30-10

[SWC75]

In the late 2000's, when we had a run of season plagued by injuries, we had several years of 20+ wins but double-figure losses. The complaints were that these days, 20 win season don't mean much. Playing 30-40 games, 20 wins puts you just above .500. Some felt the new standard should be 30 win season and we hadn't had many of those, (1987, 1989 and 2003). it was also suggested that the standard should be the number of losses. Single digit losses were more desirable than double digit loss seasons, which were an embarrassment to a school like Syracuse and we were having too many of them.

Well, this year, we achieved a 30-10 record. What does that tell us? it's the equivalent of a 27-9, 24-8 or 21-7 season. Is that great? There have been many teams with such records. Is it just pretty good?

I tried to find out if any other team had won 30 games and still had double figure losses. I found one: Oregon was 30-15 in the 1944-45 season, which was hardly a comparable situation to 2013.

I think that there are too many games played these days. Seasons used to begin in December, (or, at least Thanksgiving). They now start at the beginning of November. Conference seasons used to be 16 games. Now they are 18. Regular seasons used to be capped at 26 games. Now it's 31. Undergraduates are playing a schedule equal to half an NBA season.

I'd like to see the basketball season begin when the football regular season ends, (which should be Thanksgiving weekend. Basketball could begin the following week. There could be one early season or holiday tournament per team with perhaps 4-5 other games in preparation for a conference season that can't exceed 16 games. Limit the regular season to perhaps 25 games. A conference tournament should involve just the top 8 teams for perhaps 3 more games. (Conference size should be limited to 12 teams). The NCAA tournament should just be the top 64 teams by merit. The winner would play 6 more games for a total of no more than 34 games. Winning 20 games would be meaningful again. 30 wins would be exceptional again. Good teams would rarely endure double figure losses. And players wouldn't get so tired at the end of the season.

And the schools, conferences and networks would make less money, so forget it.

 

[cuseattle]

The 1 vs. 16 matches would definitely be more exciting!

 

[Hoov50]

SWC75, your posts/ideas make too much sense and are too well thought out for the NCAA to take seriously!

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Well, this year, we achieved a 30-10 record. What does that tell us? it's the equivalent of a 27-9, 24-8 or 21-7 season. Is that great? There have been many teams with such records. Is it just pretty good?

I tried to find out if any other team had won 30 games and still had double figure losses. I found one: Oregon was 30-15 in the 1944-45 season, which was hardly a comparable situation to 2013.

I don't think 30-10 is equivalent to 27-9 or 24-8. I think 30 wins is more impressive than single digit losses. The single digit loss season really means losing 7 or less during the regular season - that will be seven plus one in the BET and one in the NCAAT. But 30 wins usually means either a great regular season or runs in the post season.

I think this year illustrates the point. If we had won at Villanova but lost to Pitt in the BET and lost to Indiana in the NCAAT we would have ended up with one less loss, nine losses for the season. The overall record would be 27-9. That season would have been no where near as good as the way this season played out.

 

[jordoo]

4o games does seem like a lot. I think you have to look at the 30-10 in the context of a great late season run that got us to the BETC game and the FF.

 

[pfister1]

I don't think 30-10 is equivalent to 27-9 or 24-8. I think 30 wins is more impressive than single digit losses. The single digit loss season really means losing 7 or less during the regular season - that will be seven plus one in the BET and one in the NCAAT. But 30 wins usually means either a great regular season or runs in the post season.

I think this year illustrates the point. If we had won at Villanova but lost to Pitt in the BET and lost to Indiana in the NCAAT we would have ended up with one less loss, nine losses for the season. The overall record would be 27-9. That season would have been no where near as good as the way this season played out.

It's the overall quality of the season, there is no magic number that makes for a great season.

We could have won against Temple, @ Villanova, @ Marquette and @ UConn, but lost to Gtown in the BET and Indiana in the NCAAT and have been 30-6, but how satisfying a season would that have been?

 

[SWC75]

It's the overall quality of the season, there is no magic number that makes for a great season.

We could have won against Temple, @ Villanova, @ Marquette and @ UConn, but lost to Gtown in the BET and Indiana in the NCAAT and have been 30-6, but how satisfying a season would that have been?

Pretty good, actually.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The more I can see my team play, the happier I am. More is better in my opinion.

 

[Jasoncuse]

Louisville went 30-10 last year. Let's hope we have a year like their current year next season, as well.

 

[CiceroCuse]

The more I can see my team play, the happier I am. More is better in my opinion.

Obviously!!! I saw the AT&T commercial. More is better.

 

[KaiserUEO]

30-10 > 34-3
30-10 > 30-5

 

[jvbj01]

If we didn't make a Big East Tournament run and play 5 games in the NCAA's, we wouldn't come close to 40 games. I really enjoyed watching as many as I did this year. The tidal year would be about 35 games.

 

[OttoMets]

In the late 2000's, when we had a run of season plagued by injuries, we had several years of 20+ wins but double-figure losses. The complaints were that these days, 20 win season don't mean much. Playing 30-40 games, 20 wins puts you just above .500. Some felt the new standard should be 30 win season and we hadn't had many of those, (1987, 1989 and 2003). it was also suggested that the standard should be the number of losses. Single digit losses were more desirable than double digit loss seasons, which were an embarrassment to a school like Syracuse and we were having too many of them.

