Seth Davis dings our lack of true road games

[feldspar]

On a separate note, I didn't appreciate your post. You could and should be more diplomatic in general and you should read carefully what people post before making snide responses - that seems to be a pattern of yours.

I wasn't being snide, I was being quite literal. You attacked Seth for being lazy (and your post could certainly have been interpreted as calling Seth an idiot) merely because your opinion differs from his on what a "true road game" is. That's all.

[Wander]

The Duke staff is very savvy at scheduling for maximum RPI strength...I am guessing that the RPI formula doesn't take into account true road vs neutral court...does anyone know for sure? Does the RPI even factor in home vs away?

It takes into account home, neutral, and away.

[4decadedukie]

As journalists of his genre go, Davis is pretty good; however, he misses the mark on this one. I agree that the Meadowlands and MSG (at least one “marquee” game every December) can be friendly venues, but they certainly are not "home" games. More significantly, to date Duke has played several very solid opponents: teams with traditionally excellent programs, outstanding 2008 potential, or both. If one is to carp re our lack of away games, one must also -- in fairness -- acknowledge our aggregate strength of schedule. Shame on Seth for not doing so. Further, it is difficult for me to believe that Davidson in Charlotte is not, in essence, an "away" game.

[yancem]

At the heart of all of this is that the goals of the coaching staff when they make the schedule are different than the desires of those who want to see Duke play games on the road. In the most benign view, those who criticize Duke for not playing true road games are doing it because they want to see great matchups. But more likely the reason they want to see Duke play true road games is because they want Duke to have a greater chance to lose.

I agree that media types may want Duke to play more "true road games" because that would present Duke with a greater chance to lose and so maybe their motivation is warped. The thing is that you could make the arguement that K schedules neutral court games to increase Duke's chances of winning. I've read the arguements about simulating NCAA tourney games but I don't quite buy the logic. Wouldn't a team be better prepared for the tournament if they were used to facing more difficult situations than the tourney actually presents? I'm also sceptical about conference road games being enough. We play these teams every year and some of them 2 or three time. That makes it easier to prepare for their arenas.

I like the idea of having a game at MSG, it's good for recruiting and good experience playing in a large arena. I also like the pre-season tournaments. They better simulate the NCAA Tourney than a regular season neutral site game. But I do think that we should play at least 1 top nonconfernece team on their floor each year. This would mean we would need 2 top nonconference programs signed up for home and home games. That way we would have one home and one away each year.

[Classof06]

This seems like the SI saw du jour...all we need is Grant Wahl to pile on Winn and Davis

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...houghts/1.html
• Speaking of schedules, it's absolutely mystifying to me that a high-powered program like Duke, which everyone knew was going to be at least a top-15 team coming into the season, is not playing a single true nonconference road game this season. Come on, Coach K! For years, I've heard other coaches grumble that Mike Krzyzewski was playing a lot of his "road" games at regional or neutral sites -- or even at non-neutral neutral sites like Madison Square Garden (aka Cameron North), where Duke will be playing Pittsburgh later this month.

I'm sorry, but I agree with Seth Davis. I'll start by saying that Duke playing at all these neutral sites is extremely smart and shrewd; how can prepping for the tourney be a bad thing? But from a fan--a Duke fan's--perspective, I'd like to see them play true road games before heading into the ACC schedule. I think that would help the team in the similar manner that neutral games do. You use neutral games to prepare for the tournament, but where you get placed in the tournament depends substanially on how you do in conference--at home and on the road. I mean, we don't play a true road game until January 9th, people!!! At Temple, no less. For a program like Duke, that's just ridiculous, IMO. Your 2nd road game of the season shouldn't be your 1st conference road game. I just don't think that's healthy for a team playing in a conference like the ACC. I like the relationship we've built with Georgetown; I'd just like to see Duke do that with more schools.

It's also a pretty simple equation; the more true road games Duke plays with schools, the more great teams we'll be able to see come to Cameron. Could you imagine a home-and-home with a Texas, a Gonzaga, a Memphis (all schools we've played at neutral sites instead of home-and-home)? Those matchups would be amazing--for the fans, schools and the sport in general.

And not that rankings in December matter but the lack of a true road game is a major reason Duke has stayed ranked at 6th/7th despite our wins over ranked teams the past 3 weeks. Wazzu hasn't played anyone but Gonzaga (last week) and they've stayed above us all year; IMO, there's a reason for that.

