Is Duke really "underperforming" in the NCAAT?

[Coop123]

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.

Keep calling it ridiculous a few more times, that might help your point. Good grief. We are sharing our opinions here and I've never lashed at you or any poster for their opinion. But whatever. You completely misquote me by saying I'd "be ok" losing to a 16 seed. That, my friend, is ridic.... oh wait, I won't say it.

You care more about underperforming. I get it. A #1 losing to a 16 is huge for you (and all of us). My point is that it's easier for me to swallow an underperforming loss than it is to be up 19 points and lose. To each his own. I am tired of games being in the bag and losing them.

I don't remember the past "underperforming" losses nearly as much as the blown losses. The Flagg and Boozer team losses are seared into my brain forever. Epically painful. The Lehigh loss? (15 vs. 2 seed). I haven't thought about it in years. Water under the bridge. But we'll get to see UConn's buzzer-beater for the next 50 years.

That's my point that might have sailed right over........

 

[Dwight]

Winning championships is the ultimate goal of an elite program like ours. There's a huge difference in satisfaction between losing in the title game and winning it, disproportionately higher than the same for earlier rounds. If given the option, I would take a do over for all NCAA tournaments since 2016 because of the simple fact that we didn't win any championships in that timeframe and we clearly had teams that could have.

But we can't pretend like the above framework on its own accurately reflects the quality of our coaching/players/etc. We also have to point the finger at the heavy work that luck and randomness play in a single elimination tournament.

Dan Hurley's next 4 seasons won't match the success of his previous 4. Does that mean he will be declining as a coach?

 

[-jk]

easy, folks!

-jk

 

[BlueDevilDog]

Winning championships is the ultimate goal of an elite program like ours. There's a huge difference in satisfaction between losing in the title game and winning it, disproportionately higher than the same for earlier rounds. If given the option, I would take a do over for all NCAA tournaments since 2016 because of the simple fact that we didn't win any championships in that timeframe and we clearly had teams that could have.

But we can't pretend like the above framework on its own accurately reflects the quality of our coaching/players/etc. We also have to point the finger at the heavy work that luck and randomness play in a single elimination tournament.

Dan Hurley's next 4 seasons won't match the success of his previous 4. Does that mean he will be declining as a coach?

I'm not sure he'll even be around for four more.

My hunch is that he'll see a couple more portal seasons out and then really start assessing the viability of being able to compete in Storrs when programs in the B10 can throw money at players. Dusty May literally just bought his team, and they were really, really good. He's now gotten taken to the woodshed by Pitino who is all portal. It may have been lightning in a bottle with May, but if the model becomes how much $$ you have and one year stops, I can see him tapping out. He doesn't have a ton more to prove after getting to his third final with an undermanned team. If that NY Knicks job opens up, he's gone or he may just go into the media.

As for Duke, technically yes, they underachieved. They have had 2 back to back NPOY's. He had the one seed this year and finished in the Elite 8. He has easily the best roster last year and didn't win it. He has room to grow as an in game coach.

 

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Here is a report from ncaa.com and Duke's performance as a 1 seed each year since 1985.

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 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%
View attachment 22718

Welp. That certainly answers that.

Thanks for bringing data to an emotional conversation!

 

[uh_no]

Of course, that "all cylinders" recruiting was largely driven by Jon himself, who inherited just one player with any substantial experience in Jeremy Roach.

of course.

I think I'm just pointing out the silliness of comparing them on such metrics given their situatoins have been wildly different. Both are doing really good jobs...and I think trying to compare apples to apples here is...just doesn't make sense.

 

[sagegrouse]

Yes, we have underperformed tremendously. The standard at Duke is National Championships. Anything short of that is an underperformance. Strictly going by seeding, we’ve done okay, but in terms of talent, we haven’t answered the bell.

If you are writing for your fellow posters, many of whom have many thousands of posts, you might want to dial it back a bit. You appear to be saying that only the final games -- The NCAA Final -- matters. If we make the finals every 4-5 years (high, of course), that's far less than 1% of games. Most of those games are very enjoyable, and you're writing them off

 

[Kedsy]

They have had 2 back to back NPOY's.

People keep citing this, but do you know how many Naismith POYs have won the national championship? Well, I'll tell you. Five. Out of the 41 tournaments played since the NCAAT expanded to 64 teams. That's 12.2%.

