It's becoming more and more apparent that Duke simply refuses to schedule more than one challenging away game. Of course, I'm referring to non-conference games.
Sure, the Blue Devils play in competitive tournaments when the season begins, but the atmosphere faced in an opposing team's arena is different than the atmosphere at a neutral site.
Here are a few of the away games from recent years.
Away Neutral (@ MSG)
2007-08: Temple No. 11 Pittsburgh
2006-07: NONE* No. 2 Gonzaga, St. John's
2005-06: Indiana, Temple No. 11 Memphis, Drexel
2004-05: Valparaiso* Oklahoma, St. John's
*That season they did play St. John's at Madison Square Garden, which is 30 minutes from Carnesecca Arena.
I think it's important to note that many consider Duke's fan base to be large enough in New York to classify those matchups as home games for Duke. That sounds absurd, if you ask me, but I just wanted to put that out there.
From the look of these schedules, Duke has been somewhat overrated over the past few years.
Don't think so?
In both the '05 and '06 NCAA tournaments Duke was awarded a No. 1 seed. Results: Sweet 16 both times.
In '07 Duke was awarded a No. 6 seed and made an early first round exit. In '08 Duke barely made it past the first weekend, even as a No. 2 seed!
I'm not hating on Duke, but I think their non-conference away schedule seems weak and inflates their team's performance during the season compared to other teams.
Maybe Coach K doesn't see the need to schedule non-conference away games when you play in the ACC, but I think there must be some type of correlation between underachieving and schedules.
Bottom line: Duke has trouble playing outside of intimidating Cameron Indoor Stadium—which, I might add, is slightly larger than a high school gym.
9 comments Last one added 10 months ago — Leave a Comment
Ben Allaire 11 months ago
This argument has been made before. Most notably by SI.com's stewart mandel...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/1.html
I don't buy it one bit. Why? It's was wrongheaded then and is wrongheaded now.
1) Arizona has played an unbelievably difficult out of conference schedule in recent years. Save for an elite 8 run a few years ago, it hasn't really done that much for them. You could make the case that it was somewhat detrimental to the team to lose that many games out of conference.
2) UCLA scheduled a number of cupcakes - in fact kenpom.com rates their out of conference schedule strength much lower than duke's (107 versus 41). UCLA went to the final four.
3) Memphis had a tough out of conference schedule and a weak in conference schedule yet made it to the final four. How is this any different?
Listen, if you'd criticized coach K's overuse of Brian Zubek and his underuse of Taylor King, I might've stuck with you.
However, we all need to keep in mind that the NCAA tournament is, in many ways, a crap-shoot. Sometimes you luck out with your match-ups, sometimes you don't. K has gotten some bad luck (and done a little bit of bad coaching in my opinion) in recent years. He had great luck before. That's the way it happens.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jatin Patel 11 months ago
Maybe I drifted away from my main point of argument. I think the scheduling combined with the Duke bias leads to a higher seed come March Madness and what seems to be underachieving. Obviously there are more factors involved than just OOC games but I think the hostility from those games makes a player more game ready when post-season rolls around.
1) Arizona hasn't been seeded high in the last couple of year aside from '05 (No. 3 seed), when they reached they elite eight. Otherwise, just been a 1st round and 2nd round exits. Different head coach last year. OOC schedule translates into record which translates into NCAA seed.
2) Even so UCLA is a better team. Darren Collison, Josh Shipp, Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook...that's a good team with considerable experience. UCLA has a higher RPI than Duke, we know they're better because they have an inside presence along with good guard play.
3.) In conference games allow for more upsets. Rivalries motivate athletes better than those games are more unpredictable. Sure Memphis may have a weak in conference. Memphis again much more talent with CDR, Rose, Dorsey. I guess in the end a balanced team is best.
Sure in the NCAA tournament it's all about the luck of the draw. But c'mon 1 point win over Belmont? Loss to VCU? Not you're typical powehouse teams. The teams that beat them didn't win any game after that. Oh and UCLA had like a two point win over TA&M. Most of the teams you see in the tournament are not teams that you see on a regular basis. Playing teams that players and coaches are unfamiliar with helps players adjust quicker when playoffs come around.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Allaire 11 months ago
So, Weak Schedule + Duke bias => Higher than Expected Seed => Disappointing finish.
I guess I just don't think this is true either.
The loss to VCU is understandable. That was a very, very underrated team (Eric Maynor can ball - seriously). Duke was a good, but flawed team that year. A sixth seed was about right.
The one point win over Belmont was not good, you're right.
The loss to WVU - this was also a very good squad that didn't take to Bob Huggins coaching until late in the year.
If you don't think that luck is a major part of the equation and that "we all knew that UCLA was better", what happens if UCLA blows that two-point win over Texas A&M, an obviously inferior team? I just don't think "We all knew that UCLA was better."
Then, you could've written your article on the UCLA bias.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ted A 11 months ago
There are two overwhelming arguments against this.
