JB Struggles in March

[MGP]

All said, I think JB's merits have always come with consistency, much more than dominance.

 

[DallasCuse]

Since apparently this is cherry picking season, how do you explain JB's career record in the Elite 8 and beyond?

Round of 8: 3-1 (.750)
National Semi-Final: 3-0 (1.000)
National Championship: 1-2 (.333)

Even including his abysmal history in championship games, that's a record of 7-3. I know it's not perfection, as many here seem to expect, but it's still pretty good by any measure.

There are a number of good posts on this thread, and you can look at numbers/records in many ways, shapes and forms. I would think nearly everyone agrees that our record in sweet 16 games is not quite up to snuff, certainly not what we would all expect. Many years, we were a worse seed, and expected to lose, some we were higher, and still lost. As someone posted, '86-91 were years of great personnel, and troubling departures in the tourney.

We need to advance this year to the great 8 (hopefully further), or the questions will multiply. The thing is, even if we get a coveted 1-seed, playing a 4/5 seed is going to be challenging.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

No one is arguing how good JB has been over his 36 seasons...a consistent winner. Now, we'd like to get past the Sweet 16 a few more times. Good is nice...but, with the kids we are getting now...we should be elite.

I don't understand the fixation with getting past the sweet sixteen. People are just choosing that spot because it is JB's worst record. How about making more final 4's. If we lose in the elite 8 is that a lot better to you than losing in the sweet sixteen? It's one game further on the same weekend, just two days later. He's gone into the second weekend 17 times and made it through 3 times. I would like to see that improved but it's not the castrophe people are making it out to be.

I would be a lot more bummed and could see the rolling out the numbers if this were the round of 32 record. That would mean you aren't making it to the second weekend. I think that is big. Evidently, JB and SU are doing decent in that department because that round is not being discussed. I thought losing last year against Marq sucked because it cost SU the additional glory of 4 days of relevance. They probably would have lost to NC, just like Marq did, and people would be piling that stat on to make JB look bad.

As for the talent, I think we lose sight of the recent uptick in recruiting. Now when we look back we think we had these type of recruits and talent all along. Someone recently brought up the stat of some 300+ games decided by 5 points or less. I had forgotten about those old days of regularly squeaking out close victories. There hasn't been nearly as many of those the last 3 years.

I'm hoping for deeper runs now that our talent level seems to have improved. The last 2 years have been disappointing. Still time to improve on that.

 

[kingtidge]

IMO he has over coached his talent many years and it catches up to you. Sometimes (1996) you get breaks and get to FF despite the lack of overall talent. Only fans think we have always had great talent. Injuries (Gmac, AO come to mind), illness, (Sherm), great players (Cornbread), great teams (Illinois, Kentucky), all contribute. Sometimes we just laid an egg.

I would say the complete opposite...

When his teams perform well, hit their shots and the defense in on, we tend to win.

I.e. when the gameplan is executed well.

When an opposing team's gameplan works and they are able to effectively penetrate and score on the zone... we often lose... you don't see much in the way of in-game adjustments from Boeheim that often. in other words I don't think JB is a great in-game tactician. (as opposed to a Coach K or T-Izzo that are.)

He lets his players play and when they don't execute or adjust well, it doesn't adequately get dealt with until the postgame video review next day... and in a one-and-done tournament like the NCAA's, that can sometimes be a problem.

 

[pfister1]

Thoughts:

1. Odds would suggest that if we made the Sweet 16 - 17 times we should have a better record than 4-13 in that round. We don't. It's probably one of two real arguments you can make against JB being among the coaching Elite. The other argument is also related to tourney performance and its summed up by reference to 1978, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, 2005 and 2010 - all years where we grossly underperformed our seeding - without rolling out the excuses for why....all teams face adversity.

2. We tend to set our expectations by reference to what the Duke, UNC and Kansas programs have accomplished. In JBs tenure we have had 2 teams seeded #1 and 5 teams seeded #2. I think if you were to look at those other programs you would see that they are more consistently the recipients of better seeding. Clearly it is easier to advance through the first 3 or 4 rounds the better your seed is. You will always be facing a team that you are considered better than - The one seed gets to the Sweet 16 without facing any team higher than an 8. They get to the Elite 8 without having to beat anyone higher than a 4 seed. While those teams can pull upsets, its not as likely to occur as it is with the matchups that a middling seed will face.

