http://dukereport.com/duke-basketball/top-10-duke-basketball-games-this-season-fhodges/
Funny how far down the list UNC has slipped.
Funny how far down the list UNC has slipped.
Duke Site--Top 10 Games This Season: UK #1
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
I would LOVE that too. If the networks wanted record-breaking ratings . . . here it is.
Can't wait for that game at the uc. Going with my pops. Went to the champions classic against msu a few years back.
Duke fans were head and shoulders the best there, just looking to watch basketball and have a good time. Ku fans were more concerned cheering against uk and msu fans were just as annoying.
Duke fans were head and shoulders the best there, just looking to watch basketball and have a good time. Ku fans were more concerned cheering against uk and msu fans were just as annoying.
I won't complain if they replace the UL series with a Duke, but I like not having a yearly series with them just because it would slightly take away from the mystery of how they would match up should they meet in March. Kind of like Inter-league series in Baseball that ends up repeating in the World Series.
that's true but this year will make only the second meeting since like 02 or 03 if I'm not mistaken.. That's unacceptable to me
Here ya go you are correct 3rd matchup since 2000
UK 11 Duke 9 head to head all time
UK 1-0 In Head to Head Title Games 1978
UK 1-0 Head to Head in Final 4 1966
Tied 1-1 In Regional Finals '92 and '98
http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/statistics/Duke.html
Last edited:
This. We're due for a Duke-UK tournament meeting. I'd like for them to play at least once every 3 or 4 years though.
I would rank the Duke game second on our schedule behind the game at KU, mainly because the KU game is on the road and it is later in the season, so it should be a better gauge of what the team is like.
Well it IS at AFH; so it's a true road game. And some of it depends on if Diallo is cleared to play, and when he's cleared; same thing with Skal. Can't say if KU is overrated or not, only time will tell that.
I wouldn't be heartbroken if UK were to win by double digits
- but even if it's only a 1 point margin of victory it's all good.Duke game is huge because it'll draw - big story line.
Seems like every time UK is on a collision course with Duke in the NCAAT we end up losing just before we would meet. Happened last year and I believe it happened in the early 2000's, I think we lost to USC just before we would have played them. Then there was 2010. Can you imagine the hype of a UK-Duke national title game?
Well, both teams have the goods to get there this year.
I think at this point though I would rather play a team that is just lucky to be there. We have had the best team too many times the last 5 years only to come up short. I'm ready for an easier road to the title. You know, like Duke 2010.
I think at this point though I would rather play a team that is just lucky to be there. We have had the best team too many times the last 5 years only to come up short. I'm ready for an easier road to the title. You know, like Duke 2010.
I'm not going to hijack the thread, but Duke played #8 seed Cal, #4 seed Purdue, and #3 Baylor in Houston, beat #2 seed WVU 78-57 and #5 seed Gordon Hayward/Brad Stevens led Butler. There's nothing easy about that road. It probably would have been a bit tougher if Kentucky hadn't lost to WVU and Kansas hadn't gotten Farokmaneshed though.
Why do you think they gave Duke a free ride to the title game? They wanted UK vs. Duke and thought for sure UK would be there, so they made the road easy for Duke. Only logical explanation for why the number three overall seed got the best draw for a one seed. I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but the only other explanation is that the selection committee is made up of idiots who do not watch games and rely on computer programs and media opinion to do their jobs.
Either way, Duke had a way easier path than we did. Duke fans will try to pull out this or that stat to try to say differently, but it doesn't matter. Three of the best four teams ended up on the same side of the bracket. Wisconsin has the most to be upset about, they had to beat Zona, UK, and Duke to win a title. The odds were really stacked against them. Meanwhile, Duke had Gonzaga and the winner of the easy East to go through before the title game. Wisconsin spoiled the ratings bonanza by upsetting us.
