espn hardwood classics

[SWC75]

1988-89 Final Statistics (30-8, 10-6)

We had a horrible shooting game vs. Pitt, 3 for 16 from the arc and 15 for 35, (yes 15 for 35) from the line).

Nova as a 2 point loss on the road. We got out-rebounded 26-33, which was rare with Derrick on the team.

St. John's was another 2 point loss on the road. They got called for 9 fouls. We got called for 19.

Connecticut was a 6 point road loss where we shot 12 for 23 from the foul line and got outscored form there by 11.

We lost by 7 at Georgetown and got out-rebounded 30-42 and didn't make a trey.

We lost by 3 at BC. They numbers were basically even across the box score. They scored 1 more three and two more free throws.

We lost by 9 to Georgetown in the BET. This time we out-rebounded them 44-35 but got called for 8 more fouls and they scored 6 more free throws, 1 more field goal and 1 more trey.

We lost by 3 to a 31-4 Illinois team. They shot 61% from the field.

The Pitt game was the only home loss. The total points we lost the 8 games by 36 points, an average of 4 1/2. That's basketball.

 

[SWC75]

This was SU basketball in the old days. You had to be there.

 

[pfister1]

Do people consider our 1991 team to be one of our best all time? They were good obviously.

But they were 26-4 in the regular season before losing in the first round of the BET to Nova and first round of the NCAAT to Richmond. Maybe its the last two games and loss to the 15 seed, but I never think of them as being among the All time best even though they had a 26-4 regular season. My point is that sometimes the record doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[SWC75]

Do people consider our 1991 team to be one of our best all time? They were good obviously.

But they were 26-4 in the regular season before losing in the first round of the BET to Nova and first round of the NCAAT to Richmond. Maybe its the last two games and loss to the 15 seed, but I never think of them as being among the All time best even though they had a 26-4 regular season. My point is that sometimes the record doesn't tell the whole story.

They might make the top ten. I'd rate the last couple of Louie-Bouie teams, the 1986-90 teams, the 2003 team and 2010 and 2012 ahead of them. it was basically Billy Owens and Dave Johnson. But they were good enough to win the Big East title outright, which I think only the 2012 team also did. They blew a big lead late vs. Nova and seemed to be so shaken by it they played as if they were in a trance the next week vs. Richmond. They should be remembered for more than that.

 

[81South]

They might make the top ten. I'd rate the last couple of Louie-Bouie teams, the 1986-90 teams, the 2003 team and 2010 and 2012 ahead of them. it was basically Billy Owens and Dave Johnson. But they were good enough to win the Big East title outright, which I think only the 2012 team also did. They blew a big lead late vs. Nova and seemed to be so shaken by it they played as if they were in a trance the next week vs. Richmond. They should be remembered for more than that.

Yup...Billy had an AMAZING season...we rolled. The post season collapse still boggles my mind and the loss to Richmond left a very bad scar. Damn.

 

[81South]

1988-89 Final Statistics (30-8, 10-6)

We had a horrible shooting game vs. Pitt, 3 for 16 from the arc and 15 for 35, (yes 15 for 35) from the line).

Nova as a 2 point loss on the road. We got out-rebounded 26-33, which was rare with Derrick on the team.

St. John's was another 2 point loss on the road. They got called for 9 fouls. We got called for 19.

Connecticut was a 6 point road loss where we shot 12 for 23 from the foul line and got outscored form there by 11.

We lost by 7 at Georgetown and got out-rebounded 30-42 and didn't make a trey.

We lost by 3 at BC. They numbers were basically even across the box score. They scored 1 more three and two more free throws.

We lost by 9 to Georgetown in the BET. This time we out-rebounded them 44-35 but got called for 8 more fouls and they scored 6 more free throws, 1 more field goal and 1 more trey.

We lost by 3 to a 31-4 Illinois team. They shot 61% from the field.

The Pitt game was the only home loss. The total points we lost the 8 games by 36 points, an average of 4 1/2. That's basketball.

Nice work SWC. The only What loss, that I recall, was the BC game...which was on the road and it was the classic trap game as we had senior day at the dome against the hated Hoyas up next as I recall.

 

[capt.cuse]

been showing a lot of orange past few days. yesterday uconn and today the hoyas. feb 1989 on air right now.
derrick coleman, billy owens, stevie thompson, sherm douglas and dave johnson on the court together right now. most talented orange quintet ever to put 10 sneakers on the same court ? all were fantastic players .

The 86-87 team was the most talented team in my opinion. Seikly, Colman, Howard Triche, Douglas,and Greg Monro with Stevie Thompson and Derek Brower. If Smart doesn't hit that shot at the end of the championship game there would be a lot more people agreeing with me on that.