Less than half (19 out of 41, 46%) made the Final Four (including the five champions). So if you do it twice in a row, based on these numbers you should expect one of those teams to make the Final Four and one to miss, just as it actually happened. Another seven lost in the Elite Eight, so 26 out of 41 (63.4%) made it to the Elite Eight or better, meaning 36.6% did not make it that far.

Of the 41 NPOYs (in years in which tournaments were held), an amazing ten of them (24.4%) played for Duke. Two of them (Laettner and Battier) won national championships. Six of them made the Final Four (including the two champions). Two more lost in the Elite Eight (making Duke's total of Elite Eight or better NPOYs to eight out of ten), while two of them lost in the Sweet 16. So overall, Duke actually overachieved compared to other teams with NPOYs.

In the ten tournaments since Duke embraced the OAD model, we've had three Naismith POYs; one made the Final Four and the other two lost in the Elite Eight. The Final Four percentage (33%) is lower than the overall average, but you can't get to 50% with a sample of three (though you could perhaps argue that losing on a last second shot is like half a win, which would put us right on average ). Getting to the Elite Eight 100% of the time is obviously better than the overall average (63%).

Still doesn't sound like underperforming to me.

 

[BrummieDevil]

I've already said that it feels like underperforming post-2015 for me considering how excellent many of the teams have been and the fact they've totaled 2 Final Fours with 0 wins there. I also get the "expected wins by seed" argument (which I used myself recently when defending Gonzaga's March performance), as well as the nature of a single-elimination basketball tournament.

Neither of those captures all the relevant context, though. On one hand, the best Duke teams have been unlucky to frequently run into 1/2 seeds rather than getting some '23 UConn type path, which is just entirely the luck of the draw. And then they've lost excruciatingly close games to them. At the same time ... they got an 11 seed in the Elite Eight and an 8 seed in the Final Four and lost those games too.

Or we can go the math route and say the '18 Duke overperformed by winning 3 games against an expected 2.34 ..... but they were a 2 seed who beat the 15, 9 and 11 seeds (barely so in the case of Syracuse in the Sweet 16). That Duke team damn well better reach the Elite Eight at least when facing those foes. The next year Duke mathematically underperformed with 3 wins against the 3.34 expected from a 1 seed .... but they just weren't playing well the whole tourney and faced a really good 2 seed as a team with an extremely high ceiling yet glaring flaws, so I'm comparatively apathetic about that one.

Regardless of how Duke has performed against expectations or to its talent level over the past decade, I'm confident we won't be having the same conversation a decade from now. Scheyer's that dude and he'll get some April wins soon.

 

[BlueDevilDog]

People keep citing this, but do you know how many Naismith POYs have won the national championship? Well, I'll tell you. Five. Out of the 41 tournaments played since the NCAAT expanded to 64 teams. That's 12.2%.

Less than half (19 out of 41, 46%) made the Final Four (including the five champions). So if you do it twice in a row, based on these numbers you should expect one of those teams to make the Final Four and one to miss, just as it actually happened. Another seven lost in the Elite Eight, so 26 out of 41 (63.4%) made it to the Elite Eight or better, meaning 36.6% did not make it that far.

Of the 41 NPOYs (in years in which tournaments were held), an amazing ten of them (24.4%) played for Duke. Two of them (Laettner and Battier) won national championships. Six of them made the Final Four (including the two champions). Two more lost in the Elite Eight (making Duke's total of Elite Eight or better NPOYs to eight out of ten), while two of them lost in the Sweet 16. So overall, Duke actually overachieved compared to other teams with NPOYs.

In the ten tournaments since Duke embraced the OAD model, we've had three Naismith POYs; one made the Final Four and the other two lost in the Elite Eight. The Final Four percentage (33%) is lower than the overall average, but you can't get to 50% with a sample of three (though you could perhaps argue that losing on a last second shot is like half a win, which would put us right on average ). Getting to the Elite Eight 100% of the time is obviously better than the overall average (63%).

Still doesn't sound like underperforming to me.

I wonder how many of those were also first pick of the draft, tagged generational players, and went on to win NBA ROY, playing alongside the runner up for NBA ROY.

Reality is Scheyer had one of the most talented teams last year in the last 20 years, and he couldn't get it done. That is underperforming.

He does a great job of assembling talent, it's now about maximizing it.

