Jay Williams is my hero

[Syracusian]

Gottlieb really is a sad case.

In the 2006 BET when we were making our run, he was the in-studio guy. He continually said that we still need this win in order to make the tournament. That was day after day.

Then, when we made the championship game and played Pittsburgh, he picked Pittsburgh. The reason why he picked Pittsburgh? Because Syracuse would have been playing their fourth game in four days. Sure, sounds like a legit reason. The only problem? Pittsburgh was also playing their fourth game in four days.

 

[samspann1]

and Cal can still get right back in this thing too

If Allen Crabbe gets hot, watch out!!!

 

[two3zone]

 

[Deano]

I hate that Gottlieb so much.

I wish someone would tear him down and put up a human being.

 

[jncuse]

 

[two3zone]

View attachment 58224

I really didn't have a lot of "hate" for Doug before but now he's just trying to twist a knife into us and is trolling real bad. Grow up dude.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I really didn't have a lot of "hate" for Doug before but now he's just trying to twist a knife into us and is trolling real bad. Grow up dude.

I hear you, but I'm like 99% sure that's a fake account.

 

[Dave85]

I really didn't have a lot of "hate" for Doug before but now he's just trying to twist a knife into us and is trolling real bad. Grow up dude.

I stopped holding it back long ago with Douchelieb.

 

[Dave85]

If Allen Crabbe gets hot, watch out!!!

LOL!!!!!

 

[rrlbees]

That's not doogie saying the wiskey one

 

[billsin01]

"Got an easy 2nd game" is the height of trolling.

Oh they beat basically a #1 seed. Our bad.

Yes and got an 'easy' second game describes half -- literally HALF -- the teams remaining in the field. ND, Miami, Duke, Iowa State, Oklahoma, A&M, and Maryland -- none have played a single-digit seed in this tournament. I mean, the Cuse has actually accomplished something by those standards (not that I really buy into seeds all that much).

 

[billsin01]

The results shouldn't change whether you think we belong or not. That's not how it works.

Still funny to see DG double down.

Yeah, this is the basic point, right? 13 losses are 13 losses -- you want to make an argument we didn't deserve to be included in the field I still think you can make it. I'm not even sure wins over Dayton and Middle Tennessee even convince me that the selection was warranted. At the very least I think we probably benefited from the emotional and physical drain the MSU win took out of MTSU.

BUT, you also have to accept a couple of things with the tournament that make it really hard to take anything away from the teams that are around for the second or third weekend:

-- No matter how good you are, teams that win the title generally get a little lucky along the way. This isn't to say that the best team never wins, but that the best team doesn't always win. Luck -- in terms of stylistic matchups, hot shooting nights, draws, etc. -- are part of this whole thing and no one can deny that.

-- Winning games in this tournament is hard to do. You don't beat two teams in the first weekend by 20ish points and unless you play good basketball. It's obviously more impressive if the names on the front of the jerseys are Kentucky and Duke or something like that, but there aren't really bad teams in the tournament. You have to play well to win.

So bottom line -- getting to the sweet 16 is great and whether or not you deserved entry into the field, at this point, is irrelevant.

 

[kirbivore]

Gottlieb really is a sad case.

In the 2006 BET when we were making our run, he was the in-studio guy. He continually said that we still need this win in order to make the tournament. That was day after day.

Then, when we made the championship game and played Pittsburgh, he picked Pittsburgh. The reason why he picked Pittsburgh? Because Syracuse would have been playing their fourth game in four days. Sure, sounds like a legit reason. The only problem? Pittsburgh was also playing their fourth game in four days.

He threw a 2 yr. old style temper tantrum after SU beat storz. He was arguing with the other commentators who had the opinion that SU was in after beating storz. Whining about how it's unfair that a mediocre team like syracuse gets so many chances to improve their resume.

 

[Briancuse]

Gottlieb really is a sad case.

In the 2006 BET when we were making our run, he was the in-studio guy. He continually said that we still need this win in order to make the tournament. That was day after day.

