Final Fours

[Jaka]

To me UNC, Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky are Elite as of right now, with UCONN climbing fast. UCLA with all their championships just doesn't have the vibe right now like the other programs. Even when they went to 3 straight a few years ago it didn't seem like that "it" factor was back. Historically speaking they're obviously elite, but it seems that our program is miles ahead of them right now from a fan stand point and being consistently relevant.

The NCAA tournament def skews regular season success. We've won a ton of games in the past decade, been on ESPN a lot, but since we barely ever get to the final four we don't have the same wow factor like the big boys. I think were close to another title game run, Jim has one about once a decade so were due this coming season.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Nobody is bashing JB, we are just discussing facts. If you look at the OP in this thread you will see SIXTEEN programs that have more FF's than we do (plus another nine programs with the same number of FFs). If we even eliminate the top Five - elite of the elite - that still leaves 11 programs w more FFs. I would venture a guess that during the Jimmy era that we have a better overall record than just about all of those 11 (+9) programs, and probably a better record than even a couple of the UBER programs. So, it begs the question, why hasn't our overall success translated on a relative basis to tournament success ???

You claim to not be bashing JB and discussing facts. But let's look at the following quotes from you:

"problem may well be that Jimmy is simply a below average tournament coach. No question we under-achieve in the tourney compared to our regular season accomplishments."
"Maybe Jimmy's going by his book simply makes us relatively easy to prepare for in a tournament setting."
"I also mentioned that Jimmy should have a sort of a sixth sense about when to depart from them"
"Fact is, taking a thirty plus year body of work, there can really be no argument that Jimmy's teams have underperformed in the NCAAs."

You can't seriously think your above quotes make JB look good. And they are not facts. You think by repeating something enough it becomes accepted. It is not a fact that there is no argument against the statement that JBs teams have underperformed. I gave you an example of a study that found JB was outperforming his seed in the NCAA. So now you change the criteria.

Most people here do not consider SU elite yet. But most think it is going in the right direction. One piece of that are great regular seasons. It takes a special type of fan to then try and use the spike in regular season success and craft an argument that JB is now underperforming.

You can throw out your list of teams that made the elite eight in the last ten years now.

 

[domestu]

As to the highlighted part, are you saying we can't use the ESPN created PASE numbers which came to the conclusion that JB outperformed his seed? Why not? Reread the article, this was ESPN (no friends of JBs) who produced the number. And they tried to downplay it by throwing out the years he did well. So, what I'm saying is, there certainly can be an argument that JB has underperformed in the NCAA. ESPN produced one.

As for the bit about being 5-11 in the sweet sixteen, SU has been rated in the top 8 in the country only a handful of times. Two out of the last 3 years and the late 80s. So why were you expecting so many more trips to the Elite Eight?

It seems the reason you and others are expecting so much more is because of the recent team success. Now after 2 out of 3 seasons with 30 plus wins, you start to take that for the norm and reassess the other bench marks. Now with the new rise in win totals you start to compare us to teams that have been at that level for some time - Duke, UNC, UK, and Kansas. We've only been in that company for 3 years - that's why KJo had the most wins of anyone in SU history- plus that stretch in the 80s. It's nice company to now be in, but don't pretend that we've been there all along, and then use that as a reason to proclaim JB can't coach in the tourney. The lengths some people will go to try and bash JB.

I'm a big fan of Jim Boeheim but his teams have clearly underperformed in the NCAA Tournament. For your imformation, SU had teams that were ranked in the top 8 before the late 80s. The Louie and Bouie teams were ranked in the top 8 going into NCAA three times and they all suffered lopsided losses to big underdogs. SU was 26-3 and ranked 6th in the polls in 1977 when they lost to UNC Charlotte 81-59. In 1978, SU lost its opening game to Western Kentucky. The 79 team was 26-3 and ranked 8th in the polls when they lost to 9 seed Penn 84-76. Syracuse was 26-3 and the 1 seed in the East in 1980 when they lost to 5 seed Iowa 88-77.

Boeheim never won more than one game in the tourney before 1987 and only two of those losses came to a team with a higher seed. We had a 3 seed in 1984 when 7 seed Virginia beat the Cuse in the Meadowlands but our most crushing exit was the 2 seed 1986 team that lost by double digits in the Carrier Dome to a Navy team they had destroyed by 22 points earlier in the season.

