SI's Stewart Mandel - fair comment

[FerryFor50]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1

[pfrduke]

With the exception of the McDonald's All-Americans section, you could write that article about any top team in the country. Also, taking out last year's 4-8 finish (everyone would agree that last year's team was not as good, even when they were ranked #5), Duke's winning percentage is around 74% in Feb-Apr over 7 seasons. That's very, very good - the equivalent of going 12-4 in conference play.

[Cameron]

The Kentucky boards believe this article to hold the same weight as the Bible.

Gotta love UK fans knocking Duke when their team has a 90 percent chance of NIT . Jerk-offs.

(Well, I think it is clear that I need to stop reading one of my guilty pleasures. As another Devil stated on here a few days ago, we all have 'em.)

[The1Bluedevil]

Has some very interesting points. I don't like the Duke hating but ESPN is to blame for that. I will say though nobody gets hammered more often then Duke for recruiting " busts. Everyone knows those Rivals rankings are not that important but when a publication ranks a player in the top 25 and he doesn't perform its automatically the programs fault. Every person that writes on here could research hundreds of big time recruits who fail to live up to the rankings but don't have time to do so. The notion that players become McDonald's All Americans after Duke signs them is a flat out joke. Rankings are updated two to three times a year and only once after players have signed. So would have Patrick Patterson jumped into the top 5 if he had signed at Duke?

Many people see the rankings as uselss and overated, so why is it used in pointing out Duke's faults? For years Florida lost to less talented teams, Roy is notorious for the same thing, KU lost in the first round back to back years.

Has the recruiting suffered or is this just a string of bad luck?

[Faison1]

I actually thought the article had some good points, and showed some good research.

However, throughout the article, I kept wondering if the guy was going to name any programs that had maintained anywhere close to the level of success.

With that being said, I have longed for those epic out of conference home and home series that have been missing the last few years. Although my understanding is many programs don't want to schedule home and home, and it may not make fiscal sense.

But geeze....every program has ups and downs, except most ups and downs tend to be extreme....go deep in the NCAA's, then miss making the field the next year. Maybe his next article will be about why the Yankees haven't won a world series in quite a few years.

[Mudge]

Has some very interesting points. I don't like the Duke hating but ESPN is to blame for that. I will say though nobody gets hammered more often then Duke for recruiting " busts... The notion that players become McDonald's All Americans after Duke signs them is a flat out joke. Rankings are updated two to three times a year and only once after players have signed. So would have Patrick Patterson jumped into the top 5 if he had signed at Duke?

Has the recruiting suffered or is this just a string of bad luck?

1) This article is from SI, not ESPN, which as far as I know, has not been accused of any anti-Duke bias.

2) It has been suggested with a number of recruits that they moved up in the rankings (even on to the McDonald's list) as a result of Duke recruiting them. Wojo is the most widely known of these, although I suspect that Boateng and/or Thompson also fit this mold. Yes, I believe that some have moved up higher after they became Duke recruits. I'm not sure that Paulus doesn't fit this description (in basketball, not football-- I've no idea if Paulus is as good at football as Dick Vitale claims he is.)

3) I suggested in a thread on the old bulletin board last year that Duke's recruiting was no longer at the level that it had been in the Golden Era (from 1997-2003). This is not news that Duke has not recruited at its former level lately; however, I would argue that this year's class with Singler and Smith is step in the right direction, as these two players would have fit in with any of those classes from 1997-2003. Henderson and Scheyer from the previous year are also near that level as well, so perhaps Duke is beginning to regain its recruiting Mojo, after several years of missing badly. Certainly this year's results to date suggest that the coaching staff is getting back on track.

[BD80]

Article that at first seems overly critical, but gains perpsective.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1

[slower]

Until we "return to glory" in March and April, this type of article will be the norm.

[JasonEvans]

I find it hard to call this a hatchett job as Mandell backs up every single point with cold, hard facts.

We may disagree as to the reason but it is a fact that Duke has faded down the stretch in recent seasons.

We may disagree with whether it is smart or not but it is a fact that Duke no longer schedules true road games.

We may disagree for the reasons behind it but it is a fact that Duke's Mickie Dees have underperformed relative to expectations in terms of NBA success in recent years.

