Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OFFNY

Duke's Argument for #1 (2017-18 Season)

Recommended Posts

I’m in favor of playing the games, rather than annointing some team as no. 1 before they’ve set foot on the court.    I like the fact that the rankings of the college football teams in line for the playoffs don’t even come out until the teams have been playing for about two months.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2017 at 2:58 PM, Frobby said:

 

I’m in favor of playing the games, rather than anointing some team as no. 1 before they’ve set foot on the court. I like the fact that the rankings of the college football teams in line for the playoffs don’t even come out until the teams have been playing for about two months.  

 

o

 

Aside from the fact that Division I-A college football also has rankings and discussions of who is # 1 before they play a single snap (including preseason rankings), Division I-A college football is the last example that I would point to in terms of an efficient (and fair) system for proclaiming a national champion. While Division I-AA football has had a 16-team playoff (after an 11-game regular season) for 40 years now, Division I-A football didn't have a 2-team "playoff" until 1998, and it didn't have a 4-team playoff until 2014. It's glaringly obvious that with 130 teams in its system, Division I-A football should have a 16-team playoff, or at the very least, an 8-team playoff. As it stands now, they don't even have enough spots for the champions of each of the 5 major conferences, let alone a spot for an undefeated team from a Group-of-5 conference. After playing 12 (and sometimes 13) games, I think that it's absurd to tell the #5, the #6, the #7, etc. teams in the country that they cannot have a chance to play for the title. It's possible that Wisconsin can finish the season at 13-0 and the Big Ten champions, and not make this year's playoffs. And regardless of whether or not that situation comes to fruition (by either Wisconsin losing a game, or a team that is ahead of them losing a game to open up a spot for the Badgers), the overall point that I made shows the glaring inefficiencies in the Division I-A football system.

 

College basketball once had a fundamental problem with their playoff system, in that a team had to win its conference championship in order to make the NCAA tournament. That led to situations such as what happened in 1970, when South Carolina was the #3 team in the nation but did not get to go to the tournament because they lost to North Carolina State in the ACC tournament. And in 1974, when Maryland and North Carolina State were both Top-5 teams in the country, but only David Thompson's Wolfpack went to that season's tournament because they defeated Len Elmore's Terrapins in the ACC Championship game in overtime, 103-100.

College basketball remedied that fundamental problem by allowing more than 1 team from each conference to be admitted to the NCAA tournament  ........ more than 40 years ago, in the 1974-75 season. Division I-A college football has been as stubborn as a mule in terms of evolving into a fair and efficient 16-team playoff system (or at the very least, a reasonably fair and efficient 8-team playoff system) over the last 4 decades.

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke clearly has a very talented team this year, led by freshman Marvin Bagley III, who’s averaging 22 ppg, 11 rpg in the early going, including two 30-point, 15-rebound games in the PK80 tournament last weekend.    Their lack of experience may be fatal, though, as they are starting four freshmen.   Coach K will have his work cut out for him to mold this unit into a cohesive team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o

 

(DECEMBER 19th)

 

Duke has more wins than any team in the ACC (11), and they are the #3 team in the country ........ yet they are at the bottom of the ACC standings because of the fact that they lost to Boston College, and that is the only in-conference game that has been played by anyone so far.

 

Strange, but true.

 

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/conferences/teams/_/id/2/acc-conference

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 8:09 AM, Frobby said:

Duke clearly has a very talented team this year, led by freshman Marvin Bagley III, who’s averaging 22 ppg, 11 rpg in the early going, including two 30-point, 15-rebound games in the PK80 tournament last weekend.    Their lack of experience may be fatal, though, as they are starting four freshmen.   Coach K will have his work cut out for him to mold this unit into a cohesive team.

I’ve seen nothing to change my mind since Thanksgiving.    This may be the most talented team Duke has ever had — which is not the same thing as saying it’s the best team Duke has ever had.    Defensively, they’re inconsistent at best.    But they do hit the boards better than almost any Duke team I can think of.    And Bagley is probably one of the five most talented players Duke has ever had.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is about next year but still. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2018/1/21/16915966/zion-williamson-duke-recruiting-rj-barrett-cameron-reddish-best-freshman-class-ever

Quote

Duke already had commitments from R.J. Barrett and Cameron Reddish. With the addition of Williamson, the Blue Devils now have the consensus top three recruits in the class of 2018 heading to campus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that.    I have to say, while I like Duke getting strong recruiting classes, I don’t really like them becoming a factory for one-and-dones, as they have over the last 5-6 years.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 11:05 AM, Frobby said:

I’ve seen nothing to change my mind since Thanksgiving.    This may be the most talented team Duke has ever had — which is not the same thing as saying it’s the best team Duke has ever had.    Defensively, they’re inconsistent at best.    But they do hit the boards better than almost any Duke team I can think of.    And Bagley is probably one of the five most talented players Duke has ever had.  

