Awful.

[HOFCeluck]

Syracuse to the Big East is not happening (nor should it)

 

[MikeSU02]

If the Mens tourney showcases another title game like this next year and the womens game features Iowa v LSU re-match (or SC or UConn), they womens game might beat them.

Outside of blue blood or second tier teams making it, or some player that would capture everyone's attention like Zion (not like a Brandon Miller or Nick Smith, for example), I'm not sure how appealing these title games are going to be for the men.

This isn't a knock on UConn, either. But casual fans aren't going to tune in to see a 4 vs 5 matchup with guys that might go late first round or 2nd.

 

[JimBoston]

You’re counting their home games. Stop with this cherry-picking of facts. Outside of their home games, they play St John’s, Seton Hall (lol), Gtown, Providence and Nova on the road.

I shouldn't have used UConn as an example. My point is geography is not helping Syracuse for recruits or exposure in the tri state area as there are 10 other P6 programs that are closer to NYC than Syracuse and many great Syracuse basketball memories happened at MSG.

Red has a challenge in front of him, he needs to be supported, and expectations in the short term can not get too high. That said, the ACC is down due to all of the coaching transitions at the top schools: Syracuse, Louisville, Duke, and UNC and the coming retirements of Larranaga at Miami (74 next season) and Hamilton at FSU (75 next season). So, the path to compete in the ACC in the short term shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

UConn played 24 games this year within 150 miles of MSG. Syracuse played 2. I think that impacts visibility in the tri state area.

On recruiting, besides upstate NY, what have been Syracuse's basketball recruiting footprint? NYC/NJ/New England/MD/Philly/DC. Syracuse played 3 games in the recruiting footprint. UConn played 26.

All things being equal or similar, playing within DC to Boston is a competitive advantage. For example, IMO it helps UConn vs SU but it does not help Seton Hall vs SU. It also explains why St Johns hasn't been good since the 90s.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It really is odd. No one cares about UConn BBall. For a school in between NYC and Boston, you would think there would be a ton of interest but there never has been. It is why they haven't been invited to a P5. They cannot deliver even with the great success.

 

[orangecuse]

If the Mens tourney showcases another title game like this next year and the womens game features Iowa v LSU re-match (or SC or UConn), they womens game might beat them.

Outside of blue blood or second tier teams making it, or some player that would capture everyone's attention like Zion (not like a Brandon Miller or Nick Smith, for example), I'm not sure how appealing these title games are going to be for the men.

This isn't a knock on UConn, either. But casual fans aren't going to tune in to see a 4 vs 5 matchup with guys that might go late first round or 2nd.

UConn is as much of a blue blood school as any (5 national championships and 6 FF's) the past quarter century, and they have plenty of style, excitement, & panache. San Diego St. is the main reason why the ratings were so low, even although they have been generally a pretty solid program in recent years. Their style, etc. is like watching grass grow, and no one other than that segment (San Diego) of the country couldn't care less about them. They also sit in a pro market, and have zero brand, especially nationally.

What also most likely contributed to the historically low rating as well, is that, for all intents and purposes, the game was over after the very first (under 16 minute mark) media TO in the first half, and that beyond brutal/ridiculous 10 minute plus segment where SDSU did not score a FG.

 

[elimunelson]

I think the biggest issue for all of us is UConn now winning their 5th title.

To say they have lapped us is an understatement. I think we all are searching for the whys and how. Some blame Boeheim, some blame the conference, some blame luck.

I'm sure there's a percentage associated to all of them. If we remove the excuses the proper thing to do is hat tip UConn for winning 5 championships since 99. That's an incredible achievement.

The program can get to a proper level again with good coaching and good players. That needs to be the focus. However that comes into shape i'm all for.

 

[MikeSU02]

UConn is as much of a blue blood school as any (5 national championships and 6 FF's) the past quarter century, and they have plenty of style, excitement, & panache. San Diego St. is the main reason why the ratings were so low, even although they have been generally a pretty solid program in recent years. Their style, etc. is like watching grass grow, and no one other than that segment (San Diego) of the country couldn't care less about them. They also sit in a pro market, and have zero brand, especially nationally.