In truth, the only rebuttal for this article is to play better in February and March. Period, end of story.

--Jason "up until a week ago, I was certain we would reverse the trend this year-- I am less certain now, that's for sure" Evans

[SMO]

The most obvious possibility that Mandel did not consider regarding scheduling is that many schools probably don't want to play Duke at home for fear of being blown out early in the season. The other interesting thing to either validate or refute his arguments would be to see how other top programs fare late in the season. Do other teams hit losing streaks or play less consistently? It's funny, all this attention is paid to Duke because they lost 2 games. Not even UCLA or UNC would get this type of attention for the same thing. That speaks louder than any of Mandel's points.

[shadowfax336]

I think this article was probably written towards the beginning of the season and they were just waiting to bust it out at the first sign of trouble. It was a very detailed article to have been written in one night

[Classof06]

I think this article was probably written towards the beginning of the season and they were just waiting to bust it out at the first sign of trouble. It was a very detailed article to have been written in one night

Great point

I find it hard to call this a hatchett job as Mandell backs up every single point with cold, hard facts.

We may disagree as to the reason but it is a fact that Duke has faded down the stretch in recent seasons.

We may disagree with whether it is smart or not but it is a fact that Duke no longer schedules true road games.

We may disagree for the reasons behind it but it is a fact that Duke's Mickie Dees have underperformed relative to expectations in terms of NBA success in recent years.

In truth, the only rebuttal for this article is to play better in February and March. Period, end of story.

--Jason "up until a week ago, I was certain we would reverse the trend this year-- I am less certain now, that's for sure" Evans

While Duke is held to a ridiculously higher standard than every other program in America, facts are facts. I've long said I didn't like Duke's tactics in the Non-conference schedule and I'm not surprised the media also noticed. It is what it is. While I think Duke has performed well in the postseason (10 straight Sweet 16s is unreal), there is something to be said about only one Final Four appearance since 2001 (again, lofty standards). This article definitely has some merit and it's difficult to say otherwise.

[dukelifer]

Well a few quibbles. First, Shelden was not a McD AA- so eliminate him off the list. JJ may not have set the pros on fire as of yet- but he was a great college player- as was Shelden. I thought K's job was to develop great college players- I thought THAT was his job. If you think that he helped to develop POYs Brand, J Williams, Battier, Redick over the last 10 years - he has done a pretty good job in that dept. And of course a few of his players over that period- Boozer, Brand as all stars and Battier, Deng and Dunleavy as very consistent starters or six men- are signs that he is not a bust in the pro development department either. Of course if his job is to just create great pros- perhaps he should do something different or go somewhere else.

As for the rest of the article, sure there is some truth to it- but I am not sure what a more demanding non-conference schedule would do except recalibrate Duke's rank going into the conference-perhaps. Duke also has done remarkably well in the ACC tourney over the past 8 years which has often propelled them into a number 1 seed. I think a point that was missed was how K conducts practices. I heard an interview with Jay Bilas who suggested that the practices are SO intense - mostly mentally- that it takes some adjustment and thus, it could be affecting the younger players as the year goes on. This coupled with the fact that teams usually circle the Duke game as their way to get in the tourney with a signature win and you have a recipe for a swoon. Don't know if that is true- but some food for thought.

Also, if you look at the Feb swoon, the games are rarely blowouts. Duke is often in those games. So yes if you only look at NCAA final fours or eights as the measure of success- then Duke has fallen short of that lofty expectation- but there was a time that Duke made almost every final four and they were criticized for not winning it all. So in then end- you can always find fault if that is what you choose to do. Right now, UConn and Florida have some claim to being the best college programs over the past 8 years. So I look forward to the analysis of those teams in 4 years if they fail to make the FF over that stretch.

[devil84]

So I looked at Mandel's chart that looks at Duke's performance in the tourney, and proves how Duke underachieves in the tournament. So then I got to taking a look at who HAS achieved, based on tourney seed.