The last thing a Duke fan should ever talk about is how tough their road was in the NCAAT. You can't be serious thinking that road you just laid out was murderers row. Yeah, UK losing to WVA was, and still is a head scratcher but you've got a lot of if's in that road. Yeah it would have been tougher but you actually didn't play UK or KU. You played Butler for the title, not UK or KU. And don't brag about beating a 5 seed. I also don't see any 1 seeds in there that you had to go through either. Seriously though, you bring up games against Baylor, Purdon't and Cal as tough games? Come on, you can't be serious with that.
oh I won't argue that - in fact I emphatically agree with you. Was just imagining all the hoopla and ratings
So, you're literally saying that I can't argue my position with logic and reason? That makes sense.
Here are the RPIs anyway.
2010
Duke's actual path: #160 Winthrop , #20 Cal, #16 Purdue, #9 Baylor, #4 WVU, #12 Butler
Duke's hardest path: #160 Winthrop , #20 Cal, #16 Purdue, #11 Villanova, #2 UK, #1 Kansas
Kentucky's actual path: #121 ETSU, #39 Wake, #46 Cornell, #4 WVU, (#3 Duke), (#12 Butler)
Kentucky's hardest path: #121 ETSU, #29 Texas, #21 Wiscy, #4 WVU, #3 Duke, #1 Kansas
Kansas's actual path: #152 Lehigh, #17 UNI, (#28 Sparty), (#14 Tenn), (#12 Butler), (#3 Duke)
Kansas's hardest path: #152 Lehigh, #48 UNLV, #24 Maryland, #22 OSU, #5 Syracuse, #2 UK
Syracuse's actual path: #117 Vermont, #36 Gonzaga, #12 Butler, (#6 KState), (#28 Sparty), (#3 Duke)
Syracuse's hardest path: #117 Vermont, #36 Gonzaga, #26 Vandy, #6 KState, #1 Kansas, #2 UK
2015
Duke's actual path: #171 Bob Morris, #26 SDSU, #19 Utah, #8 Gonzaga, #23 Sparty, #4 Wiscy
Duke's hardest path: #171 Bob Morris, #25 GTown, #19 Utah, #8 Gonzaga, #2 Nova, #1 UK
Kentucky's actual path: #249 Hampton, #37 Cinci, #24 WVU, #16 Notre Dame, #4 Wiscy, (#6 Duke)
Kentucky's hardest path: #249 Hampton, #37 Cinci, #13 Maryland, #3 Kansas, #4 Wiscy, #6 Duke
Wisconsin's actual path: #124 CCarolina, #27 Oregon, #11 Carolina, #5 Zona, #1 UK, #6 Duke
Wisconsin's hardest path: #124 CCarolina, #27 Oregon, #11 Carolina, #5 Zona, #1 UK, #6 Duke
Villanova's actual path: #122 Lafayette, #39 NC State, (#21 Louisville), (#23 Sparty), (#6 Duke), (#4 Wiscy)
Villanova's hardest path: #122 Lafayette, #39 NC State, #21 Louisville, #7 UVA, #6 Duke, #1 UK
Last edited:
The first number is the average RPI of the opponents except for the first round game.
The second number puts more emphasis on the strength of matchups deeper into the tourney. 2nd round opponent's RPI x1, S16 opponent's RPI x2, E8 team's RPI x3, F4 team's RPI x4, and the finalist's RPI x5. I added those up and averaged them. It's probably not the best measure for this.
The higher the score, the weaker the schedule for both numbers.
2010
Duke's actual path: [12.2] [31]
Duke's hardest path: [10] [19.6]
Kentucky's actual path: [20.8] [43]
Kentucky's hardest path: [11.6] [20]
Kansas's actual path: [14.8] [35.6]
Kansas's hardest path: [20.2] [38.4]
Syracuse's actual path: [17] [41]
Syracuse's hardest path: [14.2] [23.6]
Who had the hardest actual path? Duke, followed by Kansas, Syracuse, and Kentucky.
Who did the selection committee give the toughest path? Duke, followed by Kentucky, Syracuse, and Kansas.
