 2 titles in a thirteen year span is somewhat underwhelming to the national media. The reason I like this is because it means we're still on top. I know that K and the staff expect the team to strive for a national title every year. That's their goal (with other goals like ACC championships and preseason tourney championships entering the mix). It's what we fans expect and hope for every season. I'm perfectly ok being disappointed every year the team doesn't win the whole thing. At the same time, I also realize just how impressive and rare Duke's accomplishments have been over the past 13 seasons. Aside from basketball fantasies involving Luol Deng, Kyrie Irving, Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy staying for four years each, or maybe one extra recruiting coup (a Patrick Patterson or Greg Monroe commitment might have helped one of those years . . . maybe), I can't imagine what Duke fans could realistically wish to change about our recent history.

[ChillinDuke]

This is an understatement! Only UCONN, UNC, and Florida can claim to join Duke as multiple title winners since 2000. In fact, when you factor in two titles each for those guys, there aren't that many titles left to go around to other schools (MichState, Syracuse, Kentucky, Maryland, Kansas). Duke has been, at worst, a top 5 program since 2000, even factoring in the tournament.

Perhaps another way to look at this is to ask the question which school would you trade Duke's on court performance for? UNC? You'd have to swallow the 'Doh! years and 2010 to go along with those two titles. UCONN? You'd have to be ok with sanctions and less impressive regular seasons. Florida? Again you have to be ok with some NIT years sprinkled in. Michigan State has made a lot of final fours but have not been able to close it out for a title since 2000. Syracuse has had some good teams, but Carmelo Anthony was needed to lead them to their only title. UK had some really meagre years that included some tourney flameouts with Tubby at the helm and the Gillepsie seasons. Even Calipari's success comes with the cloud of Calipari's reputation for living in the ethical grey area. Kansas has only had one title despite managing to transition from Williams to Self without missing a beat. This has included more than a few surprising upsets in the tournament. Finally, there are many schools who have not won titles in this span who wouldn't give up anything to claim Maryland's record since 2000.

I will say this, though. Even though I am not one of those people who really feels like Duke has any perennial flaw that always makes us susceptible to losing early in the tournament (it was our alarmingly un-athletic team that won the title, of course!), I like the fact that people think it's significant news that Duke hasn't been the most obviously dominant team since 2000. I like the fact that "only" winning 2 titles in a thirteen year span is somewhat underwhelming to the national media. The reason I like this is because it means we're still on top. I know that K and the staff expect the team to strive for a national title every year. That's their goal (with other goals like ACC championships and preseason tourney championships entering the mix). It's what we fans expect and hope for every season. I'm perfectly ok being disappointed every year the team doesn't win the whole thing. At the same time, I also realize just how impressive and rare Duke's accomplishments have been over the past 13 seasons. Aside from basketball fantasies involving Luol Deng, Kyrie Irving, Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy staying for four years each, or maybe one extra recruiting coup (a Patrick Patterson or Greg Monroe commitment might have helped one of those years . . . maybe), I can't imagine what Duke fans could realistically wish to change about our recent history.

This post is so wonderfully and succinctly put. Instead of pitchforks, I will post to point out how true this is.

For all the Duke negativity that sportswriters and even posters on this board will bring up, it all comes down to expectations. We are so good that the expectations on us are correspondingly high, thus we have a history of not meeting this perceived threshold. Take Butler who made back-to-back NC's only to lose both. Expect Butler to be the #1 team - then they have underperformed. Expect Butler to be a respectable mid-major with, at most, Sweet 16 aspirations - then they have overperformed. Butler did the same thing in both scenarios. So at some point you have to account for the performance and not the performance vs. the expectation.

Circling back to Duke and the expectations - call it excessive, call it unreasonable, call it what you will. But the simple logic is an "early tournament flame out" (by whatever definition of "early") means we were expected to do better, which in turn means the public thought more of us. We are so good that we are given those expectations by the public. When you put aside those expectations and just grade the performance, as Coys did above, Duke is unquestionably an elite, if not the most elite, team in college basketball over almost any timeframe in the K era.