I could continue through all of our NCAA performances but the point is this. Boeheim has had an incredible record at Syracuse but he has done much better during the regular season than in the NCAAs. He has won a total of eight games in the NCAA Regionals during his career and has gotten to the Elite 8 five times. Rick Pitino has made it to the Elite 8 ten times and four of those have come since 2005 at Louisville.

 

[SBU72]

How about correlating the number of players who turn pro with the #FF? There has always been discussions about having McD's AA on the team and being National Champs. This goes back to being in contention to get top recruits. Being in contention and getting are 2 different things. Getting McD's AA and future pros to carry the team in the tournament seems to be necessary. So to see programs like UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, Duke etc get to so many is not surprising. Nor I guess the others. The question is not just the # of overall wins because it may be a reflection of when they started playing, but who were on those teams.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I'm a big fan of Jim Boeheim but his teams have clearly underperformed in the NCAA Tournament. For your imformation, SU had teams that were ranked in the top 8 before the late 80s. The Louie and Bouie teams were ranked in the top 8 going into NCAA three times and they all suffered lopsided losses to big underdogs. SU was 26-3 and ranked 6th in the polls in 1977 when they lost to UNC Charlotte 81-59. In 1978, SU lost its opening game to Western Kentucky. The 79 team was 26-3 and ranked 8th in the polls when they lost to 9 seed Penn 84-76. Syracuse was 26-3 and the 1 seed in the East in 1980 when they lost to 5 seed Iowa 88-77.

Boeheim never won more than one game in the tourney before 1987 and only two of those losses came to a team with a higher seed. We had a 3 seed in 1984 when 7 seed Virginia beat the Cuse in the Meadowlands but our most crushing exit was the 2 seed 1986 team that lost by double digits in the Carrier Dome to a Navy team they had destroyed by 22 points earlier in the season.

I could continue through all of our NCAA performances but the point is this. Boeheim has had an incredible record at Syracuse but he has done much better during the regular season than in the NCAAs. He has won a total of eight games in the NCAA Regionals during his career and has gotten to the Elite 8 five times. Rick Pitino has made it to the Elite 8 ten times and four of those have come since 2005 at Louisville.

You brought up 3 times in the top 8, add another couple in the late 80s and 2 more recently. Not that many. And the two recent ones were really debateable top 8 when you adjust the team for injuries/suspensions.

You are bringing up time before the NCAAT changed to its current format to make him sound worse. Format changed in '85 I believe.

You also are conveniently leaving out his successes like the 96 and '03 runs. That's the same way the ESPN author revised things.

You present a slanted anecdotal argument about JB and conclude he has done much better in the regular season than the NCAAs. ESPN did a numerical analysis and said JB performed better than seed. You claim you could go through all his performances but don't, ESPN did.

Your stories help illustrate how JB has improved through the years in the NCAAT. And provide possible merit to the zone having helped improve NCAAT performance.

 

[PoppyHart]

Are we the basketball version of the Oakland A's under Billy Beane, where the system just doesn't work in the postseason?

 

[SWC75]

You brought up 3 times in the top 8, add another couple in the late 80s and 2 more recently. Not that many. And the two recent ones were really debateable top 8 when you adjust the team for injuries/suspensions.

You are bringing up time before the NCAAT changed to its current format to make him sound worse. Format changed in '85 I believe.

You also are conveniently leaving out his successes like the 96 and '03 runs. That's the same way the ESPN author revised things.

You present a slanted anecdotal argument about JB and conclude he has done much better in the regular season than the NCAAs. ESPN did a numerical analysis and said JB performed better than seed. You claim you could go through all his performances but don't, ESPN did.

Your stories help illustrate how JB has improved through the years in the NCAAT. And provide possible merit to the zone having helped improve NCAAT performance.

From a post I did prior to the Sweet 16:

From 1977-86:
(In 1977-78 there were no seedings but we lost to lower ranked teams.)
We exceeded our ranking/seeding zero times.
We were even with our seeding in 1979, 1983, 1984 and 1985 but the 1979 and 1984 teams lost to lower seeded teams- we jsut did it in the round we were projected to lose in anyway.
We lost before we were expected to in 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1986.

