Mike Francesa

[DoctorBombay]

Why do people even care about this?

 

[longtimefan]

I would replace "People" with "Syracuse Fans". I think outside of Central NY this is a non-story honestly.

Not so. Dan Patrick had him on the first thing Monday morning, let him paint himself into a corner, and spent today replaying Gottlieb's statements to tweak him for being unwilling to concede that he might be wrong.

 

[Nicknack]

The funny thing (at Doug's expense) is that while this might be actually helping his tv game, the thing he wants the most is to get into coaching. That's where this is hurting him. In the coaching game, schools don't want that and the more he acts like a bozo, he is only hurting his chances unless he wants to start coaching a girl's high school team (which would probably suit him well except for his creepy factor).

 

[suinaustin]

I, personally, have not pinpointed Doogie at all. The overall pundits, yes. Because I just don't give a rats arse to anything he says.

 

[Stern]

Gottlieb continuing his streak of great predictions last night

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">DELETION: <a href="https://twitter.com/GottliebShow">@GottliebShow</a> wipes away this tweet from 1Q of last night&#39;s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MIAvsLAL?src=hash">#MIAvsLAL</a> game; which <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LAL?src=hash">#LAL</a> went on to win. <a href="https://t.co/wMmkS71OdT">pic.twitter.com/wMmkS71OdT</a></p>&mdash; Freezing Cold Takes (@OldTakesExposed) <a href="">March 31, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Lakers won the game last night

 

[CaptainJ]

I would replace "People" with "Syracuse Fans". I think outside of Central NY this is a non-story honestly.

I agree with you, Howard! Even though I put up cash to say that not only we belonged in, but would be in, I think some people are lacking understanding of logic.

Hypothetically, a team could not meet the criteria of making it in and win a couple of games, and even the championship. I made my point before selection sunday with a cash wager to folks on here that the Cuse would be in, but at the same point the people beating their chests after a few wins are not understanding Doug's logic, which was the same on selection sunday as it is 4 wins later. I actually respect this clown's Gootleib's logic more than I do theirs, which is blown by the win. I made repeated posts about the resume(before the selection), put up cash, but still think this Gottleib hate is quite obsessive. And folks, please do not claim youre not riding the wave of success to take your jabs, at least the majority of you. Our opponents are on the court, not in the broadcast booth.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Teams capable of doing damage in the tournament is alot different than making final 4. Monmouth or st bonnies might win a game or 2 but thats it, thats why a team like cuse that has proven all year they can play and compete with the best teams in the country and have 5 top 50 wins and close road losses to two #1 seeds deserve it over a mid major. Monmouth would lose by 30 to gonzaga now.

What's the difference between Bonaventure and VCU or G Mason?

 

[HOFCeluck]

...and yeah, one should think we deserve to be in or out regardless of touney results. DG is right to double down. Doesn't mean he's not a master troll.

 

[orangenirvana]

As for the idea that our success should change Doug's view is kind of insane. If you didn't think we belonged on selection sunday, no level of success should change that view. He isn't saying we couldn't play well or compete, he is saying he didn't think our regular season resume was enough to warrant an at large bid. To change that view would be completely disingenuous and quite frankly it would mean he was flip flopping, which you would hope is a worse offense than sticking with your original position. I know Doug plays into it, but the reason this conversation continues is because people cant come to grips with the fact that his belief that they didn't earn a spot and their performance have zero to do with each other.

And this is from a guy who cannot stand Doug

So if what you say is true, then this isn't about a team (in this case, Syracuse) not being good enough to make the Tournament. It's about them not having a good enough "resume" to make the Tournament.

Okay...

Who determines how good a "resume" has to be to make a Tournament? The committee.

So how does it make any sense whatsoever for an analyst (in this case, Gotdweeb) to argue that a team didn't have a good enough resume to get into a tournament whose selection is based entirely on a certain criteria...when that criteria is solely determined by the committee itself?

It's like someone arguing with me that I shouldn't find Jennifer Love Hewitt attractive. Why would you be telling me who I find attractive? I have my own criteria as to what type of woman I'm attracted to.

The only argument one has is that Team A is not good enough to be in the Tournament. It should have nothing to do with resume or criteria because only the committee can determine that. And if Gottlieb or anyone else is saying Syracuse wasn't good enough to be in the Tournament, then SU's success is absolutely evidence that they were totally wrong about that.

 

[pulaski74]

Teams capable of doing damage in the tournament is alot different than making final 4. Monmouth or st bonnies might win a game or 2 but thats it, thats why a team like cuse that has proven all year they can play and compete with the best teams in the country and have 5 top 50 wins and close road losses to two #1 seeds deserve it over a mid major. Monmouth would lose by 30 to gonzaga now.

The bench antics of Monmouth is the only reason they are even mentioned period. They got national exposure, beat up on a few crap teams, lost to a lot of crap teams, but everyone just remembers the bench highlights. Power of the media.