Coys, I completely agree. We are, indeed, still on top.

- Chillin

[Monmouth77]

This is an understatement! Only UCONN, UNC, and Florida can claim to join Duke as multiple title winners since 2000. In fact, when you factor in two titles each for those guys, there aren't that many titles left to go around to other schools (MichState, Syracuse, Kentucky, Maryland, Kansas). Duke has been, at worst, a top 5 program since 2000, even factoring in the tournament.

Perhaps another way to look at this is to ask the question which school would you trade Duke's on court performance for? UNC? You'd have to swallow the 'Doh! years and 2010 to go along with those two titles. UCONN? You'd have to be ok with sanctions and less impressive regular seasons. Florida? Again you have to be ok with some NIT years sprinkled in. Michigan State has made a lot of final fours but have not been able to close it out for a title since 2000. Syracuse has had some good teams, but Carmelo Anthony was needed to lead them to their only title. UK had some really meagre years that included some tourney flameouts with Tubby at the helm and the Gillepsie seasons. Even Calipari's success comes with the cloud of Calipari's reputation for living in the ethical grey area. Kansas has only had one title despite managing to transition from Williams to Self without missing a beat. This has included more than a few surprising upsets in the tournament. Finally, there are many schools who have not won titles in this span who wouldn't give up anything to claim Maryland's record since 2000.

I will say this, though. Even though I am not one of those people who really feels like Duke has any perennial flaw that always makes us susceptible to losing early in the tournament (it was our alarmingly un-athletic team that won the title, of course!), I like the fact that people think it's significant news that Duke hasn't been the most obviously dominant team since 2000. I like the fact that "only" winning 2 titles in a thirteen year span is somewhat underwhelming to the national media. The reason I like this is because it means we're still on top. I know that K and the staff expect the team to strive for a national title every year. That's their goal (with other goals like ACC championships and preseason tourney championships entering the mix). It's what we fans expect and hope for every season. I'm perfectly ok being disappointed every year the team doesn't win the whole thing. At the same time, I also realize just how impressive and rare Duke's accomplishments have been over the past 13 seasons. Aside from basketball fantasies involving Luol Deng, Kyrie Irving, Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy staying for four years each, or maybe one extra recruiting coup (a Patrick Patterson or Greg Monroe commitment might have helped one of those years . . . maybe), I can't imagine what Duke fans could realistically wish to change about our recent history.

There is no perennial flaw, and each season has its own story. It's just more fun for sportswriters (especially ones from Kentucky) to find ways to characterize Duke as "overrated."

Forde's narrative is one that he nurtured over his ESPN years in the mid-late 2000s when the theme had some limited degree of resonance. I would agree that the 2005, 2007, 2008 teams and, separately, the 2012 team "overperformed" relative to some limitations (youth, unexpected NBA defections) that have caused even other major programs like UConn or UNC to miss the Tournament altogether. The '05 team had talent but little depth, and, though a #1 seed, was nothing like the '04 #1 seed that featured not just JJ and Shelden but Duhon and Deng, and was pretty even talentwise with the Mich State #5 seed that took them down. The '07 and '08 teams were just young. No one could have been too surprised that the '07 #6 seed team lost to an #11 seed, but the '08 #2 seed team depended heavily on sweet shooting and had nights where it looked nowhere near as good as its record.

