- February 21st, 2008, 3:00 pm
#158211
There are a lot of stats & figures in this Sports Illustrated article that could lead to a lot of discussion.
I would like a logical discussion for this thread. No "dook sucks" or "K blows" or "Huckleberry Roy", etc....
Why the Devils have sunk down stretch since 2001
In the seven seasons since Duke's last national title (2001), college basketball's most publicized program has almost annually seen its weaknesses exposed at the worst possible time: The end.
In reviewing important data from those seasons, one discovers an undeniable trend. Mike Krzyzewski's teams are not nearly as talented as they once were, yet the combination of a deceptively unchallenging schedule and accompanying rise up the polls leads to the same, lofty expectations as always.
These Blue Devils, however, rarely achieve them.
Dig a little deeper, however, and take a closer look at the numbers. Since 2001, the Blue Devils have dominated all right -- in December and January.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/w ... index.html
In each of the past six seasons (2002-07), AP voters have dubbed Duke a top-five team late into the regular season, including a No. 1 ranking four of the six years. Only once, however, has Duke validated those lofty opinions come March, reaching one Final Four (2004) while failing to advance beyond the Sweet 16 in the others.
This despite entering the tournament as a No. 1 seed in four of the six years.
There are a lot of stats & figures in this Sports Illustrated article that could lead to a lot of discussion.
I would like a logical discussion for this thread. No "dook sucks" or "K blows" or "Huckleberry Roy", etc....






- By LU Armchair coach