Boeheim most unlucky coach ever?

[dollarbill44]

Yes. Very good points. We didn't come to play against Butler; got behind 9 or 11 to nothing. Losing Arinze didn't cause us to lose to Butler.

That's not the point. The point is that with AO, it's likely not even a debate b/c we win by double digits.

 

[OttoMets]

Another BS pairing. No way that team was a #13 seed. They had a better RPI than us.

And it's like the NCAA intentionally put us in that building with that shitty court to balance out 2003.

Still should have won the game, but that wasn't a first-round matchup and it should have been played elsewhere if the top seeds are supposed to have home-court advantage that early.

And to continue agreeing with you, that was ridiculous. Vermont was underseeded, and we were a four despite going 27-6 (with all our losses coming to #5, #20, #23, #18, #6, #15) and winning the Big East tournament. (Duke won the ACC tournament; was 25-5; lost to #2, #7, and three unranked teams; and was given the one seed in our region.)

I still don't know the justification for giving a four seed to the Big East tournament champ with those numbers.

 

[KingOtis]

And to continue agreeing with you, that was ridiculous. Vermont was underseeded, and we were a four despite going 27-6 (with all our losses coming to #5, #20, #23, #18, #6, #15) and winning the Big East tournament. (Duke won the ACC tournament; was 25-5; lost to #2, #7, and three unranked teams; and was given the one seed in our region.)

I still don't know the justification for giving a four seed to the Big East tournament champ with those numbers.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Because Vermont's seed was so absurd, it's easy to forget that ours was, too.

 

[CusefanATL]

2010, and 2012, were magnified 10 fold considering they were my sophomore and Senior year in college. Just ask Dsyr, Bnoro or Blacknight. Wanted a final four while we were there so bad.

i dont feel bad for you. at all. not 1 iota.

i went to school from fall of 03 to spring of 07.

it may be the worst 4 years of sports in syracuse history with the exception for the people from fall 04-spring 08.

 

[Knicks411]

That was rotten. People don't like to complain about that kind of thing, but matching us up with Marquette before the regional was terribly unfair. I know that we should be able to beat even an (underseeded) 11 seed if we want to earn a trip to the regional, but the NCAA should bend over backward not to match up conference opponents like that.

It may have been unavoidable, no?

 

[OttoMets]

It may have been unavoidable, no?

It might have been (because the Big East had a crazy number of teams get bids), but I think it was avoidable in the East.

Just checked now; Villanova and West Virginia were also in our region. Just a little jostling of seeds could have fixed the problem - give Marquette the 10 and Georgia the 11 and we wouldn't have met in the subregional. Not sure about the propriety of that, but it's pretty undesirable to have conference teams meeting as early as we did.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Because Vermont's seed was so absurd, it's easy to forget that ours was, too.

And if we lost to Indiana State..would we have heard about how they were "easily a 9 seed!"

 

[Knicks411]

It might have been (because the Big East had a crazy number of teams get bids), but I think it was avoidable in the East.

Just checked now; Villanova and West Virginia were also in our region. Just a little jostling of seeds could have fixed the problem - give Marquette the 10 and Georgia the 11 and we wouldn't have met in the subregional. Not sure about the propriety of that, but it's pretty undesirable to have conference teams meeting as early as we did.

I think the rule is they are allowed to move teams up or down 1 seed line in order to make things fit. But it's possible Marquette was really a 12 on their seed line, meaning they couldn't be bumped up to a 10. (Or not, I have no idea). Or Georgia was a 9 really and they didn't want to move them to an 11.

 

[KingOtis]

And if we lost to Indiana State..would we have heard about how they were "easily a 9 seed!"

Did they have a better RPI than us? No. I saw Indiana State play in person at the MVC tournament. They were a crap team and had we lost to them, I would have been at the front of the line criticizing everyone involved.

 

[KingOtis]

I think the rule is they are allowed to move teams up or down 1 seed line in order to make things fit. But it's possible Marquette was really a 12 on their seed line, meaning they couldn't be bumped up to a 10. (Or not, I have no idea). Or Georgia was a 9 really and they didn't want to move them to an 11.

They couldn't have been a 12. That spot was one of the play-in games.

