Boeheim most unlucky coach ever?

[NineOneSeven]

Hasn't Boeheim pretty much achieved what you would have expected based on his seedings, through his history. There have been some early exits, but he also won a title as a 3 seed and made the title game as a 4.

Correct. But I don't think an argument for determining an elite program holds much substance only using the seeding game.

 

[KingOtis]

Developing 3-star recruits into All-Americans is very commendable. But it is what 40 or 50 coaches in America do. That doesn't make it elite.

Winning 20 games most years is very commendable. But it is what 40 or 50 coaches in America do. That doesn't make it elite.

So I take it you can't name ten programs better than ours.

And you're wrong, just wrong. 40 or 50 coaches? Again, name 10. It won't be Calipari. Or Coach K. Or Izzo. Or Roy Williams. Or Bill Self. Those guys get the best players every year and they rarely, if ever, have to develop lesser recruits into college stars. Most All-Americans were known commodities coming out of high school. There are exceptions, of course. And a good portion of them played at Syracuse.

I didn't realize that 40 or 50 coaches have 30+ (or even 20+) years of experience and have won 20 games all but twice. Now you're just being silly. JB has more 20 win seasons than anyone. Coach K didn't have a 20-win season at Duke until his fourth year. It took Izzo three years and he's had that many seasons with less than 20 wins since JB last won 19. 40 or 50 coaches? Name 10 who are in the same ballpark and who are coaching at what you consider to be elite programs.

 

[KingOtis]

............

If you don't understand the point I was making [sitting here day dreaming about what could have been if this or that happened/didn't happen in the PAST], well, god bless you.

No question there have been unlucky moments. Like someone else said, dozens of teams can make similar arguments though.

And I'm sure they have similar threads on their message boards. I'm also sure they have Debbie Downers like you, claiming it's moot and then contributing several posts of their own.

 

[KingOtis]

Correct. But I don't think an argument for determining an elite program holds much substance only using the seeding game.

But that's your reasoning. You're saying we've underachieved under JB. What would that be based on other than tournament seeding? (And, as Knicks411 pointed out, it's not even an accurate argument.)

 

[KingOtis]

Strengthening my point from earlier that we underachieve in the tournament. That is fact.

Would love to see where this next argument about elite programs goes. Sometimes it's hard for people here to remove orange colored glasses. Plus, what's the criteria for elite? For example: Uconn has three championships, Florida has back to back championships, we have one.

Go ahead, name 10 elite programs.

Of course, the orange-colored glasses argument. And you're somehow special for being a contrarian? That doesn't make you a realist, it makes you a pessimist.

Again, most fan bases would kill for our resume.

 

[NineOneSeven]

And I'm sure they have similar threads on their message boards. I'm also sure they have Debbie Downers like you, claiming it's moot and then contributing several posts of their own.

I'm not a debbie downer by stating Syracuse historically seems to underachieve come tournament time.

But that's your reasoning. You're saying we've underachieved under JB. What would that be based on other than tournament seeding? (And, as Knicks411 pointed out, it's not even an accurate argument.)

You've provided much of this argument for me-- consistently having 20 win seasons, competing at a high level in one of, if not the best, basketball conferences during the regular season.

Again, I'm not a debbie downer. I just firmly believe, as others do I am sure, that we should, "on paper", have more final four appearances than we do, considering the regular season success we seem to consistently have.

Yes, we could and possibly would have more if not for some unlucky moments recently, but at the end of the day, there isn't going to be an asterisk next to Duke's 2010 championship saying "Arinze Onuaku was hurt or else Syracuse wins". As syracuse fans, we know how good we were, to the majority of college basketball fans, we lost to Butler.

Here's to a great regular season AND postseason.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Go ahead, name 10 elite programs.

Of course, the orange-colored glasses argument. And you're somehow special for being a contrarian? That doesn't make you a realist, it makes you a pessimist.

Again, most fan bases would kill for our resume.

Pass.

 

[PoppyHart]

Go ahead, name 10 elite programs.

Of course, the orange-colored glasses argument. And you're somehow special for being a contrarian? That doesn't make you a realist, it makes you a pessimist.

Again, most fan bases would kill for our resume.

One thing I would caution against is that 35 years is a long time. So schools can drift in and out of elite status. IMO, there have been a lot more than 10 elite programs in that span. For instance, St. John's, LSU, and Michigan were elite for a period of time. Along with the staples (Duke, UNC, IU, UK, KU, SU, UCONN, MSU, Zona, UCLA), you're already at 12. Arkansas had a great run, etc...