2015
Duke's actual path: [16] [40]
Duke's hardest path: [11] [19.8]
Kentucky's actual path: [17] [35.8]
Kentucky's hardest path: [12.6] [23.6]
Wisconsin's actual path: [10] [19.6]
Wisconsin's hardest path: [10] [19.6]
Villanova's actual path: [18.6] [38.8]
Villanova's hardest path: [14.8] [26.2]
Who had the hardest actual path? Simple average wise, Wisconsin did, followed by Duke, Kentucky, and Villanova. With the other average, Wisconsin is followed by Kentucky, Villanova, and Duke.
Who did the selection committee give the toughest path? Wisconsin, followed by Duke, Kentucky, and Villanova.
The second number puts more emphasis on the strength of matchups deeper into the tourney. 2nd round opponent's RPI x1, S16 opponent's RPI x2, E8 team's RPI x3, F4 team's RPI x4, and the finalist's RPI x5. I added those up and averaged them. It's probably not the best measure for this.
The higher the score, the weaker the schedule for both numbers.
2010
Duke's actual path: [12.2] [31]
Duke's hardest path: [10] [19.6]
Kentucky's actual path: [20.8] [43]
Kentucky's hardest path: [11.6] [20]
Kansas's actual path: [14.8] [35.6]
Kansas's hardest path: [20.2] [38.4]
Syracuse's actual path: [17] [41]
Syracuse's hardest path: [14.2] [23.6]
Who had the hardest actual path? Duke, followed by Kansas, Syracuse, and Kentucky.
Who did the selection committee give the toughest path? Duke, followed by Kentucky, Syracuse, and Kansas.
2015
Duke's actual path: [16] [40]
Duke's hardest path: [11] [19.8]
Kentucky's actual path: [17] [35.8]
Kentucky's hardest path: [12.6] [23.6]
Wisconsin's actual path: [10] [19.6]
Wisconsin's hardest path: [10] [19.6]
Villanova's actual path: [18.6] [38.8]
Villanova's hardest path: [14.8] [26.2]
Who had the hardest actual path? Simple average wise, Wisconsin did, followed by Duke, Kentucky, and Villanova. With the other average, Wisconsin is followed by Kentucky, Villanova, and Duke.
Who did the selection committee give the toughest path? Wisconsin, followed by Duke, Kentucky, and Villanova.
You can use all the stats you want, it doesn't change my opinion.
They set it up for Duke to cruise into the title game in 2015.
Who cares about the first three games. One seeds worth the ranking will sleep walk through the first three games.
Look at the games that mattered to get to the title game.
Elite Eight:
Duke gets Gonzaga, a mid-major program that gets high praise even though they have never made a Final Four.
UK gets ND, probably the second best team in the ACC going into the tourney.
Wisconsin plays Zona, a team that should have been a 1 seed, the fourth best in the tourney.
Final Four:
Duke plays MSU (a 7 seed) and destroys them. If the top seeds would have advanced, then they would have played Nova (which did not deserve a 1 seed, let alone the second overall seed) or UVA, a team without its best player. Let's face it, Nova no longer plays in a major conference (the Big East is extremely weak now). UVA was a mere shadow of what they were before the Anderson injury. The path to the title game was going to be easy for Duke, even if they didn't get help from upsets.
UK faced Wisconsin. The third best team in the land, without question. How does the number one overall team end up playing the third best team in the semis? The projected ratings were higher for UK/UW in the semis than UW/Duke would have been.
I take nothing away from Duke, they beat the teams they had to beat to get the title and it was not handed to them.
I do believe that the committee set it up to get a UK/Duke championship. UK failed to hold up their end of the bargain.
Duke may have won that matchup and the committee probably didn't care who won that game, they just wanted the revenue that would have undoubtedly came from that game. That game would have been the highest rated title game of all time most likely.
It's all about money. They set up matchups that will result in high ratings. And they manipulate the system to try to get the games they want.
Just like with football. Why OSU, FSU, Bama, and Oregon in the playoffs? Why not Baylor and TCU in the playoffs? Bigger programs draw better ratings.
