6 bubble teams in 12 years

[SBU72]

because from 1985 (when the tourny expanded to 64) until 2005 SU was better. 1997 and 2002 were the only "bubble" teams.

This goes back to the old debate on whether SU is an "elite" team or not. The way you phrased it made it sound like you believe that SU is in the league of Duke, Kentucky, UNC, UCLA and a few others and believe that it is SU's inalienable right to be good and make the tourney, but from your reply it wasn't meant that way. How ever, just because a team makes the NCAA on a consistent bases does not mean they deserve to be there every year. Things change. Entry into the ACC made life so much more difficult. It has already been documented here that while SU has been on the bubble more often their results have been better that most other teams when they get in.

 

[billsin01]

I just must have seen something completely different. I saw a freshman who couldn't shoot at all and had a average or below A/T ratio.

Not sure on 2nd team all ACC -- that's pretty serious projection. But I liked him last year. Saw the game at Carolina in person and he played really, really solid basketball that day. I didn't think he'd have any trouble splitting time with Gillon and giving us 20-25 solid minutes a game. Obviously that hasn't been the case.

 

[billsin01]

o6 - bubble team before winning big east tourny
07 - bubble team, didn't get in
08- bubble team, didn't get in

09-14 - 2nd golden age of cuse hoops

15- bubble/probation team
16 - bubble team, got in
17 - bubble team, ???

Great run in the middle, but needed that 2nd title. I'm getting really sick of being on the bubble, we should be better than this.

Yeah, it's interesting. One point I'd make, is that I'd call '08 a fluke b/c if either Devendorf or Rautins are healthy, they at least make the tourney and that was against a really tough Big East with six teams in the top 25 at year's end, a group that didn't include a decent nova team and a good WVU team (26 wins), both of which ended up in the tourney.

But, regardless, it's an interesting point. I'd boil it down to two things -- roster management (which SU94 mentioned) and need to find more offense generally.

Roster management
I'd say this has been more pronounced the past three seasons -- the struggles of 06 had to do mostly with missing on a few recruits after the title game (Robertson never became a great player, Nichols was excellent as a senior but only decent up until that point and Watkins had two very solid campaigns defensively but just never figured anything out offensively. That hurts.

But the past three seasons feel like a program dealing with early departures they didn't quite anticipate. I mean, if either Ennis or Grant are on the '15 team, that's a much better team. If Richardson is back on this team, it really helps as well b/c he could have played the 2 while Battle got his feet wet. I think those departures caught the staff a bit by surprise.

Need more offense
The one thing most of those seasons have in common is a lack of guys who could create their own offense. GMac was OK and Devo was fine but that was it in '06. The '07 team was Nichols and Devo and that's it. The '08 team would have been fine but you had the injuries that stripped a couple of veteran playmakers. The '15 team had no PG and really struggled to find a guy to create his own shot, and the '16 team really had the same issues. This year is maybe more of a different story, but it certainly speaks to roster management with Mali leaving and then being forced to work so many new faces in all at once.

 

[obliterata]

I prefer any period that includes 03 please.

Absolutely. I'll take a trip to at least the E8 that turns into a NC. That would make any "3 in 5" stretch even better.

 

[br801]

I think the word "great" is used too interchangeably. Define a great regular season. 2009-10 and 2011-12 meet that benchmark. You can make an argument that 1988-89 is up there as well given the strength of the conference in that era. And there's the 23-4 regular season the year we won the title, but that team lost to Rutgers so I think that's an automatic disqualification.

But that's it. 3 or 4 great regular seasons out of 40+. Plenty of good or very good seasons throughout, but we've only had a rare taste of what it's like to truly dominate wire-to-wire.

You look at this team since Boeheim has been in charge and see only 3 or 4 great regular seasons? And you disqualify the 02-03 regular season because of a fluke loss? Wow. Tough room.

 

[Nicknack]

This thread just sobered me up... thanks a lot.