3. I would say we have only really outperformed our seeding in a noteworthy manner twice in JB's tenure. Both those years we made it to the championship game 2003 (3 seed) and 1994 (4 seed). What I mean is advanced two rounds beyond where our seed would have placed us. So a 9 through 16 seed advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. A 5 through 8 seed advancing to the Elite Eight. A 3 or 4 seed advancing to the Final Four. FWIW - We have been a 3 or 4 seed - 9 times and advanced to the championship game 2 of those years and been to the Sweet Sixteen all but two of those years.

4. JBs win totals put him among the best coaches of all time, but it might be a mistake for us to consider him among the greatest coaches of all time without acknowledging that what makes him great is his consistency and longevity, not his championships. He has always been a winner and has done that for an exceptionally long period of time. But he has not produced a super high number of championship caliber teams. Without looking at stats I would say that guys like K, Dean, Wooden, Calhoun, Roy Williams etc. will probably finish with a higher number of teams that won conference championships, conference tournament titles and NCAA tournaments than JB.

I don't mean to sound like I am denigrating JB because he is Syracuse and I wouldn't trade him for any other coach. That said we should recognize what he is, what he has done really well, and understand that there are some things he hasn't been able to do at the same level as others in the profession, there isn't anything wrong with that. He is still more successful than 99% of the guys who have ever coached, he just isn't likely to ever be among the coaches discussed as the Greatest Basketball Coaches of All Time despite his win totals unless he goes on a run and wins a couple of NCAA tournament titles before he retires.

 

[ForeverOrange]

This thread is pretty good and the arguments on both sides are solid. I tend to agree with the post about realizing that JB's stamp is consistency, not dominance. Even the talent argument was good until recent years, we now have the talent. The results in the dance up til now have been pretty consistent, not dominant, not really impressive, but steady, we get there, we don't get bounced in the first round. There is really nothing wrong with that. But to me we seem to differ on other levels than some of the elite's in terms of PEAKING. I always read Calhoun, coach K, Izzo (might even be able to throw in that snake Cal for this season) teams start to peak in March, our teams don't have that reputation, I don't even know if I can say our teams have gotten better in March, we have a track record of coming out the gate strong, but for whatever reason we start to fizzle, some will say injuries or whatever, but I am not sure. Lets just hope this season we can reverse that trend and do some damage in this tournament.

 

[pfister1]

Our Sweet Sixteen Performance:


2010 - Syracuse(1) loss to Butler(5)
2009 - Syracuse (3) loss to Oklahoma (2)
2004 - Syracuse (5) loss to Alabama (8)
2003 - Syracuse (3) win vs. Auburn (10)
2000- Syracuse (4) loss to Michigan St. (1)
1998 - Syracuse (5) loss to Duke (1)
1996 - Syracuse (4) win vs. Georgia (8)
1994 - Syracuse (4) loss to Missouri (1)
1990 - Syracuse (2) loss to Minnesota (6)
1989 - Syracuse (2) win vs. Missouri (3)
1987 - Syracuse (2) win vs. Florida (6)
1984 - Syracuse (3) loss to Virginia (7)
1980 - Syracuse (1) loss to Iowa (5)
1979 - Syracuse (4) loss to Penn (9)
1977 - Syracuse loss to Charlotte

In 77 there were only 32 teams and no seeds.

