We've been conspicuously absent since Duke lost and the main reason was to let the dust clear. Duke Basketball has created a monster of a fan base these days and quite frankly, it's hard to navigate the waters in the various social media forums without being berated with rants from spoiled fans or short sided criticism of the team and Coach Mike Krzyzewski. The bottom line is that by Duke standards, the Mercer loss was a disappointing end to the season, one where the team never quite came together. In fact, this past seasons team was never seemingly mentally tough enough to advance. Were there specific reasons of this team falling short of expectations? Sure there was, but there are no simple answers and certainly not any one thing to point to in trying to explain a first round exit. I suppose one can call me old these days and I am sure many think I am cranky. But age does add wisdom and what I see is a blip on the radar with concern to Duke's performance. Duke had a staggered roster that needed Jabari Parker to play more in the paint, but that is not his natural position. They tried to off set their short comings in the paint with their perimeter play, but that didn't work as well as expected. In fact, Duke was very inconsistent with their backcourt play where every player on the roster contributed to the plight. The guards struggled mightily to prevent penetration. Oddly, they saved their best collective performance for last, but then the front court issues reared its head in the Mercer loss. And one cannot under sell the fact that Coach Mike Krzyzewski suddenly had to deal with the loss of his beloved brother. And the timing of that happening in season and at Christmas simply cannot be overstated. You see! Coach K is as human as you and me, but he's just accomplished more than most reading this ever will in their profession, making him seem like he's super human at times. It never fails. Any time Duke loses, the lunatic fringe or narrow thinking bunch comes out firing that he's losing his touch. They point to the same old tired analogies that have gained steam over the years like an old wives tale gains steam and becomes a bastion of misquotes. Please. Coach K is still the winningest coach in the history of the college game. He's still got the touch and he's still got the desire. Krzyzewski hit the recruiting trail running attending Luke Kennard's announcement that he will attend Duke. And that wasn't his only stop on the recruiting trail.  Kennard is a baller and a hard nosed competitor and Krzyzewski and his staff got a great start in his class where he'll be a senior this coming season. As Duke fans, most of you are very lucky to have chosen to root for a team with a living legend at the helm. And fortunately, there are still rational fans, one who appreciates the body of his work and have the foresight not to judge him on a season or even two. The truth of the matter is that most fans adopted Duke for they were consistent winners. The vast majority of Duke Basketball fans do not pull for the football program and that in a sense makes them bandwagon fans.  And trust me.  When the day comes when Krzyzewski does retire, many will fall off the ship in droves.  Most of you weren't around when Krzyzewski put in the hard work to revitalize the program when it was in the doldrums.  What I am saying is that he has built Duke into the winner they are today with blood, sweat and surely some occasional tears. And Bandwagon fans are hard to please for they think it's their birthright to win every game, every season and when this doesn't happen, they ask what's wrong, each suddenly having all the answers and taking on the role of "Coach Couch." Nothing is wrong folks, save a dose of reality. It's not easy to win year in and year out. It's not easy to win national titles or even ACC Championships, yet the Duke program has done so and if the "Balance God's," are listening, they gave the Blue Devils several breaks along the way for more success than pretty much every other fan base out there. Yes. Most of you have become quite spoiled as fans. Anyhow, let me get back on track here by saying there is always a lot going on behind the scenes and the margin for error in going out early in the NCAA's is a small one in this day and time. I mean, it's not like any one program is dominating the scene at this time and you don't have to look far to see other behemoths like Kansas and North Carolina are also at home seeking distractions until the season ends. Duke Basketball is way too big to let one season bring them down. And it's not like they didn't get some big wins, but they simply fell short of goals and it happens. Anyhow, some of you can go back to harping on one and done types, live in the 90's and such. The truth of the matter is that it is simply a time for adjustment. That adjustment could be a few simple tweaks but there is no reason the believe they will not be made. Duke Basketball is alive and well, just a little wounded at the moment. Tomorrow, Krzyzewski will address the media and you can bet that we'll learn a lot more at that time. He's always shared more after than season than in season and we can expect him to address many issues. That said, stay tuned, for we'll be here to bring you what he says.  Until then, might I suggest some take a step back to realize how lucky you are to be a Duke fan.  When you are truly on board with your team, you accept their struggles and their joys.  Fortunately for the Duke fan base, we know which of those occurs most often.  The balance of things in the college basketball world have clearly been in the corner of Duke for decades, putting the program in the fortunate rare air all want to breath.