[Duvall]

And not that rankings in December matter but the lack of a true road game is a major reason Duke has stayed ranked at 6th/7th despite our wins over ranked teams the past 3 weeks. Wazzu hasn't played anyone but Gonzaga (last week) and they've stayed above us all year; IMO, there's a reason for that.

Yeah, it's that Washington State finished the year ranked #13 when Duke finished unranked. They started above Duke because they had a better season last year; they've stayed above Duke because they haven't lost. Strength of schedule has nothing to do with it.

[Classof06]

Yeah, it's that Washington State finished the year ranked #13 when Duke finished unranked. They started above Duke because they had a better season last year; they've stayed above Duke because they haven't lost. Strength of schedule has nothing to do with it.

Well SOS has something to do with it if Texas jumps from #8 to #2 after beating UCLA. I just think it's ironic that the Coaches poll has Wazzu ahead of us but the AP has it the other way around. Like Davis said, coaches have been grumbling about Duke's absence of road games for quite some time..

[Scorp4me]

Like Davis said, coaches have been grumbling about Duke's absence of road games for quite some time..

They've been grumgling that we keep beating their teams too, but I hope that doesn't change!

[bill brill]

I have posted this before, but I'll try again. you critics of the lack of road games on the non-com schedule need to realize that virtually nobody (of stature) wants to play at cameron. duke-georgetown was cancelled this year by the hoyas -- don't know the reason -- but will be resumed next year (in durham). it's a good "road" game for duke because it's in a 20,000-seat arena. UNC and UK play, but they each have arenas. wildcats wouldn;t come to duke. neither will kansas, etc. what's the point? playing good mid-majors and others at big buildings such as the ncaa uses makes sense to me. I love rick barnes and he's just crazy enuf to play here (although really I doubt it). but why play them in austin? If u are a high ncaa seed, as duke aims to be, that will never happen. I simply don't buy the idea that such a game "toughens" a team. what might happen is you play good and lose anyway. I don't know the benefits of that, other than it hurts your ncaa seed. it was easier to make this argument when we had the acc round-robin, before expansion that was supposed to toughen football. but the whole idea is to win in march and april. wins and losses are important, believe me. beating pitt would be good, anywhere. and understand that the people who make the schedule aren't doing it to please the hard-core fan base; it is being done to make it possible to win in the post-season.

[mr. synellinden]

I wasn't being snide, I was being quite literal. You attacked Seth for being lazy (and your post could certainly have been interpreted as calling Seth an idiot) merely because your opinion differs from his on what a "true road game" is. That's all.

I didn't call him out for being lazy BECAUSE of what his opinion is. Again, you are making accusations that are inconsistent with what I posted.

I called him out because what he wrote was a regurgitation of what has already been said or written without a deeper analysis - and that is lazy. Look, he is entitled to have a weak blog like every other "reporter" out there, but he has more journalistic ability than that. If he did good journalistic work he might have pointed out things like what Bill Brill and others have about why 1) Coach K likes to play "road games" in big arenas; and 2) we have difficulty scheduling "true" road games against non-conference opponents. But instead, he chooses to just jump on the media bandwagon outrage over Duke's lack of "true" road games. I know that he knows why that is the case, but he chose not to point it out. That seems lazy to me.

While I'm at it with Seth, this is one of his hoop thoughts:

"Looks like it's gonna be a battle between Virginia Tech and Wake Forest for last place in the ACC."

He might end up being right about that but give me something more than that. Anybody could write that drivel. He is supposed to be an expert on the subject and I'd like to see some journalistic input as to why he thinks that. Is that really what counts for journalism these days?

[feldspar]

Is that really what counts for journalism these days?

You'd be surprised.

[Wander]

He might end up being right about that but give me something more than that. Anybody could write that drivel.

...and Georgia Tech may end up making him look stupid anyway.

[yancem]

I have posted this before, but I'll try again. you critics of the lack of road games on the non-com schedule need to realize that virtually nobody (of stature) wants to play at cameron. duke-georgetown was cancelled this year by the hoyas -- don't know the reason -- but will be resumed next year (in durham). it's a good "road" game for duke because it's in a 20,000-seat arena. UNC and UK play, but they each have arenas. wildcats wouldn;t come to duke. neither will kansas, etc. what's the point? playing good mid-majors and others at big buildings such as the ncaa uses makes sense to me. I love rick barnes and he's just crazy enuf to play here (although really I doubt it). but why play them in austin? If u are a high ncaa seed, as duke aims to be, that will never happen. I simply don't buy the idea that such a game "toughens" a team. what might happen is you play good and lose anyway. I don't know the benefits of that, other than it hurts your ncaa seed. it was easier to make this argument when we had the acc round-robin, before expansion that was supposed to toughen football. but the whole idea is to win in march and april. wins and losses are important, believe me. beating pitt would be good, anywhere. and understand that the people who make the schedule aren't doing it to please the hard-core fan base; it is being done to make it possible to win in the post-season.