College athletics is all about money. Don't kid yourself. Maybe I am pessimistic, but that is what I believe.
They set it up for Duke to cruise into the title game in 2015.
Who cares about the first three games. One seeds worth the ranking will sleep walk through the first three games.
Look at the games that mattered to get to the title game.
Elite Eight:
Duke gets Gonzaga, a mid-major program that gets high praise even though they have never made a Final Four.
UK gets ND, probably the second best team in the ACC going into the tourney.
Wisconsin plays Zona, a team that should have been a 1 seed, the fourth best in the tourney.
Final Four:
Duke plays MSU (a 7 seed) and destroys them. If the top seeds would have advanced, then they would have played Nova (which did not deserve a 1 seed, let alone the second overall seed) or UVA, a team without its best player. Let's face it, Nova no longer plays in a major conference (the Big East is extremely weak now). UVA was a mere shadow of what they were before the Anderson injury. The path to the title game was going to be easy for Duke, even if they didn't get help from upsets.
UK faced Wisconsin. The third best team in the land, without question. How does the number one overall team end up playing the third best team in the semis? The projected ratings were higher for UK/UW in the semis than UW/Duke would have been.
I take nothing away from Duke, they beat the teams they had to beat to get the title and it was not handed to them.
I do believe that the committee set it up to get a UK/Duke championship. UK failed to hold up their end of the bargain.
Duke may have won that matchup and the committee probably didn't care who won that game, they just wanted the revenue that would have undoubtedly came from that game. That game would have been the highest rated title game of all time most likely.
It's all about money. They set up matchups that will result in high ratings. And they manipulate the system to try to get the games they want.
Just like with football. Why OSU, FSU, Bama, and Oregon in the playoffs? Why not Baylor and TCU in the playoffs? Bigger programs draw better ratings.
College athletics is all about money. Don't kid yourself. Maybe I am pessimistic, but that is what I believe.
Stop it. You seemed to have such a strong first jab, and then followed it up with RPI? As in the most embarrassing ranking in all of sports which fans and writers annually try to get the NCAA selection committee to disavow? The one that fails to take into account such basic factors as MARGIN OF VICTORY?
You just went and destroyed all your momentum with that garbage. Come back with Kenpom or something and we can talk. I have no dog in this fight- I do think Duke gets easy-ish paths, but that it's overstated by my fellow cats fans. But GTFO with RPI. Dunno about the Duke board, but that doesn't fly here. You can do better.
Me? I don't care at all whether or not your argument goes through. I'm just telling you that it is no bueno, and citing RPI on team strength doesn't put you on the side of the facts any more than citing a book on international relations written by Kim Jong Il.
You need to understand whose turf you're on. We have plenty of rival posters who are around every day and have great rapport with us. But if you're going to be a huge jackass who also attempts to debate using rpi..
So you're basically just sticking your fingers in your ears? Sorry I ruined your echo chamber.
By this logic, Wisconsin wasn't worth their one seed since they were in a one point game with Carolina with about a minute to play in the Sweet 16 and Oregon was also close against them in the third round matchup with five minutes to play. I know Oregon played them tough the prior year when they were a two seed, so they had to have had confidence that they could hang with Wisconsin and they did till late when Wisconsin pulled away some.
I was going to ask you which team Arizona deserved a one seed over, but I see you did answer that question already by saying Villanova didn't deserve it. Fair enough. IMO Villanova may have gotten the nod over Arizona because the Big East was a stronger league overall last season than the Pac-12. If I remember correctly, Utah was the only top 25 team in the Pac-12 other than Arizona. This and Villanova had two fewer "bad" losses than Arizona. Nova's bad loss came to Seton Hall, Arizona had losses to UNLV, Oregon State and Arizona State. Although I will be fair and say Arizona had the best win; at home against Gonzaga.