It's time to gear up for the Greatest Show on Earth. There's a lot to process: historical trends and computer rankings and figuring out what Seth Greenberg said. Which Cinderellas will pull off the upsets. What top seed will fall flat on its face?

Most importantly, what does it take to reach the Final Four?

That last one might be particularly pressing for Duke fans --
how come Duke made the Final Four seven times in nine years from 1986 to 1994 but only once in nine years from 2005 to 2013. Did those early teams have some special something Duke's more recent teams lacked?

We'll get Duke-specific later. For now, an evaluation of the past 29 NCAA tournaments (since 1985, the year the tourney went to 64 teams) suggests the most important "something" is probably a factor most people haven't spent all that much time thinking about. Perhaps because the teams themselves have no control over it; possibly because it isn't knowable in advance. So what is this magic factor that has so much control over which teams makes the Final Four and which don't?

Who the teams play.

Not who they're supposed to play, but the actual path facing a team on its journey to the promised land. For example, last season the expected path for 2nd seeded Duke was to play the following seeds in the following order: 15-7-3-1. And that's exactly the seeds Duke played. Similarly, 1-seeds face an expected path of 16-8-4-1. And assuming for the moment that 8-seeds and 9-seeds are equivalent for our current purposes, that's the exact path three of last season's four 1-seeds took (though they each ended the trip at a different point). The only 1-seed that took a different path? That would be Louisville, which played 12-seed Oregon instead of 4-seed St. Louis in the Sweet 16. Louisville also happened to be the only 1-seed to make the Final Four. Coincidence?

Maybe. But the fact is that top-four seeds (teams seeded 1, 2, 3, or 4) have run "chalk" (their expected path) a total of 212 times since 1985 and have made the Final Four only 17 of those times (8.0%). When those same teams have played at least one game against earlier upset winners ("non-chalk"), they've made the Final Four 82 out of 252 chances (32.5%). Four times more likely would be a pretty big coincidence.

Let's break it down further. Here's how the different seeds have fared since 1985 (with 5-seeds thrown in for good measure):

Seed	Chalk Played	Chalk Final Fours	Chalk % Success	Non-Chalk Played	Non-Chalk Final Fours	Non-Chalk % Success
1 (vs. 8-seeds only)	28	8	28.6%	88	39	44.3%
1 (8/9 seeds equivalent)	48	12	25.0%	68	35	51.5%
2	43	4	9.3%	73	21	28.8%
3	65	3	4.6%	51	11	21.6%
4	76	2	2.6%	40	11	27.5%
5	97	0	0.0%	19	6	31.6%

In fairness, the above figures include first-round upsets, because technically, when a 14-seed beats a 3, the 3-seed played chalk. So, here's what the table looks like for teams that managed to beat their first round opponent:

Seed	Chalk Played	Chalk Final Fours	Chalk % Success	Non-Chalk Played	Non-Chalk Final Fours	Non-Chalk % Success
1 (vs. 8-seeds only)	28	8	28.6%	88	39	44.3%
1 (8/9 seeds equivalent)	48	12	25.0%	68	35	51.5%
2	36	4	11.1%	73	21	28.8%
3	48	3	6.3%	51	11	21.6%
4	51	2	3.9%	40	11	27.5%
5	56	0	0.0%	19	6	31.6%

Slightly different percentages, but the song remains the same. Even without counting first round upsets, top seeds are twice as likely to make the Final Four if one of their expected opponents falls prey to an upset. 2-seeds are almost three times more likely, 3-seeds almost five times more likely, and 4-seeds more than six times more likely. And no 5-seed has ever made the Final Four through a chalk path.

We tend to think of upsets as huge surprises. We know they do happen, of course, but in the NCAA tournament we pretty much always expect the favorite to win, or if it doesn't we think the favorite was flawed, not as good as advertised. Except that's not the way things work, either statistically or in real life.