Well, this year, we achieved a 30-10 record. What does that tell us? it's the equivalent of a 27-9, 24-8 or 21-7 season. Is that great? There have been many teams with such records. Is it just pretty good?

...

Since Boeheim's average record over 37 seasons is slightly better than 24-8, I guess we'd call that total average. Not great.

Getting to the Final Four, on the other hand, is decidedly great.

 

[SWC75]

Louisville went 30-10 last year. Let's hope we have a year like their current year next season, as well.

You are right. I was looking at the top of the standings. They finished 7th in the conference and won 30 games!
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/standings/_/year/2012

 

[SWC75]

Since Boeheim's average record over 37 seasons is slightly better than 24-8, I guess we'd call that total average. Not great.

Getting to the Final Four, on the other hand, is decidedly great.

JB is now 920-314 over 37 seasons, an average of 25-8, so 24-8 is actually slightly sub-par for a Boeheim team. But it's a splendid 37 year average.

 

[OttoMets]

JB is now 920-314 over 37 seasons, an average of 25-8, so 24-8 is actually slightly sub-par for a Boeheim team. But it's a splendid 37 year average.

Up to .748 now. Heck of a four-year run.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

It's the overall quality of the season, there is no magic number that makes for a great season.

We could have won against Temple, @ Villanova, @ Marquette and @ UConn, but lost to Gtown in the BET and Indiana in the NCAAT and have been 30-6, but how satisfying a season would that have been?

There may be no majic number, but 30 is a milestone.

It can be one of the markers. How many 30 win seasons, how many conference crowns, how many conference tourneys won, how many FFs, how many NCs.

When we reflect back the quick story is this was a 30 win season with a FF. And that succinctly, and pretty much indisputably, correctly labels this as a good to great season. Only people exposing themselves as fringe lunatics can even formulate a bashing argument saying this season sucked (and isn't it great that this is just the place to find them - not implying SWC but there actually have been some posts calling for JBs head).

 

[SWC75]

There may be no majic number, but 30 is a milestone.

It can be one of the markers. How many 30 win seasons, how many conference crowns, how many conference tourneys won, how many FFs, how many NCs.

When we reflect back the quick story is this was a 30 win season with a FF. And that succinctly, and pretty much indisputably, correctly labels this as a good to great season. Only people exposing themselves as fringe lunatics can even formulate a bashing argument saying this season sucked (and isn't it great that this is just the place to find them - not implying SWC but there actually have been some posts calling for JBs head).

The season certainly didn't suck. And I think the "30" means more than a "10". But 30-10 just doesn't seem like a college basketball record. If you can win 30 and still lose 10, there are too many games being played, IMHO. That's my real point.

 

[Madbiker]

I'd take 30-10 and a trip to the Final Four every year. Love SU basketball so I'm fine with the start date and length of the season as it is...wouldn't want it to be shorter. Most seasons are not 40 games. We usually only play 2 or 3 in the BET instead of 4 this year and we don't often play 5 games in the NCAAT.

 

[Hoov50]

I would take 26-12 or 38-2 if both meant we won our last 6 games.

 

[OttoMets]

I would take 26-12 or 38-2 if both meant we won our last 6 games.

If 26-12 involved winning our last six, I'm guessing we'd have won our last ten: 20-12 probably means we got an automatic bid after running through our conference tournament.

That'd be memorable, though the thought of reading this message board when we're 16-12 at the close of the regular season is beyond cringe-worthy.

 

[Hoov50]

If 26-12 involved winning our last six, I'm guessing we'd have won our last ten: 20-12 probably means we got an automatic bid after running through our conference tournament.

That'd be memorable, though the thought of reading this message board when we're 16-12 at the close of the regular season is beyond cringe-worthy.

Haha, you're probably right or would be winning our last 7 after playing in one of the "First Four" games. Regardless, I think most people look at the end result. I think we had much better overall teams the last three years than we had the year. However, since we mad the Final Four this year I think this year's team was the most successful.

 

[OttoMets]

Haha, you're probably right or would be winning our last 7 after playing in one of the "First Four" games. Regardless, I think most people look at the end result. I think we had much better overall teams the last three years than we had the year. However, since we mad the Final Four this year I think this year's team was the most successful.

Yep, especially as time passes. Final Four > no Final Four.

(Hey, it was one of my favorite SU teams of all-time, but the 1996 group was probably worse than our teams from 1991-1995, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Yet they're on our short list of great teams, above all those other ones. Why? Final Four.)

 

[SWC75]

I'd take 30-10 and a trip to the Final Four every year. Love SU basketball so I'm fine with the start date and length of the season as it is...wouldn't want it to be shorter. Most seasons are not 40 games. We usually only play 2 or 3 in the BET instead of 4 this year and we don't often play 5 games in the NCAAT.

I think there are too many games in November and December. Do we really 13 games to get ready for the Big East?

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I think there are too many games in November and December. Do we really 13 games to get ready for the Big East?

I think they are playing some angles now with some of these so-called tournaments as a way to give programs more games. I think the one we had guaranteed four games. I think we lost to Temple and still played another game that was considered part of the tourney. Years prior they had games in tourneys with play-ins that didn't seem to matter, the marquee names were still going to play in the designated sites.

It's like this in a lot of sports though. More games gets more money and allows for more records to be broken, which never seems to hurt. The downside of devaluing something like the 20 win mark is something they can easily overlook.