 

[br801]

I'm not a debbie downer by stating Syracuse historically seems to underachieve come tournament time.

You've provided much of this argument for me-- consistently having 20 win seasons, competing at a high level in one of, if not the best, basketball conferences during the regular season.

Again, I'm not a debbie downer. I just firmly believe, as others do I am sure, that we should, "on paper", have more final four appearances than we do, considering the regular season success we seem to consistently have.

Yes, we could and possibly would have more if not for some unlucky moments recently, but at the end of the day, there isn't going to be an asterisk next to Duke's 2010 championship saying "Arinze Onuaku was hurt or else Syracuse wins". As syracuse fans, we know how good we were, to the majority of college basketball fans, we lost to Butler.

Here's to a great regular season AND postseason.

I'm not sure what constitutes "underachievement" or "elite" in terms of college basketball performance, but I do know there is much to be said for the sustained excellence that SU has enjoyed under Boeheim.

I grew up watching UCLA dominate college basketball, and figured out early on that winning titles was not an easy thing unless your team was UCLA. And it's still not an easy thing today, but for entirely different reasons.

If your primary measuring stick for program success is titles won, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment nearly every season. I simply don't see the fun in that.

 

[realorange]

Most of us don't worry whether Syracuse is or is not an elite program. We simply enjoy the team and whatever the season brings. We get high with the wins and hurt with the losses. We live for the season to start, look forward to every game, can't wait for the NCAA's and then wait half a year for it to start all over again.
We take pride in our team and JB.
I feel sorry for people who can't enjoy themselves or the team unless it wins the number of games they believe should have been won. Or even if the wins are there, maybe they weren't happy because it was done with the wrong players.
If you can't be happy with Syracuse basketball, find a team that better suits you. Leave the rest of us with a team and it's history we've learned to love.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Show me a good loser, and I'll show you...a loser.

 

[KingOtis]

I'm not a debbie downer by stating Syracuse historically seems to underachieve come tournament time.

No, when you put it that way, you're simply wrong.

You've provided much of this argument for me-- consistently having 20 win seasons, competing at a high level in one of, if not the best, basketball conferences during the regular season.

The tournament committee has a way of quantifying how a team performed during the regular season, and that's through seeding. Yes, there have been some upsets over the years, but we've performed to our seed for the most part...especially since we came off probation, switched to the 2-3 zone almost exclusively, and/or JB married Juli, which ever way you want to look at it.

 

[KingOtis]

Pass.

Because you can't. I passed because you were being a douche about it...and obviously I've answered your question since then.

 

[PoppyHart]

Show me a good loser, and I'll show you...a loser.

Phil Mickelson

 

[KingOtis]

One thing I would caution against is that 35 years is a long time. So schools can drift in and out of elite status. IMO, there have been a lot more than 10 elite programs in that span. For instance, St. John's, LSU, and Michigan were elite for a period of time. Along with the staples (Duke, UNC, IU, UK, KU, SU, UCONN, MSU, Zona, UCLA), you're already at 12. Arkansas had a great run, etc...

You're absolutely right. In the case of Syracuse, I would say we're an elite team right now and we've been an elite team over the period of time since JB became the head coach. So it's on the posters who are saying that we're not elite to either name 10 current elite teams and/or 10 over the last 35 years or so.

Bottom line, we're on both lists.

 

[br801]

Most of us don't worry whether Syracuse is or is not an elite program. We simply enjoy the team and whatever the season brings. We get high with the wins and hurt with the losses. We live for the season to start, look forward to every game, can't wait for the NCAA's and then wait half a year for it to start all over again.
We take pride in our team and JB.
I feel sorry for people who can't enjoy themselves or the team unless it wins the number of games they believe should have been won. Or even if the wins are there, maybe they weren't happy because it was done with the wrong players.
If you can't be happy with Syracuse basketball, find a team that better suits you. Leave the rest of us with a team and it's history we've learned to love.

Great post. That says it better than I ever could.

 

[br801]

Phil Mickelson

That would make Nicklaus a loser, too, I suppose.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I'm not sure what constitutes "underachievement" or "elite" in terms of college basketball performance, but I do know there is much to be said for the sustained excellence that SU has enjoyed under Boeheim.

I grew up watching UCLA dominate college basketball, and figured out early on that winning titles was not an easy thing unless your team was UCLA. And it's still not an easy thing today, but for entirely different reasons.

If your primary measuring stick for program success is titles won, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment nearly every season. I simply don't see the fun in that.

