“I don’t care about the record…” - Jim Boeheim

[Fat tire 13]

 

[MSOrange]

Colgate is 22-11, on a 14 game winning streak and are in the Patriot League championship against Navy.

Your definition of "awful" is...interesting.

They also lost to St John's, Pitt, and NC State when they stepped up in competition. They've done well against Patriot League competition. We're supposed to be better than Patriot League Forza. That's what is interesting....

 

[OttoMets]

They also lost to St John's, Pitt, and NC State when they stepped up in competition. They've done well against Patriot League competition. We're supposed to be better than Patriot League Forza. That's what is interesting...

Yeah, it's not even like they're one of those strong Bucknell teams from 15 years ago. They're a typical Patriot League frontrunner - that is, one that loses 11 games.

Except usually when they lose 11 games Syracuse is included in that total.

 

[Alsacs]

They also lost to St John's, Pitt, and NC State when they stepped up in competition. They've done well against Patriot League competition. We're supposed to be better than Patriot League Forza. That's what is interesting...

It’s kinda sad/funny if we had just beaten Colgate or Georgetown we don’t have a losing season.

Those losses flipped and JB doesn’t have a losing season.

 

[SWC75]

But we didn't win those games. And in a year when the ACC conference featured the most watered down field since we've joined the league, we posted a losing record. Think about that for a moment.

What people are actually saying is that we don't have the personnel to compete with good teams anymore. We played a few this year -- Auburn, Duke -- and got embarrassed. Heck, we got embarrassed by some lousy teams as well, such as Colgate and Georgetown, both of whom went on to have awful seasons after handling us.

We're reasonably competitive with the mediocre teams that the majority of our league is comprised of -- that's a very different thing than saying that we are competitive against good teams. But in a down ACC year, we didn't get the job done. Comparatively, a squad like ND did.

Therein lies the difference.

The top teams in the league were:

Duke (26-5, 16-4) with whom we couldn't match-up and lost by 20 and 25 points. We know it was match-up problems because they lost to Miami, who we had those 18 point leads on and lost two games by a total of 4 points to, Florida State who we split with, Virginia who beat us by 5 and North Carolina, who beat us in overtime.

Notre Dame (22-9, 15-5) who beat us by 10. It was 69-72 with 1:03 to go: the remaining 7 points all came at the foul line as we were fouling trying to get the ball back.

North Carolina (23-8, 15-5), who beat us in overtime

U of Miami (22-9, 14-6) See above.

Wake Forest (23-8, 13-7) We beat us in overitme after a bad call and who we blew out by 22 in the Dome.

The second Duke game, the Notre Dame game, the UNC game and the second Miami game were played without Jesse Edwards, the UNC and second Miami game without Symir Torrance and the second Miami game without Benny Williams.

Our big problems were depth and poor ball-handling at the end of the games. legitimate criticisms can be made about trying to go with 10 guys, playing a 2 guard at the point and running a isolation offense that is dependent on spacing, which makes it hard to deal with defensive pressure. But we obviously had to the talent to compete with the top teams in the conference.

 

[Alsacs]

The top teams in the league were:

Duke (26-5, 16-4) with whom we couldn't match-up and lost by 20 and 25 points. We know it was match-up problems because they lost to Miami, who we had those 18 point leads on and lost two games by a total of 4 points to, Florida State who we split with, Virginia who beat us by 5 and North Carolina, who beat us in overtime.

Notre Dame (22-9, 15-5) who beat us by 10. It was 69-72 with 1:03 to go: the remaining 7 points all came at the foul line as we were fouling trying to get the ball back.

North Carolina (23-8, 15-5), who beat us in overtime

U of Miami (22-9, 14-6) See above.

Wake Forest (23-8, 13-7) We beat us in overitme after a bad call and who we blew out by 22 in the Dome.

The second Duke game, the Notre Dame game, the UNC game and the second Miami game were played without Jesse Edwards, the UNC and second Miami game without Symir Torrance and the second Miami game without Benny Williams.

Our big problems were depth and poor ball-handling at the end of the games. legitimate criticisms can be made about trying to go with 10 guys, playing a 2 guard at the point and running a isolation offense that is dependent on spacing, which makes it hard to deal with defensive pressure. But we obviously had to the talent to compete with the top teams in the conference.

The ACC finally got a second team ranked in the conference this week in the top 25.
North Carolina came in 25.

From December till March the conference had ONE ranked team in the conference.
These top conference teams are barely NCAAT teams.
If you cant differentiate Duke and the rest of the top ACC teams its not the same point.

We were literally toyed with by Duke 2 times.

Notre Dame, Miami, Wake Forest are barely NCAAT teams.
Medicore teams at the top of conference means the conference stinks and we should be able to compete with NCAAT barely teams.