Are you scared that Duke will lose the road games? And is a tough loss in December really that bad? Putting a good team in adverse situations should make them better when the tourney rolls around. Duke routinely played big non-conference road games in the late 80's early 90's. Some the won some they lost. Despite being a 3 or 4 seed instead of a 1 or 2 seed, Duke went to the final 4 almost every year. I know that some things in college basketball have changed but Duke's run from '86-'94 would seem to run counter to your argument. I some times wonder if K has shifted more of an emphasis on regular season win which may have occasionally impacted NCAA success.

[Jarhead]

Thanks, Bill. I agree with what you say. I usually do. This whole thread seems to be an argument over nonsense. Let me put it another way. A true road game, as they are played in the ACC, is not a true test of the relative abilities of the teams. It has a built-in bias. The home court advantage is no myth. For a true test, play the game on a neutral site. While we are at it, for a truer emulation of tourney conditions, play the game in a really big neutral arena, in the middle of a big city, in another time zone if possible. I think that K tries to do just that. A major goal is team development.

When it come to our non-conference schedule in a season, a major goal is NCAA Tourney seeding. The conference games will take care of themselves. We have no control in that. Playing and winning against the better mid-majors helps in either, or both, goals depending on where we play them. Media people care very little for the team development and tourney strategy goals. They just want the best to fall and the worst to shine. Makes for good copy, or not.

[dukie8]

Coach K has stated he likes to have the simulated NCAA tournament feel of playing in large places on the road. I think this is valid based on his overall record. Also, recruiting in various areas would probably be helped by having high profile games in certain cities and larger places (New York, Chicago).

one, who has come to duke because we played a game in their home city (or close to it)? do you really think that jwill chose duke over unc because duke played in msg when he was in high school. i think the whole "recruiting" argument is bunk. we never played in oregon and it didn't stop singler from coming.

also, playing in msg or the meadowlands are NOT even remotely close to in the ncaat. those are complete cis north venues. were you at the texas game 2 years ago? there were about 50 texas people there, including vince young who left in the middle of the game. the only thing that quieted the place down was that duke was up by 30 points! even the st john's games are well over 50% duke people. k plays up here for the alums and the alums show up in droves.

in nearly every ncaat venue, the crowd is decidedly against duke. people don't like duke and people like to root for the underdog, which, almost always is duke's opponent in the ncaat.

i will say that there has been a direct correlation with k's extreme aversion to non-conference road games and early flame-outs in the ncaat. it's impossible to prove that a true road game, win or lose, better prepares a team for march, but duke's dashes to the final 4 in the 80s and 90s, with non top seeded teams, also coincided with non-conference road games.

[dball]

one, who has come to duke because we played a game in their home city (or close to it)?

I doubt there is only one thing (though at this point it may just be the chance to play for Coach K) that influences a young person to come to Duke. But Duke has had quite a few kids from in and around NYC and Chicago. Can you prove it had NO influence? If not, why do you classify it as "bunk"?

As for having a lot of Duke fans at those games, how is that not a positive if you're considering that school?

Also, you equate the trips to the Final Four in the 80s with playing "true" road games? One could argue that the championships came after Duke began scheduling nonconf games in big arenas. It's thought that the lighting and atmosphere are so different in those arenas that a bit of experience in them prior to the NCAAs is a good thing.

[ice-9]

I like the idea of going to top teams like Kansas or UCLA and having a really, really tough road game. Neutral sites in the NCAA will seem easy by comparison.

Conference road games are different because, as yancem pointed out, players over time become familiar and perhaps even comfortable with those venues. (This is less true now that the ACC no longer has a true round robin...but we are talking about playing away games at TOP teams, not middle tier teams like NC State.)

[Johnboy]

one, who has come to duke because we played a game in their home city (or close to it)? do you really think that jwill chose duke over unc because duke played in msg when he was in high school. i think the whole "recruiting" argument is bunk. we never played in oregon and it didn't stop singler from coming.