Then, when we made the championship game and played Pittsburgh, he picked Pittsburgh. The reason why he picked Pittsburgh? Because Syracuse would have been playing their fourth game in four days. Sure, sounds like a legit reason. The only problem? Pittsburgh was also playing their fourth game in four days.

The worst was 2007, he kept saying we were a lock, and then when we got screwed, he changed his tune to we had no business getting in the tournament.

 

[Digger]

 

[CaptainJ]

ssbriefcase has witnessed my insanity...and knows I would like to suplex Doug and cover him for a 3 count...preferably done by corduroyg as he rushes out and slides on the canvas to give a quick count!!!

 

[suloyalfan]

Yeah, this is the basic point, right? 13 losses are 13 losses -- you want to make an argument we didn't deserve to be included in the field I still think you can make it. I'm not even sure wins over Dayton and Middle Tennessee even convince me that the selection was warranted. At the very least I think we probably benefited from the emotional and physical drain the MSU win took out of MTSU.

BUT, you also have to accept a couple of things with the tournament that make it really hard to take anything away from the teams that are around for the second or third weekend:

-- No matter how good you are, teams that win the title generally get a little lucky along the way. This isn't to say that the best team never wins, but that the best team doesn't always win. Luck -- in terms of stylistic matchups, hot shooting nights, draws, etc. -- are part of this whole thing and no one can deny that.

-- Winning games in this tournament is hard to do. You don't beat two teams in the first weekend by 20ish points and unless you play good basketball. It's obviously more impressive if the names on the front of the jerseys are Kentucky and Duke or something like that, but there aren't really bad teams in the tournament. You have to play well to win.

So bottom line -- getting to the sweet 16 is great and whether or not you deserved entry into the field, at this point, is irrelevant.

A couple things. First, ask Michigan State how "easy" that first game was against MTSU. Yes, they may have been drained after the win against Michigan State, but Syracuse just played on Friday too so it's not like they were fresh either. I'm glad that SU wasn't facing Michigan State, but I'm not sure that it's fair (or intelligent) for anyone to say any #10 seed (Syracuse) has an "easy" game in the tournament especially after arguing that said #10 seed wasn't good enough to be in the tournament in the first place. Next when SU beats Gonzaga, he'll say that Syracuse had another "easy" game against the #11 seed and that's why they won again. Sheer stupidity.

Also, I know this may not be related to your post directly, but I think it's relevant to the double standard of selections and perceptions. If you compare Wisconsin (another Sweet 16 team now) and Syracuse tournament resumes they are very close but nobody seemed to have a problem with them getting a #7 seed. I understand that they beat Syracuse head to head on the road. And it's funny because that game ultimately ended up being the difference in their records (19-13 vs 20-12). But Wisconsin also had arguably worse losses than Syracuse (see Gottlieb's "Anyone who lost to St. John's this year shouldn't be in the tournament" baloney):

Syracuse (19-13) - 1 sub-200 loss (#224 St. John's - next worst loss #58 Georgetown), 9 top 100 wins, 6 top 50 wins, 6-11 vs top 50
Wisconsin (20-12) - 1 sub-200 loss (#233 W. Illinois), 1 sub-100 loss (#120 UW-Milwaukee), 10 top 100 wins, 7 top 50 wins, 7-6 vs top 50

Lastly, I think that the argument about including Syracuse actually just comes down to if SU wasn't included in the field, who should have been added in their place. I think the only team that had a case for a "better" resume than Syracuse and didn't get in was South Carolina. I could see their argument ONLY because they had a better record vs. Top 50 (4-1 vs. 6-11). But they also played a much easier schedule, which resulted in less opportunities for losses. They are in a power conference but only played 5 games against Top 50 opponents. Syracuse played 17 games against Top 50 opponents!