UNC is probably a 8-9 seed.
UNC 2022 looks a lot like Syracuse 2019.

A mediocre team that hung its hat on medicore wins and a win at Duke.
Was an 8 seed. 2019 Syracuse is also our highest finisher in conference since 2014 when we finished 6th.

The ACC is so medicore this year the AP wrote this.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

They also lost to St John's, Pitt, and NC State when they stepped up in competition. They've done well against Patriot League competition. We're supposed to be better than Patriot League Forza. That's what is interesting...

Poster stated, "Heck, we got embarrassed by some lousy teams as well, such as Colgate and Georgetown, both of whom went on to have awful seasons after handling us."

Georgetown did have an awful season. I think it would be difficult to contend that Colgate has had an "awful" season.

Note that I did not state that the type of season they've had (given the quality of the Patriot league) is any type of justification for us losing to them.

 

[Sherman20]

Still if we'd won 3-4 of those games we might still have a shot at the NCAAs and would have clinched another winning record. I think the conversation would have a slightly different tone. Someone posted that we don't have the personnel to competed with the teams we are playing. We actually competed with them fairly well. We just didn't make the plays at the end to win those games.

If there are so many close losses, you don’t think one or two more key players (another guard and forward from the portal or KR and Braswell or Quincy returning) would have made a difference in turning those close losses into wins? I certainly believe that. It’s about not having enough high level athletic talent and JB going into the season without the necessary weapons, i.e. poor roster construction.

 

[RF2044]

Colgate is 22-11, on a 14 game winning streak and are in the Patriot League championship against Navy.

Your definition of "awful" is...interesting.

What's really... interesting is the rationalization some use to convince themselves that the status quo is adequate.

That Colgate team was mediocre, even by Patriot League standards. Hip hip hooray for them for rallying.

 

[RF2044]

The top teams in the league were:

Duke (26-5, 16-4) with whom we couldn't match-up and lost by 20 and 25 points. We know it was match-up problems because they lost to Miami, who we had those 18 point leads on and lost two games by a total of 4 points to, Florida State who we split with, Virginia who beat us by 5 and North Carolina, who beat us in overtime.

Notre Dame (22-9, 15-5) who beat us by 10. It was 69-72 with 1:03 to go: the remaining 7 points all came at the foul line as we were fouling trying to get the ball back.

North Carolina (23-8, 15-5), who beat us in overtime

U of Miami (22-9, 14-6) See above.

Wake Forest (23-8, 13-7) We beat us in overitme after a bad call and who we blew out by 22 in the Dome.

The second Duke game, the Notre Dame game, the UNC game and the second Miami game were played without Jesse Edwards, the UNC and second Miami game without Symir Torrance and the second Miami game without Benny Williams.

Our big problems were depth and poor ball-handling at the end of the games. legitimate criticisms can be made about trying to go with 10 guys, playing a 2 guard at the point and running a isolation offense that is dependent on spacing, which makes it hard to deal with defensive pressure. But we obviously had to the talent to compete with the top teams in the conference.

There were no "top teams" -- there was ONE top team, Duke. And outside of that lone top 5 caliber team, the rest of the league wasn't top 25 caliber. This was the weakest field, outside of the one top team, that the ACC has fielded in decades. Honestly -- can this even be debated?

And under those circumstances, facing a conference slate that was as weak as it has been in the entire time we've been associated with the league, we finished in the bottom half, in 9th place, with a losing conference record.

You're talking about a "bad call" as being the difference in the season, instead of acknowledging the systemic issues that led to this year's decline, over a multi-year period of time.

When we played that lone top team, we got annihilated. If we play them again this week, we're going to most likely get destroyed again. Because we don't have the personnel, or defensive capabilities, to make it a close game. We don't match up, we don't have the horses. The same way we didn't have the horses to match up with the other top team we faced this year, Auburn -- who similarly rolled us.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Why are we justifying losses? Losses are still losses. Those close losses were mostly caused because we had no lead guard to get us into good offense at the end of games. It's on JB for not creating a roster that had the necessary pieces to win.

Last year UK finished under .500. Calipari responded by going hard in the transfer portal and that's where his 2 best players came from.

We should do the same, but I doubt we will. Frustrating.

 

[Red Holzman]

This season was bad.
Obviously, some will seek the silver lining or cite "what ifs".
Wish I'd found a good "Putting Lipstick On A Pig" GIF.

 

[MSOrange]

It’s kinda sad/funny if we had just beaten Colgate or Georgetown we don’t have a losing season.

Those losses flipped and JB doesn’t have a losing season.