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but JB's Sweet 16 record is actually 4-11 not 4 - 13.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Our Sweet Sixteen Performance:


2010 - Syracuse(1) loss to Butler(5)
2009 - Syracuse (3) loss to Oklahoma (2)
2004 - Syracuse (5) loss to Alabama (8)
2003 - Syracuse (3) win vs. Auburn (10)
2000- Syracuse (4) loss to Michigan St. (1)
1998 - Syracuse (5) loss to Duke (1)
1996 - Syracuse (4) win vs. Georgia (8)
1994 - Syracuse (4) loss to Missouri (1)
1990 - Syracuse (2) loss to Minnesota (6)
1989 - Syracuse (2) win vs. Missouri (3)
1987 - Syracuse (2) win vs. Florida (6)
1984 - Syracuse (3) loss to Virginia (7)
1980 - Syracuse (1) loss to Iowa (5)
1979 - Syracuse (4) loss to Penn (9)
1977 - Syracuse loss to Charlotte

In 77 there were only 32 teams and no seeds. I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but JB's Sweet 16 record is actually 4-11 not 4 - 13.

Wow, so we were the higher seed in 6 of JB's Sweet 16 losses too...interesting. We were the favorite in all of JB's Sweet 16 wins.

 

[orange2win]

Sorry to get in here late. Some very interesting posts on this string.

A couple of years ago I generated a mountain of SU data in the JB era. One post I was working on was clearly showing (I believed) that the restricted bench, more so than the zone, was at the root cause of JB’s undeniable problems in the Big Dance.

I never did get the data summarized sufficient to post and it became redundant anyway when JB started doing exactly what I thought was needed. This year we are seeing even more of the same

If this theory is correct, we will see the results come March. Of course having the right talent is essential to going all the way, but this theory supposes that playing who is hot on the day, rather than who is pre-ordained, as JB is now doing, will result in his teams always performing loose and to the max of their ability in March. Fewer cold starts, never being run ragged, always being unpredictable, keeping the opposition guessing. Hopefully It will mean never again being surprised by opportunistic upstarts.

 

[orangefan13]

I don't think anyone except people who have been watching since the 80's should awnser this question.

I am only a true watcher since 01. Since then.

we were a nit team and deserving.
then a nation champion.
then we played bama in the sweet 16 in a tough game could have went either way.
then we layed a egg against vermont. How the heck that happened was unbelievable.
then we went to the nit for two straight seasons.
then we got a bad matchup against a one seed OK who may have been the second best team in teh country.

Then we lost all our chemistry when we lost AO. Those 18 mpg without him derailed our first half offense and we built such a hole we couldn't get rolling against butler. Our offense was just putrid that game and they focused on our perimeter offense which was our bread and butter without AO. Rick had to go to the low post at center and lost all his low post PF minutes as well. With no low post threat KJO's isolation was derailed.

Then we could have beat MU infact we kinda had the game won. Some foul calls went MU way and we missed some shots and had a costly late turnover or two.
This year we are as dangerous as syracuse has ever been. Don't want to understate us by using the word ?Maybe" our most dangerous team ever.

One observation I have had is look at our upperclassmens numbers in those games we lost. They have been shockingly bad.
Another thing Maybe bad matchups set up by the ncaa leads to that some. Can't leave that out.

No AO against Butler doesn't exactly make us the favorite. I don't know the other four off the top of my head. I know we can take that one of the 6 games we are favorite away. Heck they made the championship game beat MSU and KSU and played duke down to the final bucket.

 

[BlueCurtain]

The sweet 16 is a big friggin' deal when you can't get past it. Don't over-analyze. That being said, I'd like our chances to break that hex if they can get Boston. Historically the committee ships them out of the East if they can find any reason to do so.

 

[moqui]

I think it is a legit criticism. 4-13 illustrates how SU's style allows teams that we are better than hang around if they choose to..

that is only the case if you can show that the teams SU has lost to in the Sweet 16 have been demonstrably less talented than the Orange.

first of all, it is 15 sweet 16s, not 17. So, it is 4-11.

The NCAA first began seeding teams in 1979. Since then, SU has been to 26 NCAA tournaments, and have ended 25 of them with a loss. In those 25 years, they lost to a lower seeded team 13 times and to a higher seeded team 12 times.

The surprising fact of the matter is that SU has only been seeded to go beyond the Sweet 16 on 7 occasions - two #1 seeds and five #2 seeds. The one seeds both underperformed, but the 2010 team gets an exemption in my book due to Arinze being out.