What also most likely contributed to the historically low rating as well, is that, for all intents and purposes, the game was over after the very first (under 16 minute mark) media TO in the first half, and that beyond brutal/ridiculous 10 minute plus segment where SDSU did not score a FG.

Let me re-define then, sure UConn is a blue blood due to titles, but they aren't a national draw like Kentucky or Kansas or UCLA who have histories and deep deep roots and generations of big time fans. Again, what are we talking, mid 90s that casual fans started paying attention to UConn?

SDSU def hurt the ratings.

But a casual fan that is only tuning into a final four or title game, maybe, is looking for an iconic matchup or a big time entertaining player and this was neither. No one is tuning in for Hawkins. They just aren't.

I get that the style wasn't great either, but a truly casual fan is two steps away from even worrying about that. There is no star power. No truly historical program like a UCLA or Kentucky.

If the ratings for the first 10 minutes were huge, sure, show me. But I highly doubt it.

[Edit: One other thing, Men's College Basketball, for all intents and purposes on the whole, is not good or entertaining]

 

[HOFCeluck]

You can’t be a blue blood (no matter how many titles you have) if you only got good in 1990. There, I said it.

 

[SWC75]

Syracuse to the Big East is not happening (nor should it)

Obviously, as there is no Big East football conference. My dream has always been to have a conference of the top NE football programs, (several of whom are pretty good at basketball, too) and another conference of the best basketball schools. In the wake of being 'left behind' in a super-conference 'rapture', maybe we can do something like that.

 

[orangecuse]

Let me re-define then, sure UConn is a blue blood due to titles, but they aren't a national draw like Kentucky or Kansas or UCLA who have histories and deep deep roots and generations of big time fans. Again, what are we talking, mid 90s that casual fans started paying attention to UConn?

SDSU def hurt the ratings.

But a casual fan that is only tuning into a final four or title game, maybe, is looking for an iconic matchup or a big time entertaining player and this was neither. No one is tuning in for Hawkins. They just aren't.

I get that the style wasn't great either, but a truly casual fan is two steps away from even worrying about that. There is no star power. No truly historical program like a UCLA or Kentucky.

If the ratings for the first 10 minutes were huge, sure, show me. But I highly doubt it.

[Edit: One other thing, Men's College Basketball, for all intents and purpose on the whole, is not good or entertaining]

It's, let's just say interesting, how many here will seemingly go out of their way to dismiss/slight UConn in some fashion. I mean, 5 national championships and 6 Final Fours in the last quarter century is such an amazing feat.

And, who are these supposed "casual" fans that allegedly will pay more attention to UK, Kansas, etc. today any more than UConn? I mean 25-30 years (mid 90's) is a pretty darn long time. I doubt the ratings would've been that much different at all had it been UK or Kansas. vs. San Diego St., and the game playing out in the manner in which it did.

Had it been UK or Kansas, etc. vs. UConn, I think it's probable that the ratings would've been considerably higher as that, at least IMO, would certainly qualify under the iconic match up criteria.

 

[MikeSU02]

It's, let's just say interesting, how many here will seemingly go out of their way to dismiss/slight UConn in some fashion. I mean, 5 national championships and 6 Final Fours in the last quarter century is such an amazing feat.

And, who are these supposed "casual" fans that allegedly will pay more attention to UK, Kansas, etc. today any more than UConn? I mean 25-30 years (mid 90's) is a pretty darn long time. I doubt the ratings would've been that much different at all had it been UK or Kansas. vs. San Diego St., and the game playing out in the manner in which it did.

Had it been UK or Kansas, etc. vs. UConn, I think it's probable that the ratings would've been considerably higher as that, at least IMO, would certainly qualify under the iconic match up criteria.

I'm not dismissing UConn. They lapped us a while ago with titles. I hate them, but I'm not a truth denier.