Yes that streak ending bothers me. I remember when SU football had their first losing season in 2002 after a long stretch of winning seasons (although nothing compared to basketball). It felt awful. Now it's just another season when that happens. I don't want it to become "just another season" for basketball.

 

[Day2]

Still if we'd won 3-4 of those games we might still have a shot at the NCAAs and would have clinched another winning record. I think the conversation would have a slightly different tone. Someone posted that we don't have the personnel to competed with the teams we are playing. We actually competed with them fairly well. We just didn't make the plays at the end to win those games.

Four more conference wins puts us in the top five of the ACC. Five ACC teams should get in this year.

 

[Gotothehole]

Four more conference wins puts us in the top five of the ACC. Five ACC teams should get in this year.

You are what’s your record says you are

 

[SWC75]

The ACC finally got a second team ranked in the conference this week in the top 25.
North Carolina came in 25.

From December till March the conference had ONE ranked team in the conference.
These top conference teams are barely NCAAT teams.
If you cant differentiate Duke and the rest of the top ACC teams its not the same point.

We were literally toyed with by Duke 2 times.

Notre Dame, Miami, Wake Forest are barely NCAAT teams.
Medicore teams at the top of conference means the conference stinks and we should be able to compete with NCAAT barely teams.

UNC is probably a 8-9 seed.
UNC 2022 looks a lot like Syracuse 2019.

A mediocre team that hung its hat on medicore wins and a win at Duke.
Was an 8 seed. 2019 Syracuse is also our highest finisher in conference since 2014 when we finished 6th.

The ACC is so medicore this year the AP wrote this.

But if we had a record like Notre Dame's, North Carolina's, Miami's or Wake Forest's, would this thread exist? We weren't as good as those teams but we weren't much worse, either. My point was that the poster who said that we lacked the talent to compete with the teams we were playing was wrong.

 

[RF2044]

But if we had a record like Notre Dame's, North Carolina's, Miami's or Wake Forest's, would this thread exist? We weren't as good as those teams but we weren't much worse, either. My point was that the poster who said that we lacked the talent to compete with the teams we were playing was wrong.

I'm not wrong -- we lost games to those teams. In the worst top-to-bottom conference the ACC has fielded since we've been associated with the league, we finished with a losing conference record.

You're the one talking about what ifs.

Results matter.

 

[SWC75]

There were no "top teams" -- there was ONE top team, Duke. And outside of that lone top 5 caliber team, the rest of the league wasn't top 25 caliber. This was the weakest field, outside of the one top team, that the ACC has fielded in decades. Honestly -- can this even be debated?

And under those circumstances, facing a conference slate that was as weak as it has been in the entire time we've been associated with the league, we finished in the bottom half, in 9th place, with a losing conference record.

You're talking about a "bad call" as being the difference in the season, instead of acknowledging the systemic issues that led to this year's decline, over a multi-year period of time.

When we played that lone top team, we got annihilated. If we play them again this week, we're going to most likely get destroyed again. Because we don't have the personnel, or defensive capabilities, to make it a close game. We don't match up, we don't have the horses. The same way we didn't have the horses to match up with the other top team we faced this year, Auburn -- who similarly rolled us.

I agree we weren't competitive with Auburn or Duke, two of the top teams in the country, although teams we were competitive with managed to beat Duke. basketball is all about match-ups and we didn't match-up with Duke. We were also a bad team at the season's start but we got better and the injuries at the end hurt us badly. We've been a lot better than this in the past and will be again in the future, under this coach or someone else.

 

[SWC75]

I'm not wrong -- we lost games to those teams. In the worst top-to-bottom conference the ACC has fielded since we've been associated with the league, we finished with a losing conference record.

You're the one talking about what ifs.

Results matter.

Yes they do and they show that we were competitive with the teams we were playing, which is the point I was responding to.

 

[dasher]

You can always find exceptions. JB's been coaching for nearly 50 years. Notice I used the words "traditional" and "upper half of the league". Those two would not see the light of day on a traditional SU squad although given the fact that we have not had a lot of great big men for a while now I'll concede that Edwards might have gotten some run along the way.

The larger point, which I don't see how you can argue, is that there has been a severe drop off in talent over the last five years. We used to play most top 40 teams knowing we had equal or better talent. Not any more.

I think the difference is that we don't have a real lead dog. A lot of these kids would look a lot different if they were playing with the type of great forwards we have had over the years. Orr. Coleman. Owens. Wallace. Johnson. Those guys would make the kids on this team look a whole lot different.

 

[RF2044]

Yes they do and they show that we were competitive with the teams we were playing, which is the point I was responding to.

Let's try this again.

This is the worst that the ACC has ever been this century. We're a conference that usually gets 7 or 8 teams in the NCAA, this year we'll be lucky to get 5.