 

[RF2044]

This was SU basketball in the old days. You had to be there.

That hike pass was one of the most incredible things I've ever seen live on a basketball court.

 

[RF2044]

The 2003 squad had a pretty damn good season as well, even discounting the championship. 5 losses, which included a loss in our opening game and a crazy buzzer beater by Rutgers. I think we lost 2 times to uconn that year, and once to pitt.

And I hear that the season ended on a high note, as well. Can anyone confirm?

 

[RF2044]

That's totally fair to ask. I'm 32, class of 07' and while I caught a few Preston Shumpert-era Cuse games on TV while I was in high school, I wasn't a fan of the team until I got to the hill in 03-04. I've seen the grainy video clips and DC was a man amongst boys. Sherman was an 80's version of CP3.

But again, I just struggle to see how the 89' team is the best we've ever had when we had a team in the 12' squad that played in a much stronger era of college basketball where there was (and still is) so much more parity than just a few powerhouse teams at the top.

Thanks -- was just curious, wasn't implying anything negative with the age inquiry.

I think several other posters have covered it, but I disagree with your positioning of which era was stronger -- seems like recency bias.

 

[joct]

1988-89 Final Statistics (30-8, 10-6)

We had a horrible shooting game vs. Pitt, 3 for 16 from the arc and 15 for 35, (yes 15 for 35) from the line).

Nova as a 2 point loss on the road. We got out-rebounded 26-33, which was rare with Derrick on the team.

St. John's was another 2 point loss on the road. They got called for 9 fouls. We got called for 19.

Connecticut was a 6 point road loss where we shot 12 for 23 from the foul line and got outscored form there by 11.

We lost by 7 at Georgetown and got out-rebounded 30-42 and didn't make a trey.

We lost by 3 at BC. They numbers were basically even across the box score. They scored 1 more three and two more free throws.

We lost by 9 to Georgetown in the BET. This time we out-rebounded them 44-35 but got called for 8 more fouls and they scored 6 more free throws, 1 more field goal and 1 more trey.

We lost by 3 to a 31-4 Illinois team. They shot 61% from the field.

The Pitt game was the only home loss. The total points we lost the 8 games by 36 points, an average of 4 1/2. That's basketball.

And if I remember, Sherman got hurt in the St John's loss in the early minutes, and played but was not himself UConn game, which was right after it. Season included 3 wins (with 1 blowout) of Seton Hall, who was real good and just missed winning the whole thing.

 

[OttoMets]

Why did that uber-talented 1989 team only go 10-6 in a relatively underwhelming Big East that year? Honestly curious, I was only 7 years old.

View attachment 116902

Horrible free-throw shooting (though not as bad as the previous year), minor injuries, and honestly that was not the most focused group of players in history. On pure talent, Owens and Coleman are at the top of the heap. As far as certain other intangibles, you'd take two dozen Syracuse players over them.

It's too bad that the team could beat national runner-up Seton Hall by 30 one night (swept them on the season, I think), and then get crushed by a .500 Villanova team a few days later. But that sums it up for that era: good enough to beat everyone by a lot, also capable of losing to anyone.

 

[OttoMets]

...

The Pitt game was the only home loss. The total points we lost the 8 games by 36 points, an average of 4 1/2. That's basketball.

That's basketball for teams that hit like 60% of their unguarded 15-footers.

 

[Deano]

This was SU basketball in the old days. You had to be there.

For people that hadn't seen DC play will get a glimpse of that next year with Darius Bazely. Oh, Sherm Douglas, greatest alley oop passer ever at SU.

 

[RF2044]

Horrible free-throw shooting (though not as bad as the previous year), minor injuries, and honestly that was not the most focused group of players in history. On pure talent, Owens and Coleman are at the top of the heap. As far as certain other intangibles, you'd take two dozen Syracuse players over them.

It's too bad that the team could beat national runner-up Seton Hall by 30 one night (swept them on the season, I think), and then get crushed by a .500 Villanova team a few days later. But that sums it up for that era: good enough to beat everyone by a lot, also capable of losing to anyone.

I don't think your last sentence is an accurate description -- those teams beat a LOT of great teams over that span, and had a gaudy W/L record. Some of our best teams in program history were from that era. The occasional black eye loss [like to Richmond at the end of that 1991 season or Rhode Island in 1998 when Sherman Douglas was so sick he could barely stand] doesn't fundamentally change how strong those teams were.

That Villanova game you reference @ Nova in 1989 was a game we lost by 2 points, going 13-20 from the free throw stripe. Hardly getting "crushed" [and later that season, when they weren't getting every call in the Palaestra, we whipped them 90-57]. We lost quite a few games in that fashion, where we'd outplay the opponent but lose close games due to subpar FT shooting.