But Forde (and others) have always tried to stretch some of these results into something they are not. The 2006, 2009, and 2011 teams lost earlier than they were seeded because they ran into bad matchups against hotter teams. That's what happens sometimes in the Tournament. Those teams had both the talent and the results to justify their seed, but ran into (1) a team with 2 NBA power forwards who were finally putting together a string of dominant play ('06 LSU) (2) a hot Final Four bound Villanova team with big quick guards that we couldn't defend ('09) and (3) a hot Arizona team (with a #2 NBA draft pick) that turned into the Phoenix Suns for 40 minutes.('11)

Without knowing more about Kelly's return it's hard to predict much of anything, but I reckon if/when we lose in the Tournament this year, it will be because we hit a bad matchup or a hot opponent, and not because some weakness was "exposed." And I happen to think Miami is one of the worst possible matchups available for us this year-- just like 'Nova in '09 or LSU in '06. Luckily, if we see them in the NCAAs this year, it will probably be because we made the Final Four.

[OldPhiKap]

I think his analysis is fair, although underappreciates the difficulty of making a Final Four. With the greater parity we see today, any of the top three or four seeds in a given bracket have a darn good chance of winning it. (Our regional bracket last year had Kentucky #1, Duke #2, Baylor #3 and Indiana #4 for example). Late season injuries also play into all team's chances, Duke included.

If you are a hard-core football fan just turning over to college basketball, you need to know that Duke is doing better than expected; that it has brought home the hardware over the last 20 years; and that it has seen its share of "upsets." The presence or absence of Kelly is a huge factor in what happens in March as well. That's pretty much what Forde said.

[Dev11]

There is no team that routinely gets a top-3 seed and performs to that seed. Everybody loses, and for every Cinderella story there have to be losers along the way.

Pat Forde is simple. Like me, I suppose, but I don't get paid to write about college basketball.

[moonpie23]

after reading over it again and again....it SEEMS to be just his opinion....but i could be wrong...

[Nugget]

I think both Forde's point, and the comments in response, are valid.

We've certainly had more consistently excellent regular seasons than anyone over the past 25 years. And the high seeds we've earned the past 15 years with staggering consistency, especially when compared with expectations for some of those seasons that others have noted, is a huge testament to our performing above expectation during the regular season. And yes, everyone on balance loses some tournament games they "should" win based on expected seeds.

But, having said all of that, Forde's kind of got a point -- we have underformed relative to our seeding (in some cases dramatically) the last 17 years.

One reason why it seems so noticeable is that Duke significantly over-performed vs. our seeding during Coach K's 1st great run from 1986-1996. In those 9 seasons, we equaled or exceeded our expected performance to seed 8 times, including taking out a #1 seed 6 times (Kansas in 86, Temple in 88, Georgetown in 89, U.Conn in 90, UNLV in 91, and Purdue in 94).

The only year we did not perform to seed was in 1993, with the bizarre upset loss to Cal in the 2nd round, attributable in large measure to Grant’s having missed most of the last 3 weeks of the season due to a toe injury (coming back right before the ACC tournament, but obviously not a full strength) and Cherokee Parks being knocked out during the Cal game.

In the last 17 years, however, there are only 5 times where we equaled or exceeded expected performance, or made the Final Four (I'm not counting losing to U.Conn in in the 2004 Final Four as "underperforming" just because they were a #2 seed): 1999, 2001, 2004, 2010, and 2003 (loss to #2 Kansas as #3 seed).

3 times we lost to team seeded 1 spot ahead of us, which is basically a wash: 1996 (#9 Eastern Mich), 1998 (#2 Kentucky), 2009 (#3 Villanova)

But, that leaves 9 times in 17 years (and 8 of the last 13) where we significantly underperformed relative to our seed, including several very embarrassing losses:

1997: Lost as #2 seed to #10 Providence (2nd round)
2000: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Florida (Sweet 16)
2002: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Indiana (Sweet 16)
2005: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Michigan St. (Sweet 16)
2006: Lost as #1 seed to #4 LSU (Sweet 16)
2007: Lost as #6 seed to #11 VCU (1st round)
2008: Lost as #2 seed to #7 West Virginia (2nd round), after beating #15 Belmont by 1 point.
2011: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Arizona (Sweet 16)
2012: Lost as #2 seed to #15 Lehigh (1st round).

