Another 10-Loss Season...

[Day2]

So it’s what the Big East from 2008-2013 was which we did okay in.
The old Big East got 11 teams in 2011 and we were a 3 seed that year.

Like you said, the top of the ACC is stronger. When we were in the Big East, we were in the equivalent of the Duke/UNC tier. That’s not the case in the ACC. And I’m not confident that we ever will be, even if we fix most of our flaws. The officiating issues will always be there.

Having said that, I don’t care about winning conference titles. I would like to see us improve to the extent that we earn 5 seeds or better in the tournament on a consistent basis.

 

[Day2]

So, the bubble as many have alluded to, is extremely weak this year. Therefore, whether 9 teams gets in or 8, it's quite relative in nature.

Right, so you can’t say the middle of the conference is made up of middling teams this year. Middling teams make the NIT or one of the sloppy thirds tournaments.

 

[Day2]

Next year isn’t going to be any better IMO. Probably a bubble team again at best with all the youth we have.

Except we’re not really a bubble team this year. People are acting like we’re continuing a streak, when we’re in fact breaking it. Obviously that changes if we lose to Wake.

 

[SUFan44]

If your point is that we were better in 2002-3, 2009-10 and 2011-12 than we were in 2017-18, you win the point. However, expecting 2002-3, 2009-10 and 2011-12 to be the norm- the seasons by which other seasons are measured is a bit much.

Ok -- then let's go back to a year that, in my opinion, should be the average expectation of a program that has the history of Syracuse.

2008-09 - 4 seed, Sweet 16... This is the level I would hope all fans expect at an average.

28-10, 11-7. Villanova, Louisville, Connecticut, Pitt, all ranked in the Top 11 nationally.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Except we’re not really a bubble team this year. People are acting like we’re continuing a streak, when we’re in fact breaking it. Obviously that changes if we lose to Wake.

I didn’t say we were, but there’s no end in sight to the mediocrity.

 

[Alsacs]

Like you said, the top of the ACC is stronger. When we were in the Big East, we were in the equivalent of the Duke/UNC tier. That’s not the case in the ACC. And I’m not confident that we ever will be, even if we fix most of our flaws. The officiating issues will always be there.

Having said that, I don’t care about winning conference titles. I would like to see us improve to the extent that we earn 5 seeds or better in the tournament on a consistent basis.

We are 4-6 vs. Duke we can compete with them. SU and UNC are the only teams with multiple wins at Cameron Indoor since we joined the ACC.
It’s really UNC has owned us and that is more on us than them. We don’t change and they have the formula to beat us how we play when we don’t change.
We will be a top ACC team if we get back to where we were 2013-2014.
Our problems aren’t the conference it’s ourselves.

 

[SUFan44]

There’s a direct correlation between having more than ten losses and less than twenty wins, so that’s six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Check the polls. There are a number of ranked teams from the ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 that will finish the season with 10 or more losses. Check the NET rankings. You’ll see a number of SEC teams that will do the same. Teams that will make the tournament. Kansas is #1 in RPI. They will most likely finish the year with exactly 10 losses.

It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact. The top conferences are playing more conference games and that’s translating to more losses.

It doesn’t change the fact that we’ve also seen an uptick in non-conference losses. It doesn’t change the fact that we’re good for at least one or two bad conference losses every year. The margin of error is smaller and we’re not doing enough to overcome it.

That does not explain Syracuse University's men's basketball team. You can talk all you want about other conferences and schools, but we have played 18 conference games for the last 15 years.

Over the last 5 years, we are three games above .500 -- and those three games are from this year's margin. Meaning the four years prior, we are a .500 team in conference.

I think we're on the same side of things in terms of the program's slipping. But what top conferences do doesn't impact Syracuse and what this program has become.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Except we’re not really a bubble team this year. People are acting like we’re continuing a streak, when we’re in fact breaking it. Obviously that changes if we lose to Wake.

If all it takes is a loss to wake to change that, then what have we broken?

 

[Alsacs]

If all it takes is a loss to wake to change that, then what have we broken?

We are an 8-9 seed that is basically one bad loss from the bubble. We aren’t a lock but we would in the field because the field needs 68 teams.

 

[Day2]

If all it takes is a loss to wake to change that, then what have we broken?

Because the bubble only matters in March and we won’t be a bubble team in March so long as we beat Wake.

