Mike McAllister on Orange Nation

[cliftonparksufan]

At power 5 schools coachs can not pull scholarships for athletic performance.

Of course, but some tell the kids they won't see any playing time and provide them a list of schools they should look at.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Calhoun. no thanks.

 

[Loki]

Of course, but some tell the kids they won't see any playing time and provide them a list of schools they should look at.

To your point I believe that's how we got Mike G from Duke.

 

[Jzsshuttles]

Not good at all. Hopefully they reconsider. They are putting unfair pressure on this freshman class.

Unfair? How soft are you. These kids want the pressure. Grow up

 

[Briancuse]

Unfair? How soft are you. These kids want the pressure. Grow up

They aren't good enough right now to start. When was the last time We had a freshman starter that wasn't a top 100 recruit. Frankly it's our coaching staff and program that is getting a bit soft.

 

[Cusefan0307]

They aren't good enough right now to start. When was the last time We had a freshman starter that wasn't a top 100 recruit. Frankly it's our coaching staff and program that is getting a bit soft.

Bunch is 96 and I think Taylor is 108. They are higher than Girard, Oshae, and Marek were coming in. Would rather have someone with experience at the 3, but your post isn't accurate.

 

[Briancuse]

Bunch is 96 and I think Taylor is 108. They are higher than Girard, Oshae, and Marek were coming in. Would rather have someone with experience at the 3, but your post isn't accurate.

In one ranking. In the other two they aren't top 100. I'd rather have an experienced forward. We are banking on Benny making a huge jump and a freshman to make a big impact.

 

[Cusefan0307]

In one ranking. In the other two they aren't top 100. I'd rather have an experienced forward. We are banking on Benny making a huge jump and a freshman to make a big impact.

It was the composite. Not one ranking. I don’t disagree with your overall point, but be accurate.

 

[SUFan44]

And those constant negatoids don’t do one thing to help the program. They’re too ignorant to realize they are a negative. They think if they say the same things over and over enough times someone will listen to them when they don’t even understand context. Just because some people don’t cry everyday in every thread and try to drag a thread down doesn’t make them happy with the status of the program.

Here's the issue.

The less talk there is about the issues, the more it becomes accepted. The more a casual fan just won't care about a program that went 16-17 last year and is 74-72 in the ACC over the last 9 years.

Our recruiting has not been close to as good the last 10 years as it had been the prior 35. And our records have also been subpar by Syracuse standards. What has changed within the program? Literally nothing. Not one thing. And that is not OK. Why shouldn't we continue to point out the clear flaws? Without that inflection point, and with no change, what is going to happen? Status quo isn't acceptable.

Syracuse basketball is the 6th-most valuable and profitable college basketball program in the country. Go down the list and see what these schools think about their cash cow, and how they treat it. Every one is either where they need to be, or actively working to (i.e. changing coaches) make sure they are where they need to be.

1. Kentucky (SEC) - $56.0
2. Louisville (ACC) - $53.6
3. Indiana (Big Ten) - $37.5
4. Duke (ACC) - $35.4
5. Kansas (Big 12) - $34.1
6. Syracuse (ACC) - $31.9
7. Ohio State (Big Ten) - $30.1
8. North Carolina (ACC) - $29.9
9. Michigan State (Big Ten) - $28.5
10. Illinois (Big Ten) - $27.6
11. UCLA (Pac-12) - $26.3
12. Wisconsin (Big Ten) - $25.3
13. Arkansas (SEC) - $24.7
14. Michigan (Big Ten) - $24.1
15. Arizona (Pac-12) - $23.9
16. Maryland (Big Ten) - $22.5
17. Marquette (Big East) - $20.3
18. Minnesota (Big Ten) - $19.7
19. Alabama (SEC) - $19.3

 

[Briancuse]

It was the composite. Not one ranking. I don’t disagree with your overall point, but be accurate.

You are talking about the average of espn 247 and rivals?

 

[dasher]

You are talking about the average of espn 247 and rivals?

