Great teams find a way to win

[Townie72]

You know I was just thinking about that. There have been some really good teams since then - the two unc teams, Florida, the duke teams - but when I think truly great in historic terms you probably need to go back to that uk team.

Not according to these guys. Great teams are, using their criteria, not all that rare. Of course, they never say what their criteria are. They are making it up as they go.

I, myself, are more judicious in assigning "greatness" to any team. I'm reminded that "Pride becomes before the fall".

 

[Townie72]

in that thread i said i would be disappointed if we lost more then 3 regular season games. so while we have slightly exceeding my expectations i still feel we have a good chance to drop a couple games. i've adjusted my expectations to now be disappointed if we drop more then the final 2 games.

I am now unclear just how long you have been watching college basketball or how closely.

When I prdicted 4 tp 6 losses I was just looking at history in the ACC and in college basketball in general

It's a game season loaded with upsets and the improbabls. An undefeated season is extremely rare. Losing on the road in the ACC is not very rare.

 

[dasher]

I am now unclear just how long you have been watching college basketball or how closely.

When I prdicted 4 tp 6 losses I was just looking at history in the ACC and in college basketball in general

It's a game season loaded with upsets and the improbabls. An undefeated season is extremely rare. Losing on the road in the ACC is not very rare.

I asked you a question. Is 66-0 great? What if another team was 88-0?

 

[anomander]

I am now unclear just how long you have been watching college basketball or how closel
When I prdicted 4 tp 6 losses I was just looking at history in the ACC and in college basketball in general

It's a game season loaded with upsets and the improbabls. An undefeated season is extremely rare. Losing on the road in the ACC is not very rare.

I have been watching college basketball since they adopted the 3 point line so I think that is long enough.

As I said in the prior thread I compared this team to the 10 and 12 teams which both only lost a couple regular season games. This was a historically weak ACC, not exactly sure who you thought all of these losses were going to be to?

You were comparing this team to the loaded Syracuse teams on the 80's and 90's where we always seemed to pile up league losses. Simply there just isn't as many good teams. Plus the best move of Boeheim's career was going to 100% zone. Kids just can't shoot the ball anymore. Where our teams used to be pedestrian defensively allowing fg% in the mid 40's, we basically now hold opponents under 40%. Defense wins and when you play it consistently as good as we have since the change you are going to loss less games. It's not that hard to figure out

 

[Townie72]

I asked you a question. Is 66-0 great? What if another team was 88-0?

You seemed to have not grasp the question I was asking and why.

"If 24-0 against the schedule we have faced makes the team "great", I asked, "Then what word do we use to describe a team that goes 66-0?".

I was complaining about using the term "great" to describe the current team. If we devalue it, than what do we do when a team is much better? Invent a new word? Superfrajulistic, perhaps.

My recommendatiion is call a 66-0 team great and call the current Orange team "better than average" or "very good for most of the season".

I don't think this team is "great" yet. And I think the people who say it is are either too easily impressed or are cheapened the word "great" as a descriptor.

To me, a great team, was UCLA with Alcindor and Sidney Wicks or even Houston with Elvin Hayes or MSU with Magic Johnson. That's the level; of team you call "great".

 

[rrlbees]

Not according to these guys. Great teams are, using their criteria, not all that rare. Of course, they never say what their criteria are. They are making it up as they go. I, myself, are more judicious in assigning "greatness" to any team. I'm reminded that "Pride becomes before the fall".

Another masterpiece.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean others are making it up as they go along. And I don't think anyone has out this team in such a pedestal and said an all time great.

 

[dasher]

You seemed to have not grasp the question I was asking and why.

"If 24-0 against the schedule we have faced makes the team "great", I asked, "Then what word do we use to describe a team that goes 66-0?".

I was complaining about using the term "great" to describe the current team. If we devalue it, than what do we do when a team is much better? Invent a new word? Superfrajulistic, perhaps.