 

[SWC75]

Not during ACC play.

You moved the goal posts. But if that's now your position, you are right.

 

[Day2]

We are 4-6 vs. Duke we can compete with them. SU and UNC are the only teams with multiple wins at Cameron Indoor since we joined the ACC.
It’s really UNC has owned us and that is more on us than them. We don’t change and they have the formula to beat us how we play when we don’t change.
We will be a top ACC team if we get back to where we were 2013-2014.
Our problems aren’t the conference it’s ourselves.

It’s both. The officiating won’t change. We were screwed in plenty of Big East games over the years, but plenty of our opponents received the same treatment. It doesn’t even out in the ACC.

And I believe being in this conference has hurt recruiting as well. Other factors have been discussed ad nauseum, but this one tends to be overlooked. When we were going after northeast players while in the Big East, the Dome and JB weren’t the only selling points. There were also plenty of road games for family and friends to attend in person. Games that were a reasonably short drive away. The conference tournament was at MSG every year. Now there are less of those opportunities. Playing elite teams on TV probably isn’t enough of a selling point.

I don’t know if that’s a nut JB will figure out how to crack. But his replacement must have an answer.

 

[SWC75]

The league is very top heavy this year, so it gives the impression, based on your opinion, that it's the "toughest league we have ever played in." I'm not so sure in regards to your "ever" sentiment. The middle of the conference teams are, well just that, middling. The bottom of the conference teams (this year) are simply putrid. Your assertion that these bottom feeder teams (again, this year) would be middle teams in other "top conferences" is somewhat comical. Same with probably winning the mid-major conferences.

During the months of November and December a lot of those same teams you suggest would be in the positions you claim, took some pretty bad losses in those OOC games.

Looking at the ACC standings, there seems to be a clear delineation of the top, middle and bottom teams:
2018-19 Men's College Basketball Standings | ESPN

North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Florida State and Virginia tech are the top teams. We are the best of the middle teams, the others being Louisville North Carolina State and Clemson. The bottom teams are Boston College, Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Notre Dame and Pittsburgh.

I think we, Louisville, NC State and Clemson would contend in any other conference and would battle Mike Hopkins Washington team for the Pac-12 title. The bottom teams are 56-34 outside the conference and I would favor them over the Rutgers, DePaul, South Florida type teams that were the dregs of the Big East. They are certainly not "putrid". they are just losing a lot of games in the ACC because it is so difficult to win in this conference.

So i think my point is well-taken and you will note that i did not refer to your opinion as "comical". I just disagreed with it.

 

[orangecuse]

Looking at the ACC standings, there seems to be a clear delineation of the top, middle and bottom teams:
2018-19 Men's College Basketball Standings | ESPN

North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Florida State and Virginia tech are the top teams. We are the best of the middle teams, the others being Louisville North Carolina State and Clemson. The bottom teams are Boston College, Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Notre Dame and Pittsburgh.

I think we, Louisville, NC State and Clemson would contend in any other conference and would battle Mike Hopkins Washington team for the Pac-12 title. The bottom teams are 56-34 outside the conference and I would favor them over the Rutgers, DePaul, South Florida type teams that were the dregs of the Big East. They are certainly not "putrid". they are just losing a lot of games in the ACC because it is so difficult to win in this conference.

So i think my point is well-taken and you will note that i did not refer to your opinion as "comical". I just disagreed with it.

Well, the PAC-12 is very weak, so I would agree with you there. But, I don't think we would "contend" for the top spot in the other top conferences as much as being a step below. Both MSU and UM I think are considerably better, they have been ranked in the Top 10 all season. Same goes for UK and UT, etc. of the SEC.

To me, "comical" means, funny, LOL, etc., versus something offensive, which is apparently how you interpreted it. So, I apologize, as I didn't intend to trigger your inner Joe Pesci.

 

[OttoMets]

1) This is the toughest league we have ever played in. It's got 3 of the top 5 teams in the country and two other ranked teams. The middle of the conference would contend in other conferences and possibly win the Pac 12. The bottom teams would be middle teams in other top conferences and maybe win the mid-majors.

2) The NCAA has stressed the non-conference games in recent years and the years of coming into conference play 13-0, 12-1 or even 11-2 every year are gone. We want to play our old Big Eats rivals and those two influences have toughened up our non-conference schedule so it can't be the cake-walk we are used to.