 

[HOFCeluck]

So if what you say is true, then this isn't about a team (in this case, Syracuse) not being good enough to make the Tournament. It's about them not having a good enough "resume" to make the Tournament.

Okay...

Who determines how good a "resume" has to be to make a Tournament? The committee.

So how does it make any sense whatsoever for an analyst (in this case, Gotdweeb) to argue that a team didn't have a good enough resume to get into a tournament whose selection is based entirely on a certain criteria...when that criteria is solely determined by the committee itself?

It's like someone arguing with me that I shouldn't find Jennifer Love Hewitt attractive. Why would you be telling me who I find attractive? I have my own criteria as to what type of woman I'm attracted to.

The only argument one has is that Team A is not good enough to be in the Tournament. It should have nothing to do with resume or criteria because only the committee can determine that. if Gottlieb or anyone else is saying Syracuse wasn't good enough to be in the Tournament, then SU's success is absolutely evidence that they were totally wrong about that.

Whats your take on 2007? Just curious

 

[orangenirvana]

Whats your take on 2007? Just curious

I thought they were good enough to get in and could have made a run. But based on the committee's criteria, they didn't win enough out of conference or on the road. Their OOC SOS was abysmal that season and their only good road win was at Marquette in one of their first Big East games.

Still hurts thinking they got snubbed but the committee had their own criteria and SU didn't meet those requirements.

I think it's perfectly fine to say Syracuse should have made it into the Tourney that season because they were a better team than Texas Tech or Stanford or Georgia Tech. But to claim something like "Stanford didn't have the resume to earn a bid" would have been wrong: they made the Tournament that year because their resume was good enough. Then to use that "resume" statement as some sort of shield to deflect against any threat of having to admit you were wrong about them is shady as hell. If any one of those teams had made a run (they all lost) then I would have gladly admitted I was wrong about them.

 

[retro44]

Been listening to the Boomer and Carton show recently and Carton is a Syracuse grad who is extremely funny on the show. That Dude comes up with some off the wall Shyte everyday that made my day every morning. Huge Syracuse he is.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/category/boomer-carton/

I wish 1260 would pick up their morning show.

Their is a few Syracuse grads on the wfan lineup

 

[orangenirvana]

Been listening to the Boomer and Carton show recently and Carton is a Syracuse grad who is extremely funny on the show. That Dude comes up with some off the wall Shyte everyday that made my day every morning. Huge Syracuse he is.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/category/boomer-carton/

I wish 1260 would pick up their morning show.

Their is a few Syracuse grads on the wfan lineup

http://syracusefan.com/threads/boomer-carton.103087/

 

[HOFCeluck]

I thought they were good enough to get in and could have made a run. But based on the committee's criteria, they didn't win enough out of conference or on the road. Their OOC SOS was abysmal that season and their only good road win was at Marquette in one of their first Big East games.

Still hurts thinking they got snubbed but the committee had their own criteria and SU didn't meet those requirements.

I think it's perfectly fine to say Syracuse should have made it into the Tourney that season because they were a better team than Texas Tech or Stanford or Georgia Tech. But to claim something like "Stanford didn't have the resume to earn a bid" would have been wrong: they made the Tournament that year because their resume was good enough. Then to use that "resume" statement as some sort of shield to deflect against any threat of having to admit you were wrong about is shady as hell. If any one of those teams had made a run (they all lost) then I would have gladly admitted I was wrong about them.

I'm with you. You lose to turds like WSU and Drexel at home and your sort of putting your fate in the committees hands.

 

[DoctorBombay]

I thought they were good enough to get in and could have made a run. But based on the committee's criteria, they didn't win enough out of conference or on the road. Their OOC SOS was abysmal that season and their only good road win was at Marquette in one of their first Big East games.

Still hurts thinking they got snubbed but the committee had their own criteria and SU didn't meet those requirements.

I think it's perfectly fine to say Syracuse should have made it into the Tourney that season because they were a better team than Texas Tech or Stanford or Georgia Tech. But to claim something like "Stanford didn't have the resume to earn a bid" would have been wrong: they made the Tournament that year because their resume was good enough. Then to use that "resume" statement as some sort of shield to deflect against any threat of having to admit you were wrong about them is shady as hell. If any one of those teams had made a run (they all lost) then I would have gladly admitted I was wrong about them.

Good last 2 posts, Curt! ("Get it...Nirvana?..Curt Cobain?..- etc.??)
Anyway, JB addressed this in one presser where he was asked for the umpteenth time whether we'd "vindicated" ourselves by winning. His response was that this year he thought we deserved the bid, and that we'd beefed up our OOC schedule to counter what had happened in '07 when we'd been left out. "You still have to win some of those games and the wins we had were more than enough to get us in". (paraphrase)