Huh. I thought Scheyer said he was going to Illinois, but since we played at the United Center, he came to Duke instead.

All joking aside, I would think that the prospect of playing at MSG, the Meadowlands, the United Center, the MCI Center and the like would be attractive to a player from the area. I don't imagine it would be decisive, but being on TV a lot and playing in big venues helps make the program more attractive. Would a hgh school prospect be more excited about playing UCLA at Pauley Pavilion or at the Staples Center? I don't know. Playing Illinois at the United Center instead of Assembly Hall? Again, I don't know.

Then again there is this: home court advantage is weak. According to Ken Pomeroy, it's not the place and it's not the fans, it's the basketball team you have to play that makes a place tough. Look - you're going on the road anyway. Is it really tougher to face the Illini at Assembly Hall instead of the United Center? I doubt it. Ohh, here's a cool Home Court Advantage study from a Duke source.

I don't know if there have been studies about how much tougher a team is at home vs. on a "neutral" court (Illinois being my favorite example - would they have beaten Arizona the other night if they'd just played at Assmbly Hall instead of in Chicago?)

The advantage of a "true" home court vs. local "neutral" court is probably minimal at best. Sorry, guys, Duke isn't that much tougher at Cameron than they are in Greensboro. If that's the case, why not play in the venues that best simulate NCAA games?

[yancem]

Also, you equate the trips to the Final Four in the 80s with playing "true" road games? One could argue that the championships came after Duke began scheduling nonconf games in big arenas. It's thought that the lighting and atmosphere are so different in those arenas that a bit of experience in them prior to the NCAAs is a good thing.

Um, during the 1991 season Duke Played at #6 G-Town (L), #11 Oklahoma (W), Notre Dame (W) and #9 Arizona (L double OT)

In 1992 they played at #18 Michigan (W), Boston University (W), #22 LSU (W), and #4 UCLA (W)

In 2001 they played at #17 Temple (W), Portland (W), #3 Stanford (neutral arena? in Oakland) (L) and St.Johns (MSG) (W)

Seems like playing "true road games" worked pretty well during the championship years!

[dukie8]

I doubt there is only one thing (though at this point it may just be the chance to play for Coach K) that influences a young person to come to Duke. But Duke has had quite a few kids from in and around NYC and Chicago. Can you prove it had NO influence? If not, why do you classify it as "bunk"?

As for having a lot of Duke fans at those games, how is that not a positive if you're considering that school?

Also, you equate the trips to the Final Four in the 80s with playing "true" road games? One could argue that the championships came after Duke began scheduling nonconf games in big arenas. It's thought that the lighting and atmosphere are so different in those arenas that a bit of experience in them prior to the NCAAs is a good thing.

quite a few? jwill, hurley, l thomas and brand (that's a stretch) are the only 4 that come to mind over the past 20 years from the nyc metro area. am i missing anyone else? i don't consider 4 "quite a few." you can't prove pretty much anything that is argued on these boards so it really is a strawman to ask me to prove something subjective like that. duke is a national powerhouse in basketball and doesn't need to play in a specific venue to "help with recruiting." kids make all sorts of stupid decisions regarding where to play but i never have heard someone say that he chose a school because it played near his hometown when he was in high school. i know that k tries to schedule games near players' hometowns AFTER they enroll as a kind of bone. i definitely could see that as have some impact -- particularly when the player's family lives far away from durham -- but we are talking about playing near someone BEFORE that person commits. if you can cite some quotes from hurley or jwill saying that seeing duke play in msg when they were juniors in high school played a large role in the decisions to come to duke, i'll change my mind.

have you been to any final 4s? i have and i wouldn't exactly call the atmosphere anything to write home about. the media gets most of the seats near the court and many of the seats are filled with corporate and local types who don't care who wins. the real fans are usually far from the court. the ones i have been to have been pretty stale atmospheres. some of the good games in nyc -- like kentucky in '01, texas in '05 and st john's in '99 (?) -- have blown away the atmosphere in any final 4 i have been to.

btw, your recollection of types of games played and championships is completely off. we first won in '91 and that same year we played AT arizona in late feb and LOST. we next won in '92 and that same year we played AT ucla in late feb and won. both games were played on the road against top 10 caliber teams in their arenas and in both years we won the nc. we don't played those games anymore and have suffered multiple early round flameouts. i'm not saying that playing these games caused us to win the ncs but their recent absence and ensuing disappointing ncaat results are rather glaring.