ADVERTISEMENT

Sounds like it is going to be a good weekend for Duke.

Baker is going to transfer back to be closer to home. He played half a season in 2 years due to injuries. Can't blame Cal for that. Green was midget who sucked. SKJ is apparently stupid and Gabriel and Humphries are playing professional basketball (Hump is in the NBA). Matthews is the only real one on that list and he left after his freshman year where we had Ulis and Murray at the guard spots. You know this though but are arguing just to argue.

So you're suggesting that none of those players could've turned out to be a Hawkins or Willis and help Uk drastically in their later years? Ok. LOL. You must be Cal's sidekick or something because apparently he doesn't care either since he recruits over them. Then proceeds to talk about how young they are every year.
 
My point was that Austin Rivers was still OAD. Just because Duke didn't have the #1 class, doesn't mean they didn't embrace the OAD then. The only difference now is that they recruit more of them. They had early success with OAD talent and now they can get more.

Having a single OAD candidate (and Rivers was the only one that year) =/= "embrac(ing) the OAD then," as is clearly shown when looking at the players in their 2011 class (Rivers and 4* guys) versus their ranking (#2). But you're moving the goalposts on this argument, and I'm being pedantic (I get paid to dig at details so it's hard to turn off), so I'll move on. Generally agree that UK could use those 4* type guys staying 4 years rather than transfer (for whatever reasons), but UK is hardly alone in that department; the transfer issue is probably more problematic for the long term future of college basketball than early entrants to the NBA.
 
In 2007 duke was 22-10 after the conference tournaments and 8-8 in the acc and got a ****ing 6 seed.

In 2013 UK was 21-11 after the conference tournaments and finished 12-6 in the SEC (2nd best conference record) and went to the NIT.

We could all be so lucky as to get our d***s sucked by the selection committee like duke does.
Do they swallow. Asking for a friend.
 
So you're suggesting that none of those players could've turned out to be a Hawkins or Willis and help Uk drastically in their later years? Ok. LOL. You must be Cal's sidekick or something because apparently he doesn't care either since he recruits over them. Then proceeds to talk about how young they are every year.

Players transfer all the time nowadays. Hawkins and Willis were in state kids which are a different breed. If anything I wish Cal would offer more in state kids.
I really like Baker and think he (among others) should have played more against Auburn. But sorry I can't blame him for wanting to go back home.
 
In 2007 duke was 22-10 after the conference tournaments and 8-8 in the acc and got a ****ing 6 seed.

In 2013 UK was 21-11 after the conference tournaments and finished 12-6 in the SEC (2nd best conference record) and went to the NIT.

We could all be so lucky as to get our d***s sucked by the selection committee like duke does.

lol. Pretty lazy research. You really think the committee was that biased? SEC had exactly 1 team in the top 40 in 2013; ACC had 6 teams in the top 40 in 2007. Duke was #18 in the rpi in 2007 and #10 in kenpom. Meanwhile, Kentucky was #57 in the rpi and #55 in kenpom.
 
Yeah, those 1950’s wins really have an impact in 2019.
Does Duke recognized the '78 runner up? I thought about bringing up the '66 Final four, but I understand no Duke fan here was alive back then.

Who is the oldest Duke fan here? I'll be 44 this year.
 
Does Duke recognized the '78 runner up? I thought about bringing up the '66 Final four, but I understand no Duke fan here was alive back then.

Who is the oldest Duke fan here? I'll be 44 this year.

The older Duke fans don’t bother with the National forum. Go check in at the Duke forum... there’s literally an entire named group of guys in their 50s and 60s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tw3301
lol. Pretty lazy research. You really think the committee was that biased? SEC had exactly 1 team in the top 40 in 2013; ACC had 6 teams in the top 40 in 2007. Duke was #18 in the rpi in 2007 and #10 in kenpom. Meanwhile, Kentucky was #57 in the rpi and #55 in kenpom.
Which is exactly why the ncaa got rid of the rpi in their selection process. But once again duke gets rewarded for losing the games they should have lost, including getting killed in a few of them.
 
What a pussy. You DID NOT even make the NCAA tournament in 2013 and you are talking shyt to Duke fans. Damn, and I thought AFAM U fans were stupid and idiotic. You DID NOT even make the tournament field, which means with all your McDAA's Cal could not get them in the NCAA and you had to settle for the NIT. Then you lost to a tiny little school outside of Pittsburgh in the NIT. NIT = Not Invited Tournament.
Damn you are stupid.
Duke talk this year was 40-0.
 
lol. Pretty lazy research. You really think the committee was that biased? SEC had exactly 1 team in the top 40 in 2013; ACC had 6 teams in the top 40 in 2007. Duke was #18 in the rpi in 2007 and #10 in kenpom. Meanwhile, Kentucky was #57 in the rpi and #55 in kenpom.
Duke is just so awesome.
 