From 1987-2003
We exceeded our seed in 1987, 1996, 1998 and 2003
We matched our seed in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001. None of the losses were to lower seeded teams.
We lost before we were expected to in 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1999

From 2004 onward
We have exceeded our seed in 2004 (but still lost to a lower seed).
We matched our seeding in 2009.
We lost before we were expected to in 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2011

I think most Syracuse fans have learned to brace themselves for disappointment based on recent results. Wisconsin is a formidable opponent but, even with no Fab, I think we are expected to win this game. Ohio State is a #2 seed but would have been #1 if the Fab announcement had been made before the seedings and I don't think people would be surprised to lose to them. So based on recent results, maybe we should 'expect' to lose to Wisconsin.

Why we were so bad vs. seeding/ranking in 1977-86 and in 2004-2011, I don't know. We were much better in 1987-2003 but 5 even years, 4+ years and 4- years is not an exceptional performance. of course, if you tend to have highly seeded teams, it's harder to exceed your seed and easier to fall short of it. If you are a #1 seed you are expected to win at least 4 games. #2 seeds are supposed to win 3 games. #3-4 seeds are supposed to win 2 games. As we have seen that's not easy to do, even for a very good team.

I just wonder if things are about to change again and maybe we will at least match our seed this year and in future years or if we will continue to end the season with disappointment. I have no idea what, if anything, controls these things.

Update: We made it to the Elite 8 for the first time in 9 years but as a #1 seed, we still "underperformed", although if the committee had knwon we wouldn't have Fab Melo, I suspect we might not have been the #1 seed, (and with him we might have won that game).

 

[newmexicuse]

You claim to not be bashing JB and discussing facts. But let's look at the following quotes from you:

"problem may well be that Jimmy is simply a below average tournament coach. No question we under-achieve in the tourney compared to our regular season accomplishments."
"Maybe Jimmy's going by his book simply makes us relatively easy to prepare for in a tournament setting."
"I also mentioned that Jimmy should have a sort of a sixth sense about when to depart from them"
"Fact is, taking a thirty plus year body of work, there can really be no argument that Jimmy's teams have underperformed in the NCAAs."

You can't seriously think your above quotes make JB look good. And they are not facts. You think by repeating something enough it becomes accepted. It is not a fact that there is no argument against the statement that JBs teams have underperformed. I gave you an example of a study that found JB was outperforming his seed in the NCAA. So now you change the criteria.

Most people here do not consider SU elite yet. But most think it is going in the right direction. One piece of that are great regular seasons. It takes a special type of fan to then try and use the spike in regular season success and craft an argument that JB is now underperforming.

You can throw out your list of teams that made the elite eight in the last ten years now.

If I say CJ can't drive right & Dirty needs work on his handle, and that Scoop has some "bad" Scoop games am I bashing them or just stating objective facts about their games & how they play ??

So, why is Jimmy exempt from similiar analysis of his coaching performance ????

If I were a Jimmy basher I would be saying things like he is too old, he should retire, he will never be a great coach because he can't win the big game, etc.

I am saying none of those things. I am not trying to make Jimmy look good or bad. I am simply saying that we have underperformed in the tourney & I am discussing possible reasons as to why that has transpired.

 

[br801]

If I say CJ can't drive right & Dirty needs work on his handle, and that Scoop has some "bad" Scoop games am I bashing them or just stating objective facts about their games & how they play ??

So, why is Jimmy exempt from similiar analysis of his coaching performance ????

If I were a Jimmy basher I would be saying things like he is too old, he should retire, he will never be a great coach because he can't win the big game, etc.

I am saying none of those things. I am not trying to make Jimmy look good or bad. I am simply saying that we have underperformed in the tourney & I am discussing possible reasons as to why that has transpired.

Based on your exchanges above with Sgt Cuse, I would call you a "stealth Jimmy basher" and suspect you would be making these same kinds of posts even if JB had a second title on his record.

There is nothing wrong with having high expectations for this program but it's easy to lose sight of just how daunting a task it is make a deep run in today's NCAAT, however you choose to define "deep run." That's not an excuse, just the reality.

