How does coach k do it?

[OttoMets]

With the exception of that 2nd paragraph, I think that's the best explanation (most rationale?) this forum has seen in the 8+ yrs of this argument. FWIW, I tend to agree with everything else you said.

Only difference is it doesn't make me hate them, it makes me want the benefit of the doubt (if you will) that they seem to get.

Funny, I agree with you: I can't hate them based on most of my complaints (I don't like that Duke gets preferential seeding and placement, but what're they going to do, say 'no thanks'?). If anything, I'm envious of that.

But I do kind of hate them based on my second paragraph. Flopping's dishonest. I don't like that Fab does it and I'm pleased that no other Syracuse players makes a habit of doing it. Most Dukies do. I don't like whiners; Duke's players tend to react to calls with aggressive incredulity (same reason I disliked Hoya Greg Monroe). As for preferential officiating, that's out of Duke's control (and is a rather subjective thing, unless we're going call-by-call through game film, which would be a bit frustrating). But I'd argue that they're right up there with Pittsburgh on the "games decided by one-sided and inconsistent refereeing" list.

It'd be nice to have had their consistent string of 30-win seasons and Final Fours, though. Hard to ignore that.

 

[Ghost]

Agree and yes I meant more about the Maggette stuff, the cars and the rumored jobs/homes for parents.

The rumored jobs aren't really rumors though, are they? The parents admit to it all they just said they were legitimately qualified (some were, some weren't if I recall). It's just perfectly fine for some reason because it's Duke. I guess it's no different than hiring dad's as coaches. Doesn't Kansas so that?

Wasn't Duhan's mom the most egregious case for Duke?

 

[ImperialOrange]

"Flopping players"...I don't think Duke flops more than anyone else. And they pay harder than most.
It's pretty apperent they flop more just by watching them. They also get away with a fair amount of hacking that is called if it's them with the ball.
"Extremely generous treatment from the refs"...that's pretty subjective. I think Pitt gets more generous treatment from the refs than Duke.
Which leads to this from this year already. vs Michigan State fouls 29 vs 21 free throw attempts 18 vs 41. vs Michigan fouls 19 vs 14 FTA's 9 vs 27. vs Washington fouls 29 vs 21 FTA's 23 vs 44. vs Davidson fouls 22 vs 17 FTA's 14 vs 30. Bet you can guess who got less fouls called on them and shot many more free throws.
"Popped collars"...ok, so you hate preppy people. That's legit.
Not preppy people as a whole, just the special breed that go that extra step.
"ESPN's fixation with them"...they win a lot. They deserve it. ESPN has historically been fixated with SU basketball compared to other schools. We benefit from this (although I would argue that ESON was in part built on the backs of the early BE and therefore we are entitled to it), but still.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/

Look who's picture is front page and what the top story is.
"CBS' fixation with them" CBS is fixated with all teams that win. Win and we can be fixated on as well.
Well played
"pollsters fixation"...I tend to agree with this, but it doesn;t make me hate them. It makes me respect them even more. Duke has earned the benefit of the doubt. IMO, we have earned just about what we get (which I think is pretty good, even and fair). Consistency will do a lot for a program and I'm not talking about 20-win seasons.
Disagree. Pollsters shouldnt be giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. That's how we get SEC vs SEC in the BCS.
"Selection Committee"...agreed.
They really are some b*stards with this.
As for their fans having a sense of entitlement: who cares? They are good. They win. And they win championships. Compare that to Rutgers and their sense of entitlement and tell me who has earned it more.
Suppose my bigger issue is with "entitled" people in general but the fans expect to get every call, the players expect to get every call, and the refs can't blow the whistle fast enough to oblige.

44cuse

Just my .02 but fun time killer thread for me so figured I'd spell it out as per your request.

 

[OttoMets]

Just my .02 but fun time killer thread for me so figured I'd spell it out as per your request.

Since I'm more fixated on this than I should be (and I know I'm beating a dead horse here), let's play the guess which team and guess which seed game from 2005:

One team went25-5; losses to #2, #7, and three unranked teams; conference tournament champ.

One team went 27-6; losses to #5, #20, #23, #18, #6, #15; conference tournament champ.

Who deserves the #1 seed and who deserves the #4 if one team is Duke and one team is Syracuse?

 

[Ghost]

Not so sure about clean as I mentioned in another post. A very close friends nephew went to Duke and was an academic "adviser" for many of the bball players. Believe most of what you hear as rumor. It may be different now but the rumors in the Brand and Davis days were more fact than fiction.

Didn't Elton Brand say publicly that he hated being at Duke because they were a group of douchebag preppies at the school?