 

[Boston Dukie]

I wonder how many of those were also first pick of the draft, tagged generational players, and went on to win NBA ROY, playing alongside the runner up for NBA ROY.

Reality is Scheyer had one of the most talented teams last year in the last 20 years, and he couldn't get it done. That is underperforming.

He does a great job of assembling talent, it's now about maximizing it.

In a one and done tournament you are going to lose games vs lesser teams, it happens. The best team doesn’t always win. It is very hard to win it all. The issue is how the losses occurred the last 2 years: 1) all time top Kenpom teams with generational players, 2) clearly the more talented and better team based on the eye test and game flow through a large chunk of the game, 3) 98% win probability!, 4) team then falls apart and looks sloppy/lost and can’t execute standard plays (inbounds, see Houston) and loses. If the last 2 years Duke played great in back and forth game, and lost, ok, can’t win them all, great season. But these losses were catastrophic and unprecedented (has any team after lost two games in the elite 8 or later in the NCAA with 98% win probability ever? Let alone in back to back years. Doubtful. The odds of losing both those games was 7 in 10,000)

 

[BlueDevilDog]

In a one and done tournament you are going to lose games vs lesser teams, it happens. The best team doesn’t always win. It is very hard to win it all. The issue is how the losses occurred the last 2 years: 1) all time top Kenpom teams with generational players, 2) clearly the more talented and better team based on the eye test and game flow through a large chunk of the game, 3) 98% win probability!, 4) team then falls apart and looks sloppy/lost and can’t execute standard plays (inbounds, see Houston) and loses. If the last 2 years Duke played great in back and forth game, and lost, ok, can’t win them all, great season. But these losses were catastrophic and unprecedented (has any team after lost two games in the elite 8 or later in the NCAA with 98% win probability ever? Let alone in back to back years. Doubtful. The odds of losing both those games was 7 in 10,000)

We saw the clearly most talented teams win in effortless fashion in 2024 and 2026, and that Duke team may have been more talented that both.
I would love to know the last time a team had the two best rookies in the NBA on it.

 

[Kedsy]

Reality is Scheyer had one of the most talented teams last year in the last 20 years, and he couldn't get it done. That is underperforming.

Well, I'd say the reality is we were playing against another historically dominant team, were beating them by double-digits for most of the second half, and lost in the last seconds due to a series of improbable, unfortunate events. If any one of ten things went the other way, we win the game. You can say that the coach "couldn't get it done," but what would you have had the coach do differently? Your point of view seems pretty entitled to me.

Put another way, here are the last 30 years worth of historically dominant teams, according to KenPom (the only teams with a pre-tournament 35+ adjusted EM since (and including) 1997):

Pre-Tournament KenPom ratings, 35+
Duke '99: 42.43 (final two)
Duke '26: 38.90 (elite eight)
Duke '25: 38.16 (final four)
Arizona '26: 37.66 (final four)
Michigan '26: 37.59 (champ)
Duke '01: 37.57 (champ)
Kentucky '15: 37.43 (final four)
Gonzaga '21: 36.62 (final two)
UNC '98: 36.41 (final four)
Florida '25: 36.16 (champ)
Duke '98: 36.14 (elite eight)
Virginia '19: 35.66 (champ)
Houston '25: 35.44 (final two)
Auburn '25: 35.05 (final four)

Only four of these 14 dominant teams won the national championship (28.6%). Did the other ten all underperform?

 

[Kedsy]

We saw the clearly most talented teams win in effortless fashion in 2024 and 2026...

According to KenPom, Michigan was only the third-best team heading into the Tournament. Also, UConn in 2024 was only half a point per 100 possessions better than the #2 team (a team Coach Scheyer and Duke beat in the Sweet 16 that year), so I'm not sure UConn was "clearly" the most talented, either. They just got lucky and didn't have to face the second-best team.

 

[BlueDevilDog]

According to KenPom, Michigan was only the third-best team heading into the Tournament. Also, UConn in 2024 was only half a point per 100 possessions better than the #2 team (a team Coach Scheyer and Duke beat in the Sweet 16 that year), so I'm not sure UConn was "clearly" the most talented, either. They just got lucky and didn't have to face the second-best team.

In 2024 UConn was easily the most talented team, and Purdue was easily the second best team. There is no debating that. We are lucky we didn't get to see that UConn team. Clingan and Castle are already NBA studs, Spencer is playing lot's of good minutes for Memphis.