If a team is favored to beat another team nine times out of ten, while the favorite could certainly win ten games in a row, the expectation would be that team would lose one game in a ten game series. That one could be the first game in the series, the last game, or any game in between. Or it may not happen at all. Put another way, if Team A had a 90% chance to beat team B, and the teams played ten games, the probability that Team A would win all ten games would be: (0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9)*(0.9), which equals 34.9%. The odds would be nearly 2 to 1 against Team A winning all ten.

In a one-and-done situation, who knows if and when the "one" will come up?

A more pertinent example would be to apply this idea to the NCAA tournament. Using Ken Pomeroy's rating system to determine the probabilities, last season Duke had the following chance to make the Elite Eight:

0.9358 (chance of beating Albany) * 0.6427 (chance of beating Creighton) * 0.5562 (chance of beating Michigan State).

Multiplying it out, Duke's probability of winning those three games came to 33.45%. Again, a 2 to 1 chance against (although fortunately Duke beat the odds).

On the other side of the 2013 Midwest bracket, Louisville had a 63.5% chance to reach the Elite Eight, thanks in large part to a weaker set of expected opponents. Then Louisville got another boost when 12-seed Oregon beat the region's 4-seed and 5-seed to face Louisville in the Sweet 16, upping Louisville's Elite Eight chances to 70.1%. Better than 2 to 1 in favor. If you'd switched Duke and Louisville, Duke's chances against Louisville's opponents would have been 51.6%, while Louisville's chances against Duke's opponents would have been 54.3%. Essentially two coin flips. The actual path matters.

Employing the same method using the last five years of pre-Tournament Pomeroy data, averaging for each seed, here are the expected probabilities of each top-8 seed winning its first game:

1-seed: 96.2% (actual performance over 29 years: 100%)
2-seed: 92.1% (actual over 29 years: 94.0%)
3-seed: 81.7% (actual over 29 years: 85.3%)
4-seed: 79.5% (actual over 29 years: 78.5%)
5-seed: 64.6% (actual over 29 years: 64.7%)
6-seed: 58.2% (actual over 29 years: 66.4%)
7-seed: 54.7% (actual over 29 years: 60.3%)
8-seed: 56.1% (actual over 29 years: 48.3%)

So when people joke about how 12-seeds always beat 5-seeds, the answer is they beat them almost exactly the amount you'd expect based on the probabilities. If anything (other than 9s beating 8s), we get slightly fewer upsets than we should.

Expanding to all games in a seed's expected path (using the same five years of Pomeroy pre-Tournament data), the chance of each top-4 seed to advance in the tournament is as follows:

1-seed: 73.4% chance of making Sweet 16; 48.9% chance of making Elite Eight; 30.5% chance of making Final Four;
2-seed: 63.4% chance of making Sweet 16; 36.5% chance of making Elite Eight; 15.4% chance of making Final Four;
3-seed: 49.6% chance of making Sweet 16; 22.7% chance of making Elite Eight; 8.2% chance of making Final Four;
4-seed: 47.1% chance of making Sweet 16; 16.6% chance of making Elite Eight; 8.0% chance of making Final Four;

Even for the best teams, the odds are against them. The team in the last five years with the highest probability against its expected path to reach the Final Four was 2010 Duke, with a 47.1% chance, but even that team was more likely than not to miss out on the Final Four. Which is why the early round upsets are so important, because like Louisville last year, playing a 12 instead of a 4 can really boost your odds.

But does it really work like that in real life? Let's take a closer look:

AFTER FIRST ROUND

Seed	After Facing	# games	# Final Fours	Pct.
1	8	56	22	39.2%
1	9	60	25	41.7%
2	7	67	17	25.3%
2	10	42	8	19.0%
3	6	63	8	12.7%
3	11	36	6	16.7%
4	5	61	7	11.5%
4	12	30	6	20.0%

AFTER SECOND ROUND

Seed	After Facing	# games	# Final Fours	Pct.
1	4	43	17	39.5%
1	5	35	15	42.9%
1	>5	23	15	65.2%
2	3	36	10	27.8%
2	6	28	9	32.1%
2	>6	11	6	54.5%
3	2	37	8	21.6%
3	>2	23	6	26.1%
4	1	43	10	23.3%
4	>1	8	3	37.5%

AFTER THIRD ROUND

Seed	After Facing	# games	# Final Fours	Pct.
1	2	39	19	48.7%
1	3	20	12	60.0%
1	>3	21	16	76.2%
2	1	39	20	51.3%
2	>1	15	5	33.3%
3	1	20	8	40.0%
3	>1	10	6	60.0%
4	2 or 3	11	7	63.6%
4	>3	7	6	85.7%

In almost every case, having your expected path derailed by an upset winner increases your chances to reach the Final Four. And not surprisingly, the bigger the upset, the more your odds go up. Not really rocket science, is it?