Looking at the last six years since (and not including) our last national championship, I found that only two teams have been seeded #1 or #2 in four of the last six years. These teams are Duke, and Connecticut. Kentucky and Kansas been seeded #1 or #2 three times. I think one can argue that these would then be the "recent perennially elite" teams, and therefore capable of underachieving. (Just for interest, those making it as a #1 or #2 seed twice in the last six years: Florida, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, UCLA, UNC, and Wake). So then I drew up the same chart for each team (omitting the AP ranking, as I do actually have to get SOMETHING done today). Here's what I came up with:

Duke
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 6 R1 11 VCU
06 1 S16 4 LSU
05 1 S16 5 Mich St.
04 1 F4 2 Connecticut*
03 3 S16 2 Kansas*
02 1 S16 5 Indiana

Connecticut
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 - -- -- Not in tourney
06 1 E8 11 George Mason
05 2 R2 10 NCSU
04 1 -- National Champs
03 5 S16 1 Texas
02 2 E8 1 Maryland

Kentucky
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 8 R2 1 Kansas*
06 8 R2 1 Connecticut*
05 2 E8 5 Michigan State
04 1 R2 9 UAB
03 1 E8 3 Marquette
02 4 S16 1 Maryland

Kansas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 E8 2 UCLA
06 4 R1 13 Bradley
05 3 R1 14 Bucknell
04 4 E8 3 Georgia Tech
03 2 F2 3 Syracuse
02 1 F4 1 Maryland

A couple of observations stand out. First, the asterisked opponents are the opponents are also on this "recent perennial elite" list. While a W is still a W and an L is still an L, it's interesting to note that the elite teams beat up on each other.

Second, kudos to Maryland in 2001 who consecutively beat Kentucky, Connecticut, and Kansas to get to the finals. It doesn't have anything to do with this argument, but I found it very interesting.

Onto the analysis. Connecticut is the only one of these four to win a national championship. In this time frame, 3 national champs were a #1 seed, one #2, and two #3s. Kansas is the only other team to make it to the finals, in '03 as a #2. Duke ('04, #1) and Kansas ('01, #1) made it to the Final Four.

Of this recent perennial elite group, here's the how the losses stack up in the 24 games (noting that 4 of the losses came at the hands of another recent perennial elite team, noted in parentheses):

National Champs: 1
Lost in Final 2: 1
Final Four: 2 (1)
Elite Eight: 6
Sweet Sixteen: 6 (1)
Second Round: 4 (2)
First Round: 3
Not in tourney: 1

So Duke's one Final Four (losing to UConn), four Sweet Sixteens (losing one to Kansas), and one first round loss looks like it's not too far off from the others in this group. Duke has played 18 games in that six years.

Connecticut is the only other team with four #1 or #2 seeds in the last year. They have a National Championship (beating Duke along the way), and losses in two Elite Eights, one Sweet Sixteen, a second round out, and they did not make the tourney last year. At least Duke made the tourney every year. However, Connecticut has a National Championship (so does Duke if you go back 1 year). Connecticut has played 19 games, indicating that they've gone farther than Duke each year, given that they've not make the tourney every year. Edge to Connecticut for the NC, but take it back since they didn't make the tourney. I guess it's arguably a draw.

Kentucky has three second round outs (two in the past two years to Connecticut and Kansas, both were as a #8). Two more losses in Elite Eights and one in the Sweet Sixteen. Not bad at all. However, Duke's only lost once before the Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky does have two Elite Eights, but Duke did a Final Four and an extra Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky has played 17 games to Duke's 16. Call it a draw.

Kansas has been seeded no lower than #4. They have two first round outs ('06 as #4, to #13 Bradley, and '05 as #3 to #14 Bucknell). They've made it to two Elite Eights (beating Kentucky last year in the second round), one Final Four, and one Finals game (ousting Duke in '03 in the Sweet 16). Again, not bad. Duke has only one bow-out in the first round, unlike Kansas' two. Kansas has a finals game over Duke. While Kansas has played 21 games to Duke's 18, it still feels is pretty even, though I'll concede the edge to Kansas.

Comparing Duke to the other teams that have consistently been very high seeds in the tournament, I think Duke's record over the last six years is arguably comparable to theirs.

Here's what happens when you expand the "recent perennial elite" to adding seeds #3 and #4 as a criteria for excellence (I noticed that Kansas met that criteria for all six years, and wondered if going two more places would change things):
Six years: Kansas
Five: Duke
Four: Kentucky, Connecticut, Florida, Texas
Three: Gonzaga, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Pitt, Maryland, Wake Forest
Two: UNC, Arizona, Cincinnati, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oregon Illinois, Louisville, Syracuse, Stanford, Mississippi State, UCLA.