My recommendatiion is call a 66-0 team great and call the current Orange team "better than average" or "very good for most of the season".

I don't think this team is "great" yet. And I think the people who say it is are either too easily impressed or are cheapened the word "great" as a descriptor.

To me, a great team, was UCLA with Alcindor and Sidney Wicks or even Houston with Elvin Hayes or MSU with Magic Johnson. That's the level; of team you call "great".

the Houston team with Hayes lost by 32 in the final four to UCLA. No way a team that won nothing and got beat that bad should be called great.

 

[Townie72]

I have been watching college basketball since they adopted the 3 point line so I think that is long enough.

As I said in the prior thread I compared this team to the 10 and 12 teams which both only lost a couple regular season games. This was a historically weak ACC, not exactly sure who you thought all of these losses were going to be to?

You were comparing this team to the loaded Syracuse teams on the 80's and 90's where we always seemed to pile up league losses. Simply there just isn't as many good teams. Plus the best move of Boeheim's career was going to 100% zone. Kids just can't shoot the ball anymore. Where our teams used to be pedestrian defensively allowing fg% in the mid 40's, we basically now hold opponents under 40%. Defense wins and when you play it consistently as good as we have since the change you are going to loss less games. It's not that hard to figure out

Well, if what you say is true, you have developed an uncommon understanding of the new realities of the game and stand to make a lot of money in Vegas. Good luck with that.

As to your point ... kids can shoot the ball better from 18'9" than they ever have. But from 15' to 17' it is a different story. And that is becuase a 40% shooting average from 18'9" is equivalent to a 60% avg form 2 pt range.

 

[Bayside44]

the Houston team with Hayes lost by a bunch in the final four to UCLA. No way a team that won nothing and got beat that bad should be called great.

You guys are all showing your age

If we want modern age comparisons, well for at least part of the board, 96 Kentucky and 92 Duke are good starting points.

 

[Townie72]

the Houston team with Hayes lost by a bunch in the final four to UCLA. No way a team that won nothing and got beat that bad should be called great.

What's your criteria? What is the minimum a team has to achieve to be great?

Hard question, isn't it?

 

[dasher]

What's your criteria? What is the minimum a team has to achieve to be great?

Hard question, isn't it?

you can't lose by 32 in a championship game and still be called great. That much I know.

 

[Townie72]

Another masterpiece.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean others are making it up as they go along. And I don't think anyone has out this team in such a pedestal and said an all time great.

Ahhh! Yet another term ... "All Time Great".

So there are levels of greatness.?

There's "Great" - that's the term you assigned to this year's SU squad. Then there's "All Time Great".

Do you have this broken down any further? Semi-Great? Really Great? Somewhat Great? How many gradations are there between "Great" and "All Time Great"?

When you call a team "Great" ---- as you did --- you are "putting it on a pedestal. That's what "great" means.

 

[anomander]

Well, if what you say is true, you have developed an uncommon understanding of the new realities of the game and stand to make a lot of money in Vegas. Good luck with that.

As to your point ... kids can shoot the ball better from 18'9" than they ever have. But from 15' to 17' it is a different story. And that is becuase a 40% shooting average from 18'9" is equivalent to a 60% avg form 2 pt range.

you don't notice a lot of college coaches switching to zone? i thought you watch a lot of college basketball?

and just because i am curious in 1 word what would you classify this stat as

"Saturday was the 7th time this season Syracuse was tied, or trailed with 5:00 or less to go in regulation. The Orange have outscored their opponents by 43 the rest of the way, and their opponents are 6 for 49 from the floor, and 1-19 from three point range."

Hint: Coincidence isn't the word

 

[Townie72]

you can't lose by 32 in a championship game and still be called great. That much I know.

OK ... that's one criteria. Got any other?

And I'm not going to debate the Phi Slamma Jamma Cougars with you. I'll just say that we don't have an Elvin Hayes on this year's SU team.