The two seeds only made it past the Sweet 16 on 2 of 5 chances. So, it is probably fair to say that when SU is a 1 or 2 seed, it fails to live up to expectations; then you can begin to make your "system" argument.

But, most years, Syracuse performs either exactly to or slightly above seed. The three times that they have reached the final four, they were seeded to go out earlier (they went as a 2 seed, as a 3 seed and as a 4 seed).

Personally, I don't buy the "system" argument. JB's system is designed to work at any pace. And, it does.

 

[CorduroyG]

I dont agree with the "whats the difference between losing in the sweet 16 or elite 8? youre not making the final 4 either way" argument. Theres a whole different kind of intensity and excitement in an elite 8 game with the final 4 on the line. Thats what you play for, a spot in the final 4. Theres a lot more riding on an elite 8 game than a sweet 16 game, just to be in an elite 8 game, win or lose, is a memorable experience. And we've been severely lacking in the elite 8 category. Its about damn time we play a game with the final 4 on the line!

 

[TheRoyalIveyFund]

[

The NCAA first began seeding teams in 1979. Since then, SU has been to 26 NCAA tournaments, and have ended 25 of them with a loss. In those 25 years, they lost to a lower seeded team 13 times and to a higher seeded team 12 times.

But, most years, Syracuse performs either exactly to or slightly above seed. The three times that they have reached the final four, they were seeded to go out earlier (they went as a 2 seed, as a 3 seed and as a 4 seed).

Personally, I don't buy the "system" argument. JB's system is designed to work at any pace. And, it does.[/quote]


As usual, Moqui brings stats, reasons and logic to the argument. If one makes the argument JB is not performing in March, they are proven wrong by the above stat.

Yes, the few elite 8's he's gotten to is a negative on this career. However, a S16 just about every other year is pretty good to me. Maybe the bar is set low and I SU loses don't bother me like they did 15, 10, or even 5 years ago. However, I think that is still a great accomplishment.

Now, if someone comes back in May of 2013 and we have only 2 more tourney wins on the record, then I'll buy the argument a bit more about failures in March. About every 7-10 years, JB has a run in the tourney and I expect it either this year, or next.

 

[Knicks411]

I think the '"failures in March" thing is an interesting discussion, especially since it's more about JB and his place in history.

As has been stated many times, JB's true strength is that we are never bad. As in ever. I think he meets or exceeds any coach in history (maybe Dean Smith matches him?) in that regard.

For tournament success, I think he falls short of most of the guys we generally think of as the elite coaches of the last, say 15-20 years. (K, Williams, Calhoun, Izzo; then Bobby Knight and Dean Smith, depending on the timeline).

As the numbers say, regarding how often we are a 1 or 2 seed, we are usually good to very good, but infrequently super super elite, the sort of teams that are expected to make the elite 8/final four. (Though this is a trend that seems to be changing for the better)

So, if the argument is that JB usually performs to seed, and he isn't a chronic underachiever or anything like that, I agree. But that doesn't help his standing among the uber elite coaches of all time, either.

 

[orangefan13]

I think its more on the players then JB.
I think the big thing lately has been our upperclassmen have played poor especially on the offensive end. And alot of it just loosing close games.
I did a stat of this recently and will throw it out there again.

In 03-04 Bama shot 50% from the floor. We put up 71 but were just outscored. They had 22 assists to our 12.
In 04-05 it was like 09-10 Warrick had 10 turnovers. I believe jr Gmac shot something like 3-10 from the field. We only put up 57 points thats not going to get it done. We had 24 turnovers.
In 05-06 Against AandM senior Gerry shot 0-6 jr Nichols shot 2-7 our three point shooting was 4-19 and they made 5 more freethrows which was the difference.
In 06-07 no tournament
In 07-08 no tournament
In 08-09 againts OK we were outshot against. Jrs Harris was 1-5 Jrs Devo and Rautins combined for 4 for 22. Flynn and rautins were the only two to hit double digits.
In 09-10 We didn't have the third guy to go to. Jackson was 2-7 Kris was 3-8 Jardine 5-13. Butler won with only 7 turnovers to our 18. Strange enough we beat them soundly across the board outside of Turnovers.
In 10-11 we shot 14 percent better then MU from the field. They shot 23 foul shots to our 7. They shot 5-11 from three and had 4 more assists steals and rebounds. We just didn't take that game and win it on the offensive end. Sr. Rick was 3-6 with only 4 rebounds. We shot 55 percent from the field to their 41 yet only put up 62.

