GoDuke2015
Member
well said. I agree.
Is Duke really "underperforming" in the NCAAT?
- Thread starter DukeTrinity11
- Start date
crimsondevil
Member
To your point, I think there are multiple ways of determining "underperforming" in the tourney. Using a resource for expected wins by seed (link), we've overperformed by 2.7 games since 2016:
| Year | Seed | Exp Wins | Wins | +/- |
2016 | 4 | 1.56 | 2 | 0.4 |
2017 | 2 | 2.34 | 1 | -1.3 |
2018 | 2 | 2.34 | 3 | 0.7 |
2019 | 1 | 3.34 | 3 | -0.3 |
2022 | 2 | 2.34 | 4 | 1.7 |
2023 | 5 | 1.14 | 1 | -0.1 |
2024 | 4 | 1.56 | 3 | 1.4 |
2025 | 1 | 3.34 | 4 | 0.7 |
2026 | 1 | 3.34 | 3 | -0.3 |
| Total | 21.3 | 24 | 2.7 |
This captures how it feels to me, though.
I think we would probably want to look at expected wins adjusted for opponent. I'd expect under that measure we might be SLIGHTLY underperforming.....but while people complain that we have lost a couple of these elite 8 games, they forget that it's been nearly 10 years since we had an early tournament bomb out...and one could argue we were overseeded playing against an underseeded USC.
All in all, winning is hard. We probably, as most teams not from Storrs, perform relatively to expectation in the long run.
Duke of Destiny
Member
Not what I said at all. Some years you just don’t have it and you aren’t going to win it all every year. But when you have the team to win it and you don’t get it done, you can’t just be happy making it to an Elite Eight. Losing to a less talented team will always be an underperformance.
No, we're not really underperforming, because we've done a great job of avoiding early exits. No first round exits, and only 2 2nd round exits(one of which was a a 5th seed, which means we were expected lose in the 2nd round).
6-1 in the Sweet 16 round (only loss in 2016 against a #1 seed), is also helping the numbers, but the 2-6 in rounds after Sweet 16 is affecting people's perception, if we could have just won anyone of those 6 six games, the perception would have been different, it would have meant another FF. Those 6 losses really hurt, as they were 5 very close games and 1 which we were beaten by a #9 seed.
Also, in order to win the title, you need to have an overachieving run at some point.
6-1 in the Sweet 16 round (only loss in 2016 against a #1 seed), is also helping the numbers, but the 2-6 in rounds after Sweet 16 is affecting people's perception, if we could have just won anyone of those 6 six games, the perception would have been different, it would have meant another FF. Those 6 losses really hurt, as they were 5 very close games and 1 which we were beaten by a #9 seed.
Also, in order to win the title, you need to have an overachieving run at some point.
House P
Member
I was about to post something similar, but you beat me to it. I'll add that, in Jon's four years, Duke has won 11 tourney games. Based on the methodology you linked, Duke would have been expected to win 9.4.
Going back further ...
Not surprisingly, the biggest stretch of Duke overperforming expectations was 1986-1994. During this period Duke won 38 tourney games. They would have been expected to win 20.8 based on seeding.
The biggest stretch of underperforming expectations was 2002-2009. Duke won 13 games over this period. They would have been expected to win 20.9 based on seeding.
Duke of Destiny
Member
I’ll put it this way: since Duke became Duke after winning their first National Championship in 1991, our longest championship drought HAD been 8 tournaments (1993-2000 and 2002-2009). After this latest debacle, it’s now been 10 tournaments (2016-2019; 2021-2026). I don’t care about Sweet Sixteens, Elite Eights, or Final Fours, all that really matters are National Championships. Duke has had FAR too much talent come through in that time period not to win one, especially since we had the GOAT leading us for six of those tournaments and the coach with the greatest first four seasons ever (in terms of wins) for the other four.
If Duke doesn’t consider this underperforming, then we aren’t who we say we are any longer. No amount of copium can change that fact. We don’t want ten titleless tournaments to become acceptable. That’s how you become Indiana, UCLA, or to a lesser extent Kentucky.
If Duke doesn’t consider this underperforming, then we aren’t who we say we are any longer. No amount of copium can change that fact. We don’t want ten titleless tournaments to become acceptable. That’s how you become Indiana, UCLA, or to a lesser extent Kentucky.
I agree. Some here vilify this view as “expecting to win championships every year” which is unrealistic. But there’s a wide gulf between what you just said and posts about “how would you rather lose?” Duke is a winning program, I don’t want to discuss the best way to lose!!!
Do you think the injuries to Foster and Ngongba had anything to do with this year's "debacle"?