And, a compared to the slew of #1 seeds we beat in the 1986-1994 tournaments, over the last 17 years we’ve beaten a total of one #1 seed (Michigan St., 1999), and had several very good wins as a #1 seed against strong #2 or #3 seeds (Arizona and Maryland, 2001; West Virginia and Baylor, 2010). That just doesn't look as great when balanced against our absurd 1986-1994 streak.

[ncexnyc]

Success is its’ own worst enemy. You build a powerhouse program like Coach K has and eventually the expectations from not only the media, but some of your own fan base become unrealistic.

I never put too much stock in stories like this one. They are after all just someone’s opinion.

I am somewhat curious about the following comment from Big Poppa. “Simply put, without Ryan fully integrated back into the lineup (meaning not the same way Kyrie was in 2010-2011) we are a poor shooting night away from a Lehigh loss and a string of GREAT basketball away from a championship.”

I’m not sure our loss to Arizona in 2010-11 was primarily due to the return of Kyrie to the line-up. Let’s not forget the injury to Seth, early in the second half, the failure of the medical staff to quickly get Kyle’s cut under control, and of course the near career game for Derrick Williams.

As most people know, not only do you need a very talented team to win it all, but you need some luck as well.

[sagegrouse]

Success is its’ own worst enemy. You build a powerhouse program like Coach K has and eventually the expectations from not only the media, but some of your own fan base become unrealistic.

I never put too much stock in stories like this one. They are after all just someone’s opinion.

.

Reading between the lines and hearing off-the-cuff remarks from time to time, the college basketball press, collectively and individually, has huge respect for the Duke program, the players as intelligent and dedicated people, Coach-K-as-icon, and other things.

You don't write stories that way, especially about a program that is THE household name in college basketball and is both loved and hated. (I know, I know... The many, many folks who root for Duke are a lot quieter than the ones spewing hatred, but that's true in a lot of situations.)

So you write the story in a sardonic way, that plays up some warts and gives grudging acknowledgement of its huge accomplishments. Live with it. Get over it. There is never gonna be a lovefest of publicity over such a high-profile program.

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

As most people know, not only do you need a very talented team to win it all, but you need some luck as well.

A point so basic it's often forgotten --- the NCAA Tournament has a one-loss elimination format, and on a given night, the better team can lose to a team that shoots better, or happens to be more emotionally prepared.

[Reilly]

...

1997: Lost as #2 seed to #10 Providence (2nd round)
2000: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Florida (Sweet 16)
2002: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Indiana (Sweet 16)
2005: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Michigan St. (Sweet 16)
2006: Lost as #1 seed to #4 LSU (Sweet 16)
2007: Lost as #6 seed to #11 VCU (1st round)
2008: Lost as #2 seed to #7 West Virginia (2nd round), after beating #15 Belmont by 1 point.
2011: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Arizona (Sweet 16)
2012: Lost as #2 seed to #15 Lehigh (1st round)....

What are the results for 1, 2, and 6 seeds in similar games. For example, how many times has a 1 met a 5 overall, and how many times did the 1 win?

[dukelifer]

This is an understatement! Only UCONN, UNC, and Florida can claim to join Duke as multiple title winners since 2000. In fact, when you factor in two titles each for those guys, there aren't that many titles left to go around to other schools (MichState, Syracuse, Kentucky, Maryland, Kansas). Duke has been, at worst, a top 5 program since 2000, even factoring in the tournament.

Perhaps another way to look at this is to ask the question which school would you trade Duke's on court performance for? UNC? You'd have to swallow the 'Doh! years and 2010 to go along with those two titles. UCONN? You'd have to be ok with sanctions and less impressive regular seasons. Florida? Again you have to be ok with some NIT years sprinkled in. Michigan State has made a lot of final fours but have not been able to close it out for a title since 2000. Syracuse has had some good teams, but Carmelo Anthony was needed to lead them to their only title. UK had some really meagre years that included some tourney flameouts with Tubby at the helm and the Gillepsie seasons. Even Calipari's success comes with the cloud of Calipari's reputation for living in the ethical grey area. Kansas has only had one title despite managing to transition from Williams to Self without missing a beat. This has included more than a few surprising upsets in the tournament. Finally, there are many schools who have not won titles in this span who wouldn't give up anything to claim Maryland's record since 2000.