And those casual fans are the ones that would tune in if there were a Caitlin Clark-like player for the men, for example. Zion Williams is the last college MBB to draw that type of attraction. I would argue there isn't even a player at that level for entertainment purposes that was even in the tourney, let alone in the final four.

But you just can't replicate the history and generational fans of Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, etc. It's not the same if you're run started in the 90s.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You can’t be a blue blood (no matter how many titles you have) if you only got good in 1990. There, I said it.

Duke had zero titles before then so do they count?

I get what you are saying though. If we are just looking at titles then you have to count UConn. But if you are looking at all time Ws (25th) and W% (15th) then UConn doesn't look so good.

For comparison the Elite 8 of each...

Ws - Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Temple, SU, Notre Dame

W% - Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke, UCLA, SU, Western Kentucky, Nova

So if you take Ws, W%, Titles into account then only these teams are in the Elite 8 of all three:

UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas

They also happen to be #1 through #5 in Ws and W%. Titles they are #1 through #3, tied for 4th, and 7th.

You cannot really put UConn in that list, but you also cannot put Indiana in there (10th in Ws and 21st in W%).

Really before this year Nova should have been ahead of UConn too. But this title puts them ahead.

 

[CousCuse]

Let me re-define then, sure UConn is a blue blood due to titles, but they aren't a national draw like Kentucky or Kansas or UCLA who have histories and deep deep roots and generations of big time fans. Again, what are we talking, mid 90s that casual fans started paying attention to UConn?

SDSU def hurt the ratings.

But a casual fan that is only tuning into a final four or title game, maybe, is looking for an iconic matchup or a big time entertaining player and this was neither. No one is tuning in for Hawkins. They just aren't.

I get that the style wasn't great either, but a truly casual fan is two steps away from even worrying about that. There is no star power. No truly historical program like a UCLA or Kentucky.

If the ratings for the first 10 minutes were huge, sure, show me. But I highly doubt it.

[Edit: One other thing, Men's College Basketball, for all intents and purposes on the whole, is not good or entertaining]

Every college basketball junky watched FAU get scammed by the refs in the 2nd half of the game against SDSU. That block at the rim to given Goldin his 4th foul was criminal. FAU was the best story in the tourrney this and had a complete team that could have given UCONN a game or a loss. That's why the ratings stunk.

 

[orangecuse]

I'm not dismissing UConn. They lapped us a while ago with titles. I hate them, but I'm not a truth denier.

And those casual fans are the ones that would tune in if there were a Caitlin Clark-like player for the men, for example. Zion Williams is the last college MBB to draw that type of attraction. I would argue there isn't even a player at that level for entertainment purposes that was even in the tourney, let alone in the final four.

But you just can't replicate the history and generational fans of Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, etc. It's not the same if you're run started in the 90s.

100% agree on the other qualifier, big name type players as you mention.

However, drawing some fabricated imaginary start point or line, so to speak, in order to qualify for such status, therefore, eliminating the likes of UConn, well, I don't subscribe to that line of thinking, going back a quarter century or so is acceptable enough for me.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Duke had zero titles before then so do they count?

I get what you are saying though. If we are just looking at titles then you have to count UConn. But if you are looking at all time Ws (25th) and W% (15th) then UConn doesn't look so good.

For comparison the Elite 8 of each...

Ws - Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Temple, SU, Notre Dame

W% - Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke, UCLA, SU, Western Kentucky, Nova

So if you take Ws, W%, Titles into account then only these teams are in the Elite 8 of all three:

UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas

They also happen to be #1 through #5 in Ws and W%. Titles they are #1 through #3, tied for 4th, and 7th.

You cannot really put UConn in that list, but you also cannot put Indiana in there (10th in Ws and 21st in W%).

Really before this year Nova should have been ahead of UConn too. But this title puts them ahead.