It's post mortem, but it's pretty clear when it's all said and done Michigan was the most talented team. I'd look at after season KP vs pre tourney. Real teams show up when it matters most. That 2024 Uconn likely beats this Michigan team by double figures.

 

[WVDUKEFAN]

One thing I can say is everyone plays Duke differently. I don’t care who it is. They see beating the team with those 4 letters on our jersey as a championship in and of itself. We are by far the most hated team in college basketball, and maybe all of college sports. I love it. Teams over achieve when they play us. With that being said, I think the coaching has been passive. We should have had two more banners in the past two years.

 

[jv001]

Well, I'd say the reality is we were playing against another historically dominant team, were beating them by double-digits for most of the second half, and lost in the last seconds due to a series of improbable, unfortunate events. If any one of ten things went the other way, we win the game. You can say that the coach "couldn't get it done," but what would you have had the coach do differently? Your point of view seems pretty entitled to me.

Put another way, here are the last 30 years worth of historically dominant teams, according to KenPom (the only teams with a pre-tournament 35+ adjusted EM since (and including) 1997):

Pre-Tournament KenPom ratings, 35+
Duke '99: 42.43 (final two)
Duke '26: 38.90 (elite eight)
Duke '25: 38.16 (final four)
Arizona '26: 37.66 (final four)
Michigan '26: 37.59 (champ)
Duke '01: 37.57 (champ)
Kentucky '15: 37.43 (final four)
Gonzaga '21: 36.62 (final two)
UNC '98: 36.41 (final four)
Florida '25: 36.16 (champ)
Duke '98: 36.14 (elite eight)
Virginia '19: 35.66 (champ)
Houston '25: 35.44 (final two)
Auburn '25: 35.05 (final four)

Only four of these 14 dominant teams won the national championship (28.6%). Did the other ten all underperform?

Great post, Kedsy. I think Duke 2026 and Duke 1999 might be the best put together teams in that era. 2025 wasn't bad either (minus injuries). Then you look at the 1992 team (34 years ago) it took the greatest shot in NCAAT history for that Duke team to win it all. That team is right there with the 2026 and 1999 teams. The best team does not always win the NCAAT. You can't dismiss injuries and luck.

GoDuke!

 

[phaedrus]

In 2024 UConn was easily the most talented team, and Purdue was easily the second best team. There is no debating that. We are lucky we didn't get to see that UConn team. Clingan and Castle are already NBA studs, Spencer is playing lot's of good minutes for Memphis.

I agree with this, but that's also what makes that team's path very different from 2025 Duke.

2024 UConn was the clear favorite, the best team in the country, and they played to expectation. They also benefited from (a) avoiding a strong 2-seed in their bracket, Iowa State, and (b) meeting 5-seed Alabama in the semifinal and avoiding the 1-seed, UNC (though UNC was a weak 1-seed and would have lost anyway). A loss at any point along the way - except maybe the title game against Purdue - would have been a fairly major upset.

Duke was not clearly the best team in 2025. There were four clear frontrunners - Duke, Auburn (the overall #1), Houston, and Florida. Duke did not benefit from bracket luck, as it had to beat a strong 4-seed and 2-seed in its region, before battling a very good 1-seed, Houston. The Houston loss, despite the ending, was not a major upset, and maybe not even an upset at all. A great team lost to another great team.

 

[jv001]

In 2024 UConn was easily the most talented team, and Purdue was easily the second best team. There is no debating that. We are lucky we didn't get to see that UConn team. Clingan and Castle are already NBA studs, Spencer is playing lot's of good minutes for Memphis.

It's post mortem, but it's pretty clear when it's all said and done Michigan was the most talented team. I'd look at after season KP vs pre tourney. Real teams show up when it matters most. That 2024 Uconn likely beats this Michigan team by double figures.

The Duke team that lost to UConn was not the same team after the injuries to Pat and Caleb. Our defense was much better before those injuries. A healthy Duke team would have beaten Michigan.

GoDuke!

 

[Kedsy]

In 2024 UConn was easily the most talented team, and Purdue was easily the second best team. There is no debating that.

Easy to say in retrospect. Purdue won their Elite Eight game by 6 points in 2024. The year before with basically the same team, they lost to a 16-seed. If they'd lost to Tennessee in the Elite Eight, I guarantee you wouldn't now be calling them "easily the second best team."