Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="IthaCuse, post: 5669289, member: 10689"]
You can post lists of two groups of names of failed players on teams that were either sub .500 or marginally above .500 all you want, it changes nothing. We are currently 10th in the ACC, last year we were 14th in the ACC, which is likely about where we end up again this year. Last year we went 14-19, this year we will likely go 15-17. Red coached BOTH teams, the same group of assistant coached BOTH teams!

The only argument you can make which actually accords with the data is that both last years team and this years team were woefully poorly coached, and a good coach gets both to far greater heights. But this idea that we had terrible talent last year and great talent this year is simply refuted by the result. Coaching hasn't changed, Red didn't get worse, the similar result is due to similar coaching combined with similar talent.

People on this board have a funny habit of valuing the "collective wisdom" of the insiders over their own lying eyes and very clear data. It's like how we have the most loaded QB room we've ever had every single season in football, or how every low rated recruit is a gem, or how we conveniently point to the high school rankings of the transfers we got who were much lower rated in the context of the portal. Then we get disappointed and after the fact everyone starts saying the same thing as the people who were taking flak for pointing it out ahead of time.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?