FWIW Duke was in the title game as far back as the 60s

But I’m good with leaving them off

 

[Dinkyspond]

UConn is as much of a blue blood school as any (5 national championships and 6 FF's) the past quarter century, and they have plenty of style, excitement, & panache. San Diego St. is the main reason why the ratings were so low, even although they have been generally a pretty solid program in recent years. Their style, etc. is like watching grass grow, and no one other than that segment (San Diego) of the country couldn't care less about them. They also sit in a pro market, and have zero brand, especially nationally.

What also most likely contributed to the historically low rating as well, is that, for all intents and purposes, the game was over after the very first (under 16 minute mark) media TO in the first half, and that beyond brutal/ridiculous 10 minute plus segment where SDSU did not score a FG.

Minor point but without the Chargers, SD only has the Padres now. I wonder if SDSU sports has a bigger impact in the city now now that there is no pro football. I can't remember when the Clippers left SD to go to LA but it's been a long time. I just wonder if SDSU is filling the gaps there. Maybe a forum reader in SD can enlighten me on that.

 

[Dinkyspond]

You can’t be a blue blood (no matter how many titles you have) if you only got good in 1990. There, I said it.

Whether we like it or not, UConn is now a blue blood or at the very least, noveau riche. We are currenty bourgeoisie trying to get back to royal status. It can happen. The first steps have been taken at least.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Whether we like it or not, UConn is now a blue blood or at the very least, noveau riche.

"blue blood" and "noveau rich" are mutually exclusive. I'm good with the latter.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think titles should be weighted higher. But if you took Ws, W%, F4s, Titles and looked at the Final 4 (Top 4), Elite 8, Sweet 16, Round of 32 of each category you would get...

F4 in all four (Ws, W%, F4s, Titles)
3 teams - Kentucky, UNC, Duke

E8 in all four
2 teams - Kansas, UCLA

S16 in all four
1 team - SU

R32 in all four
8 teams - Indiana, Cincinnati, Utah, Nova, Arizona, UConn, Arkansas, Louisville

There is a clear separation with the Top 5. Those IMO are your Blue Bloods.

By no means are we the 6th best program of all time. But I found it interesting at how good we are when comparing the four categories. We deserve a 2nd title.

Then again if any of the one title teams wins a 2nd, we fall back to the R32 group. This probably needs to be weighted though where Titles, Final Fours, W%, Ws are all accounted for but not equally.


Round of 32s not making the cut...

Ws
Temple, Notre Dame, St Johns, Purdue, Texas, Illinois, Western Kentucky, BYU, West Virginia, Washington, Penn, Michigan State, Princeton, Oregon State, NC State, Gonzaga, Ohio State, Alabama

W%
Charleston, UNLV, Western Kentucky, Murray State, VCU, Norfolk State, Notre Dame, Illinois, St Johns, Purdue, Temple, Memphis, Lipscomb, UAB, Weber State, Missouri State, Texas, BYU

Final Fours
Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, Houston, Oklahoma State, Florida, Georgetown, Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas State, LSU, UNLV, Wisconsin, Baylor, Cal, Iowa, Marquette, NC State, San Francisco, Texas, UVA, Memphis

Titles
Florida, Michigan State, NC State, Oklahoma State, San Francisco, Baylor, Cal, CCNY, Georgetown, Holy Cross, La Salle, Loyola, Marquette, Maryland, Ohio State, Oregon, Stanford, UNLV, UTEP, UVA, Wisconsin, Wyoming


In fairness UNLV has only had a program since 1959 which keeps their overall Ws low. They probably deserve to be in the S16 with us.

There are plenty of teams that just need a little bump to join the R32 teams.

Teams with that are three quarters of the way there...

Texas, Illinois, Michigan State, NC State, Ohio State, UNLV

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think titles should be weighted higher. But if you took Ws, W%, F4s, Titles and looked at the Final 4 (Top 4), Elite 8, Sweet 16, Round of 32 of each category you would get...

F4 in all four (Ws, W%, F4s, Titles)
3 teams - Kentucky, UNC, Duke

E8 in all four
2 teams - Kansas, UCLA

S16 in all four
1 team - SU

R32 in all four
8 teams - Indiana, Cincinnati, Utah, Nova, Arizona, UConn, Arkansas, Louisville

There is a clear separation with the Top 5. Those IMO are your Blue Bloods.