That means that only our best teams are going to wind up with single digit losses. Those teams from the Big Eats Era that had 8-9 losses would have 10+now. The teams we've had with fewer than 8 losses since 1980-81, (when we played a full Big Eats schedule for the first time), are 1985-86, 1986-87, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1993-94, 1999-00, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2013-14. That's how often single digit losses are likely to happen now.

...

Nah.

I agree with the last part - teams that lost 9 games in the 28-game-regular-season era would lose 10+ today. You've got to have a clean non-conference schedule and be a good team to get through with single-digit losses. Those who don't (2013, 2009) aren't going to do it, even though they're pretty good.

But the ACC is no stronger than the Big East during all but its weakest years, and our non-conference schedule isn't much different: we're playing old rivals...but they stink, we're playing the same mediocre preseason conference opponents...but we're losing to them (Oregon and UConn aren't any better than the Va. Tech/Stanford dreck we were playing a decade ago, to say nothing of the occasional Florida, North Carolina, Michigan State, Kansas teams). And we're losing to Old Dominion and Bonaventure now, while we weren't for most of the last 40 years. Boeheim's been playing the same RPI type game for at least a decade; the only thing that's changed is Syracuse. The basketball team isn't as good.

 

[Day2]

Nah.

I agree with the last part - teams that lost 9 games in the 28-game-regular-season era would lose 10+ today. You've got to have a clean non-conference schedule and be a good team to get through with single-digit losses. Those who don't (2013, 2009) aren't going to do it, even though they're pretty good.

But the ACC is no stronger than the Big East during all but its weakest years, and our non-conference schedule isn't much different: we're playing old rivals...but they stink, we're playing the same mediocre preseason conference opponents...but we're losing to them (Oregon and UConn aren't any better than the Va. Tech/Stanford dreck we were playing a decade ago, to say nothing of the occasional Florida, North Carolina, Michigan State, Kansas teams). And we're losing to Old Dominion and Bonaventure now, while we weren't for most of the last 40 years. Boeheim's been playing the same RPI type game for at least a decade; the only thing that's changed is Syracuse. The basketball team isn't as good.

Just want to point out that Oregon was a different team with Bol.

 

[Tom K.]

If this team can play like they did last night from an offensive perspective we should roll Wake and hopefully beat Clemson.

Yep, and it sounds so simple.
We came out guns blazing against UNC. And I don't necessarily mean hitting shots. We were playing fast and with a sense of purpose. We got up the court fast after rebounds or even off of UNC made baskets in the 1st half. I'd bet anything we come out flat and lazy against Wake and it will be infuriating. Come out against Wake like we did last night and the game is ours in the opening 10 minutes.

Playing with that kind of energy is contagious and everything falls into place. Play with energy and purpose and the rest comes with it. It's not coincidence.

 

[Day2]

That does not explain Syracuse University's men's basketball team. You can talk all you want about other conferences and schools, but we have played 18 conference games for the last 15 years.

Over the last 5 years, we are three games above .500 -- and those three games are from this year's margin. Meaning the four years prior, we are a .500 team in conference.

I think we're on the same side of things in terms of the program's slipping. But what top conferences do doesn't impact Syracuse and what this program has become.

Just saying the Syracuse University men’s basketball team doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Sure, we can get into who we’ve lost to. But relatively speaking, finishing a season with double digit losses isn’t the negative it used to be.

The standard used to be win 20 games every year, make the tournament every year, get to the Sweet 16 more often than not, and sprinkle in some Elite Eights and Final Fours. If we can still do that while losing 10 or more games, so be it.

 

[Janner]

I think its pretty fair to say, on the whole, that over the past 5 years during the regular season this program has underperformed with respect to its general historical standards. I think the question is why, which is a bit more difficult to nail down, as evidence by the numerous other board threads on this topic

 

[Orangefan1]

It’s both. The officiating won’t change. We were screwed in plenty of Big East games over the years, but plenty of our opponents received the same treatment. It doesn’t even out in the ACC.

And I believe being in this conference has hurt recruiting as well. Other factors have been discussed ad nauseum, but this one tends to be overlooked. When we were going after northeast players while in the Big East, the Dome and JB weren’t the only selling points. There were also plenty of road games for family and friends to attend in person. Games that were a reasonably short drive away. The conference tournament was at MSG every year. Now there are less of those opportunities. Playing elite teams on TV probably isn’t enough of a selling point.

