Is Syracuse among college basketball's royalty?

[Alsacs]

I wasn't arguing that we are "royal." Just pointing out that some team believed to be clearly ahead of us, aren't ahead by much. Yes, 1 more Title equals "not by much."

I'd have us around 8th, btw. I like to consider regular season success, postseason success, recent success, and history.

I honestly wasn't responding to what you put. I was just giving my standards it's all opinion. I just don't think we are royal and that is my point.

 

[TexanMark]

People put way too into the F4...Royalty also involves fan base size, TV ratings and longevity. We are a national elite and probably somewhere around 9th on list of programs.

 

[OrangeDW]

Florida was horrible until this century, other than a fluke 1994 run.

If you rate teams like Indiana and UCLA over Cuse, because of what they did 30-50 years ago....you've got to factor in history for Cuse's advantage over Florida in my opinion.

Yes, they've had better NCAA tournament accomplishments than Syracuse since 2000. Not a lot better, but better. That doesn't seem to be the only thing you look at in these types of discussions though.

For that matter this applies to Michigan state too, to a lesser extent.

 

[orange2win]

The JB system is the major reason we are ranked #5 in wins among Div 1 schools. That is 5th out of 351. It also is a reason why we are always #1 or #2 in home attendance. This makes us elite.

That said, the JB system does not perform as well in March as at least a dozen other systems. Most basketball people around the country favor March performance as a measure of greatness. So do most recruits.

As long as JB remains as coach, that dichotomy will remain. He prefers it this way.

 

[MikeSU02]

I always slide Syracuse into second tier in my own rankings.

Top tier is Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kansas, UK, Indiana

Second Tier: Ville, Zona, Cuse, UConn, MSU

 

[arnie3]

I don't argue with this too much, but it really just depends on tournament success vs overall success. I'm not 100% sure which is more valid for a "title" like this. NCAA tournament success is so fleeting and sometimes arbitrary. As an example: would we call Butler elite? They made it to two championship games in a row. Something Syracuse and UConn for example have never done, although I think we would logically rank both ahead of Butler.

The reason this is a debate at all is because of Syracuse's elite overall win/loss record. Ranking #5 in total wins and #6 in win percentage and having done that while existing in an elite conference for 30+ years of their history is certainly rarified air. It's something UConn, Florida, Michigan State, and others with more championships cannot touch. To put this into perspective, even with a serious downturn in the Syracuse program and an improvement in the UConn program, resulting in them getting 10 wins per season more than us (an almost impossible figure), it would take over 30 years for them to pass us in wins. There is something extraordinarily significant about that type of historical performance - you can't just have a good run of 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years. You can't go 9-9 in conference and then get hot/sponsored-by-an-angel/take-out-second-mortgage-on-soul/whatever and win a NC and replicate that.

So it's really however you'd like to look at it. I think it is a combo of these things, but Syracuse has the hard part of the equation, the part that takes 50+ years to build. SU gets hot and wins another NC or two and you can start seriously thinking of the elite status.

If you look at winning percentage, SU has a commanding lead over most schools. The amount of wins shouldn't be looked at as a barometer since a school like UConn has played 200+ fewer games than many of the teams ahead of them in wins. For example Marquette has a much better winning percentage than Oregon State (.622 vs .569). The fact that OSU has more wins is simply because they have played 450 games more. Percentage is a much more valid use in judging.
What SU has accomplished is winning nearly 70% of their games over the last 100 years! That's remarkable!

 

[The Governor]

I always slide Syracuse into second tier in my own rankings.

Top tier is Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kansas, UK, Indiana

Second Tier: Ville, Zona, Cuse, UConn, MSU

Indiana has been largely irrelevant for the last quarter century, they can no longer be considered in the 1st tier. UCLA has been irrelevant even longer minus a title in the mid 90's. They also have a pathetic fanbase and don't move the needle nationally. They aren't in that top tier anymore either.

 

[longislandcuse]

Are we talking about program success or brand?

Program success, were Top 10 but not elite.

Brand, we're elite.

 

[Alsacs]

Are we talking about program success or brand?

Program success, were Top 10 but not elite.

Brand, we're elite.

You nailed it right here. Brand we are elite on the court we aren't elite, but very very good.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Th

Indiana has been largely irrelevant for the last quarter century, they can no longer be considered in the 1st tier. UCLA has been irrelevant even longer minus a title in the mid 90's. They also have a pathetic fanbase and don't move the needle nationally. They aren't in that top tier anymore either.

UCLA has been irrelevant for a whole six years.

 

[Alsacs]

UCLA made the Final Four 3 times in a row 2006, 2007, 2008 and won the 1995 NC. I wish Syracuse could get to 2 Final Fours in a row. They have had bad seasons, but UCLA is royalty thanks to the John Wooden days.

 

[HOFCeluck]

What is "brand" anyway? Fan support? Ratings? Merch sales? When I think of the original question, on-court success was the thing that came to mind first...though obviously the former follows the latter.

 

[Alsacs]

What is "brand" anyway? Fan support? Ratings? Merch sales? When I think of the original question, on-court success was the thing that came to mind first...though obviously the former follows the latter.

You nailed it. Brand IMO is fan support, tv ratings draw, attendance on the road, success on the court, love/hate level from casual fans.

 

[SWC75]

 

[SWC75]

You nailed it. Brand IMO is fan support, tv ratings draw, attendance on the road, success on the court, love/hate level from casual fans.

It's like calling a tissue "kleenex" whether it is or not.

 

[HoustonCuse]

It's like Coca-Cola being the best tasting soft drink or not. That performance is completely different from their brand. Coke doesn't have to be the #1 tasting or even #1 selling product, it has be high enough on those lists to back-up the fact that they are a globally known brand basically synonymous with their product category.

 

[OrangeAl]

It's like Coca-Cola being the best tasting soft drink or not. That performance is completely different from their brand. Coke doesn't have to be the #1 tasting or even #1 selling product, it has be high enough on those lists to back-up the fact that they are a globally known brand basically synonymous with their product category.

So, when you think of a packed football stadium for a basketball game you immediately think Syracuse and the Carrier Dome. We're the standard for that, bar none!

 

[SBU72]

No. Not royal, but noble.

Kings = Duke, Kentucky, UNC, Kansas

Archdukes = UCONN, UCLA (based on history)

Dukes = Florida, Mich St, Louisville,

Earls = Syracuse, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio St,

UCLA is about as basketball royalty as Prince Charles. He's so old as to be irrelevant, just like UCLA.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I think UCLA belongs in the class under the true royalty (Duke/Kentucky/Kansas/UNC). You can talk about some of their recent lack of success the past decade but UCLA was also dominating when Syracuse made only one NCAA Tourney appearance in the 60s. Of course not being in a power conference hurt Syracuse back then as well. Still, three F4's as pointed out above from 2006-08 and a title in 1995.

Wins are nice and the benchmark of a great and consistent program. The true elite teams now are parlaying those wins into deep tourney appearances, Final Fours, titles, etc. We can talk about unlucky injuries and suspensions all we want but the accolades start to happen when there is consistent postseason success. It is what it is. The whole point of playing a regular season, imo.

I think Syracuse is a GREAT program. Probably an elite 'brand' if we are separating the two but not an elite or royal program. A great program right there with Arizona and Michigan State. I personally think Louisville, UConn, and Florida are a notch above us right now based on their whole bodies of work the past decade or so.