1) The NCAA tournament games are played at neutral sites, so it makes more sense to play Out-Of-Conference regular season games at large potential tournament sites then at opposing teams' arenas.
2) Duke is the most hated team in the NCAA and many neutral site games are essentially the same as away games... just listen to the crowds (except at MSG).
I would also like to add that Duke's OOC schedule this year is very impressive. Here are just a few-- Purdue, UCLA (unless they are upset in Coaches v Cancer), Georgetown, and Xavier. Of these, only Georgetown is at home.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jatin Patel 11 months ago
1) Possibly. I just think that actual away games provide a environment that is more hostile to the players and coach so they actually experience both ends of the spectrum. A crowd of a team not played on a regular basis and the home crowd.
2) I would listen to the crowds aside from MSG, but they barely play anywhere else.
I wouldn't say that they are overwhelming arguments, nonetheless good points.
Edit Comment Cancel
Samuel Smith 11 months ago
Jatin I understand your point but what about the fact that Duke plays their conference games in some of the most hostile arenas in college basketball. UNC, Maryland, NC State, Clemson, Virginia, BC, FSU, it is extremely difficult to win games on the road in the ACC. I agree that Duke plays nobody on the road but I'm not sold that it's the main reason they have not done well in the ncaa tournament. If anything it probably makes them more vulnerable to lose games during the ACC schedule. What about Duke's success in the ACC tournament? Duke's biggest problem is their lack of an inside presence since the departure of Sheldon Williams.
Edit Comment Cancel
AJ Johnson 10 months ago
I think the point of this article, and others like it, is that lately Duke hasn't had the same quality teams they have had in the past, and that Coach K camouflages Duke's weaknesses by playing better teams at Cameron, or on "neutral" courts, rather than at the opponent's gym. The lower number of true away games also helps keep the team fresher than the fatigue that accompanies an extended road trip.
This scheduling strategy helps Duke maintain an inflated record, which keeps them listed as a top 10 team most of the time, which helps maintain their "elite" status, which helps their recruiting. The downside to this, or upside if your a Dook hater, is that this isn't college football where mythical championships are won and lost based on the arbitrary votes of sports writers or college coaches. College basketball has the NCAA Tournament, which tends to quickly expose a team's weaknesses. Which is why over the past 5 years, Duke has only managed to get past the Elite 8 one time. They wear down at the end, when they don't have the adrenaline pumping effect of playing in front of their home crowd, imported all the way from New Jersey. It also means that refs are a little less intimidated about making a call against Duke, when not faced with the Cameron crowd.
Personal acheivment, W-L record, and his own ultimate legacy, is what Coach K is after. I think he has resigned himself to padding his stats and breaking the all-time winning record during his last few years at Duke. Anyone remember the bad back of '95?
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian 10 months ago
Re: "The bad back of '95" - What is the point of that statement? Coach K led the Blue Devils to a championship game appearance in 1999 and a national title in 2001. I don't think the back incident affected his coaching. He is getting older (61 now) but he still has plenty of solid years ahead of him.
Edit Comment Cancel
AJ Johnson 10 months ago
The comment was simply to point out that Coach K is more concerned with his own personal achievements than those of his school. His "bad back" seemed to flair up after it was clear to anyone who follows college basketball that Duke was a merely mediocre team that year. He dumped the team, threw his assistant under the bus, and refused to accept the losing record of the Blue Devils as part of his own W-L stats. This was a team that HE had recruited, and that HE had coached for the first half of the season, and was subsequently coached by assistants that HE had hired and trained. And yet he refused to accept responsibility for their meltdown.
As I pointed out, he still refuses to schedule elite programs for true "Away" games. While this helps him pad his record, and keeps Duke in the Top 25 rankings, which in turn helps his recruiting of blue chip players, it does a poor job of prepping his teams for the NCAA tournament. Whether he will admit it or not, Coach K has his eyes on the "big prize" for most overall wins by a Div I men's coach. He would rather have a 30 win season with a loss in the 2nd round of the Tourney, than a 25 win season that ends with a Championship or Final Four appearance.
If you don't believe that, at least recognize that aside from a few of his pet players, Coach K doesn't have much to do for his players after their career at Duke is over. There are quite a few former Blue Devils that while they may have enjoyed the overall experience playing for Duke, have little personal contact with Coach K after they leave. Even worse, for a school that is considered one of the elite higher learning insitutions in the country, the graduation rates of his players is much lower than you would expect from a school that prides itself of education. 67% of the men's basketball players, from a four year span of enrolling freshman classes from 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, graduated through 2008!
Despite what Coach K's American Express commercial states, he is not a "teacher of young men", but merely a man who prepares basketball players for college basketball, and to hell with them when their four years of eligibility has expired.
http://www.bus.ucf.edu/sport/public/downloads/2008_Mens_Basketball_Tournament_PR.pdf
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.