I don’t know if that’s a nut JB will figure out how to crack. But his replacement must have an answer.

This is a very interesting post.

 

[kcsu]

No it isn't. I keep hearing that and it is not true. It's, at times, turned into the same team and that's part of the problem.

1. Tyus came back. Anytime your best player comes back, that's significant.
2. Hughes was added. Needed another scorer. Got another scorer.
3. Lacked PG depth last year badly. Well, we got Jalen Carey, a guy highly touted who supposedly was going to push Frank for minutes.
4. A shooter in Buddy. He has absolutely out performed most people's expectations.

This is not last year's team. Not to mention, every returning player another year into the program. It should be much better, and at times, it has been.

Plus Sid was supposed to be better.

 

[721Comstock]

I think its pretty fair to say, on the whole, that over the past 5 years during the regular season this program has underperformed with respect to its general historical standards. I think the question is why, which is a bit more difficult to nail down, as evidence by the numerous other board threads on this topic

Or not.

*cough* NCAA sanctions *cough*

With a side of unexpected early departures, mixed with a few key recruiting misses.

And VIOLA!! the last 5 years.

 

[Alsacs]

Or not.

*cough* NCAA sanctions *cough*

With a side of unexpected early departures, mixed with a few key recruiting misses.

And VIOLA!! the last 5 years.

Sanctions cost us Kevin Huerter.
We chose Tyus Battle over Huerter with our reduced scholarships.
We have gotten 3 years of Battle vs. Huerter giving Maryland 2 years.
We chose wisely.
The scholarship reduction excuse is just that an excuse. From 2006 to 2014 we used all 13 scholarships available on D-1 players 2 seasons. JB always had atleast one project and one walkon on scholarship for APR reasons.
Sanctions aren’t a big reason we have struggled as much as we have had too many recruiting misses and players not develop.

 

[Orangefan1]

Sanctions cost us Kevin Huerter.
We chose Tyus Battle over Huerter with our reduced scholarships.
We have gotten 3 years of Battle vs. Huerter giving Maryland 2 years.
We chose wisely.
The scholarship reduction excuse is just that an excuse. From 2006 to 2014 we used all 13 scholarships available on D-1 players 2 seasons. JB always had atleast one project and one walkon on scholarship for APR reasons.
Sanctions aren’t a big reason we have struggled as much as we have had too many recruiting misses and players not develop.

I think it's also a reflection of the recruits we were getting to. I mean from my understanding Tremont Waters wanted to come here correct? He and a number of others were not recruited over the likes of a Kaleb Joseph, and others. I don't feel we evaluated well for certain players.

 

[SUFan44]

Just saying the Syracuse University men’s basketball team doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Sure, we can get into who we’ve lost to. But relatively speaking, finishing a season with double digit losses isn’t the negative it used to be.

The standard used to be win 20 games every year, make the tournament every year, get to the Sweet 16 more often than not, and sprinkle in some Elite Eights and Final Fours. If we can still do that while losing 10 or more games, so be it.

Meh. I still don't think losing 10 games in a regular season constitutes a good year. Just two of the Top 25 teams (AP & Coaches) have more than 7 losses right now -- Louisville (10), Wisconsin (8). I also don't think your standard is necessarily accurate.

Elite Eights & Final Fours mean you had a great run and the right matchups but at some point in time I'd like to see the team get back to contending for national titles every once in awhile. Or at least have a chance to.

Just 3 NCAA champions have been seeded higher than a 3 in a regional. #4 Arizona in 1997, #6 Kansas (Manning) in 1988 & #8 Villanova in 1985. If you're a Top 3 seed in a region, you usually have a realistic shot at a national title.

Syracuse has earned a 3 seed or higher 14 times in Boeheim's 42 years as head coach. That means once every three years there should be legitimate hopes of competing against the top teams.

26 times Syracuse has earned a Top 5 seed or greater, meaning -- at least, theoretically -- they are ranked in the Top 20 at the time of the NCAA Tournament. Or once every 1.6 years during Boeheim's tenure the team has been ranked.

We haven't sniffed either of those levels the last 5 years.