Bottom line, it was easily avoidable. The committee punished the Big East with those second round match-ups. It had never been done before and will never be done again.

 

[Knicks411]

I remember looking at the 2005 seeding a while ago. For whatever it's worth, Pomeroy had Duke #3 and us #17, so that kinda matches with the seeding.

Just looking through the results that year, we didn't do much OOC. We lost to OK State (they were 8th in Pomeroy) and beat beat Memphis (37) and Miss State (36). (Am I crazy or were all 3 at MSG?) Miss State was a 9 seed, Memphis didn't make the dance. So we beat one team that made the tourny, (9 seed) OOC. Duke beat Mich State (5 seed) at home, and Oklahoma (3 seed) at a neutral site.

The ACC had 4 other NCAA tournament teams; Wake (2 seed), UNC (1 seed), GA Tech (5 seed), and NC State (10 seed). Duke went 7-2 against those teams (split with Wake and Carolina, 2-0 vs NC State and 3-0 vs Ga Tech). Bad loss at Va tech, and th ey were swept by Maryland (32nd in Pomeroy, didn't make the dance) and lost the road games @ UNC and Wake.

BE had 5 other teams make the tournament. UConn (2), BC (4), Nova (5), Pitt (9), and WVU (7). We went 4-5 against those teams. There were a decent amount of BE teams that year int he 35-50 range in Pomeroy who didn't make the tournament, Notre Dame (2x), Providence (2x), Gtown, all of whom we beat. No bad losses; we didn't lose to anyone who missed out on the tournament.

So both teams went 11-5 in good leagues, both teams won the conf tournament. Duke did better work in the OOC. Maybe not 3 seed lines worth.

 

[OttoMets]

I remember looking at the 2005 seeding a while ago. For whatever it's worth, Pomeroy had Duke #3 and us #17, so that kinda matches with the seeding.

Just looking through the results that year, we didn't do much OOC. We lost to OK State (they were 8th in Pomeroy) and beat beat Memphis (37) and Miss State (36). (Am I crazy or were all 3 at MSG?) Miss State was a 9 seed, Memphis didn't make the dance. So we beat one team that made the tourny, (9 seed) OOC. Duke beat Mich State (5 seed) at home, and Oklahoma (3 seed) at a neutral site.

The ACC had 4 other NCAA tournament teams; Wake (2 seed), UNC (1 seed), GA Tech (5 seed), and NC State (10 seed). Duke went 7-2 against those teams (split with Wake and Carolina, 2-0 vs NC State and 3-0 vs Ga Tech). Bad loss at Va tech, and th ey were swept by Maryland (32nd in Pomeroy, didn't make the dance) and lost the road games @ UNC and Wake.

BE had 5 other teams make the tournament. UConn (2), BC (4), Nova (5), Pitt (9), and WVU (7). We went 4-5 against those teams. There were a decent amount of BE teams that year int he 35-50 range in Pomeroy who didn't make the tournament, Notre Dame (2x), Providence (2x), Gtown, all of whom we beat. No bad losses; we didn't lose to anyone who missed out on the tournament.

So both teams went 11-5 in good leagues, both teams won the conf tournament. Duke did better work in the OOC. Maybe not 3 seed lines worth.

Good analysis.

Everyone's got one "what-if" they won't let go of; 2005 is mine. Forgetting for a second that we had no third scoring threat, I think that should have been a Final Four team.

Duke did play better teams out of conference and did have a better record against the good teams in their league (we got swept by Pittsburgh and Connecticut). They also lost to some of the bad teams in their league, which we didn't do. As you say, I don't know that their resume was sufficiently superior as to earn them a three-seed bump above us.

Teams are traditionally rewarded for winning the conference tournament, especially in a league like the Big East, and especially if the team has had a good regular season and isn't some surprise winner (and even our 2006 team got a 5 seed). At worst, we should had the three over Oklahoma. And that's not even getting into the propriety of playing Vermont two hours from their campus and reliving the UMass 1992 experience.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

They couldn't have been a 12. That spot was one of the play-in games.

Bottom line, it was easily avoidable. The committee punished the Big East with those second round match-ups. It had never been done before and will never be done again.