It's ridiculous to have Bagley and Wendell Carter on the same team - both top 10 picks in the next draft who complement each other so well.  The whole team appears crafted to blend so well.  The only team I see that has a chance against them is Villanova - with a quality senior PG, a great wing player in Bridges, and a blend of good players throughout the lineup and off the bench.  Spellman's becoming a quality big, but he's 6'8.  He can't stop both Bagley and Carter.  Virginia's the most disciplined team in the nation, but they don't have the players to stop Duke.  Arizona?  They have the size and 2 outstanding players.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2018 at 5:06 PM, Ruzious said:

It's ridiculous to have Bagley and Wendell Carter on the same team - both top 10 picks in the next draft who complement each other so well.  The whole team appears crafted to blend so well.  The only team I see that has a chance against them is Villanova - with a quality senior PG, a great wing player in Bridges, and a blend of good players throughout the lineup and off the bench.  Spellman's becoming a quality big, but he's 6'8.  He can't stop both Bagley and Carter.  Virginia's the most disciplined team in the nation, but they don't have the players to stop Duke.  Arizona?  They have the size and 2 outstanding players.      

They don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, backwardsk said:

They don't?

Well... 20/20 hindsight is a hard one to compete with. 

Virginia sure didn't stop the Duke bigs, but who knew Duke's perimeter players would shoot so poorly?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Well... 20/20 hindsight is a hard one to compete with. 

Virginia sure didn't stop the Duke bigs, but who knew Duke's perimeter players would shoot so poorly?  

UVA did hold them to 15 points below Duke's season low.  

I really don't follow college basketball too much anymore.  It's a shame that Duke doesn't play at UVA this season.  This unbalanced schedule with the conference expansion is one of the reasons why I don't follow it as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, backwardsk said:

UVA did hold them to 15 points below Duke's season low.  

I really don't follow college basketball too much anymore.  It's a shame that Duke doesn't play at UVA this season.  This unbalanced schedule with the conference expansion is one of the reasons why I don't follow it as much.

And still barely beat them.

Fwiw, if they played a best of 7 series,  I think Duke would win at least 5.  Duke's 2 bigs are a top 5 pick (possibly #1 in the entire draft) and a likely top 10 pick.  Grayson Allen has anger issues, but he's a top quality senior shooting guard, Gary Trent Jr is a quality swingman who'll likely be a 1st round pick, and Trevon DuVall is one of the top freshman PG's in the country who will also likely be a 1st round pick.  Virginia likely has no 1st round picks on their roster.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

And still barely beat them.

Fwiw, if they played a best of 7 series,  I think Duke would win at least 5.  Duke's 2 bigs are a top 5 pick (possibly #1 in the entire draft) and a likely top 10 pick.  Grayson Allen has anger issues, but he's a top quality senior shooting guard, Gary Trent Jr is a quality swingman who'll likely be a 1st round pick, and Trevon DuVall is one of the top freshman PG's in the country who will also likely be a 1st round pick.  Virginia likely has no 1st round picks on their roster.    

 

They have a ton of talent.  No question about it.  Why are they losing to mediocre and bad teams (State and BC)?  Is it the coaching?

Don't you think that is way too many conference losses before February?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Spring Training Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

Minor League Stats







  • Posts

    • Can you give us a reference about where the evidence is for how "very few left handed pitchers threw 91 back in the late 70s"?     Maybe my statistical search is not looking in the same place.     Yeah, the junk baller who won our last World Series game probably ever.    Just watch the video and honestly tell me you think this guy couldn't pitch today.     
    • So few left handed pitchers threw 91 back in the late 70's that I just find it unlikely from a statistical standpoint.  I'm not old enough to remember late 70's McGregor.  The guy I remember in the 80's was more of a junkballer.
    • At the same time, you cited 103 mph as the reason older generation hitters would not do well today.  Exaggeration goes both ways in making a point about which I too was trying to communicate...i.e.  I do believe that many 1980s era players could certainly play well and thrive in today's game.     And that some of the pitching skill sets today might even be more valuable in today's game than they were back then.   Even if the velocity is not the same.         I certainly accept that the game is played differently today, different after the steroid era, and that the athletes playing it perform those aspects of the game differently than their predecessors.   Still haven't found the speed gun ratings on Scott in high school, but I suspect they were pretty good....I might just ask him...   Scott McGregor, El Segundo (Calif.), 1972 Although a teammate of Hall of Famer George Brett (as a sophomore and junior), it was McGregor who garnered more headlines during his three-year career under El Segundo legendary coach John Stevenson. McGregor was a three-time All-CIF selection and was twice named Player of the Year. He was also a Rawlings All-American as a senior. He set section records (which still stand) for career wins (51), career shutouts (20), shutouts in a season (9), and consecutive no-hitters (2). He also set the section record for career strikeouts (which has since been broken) with 496. He was the No. 14 overall pick in 1972 draft by the Yankees, but he was eventually traded to Baltimore. 
    • He's the top, He's the Colosseum! He's the top, A cornerstone of the Te-am! -- Pole Courter, from the musical "Anything Counts"  
    • You asked about velocity right? I love how you keep mentioning inner circle HoF players.  No word on how Frank Torre would do.  By concentrating on the top .1% you are missing out on an important issue I tried to relay to you.  Your average hitter is a lot more dangerous.   
    • And I think that’s fair. I’m just saying that I think it’s quite possible he would get that bump in today’s game given the emphasis on K’s from a pitching standpoint and hitter’s aggression and willingness to strike out.  It’s definitely a different game though. 
    • Yeah, I am sure Frank Robinson and Hank Aaron would have been just terrified by Kevin Gausman and Tommy Hunter.....lol.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...