Being a top four seed in the last six years adds Florida and Texas to the list. Here are their stats:

Florida
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 National Champs
06 3 National Champs
05 4 R2 5 Villanova
04 5 R1 12 Manhattan
03 2 R2 7 Michigan State
02 5 R1 12 Creighton

Prior to their National Championships, they don't hold a candle to Duke, Connecticut, Kentucky and Kansas, bowing out by the second round.

Texas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 4 R2 5 USC
06 2 E8 4 LSU
05 8 R1 9 Nevada
04 3 S16 7 Xavier
03 1 FF 3 Syracuse
02 6 S16 2 Oregon

In '03, Texas knocked out Connecticut in the Sweet Sixteen on their run to the Final Four. Two first-weekend losses, two Sweet Sixteens, an Elite Eight and a Final Four -- perhaps as good as Kansas, and maybe better than Duke. Of course, they were only a #1 or #2 seed twice, so one could give the edge to them because they are achieving a similar level of excellence with fewer #1 and #2 rankings. Or you could say they aren't as perennially elite by virtue of fewer top seedings and are overachieving at the "almost elite" level. Or you could say ... well, you can support your position however you'd like.

So some football writer has decided to write an article, supported with statistics (remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics), that proves that Duke "underachieves." Well, they "underachieve" with the best of them, I guess.

Or to put it another way, some football writer has decided to write an article, which causes everyone to wring their hands, and I spend WAAAAAY too much time researching meaningless stats to figure out (well, to support my assertion, anyway) that Duke's pretty darn good. Which I already knew.

So all that's left is to do is some winning during the post season. I'll do my part, cheering from Cameron and at the TV. And I think I've figured out that I'll leave the sports writers to write whatever they want. I don't have to believe them (except for Al, Bill, Jim, and the others who post here!). And I think I'll just relish in the fact that people want to show Duke's decline. If that's a decline, well, it's a whole lot better than a lot of programs! And the writers are writing about us -- when they stop, Duke Basketball will look a whole lot different, more like back in my day (T'84). Which was still a lot of fun to watch, IMHO.

- della

PS -- I'm quite tickled that my definition of recently perennially elite definitely EXCLUDES UNC, who has only been a top 4 seed twice in the last six years. I thought they were better than that!

[dukelifer]

So I looked at Mandel's chart that looks at Duke's performance in the tourney, and proves how Duke underachieves in the tournament. So then I got to taking a look at who HAS achieved, based on tourney seed.

Looking at the last six years since (and not including) our last national championship, I found that only two teams have been seeded #1 or #2 in four of the last six years. These teams are Duke, and Connecticut. Kentucky and Kansas been seeded #1 or #2 three times. I think one can argue that these would then be the "recent perennially elite" teams, and therefore capable of underachieving. (Just for interest, those making it as a #1 or #2 seed twice in the last six years: Florida, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, UCLA, UNC, and Wake). So then I drew up the same chart for each team (omitting the AP ranking, as I do actually have to get SOMETHING done today). Here's what I came up with:

Duke
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 6 R1 11 VCU
06 1 S16 4 LSU
05 1 S16 5 Mich St.
04 1 F4 2 Connecticut*
03 3 S16 2 Kansas*
02 1 S16 5 Indiana

Connecticut
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 - -- -- Not in tourney
06 1 E8 11 George Mason
05 2 R2 10 NCSU
04 1 -- National Champs
03 5 S16 1 Texas
02 2 E8 1 Maryland

Kentucky
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 8 R2 1 Kansas*
06 8 R2 1 Connecticut*
05 2 E8 5 Michigan State
04 1 R2 9 UAB
03 1 E8 3 Marquette
02 4 S16 1 Maryland

Kansas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 E8 2 UCLA
06 4 R1 13 Bradley
05 3 R1 14 Bucknell
04 4 E8 3 Georgia Tech
03 2 F2 3 Syracuse
02 1 F4 1 Maryland

A couple of observations stand out. First, the asterisked opponents are the opponents are also on this "recent perennial elite" list. While a W is still a W and an L is still an L, it's interesting to note that the elite teams beat up on each other.