-jk
Well-known Moderator
Losing to Siena actually would've hurt less for me. I would've chalked it up to heavy freshmen roster and 2 starter injuries (sophomore and junior player injuries - very tough). Yet, losing to Siena would've been considered "underperforming" per this thread.
For me, it's not the underperforming that stings - it's the blown leads. Losing games we had in the bag. These have been crushing.
For me, it's not the underperforming that stings - it's the blown leads. Losing games we had in the bag. These have been crushing.
Here is a report from ncaa.com and Duke's performance as a 1 seed each year since 1985.
www.ncaa.com
www.ncaa.com
The selection committee started seeding every team in 1979
The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985. This marked the start of the modern era, eliminating byes and requiring teams to win six consecutive games to claim the national championship.
1986 5-1
1992 6-0
1998 3-1
1999 5-1
2000 2-1
2001 6-0
2002 2-1
2004 4-1
2005 2-1
2006 2-1
2010 6-0
2011 2-1
2015 6-0
2019 3-1
2025 4-1
2026 3-1
Duke Combined 61-12 83.6%
All #1 Seeds 534-134 79.9%
Records for every seed in March Madness from 1985 to 2025
These are the all-time, round-by-round records for every seed in the March Madness men's tournament from 1985 (when the field expanded) to 2025.
www.ncaa.com
NCAA tournament: All-time No. 1 seeds, teams, history
Here is the list of every No. 1 seed in NCAA tournament history and how each did since the 1978-79 season.
www.ncaa.com
The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985. This marked the start of the modern era, eliminating byes and requiring teams to win six consecutive games to claim the national championship.
1986 5-1
1992 6-0
1998 3-1
1999 5-1
2000 2-1
2001 6-0
2002 2-1
2004 4-1
2005 2-1
2006 2-1
2010 6-0
2011 2-1
2015 6-0
2019 3-1
2025 4-1
2026 3-1
Duke Combined 61-12 83.6%
All #1 Seeds 534-134 79.9%
Is it "copium" to say I think your point of view on this topic is ridiculous? The best team almost never wins the NCAA tournament. I'm talking less than 20% of the time (4 out of 22 since the NCAA started naming overall number one seeds, so that's 18.2% if you want to be precise). And I, for one, don't think that any programs or coaches possess any magic that allows them to take a team that isn't the best and navigate a six game, one-and-done tournament better than any other coach of similar skill or program of similar player talent.
Kentucky won their first championship in 1948. They went 20 years without a championship from 1958 to 1978. They went 18 years without a championship from 1978 to 1996. They went 14 years without a championship from 1998 to 2012. They are currently in a 14-year championship drought since 2012. If that's a "lesser extent" then what are we even talking about?
What do you mean by acceptable? No one on the team or coaching staff seemed to be okay with the last two tournament losses. Do you mean to the fans? Are we supposed to picket outside Cameron?
throatybeard
Member
Well maybe if we whine about it some more on a message board, the team will go undefeated.
-jk
Well-known Moderator
King of Defense
Member
I'm proud of this year's team. I don't think they were the best team in college basketball. I think Michigan showed in the Final Four, dismantling Arizona and hanging on against the Whining Hurleys, that the best team won it all. That's not always the case (Duke was absolutely the best team in the country last year), but it's the case this year.
They won the ACC while shorthanded, and they made the Elite Eight. That's a fine season, and it's an accurate reflection of where this team stood.
This isn't a team that's going to send two guys into the NBA next year who'll fight each other (metaphorically -- they're friends) for Rookie of the Year honors. I can think of tons of teams that had more talent ...
- 2025: Obviously
- 2019: Also obviously - the Zion/RJ/Cam/Tre freshman class with Bolden, DeLaurier and White also making the NBA
- 2015 (last champs): An odd one in that Okafor and Winslow had a tough time in the NBA, while Cook probably overachieved as a pro. Total of eight NBA players, but mostly role players.
- 2012: There's no way a team with eight NBA players -- Dawkins and Gbinije barely, but Rivers, Curry, two Plumlees and Cook were fine -- should lose to Lehigh.
- 2011: Again, eight NBA players -- one of them a generational talent (Kyrie) who was unfortunately injured
- 2004: Redick, Deng, Landlord and Duhon all had good to great NBA careers. Ewing and Randolph also made it. They lacked depth -- basically just Dockery and Melchionni -- but that's a terrific six-man rotation.
- 2001: Very worthy champions -- Battier, J. Williams, Dunleavy, Boozer and Duhon made the pros, and the only one who wasn't outstanding had a career-ending accident. Add Nate James and Casey Sanders for depth.