 

[ImperialOrange]

Since I'm more fixated on this than I should be (and I know I'm beating a dead horse here), let's play the guess which team and guess which seed game from 2005:

One team went25-5; losses to #2, #7, and three unranked teams; conference tournament champ.

One team went 27-6; losses to #5, #20, #23, #18, #6, #15; conference tournament champ.

Who deserves the #1 seed and who deserves the #4 if one team is Duke and one team is Syracuse?

Syracuse... either way! It's pretty obvious who's who though due to SOS.

You have a list of ranked teams each team beat that year?

 

[rrlbees]

Didn't Elton Brand say publicly that he hated being at Duke because they were a group of douchebag preppies at the school?

LOL, don't remember, but it sounds vaguely familiar.

 

[rrlbees]

Syracuse... either way! It's pretty obvious who's who though due to SOS.

You have a list of ranked teams each team beat that year?

You don't understand though. It's not who you lost to it is how you lost. I am sure Duke's losses were with flair and style and that they were just so darn unlucky.

 

[ImperialOrange]

You don't understand though. It's not who you lost to it is how you lost. I am sure Duke's losses were with flair and style and that they were just so darn unlucky.

Took 25 more free throws and only made 10 more?

 

[44cuse]

Just my .02 but fun time killer thread for me so figured I'd spell it out as per your request.

Crap...the quote didn't catch the whole thing. But since we're having fun, we can take one more run at it.

In general I think lot's of teams can make the claim they don;t get the same calls as other teams. I think plays hard (like Pitt, but different)...maybe similar to L'Ville...and teams that play that style tend to have a bit more leeway because that is the "tone" of the game. The referees get into that mode as well. As an SU example, there are fouls that I believe are called on us because the referees are used to seeing us in a zone and when there is "action", they react to lighter contact more than they would if there was action/contact more often during the game. IE: teams against us are generally swinging the ball around the perimeter as opposed to contnually going inside.

FT disparity: 1 season does not a trend make, but I grant you those #'s look pretty bad. Not saying it is this way, but teams that pound the ball inside are going to take more FTA's than others. I've got time to kill today (obviously) but not enough to go back and look at Synergy or even the shot attempts to see if those games were affected by Duke going inside and the opponent shooting jumpers.

Preppy People: Eh, I know a lot of Duke people and they are great basketball fans, like to drink a lot of beers, and generally think they are pretty smart. In my experience, they are pretty smart. All in, not that bad, IMO.

Well, kind of proves my point. ESPN is dropping them far for losing and throwing it out there. You take the good with the bad. It's news. Duke lost. It's not like Mizzou lost. When they lose it'll be news, but not like Duke because they have not won as much. The real argument here is Dickie V. But, even Duke fans hate Dickie V in my experience.

BCS and NCAA Tournament are two completely different things. Polls don't mean anything in College Hoops. They do in football. But the point here is (the one I agreed with you on) this: they have earned, right or wrong, a reputation for coming back after a loss and not having a season tank or a flame out. I'd love to be in that position.

Good time waster.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

Funny, I agree with you: I can't hate them based on most of my complaints (I don't like that Duke gets preferential seeding and placement, but what're they going to do, say 'no thanks'?). If anything, I'm envious of that.

But I do kind of hate them based on my second paragraph. Flopping's dishonest. I don't like that Fab does it and I'm pleased that no other Syracuse players makes a habit of doing it. Most Dukies do. I don't like whiners; Duke's players tend to react to calls with aggressive incredulity (same reason I disliked Hoya Greg Monroe). As for preferential officiating, that's out of Duke's control (and is a rather subjective thing, unless we're going call-by-call through game film, which would be a bit frustrating). But I'd argue that they're right up there with Pittsburgh on the "games decided by one-sided and inconsistent refereeing" list.

It'd be nice to have had their consistent string of 30-win seasons and Final Fours, though. Hard to ignore that.

Really good post. I'm with all of that. I was actually waiting to pull out the Fab card in this discussion because he flops a lot. (And the really bad thing there is that he also TAKES GOOD charges. The more he flops, the less inclined refs are going to be to give him the real charge when he gets it.)

Could not possibly agree more with Pitt comment. No doubt about it.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

Didn't Elton Brand say publicly that he hated being at Duke because they were a group of douchebag preppies at the school?

Not exactly...but pretty pretty darn close.