I believe he is. Bunch for example is, I believe in like the 50's for their rankings. Or at least he was. Stick to the bigger pt., we should be getting at least one stud portal forward so that we aren't depending on a frosh and an improved Benny. Both unknowns. JB might be proved right, they might be excellent. But is it a risk worth taking when being wrong can tank your season.

 

[orangecuse]

Bees... please. Over the approximately 25 years I've been actively posting on various incarnations of this board, I've consistently been one of the most optimistic posters on this forum. But I'm not going to get shouted down by anyone pretending that a program that used to win ~75% of it's games and is now winning >58% of those games hasn't slipped a notch.

I can't stand posters who are incessantly negative -- as you well know. Over time, like many on this board I've learned who those posters are and have tuned them out accordingly.

But I've also grown tired of the kneejerk backlash from posters who get angry about the ever increasing number of fans who are beginning to come around to the idea that things are rotten in Denmark, and have been getting steadily worse to an unacceptable degree for a span of 8+ years. And that last year's losing record is the culmination of an extended period of program decline / relatively poor recruiting.

I don't care whether you or others disagree with the logic stated above that the program is in a downward trend of decline. But an inability to be intellectually honest about the state of the program and what the root causes are seems akin to tolerating the status quo.

Your "please" is an understatement. In my opinion, wondering whether "you must be one of those" is quite peculiar considering whom he was replying to. Although, IMO, it kind of speaks for itself though, especially in regards to your foremost point.

 

[kuethstheman]

Here's the issue.

The less talk there is about the issues, the more it becomes accepted. The more a casual fan just won't care about a program that went 16-17 last year and is 74-72 in the ACC over the last 9 years.

Our recruiting has not been close to as good the last 10 years as it had been the prior 35. And our records have also been subpar by Syracuse standards. What has changed within the program? Literally nothing. Not one thing. And that is not OK. Why shouldn't we continue to point out the clear flaws? Without that inflection point, and with no change, what is going to happen? Status quo isn't acceptable.

Syracuse basketball is the 6th-most valuable and profitable college basketball program in the country. Go down the list and see what these schools think about their cash cow, and how they treat it. Every one is either where they need to be, or actively working to (i.e. changing coaches) make sure they are where they need to be.

1. Kentucky (SEC) - $56.0
2. Louisville (ACC) - $53.6
3. Indiana (Big Ten) - $37.5
4. Duke (ACC) - $35.4
5. Kansas (Big 12) - $34.1
6. Syracuse (ACC) - $31.9
7. Ohio State (Big Ten) - $30.1
8. North Carolina (ACC) - $29.9
9. Michigan State (Big Ten) - $28.5
10. Illinois (Big Ten) - $27.6
11. UCLA (Pac-12) - $26.3
12. Wisconsin (Big Ten) - $25.3
13. Arkansas (SEC) - $24.7
14. Michigan (Big Ten) - $24.1
15. Arizona (Pac-12) - $23.9
16. Maryland (Big Ten) - $22.5
17. Marquette (Big East) - $20.3
18. Minnesota (Big Ten) - $19.7
19. Alabama (SEC) - $19.3

My problem with some people's complaints has to do with their assumption that they know the root causes of why things aren't going well. I think that's arrogant in most cases, unless they're there when the decisions are made, when the plans are put in place, and when they evaluate how it went.

One can point out "clear flaws" in the results, but It's presumptuous to describe one's theories as pointing out clear flaws. Someone doing that should expect an argument, even from people who are pissed off about the current state of the program.

FWIW, I have no idea if you have been presumptuous or arrogant in your posts.

 

[Lord Ashby]

Here's the issue.

The less talk there is about the issues, the more it becomes accepted. The more a casual fan just won't care about a program that went 16-17 last year and is 74-72 in the ACC over the last 9 years.

Our recruiting has not been close to as good the last 10 years as it had been the prior 35. And our records have also been subpar by Syracuse standards. What has changed within the program? Literally nothing. Not one thing. And that is not OK. Why shouldn't we continue to point out the clear flaws? Without that inflection point, and with no change, what is going to happen? Status quo isn't acceptable.

