Posted by emy1013 on 3/22/2014 2:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 3/21/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):
emy for what its worth, i think when you say duke should do more lately with the talent they have - you have got to mean the post season - right? these kind of upsets are becoming more normal for them, i was reluctant to bring them into the elite 8 on my bracket, but i thought this team was different (parker and hood i was really impressed with in the few games i saw). but their regular seasons are awesome. doesn't that kind of suggest i am right on this one? discipline, work ethic, and smart play bringing duke up to a 1st tier team even with not-quite 1st tier talent? (still far above average, however) - or if you'd rather, making them the clear #1 in the post season, despite not clear #1 talent? but then in the post season where you get most people's best shots, those advantages are somewhat neutralized?
sigh, i totally get what i deserve having my bracket busted, for picking the dookies =(
I hate that you feel like I was being "aggressive" towards you in this thread, if you do feel that way I don't know how you'd react if there WAS real aggression.
Kind of silly to imply that Duke doesn't get every team's best shot in the regular season, only in the postseason. But I bet you feel like UK takes everyone's best shot all year, every game, huh? Hate to break this to you, but teams like Duke, UK, UNC, Kansas, etc. (the blue bloods of college basketball) take every team's best shot every game, all season. So if Duke is having these awesome regular seasons as you claim (and they are good, but I wouldn't call them awesome by any means) and is doing it despite taking other team's best shots during these regular season games, then what's the difference between taking a team's best shot during the postseason? Answer: nothing. So, no, that doesn't "kind of suggest " you're right on this one. Far from it actually. They lose earlier than they should in the NT because although the man is one of the best recruiters ever, and one of the best motivators ever, Coach K is NOT a good in-game coach. He gets outcoached ALL the time. When he's losing to an inferior team, his primary coaching move is to sit on his chair, hand on chin, face scrunched up so that he looks like a little weasel, and turn red in the face. Then during a timeout, his best coaching move is to scream at the players until he turns beet red and scrunch up his face even more until he looks like a little rat. Great recruiter? Check. Great motivator? Check. Great X and O's coach? Not by a long shot. A good one, sure, but he gets out done consistently by the opposition coach. Duke wins all those regular season games you're talking about, not because they are this highly disclipined, hard working, intelligent team (although they do have those traits, that's not why they win though). They win them because they are simply more talented than the teams they are playing.
You said earlier that they don't get "first class talent". Sorry but to me that insinuates just above average players. To me first class talent is four and five star players, the elite, the "burger boys" as you call them. So I'd love to hear your rationale about why you think Duke's talent isn't "1st tier". I'm open to all suggestions on this one. Oh, and me having Duke blinders on? Sure, that's why I didn't have them going past the Sweet Sixteen on any of my brackets. Why? Because I'm a realist when it comes to things like that.
yeah, i would agree that duke, uk et all get the other teams "best shot" most games in the regular season, in the colloquial form of that saying. that colloquial form of the saying is around because you certainly see better than average performance from the opponents of the elite teams, on average. but is it really their best shot? the best game they could play all season is this game vs duke or unc or whoever - every time? of course not. there is an elevated level of excitement in trying to beat an elite school. is it AS elevated as in the NT? of course not. so, i agree with the saying because i don't take it literally - but clearly there is a gradient here, the "best shot" in the regular season is not the same as the "best shot" you get in the sweet 16.
i don't define top tier talent by high school rankings and individuals. its just my opinion, when i see duke 1-2 seed teams i just often don't think they are that good, i generally think if you had the best performance from duke and most of the other 1-2 seeds, duke would lose. duke might still win in a series or on average, though - because i think they just perform better in their range than others, from discipline, etc... im not going to go into recruiting classes and say heres this team who gets more talented players and all that, that is meaningless noise. said another way, i think those duke teams are good but with lower ceilings than some other teams around their level - exact same way i feel about florida this year. none of this goes back to just above average players. its small differences that separate the top teams. florida is great - they deserve that #1 overall, no dispute there. i just think if they play kansas (assuming embid plays) and both teams play their best, or very close to it, kansas wins. same with louisville, id even have said the same about duke, as well as some other teams. of course florida is "one of the best" but i don't think they are one of the top few when it comes to ceiling performances - maybe "first class talent" isn't the right word, but the talent-imposed ceiling is just not up to the level of some other teams. thats how i feel, you clearly disagree, but i don't think its as unreasonable a position as you make it out to be. its like you are trying to polarize the argument into something its not...
edit: just to clarify when i said i'd include duke, thats just by height of ceiling as i see it - not by specific matchup. i actually think florida would beat duke head to head if they both played their best, because i don't see duke containing young when hes playing really well.
3/22/2014 1:41 PM (edited)