Anyway, see below for the contenders all of the talking heads were discussing after selection Sunday:

Florida (19-14) - 0 sub-200 losses, 12 top 100 wins, 2 top 50 wins, 2-11 vs. top 50, best win #5 West Virginia

Georgia (19-13) - 0 sub-200 losses, 2 sub-100 losses (#169 Auburn, #108 Chattanooga), 12 top 100 wins, 5 top 50 wins (#50 South Carolina 3 times), 5-8 vs top 50, best win #48 Clemson

Monmouth (27-7) - 3 sub-200 losses (#237 Manhattan, #218 Canisius, #207 Army), 4 top 100 wins, 2 top 50 wins, best win Notre Dame (Syracuse also beat Notre Dame)

St. Bonaventure (22-8) - LOST against Syracuse head to head, 1 sub-200 loss (#248 La Salle), 7 top 100 wins, 3 top 50 wins (#47 St. Joe's 3 times), 3-3 vs top 50

St. Mary's (27-5) - 0 sub-200 losses, 4 top 100 wins, 3 top 50 wins (#23 Gonzaga twice), 3-3 vs top 50

San Diego State (25-9) - 1 sub-200 loss (#281 San Diego), 2 top 100 wins, 1 top 50 win, 1-4 vs top 50

South Carolina (24-8) - 0 sub-200 losses, 1 sub-100 loss (#148 Missouri), 12 top 100 wins, 4 top 50 wins, 4-1 vs top 50, best win #16 Texas A&M (Syracuse also beat Texas A&M)

Valparaiso (26-6) - 0 sub-200 losses, 5 sub-100 losses, 5 top 100 wins, 0 top 50 wins, 0-1 vs top 50.

 

[jr4750]

Once MTSU won it was how good they were. How we had no chance. Now when we win by 25 it's how lucky we were not to play Izzo. Ugh

 

[CaptainJ]

Once MTSU won it was how good they were. How we had no chance. Now when we win by 25 it's how lucky we were not to play Izzo. Ugh

And hey, that may be the case, but I will take it! If we win at least one more, I think it will quiet the people who are riling you. Personally, I'm not hearing them(well, I literally haven't heard or read them yet...but if I did, it probably still wouldn't register).

 

[billsin01]

A couple things. First, ask Michigan State how "easy" that first game was against MTSU. Yes, they may have been drained after the win against Michigan State, but Syracuse just played on Friday too so it's not like they were fresh either. I'm glad that SU wasn't facing Michigan State, but I'm not sure that it's fair (or intelligent) for anyone to say any #10 seed (Syracuse) has an "easy" game in the tournament especially after arguing that said #10 seed wasn't good enough to be in the tournament in the first place. Next when SU beats Gonzaga, he'll say that Syracuse had another "easy" game against the #11 seed and that's why they won again. Sheer stupidity.

Also, I know this may not be related to your post directly, but I think it's relevant to the double standard of selections and perceptions. If you compare Wisconsin (another Sweet 16 team now) and Syracuse tournament resumes they are very close but nobody seemed to have a problem with them getting a #7 seed. I understand that they beat Syracuse head to head on the road. And it's funny because that game ultimately ended up being the difference in their records (19-13 vs 20-12). But Wisconsin also had arguably worse losses than Syracuse (see Gottlieb's "Anyone who lost to St. John's this year shouldn't be in the tournament" baloney):

Syracuse (19-13) - 1 sub-200 loss (#224 St. John's - next worst loss #58 Georgetown), 9 top 100 wins, 6 top 50 wins, 6-11 vs top 50
Wisconsin (20-12) - 1 sub-200 loss (#233 W. Illinois), 1 sub-100 loss (#120 UW-Milwaukee), 10 top 100 wins, 7 top 50 wins, 7-6 vs top 50

Lastly, I think that the argument about including Syracuse actually just comes down to if SU wasn't included in the field, who should have been added in their place. I think the only team that had a case for a "better" resume than Syracuse and didn't get in was South Carolina. I could see their argument ONLY because they had a better record vs. Top 50 (4-1 vs. 6-11). But they also played a much easier schedule, which resulted in less opportunities for losses. They are in a power conference but only played 5 games against Top 50 opponents. Syracuse played 17 games against Top 50 opponents!