And to add on to the Big East/Pac-12 argument, I remember the Pac-12 had four teams in the NCAA Tournament and virtually nobody thought one of those four (UCLA) should have been in. Big East had six teams; none of which were on the bubble (St. John's was the lowest and they had a 9 seed). I can't argue that Duke brings in more money for the NCAA. If I got to where I tried to argue that point, I'd ask whoever the moderator of this board is to ban me lol
RPI? As in the most embarrassing ranking in all of sports which fans and writers annually try to get the NCAA selection committee to disavow? The one that fails to take into account such basic factors as MARGIN OF VICTORY?
You just went and destroyed all your momentum with that garbage. Come back with Kenpom or something and we can talk. I have no dog in this fight- I do think Duke gets easy-ish paths, but that it's overstated by my fellow cats fans. But GTFO with RPI. Dunno about the Duke board, but that doesn't fly here. You can do better.
RPI is a joke.
I really don't like any of the computer rankings. A computer program can't take into account the "human factor" in sports.
I know what I saw watching games all year and that was this:
UK was the best team.
Duke was the second best team.
Wisconsin was the third best team.
Zona was the fourth best team.
The rest of the field was fodder.
UVA would have been close to those top dogs if not for the Anderson injury. They fell back down to earth with that injury.
Nova did not deserve a one seed, let alone the second overall seed. They were majorly flawed and played nobody down the stretch, IMHO.
ND was playing the best among the rest going into the tourney. They were on fire and almost crashed the party (Final Four).
Gonzaga, as usual, were pretenders.
The whole Duke side of the bracket was W-E-A-K.
Wisconsin had the odds stacked against them and still almost won the title. They had the most impressive run in the tourney. Had to beat UNC, Zona, UK, and Duke to win a title. That would have been some title run.
UK's bracket was weak until the Elite Eight. Maybe a tad weaker than Duke's, but like I said, if you are a true favorite, the first three games should be formalities.
The one seeds should have been:
Midwest- UK
East- Duke
South- Wisconsin
West- Zona
Two seeds should have been: Nova, Zaga, UVA, and KU.
I was okay with KU at 2, though without Alexander, they did not have a prayer.
Same with UVA. Without Anderson they were doomed.
Zaga and Nova were, as mentioned above, mid-major pretenders.
2015 was not a year for Cinderella. One of the big dogs were going to take home the hardware. No doubt about it.
You can post stats and computer rankings or whatever, but I know what I saw. I trust my eyeballs.
Play the same tourney ten times and UK and Duke probably play for the title seven or eight times, IMHO.
I really don't like any of the computer rankings. A computer program can't take into account the "human factor" in sports.
I know what I saw watching games all year and that was this:
UK was the best team.
Duke was the second best team.
Wisconsin was the third best team.
Zona was the fourth best team.
The rest of the field was fodder.
UVA would have been close to those top dogs if not for the Anderson injury. They fell back down to earth with that injury.
Nova did not deserve a one seed, let alone the second overall seed. They were majorly flawed and played nobody down the stretch, IMHO.
ND was playing the best among the rest going into the tourney. They were on fire and almost crashed the party (Final Four).
Gonzaga, as usual, were pretenders.
The whole Duke side of the bracket was W-E-A-K.
Wisconsin had the odds stacked against them and still almost won the title. They had the most impressive run in the tourney. Had to beat UNC, Zona, UK, and Duke to win a title. That would have been some title run.
UK's bracket was weak until the Elite Eight. Maybe a tad weaker than Duke's, but like I said, if you are a true favorite, the first three games should be formalities.
The one seeds should have been:
Midwest- UK
East- Duke
South- Wisconsin
West- Zona
Two seeds should have been: Nova, Zaga, UVA, and KU.
I was okay with KU at 2, though without Alexander, they did not have a prayer.
Same with UVA. Without Anderson they were doomed.
Zaga and Nova were, as mentioned above, mid-major pretenders.
2015 was not a year for Cinderella. One of the big dogs were going to take home the hardware. No doubt about it.
You can post stats and computer rankings or whatever, but I know what I saw. I trust my eyeballs.
Play the same tourney ten times and UK and Duke probably play for the title seven or eight times, IMHO.