Syracuse basketball is the 6th-most valuable and profitable college basketball program in the country. Go down the list and see what these schools think about their cash cow, and how they treat it. Every one is either where they need to be, or actively working to (i.e. changing coaches) make sure they are where they need to be.

1. Kentucky (SEC) - $56.0
2. Louisville (ACC) - $53.6
3. Indiana (Big Ten) - $37.5
4. Duke (ACC) - $35.4
5. Kansas (Big 12) - $34.1
6. Syracuse (ACC) - $31.9
7. Ohio State (Big Ten) - $30.1
8. North Carolina (ACC) - $29.9
9. Michigan State (Big Ten) - $28.5
10. Illinois (Big Ten) - $27.6
11. UCLA (Pac-12) - $26.3
12. Wisconsin (Big Ten) - $25.3
13. Arkansas (SEC) - $24.7
14. Michigan (Big Ten) - $24.1
15. Arizona (Pac-12) - $23.9
16. Maryland (Big Ten) - $22.5
17. Marquette (Big East) - $20.3
18. Minnesota (Big Ten) - $19.7
19. Alabama (SEC) - $19.3

One of the 19 listed is not like the others and will be off the list shortly when OU and Texas join the SEC.

 

[RF2044]

Here's the issue.

The less talk there is about the issues, the more it becomes accepted. The more a casual fan just won't care about a program that went 16-17 last year and is 74-72 in the ACC over the last 9 years.

Our recruiting has not been close to as good the last 10 years as it had been the prior 35. And our records have also been subpar by Syracuse standards. What has changed within the program? Literally nothing. Not one thing. And that is not OK. Why shouldn't we continue to point out the clear flaws? Without that inflection point, and with no change, what is going to happen? Status quo isn't acceptable.

Terrific post -- you framed that up perfectly.

 

[SUFan44]

One of the 19 listed is not like the others and will be off the list shortly when OU and Texas join the SEC.

The point remains.

 

[hoopsupstate]

At the moment, it’s only conjecture that we have any capable ACC level forwards. Both forwards are not proven. We can only hope JB is correct and Benny and the freshmen are capable. We’re not going to know for sure until about 7-8 months.

 

[sutomcat]

At the moment, it’s only conjecture that we have any capable ACC level forwards. Both forwards are not proven. We can only hope JB is correct and Benny and the freshmen are capable. We’re not going to know for sure until about 7-8 months.

Hope a bunch of our young players have a chance to play on an all star team abroad this summer.

Get a chance to see some of the world, play against some grown men and start getting used to that.

 

[SUFan44]

My problem with some people's complaints has to do with their assumption that they know the root causes of why things aren't going well. I think that's arrogant in most cases, unless they're there when the decisions are made, when the plans are put in place, and when they evaluate how it went.

One can point out "clear flaws" in the results, but It's presumptuous to describe one's theories as pointing out clear flaws. Someone doing that should expect an argument, even from people who are pissed off about the current state of the program.

FWIW, I have no idea if you have been presumptuous or arrogant in your posts.

I think every single person on here - unless they're trolling and have too much time on their hands - wants Syracuse basketball to be successful. That's the baseline that everyone on this message board has.

There are two general principles that can be argued from there, in my opinion - how you define success and what factors go into said success.

If you're someone that defines success as making the NCAA Tournament, then your viewpoint is going to be a certain way. If you define success as being a Top 25, nationally-ranked program, then your viewpoint will be different.

And then is it the recruiting that creates the success? Is it the conference? Is it the assistant coaching staff? Is it the head coach? How you rank those as factors impacts how you view everything else.

I think it's natural to have varying views about those two principles. And if you simply state you define success as .500 or better - fine. I won't have the same argument with you because you don't have the same baseline as I do. And that's a fool's errand.

I think the arrogance goes both ways. Is it arrogant for me to place all of the blame on the head coach? Sure. It might be, without context and understanding of how I place value on success.

But is it also arrogant to blast people who have opinions based on their own expectations of the program? And tell them they're wrong without really providing much context as to why they're wrong, or what your expectation levels are? I believe that's also arrogant too.

