Man alive. That's just a sad, sad perspective.
• Who said Boeheim is an "afterthought?" Why do you need to distort and completely mischaracterize a comment/set of comments in order to wrangle it into your 'argument?' I'll try to explain it a different way... I chose the Reds in the 70s. Because they had a great selection of players, and some who played like i hoped to. Around 75, i was playing whiffle ball with a friend and he hit one and said it went over the Green Monster. I had no idea what he was talking about. He told me, i paid attention to the next Red Sox game i could find, and i became a fan of Jim Rice and Yaz and that crew... because i identified with those players, and loved the design of Fenway, etc. Later in the 70s, i saw Walter Payton play. From one play, i became a fan—i identified with his style, as i was also about to start playing tailback for a pop warner team. Etc. etc etc., with several other teams over the years. Not once did it matter who the coach was. When the Bears had Ditka, Ditka was a fun "appendage or afterthought," in your terminology. More like a 'bullet point' in mine. The point is that FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE RECRUITS, Boeheim doesn't represent the same thing that he may for people who have followed the program for 20-50 years. He. Just. Doesn't. Kids become fans of programs for a lot of reasons. Most of which revolve around how THEY see themselves fitting into that scene. How THEY like/emulate a certain player. None of them say, "I want to play for the irrascible, old, cantankerous whiner, who plays the slowest pace in the ACC, and who jerks you out of a game and reams you because you couldn't sprint to the opposite corner to contest a three from a squirt who was open because the ball moves faster than the feet can." If you're paying attention to the lip service about playing for a HoF coach, you're just listening to kids' own sense of PR and... bullet/talking points—paying respect to their boss.
So, a kid is in junior high. He watches games. Likes teams. When he gets to be a top 25 recruit, he already knows who he wants to play for. Just like any of us would. Based on style, uniforms, stadiums, location, whatever. The name of the coach is not that high on that list. It's a bullet point. Except for a handful of coaches, who command that kind of respect due to a bunch of Nat Champs, it's the relationship with the staff that makes the difference and that's still AFTER a kid has already narrowed a list of schools down based on his own fandom and appreciation.
Saying JB IS the program is fatalistic. You're essentially saying it's all over when he retires. Which we had better all hope is ridiculous. You say this, even when shown that other programs have thrived after a 'legendary' coach was no longer there. We just got smacked in the face by just such a program.
As for why fans are fans... man, i really shouldn't have to explain such a thing to an adult. I just can't reconcile the kind of tribalistic attitude required to think the way you do—that in order to be a 'fan,' you have to swear absolute fealty. Ignore warts. Fly the flag, sing the song, and drone the mantra. Yeah, i can be a fan of Syracuse without having "faith in Boeheim." For one thing, "faith" in a human being is NEVER absolute or eternal. People change. We're talking about SPORTS. People outlive their effectiveness. You, though, seem to suggest that a history with some success means we're supposed to have a lifetime allegiance to the man. No matter what. I would suggest that if you were a fan of the actual program, and not just the man, you'd be interested in what's best For The Program at any given moment, and not just what's best for the man. But, you have already expressed that you can't/don't separate the two. That's the fundamental flaw in the thinking.
As for what else makes for a 'fan?' Well, i AM an alum. So, does that mean i don't need the Faith, or have to like our "signature strategies?" What, exactly, are the signature strategies? Because, when i came aboard, we weren't a zone team. You're again not recognizing/reconciling that things change over time. When i started in 85, we were a high-flying, fast-breaking, showtime team. With lightning and skill at point, and thunder in the middle. I was immediately 'a fan' because i experienced that first-hand, and because that team 'sorta' represented me, and because of my immediate familiarity, and because i hadn't really consistently cared about another college hoops team, and SU was there to fill that gap. There's no reason why the same set of factors couldn't be motivating factors for someone who ISN'T an alum. The same way i 'adopted' The Red Sox, even though i liked in Phillies country. The same way i stayed a Sox fan, even through 25 years of living in Manhattan. When the managers changed. When the players changed. When we sucked, when we were great. When there was great disappointment. Fandom exists for a lot of reasons. It persists (or doesn't) for a lot of reasons. Your reasons don't have to be the same as anyone else's. But, when they occur naturally, sometimes they persist. You're looking at things in a bubble. This forum, for instance. Fact is, there are probably a lot of people who at one time were Syracuse fans. And then they stopped. Because the players they liked went away. The style of play changed. And even though JB was the constant, that just wasn't enough. I've had the same happen with me with a bunch of NFL teams. I like the way they play for certain seasons. I like certain players—i've 'adopted' teams who drafted Syracuse players... and then cared a lot less after those guys weren't there anymore. Lots of reasons for some kinds of fandom. Being an "alum" only works in college sports. And yet, there are people who are just as 'committed' to professional teams. How is that possible?
www.businessinsider.com
