UCLA would be out first, followed by Indiana, although I really dont consider Indy a BB.
Duke most likely blue blood to lose BB status
- Thread starter WeAreDePaul
- Start date
both of those schools have had success and won titles with more than one coach. Duke is the outlier, 90% of it's history is propped up by one coach's success. Duke definitely has the most tenuous position in the blue blood family.
So what. Is it in the BB handbook that you have to have more than one coach.
How long ago was UCLA's last NC? Indiana?
Who defines success? You?
Before you start asking questions about other schools you should first ask when was the last time Duke won a NC without Coach K behind the reigns? And then you need to start wondering if Duke will ever win a natty again.
At the end of the day, Duke is the school with the most tenuous place amongst the BBs until/unless they prove they can win an NC without him.
Clocks ticking.
Bless your heart. You are ******ed.
So you are punishing a school in your made up BB discussion due to not having to replace coaches multiple times.
You are special. And by that I mean, short bus, helmet special.
This is crazy revisionist history. What had Hurley done, at that point, that would’ve led Duke to him?
Not punishing them yet. Give it some time, if they continue to be a losing program without K then yes, they will lose their BB status.
Just like how you lost your status as a man when you stuck a bowl on your head and cut your hair to look like Coach K's sister wife and then stood in the mirror with your tiny penis tucked between your legs while saying "I'd fvck me if I was Coach K"
Elite 8 this year. Now what other BB made the Elite Eight this year.
Yeah, definitely ******ed.
Elite 8 with some players that K recruited. Also still living off of K's success.
Wait till the memory of K is gone, let's see how Duke does once the stench of K is gone.
pretty sad you're over here hyping an elite 8 run. You sound like a Tennessee fan.
Well, Rhode Island hadn't been to the tourney since the 90s and he took them twice. Won two tourney games...one as an 11 seed. Then turned around the mess at UConn and got them near the top of the conference again.
He'd been a head coach long enough to develop a reputation for his Xs and Os ability.
Regardless....how does Scheyer's 0 years of HC experience trump Hurley's experience of turning around three programs?
Never mind. Not even sure why I responded to an irrational idiot on a message board.
BTW, Scheyer recruited all of these guys.
So ACC Championships dont matter either.
So what is your key stat that keeps a school a BB.
Well, the guy who effectively built the Duke program wanted Scheyer to follow him, and it was internally a smooth process. Of course you know this, though. It’s hardly a novel concept and is definitely just as understandable as Hurley’s resume at the time.
I get that they allowed K to control the process and he wanted to keep it in the family. I just responded to the idea that no one could have known that Hurley was a quality coach. Plenty knew, or should have known.
Yeah, he had done good things. I guess my greater point was that if Duke had gone outside the family, is that the resume they would’ve targeted?
Duke is honestly in the best spot in the blue blood hierarchy after Kansas. They're still a recruiting machine, have a big NIL budget, have the most media coverage to lure in high impact transfers and has had arguably the most recent success.
If Kevin Ollie can win a title so can Scheyer with the right pieces. Also, besides KU, I don't see any of the other blue bloods like Indiana, Kentucky, UNC or UCLA coming close to sniffing a national title so its like not Duke has to win #6 immediately or something.
If Kevin Ollie can win a title so can Scheyer with the right pieces. Also, besides KU, I don't see any of the other blue bloods like Indiana, Kentucky, UNC or UCLA coming close to sniffing a national title so its like not Duke has to win #6 immediately or something.
Duke still living in Coach K's wake. Let's see how they are doing 10 years from now.
duke isn't sniffing a title anytime soon either. You guys every year have a top 2-3 class and you've swung and missed alot. Media coverage, NIL is a part of it, you have to have a good coach to manage all of that and Scheyer so far hasn't.
We've made 2 Final 4s, won a Title and made 5 Elite 8s in our last 8 tournaments with these top recruiting classes.
What're you talking about?
I'm the biggest Duke homer on this board and my expectations each decade are 1 Title, 2-3 Final 4s, 5 Elite 8s and 7-8 Sweet 16s. I also think Duke should either win the ACC Regular Season title or the ACC Tournament every other year.
I laugh at rival fans who thinks Duke needs to win like 3 titles every decade or something to be successful.
Dont provide facts, it just pisses them off.
Hubie had a lucky year and now they think they know it all.
Oh, lord, excuses, excuses. Kind of like when Zion went out and other players from other teams get hurt.
Play with what you got.
Sorry...only UNC got lucky. Even though they didn't play anyone without their best player. Carry on.
Frankly, expectations for Duke should be higher than that. Self accomplished that while under a dark cloud for the better part of a decade and settling for scraps.
No one can recruit like Duke. They can land whoever they want. They should definitely have won more than they have.
I think that is exactly why there hasn't been more success than there has. It's fun getting those #1 classes and all, but you just aren't going to make a bunch of deep runs trotting out a lineup full of freshmen and sophomores every year. In the last 6 final fours, so that's 24 teams, only 2 of the 24 have had more than one freshman starting, but 15 of the 24 had 2 or more seniors starting. Most of the freshmen just aren't strong enough and mature enough to handle a 6 game single elimination tournament.
When people say this, it’s basically saying that Duke and Kentucky have been coached by morons. And I’m sure you don’t think that’s true, in Duke’s case at least.
If building teams the way they do is/was such a disadvantage…why would they continue to do it every single year?
“OAD teams” have had plenty of success. Both Kentucky and Duke won titles and went to a bunch of final fours and elite 8s.
Not all of the rosters had the perfect combo of talent/experience, but plenty did. And who’s to blame if they didn’t? Only Duke and Kentucky have had the luxury of building teams exactly how they want them.
I'm not saying you cant win with a bunch of freshmen. It's been done, but I think you have to have the perfect class for it, and those only come around so often. I would prefer two stud freshmen and a bunch of seasoned players around them. I believe in most cases, the freshmen generally aren't strong enough and get pushed around. I cant think of many teams that won a title with more than two freshmen starters. 2012 and 2015 are all that come to mind without putting a lot of thought into it.
