Greatest SU team ever!

[grepal]

This is the greatest SU team ever. Best record, many ways to win, and so far has always found a way to win. Some of our posters need to wake up. 28-1, SPECTACULAR.

Future pro talent on the roster. Even if JB has shrunk the rotation there are still 10 players that can be trusted if needed on this roster. Whether SU makes the final fout, wins a national championship or not, this teamshould be absolutely appreciated for what it has done. All of the players and coaches have pulled together and done a good job this year. I don't care about the warts people see, the bottom line is these players and coaches win. Enjoy the ride, let the coaches worry about the problems.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between this board and the Sons of Sam Horn where most constantly manic depressive Red Sox fans complain just to hear ourselves complain. (Most Sox fans wouldn't feel it was baseball season of the sky was not imminently falling). Beleive me, enjoying a team's winning is much more fun than worrying about the bad things that just might happen.

 

['72 Orange]

Let's hold off on the coronation until the end of the season. Success (or lack there of) in the tourney will determine their legacy. I would suggest that if they get to the final 4 they should be included in that discussion. A sweet 16 loss will relegate them to the dust bin of past SU teams that have under-performed. An elite 8 loss would be disappointing given thier record to date but not surprising given their recent performance.

 

[GoSU96]

This is the greatest SU team ever. Best record, many ways to win, and so far has always found a way to win. Some of our posters need to wake up. 28-1, SPECTACULAR.

Future pro talent on the roster. Even if JB has shrunk the rotation there are still 10 players that can be trusted if needed on this roster. Whether SU makes the final fout, wins a national championship or not, this teamshould be absolutely appreciated for what it has done. All of the players and coaches have pulled together and done a good job this year. I don't care about the warts people see, the bottom line is these players and coaches win. Enjoy the ride, let the coaches worry about the problems.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between this board and the Sons of Sam Horn where most constantly manic depressive Red Sox fans complain just to hear ourselves complain. (Most Sox fans wouldn't feel it was baseball season of the sky was not imminently falling). Beleive me, enjoying a team's winning is much more fun than worrying about the bad things that just might happen.

The late '80's teams would smoke these guys.

 

[OttosBestFriend]

This is the greatest SU team ever. Best record, many ways to win, and so far has always found a way to win. Some of our posters need to wake up. 28-1, SPECTACULAR.

Great record for sure... but if you could somehow get the 2003, 2010, 1987, 1988, 1990 or even the 1991 teams to face this year's squad and asked me to place a wager, I'd have a tough time making my bet.

Yes, this team has the best regular season record of the bunch, but there are too many variables to say for sure that this is because they're simply the best team. (at least not until March plays out)

Seriously... Who on this team matches up with DC or Billy Owens or Sherman Douglas... and that's just the 1988 squad. And don't forget, Stevie was running wild on that team with Matt roe raining 3s at 41%.

How 'bout 1987 with DC, Seikaly and Sherm?

1990 is scary b/c you had DC, Owens, and LeRon Ellis up front with Stevie as a 2-guard.

Sorry, but I'm not saying this is the best 'Cuse team ever... Just a great team that's a product of the current talent level in college basketball. (See: Not as good as in years past)

 

[Marsh01]

The late '80's teams would smoke these guys.

My god it wouldnt even be close. Cant compare eras and start putting teams side by side based on record alone. I love this team but they would get killed if they played the 1989 team.

 

[MGP]

The late '80's teams would smoke these guys.

When they were on their game. I think many people tend to buy into the myth of the late 80's teams (either they are too young to remember or time plays tricks on the mind) Those teams were great but incredibly inconsistent. I remember how frustrated I'd become because they didn't always play to potential. Many times they would play like crap and get away with it because they'd turn it on and off when they wanted. It's not just by bad luck of the draw that we lost to Rhode Island, Minnesota & the F**in' Spiders. Bur damn, I loved those teams...

 

[HoustonCuse]

Interesting how some say that this team can't be considered great until it gets to a final four and others throw other past great SU teams out as examples of true greatness, most of which never made it to the final four and some of which never got anywhere near close.

 

[Marsh01]

Interesting how some say that this team can't be considered great until it gets to a final four and others throw other past great SU teams out as examples of true greatness, most of which never made it to the final four and some of which never got anywhere near close.

Its not about making final fours or wins. I am talking pure talent both in that particular team and in college basketball during that time period in general. If you line up 1989 vs. 2012 and tell me 2012 wins I have a bridge to sell you. I am taking nothing away from this team.

 

[cusetown1]

Its not about making final fours or wins. I am talking pure talent both in that particular team and in college basketball during that time period in general. If you line up 1989 vs. 2012 and tell me 2012 wins I have a bridge to sell you. I am taking nothing away from this team.

1989 team was known to be the most talented team. I think this years team will go down as the greatest 15 years from now.

 

[Marsh01]

1989 team was known to be the most talented team. I think this years team will go down as the greatest 15 years from now.

I agree.

 

[AZOrange]

Its not about making final fours or wins. I am talking pure talent both in that particular team and in college basketball during that time period in general. If you line up 1989 vs. 2012 and tell me 2012 wins I have a bridge to sell you. I am taking nothing away from this team.

2012 could win. That is what is great about hoops. 1989 was great talent but they didnt win every game. 2012 has alot more heart than that 1989 team did unfortunately. 1988-1991 were my darkest years as a fan. To me, this is the only period in which you could say SU didnt live up to expectations consistently.

 

[Marsh01]

2012 could win. That is what is great about hoops. 1989 was great talent but they didnt win every game. 2012 has alot more heart than that 1989 team did unfortunately. 1988-1991 were my darkest years as a fan. To me, this is the only period in which you could say SU didnt live up to expectations consistently.