Second, kudos to Maryland in 2001 who consecutively beat Kentucky, Connecticut, and Kansas to get to the finals. It doesn't have anything to do with this argument, but I found it very interesting.

Onto the analysis. Connecticut is the only one of these four to win a national championship. In this time frame, 3 national champs were a #1 seed, one #2, and two #3s. Kansas is the only other team to make it to the finals, in '03 as a #2. Duke ('04, #1) and Kansas ('01, #1) made it to the Final Four.

Of this recent perennial elite group, here's the how the losses stack up in the 24 games (noting that 4 of the losses came at the hands of another recent perennial elite team, noted in parentheses):

National Champs: 1
Lost in Final 2: 1
Final Four: 2 (1)
Elite Eight: 6
Sweet Sixteen: 6 (1)
Second Round: 4 (2)
First Round: 3
Not in tourney: 1

So Duke's one Final Four (losing to UConn), four Sweet Sixteens (losing one to Kansas), and one first round loss looks like it's not too far off from the others in this group. Duke has played 18 games in that six years.

Connecticut is the only other team with four #1 or #2 seeds in the last year. They have a National Championship (beating Duke along the way), and losses in two Elite Eights, one Sweet Sixteen, a second round out, and they did not make the tourney last year. At least Duke made the tourney every year. However, Connecticut has a National Championship (so does Duke if you go back 1 year). Connecticut has played 19 games, indicating that they've gone farther than Duke each year, given that they've not make the tourney every year. Edge to Connecticut for the NC, but take it back since they didn't make the tourney. I guess it's arguably a draw.

Kentucky has three second round outs (two in the past two years to Connecticut and Kansas, both were as a #8). Two more losses in Elite Eights and one in the Sweet Sixteen. Not bad at all. However, Duke's only lost once before the Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky does have two Elite Eights, but Duke did a Final Four and an extra Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky has played 17 games to Duke's 16. Call it a draw.

Kansas has been seeded no lower than #4. They have two first round outs ('06 as #4, to #13 Bradley, and '05 as #3 to #14 Bucknell). They've made it to two Elite Eights (beating Kentucky last year in the second round), one Final Four, and one Finals game (ousting Duke in '03 in the Sweet 16). Again, not bad. Duke has only one bow-out in the first round, unlike Kansas' two. Kansas has a finals game over Duke. While Kansas has played 21 games to Duke's 18, it still feels is pretty even, though I'll concede the edge to Kansas.

Comparing Duke to the other teams that have consistently been very high seeds in the tournament, I think Duke's record over the last six years is arguably comparable to theirs.

Here's what happens when you expand the "recent perennial elite" to adding seeds #3 and #4 as a criteria for excellence (I noticed that Kansas met that criteria for all six years, and wondered if going two more places would change things):
Six years: Kansas
Five: Duke
Four: Kentucky, Connecticut, Florida, Texas
Three: Gonzaga, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Pitt, Maryland, Wake Forest
Two: UNC, Arizona, Cincinnati, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oregon Illinois, Louisville, Syracuse, Stanford, Mississippi State, UCLA.

Being a top four seed in the last six years adds Florida and Texas to the list. Here are their stats:

Florida
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 National Champs
06 3 National Champs
05 4 R2 5 Villanova
04 5 R1 12 Manhattan
03 2 R2 7 Michigan State
02 5 R1 12 Creighton

Prior to their National Championships, they don't hold a candle to Duke, Connecticut, Kentucky and Kansas, bowing out by the second round.

Texas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 4 R2 5 USC
06 2 E8 4 LSU
05 8 R1 9 Nevada
04 3 S16 7 Xavier
03 1 FF 3 Syracuse
02 6 S16 2 Oregon

In '03, Texas knocked out Connecticut in the Sweet Sixteen on their run to the Final Four. Two first-weekend losses, two Sweet Sixteens, an Elite Eight and a Final Four -- perhaps as good as Kansas, and maybe better than Duke. Of course, they were only a #1 or #2 seed twice, so one could give the edge to them because they are achieving a similar level of excellence with fewer #1 and #2 rankings. Or you could say they aren't as perennially elite by virtue of fewer top seedings and are overachieving at the "almost elite" level. Or you could say ... well, you can support your position however you'd like.