Anyway, see below for the contenders all of the talking heads were discussing after selection Sunday:

Florida (19-14) - 0 sub-200 losses, 12 top 100 wins, 2 top 50 wins, 2-11 vs. top 50, best win #5 West Virginia

Georgia (19-13) - 0 sub-200 losses, 2 sub-100 losses (#169 Auburn, #108 Chattanooga), 12 top 100 wins, 5 top 50 wins (#50 South Carolina 3 times), 5-8 vs top 50, best win #48 Clemson

Monmouth (27-7) - 3 sub-200 losses (#237 Manhattan, #218 Canisius, #207 Army), 4 top 100 wins, 2 top 50 wins, best win Notre Dame (Syracuse also beat Notre Dame)

St. Bonaventure (22-8) - LOST against Syracuse head to head, 1 sub-200 loss (#248 La Salle), 7 top 100 wins, 3 top 50 wins (#47 St. Joe's 3 times), 3-3 vs top 50

St. Mary's (27-5) - 0 sub-200 losses, 4 top 100 wins, 3 top 50 wins (#23 Gonzaga twice), 3-3 vs top 50

San Diego State (25-9) - 1 sub-200 loss (#281 San Diego), 2 top 100 wins, 1 top 50 win, 1-4 vs top 50

South Carolina (24-8) - 0 sub-200 losses, 1 sub-100 loss (#148 Missouri), 12 top 100 wins, 4 top 50 wins, 4-1 vs top 50, best win #16 Texas A&M (Syracuse also beat Texas A&M)

Valparaiso (26-6) - 0 sub-200 losses, 5 sub-100 losses, 5 top 100 wins, 0 top 50 wins, 0-1 vs top 50.

Good post. I'm not quite sure if it was a response to my post or to DG but I agree with the points on the whole.

A couple points I'd disagree with:

-- Wiscy had a much better resume given they finished stronger (11-3 in their last 14), played stronger against top 50 competition (yes 6 wins is great but 11 losses is a ton) and their only losses up until the bad Nebraska loss were MSU and Purdue -- two easy tourney teams. They also won at Iowa and UMD in that stretch.

-- There's a bottom line in my opinion -- if you lose 13 regular season/conf. tournament games, people are going to poke a bunch of holes in your resume. It's fine to say SU deserved inclusion in the tournament but to think people aren't going to question it is ridiculous. We can come up with a ton of arguments here, but this team takes care of business vs. St. John's and holds off Clemson, this whole thing is moot. I wouldn't argue any of the above teams over syracuse, merely that Syracuse leaves itself open to criticism by losing a TON of basketball games.

-- My only point on MTSU is that I think that is a massive, almost unthinkable upset in the sense that MSU rarely loses in March period. They were hot coming in, a two-seed and simply don't lose games like that this time of year. Then this team with no tourney history to speak of puts up 90 on them and beats them as a 15-seed? That is enormous. So for them to expend that kind of physical and emotional energy to me it's tough to come back a day later and dial it up quite the same way. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Cuse. I'm really not. I'm just saying that it certainly was not a bad sequence of events in terms of our hopes of reaching the second weekend.

 

[jncuse]

That's not doogie saying the wiskey one

I figured the @putitonmycreditcard, would give it away.

I was just trying to take a shot at Doug.

 

[suloyalfan]

Good post. I'm not quite sure if it was a response to my post or to DG but I agree with the points on the whole.

A couple points I'd disagree with:

-- Wiscy had a much better resume given they finished stronger (11-3 in their last 14), played stronger against top 50 competition (yes 6 wins is great but 11 losses is a ton) and their only losses up until the bad Nebraska loss were MSU and Purdue -- two easy tourney teams. They also won at Iowa and UMD in that stretch.