- 1999: Obviously. One of the three best teams not to win the championship.
- 1991 AND 1992: Obviously. A contender for best team ever. Back to back with much of the same personnel (Laettner, Hurley, G. Hill, T. Hill, Lang, Davis).
- 1989: Some may argue, but this was where Ferry and Laettner overlapped. Abdelnaby and Davis also made the NBA. Phil Henderson surely would've made the NBA today. Brickey was an anomaly who wasn't pro material but was a difference-maker in college, and I maintain Duke would've won K's first title that year if Seton Hall hadn't injured him. I hated that team.
- 1986: The Class That Saved Coach K in its senior year, plus Tommy Amaker and Danny Ferry.
- 1978: Gminski, Spanarkel, Banks and Dennard. Bob Bender was a Parade All-American.
- 1966: Won the NCAA third-place game, which no longer exists. Six NBA players when it was a lot harder to land a spot in the league.
There are also arguments for 2022 (Banchero, M. Williams, three more NBAers), 2018 (eight NBAers, led by Carter, Bagley, Allen and Trent), 2017 (frankly underachieved in college, especially now that we see how outstanding Tatum, Kennard and Allen really are), 2014 (seven NBAers -- Parker fared badly, but Hood was quite good and Cook was solid), 2013 (Mason Plumlee, Curry, Cook, Sulaimon, Kelly, total of six NBAers), 2006 (Redick as a senior, with Landlord, McRoberts, Nelson and solid senior Dockery), 2002 (six NBAers, mostly held over from 2001), 1998 (the 1999 team minus Maggette but with McLeod and Wojo),
I think 2010 was greater than the sum of its parts. Mason Plumlee had the best NBA career, and he was a role-playing freshman that year. I don't want to say "overachieved" because they were legitimately good, and it points to what can be accomplished with seniors and juniors leading the way. Similarly, the 1990 team never should've made the final -- Hurley was good but green.
Not that making an NBA team is the sole measure of talent -- some players (Brickey leaps to mind, but there's also a guy from the 2010 team who's now a coach of some kind) are well-suited to college but not the NBA. But from the current team, how many will make it? Cam should have a decent career, and Evans and Ngongba have potential. Sarr may end up as a tweener. Maliq may get a shot at having at least a Brian Davis-level career. Foster, Cayden and Khamenia have not yet shown NBA ability, but they might.
So in terms of talented Duke teams, this squad doesn't make the top 10. Might not make the top 15 or even 20. They showed a lot of heart to get as far as they did.
Trivia answer: The last Duke team that didn't send a player to the pros was in 1996. Leading scorers were Capel, Collins, Price and Newton. Price had the talent.
They won the ACC while shorthanded, and they made the Elite Eight. That's a fine season, and it's an accurate reflection of where this team stood.
This isn't a team that's going to send two guys into the NBA next year who'll fight each other (metaphorically -- they're friends) for Rookie of the Year honors. I can think of tons of teams that had more talent ...
- 2025: Obviously
- 2019: Also obviously - the Zion/RJ/Cam/Tre freshman class with Bolden, DeLaurier and White also making the NBA
- 2015 (last champs): An odd one in that Okafor and Winslow had a tough time in the NBA, while Cook probably overachieved as a pro. Total of eight NBA players, but mostly role players.
- 2012: There's no way a team with eight NBA players -- Dawkins and Gbinije barely, but Rivers, Curry, two Plumlees and Cook were fine -- should lose to Lehigh.
- 2011: Again, eight NBA players -- one of them a generational talent (Kyrie) who was unfortunately injured
- 2004: Redick, Deng, Landlord and Duhon all had good to great NBA careers. Ewing and Randolph also made it. They lacked depth -- basically just Dockery and Melchionni -- but that's a terrific six-man rotation.
- 2001: Very worthy champions -- Battier, J. Williams, Dunleavy, Boozer and Duhon made the pros, and the only one who wasn't outstanding had a career-ending accident. Add Nate James and Casey Sanders for depth.
- 1999: Obviously. One of the three best teams not to win the championship.
- 1991 AND 1992: Obviously. A contender for best team ever. Back to back with much of the same personnel (Laettner, Hurley, G. Hill, T. Hill, Lang, Davis).
- 1989: Some may argue, but this was where Ferry and Laettner overlapped. Abdelnaby and Davis also made the NBA. Phil Henderson surely would've made the NBA today. Brickey was an anomaly who wasn't pro material but was a difference-maker in college, and I maintain Duke would've won K's first title that year if Seton Hall hadn't injured him. I hated that team.