So some football writer has decided to write an article, supported with statistics (remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics), that proves that Duke "underachieves." Well, they "underachieve" with the best of them, I guess.

Or to put it another way, some football writer has decided to write an article, which causes everyone to wring their hands, and I spend WAAAAAY too much time researching meaningless stats to figure out (well, to support my assertion, anyway) that Duke's pretty darn good. Which I already knew.

So all that's left is to do is some winning during the post season. I'll do my part, cheering from Cameron and at the TV. And I think I've figured out that I'll leave the sports writers to write whatever they want. I don't have to believe them (except for Al, Bill, Jim, and the others who post here!). And I think I'll just relish in the fact that people want to show Duke's decline. If that's a decline, well, it's a whole lot better than a lot of programs! And the writers are writing about us -- when they stop, Duke Basketball will look a whole lot different, more like back in my day (T'84). Which was still a lot of fun to watch, IMHO.

- della

PS -- I'm quite tickled that my definition of recently perennially elite definitely EXCLUDES UNC, who has only been a top 4 seed twice in the last six years. I thought they were better than that!

It is true that you have to wonder who is doing better than Duke over that same period- and this analysis suggests that probably no one any better. Right now Florida and UConn are the only two teams with a claim to be the best college basketball program. UNC has a chance to get in that group if they can get to the FF or win it all this year. So those are the teams the should be analyzed as well for their consistency. For some reasons, UConn and Florida are allowed a take a stumble or two but Duke is not. The reasons seem to be that UConn and Florida win their NC's without the bevy of AA's which must mean that they are better coached.

There seems to be the notion out there that Duke is underachieving with all their HS AA's- that is, any coach could do what K has done if they had all that talent and moreover would have likely have won it all if they had Duke's teams. This suggests that Coach K is either not as good as before or is not developing his talent any more- with evidence that guys are not that good in the pros. Of course, this same criticism could be levied against UNC has also had talent and AA's and somehow they have not gone to FF every year. And many of their recent AA's have not exactly set the NBA on fire. Perhaps, Williams is a bad coach as well.

[MIKESJ73]

Recruit rankings of McDonalds All-Americans from rivals.com (03-07):

Top 10 recruits
03 Loul Deng #2 NBA after 1 year
04 Shuan Livingston #2 NBA after 0 years
05 Josh McRoberts #2 NBA after two years
07 Kyle Singler #5 still at Duke

Top 20 recruits
04 D.Nelson #17
05 G.Paulus #11
06 G.Henderson #11

Others:
05 Eric Boateng #82
06 Lance Thomas #42
06 Jon Sheyer #71
07 Taylor King #37
07 Nolan Smith #39

While we have a large amount of McDonalds all-americans we only have one top ten recruit (a freshman) and only three others were ranked as top 35 recruits. I love all ours guys and wouldn't trade any of them, but it's not like we are getting the top guys every year, nor would I want most of them.

[devil84]

It is true that you have to wonder who is doing better than Duke over that same period- and this analysis suggests that probably no one any better. Right now Florida and UConn are the only two teams with a claim to be the best college basketball program. UNC has a chance to get in that group if they can get to the FF or win it all this year. So those are the teams the should be analyzed as well for their consistency. For some reasons, UConn and Florida are allowed a take a stumble or two but Duke is not. The reasons seem to be that UConn and Florida win their NC's without the bevy of AA's which must mean that they are better coached.

Coaching could be *one* reason. Individual and collective team performances count, too. Don't forget hostile/neutral/favorable crowds. How about team chemistry? How about the intangible of a team getting "up" for Duke (or other giant)? The opponent that goes Bootsy and drops 30 when they usually average 6. You can't pin a loss (or a win) on any ONE factor. Some of these circumstances may affect only one game, and in a one-loss-and-out tournament, sometimes it's just good luck that the opponent didn't go Bootsy or a higher than usual percentage of shots fell for us.