Which is exactly why the ncaa got rid of the rpi in their selection process. But once again duke gets rewarded for losing the games they should have lost, including getting killed in a few of them.

The only thing you did in your comparative analysis was look at the wins and losses. That's lazy research. Let me summarize what you can find out with just a modicum of effort.

2007 Duke
Record vs top 50: 9-9
Losses to sub-50 teams: 1
% of games against top 50 teams: 56.25%
KenPom ranking: 10
Sagarin ranking: 24

2013 Kentucky
Record vs top 50: 3-5
Losses to sub-50 teams: 6
% of games against top 50 teams: 25%
KenPom ranking: 55
Sagarin ranking: 50

Duke was a 6 seed in 2007. Here are the Quad 1 Records of the 6 seeds in 2019:

Buffalo: 2-1
Villanova: 5-6
Maryland: 6-8
Iowa State: 8-7

Obviously the committee made a mistake in 2013. Robert Morris just happened to be one of the all-time great #8 seeds in NIT history.
 
The only thing you did in your comparative analysis was look at the wins and losses. That's lazy research. Let me summarize what you can find out with just a modicum of effort.

2007 Duke
Record vs top 50: 9-9
Losses to sub-50 teams: 1
% of games against top 50 teams: 56.25%
KenPom ranking: 10
Sagarin ranking: 24

2013 Kentucky
Record vs top 50: 3-5
Losses to sub-50 teams: 6
% of games against top 50 teams: 25%
KenPom ranking: 55
Sagarin ranking: 50

Duke was a 6 seed in 2007. Here are the Quad 1 Records of the 6 seeds in 2019:

Buffalo: 2-1
Villanova: 5-6
Maryland: 6-8
Iowa State: 8-7

Obviously the committee made a mistake in 2013. Robert Morris just happened to be one of the all-time great #8 seeds in NIT history.
Rustled. Are we feeling a little butt hurt?
 
Rustled. Are we feeling a little butt hurt?

Rustled? Yes. Completely. I imagine I'll be losing sleep over this tonight. My wife will probably need to calm me down over this one. lol... just kind of funny to see some talk crap when his statements have absolutely no basis or merit. And then he double-downs on his ridiculous statement. I mean, seriously. We're talking about 5-10 minutes of research to not look like a fool. If we say stupid crap, you need to be called out accordingly.
 
Does Duke recognized the '78 runner up? I thought about bringing up the '66 Final four, but I understand no Duke fan here was alive back then.

Who is the oldest Duke fan here? I'll be 44 this year.
I remember the '66 final game. Sue, my date, got sick and I watched the game in the hospital waiting room while they removed her appendix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
The older Duke fans don’t bother with the National forum. Go check in at the Duke forum... there’s literally an entire named group of guys in their 50s and 60s.
Going to duke's homeboard sounds entirely too boring and gay. i just asked a question about here, I'm not searching out a bathhouse.

..and judging by your response, no one here remembers the '78 game and no Duke fan here is older than I am. It seems it's 30's or below.
 
Which is exactly why the ncaa got rid of the rpi in their selection process. But once again duke gets rewarded for losing the games they should have lost, including getting killed in a few of them.
Can you tell us why you think the NCAA treats Duke in a special way.

Do you really think the NCAA needs Duke
 
Define "cookie". :D

7khuvl7hpwpz.jpg
 
Congratulations.... next week is going to be a good week for the Tar Heels also.
If it just Anthony, not worried. Tre and Cassius will handle him. The ACC isn't HS. He is a volume shooter. Coby was a scorer who I am really glad is gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kl40504
If it just Anthony, not worried. Tre and Cassius will handle him. The ACC isn't HS. He is a volume shooter. Coby was a scorer who I am really glad is gone.
Has Coby said he is not coming back?
 
lol. Pretty lazy research. You really think the committee was that biased? SEC had exactly 1 team in the top 40 in 2013; ACC had 6 teams in the top 40 in 2007. Duke was #18 in the rpi in 2007 and #10 in kenpom. Meanwhile, Kentucky was #57 in the rpi and #55 in kenpom.

Crazy thought the 2007 ACC = 2013 SEC.

That’s why he’s crazy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz
ADVERTISEMENT