I will say this, though. Even though I am not one of those people who really feels like Duke has any perennial flaw that always makes us susceptible to losing early in the tournament (it was our alarmingly un-athletic team that won the title, of course!), I like the fact that people think it's significant news that Duke hasn't been the most obviously dominant team since 2000. I like the fact that "only" winning 2 titles in a thirteen year span is somewhat underwhelming to the national media. The reason I like this is because it means we're still on top. I know that K and the staff expect the team to strive for a national title every year. That's their goal (with other goals like ACC championships and preseason tourney championships entering the mix). It's what we fans expect and hope for every season. I'm perfectly ok being disappointed every year the team doesn't win the whole thing. At the same time, I also realize just how impressive and rare Duke's accomplishments have been over the past 13 seasons. Aside from basketball fantasies involving Luol Deng, Kyrie Irving, Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy staying for four years each, or maybe one extra recruiting coup (a Patrick Patterson or Greg Monroe commitment might have helped one of those years . . . maybe), I can't imagine what Duke fans could realistically wish to change about our recent history.

It is all Coach K's fault. He wants his teams to win every game. If he just loosened up, played his whole bench and simply let the season play out- Duke would be a 4-7 seed every year- maybe missing the tourney once in a while and they might actually out perform their seed from time to time. That would be great. Sure they may never have won a National Championship, but isn't out performing your seed the only thing that matters?

[Monmouth77]

Reading between the lines and hearing off-the-cuff remarks from time to time, the college basketball press, collectively and individually, has huge respect for the Duke program, the players as intelligent and dedicated people, Coach-K-as-icon, and other things.

You don't write stories that way, especially about a program that is THE household name in college basketball and is both loved and hated. (I know, I know... The many, many folks who root for Duke are a lot quieter than the ones spewing hatred, but that's true in a lot of situations.)

So you write the story in a sardonic way, that plays up some warts and gives grudging acknowledgement of its huge accomplishments. Live with it. Get over it. There is never gonna be a lovefest of publicity over such a high-profile program.

sagegrouse

I think yours is a valid viewpoint. But as a well-informed citizen of a democracy, not just a zealous Duke fan, I hold journalists -- particularly ones with large influential platforms -- to certain standards of rigor. And oftentimes the facts get in the way of an article that purports to do nothing more than "play up warts" and pay "grudging respect."

Here, Forde's got a fair opinion with some factual support. But he does make some generalizations (ones he's made before) that I think are wrong in ways worth discussing.

What jumped out at me was the fact that our loss at Miami is the event that, at this point in the season, allows him to tie this team into a string of Duke teams past that he characterizes as early overachievers. I think that's going to prove to be wishful thinking for the haters.

Miami is the real deal and a matchup nightmare for this year's Duke team-- especially without Ryan Kelly. I don't think that loss is a window into weaknesses that will hurt Duke come tourney time. And I like our chances on a neutral floor against most of the teams in the Tourney field this year-- with or without Kelly.

But I'm an optimist.

[Nugget]

What are the results for 1, 2, and 6 seeds in similar games. For example, how many times has a 1 met a 5 overall, and how many times did the 1 win?

We don't have too many examples of having lost as a 2 or 6 seed in the 1st or second round, so I think those are probably best chalked up to flukes. Some of the other statistics gurus on the board no doubt have links to how teams in those spots have fared over the years.

But, since the ones that have most haunted us the past decade or so (and been more common) have been the Sweet 16 losses as a #1 seed, I pulled up the numbers since 1997 on how #1 seeds have done in the Sweet 16 vs. #4 or #5 seeds.