There seems to be the notion out there that Duke is underachieving with all their HS AA's- that is, any coach could do what K has done if they had all that talent and moreover would have likely have won it all if they had Duke's teams. This suggests that Coach K is either not as good as before or is not developing his talent any more- with evidence that guys are not that good in the pros. Of course, this same criticism could be levied against UNC has also had talent and AA's and somehow they have not gone to FF every year. And many of their recent AA's have not exactly set the NBA on fire. Perhaps, Williams is a bad coach as well.

If AA status is absolutely, in no way, influenced by committing to a particular school, then I agree. But I think it's been anecdotally documented that committing to certain schools (Duke in particular), seems to invite AA status. Are some AA's overrated simply because they chose to play at an elite school? Where did those kids who just barely missed the AA cutoff (and might have been AA's had others not leapfrogged them) go to school? Are those schools, then, perceived as "doing more with less?"

That also assumes that these AA's will continue to perform well in college. Perhaps their game was suited to HS rules, and against HS players. If the argument is made that Duke players don't do well in the pros because their game is so well suited to college, then the same can be applied to AA's with the transition from the HS to college game. I think it's a valid argument. AA's are conferred their status as tops in the HS echelon. POYs in college aren't always All Stars/MVPs in the pros.

What happens when the AA you *thought* would stay for four years picks up and leaves after one or two years? Recruiting gets, well, a bit creative.

How many people want to read a feel-good story about a Florida three-peat? (How many Florida fans are there?) How many want to read about Texas or Kansas being quite dominant over the years? (How many Texas and Kansas fans are out there?) How many want to read a story about Duke maybe not being so great? (How many Duke detractors are out there?) OK, so which one's going to get to press?

Mandel took a series of facts and statistics, and showed that Duke underachieves with a huge number of AA's. With very little effort, one can highlight the facts a different way (as many on this thread have done), and it becomes Duke is a dynasty and wait 'til you see what the current horde of AA's does when they finally graduate and hit the NBA.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. People will use them to "prove" their opinion, and once they support their opinion with their own "facts," you can't change their mind. So why try? I'm just glad that we've been so good that people are trying to prove we're not. Boy, it was a different story when I was on the team in the early 80's.

[devildownunder]

I just found and read the response to Mandel's column that is linked from the front page. IMO, it is a defensive rant. Nothing wrong with defensive rants, as long they are defending against an actual attack, but that's not the case here.

DBR vehemently defends K for adapting to the changing world of college basketball. That's great, except nowhere is his column does he suggest the game has passed K by. In fact, he goes out of his way not to attack K in the story and explicitly praises him more than once.

The article's focus is much more that duke is somewhat unfairly called an underachiever these days than to say that duke is lousy now or something like that.

[HumboldtDevil]

I have no problem with Mandel's article, in fact it is refreshing to read an article that uses facts. That's what I have come to really like about SI's college basketball writers; they're fair and well-informed.

I only skimmed the article, so I don't know exactly what Mandel's point was. I guess he thinks Duke should play a tougher non-conference schedule or maybe he's just pointing out that Duke has been overrated due to an inflated OOC record built against mid-level teams. I don't know.

Something Mandel fails to mention is that everybody struggle more in conference than out of conference. The same goes for the other top teams, but Duke is a bigger deal and is still consistently better than every other program.

One thing about the Mickey D's stats Mandel uses is that I think a big reason why Duke isn't bringing in as many sure-fire superstars in because K doesn't really want the one-and-done guys. Or maybe it is the other way around. Does a one-and-done guy really want to have to hit the books hard for a year at Duke in order to be eligible? Probably not. Plus there have been a few flops. I think that some guys get into the Mickey D's game because they are going to Duke. There are Duke players that weren't Top 25 types that still made the game. Notre Dame usually gets a good number of players into the Army AA football game, too. These games are designed to pull in viewers, sponsors, etc., so a basketball game will get more viewers w/ Duke porospects in the game rather than Arizona or Oklahoma kids. A football game will get more viewers - especially a game on NBC - if it has a ton of ND kids instead of kids going to mid-level Pac-10 or Big 12 schools.

I'm not worried about the back-to-back losses. UConn - a much different team - struggled mightily in February of 04 and wound up as a two seed with six losses entering the tourney. We know what happened in March.

[pamtar]

Mods are slow today huh?