You can't just look at the standings and say, we lost to a 4th place team in the league, and equate that to other years where that 4th place team is a quality, top 25 ranked team. Go review the rankings for the entire year, and even how they look at the end of the season. Beyond Duke, the conference was extraordinarily weak, to a historic degree.

And despite that immensely weak field, we finished in 9th place. It's time to quit talking about pyrrhic victories, almosts, and what ifs.

In a historically watered down league, we couldn't even beat similarly mediocre teams on a consistent basis, which is why we have a losing record. Claiming to be the skinniest elephant in the pen isn't a compelling argument.

 

[Nicknack]

Yes that streak ending bothers me. I remember when SU football had their first losing season in 2002 after a long stretch of winning seasons (although nothing compared to basketball). It felt awful. Now it's just another season when that happens. I don't want it to become "just another season" for basketball.

I agree, it bothers me as well. I think I was a bit naïve thinking that the streak would never end, at least under Jim. I would obviously never hope for a loss (or losing season), but I do wonder if that will make it tougher for Jim just to pretend all is okay. This just might force him somewhat to take some bolder moves to right the ship. The concern that I have is I don't know if Jim is willing to do what is necessary to right the ship.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

What's really... interesting is the rationalization some use to convince themselves that the status quo is adequate.

That Colgate team was mediocre, even by Patriot League standards. Hip hip hooray for them for rallying.

C'mon RF, reading comprehension.

Nowhere in my post did I make any statement about the adequacy of the status quo.

Nowhere in my post did I comment on the quality of this Colgate team.

My one, and only, point in my post is that, contrary to what you stated, Colgate did not have an "awful" year.

No other points were made, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

[RF2044]

I agree, it bothers me as well. I think I was a bit naïve thinking that the streak would never end, at least under Jim. I would obviously never hope for a loss (or losing season), but I do wonder if that will make it tougher for Jim just to pretend all is okay. This just might force him somewhat to take some bolder moves to right the ship. The concern that I have is I don't know if Jim is willing to do what is necessary to right the ship.

I don't think you're naive -- because in the past, JB has always found a way. Or despite squeaking into the NCAA field by the skin of our teeth, we'd then go on a run that would offset the lackluster season performance and leave the fanbase feeling better about what the team accomplished.

The problem is: he didn't pull a rabbit out of his hat this time, and there are cracks in the foundation that can no longer be ignored. And when viewed in the macro sense, the program has been mired in a downward trend for a period of many years approaching a decade. This isn't a one-off blip, this is a trend of declining performance that finally caught up with the coach, that isn't based upon one magic bullet root cause, but rather is the result of a number of factors that have contributed to the decline.

I posted yesterday about the regard that I hold Boeheim in. I revere the man, as a die hard SU fan. But we can have reverence for what he's accomplished and still be intellectually honest about why the program has declined.

Because you're right -- we can't pretend anymore that there hasn't been slippage, or that the program is positioned well. We can't pretend that incoming recruits are going to turn things around, because the class doesn't appear to have those types of immediate impact players. And we can't pretend that things are going to change until there is actually change in the strategic direction that the program has.

Where I'm disagreeing with SWC throughout this thread is that he is expressing the belief that despite how this season unfolded, we're competitive and things are fine. Our losing conference record and losing overall record both suggest otherwise.

 

[SWC75]

Let's try this again.

This is the worst that the ACC has ever been this century. We're a conference that usually gets 7 or 8 teams in the NCAA, this year we'll be lucky to get 5.

You can't just look at the standings and say, we lost to a 4th place team in the league, and equate that to other years where that 4th place team is a quality, top 25 ranked team. Beyond Duke, the conference was really weak.

And despite that weak field, we finished in 9th place. It's time to quit talking about pyrrhic victories, almosts, and what ifs.

In a historically watered down league, we couldn't even beat similarly mediocre teams on a consistent basis, which is why we have a losing record.

It was a bad season, the one thing everyone could agree with. If we could have won games against teams with records like 22-9 (Notre Dame and Miami or 23-8, (UNC and Wake) that we had a chance to win at the end, it would not have been seen as a bad season. But we didn't. It would have been helpful to not have the injuries we had at the end but they happened.

We're all justifiably unhappy with the result. My comments have been in response to statements that are not justifiable:

"Boeheim purposely didn't recruit better players because he wanted to feature his sons."

"Boeheim doesn't care about wins."

"Boeheim is holding us back. The next coach will be better, unless they promote an assistant, who will be worse."

"Buddy Boeheim's achievements are the result of 'usage'."

"We had a losing season and we'll have another one next year."

"We don't have the talent to compete with the teams we are playing."