Just a staggering stat that we lose with one two or three guys playing bad.

This team this year is special because our ball movement off the dribble is better then just about every team in the country. A very rare stat. With the penetration of Triche, Dion, Scoop, KJO and MCW against a tight defense we have the heads to not settle for as many outside shots. and the ability to hit long twos at a staggering rate with the addition of Fair and Southerland to frustrate opponents.

People try to make it sound like there is some formula to it. Its just a matter of each individual game
1. a few guys playing bad
2. our oppenents beating us in stats.
3. loosing some close ones.

 

[BlueCurtain]

As usual, Moqui brings stats, reasons and logic to the argument.

As usual, Moqui cherrypicks stats to apologize for underachievement.

If you are content with waiting for your current dog to pass away before SU can advance beyond the sweet 16, then this is really all about personal standards of success. The results on the court are what they are.

 

[moqui]

As usual, Moqui cherrypicks stats to apologize for underachievement.

If you are content with waiting for your current dog to pass away before SU can advance beyond the sweet 16, then this is really all about personal standards of success. The results on the court are what they are.

Cherry pick? that phrase clearly doesn't mean what you think it does - I used all 26 appearances since seeding began. I left nothing out. that's the opposite of cherry picking. and, in fact, it leaves plenty of room for you to make your argument - SU has lost to a lower seeded team 13 times in 25 losses. A sharper mind would have taken that number and run with it.

 

[CorduroyG]

As usual, Moqui cherrypicks stats to apologize for underachievement.

If you are content with waiting for your current dog to pass away before SU can advance beyond the sweet 16, then this is really all about personal standards of success. The results on the court are what they are.

BlueCurtain's post 5 minutes after we win the title this year:

"JB is still only 5-11 in the sweet 16"

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

The beautiful thing is...if we get to a Final Four this year, we can avoid this yearly topic for the next couple seasons or so

 

[orangefan13]

BlueCurtain's post 5 minutes after we win the title this year:

"JB is still only 5-11 in the sweet 16"

Yeah and JB is still the one not playing on the court in those games.

 

[orangefan13]

The beautiful thing is...if we get to a Final Four this year, we can avoid this yearly topic for the next couple seasons or so

No because we have only won 33% of the championship games we have been in. We need to get to a championship game and win to make that better the next few years.

We NEED to win it all!

Some of you sound like newbies.
I assure you thats not what the players are hoping for.

My vote for team motto. NO MERCY! We already gave them one without Fab. We shouldn't have been so nice.

 

[BlueCurtain]

Cherry pick? that phrase clearly doesn't mean what you think it does - I used all 26 appearances since seeding began. I left nothing out. that's the opposite of cherry picking. and, in fact, it leaves plenty of room for you to make your argument - SU has lost to a lower seeded team 13 times in 25 losses. A sharper mind would have taken that number and run with it.

A sharp mind knew that was pointed out earlier - no need to rehash something that is common knowledge. This is not CW6 where we need to summarize what happened on last week's episode in order to retain viewers.

On a related note, some fans accept a sweet 16 loss if "we play to seed"... out-of-context there is no shame in a 4 losing to a 1... but you have 30 games in a season to make your case for a higher seed to avoid that 4 vs 1 matchup. It all comes back to being good but rarely great.

 

[AZOrange]

BlueCurtain's post 5 minutes after we win the title this year:

"JB is still only 5-11 in the sweet 16"

That Hall of Fame thing...and our 23-1 record must be really hard for him to accept.

 

[AZOrange]

The NCAA first began seeding teams in 1979. Since then, SU has been to 26 NCAA tournaments, and have ended 25 of them with a loss. In those 25 years, they lost to a lower seeded team 13 times and to a higher seeded team 12 times.

Wait we have only won 1 time in 26 tries? That is like 3%! Awful!