Is margin of victory even an important stat?
You mean the subjective, biased factor.
You mean the subjective, biased factor.
RPI is easily the worst system of the ones used. Also, as to that 2010 run, you guys had Villanova in your region, who was easily the weakest #2, which they backed up by losing to a 10 seed before you got to play them. Also, had Purdue, who had lost Hummel before the tournament. They had zero chance of beating you without him.
Last edited:
Stop it, dude. I was excited when I read your first sentence - came out with a bang - I thought "here we go, a rival fan who at least makes an attempt towards objectivity", and then I'm severely let down by you with your RPI gimmicks and little one-line comebacks to substantive objections. Very, very disappointing.
I'm glad that you've stopped the finger-in-ear stuff and have actually addressed my objection finally.
So thank you for that.
And now, you want me to go in depth on why a system that can't distinguish between beating a mid major by 1 point in OT versus drubbing them by 40 in regulation is an awful way to compare quality of teams?
Well, uh - okay..
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/rpi-prediction/
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/1343438/rpi-tell-whole-story
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/34887185
http://thebiglead.com/2015/03/23/nc...gular-season-again-proves-foolhardy-in-march/
Last edited:
I don't know if Kansas was necessarily doomed without Alexander. He had his moments, but also had plenty of struggles. Sure didn't live up to the hype of a top five recruit as he was touted. It affected them depth wise for sure, but I still think they'd have lost to Wichita State even with him. Wichita State was very underseeded as a 7. Kind of the same deal with Kelly Oubre. He was better than Cliff, but he didn't exactly light the world on fire for a top 10 recruit either. I simply think Kansas just wasn't that good last year; and a big part of that was those two not performing up to expectations out of high school. Not to argue against them getting a number two as much as I'm saying they were far worse than the clear top three of Kentucky, Duke and Wisconsin. And that obviously showed itself when Kansas played Kentucky in November.Then again, just about everyone else was also other than perhaps Notre Dame who had it going at the end of the year and also perhaps a healthy UVA team.
Absolutely correct about UVA. They had enough trouble scoring points with Anderson and his 45 percent shooting from three, so they were screwed without him being at 100 percent. I think Duke was the only team that beat UVA when Anderson was fully healthy.
Good point about KU.
They were a 2 seed by default. KU wasn't great, but they won the Big 12 and who else were you going to put in as a 2 seed?
The 2015 field was pretty weak other than the top four (five if you count a red hot ND team).
You're right in saying that to this point, none of them are great yet. However, as we all know, RPI is the worst of the worst, because it's intentionally self-limiting for arbitrary and archaic reasons.
No no no, seeding is the crux of the ncaa tourney committee.
"Hardest" is subjective, seeding is how the commitee bends the field. they're borderline handicappers.
Villanova was not a 1 seed (3) and Gonzaga is the biggest shell of a 2 ever. Duke, was not a 1 seed. Did not win their conference or tournament. Deserved the first two. These misnomer seeds are how the committee* plays the game.
They knew damn well what they were doing giving notre dame the three in uk's region.
"Hardest" is subjective, seeding is how the commitee bends the field. they're borderline handicappers.
Villanova was not a 1 seed (3) and Gonzaga is the biggest shell of a 2 ever. Duke, was not a 1 seed. Did not win their conference or tournament. Deserved the first two. These misnomer seeds are how the committee* plays the game.
They knew damn well what they were doing giving notre dame the three in uk's region.
if ul gets that death penalty thing maybe we could slide into one of those dates for the next few years... you know... maybe...
Maybe Notre Dame could have gotten the last two seed over Kansas. That's about it. The other number threes were from the Big 12 and they couldn't even knock KU out as regular season champs, so obviously couldn't have given it to any of them. Perhaps Northeastern could have beaten Kansas had they played them instead of Notre Dame given how tough they played the Irish and in turn, maybe we'd have had a Sweet 16 of Notre Dame against Butler or Northeastern, but the bracket still very likely would have played out the same with UK/Notre Dame in the Elite Eight.