 

[longtimefan]

Comment: We have more wins in program history than anyone who has less that 13 Final Four appearances. And of the 5 teams that have been to that many Final Fours, we have more wins that one of them as well, (primarily because UCLA didn’t begin playing until 1919 and we started in 1901). Here are all the teams that have been to at least 4 Final Fours with their total program wins, (rounded to the nearest whole number), divided by the number of Final Fours:

UCLA 96
North Carolina 115
Duke 131
Kentucky 139
Kansas 159
Louisville 185
Michigan State 190
Ohio State 201
Indiana 211
Houston 214
Michigan 238
Oklahoma State 255
Arkansas 256
Cincinnati 271
Georgetown 308
Florida 316
Illinois 333
UNLV 337
Louisiana State 357
Kansas State 377
Connecticut 378
Oklahoma 385
Villanova 392
Arizona 398
Utah 418
Syracuse 462

Comment: We are an elite program by several measures. We have the largest arena and the biggest crowds. We are in contention for top recruits every year. We have the longest number of current consecutive winning seasons with 42, (UCLA has the all-time record with 55). We are the winningest team in the history of the Big East, the toughest conference in America. We’ve won that conference outright, been ranked #1 and been a #1 seed in 2 of the last 3 years. I think we are an elite program without the record in the NCAAs you would expect of an elite program. I don’t know what we do to fix that, but there is definitely a gap between expectation and achievement for this program in the NCAA tournament.
　
　

Total wins divided by number of Final Fours: I think it would be more accurate if we considered the Boeheim Era only. Before JB, we were a regional program, certainly on no one's list of the elite.

He has 890 wins and 3 FF= 297. How would this compare with other programs that have had 3+ FF since 1977? (I know, this is not fair to UCLA, as 10 championships, and a few more FF's, would be lost by the Bruins.)

 

[newmexicuse]

Based on your exchanges above with Sgt Cuse, I would call you a "stealth Jimmy basher" and suspect you would be making these same kinds of posts even if JB had a second title on his record.

There is nothing wrong with having high expectations for this program but it's easy to lose sight of just how daunting a task it is make a deep run in today's NCAAT, however you choose to define "deep run." That's not an excuse, just the reality.

I am not in the corner of those who agree 100% with everything that Jimmy does.

As fine a job as he does overall, I believe that there is room for improvement. I especially think that there is room for tournament improvement. If you are of the opinion that that makes me a "stealth basher" so be it.

I am appreciative of all that he has done for the university and for the program.

And yes, even if he had five titles, I would still be of the opinion that he should go deeper into the bench and still have the team prepared to play some secondary defense when the 2-3 Zone is not getting the job done. And, yes, I do understand that doing those things might cost us a few regular season W's. IMHO, Jimmy coaches "too" much to win each game, and that costs us come tourney time.

 

[br801]

And yes, even if he had five titles, I would still be of the opinion that he should go deeper into the bench and still have the team prepared to play some secondary defense when the 2-3 Zone is not getting the job done. And, yes, I do understand that doing those things might cost us a few regular season W's. IMHO, Jimmy coaches "too" much to win each game, and that costs us come tourney time.

Sacrificing regular season wins to accomplish your stated secondary goals could only have a negative impact on NCAAT seeding which would make your preferred measuring stick for program success (national championships) more difficult to attain. So I'm a bit confused. Short of being a fan of Russell's Celtics or Wooden's UCLA teams, I'm not sure what would make you happy.

 

[billsin01]

Are we the basketball version of the Oakland A's under Billy Beane, where the system just doesn't work in the postseason?

I think you have the right idea but, as is the case with the A's, it's not so much the system. I mean, the A's were pitching heavy with lots of OBP and power -- that's a pretty good combo and exactly what won two WS titles for the Red Sox and basically every Yankees title ever.

Cuse has won a title and been to three title games as a primarily zone team -- it's certainly possible to win in march with this system.

I think the bigger point is that people place sooooooooo much emphasis on a single-elimination tournament that often features curious or downright terrible seeding. So while JB has had a ton of success overall, people drastically underrate the randomness that plays out in March. It was just two years ago that a Duke team I would have bet my life savings on the Cuse beating won a national title. There are just so many variables and such a small sample size.

Is that being an apologist? I guess, but I just don't get why people get so excited about elite 8s and final 4s when basically the goal is to win the whole thing.

 

[BuffOrange]

Bill James was also a consultant for the Red Sox. Kinda the same 'system' but with more $.

 

[billsin01]

I am not in the corner of those who agree 100% with everything that Jimmy does.