So that's all well and good, but what about Duke? Can we really explain 7 Final Fours in 9 years vs. 1 Final Four in 9 years based on paths and "chalk"?

Maybe we can.

From 1985 to 1994, Duke played "chalk" only twice. The 1992 team was dominant enough to get through the chalk path to the Final Four (although it took a Christian Laettner miracle to do it) but the 1993 team missed the Final Four. That means the team played 8 "non-chalk" paths in the time period. Not counting the 1987 team that wasn't a top-four seed, the team made the Final Four through 6 of those 7 easier paths. From 1995 to 2004, Duke failed to make the tourney once and once wasn't a top-four seed, but all 8 of the other years were non-chalk paths, leading to 3 Final Fours. Playing chalk only twice in 17 opportunities was remarkably lucky.

That luck seemed to run out in the 2005 to 2013 period. Not counting the 2007 team that wasn't a top-four seed, the team played 5 chalk paths out of 8, and failed to reach the Final Four through any of them. Of the 3 non-chalk paths in the period, Duke made one Final Four. And two of the non-chalk teams were only non-chalk because Duke played a 5-seed instead of a 4-seed.

Overall, Duke has played 7 chalk paths and reached the Final Four once out of 7 (14.3%) and played 18 non-chalk paths and made the Final Four in 10 of those (55.6%). How does that compare to other schools?

Counting teams that have either been a top-four seed five or more times or have made a Final Four from a top-four seed, such teams have performed as follows:

Chalk paths*: 176; 21 reached Final Four (11.9%)
Non-chalk paths: 198; 77 reached Final Four (38.9%)

* - For the purposes of this subsection, we're counting 8-seeds and 9-seeds as equivalent.

Duke slightly outperformed such teams along chalk paths and significantly outperformed them along non-chalk paths. It's also worth noting that of the 21 teams that have gotten through chalk paths to the Final Four, six of those teams won the national championship (including Duke's 1992 team), and a seventh team, 1985 Georgetown was totally dominant until it ran into Villanova and perhaps the biggest upset in the history of the NCAA tournament. Maybe some teams are so much better than everyone else that the chalk doesn't bother them? Who knows?

The above grid counted your average Joe. How's it look if we only take the "elite"? Well, counting teams that have had a 4-seed or better in 10 or more tournaments, the performance grid looks like this:

Chalk paths: 116; 15 reached Final Four (12.9%)
Non-chalk paths: 132; 57 reached Final Four (43.2%)

Not very different, relative to Duke. Here's a detailed grid of the 17 "elite" teams that comprise the latter grid:

Team	Chalk Played	Chalk Final Fours	Chalk % Success	Non-Chalk Played	Non-Chalk Final Fours	Non-Chalk % Success
Duke	7	1	14.3%	18	10	55.6%
Arizona	8	1	12.5%	8	3	37.5%
Connecticut	2	0	0.0%	11	4	36.4%
Georgetown	6	1	16.7%	5	1	20.0%
Illinois	9	1	11.1%	2	1	50.0%
Indiana	8	1	12.5%	2	1	50.0%
Kansas	14	2	14.3%	10	5	50.0%
Kentucky	5	3	60.0%	13	3	23.1%
Louisville	5	0	0.0%	7	4	57.1%
Michigan	5	0	0.0%	5	3	60.0%
Michigan State**	10	1	10.0%	5	5	100.0%
North Carolina	10	3	30.0%	11	5	45.4%
Ohio State	5	0	0.0%	7	3	42.9%
Oklahoma	6	0	0.0%	8	2	25.0%
Pittsburgh	7	0	0.0%	3	0	0.0%
Syracuse	6	0	0.0%	10	4	40.0%
UCLA	3	1	33.3%	7	3	42.9%

** - Michigan State has made two Final Fours from a 5-seed, and has been seeded 5th half a dozen times over the years, so the Spartans' totals in this grid include the team's appearances as a 5-seed, while the other teams in the grid reflect 1- through 4-seeds only.