Supposed Email

44cuse

 

[CorduroyG]

A duke alumni sent an email to elton brand criticizing him for leaving duke early. This was brand's response

Thank you very much, for reminding me of the reason why I left Duke. People like you can not and will not ever understand my situation. I’m sure daddy worked very hard to send your rich self to college. While real people struggle. I would also like to extend an invitation for you not to waste your or my time ever agin. Never being considered a part of your posh group of yuppies really hurts me to the heart. Yeah, right. Because I don’t care about you or your alumni.
Sincerely, Elton Brand #42 NBA

 

[Knicks411]

Someone sent him an email criticizing him for leaving early? I'm not going to paint the whole school with one brush, but what an move. I love that he signed the letter #42 NBA. For some reason that strikes me as awesome.

I didn't realize the letter was linked above; that is absurd. Just one person I know, but I would probably hate anyone that takes themselves that seriously.

For whatever it's worth, in 2005 we finished 17th in the Ken Pom rankings, Duke finished third. Both teams went 11-5 in the conference, the best team we beat out of conference were Memphis and Miss st (mid 30's in the Ken Pom) on a neutral site, Duke beat Michigan State (7) at home, Oklahoma (9) on a neutral site. That was also back before the BE expanded and before the ACC was terrible outside of Duke and UNC. We did win @Nova (4), but then didn't have another win against a team in the top 25 in BE, with our second best win being WVU at home (30). Actually w ebeat UConn at MSG, they were 13.

Duke won @ NC State (20) and beat them in the ACC tournament. They beat GA Tech (19) 3 times, once at home, once on the road, once in the ACC tournament. They also beat UNC (1) at home, and Wake (11) at home.

I see us with 2 wins against the Ken Pom top 25, @4 and 13 at a neutral site. I count Duke with 10. 10! @Nova is probably better than UNC at home, but they had 10 top 25 wins! (Also, remember when the ACC was good? Wake, Tech, State all top 25 in the Pomeroy rankings.) I gotta say, looking back at it, that is a damn impressive resume. The 5 losses were @UNC, @ Maryland (32), @Wake (11), @ Va Tech, and home Maryland. Home Maryland and at Va Tech are a little iffy (all our losses came to top 25 KP teams) but the wins more than make up for it)

Also, no talk of Duke flopping is complete without this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0upQDkY-pg

Stuff like that really needs to be weeded out of the game.

 

[ImperialOrange]

BCS and NCAA Tournament are two completely different things. Polls don't mean anything in College Hoops. They do in football. But the point here is (the one I agreed with you on) this: they have earned, right or wrong, a reputation for coming back after a loss and not having a season tank or a flame out. I'd love to be in that position.

Just an example of the foul calls this year

MSU fouls called by game vs ranked teams:
vs *UNC 25 called against MSU 14 for MSU = -11
vs *Duke 29 against 21 for = -9
@ Gonzaga 20 against 22 for = +2
vs Indiana 14 against 18 for = +4
@ Wisconsin 22 against 19 for = -3

Also, if SU didn't have to play 2 ranked teams back to back ever, I'm sure we'd have less losing streaks as well!

Hey it's been fun and you've got some good insight. We can pick up the rest of the debate tomorrow if you've got more.

 

[rrlbees]

For whatever it's worth, in 2005 we finished 17th in the Ken Pom rankings, Duke finished third. Both teams went 11-5 in the conference, the best team we beat out of conference were Memphis and Miss st (mid 30's in the Ken Pom) on a neutral site, Duke beat Michigan State (7) at home, Oklahoma (9) on a neutral site. That was also back before the BE expanded and before the ACC was terrible outside of Duke and UNC. We did win @Nova (4), but then didn't have another win against a team in the top 25 in BE, with our second best win being WVU at home (30). Actually w ebeat UConn at MSG, they were 13.

Duke won @ NC State (20) and beat them in the ACC tournament. They beat GA Tech (19) 3 times, once at home, once on the road, once in the ACC tournament. They also beat UNC (1) at home, and Wake (11) at home.

I see us with 2 wins against the Ken Pom top 25, @4 and 13 at a neutral site. I count Duke with 10. 10! @Nova is probably better than UNC at home, but they had 10 top 25 wins! (Also, remember when the ACC was good? Wake, Tech, State all top 25 in the Pomeroy rankings.) I gotta say, looking back at it, that is a damn impressive resume. The 5 losses were @UNC, @ Maryland (32), @Wake (11), @ Va Tech, and home Maryland. Home Maryland and at Va Tech are a little iffy (all our losses came to top 25 KP teams) but the wins more than make up for it)

But what makes KenPom the definitive answer on rankings?