As fine a job as he does overall, I believe that there is room for improvement. I especially think that there is room for tournament improvement. If you are of the opinion that that makes me a "stealth basher" so be it.

I am appreciative of all that he has done for the university and for the program.

And yes, even if he had five titles, I would still be of the opinion that he should go deeper into the bench and still have the team prepared to play some secondary defense when the 2-3 Zone is not getting the job done. And, yes, I do understand that doing those things might cost us a few regular season W's. IMHO, Jimmy coaches "too" much to win each game, and that costs us come tourney time.

A few general thoughts on this discussion:

1. I'm not sure it's relevant as anything other than a discussion point. SWC did great research and arguments can be made but I so much of sports dialogue is wrapped up in ranking players and teams from different eras and who's elite and who's just good, etc. I really am not sure I understand the point. (that said I love commenting on it, so perhaps I'm answering my own question).

2. Not sure why Final Fours are the measure. If you want to say SU isn't elite or underperforms, etc., shouldn't it be national titles. Yes, I get that you'd rather make a final four than lose in the first round, but the basic point of the tournament is that there is one winner. That's everyone's goal.

3. Single-elimination tournaments invariably are small sample-sizes and often quite random. I mean, the name of the whole tournament season is March Maddness, for God's sake. I mean, upsets and buzzer beaters and tight finishes are what the month is about. I don't write off every loss to randomness, but it's not shocking to me that a regular season winning percentage doesn't necessarily equate to similar postseason success rates.

4. I think one subtle point people tend to miss is this -- do these teams' "struggles" in March suggest they underperform in March or that they overachieve in terms of wins during the regular season? Honestly, we win 20+ every single year and how many NBA stars have we produced in the last 25 years? DC, Melo ... is that the list? Siekely and Douglas had really good careers, Billy O certainly had the talent. Wallace was a very good offensive player. Hart and Etan had nice careers. But honestly, basketball often comes down to talent and while we've had more than our share of it, but Kentucky may produce more NBA studs in the last three years (Wall, Cousins -- even though he's insane, Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist) than we have in 25 years.

5. Name the bad losses in the last 25 years. Seriously, can't you count them on one hand? UVM, Richmond, obviously. Alabama was a frustrating one. Butler? Maybe but they went to the title game two years in a row. Missouri? Arkansas? MSU in their title year? Kansas with Collison/Hinrich, etc. vs. that damone brown team? Marquette? They beat us during the season, why would that be an upset in the postseason?

I don't know, I think we tend to do OK but we've lost to some good teams. Are we elite? I don't know but recruits certainly seem to be thinking that these days and that's what really matters.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Simply put-- with SU's regular season success, we should have more Final Fours. I know "should" is a very bland and relative word, but looking at that list it is frustrating we have not had better post season success. I mean, Butler, yes BUTLER, went to back to back National Championship games.

Sure, luck is involved. But at the end of the day the talent at this school is great enough to be making deep runs in the tournament. That is what measures excellence. Thirty Four wins do not come around very often in a season, but none of that will matter to most once next weekend wraps up.

 

[LennX6]

I think Final Fours should count twice as much since 1985 vs prior. It is much harder to get there. And UCLA used to have a cake walk only playing a few games to win a title going through the weak Western teams. They still likely win anyway because they were that good. But winning a title was a lot easier for them than any team has it now.

But....until 1975, only one team per conference was allowed. Maryland was #2 in 1973 and was not in the NCAA. In 1974 So Carolina went 14-0 in Conference, lost to Kentucky in the SEC tournament and did not go. Whole different world back then.

 

[SWC75]

But....until 1975, only one team per conference was allowed. Maryland was #2 in 1973 and was not in the NCAA. In 1974 So Carolina went 14-0 in Conference, lost to Kentucky in the SEC tournament and did not go. Whole different world back then.

South Carolina was an independent in 1974. But perhaps you were inventing a scenario to described the way things worked int hsoe days. Their 1970 team was 14-0 in the ACC, 25-2 and ranked #3 when they lost to NC State in the ACC tournament and didn't go to the NCAAs.

 

[SWC75]

A few general thoughts on this discussion:

1. I'm not sure it's relevant as anything other than a discussion point. SWC did great research and arguments can be made but I so much of sports dialogue is wrapped up in ranking players and teams from different eras and who's elite and who's just good, etc. I really am not sure I understand the point. (that said I love commenting on it, so perhaps I'm answering my own question).