- 1986: The Class That Saved Coach K in its senior year, plus Tommy Amaker and Danny Ferry.
- 1978: Gminski, Spanarkel, Banks and Dennard. Bob Bender was a Parade All-American.
- 1966: Won the NCAA third-place game, which no longer exists. Six NBA players when it was a lot harder to land a spot in the league.
There are also arguments for 2022 (Banchero, M. Williams, three more NBAers), 2018 (eight NBAers, led by Carter, Bagley, Allen and Trent), 2017 (frankly underachieved in college, especially now that we see how outstanding Tatum, Kennard and Allen really are), 2014 (seven NBAers -- Parker fared badly, but Hood was quite good and Cook was solid), 2013 (Mason Plumlee, Curry, Cook, Sulaimon, Kelly, total of six NBAers), 2006 (Redick as a senior, with Landlord, McRoberts, Nelson and solid senior Dockery), 2002 (six NBAers, mostly held over from 2001), 1998 (the 1999 team minus Maggette but with McLeod and Wojo),
I think 2010 was greater than the sum of its parts. Mason Plumlee had the best NBA career, and he was a role-playing freshman that year. I don't want to say "overachieved" because they were legitimately good, and it points to what can be accomplished with seniors and juniors leading the way. Similarly, the 1990 team never should've made the final -- Hurley was good but green.
Not that making an NBA team is the sole measure of talent -- some players (Brickey leaps to mind, but there's also a guy from the 2010 team who's now a coach of some kind) are well-suited to college but not the NBA. But from the current team, how many will make it? Cam should have a decent career, and Evans and Ngongba have potential. Sarr may end up as a tweener. Maliq may get a shot at having at least a Brian Davis-level career. Foster, Cayden and Khamenia have not yet shown NBA ability, but they might.
So in terms of talented Duke teams, this squad doesn't make the top 10. Might not make the top 15 or even 20. They showed a lot of heart to get as far as they did.
Trivia answer: The last Duke team that didn't send a player to the pros was in 1996. Leading scorers were Capel, Collins, Price and Newton. Price had the talent.
I disagree with the conclusion that this year’s team might not be among the 20 most talented Duke teams, which seems to be based on a dramatic overestimation of the talent of some very fine players who had minor to negligible NBA careers, underestimation of the chances of current guys having comparable careers, underestimation of the gap between high-end NBA talent and barely-NBA talent, and overestimation of the talent difference between a player who has a minor NBA career and one who has none.
Chris Duhon was not an “outstanding” pro. Andre Dawkins was one of my all time favorite players, but he played four (4) games in the NBA. If (for example) Caleb Foster never makes the league those four (4) NBA games don’t say anything at all about the talent difference between them. Gbinije played 9 games. Daniel Ewing 127 games averaging 3 ppg. Randolph averaged 2 ppg over 146 NBA games. We don’t yet know what Maliq Brown will do but Shav’s NBA career is not a meaningful indication he was more talented. Javin DeLaurier played three minutes in his entire NBA career. Not 3 minutes per game. Three minutes. I could go on and on.
We don’t know where this year’s guys will end up but Cam Boozer is more talented that all but a few guys you listed. It isn’t hard to imagine Isaiah Evans having a better NBA career than the vast majority of the number two guys you listed. Pat, Dame, Cayden, Maliq, Nik, and Caleb are all guys who could plausibly do as much in the NBA as Chris Duhon, whose NBA career you call “outstanding.” Or maybe none of them really make it (except probably Cam) but even if they don’t that won’t mean they’re less talented than the host of borderline guys you listed from previous teams.
That Lehigh team scored more points in the NBA than that Duke team, which illustrates the folly of defining most talented as “largest number of guys who eventually played a minute in the NBA.” Degrees of talent matter. CJ McCollum was much more talented than anyone on the 2012 Duke team. So is Cam Boozer.
DukeTrinity11
Member
This is absolutely ridiculous man I'm sorry. Losing to a 16 Seed as the #1 Overall Seed would be the most humiliating loss in college basketball history. I don't think Scheyer would be on the hot seat but that's something we can never get over. You'd never be able to wear Duke gear until we won a title again.
That Elite 8 loss sucked and I think Id rather have been blown out by St. John's the round before but saying you'd be ok losing to a 16 Seed is ridiculous.
No one is going to buy the explanation you're giving. We're the #1 Overall seed in the tourney.
DukeTrinity11
Member
This is one of the 10 greatest Duke teams of all time and so was last year. Scheyer will keep rewriting records since he's an elite recruiter and roster builder in an era where that's key. Records will keep falling and we'll win a title soon I promise.