 

[tbonezone]

Hate about Duke:

- flopping players
- extremely generous treatment from the refs
- Cameron crazies with popped collars and scripted (and still lame) cheers
- ESPN's fixation with them
- CBS's fixation with them
- The pollsters fixation with them ex. loss that would drop us 7 spots will drop them 2 or 3
- selection committee giving them ideal locations and realitively easy roads to the sweet 16.

if you didn't like the dozen or so charging calls last night wait til we hit the ACC.
secondly i heartily agree with the loss/drop bias we see for duke. lose one game and we plummettly!

 

[CorduroyG]

5 loss teams shouldnt be 1 seeds anyway, unless that team is duke.

 

[moqui]

But what makes KenPom the definitive answer on rankings?

that is a good point . . . I like Pomeroy, but his is only one system of many. if you look at something like the Colley Matrix, you see that Duke has 3 top 25 wins to SU's one, but Syracuse has 4 wins against 26-50 vs none for Duke. When you get to top 100, then Duke has 7 total and SU has 6.

You can plug any teams you want into the Matrix; this is just his current Top 5 (here are his entire rankings)

 

[OttoMets]

Syracuse... either way! It's pretty obvious who's who though due to SOS.

You have a list of ranked teams each team beat that year?

Someone posted this useful rankings archive earlier today: http://collegepollarchive.com/mbasketball/index.cfm. I only checked the rankings for the weeks Duke lost in 2005, but it's easy enough to look up all opponents.

 

[Knicks411]

I used ken pom here because A) I like the site and B) it was the easiest one for me to access historical data. I don't think a different ranking system would have much of a difference.

that is a good point . . . I like Pomeroy, but his is only one system of many. if you look at something like the Colley Matrix, you see that Duke has 3 top 25 wins to SU's one, but Syracuse has 4 wins against 26-50 vs none for Duke. When you get to top 100, then Duke has 7 total and SU has 6.

Right, but I was just looking back at 05. It was easiest for me to use Pomeroy for that exercise. I in no way think he is definitive, but I think it's very good and like I said, it's going to be pretty close to most of the other systems. I'm taking pomeroy over the AP poll, for instance. I didn't bother to check to see if Sagarin has his yearly rankings archived; he probably does

 

[ImperialOrange]

Since I'm more fixated on this than I should be (and I know I'm beating a dead horse here), let's play the guess which team and guess which seed game from 2005:

One team went25-5; losses to #2, #7, and three unranked teams; conference tournament champ.

One team went 27-6; losses to #5, #20, #23, #18, #6, #15; conference tournament champ.

Who deserves the #1 seed and who deserves the #4 if one team is Duke and one team is Syracuse?

Based on ESPN 04-05 schedule the 25-5 team beat 2 ranked teams (#11 & #22) and the the 27-6 team beat beat 3 (#12,#13, & #17) fwiw. How in the hell did we get a #4 seed that year? I had repressed that memory until now.

 

[CUSEBB1]

The only thing i hate about Puke and the ACC is the dam southern accents.Its the only thing i will dread about the ACC. Good god just shoot me now.Now we can hear the word YA'LL a million times.UGH!!!!

 

[OttoMets]

Based on ESPN 04-05 schedule the 25-5 team beat 2 ranked teams (#11 & #22) and the the 27-6 team beat beat 3 (#12,#13, & #17) fwiw. How in the hell did we get a #4 seed that year? I had repressed that memory until now.

It's something that I won't let go of (possibly because I spent every day between 7 April 2003 and 18 March 2005 thinking 'Syracuse is going to win another title before Warrick, Pace, and Forth graduate' and they fell flat in a disappointing and somewhat unfair manner).

Under no conceivable circumstance should a 27-6 Big East Tournament champion, much less one with that resume, get a #4 seed. Nor should it get a first-round matchup against a team that everyone said was about two seeds underseeded. Nor should that game be played two hours from that underdog's campus. And Warrick's ten (phantom) turnovers. And the technical on Roberts for slapping the backboard while dunking (haven't seen that call before or since). That team got screwed. Played badly, too, but that was a lousy situation.

 

[rrlbees]

It's something that I won't let go of (possibly because I spent every day between 7 April 2003 and 18 March 2005 thinking 'Syracuse is going to win another title before Warrick, Pace, and Forth graduate' and they fell flat in a disappointing and somewhat unfair manner).

Under no conceivable circumstance should a 27-6 Big East Tournament champion, much less one with that resume, get a #4 seed. Nor should it get a first-round matchup against a team that everyone said was about two seeds underseeded. Nor should that game be played two hours from that underdog's campus. And Warrick's ten (phantom) turnovers. And the technical on Roberts for slapping the backboard while dunking (haven't seen that call before or since). That team got screwed. Played badly, too, but that was a lousy situation.

Exactly. We did it too ourselves in the game but never should have been placed in that situation.