-- There's a bottom line in my opinion -- if you lose 13 regular season/conf. tournament games, people are going to poke a bunch of holes in your resume. It's fine to say SU deserved inclusion in the tournament but to think people aren't going to question it is ridiculous. We can come up with a ton of arguments here, but this team takes care of business vs. St. John's and holds off Clemson, this whole thing is moot. I wouldn't argue any of the above teams over syracuse, merely that Syracuse leaves itself open to criticism by losing a TON of basketball games.

-- My only point on MTSU is that I think that is a massive, almost unthinkable upset in the sense that MSU rarely loses in March period. They were hot coming in, a two-seed and simply don't lose games like that this time of year. Then this team with no tourney history to speak of puts up 90 on them and beats them as a 15-seed? That is enormous. So for them to expend that kind of physical and emotional energy to me it's tough to come back a day later and dial it up quite the same way. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Cuse. I'm really not. I'm just saying that it certainly was not a bad sequence of events in terms of our hopes of reaching the second weekend.

Thanks. I would only add a couple things regarding your points above.

- I just picked Wisconsin as an example of a team that nobody had a problem with that had a similar overall record (20-12) and resume, with a least one equally bad loss and plenty of quality wins. Wisconsin also had an up and down season but definitely finished on a better stretch. In comparison to SU, they did have a loss at least as bad as St. John's (they lost to Western Illinois at home). They also had a bad loss to UW-Milwaukee at home, and lost to Georgetown just like Syracuse did. SU's worst loss RPI-wise after St. John's was to Georgetown. Wisconsin had 5 losses to teams worse than Georgetown.

- 13 regular season losses is a lot and I agree on your points here. I'm not surprised that people questioned it, as I was actually pretty surprised when Syracuse made it into the tournament too. And making it as a #10 seed means that they weren't even the last at-large selection to make it. I thought that the St. John's loss and losing 3 times to Pitt (one of which caused an early exit from the ACC tourney) would do them in. As you pointed out, they also had an opportunity against Clemson for another win. They also played close games down the stretch with North Carolina and Florida State. I think if they had won at least 2 of these handful of games there would have been very little argument about them making the tournament.

 

[shandeezy7]

Thanks. I would only add a couple things regarding your points above.

- I just picked Wisconsin as an example of a team that nobody had a problem with that had a similar overall record (20-12) and resume, with a least one equally bad loss and plenty of quality wins. Wisconsin also had an up and down season but definitely finished on a better stretch. In comparison to SU, they did have a loss at least as bad as St. John's (they lost to Western Illinois at home). They also had a bad loss to UW-Milwaukee at home, and lost to Georgetown just like Syracuse did. SU's worst loss RPI-wise after St. John's was to Georgetown. Wisconsin had 5 losses to teams worse than Georgetown.

- 13 regular season losses is a lot and I agree on your points here. I'm not surprised that people questioned it, as I was actually pretty surprised when Syracuse made it into the tournament too. And making it as a #10 seed means that they weren't even the last at-large selection to make it. I thought that the St. John's loss and losing 3 times to Pitt (one of which caused an early exit from the ACC tourney) would do them in. As you pointed out, they also had an opportunity against Clemson for another win. They also played close games down the stretch with North Carolina and Florida State. I think if they had won at least 2 of these handful of games there would have been very little argument about them making the tournament.

13 losses is a lot, but look at all the other losses for teams seeded way higher. I mean Iowa State has 11 losses as a 4 seed!

 

[Flacusian]

View attachment 58219

You would think that JB was a guy who turned states evidence against him in the credit card caper.

 

[jncuse]

If you want to argue that certain small schools like Monmouth, Valpo, or low bid schools like San Diego St, St. Bonnie that is perfectly fine. And even if you think some are better than Syracuse (which is acceptable because you can't compare applues and oranges), there are 4 schools that you can knock off before you even get to Syracuse.

The argument starts with excluding Vanderbilt, Tulsa, Temple and Michigan. Not Syracuse