The overratting of Duke

[orangecat]

I know this probably happens every year for the past 5 years, but let's examine it closely this year. Today, for example; after barely escaping a number 15 seed on Thursday, Duke gets every possible call during the first half. At one point the foul shots are 10 to 1 Duke!

No surprise, it continues during the second half, although West Virginia makes up quite a bit of ground. The last time I saw CBS flash the stats, it was Duke 24 foul shots, W. Virginia 12. Okay so now it's only down to 2 to 1.

During almost all of the last 10 minutes of the game W. Virginia was leading by 10-12 points. This means that had the foul shots been equal W. Virginia would have been leading by 20 instead of 10-12.

So, you're telling me that West Virginia, a 7 seed, is 20 points better than the #9 team in the country? Does that margin sound familiar? Memphis beat UTA by 23.

I think what it means is that Duke is one of the first teams to go out in the second round, meaning they were probably in the area of 28-32. So they were actually ranked 20 spots higher in the polls than they should have been! That's a ton!

To me, three things come out of this:

1. The NCAA needs to look at this game, specifically the first half. Has Duke ever had fewer foul shots than its opponent?

2. The voters in the polls need to wake up.

3. Duke needs to schedule somebody during their nonconference season.

 

[dxspaz]

and somebody get coach rat some cheeeeze!

 

[Joe2005]

Say what you want about their tournament performance, but their non-conference slate included wins over Wisconsin, Marquette, and Davidson. They also won at North Carolina and were 27-5. I don't think there's any way to argue that they didn't deserve to get a #2 seed or be ranked around the top 10. They sucked to end the season, but re-writing where teams should be ranked in basketball based on one game is silly. If Texas loses to Miami tomorrow, are we suddenly ranked 20-30 spots too high also?

 

[jimmyjazz]

I think Duke should have been a 3 seed and Wisconsin should have been a 2 seed. Duke got the benefit of the doubt on that one. No, they shouldn't have been a 5 or 6, but they definitely ride their name to beneficial seeds. They're the Notre Dame of basketball.

 

[l00p]

JJ, if I may. They are the Notre Dame of basketball only that they have been important to the game much more recently than Notre Dame has. Notre Dame has not been good or important for so long that they are almost a memory.

Once the baby boomers and sons of the great wars fade away, bless them for what they did for our country and the world, Notre Dame will faaaaade away and be recognized for being the wannabe's they truly are.

Duke, at least, has won recently and are competitive. But they still suck.

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[dxspaz]

don't forget that the win @UNC was when Lawson was out too. thomas hadn't really shown himself to be good yet either so it was a win against a diminished heel squad

 

[iamtigerwoods]

Duke was 27-5 and played a strong schedule. I am not sure how they were overrated.

 

[Third Coast]

Duke had a bad game. It happens.

 

[3_yard-out]

I hate Duke, but calling them the Notre Dame of basketball is serious overkill. They accomplish real **** during the regular season, but have a bad style and a bad coach for post season... along with being overseeded.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[bierce]

And isn't it just possible that Wiscy was better off as a 3 seed in Detroit than a 2 seed in Phoenix, much as so many Hornfans were favoring a 2 seed in Houston over a 1 seed in Phoenix?

 

[Horn69]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[todd24horn]

the post is stupid, this is a one game elimination tournament. if we lose tomorrow are you gonna say the same thing? Every team that made this tournamanet has a chance to beat anyone. Coach K's record and championships speak for themselves. This post is from a person that obviously hates Duke. Bob Huggins is a crafty coach

 

[LazyEngineer]

Overrated or not, I don't ever look forward to playing them. Even in a bad year, they would usually beat Texas. In fact, have we ever beaten Duke?

 

[naked_bongo]

The thing about Duke the past few years is that they are at their best in December and then mediocre come February. This is, in part, because they rarely leave the east coast all year (the occassional Maui visit as the exception). Come tourny time, they haven't been tested in hostile venues. That's why I love Barnes' decision to travel to Pauley and Detroit.

Also, they live by the 3, and those shots aren't always going to fall. I think most Duke fans saw the writing on the wall - not only this year but the last several years. They need to recruit inside guys or at least athletic guards. Otherwise, it will be the same recipe for defeat come March.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ProdigalHorn]

That's Duke's problem this year... too many rats. (Sorry, I can't resist.)

Seriously, yeah they were probably overrated, but I wouldn't necessarily say that just because they got beat by Wva. They accomplished a lot in a tough conference, and yes, they did get the benefit of the doubt based on their tradition. No big, it corrects itself usually, as it did this time around.