JB responds to Gottlieb comment

[MyMeloMyMan]

I don't discredit JB when our guys flop at the next level, just as I don't give him credit when they do well at the next level. He's not really a guy who spends a lot of time talking to these kids outside of practice or a "rah rah" motivator. "Players play" as JB always says. "I see them at practice and at game time". A coach is there to figure out how to make his TEAM full of players win basketball game. Not how to get a guy NBA ready.

To give him credit for Carmelo or discredit for Jonny Flynn at the next level is ridiculous, imo.

 

[IthacaMatt]

You missed the rest of that point. A) College basketball was a different animal at the time. B). There have been a lot of programs that were successful for period or eras, but didn't sustain that level of excellence. Houston, for example. San Francsisco, for example. NC State. Villanova... My point was that the significant contributing factor to JB's success over the long haul has not been his 'brilliance,' but the Dome Factor.

So, then Wooden doesn't count because "basketball was different back then"? You're just not being consistent. That Louie & Bouie team was kick-ass successful before the advent of the Big East and before we played in the Dome. And we made a Final Four before that, with Danforth as head coach and Boeheim as his assistant. So, no, I don't buy your argument that his success has been attributable to the Dome.

 

[IthacaMatt]

No. And, that's irrelevant to any argument i've been involved in.
My point was: we wouldn't have been "as good as we are/have been," on a sustained basis, without the Dome as a major recruiting factor and an instrument for giving us significance from upstate New York. The point is that JB's successes are inextricably tied to 30k and the USP that the Dome offers. And that factor was greater in the earlier days (80s-90s) than it is now. JB's 'reputation,' built on those earlier successes is now more of a contributing factor.

Another way to look at it — imagine, since 1980, we played in a 13,000 seat 'standard' arena. Like Gampel. You don't think there would have been lower 'low points' in our history? Fewer top 50 recruits? You can't really believe a significant number of our guys didn't come to play in the big house, for 25,000 on a 'normal' night. And that's a positive feedback machine. It perpetuates itself, and in other ways.

I still disagree because the Big East television contract and Big Mondays on ESPN were more important than the Dome. The Dome was the backdrop, and yes it was/is unique, but that's not the reason we have a successful program. The number of games per season when the crowd at the Dome really makes a difference is just a handful.

 

[moqui]

I still disagree because the Big East television contract and Big Mondays on ESPN were more important than the Dome. The Dome was the backdrop, and yes it was/is unique, but that's not the reason we have a successful program. The number of games per season when the crowd at the Dome really makes a difference is just a handful.

bingo . . . getting on TV with an exciting brand of basketball that encouragee players to get out and run at every opportunity was the single biggest factor

So, no, I don't buy your argument that his success has been attributable to the Dome.

and let's not forget - in his own post-900 speech, JB attributed his success to Dave Bing. "Without him, none of this happens." And he is probably right - no JB, no Dome, not even a Big East invite had Bing not resuscitated the program. SWC should re-post his "mists of time" posts to remind people just how far SU basketball had fallen.

 

[Cheriehoop]

You missed the rest of that point. A) College basketball was a different animal at the time. B). There have been a lot of programs that were successful for period or eras, but didn't sustain that level of excellence. Houston, for example. San Francsisco, for example. NC State. Villanova... My point was that the significant contributing factor to JB's success over the long haul has not been his 'brilliance,' but the Dome Factor.

Huh how do you know that? It's like saying that Coach K is successful because of the Cameron crazy factor, Indiana is successful because of the "Indiana basketball" mystique and UNC because of the "Jordan" effect. How would you prove or disprove that? So unless JB moves out of the dome, how can you measure or determine that your assertion is correct? Why haven't other program administrators come to your conclusion and just copied this same sure-fire winning equation? They all waste their money just trying to find the best coach for their programs. Why not follow SU's obvious blueprint for excellence - dual use facilities would save them so much. They all must be idiots. Was St John's successful just because of MSG and NYC - then what has happened? How about the different era explanation - that fits the ticket right?

Seriously I do wonder why you post here anyways? I've been mystified by your posts - you obviously aren't a fan of the program , the staff, nor respectful of any of its accomplishments. So what is your point? So during JB's tenure our pre-dome success was possible because it was a different era, and the post-dome success is because of the dome itself . So we are just destined for greatness because of the dome - I guess we can all relax about SU's future as long as the dome exists - of course unless it ushers in another " different animal" time. I got it.

 

[orange2win]

Hard to refute that the Dome is a recruiting asset for SU ... but to what extent? Anyway, getting back to Gottlieb. Today on radio he was saying that the NCAA should remove the use of Domes from consideration for final four games. Arenas are so much better.

Made me wonder if he is reading this tread and is annoyed.

 

[skurey]

Arenas are better for basketball purposes.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Hard to refute that a fan filled Dome is a recruiting asset for SU ... but to what extent? Anyway, getting back to Gottlieb. Today on radio he was saying that the NCAA should remove the use of Domes from consideration for final four games. Arenas are so much better.

Made me wonder if he is reading this tread and is annoyed.

The chicken or the egg conundrum.

 

[zhanjuzi]

Rather then obsess over Gottlieb, here is very nice praise about JB and the 900 club from Greg Anthony:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/college-basketball/Jim-Boeheim-joins-the-900-club-1111291

 

[samspann1]

where are all of the douchebags who typically defend Gottlieb?

 

[SWC75]

Gottlieb before he came up with this arbitrary checklist: "What are the 4 biggest knocks on the Syracuse program... and how can I phrase them into questions for defining success?"

That's exactly what he did.

 

[Djrog]

The success of players in the NBA is the most laughable to me.

80% of coaches in D1 have no shot at succeeding at this criteria. Sorry Jim Phelan, know you won 830 games and brought Mt. St. Mary's from DIII to D1...but how'd your guys do in the pros?

What about a guy like Brad Stevens? Yes, he may have got to back to back title games...but he did it without any NBA talent (save for Hayward). Somehow that's a knock on him using Dougie's criteria rather than a credit to his ability.