The College Basketball Post

 
Hey man, you're the one that said Duke is constantly underachieving. I just went back and looked since K has been there.
I mean I guess I can agree with 2015, but it's silly to dis-credit a team for winning the whole damn thing.
2010 I think they overachieved. PS #9, Lost 3 of 7 at one point in the season...
2007, they were a 6 seed. There weren't high expectations there. Therefore, they didn't really underperform.

Also, quit it with this whole UNC has never "blundered" in the tournament. 2006? Plus, you can't just dismiss NIT appearances or down-years for UNC (2013 and 2014)
Also, with Kentucky. Title favorite in 2004, lost to UAB. Down years from 2006-2009 and 2013.
our down years post 2009 are because of the sanctions
even when we weren't that good we never lost to a lower seed
we have one NIT appearance vs MULTIPLE bad tourney losses for Duke. it isn't even comparable
Lost to a lower seed in 2006 man and, technically lost to a lower seed in 2012.

But, whatever, we will have to agree to disagree.

Bottom line, every single Blue Blood school either has down years (UNC, UK, Indiana, Mich State) or has bad tournament losses (KU, Duke)...being a 2 seed and losing in the 2nd round is much better than going 18-15 and going to the NIT though or being an 8 seed in the NCAAT though.
 
in 2012 we lost because we had a walk-on starting at pg :lol:
I'll give you 06 but even then george mason went to the final four.
and duke constantly underachieves is my point and you proved it.
 
in 2012 we lost because we had a walk-on starting at pg
laugh.gif

I'll give you 06 but even then george mason went to the final four.
and duke constantly underachieves is my point and you proved it.
"constantly" underachieves. Okay. Take off your carolina blue glasses man, it's okay to say another blue blood program is really good.
 
"constantly" underachieves. Okay. Take off your carolina blue glasses man, it's okay to say another blue blood program is really good.
since winning in 2010 they have underperformed in the tournament 4/7 times
is that not constantly underachieving?
not even being biased it's just a fact
 
See, I had a good laugh at Duke last night but why ya gonna make me defend them this afternoon? :smh:

Since when is 5 titles since 1991 an underachievement? In what world Sway???
 
Last edited:
See, I had a good laugh at Duke last night but why ya gonna make me defend them this afternoon? :smh:

Since when is 5 titles since 1991 an underachievement? In what world Sway???
idk why y'all are bringing up stuff from decades ago when I stated since the 1&D era
missing the point entirely
 
Is UCLA still considered a blue blood?

Yes.

Word.

I feel UCONN should be considered a blue blood. 4 championships in the past 20 years. more than anyone else.

Agreed.

I read articles making the case that they rose to blue blood status after their 2011 title. After their 4th title in 2014, I don't think there's any doubt.

Then again, there are always those folks who don't like microwave dynasties. The type of folks that argue that if you haven't been doing it for over 40 years you're not a blue blood. Folks love doing it to Miami Hurricanes football to exclude us from their little exclusive "we do things the right way" group of schools.
 
Last edited:
 
See, I had a good laugh at Duke last night but why ya gonna make me defend them this afternoon?
mean.gif


Since when is 5 titles since 1991 an underachievement? In what world Sway???
idk why y'all are bringing up stuff from decades ago when I stated since the 1&D era
missing the point entirely
I hear you, but you can't just pick and choose certain eras and jump to conclusions from there. (Not to mention you're picking an era where Duke has two NCs)
 
Last edited:
See, I had a good laugh at Duke last night but why ya gonna make me defend them this afternoon? :smh:

Since when is 5 titles since 1991 an underachievement? In what world Sway???
idk why y'all are bringing up stuff from decades ago when I stated since the 1&D era
missing the point entirely

The early tournament knockouts and underachieving has started in this decade, right?

In a decade where they have two natty's.

I know you can't act like you wouldn't trade UNC's 2010 to current resume for duke's. early exits and all.

They have 2 rings to our 0.
 
different schools have different expectations so that statement is irrelevant
i mean ofc boston college would love to be in the place Duke is in
Duke is one of the best basketball programs of all time but they for some reason have been underperforming in recent seasons and that's a fact
 
The early tournament knockouts and underachieving has started in this decade, right?

In a decade where they have two natty's.

I know you can't act like you wouldn't trade UNC's 2010 to current resume for duke's. early exits and all.

They have 2 rings to our 0.
of course but when did I ever say UNC has been better? don't know why y'all keep bringing them up
and let's be honest if we didn't have a dark cloud hanging over us (pending ncaa sanctions) things could be a lot different
we were the favorite in 2012 until kendall injured his wrist
lost off a buzzer beater last year
so we could easily have just as good of a resume
once again not even hating on Duke just pointing out something I noticed. Hell I had more faith in them winning it all this year than us
 
See, I had a good laugh at Duke last night but why ya gonna make me defend them this afternoon? :smh:

Since when is 5 titles since 1991 an underachievement? In what world Sway???
idk why y'all are bringing up stuff from decades ago when I stated since the 1&D era
missing the point entirely

Ok, 2 championships in the 1 & D era, meaning 2 championships in the last 8 years. Is that current enough?
 
Back
Top Bottom