NYCSUGrad
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,643
- Like
- 2,416
The latter, because you have a shot at the NC.Based on JB's presser from last night. I personally would choose choice A.
Also being an underdog can be fun.
The latter, because you have a shot at the NC.Based on JB's presser from last night. I personally would choose choice A.
Thank you so much for that song Captain J.By the way, my uncle was a college hoops coach and after our final four loss(he isnt a Cuse fan), he consoled me that there are no losers at the Final 4. He got me to remember it is an acheivement unto itself, maybe like a plateau a bit lower than the peak?
The whole thing reminds me of the the lyrics to the Rush song, Bravado, though it may not for others:
If we burn our wings
Flying too close to the sun
If the moment of glory
Is over before it's begun
If the dream is won
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
When the dust has cleared
And victory denied
A summit too lofty
River a little too wide
If we keep our pride
Though paradise is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
And if the music stops
There's only the sound of the rain
All the hope and glory
All the sacrifice in vain
And if love remains
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
And if love remains
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
And if love remains
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost
And if love remains
5 in 40 years is a lot better than 3 in 36Ideally the choice wouldn't be quite that stark, but I think it's B. Final Fours do more to cement a program's status as elite.
Of course JB is playing this card because he has 2 in the last 4 seasons. Slippery slope though, as five in 40 years isn't all that much better than 3 in 36.
Based on JB's presser from last night. I personally would choose choice A.
I still think "success" is a personal assessment so neither view is wrong. I view 2010 and 2012 as the most successful recent years for our program.
Being a 1 or 2 seed to me says a lot more about the stature of your program then making the final 4 seed as a 10 seed. That is how I evaluate success. But you may evaluate it differently, and that is not wrong either.
I'm not sure if anyone has asked this, but I didn't stop to consider this last night: the guarantees in the title aren't the ceiling, right? Could we assume a 30 win team in a p5 conference, let alone the ACC, has a very good shot at going to the Final 4 in addition to the 30 wins? If so, I might want to reconsider my initial answer. For some reason I was thinking those might be the ceilings, the OP was quite vague.
Final four all day long
14 losses/Final 4 every time.
When judging a programs elite level, Final 4's and National Championships are used to define a program like ours, not 30 win seasons.
Would you rather have a "Final Four" t-shirt, or a "We Won The Regular Season But Lost In The 2nd Round" t-shirt?
This, this, this, and this.Final four as the ceiling. Would you take last year over Onuaku's senior year?I think everyone would take championship over 30 wins.
So Hak Warrick Senior year orSo what team does everyone view more favorably?
Team A: 27-7 overall. 11-5 in conference play(2nd overall) and conference tournament champs, but was upset by a mid major in the first round of the NCAA tournament when their top 2 all league players played like garbage.
Or
Team B: 23-12 overall. 7-9 in conference play(9th overall), had 7 losses by double digits(including by 39 to DePaul), but they got hot and won the conference tourney getting a 5 seed, but were ultimately bounced when their star player was so hurt he could barely play.
So Hak Warrick Senior year or
Gerry's Senior year.
I liked 2005 more because we are NC the whole year and then Warrick had 10 turnovers, the refs called TRob for a tech for holding onto the rim and JB let the opponent dictate tempo.
2006 we were a flawed team the whole year.
Team A can't be 2003-2004.Good Points, but wrong year. We held the title in 03-04 when we finished second in the regular season, lost in the first round of the BET tourney, but got to the sweet 16. The 04-05 team leaves a bad taste in my loss because we played sooo bad against UVM and underachieved in the tourney that I would rather just forget that year altogether.
The 95-96 team was kind of mediocre through the regular season, maybe not as mediocre as last season.
Team A can't be 2003-2004.
We were the 4 seed BET and lost to BC then were a 5 seed in NCAAT and beat BYU(GMac 40pt game), Maryland and then lost to Alabama.
Team A looks like 2004-2005 to me.
No doubt Team B is 2005-2006.
Even with the loss to Bama 2004 team did really well IMO.Correct. That's what I was saying.