Only two of the teams perform significantly better than Duke against chalk. The fact that those teams are Kentucky and North Carolina may possibly cause some angst among Duke fans, but at that level it's a pretty small sample.

What's it all mean? Well, next time you're tempted to evaluate a team's entire season based on its NCAA tournament performance, remember that a great deal of that showing was dictated by circumstances entirely outside the team's and coach's control. Sure, basketball isn't played in a calculator, and the teams still have to win (or lose) the games. But the fact remains it's a lot easier to win when the odds are stacked in your favor, and a lot harder when they aren't.

And the parings are in ...

The good news is that Duke will play in Raleigh which is less than a thirty minute ride without traffic from campus.  Another positive note is that there are far worse places to play like Anaheim, California, so should Duke advance, Indianapolis is familiar turf for the staff in that Duke won their last national title in the venue.  While Duke will certainly not look ahead, it's hard for fans not to do the same and with that said let's do so.  Trust me when I say the play in-game between Iowa and Tennessee is likely to win two games and face Duke.  I say that because in my mind both teams could conceivably beat a much higher seed in UMass.  The streaky Vols demolished Virginia earlier this season that they look to be a troublesome match up with their athleticism should it take place.  If Duke moves past the aforementioned teams in Raleigh, they will then likely have a rematch with Michigan and it's simply not easy to beat a good team twice.  If they make it to the final, they will likely find defending national Champion Louisville, Kentucky or the nation's top rated and undefeated team in Wichita State.  No road is easy but if the Blue Devils make it to Dallas, they will certainly have earned a spot.  Duke will play in an open to the public practice this Thursday from 1:30 to 2:10 in Raleigh

After review ...

When you are at the game live, you catch many things some miss on television.  Of course, there are times when that flips and after watching a replay of the game I found myself almost wanting to participate in what some call "Terping."  If you are wondering what "Terping," is, let me share that some in the media refer to it as an off the cuff remark about complaining in general with the usual emphasis being on officiating.  Before I go further, let me say that I still think Virginia earned their win.  I am not saying Duke didn't want this game but I will say I think the Cavaliers may have more and they made the plays to secure a win.  You've all heard the phrase the tie goes to the runner in baseball.  Well, it seemed like every even call went the Cavaliers way, save a couple.  I cannot remember a game where Duke shot just 11 free throws to their opponents 38.  That is quite the gap.  And let's not forget the two technical fouls, one certainly earned, the other questionable.  What some may have missed is Coach Mike Krzyzewski trying to get Jamie Luckies attention but was ignored and that led to him throwing a sharpie and that is where the technical came from.  Trust me, if a team is going to get a tech, they want to get their moneys worth and a word in and Krzyzewski was left miffed.  It was a very critical call in that Duke had the ball as well and it played into Virginia taking solid momentum into halftime after a Duke comeback.  During the post game press conference, Krzyzewski mentioned that Jabari Parker went to the line for three shots on twenty-four field goal attempts.  "That was ridiculous, shameful," said Krzyzewski twice and while I am not sure the outcome would have been altered on this day, I must agree that the numbers were clearly in the favor of the victors.

Yes Virginia!  It was a tough loss ..

It was a tough loss.  When you get a chance to win a title in the new expanded ACC, you have to take the bull by the horns for the title will not come easy moving forward.  I mean, look how long it took Virginia to return to center court and see the confetti fall.  It was a great season for Virginia and Tony Bennett who got my Coach of the Year vote.  What it apparent is that this team hasn't really win anything this season.  A tough schedule gave them little hope of a regular season title and falling short in the ACC Tournament is something they will have to put behind them quickly.  By Duke's lofty standards, this could be considered a "mildly," disappointing season to date.  But that's what March is for in that if they make a run, all past shortcomings will soon be forgotten provided they are still playing.

Notes - Duke forward Jabari Parker has been named the 2014 Integris Wayman Tisdale Award winner as announced by the U.S. Basketball Writers Association Monday.