In those games, the #1 seeds are, collectively 33-11.

Duke, however, is only 4-5.

And if you exclude Duke, the rest of the #1 seeds have gone 29-6 against the #4 or #5 seeds. So, below .500 as compared to every other #1 seed winning those games at 83% doesn't look great.

Of our main rivals, North Carolina is 6-0 over that time period as a #1 seed against #4 or #5 seeds, and Kentucky is 3-0 in that situation. While that comparison stings, it also highlights the point made above about how much more consistent we've been in the regular season -- we have played as many Sweet 16 games as a #1 seed as Carolina and Kentucky combined.


Here's the breakout:

1997: Kentucky d. #4 St. Joe’s
N. Carolina d. #5 Cal.
Minnesota d. #4 Clemson
#4 Arizona d. Kansas.

1998: Duke d. #5 Syracuse
Arizona d #4 Maryland
N. Carolina d. #4 Mich. St.

1999: U.Conn d. #5 Iowa
#4 Ohio St. d. Auburn (how the hell did Auburn ever get a #1 seed?)

2000: Mich St. d. #4 Syracuse
#5 Florida d. Duke

2001: Illinois d. #4 Kansas
Stanford d. #5 Cincy
Duke d. #4 UCLA

2002: Maryland d. #4 Kentucky
Kansas d. #4 Illinois
#5 Indiana d. Duke

2003: Kentucky d. #4 Wisconsin
Texas d. #5 U.Conn
Arizona d. #5 Notre Dame

2004: Duke d. #5 Illinois
St. Joe’s d. #4 Wake Forest

2005: N. Carolina d. #5 Villanova
#4 Louisville d. Washington
#5 Mich St. d. Duke

2006: U.Conn d. #5 Washington
Villanova d. #4 BC
#4 LSU d. Duke

2007: Florida d. #5 Butler
N. Carolina d. #5 USC
Kansas d. #4 Southern Illinois
Ohio St. d. #5 Tennessee

2008: Memphis d. #5 Mich St.
N. Carolina d. #4 Wash St.

2009: Pitt d. #4 Xavier
U.Conn d #5 Purdue
N. Carolina d. #5 Gonzaga

2010: Duke d. #5 Purdue
#5 Butler d. Syracuse

2011: #4 Kentucky d. Ohio St.
#5 Arizona d. Duke

2012: Kentucky d. #4 Indiana
Syracuse d. #4 Wisconsin
#4 Lousiville d. Mich St.

[MaxAMillion]

Duke is not playing at the level that they were in the 90's and that is why there are questions about Duke's achievements in the last decade. The early 90's had the back to back champions. The late 90's had the Brand, Battier, Langdon team (arguably the best Duke team of all time even though they did not win a title). The early 2000's had the Williams, Battier, Boozer team. Those teams dominated in ways that we don't see from recent Duke teams. Duke had a period of time when they were going to the final four almost every year. That led many to believe that Duke always got the best players and therefore should be competing for titles every season. Perception of Duke basketball being on its own level above everyone else is what Coach K created. It is a unrealistic expectation, yet one that his programs often get judged against. I understand why the outside media would knock Duke down a peg when they see the team lose in the tournament to VCU or Lehigh. There was a time when that was unthinkable.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think both Forde's point, and the comments in response, are valid.

We've certainly had more consistently excellent regular seasons than anyone over the past 25 years. And the high seeds we've earned the past 15 years with staggering consistency, especially when compared with expectations for some of those seasons that others have noted, is a huge testament to our performing above expectation during the regular season. And yes, everyone on balance loses some tournament games they "should" win based on expected seeds.

But, having said all of that, Forde's kind of got a point -- we have underformed relative to our seeding (in some cases dramatically) the last 17 years.