By no means are we the 6th best program of all time. But I found it interesting at how good we are when comparing the four categories. We deserve a 2nd title.

Then again if any of the one title teams wins a 2nd, we fall back to the R32 group. This probably needs to be weighted though where Titles, Final Fours, W%, Ws are all accounted for but not equally.


Round of 32s not making the cut...

Ws
Temple, Notre Dame, St Johns, Purdue, Texas, Illinois, Western Kentucky, BYU, West Virginia, Washington, Penn, Michigan State, Princeton, Oregon State, NC State, Gonzaga, Ohio State, Alabama

W%
Charleston, UNLV, Western Kentucky, Murray State, VCU, Norfolk State, Notre Dame, Illinois, St Johns, Purdue, Temple, Memphis, Lipscomb, UAB, Weber State, Missouri State, Texas, BYU

Final Fours
Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, Houston, Oklahoma State, Florida, Georgetown, Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas State, LSU, UNLV, Wisconsin, Baylor, Cal, Iowa, Marquette, NC State, San Francisco, Texas, UVA, Memphis

Titles
Florida, Michigan State, NC State, Oklahoma State, San Francisco, Baylor, Cal, CCNY, Georgetown, Holy Cross, La Salle, Loyola, Marquette, Maryland, Ohio State, Oregon, Stanford, UNLV, UTEP, UVA, Wisconsin, Wyoming


In fairness UNLV has only had a program since 1959 which keeps their overall Ws low. They probably deserve to be in the S16 with us.

There are plenty of teams that just need a little bump to join the R32 teams.

Teams with that are three quarters of the way there...

Texas, Illinois, Michigan State, NC State, Ohio State, UNLV

Teams halfway there...

Temple, Notre Dame, St Johns, Purdue, Western Kentucky, BYU, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Florida, Georgetown, Wisconsin, Baylor, Cal, Marquette, San Francisco, UVA

 

[Fly Rodder]

USing BBref's simple rating system, which is a basic thermometer of how much better than average a team was. Since the data is available, SU has had six teams with SRS's better than 20*, the most recent being more than a decade ago and of those teams, they failed to get to the S16 twice, lost in the S16 once, lost in the elite 8 twice, and lost in the F4 once.

UConn has had eight teams with SRSs better than 20, their most recent was this season and before that was 08-09. In those eight teams, they made at least the S16 every time, losing there twice, losing in the elite 8 twice, losing in the F4 once, and winning 3 titles.

* 2003 natty team was 19.02

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Breaking it down by future conferences...

All Four
4 teams - ACC
2 teams - B16, B12, Big East, P10, SEC

All Four plus 3/4s
5 teams - ACC, B16
3 teams - SEC
2 teams - B12, Big East, P10
1 team - MWC

All Four plus 3/4s plus 1/2s
7 teams - ACC, B16
5 teams - B12, Big East
4 teams - SEC
3 teams - P10
2 teams - AAC
1 team - CUSA, MWC, WCC

 

[BomberOrange]

UConn is ahead of us and they have been for awhile. Both have been to 6 FF's but they have 5 NC's to our 1. They win when they get there.

I think what keeps uconn from true blue blood status in my opinion is their year in year out consistency or lack thereof. They had a good run of truly great years in the mid 90's through 2000's. For the most part KU, UK, UNC, dook are top teams year in year out (UCLA not as much but they are in the 5 because of titles). To me uconn is just below the BB's in a category by themselves. Then its SU, Lville, MSU, etc.

 

[Hopkins16]

Trust me - we will be fine going forward as long as the zone isn't played full time or at all. So many prominent recruits over the years would have come to the Cuse if not for the zone. The recruits, their AAU coaches, parents, handlers, rival coaches all say the same thing - THE ZONE DOES NOT PREPARE YOU FOR THE NBA.

Without the Cuse being known for the zone, we will get the players then it will be up to being able to coach them to victories.