You guys are jumping to conclusions that simply are not true. None of this is about me assuming we are going to the final 4 every year. None of this is about me not "being happy with Syracuse basketball." None of this is about me disagreeing with the fact our resume is one most fans would kill to have. My opinion (those are allowed, correct?), is simply given how successful and fun to watch our regular seasons are, our postseasons seem to end earlier than expected by us (and other fans of other teams, college analysts, too). I am good friends with a few respectable posters (including my old roommate who started this thread) on this board and I can assure you, I enjoy Syracuse basketball as much as any person on this planet.

All raise good points, but please don't attack me for stating a personal opinion of mine, that some agree with. And Otis: my answer of pass was more of a joke aimed at your response earlier.

On a side note, here's some food for thought: would you rather be a one seed with a historical regular season and lose in the sweet sixteen, or a "bubble team" that makes the Final Four and competes for a title. Kind of interesting to think about.

 

[Knicks411]

Correct. But I don't think an argument for determining an elite program holds much substance only using the seeding game.

Fair, but I'm just saying I'm not sure on the whole we have underachieved in the tournament all that much.

We are definitely not an elite NCAA tournament team.

 

[br801]

One thing I would caution against is that 35 years is a long time. So schools can drift in and out of elite status. IMO, there have been a lot more than 10 elite programs in that span. For instance, St. John's, LSU, and Michigan were elite for a period of time. Along with the staples (Duke, UNC, IU, UK, KU, SU, UCONN, MSU, Zona, UCLA), you're already at 12. Arkansas had a great run, etc...

While I'm not a big fan of this "elite" or "not elite" issue, your point that a team's status can change significantly over time is a good one.

I think what we can say about SU (and Boeheim) is that the program has been consistently strong, and sometimes very strong, over an incredibly long period of time, and that few other programs can make a similar claim.

 

[Knicks411]

If the argument is based off our regular season success we should have more final fours, then I think it's instructive to look at seedings. It's not perfect, but it's a decent enough indication of what kind of a regular season we had. We might be short one FF as compared as to what we "should" have made, but it's not like we have been a consistent top 2 or 3 seed throughout the last 25 years. (I think we were a 2 seed 4 out of 5 years in the late 80's, and a top 3 seed the last 4 years, but in between that there is a lot of 4 seeds or worse. Don't really think 4 seeds "should" be making the final four with any regularity.

 

[br801]

You guys are jumping to conclusions that simply are not true. None of this is about me assuming we are going to the final 4 every year. None of this is about me not "being happy with Syracuse basketball." None of this is about me disagreeing with the fact our resume is one most fans would kill to have. My opinion (those are allowed, correct?), is simply given how successful and fun to watch our regular seasons are, our postseasons seem to end earlier than expected by us (and other fans of other teams, college analysts, too). I am good friends with a few respectable posters (including my old roommate who started this thread) on this board and I can assure you, I enjoy Syracuse basketball as much as any person on this planet.

All raise good points, but please don't attack me for stating a personal opinion of mine, that some agree with. And Otis: my answer of pass was more of a joke aimed at your response earlier.

On a side note, here's some food for thought: would you rather be a one seed with a historical regular season and lose in the sweet sixteen, or a "bubble team" that makes the Final Four and competes for a title. Kind of interesting to think about.

Sorry if you thought I was attacking you or trying to silence your opinion. I was just providing my perspective on all of this, as I'm sure others were also doing. We all have different expectations for the program and that's cool. Peace.

 

[BuffOrange]

If the argument is based off our regular season success we should have more final fours, then I think it's instructive to look at seedings. It's not perfect, but it's a decent enough indication of what kind of a regular season we had. We might be short one FF as compared as to what we "should" have made, but it's not like we have been a consistent top 2 or 3 seed throughout the last 25 years. (I think we were a 2 seed 4 out of 5 years in the late 80's, and a top 3 seed the last 4 years, but in between that there is a lot of 4 seeds or worse. Don't really think 4 seeds "should" be making the final four with any regularity.

Yah this point has been made a few times but nobody ever wants to hear it. I think the expectation for any really good program would be that they underperform their seed a bit more often, which we have done. Haven't Duke/UNC lost more games in white than they've won in blue in the tournament? The difference of course is that it's easier to overlook the failures when you're a 1-2 seed nearly every year. Eventually you'll win if you're that good every year, unless you're the actual unluckiest coach ever, Marty "my team can't recover any fumbles or make any FG's in the postseason" Schottenheimer.

 

[KingOtis]

And Otis: my answer of pass was more of a joke aimed at your response earlier.

I know, but you still can't do it.

 

[KingOtis]

Don't really think 4 seeds "should" be making the final four with any regularity.

Correct. They're usually considered Cinderellas when they do.