One reason why it seems so noticeable is that Duke significantly over-performed vs. our seeding during Coach K's 1st great run from 1986-1996. In those 9 seasons, we equaled or exceeded our expected performance to seed 8 times, including taking out a #1 seed 6 times (Kansas in 86, Temple in 88, Georgetown in 89, U.Conn in 90, UNLV in 91, and Purdue in 94).

The only year we did not perform to seed was in 1993, with the bizarre upset loss to Cal in the 2nd round, attributable in large measure to Grant’s having missed most of the last 3 weeks of the season due to a toe injury (coming back right before the ACC tournament, but obviously not a full strength) and Cherokee Parks being knocked out during the Cal game.

In the last 17 years, however, there are only 5 times where we equaled or exceeded expected performance, or made the Final Four (I'm not counting losing to U.Conn in in the 2004 Final Four as "underperforming" just because they were a #2 seed): 1999, 2001, 2004, 2010, and 2003 (loss to #2 Kansas as #3 seed).

3 times we lost to team seeded 1 spot ahead of us, which is basically a wash: 1996 (#9 Eastern Mich), 1998 (#2 Kentucky), 2009 (#3 Villanova)

But, that leaves 9 times in 17 years (and 8 of the last 13) where we significantly underperformed relative to our seed, including several very embarrassing losses:

1997: Lost as #2 seed to #10 Providence (2nd round)
2000: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Florida (Sweet 16)
2002: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Indiana (Sweet 16)
2005: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Michigan St. (Sweet 16)
2006: Lost as #1 seed to #4 LSU (Sweet 16)
2007: Lost as #6 seed to #11 VCU (1st round)
2008: Lost as #2 seed to #7 West Virginia (2nd round), after beating #15 Belmont by 1 point.
2011: Lost as #1 seed to #5 Arizona (Sweet 16)
2012: Lost as #2 seed to #15 Lehigh (1st round).

And, a compared to the slew of #1 seeds we beat in the 1986-1994 tournaments, over the last 17 years we’ve beaten a total of one #1 seed (Michigan St., 1999), and had several very good wins as a #1 seed against strong #2 or #3 seeds (Arizona and Maryland, 2001; West Virginia and Baylor, 2010). That just doesn't look as great when balanced against our absurd 1986-1994 streak.

I'm not a big fan of the "outperforming your seed" argument. Half the teams in the tournament only have to win one game to outperform their seed. I mentioned this in another thread last week about seeding and under/over performance. That thread spoke to quantifying the degree to which you outperform or underperform. However, is 12 seed winning two games really the same thing as a #2 seed getting to the national championship game?

9 times in 17 years is pretty darned close to 50/50, which means we underperform about as much as we overperform, right? Makes sense to me.

Go Duke!

[Reilly]

I'm not a big fan of the "outperforming your seed" argument ...

Fun to look at ... but it needs to be clarified and clearly explained what standard we are being measured against.

One way to look at a 1 seed versus a 4/5 seed: the 1 seed is higher and should win 100% of the time. We only won 44% of the time in that situation since 1997, meaning we are underperforming 66% of the time.

A second way to look at a 1 seed versus a 4/5 seed: thanks the info compiled by Nugget above ("since 1997 on how #1 seeds have done in the Sweet 16 vs. #4 or #5 seeds. ... In those games, the #1 seeds are, collectively 33-11. ... Duke, however, is only 4-5") we see that 1 seeds win 75% of the time in that situation, and lose 25% of the time. Duke is winning 44% of the time, meaning we are underpeforming 31% of the time -- not 66% of the time.

A third way to look at it: there are 347 teams in DI college hoops. A team seeded #1 is the #1-4 out of 347 (top 1%) of the college hoop world. A team seeded #4 or #5 is in the top #13-20 out of 347 (top 4 or 5%). Are we really ever surprised when a top 20 team beats a top 5 team, especially when both teams are playing well recently (having come off at least 2 straight wins), in a 1 and done format? In any competitive format, is it really "underperforming" by the top dog if one entity that is in the top 5% bests an entity that is in the top 1%?