I hear your argument but player for player 1989 would dominate 2012. Three players on that team have jerseys hanging in the rafters in the dome. Competition was better back then and you had loaded teams in every conference. Again I think they underachieved big time (not 1989 seeing they lost in the elite 8 to an Illinois team who had 5 NBA players...no shame there) during that era but actual talent isnt even close IMO.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Its not about making final fours or wins. I am talking pure talent both in that particular team and in college basketball during that time period in general. If you line up 1989 vs. 2012 and tell me 2012 wins I have a bridge to sell you. I am taking nothing away from this team.

Why would 1989 win? The 2012 team WINS their games. The 1989 team lost 8 times. I don't care what you think the matchups would be - this year's team wins games, the 89 team didn't or couldn't put it together on a consistent enough basis to win games like this team does. The 89 team lost 5 times to unranked teams, including 3 in a row at one point.

 

[RF2044]

2012 could win. That is what is great about hoops. 1989 was great talent but they didnt win every game. 2012 has alot more heart than that 1989 team did unfortunately. 1988-1991 were my darkest years as a fan. To me, this is the only period in which you could say SU didnt live up to expectations consistently.

Speaking of the 1989 team, our current team reminds me a LOT of the Missouri team that the 1989 squad played TWICE that season--once in a preseason tournament in MSG, and later in the NCAA tournament. Very good squad, way more depth than us, a bunch of good but not great players.

[not comparing our current players to the ones on that Missou team--they had Doug Smith who was a pretty good PF and obviously our team lacks a PF, for example. Just that the composition of that team with 9 guys who played regularly for them reminds me of the 2012 SU squad].

 

[Marsh01]

Why would 1989 win? The 2012 team WINS their games. The 1989 team lost 8 times. I don't care what you think the matchups would be - this year's team wins games, the 89 team didn't or couldn't put it together on a consistent enough basis to win games like this team does. The 89 team lost 5 times to unranked teams, including 3 in a row at one point.

I dont care about wins and losses. I agree with you that 2012 is a better overall TEAM as far as success wise. No arguments there. Look at the starting 5 and you tell me who would win.

1989 - 2012

Sherm (Scoop)
Roe (Brandon)
DC (Fab)
Owens (Rak)
Stevie Thompson (Kris)

I mean come on...

 

[bpo57]

The late '80's teams would smoke these guys.

Agreed although difficult to compare eras.

 

[bpo57]

I dont care about wins and losses. I agree with you that 2012 is a better overall TEAM as far as success wise. No arguments there. Look at the starting 5 and you tell me who would win.

1989 - 2012

Sherm (Scoop)
Roe (Brandon)
DC (Fab)
Owens (Rak)
Stevie Thompson (Kris)

I mean come on...

Success wise that 1989 team came a bucket away from beating a very good Illinois team and getting to the F4. I would also say that the BE in 1989 was a relatively stronger conference than it is right now.

 

[Marsh01]

Success wise that 1989 team came a bucket away from beating a very good Illinois team and getting to the F4. I would also say that the BE in 1989 was a relatively stronger conference than it is right now.[/quote

College Basketball as a whole was much better overall. I lived through it and breathed every second of it in. There were no easy games back then in conference.

 

[dollarbill44]

This year's team is a mediocre team at best. It only wins games because every team it plays is sucky, at least that's the conclusion I've drawn from reading a lot of threads on here.

 

[MGP]

I dont care about wins and losses. I agree with you that 2012 is a better overall TEAM as far as success wise. No arguments there. Look at the starting 5 and you tell me who would win.

1989 - 2012

Sherm (Scoop)
Roe (Brandon)
DC (Fab)
Owens (Rak)
Stevie Thompson (Kris)

I mean come on...

Hopefully talent doesn't equal who wins or we have no shot at Kentucky. I think this 2012 team could give '89 fits because they take care of the ball and don't make mistakes.

 

[armory]

Someone spiked the kool-aid this morning.

 

[grepal]

The late '80's teams would smoke these guys.

I did not state it is the most talented team ever, simply the best team ever. Toast the success.

 

[realorange]

It all depends on how you want to define greatness. This year's team is great based on their won/lost record. But the point Marsh makes is very valid. That 1989 team was much more talented and played in an era where other teams were much better than todays. You didn't have every player that thought he was the next NBA All-Star jumping to the league. Senior laden teams were common not the exception. The Big East teams at that time would have wiped the floor with their equivelents today.

 

[HoustonCuse]

It all depends on how you want to define greatness. This year's team is great based on their won/lost record. But the point Marsh makes is very valid. That 1989 team was much more talented and played in an era where other teams were much better than todays. You didn't have every player that thought he was the next NBA All-Star jumping to the league. Senior laden teams were common not the exception. The Big East teams at that time would have wiped the floor with their equivelents today.

But the point is completely invalid. That super talented 1989 team lost to less talented teams at least 5 times and maybe as many as 8 times. So their talent was not used effectively enough to say they would just crush this team that maximizes its winning percentage.

 

[grepal]

I dont care about wins and losses. I agree with you that 2012 is a better overall TEAM as far as success wise. No arguments there. Look at the starting 5 and you tell me who would win.

1989 - 2012

Sherm (Scoop)
Roe (Brandon)
DC (Fab)
Owens (Rak)
Stevie Thompson (Kris)

I mean come on...

I think that comparing starting fives is not at all fair or reasonable. RAK is a starter but CJ gets the minutes. Dion is as explosive as Stevie and he comes off the bench. Don't get me worng, I loved that teram, but this one just wins and I love the success and the chemistry that brings. I also love the fact that I never worry about foul trouble as every player has a capable backup.