If you lose to Marquette twice that year, you probably didn't belong in the Sweet 16/Elite 8 anyway.

 

[OttoMets]

If you lose to Marquette twice that year, you probably didn't belong in the Sweet 16/Elite 8 anyway.

That may be true. And we also don't deserve to make it to the Sweet Sixteen if we can't beat the UConn women's team in the second round, but that doesn't make it right for the NCAA to schedule that matchup.

 

[HOFCeluck]

These excuses are hilarious.

 

[KingOtis]

If you lose to Marquette twice that year, you probably didn't belong in the Sweet 16/Elite 8 anyway.

That's not what the tournament is based on. We lost to UConn twice in 2003 and neither game was close. Does that mean we didn't belong in the Final Four or the title game?

 

[OttoMets]

These excuses are hilarious.

I'm not intending to offer an excuse - I've come out pretty strongly with the opinion that Boeheim is not at all unlucky as far as game results go. We've lost a number of big games over the years, often as a result of the same few things: offensive draughts, inability to rebound, and inability to hit free throws. There's nothing unlucky about losing to Richmond, Vermont, Minnesota, or Rhode Island. Each time, we got outplayed by inferior team. And there's nothing unlucky about losing to Kentucky in 1996 or Indiana in 1987 - both were great teams who made more plays to win the ballgame than we did.

Doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't have faced a conference opponent in a sub-regional game in 2011.

 

[kirbivore]

Another BS pairing. No way that team was a #13 seed. They had a better RPI than us.

And it's like the NCAA intentionally put us in that building with that shitty court to balance out 2003.

Still should have won the game, but that wasn't a first-round matchup and it should have been played elsewhere if the top seeds are supposed to have home-court advantage that early.

I was outraged on the other side of the seeding. SU was too low as a #4 seed.

 

[kirbivore]

Teams are traditionally rewarded for winning the conference tournament, especially in a league like the Big East, and especially if the team has had a good regular season and isn't some surprise winner (and even our 2006 team got a 5 seed).

that was even more ridiculous. SU over the course of 4 days went from bubble to top 20.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Seriously has anyone been jipped in the tournament more than Boeheim. Maybe it's just because looking it through orange glasses but Boeheim could have four titles.

1987 Buzzer beater loss
1996 Face one of the greatest college teams of all time.
2010 We walk through the tournament with A.O.
2012 I think we lose to Kentucky but could have won.

I know Boeheim has a rep for under performing in the tournament but damn dude has ha some bad luck. The only other example I can think of is Cincinnati.

Add Z Sims getting hurt against Kentucky.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2

 

[KingOtis]

Add Z Sims getting hurt against Kentucky.

And Otis Hill. Not that we had any business winning that game.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

2005 biggest blunder was Billy Edelin. With him on that team we make the final four. 2010 was the only one that was pure bad luck and 2012 although you could argue either way.

 

[BuffOrange]

These excuses are hilarious.

Maybe. The whole Marquette thing is an excuse. So we lost to them in a tight game on their home court when they threw in a bunch of miracle 3's. That's supposed to be an unusually dangerous 2nd round opponent because they're a conference foe (which is really a technicality given that we played them only once, just like a bunch of non-conf. teams)? Yah, not buying it.

The whole '05 seeding analysis/debacle compared to Duke is a legit gripe & I don't really see how anyone could argue otherwise.

AO/Fab you could argue either way. UNC has had their share of title crushing injuries too, but of course it sucks more for us because we're not a 1seed every other year so it's magnified when it happens.

 

[orangecuse]

Another aspect of this is look who we have put in NBA in recent years. Not trying to dis our players, but with the exception of Carmelo and now looks like Dion, they have had short and unproductive careers. Which is to say, JB has been doing this with precious little star-quality talent. Good players, arguably, but not like Duke or Carolina or Kentucky.

Plus, I would add 2000 when we had the eventual winner, Mich State, by double-digits in the second half when suddenly they make every stinking shot they throw up. And that was in the Silverdome, their virtual home court. What a hose job that was to begin with!

That game was at the Palace in Auburn Hills...I was there! As you said though, indeed, it was a huge big time crowd advantage for MSU.

 

[NineOneSeven]

At the end of the day this is all moot.