2. Not sure why Final Fours are the measure. If you want to say SU isn't elite or underperforms, etc., shouldn't it be national titles. Yes, I get that you'd rather make a final four than lose in the first round, but the basic point of the tournament is that there is one winner. That's everyone's goal.

3. Single-elimination tournaments invariably are small sample-sizes and often quite random. I mean, the name of the whole tournament season is March Maddness, for God's sake. I mean, upsets and buzzer beaters and tight finishes are what the month is about. I don't write off every loss to randomness, but it's not shocking to me that a regular season winning percentage doesn't necessarily equate to similar postseason success rates.

4. I think one subtle point people tend to miss is this -- do these teams' "struggles" in March suggest they underperform in March or that they overachieve in terms of wins during the regular season? Honestly, we win 20+ every single year and how many NBA stars have we produced in the last 25 years? DC, Melo ... is that the list? Siekely and Douglas had really good careers, Billy O certainly had the talent. Wallace was a very good offensive player. Hart and Etan had nice careers. But honestly, basketball often comes down to talent and while we've had more than our share of it, but Kentucky may produce more NBA studs in the last three years (Wall, Cousins -- even though he's insane, Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist) than we have in 25 years.

5. Name the bad losses in the last 25 years. Seriously, can't you count them on one hand? UVM, Richmond, obviously. Alabama was a frustrating one. Butler? Maybe but they went to the title game two years in a row. Missouri? Arkansas? MSU in their title year? Kansas with Collison/Hinrich, etc. vs. that damone brown team? Marquette? They beat us during the season, why would that be an upset in the postseason?

I don't know, I think we tend to do OK but we've lost to some good teams. Are we elite? I don't know but recruits certainly seem to be thinking that these days and that's what really matters.

Mike Lindsley proposed that Final Fours be the measure, noting that the top schools go to mnay more of them than we do and that winning naitonal championships is likely to be a factor of how many Final Fours you get to. He thinks we are not 'elite' because we've only been to four of them. My own view is that we are an elite program by every other measure but that our NCAA record is not the record of an elite program.

 

[br801]

Mike Lindsley proposed that Final Fours be the measure, noting that the top schools go to mnay more of them than we do and that winning naitonal championships is likely to be a factor of how many Final Fours you get to. He thinks we are not 'elite' because we've only been to four of them. My own view is that we are an elite program by every other measure but that our NCAA record is not the record of an elite program.

This whole debate over whether our program is elite, or what aspects of it are elite, or even the definition of "elite" has given me a migraine. The only thing I can say with certainty is that SWC75 is an elite poster.

 

[kingottoiii]

But....until 1975, only one team per conference was allowed. Maryland was #2 in 1973 and was not in the NCAA. In 1974 So Carolina went 14-0 in Conference, lost to Kentucky in the SEC tournament and did not go. Whole different world back then.

Exactly which is why nothing prior to 1985 should really count for much (that is the year it went to 64 teams). Below is FFs since that season:

11- Duke
9- UNC
8- KU
6- Mich St, UK
4- Fla, UCLA, UConn, Zona
3- Ark, Indiana, Mich, Ohio St, SU, Louisville, UNLV
2- Butler, GA Tech, GTown, Illinois, LSU, MD, Memphis, Nova, Okie St, OU
1- Cincy, George Mason, Marq, Minn, Miss St, PC, Setonn Hall, St Johns, Stanford, Texas, UMass, Utah, VCU, Wisc, WV

Titles:

4- Duke
3- UConn, UNC
2- Fla, KU, UK
1- Ark, Indiana, MD, Mich, Mich St, Nova, SU, UCLA, Louisville, UNLV, Zona

I would the last 28 years as:

Final Four- Duke, UNC, KU, UK
Elite 8- UConn, Mich St, Fla, UCLA
Sweet 16- Zona, SU, Louisville, Indiana, Ark, Mich, UNLV, GTown

How this year plays out could make some stuff shift. Ohio St can make the Sweet 16 if they win a title. Louisville could make the Elite 8 if they win it all. So technically I would say SU is not Elite. However another Final Four and you can certainly put us there. Another title easily puts us there.