FT shooting was an enormous problem between 87 - 90.

 

[OttoMets]

I don't think your last sentence is an accurate description -- those teams beat a LOT of great teams over that span, and had a gaudy W/L record.

They lost that Villanova game by 2 points, and went 13-20 from the free throw stripe. We lost a lot of games in that fashion, where we'd outplay the opponent but lose close games due to subpar FT shooting.

FT shooting was an enormous problem between 87 - 90.

Yeah, my synopsis comes off as negative and maybe it doesn't quite capture the era.

Just seemed at the time (and the feeling has strengthened in hindsight, after legitimate excellent regular seasons and a championship) that that crew left a lot (percentage-wise - in '88, 8 of 9 losses were by four or fewer with Arizona the exception; in '89 I'm not sure they lost by a margin of more than five) of wins on the table due to factors within their control.

They were excellent, that shouldn't be understated. But the free throw shooting was atrocious, the focus was inconsistent, and I don't think it'd be inaccurate to say that 1988 Jim Boeheim wasn't as good a coach as 2010 Jim Boeheim (but boy would that be an interesting thread topic...).

 

[SWC75]

That hike pass was one of the most incredible things I've ever seen live on a basketball court.

The thing about it was the accuracy. He led Stevie perfectly.

 

[SWC75]

That's totally fair to ask. I'm 32, class of 07' and while I caught a few Preston Shumpert-era Cuse games on TV while I was in high school, I wasn't a fan of the team until I got to the hill in 03-04. I've seen the grainy video clips and DC was a man amongst boys. Sherman was an 80's version of CP3.

But again, I just struggle to see how the 89' team is the best we've ever had when we had a team in the 12' squad that played in a much stronger era of college basketball where there was (and still is) so much more parity than just a few powerhouse teams at the top.

The parity was not due to an overall increase in talent. It was due to a dilution of it at the top because of players leaving early.

 

[pfister1]

FT shooting was an enormous problem between 87 - 90.

So much so that it became almost more of a program identity than the 2-3 zone is today.

 

[tbonezone]

No outside shooting and no dominant center. Probably the most athletic team we’ve ever had though.

if you look at the 3 pt % of the players i cited none are horrible. BO (32), DC (29), DJ (34), ST (30) and sherm (33). not bad. and we always had matt roe.
plus factor in every one of them could dribble and create. derrick had probably the best handle of any big man ever to wear orange.
freethrows was another issue !

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Thanks -- was just curious, wasn't implying anything negative with the age inquiry.

I think several other posters have covered it, but I disagree with your positioning of which era was stronger -- seems like recency bias.

You can criticize him for recency bias, but to me it seems most posters glorify the old days.

Yes, you can list the stars on the team and it sounds impressive - things like giving out career stats or NBA success for players like Pearl, DC, Seikaly, etc. It is impressive. But it doesn't tell the whole story either. Most of these top players weren't in the same class. Siekaly was a below average center for his first two and half years. Thompson is criminally overrated by Orange fans. And the rampant excusing of excusing poor FT shooting, like it's separate from the evaluation of the overall quality of the team is baffling. On the contrary, FT shooting should be used as an indicator of the overall strength of outs

In another 10 years the idea the story about the '12 team having the McD AA Rak on the bench and the first round draft pick of MCW as the fourth guard will grow more legendary to this generation.

 

[OttoMets]

... Thompson is criminally overrated by Orange fans. ...

That there is fighting words.

 

[tbonezone]

That there is fighting words.

avg'd 17 and 5 over his three years as starter . and one of our best defenders ever. yes he should have done more. sigh
and stevie t although undrafted like the other 4 on that floor that day also played in the NBA. all 5 !
(and again free throws was another issue )

 

[OrangeDW]

Do people consider our 1991 team to be one of our best all time? They were good obviously.

But they were 26-4 in the regular season before losing in the first round of the BET to Nova and first round of the NCAAT to Richmond. Maybe its the last two games and loss to the 15 seed, but I never think of them as being among the All time best even though they had a 26-4 regular season. My point is that sometimes the record doesn't tell the whole story.

Good-very good team carried by a great player, as opposed to a great all around team IMO.

 

[OrangeDW]

That there is fighting words.

Yeah...I’d say if anything he’s underrated. The guy averaged like 18 ppg on 60% shooting and was a strong defender. Maybe he couldn’t do as many things well as some of our other great guards/wings, but he was absolutely elite at what he did do well and he played to his strengths. Bottom line is he was extremely effective.