 

[Townie72]

you don't notice a lot of college coaches switching to zone? i thought you watch a lot of college basketball?

and just because i am curious in 1 word what would you classify this stat as

"Saturday was the 7th time this season Syracuse was tied, or trailed with 5:00 or less to go in regulation. The Orange have outscored their opponents by 43 the rest of the way, and their opponents are 6 for 49 from the floor, and 1-19 from three point range."

Hint: Coincidence isn't the word

Well a team that is tied or trailing 7 times with 5:00 or less to go in regulation doesn't sound like they have been much in the way of domination for the first 35:00 does it?

We do appear to have this 5th gear. So we are very, very good at the end of these games.

But IMO "great" teams don't get themselves into this situation so often. "Great" teams are playing the walk-ons with 5:00 mins left.

On the Zone thing. Boeheim didn't invent it.

For many years, most teams played a mix of Man to Man and Zones. They would switch back and forth as the game dictated. There were all sorts of defenses being played in games including some hybrids that were both M2M and Zones (i.e. Box and One and Triangle and 2).

Then M2M started to dominate. Bobby Knight at IU played all M2M and was quite successful.

At a time when teams were moving away from Zone defenses, Boeheim started to increase its use until it became the only defense he played.

Now we see more Zones, but it is nowhere near what it used to be 20 years or more ago. I beleive that JB's success is one of the factors causing this re-emergence.

 

[anomander]

Well a team that is tied or trailing 7 times with 5:00 or less to go in regulation doesn't sound like they have been much in the way of domination for the first 35:00 does it?

We do appear to have this 5th gear. So we are very, very good at the end of these games.

But IMO "great" teams don't get themselves into this situation so often. "Great" teams are playing the walk-ons with 5:00 mins left.

This is where having a great defense works against you. Almost every single opponents possession goes under 10 seconds, and a lot of the time under 5 seconds. Plus combine that with JB's philosophy of taking the air out of the ball with a lead under 5 mins left himself, and there just isn't as many possessions to get up big. I guess that sounds like an excuse, but it's our style of play, we aren't going to blow many conference opponents out.

 

[Victory Lap]

I love this team, I love the fact that we have so many weapons, stout defense, and "clutch" performances. Sometimes we look great, sometimes we look mediocre (36% FG, not great). But, greatness can only really be determined in hindsight. If we fall out in the sweet 16, I don't think anyone is going to look back on this team as great. In the meantime, enjoy the ride!

 

[rrlbees]

Ahhh! Yet another term ... "All Time Great".

So there are levels of greatness.?

There's "Great" - that's the term you assigned to this year's SU squad. Then there's "All Time Great".

Do you have this broken down any further? Semi-Great? Really Great? Somewhat Great? How many gradations are there between "Great" and "All Time Great"?

When you call a team "Great" ---- as you did --- you are "putting it on a pedestal. That's what "great" means.

Greatness is not measured by what a team accomplishes but by the opposition they have overcome to reach it's goals.

We are 25-0. We have overcome all of our opposition and have reached the highest goal 25 games in.

We are a great team.

 

[Cusefan0307]

It's been a great season so far,but there is no doubt we need and can get better. But This eam just finds a way.

We need to play better offensively. Sometimes we seem almost to stagnant in our sets if you ask me. I almost wish Tyler would try and score more sometimes. I think he's capable, he did it early in the season. Opposing teams are focused on taking away trevor and cj. Tyler needs to make them pay for that. He's going to have the chance to be aggressive this week, especially against Duke.

As for Townie, I know he is stunned we are 25-0. He underestimated us and that's ok. I just enjoy the fact we are undefeated, and can't wait for us to get better. Last year proved it doesn't matter how you play in February, and I think we all believe this team has more upside than last years.

 

[Victory Lap]

Greatness is not measured by what a team accomplishes but by the opposition they have overcome to reach it's goals.

We are 25-0. We have overcome all of our opposition and have reached the highest goal 25 games in.

We are a great team.

We are a good team that I hope becomes a great team.