I'll say this - at the end of the miracle Final Four run of 2016, the vast majority of people were perfectly fine with where the program was. Despite the 18-13 record the prior year that, would have been an NIT season, and the disappointing regular season - the Final Four run showed we were still relevant. I was probably in that vast majority group.

Since then, it has been a slow trickle to the other side - and I would say the majority of people are unhappy with the current state of the program. Do they still want it to succeed? Absolutely. But what has happened the last 9 years has been an erosion. And as I stated before, status quo isn't acceptable.

So what are those root causes? What are the factors that have led to the erosion? Those are the hot button topics and where the contention comes. Unless those are clearly stated with your posting history, it's very difficult to have an honest conversation about it though. And both sides might come across as arrogant because the argument isn't worth having due to the different levels of expectation the two parties have.

Personally, it's clear to me that the factors a lot of people cite as reasons for why we have been near .500 in the ACC is the direct result of the head coach's actions - recruiting and sanctions being the top two. And that is why I have that opinion. Are there other reasons? No one thing creates where we are. But in my estimation the head coach is the overseer of the program. He is the CEO. And for a program that has a healthy budget, outstanding facilities, and one of the top fan bases in the sport, the performance isn't up to snuff. You can debate why and what the reasons are, but at the end of the day, head coaches for numerous other programs at other high-D1 schools are being held accountable.

Jim Boeheim has been a great asset to the city of Syracuse and Syracuse University. However, he is not above standards and expectations. Nobody should be.

 

[Briancuse]

I believe he is. Bunch for example is, I believe in like the 50's for their rankings. Or at least he was. Stick to the bigger pt., we should be getting at least one stud portal forward so that we aren't depending on a frosh and an improved Benny. Both unknowns. JB might be proved right, they might be excellent. But is it a risk worth taking when being wrong can tank your season.

I hear you I was just curious when the last time we started a freshman who wasn't a highly rated recruit.

 

[chugg21]

I hear you I was just curious when the last time we started a freshman who wasn't a highly rated recruit.

As you can see, it has become somewhat common in recent times. As has been losing 13+ games in those same recent times. Coincidence?

 

[Lord Ashby]

The point remains.

Where did you get that list? I think... your post cherry picks as it looks at basketball revenues and not expenses or net income. The top 7 of 8 on that list are so called "basketball schools". You also try to connect revenues with recruiting which have nothing to do with one another given the AAU and basketball jam fest that go on now. Given the weak ACC contract, crappy Nike deal we will be lucky to be on this list as it has nothing to do with recruiting. My point being... coaching changes or better recruiting - SU like the rest of the top six will plummet from such a list going forward.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I think every single person on here - unless they're trolling and have too much time on their hands - wants Syracuse basketball to be successful. That's the baseline that everyone on this message board has.

There are two general principles that can be argued from there, in my opinion - how you define success and what factors go into said success.

If you're someone that defines success as making the NCAA Tournament, then your viewpoint is going to be a certain way. If you define success as being a Top 25, nationally-ranked program, then your viewpoint will be different.

And then is it the recruiting that creates the success? Is it the conference? Is it the assistant coaching staff? Is it the head coach? How you rank those as factors impacts how you view everything else.

I think it's natural to have varying views about those two principles. And if you simply state you define success as .500 or better - fine. I won't have the same argument with you because you don't have the same baseline as I do. And that's a fool's errand.

I think the arrogance goes both ways. Is it arrogant for me to place all of the blame on the head coach? Sure. It might be, without context and understanding of how I place value on success.

But is it also arrogant to blast people who have opinions based on their own expectations of the program? And tell them they're wrong without really providing much context as to why they're wrong, or what your expectation levels are? I believe that's also arrogant too.

I'll say this - at the end of the miracle Final Four run of 2016, the vast majority of people were perfectly fine with where the program was. Despite the 18-13 record the prior year that, would have been an NIT season, and the disappointing regular season - the Final Four run showed we were still relevant. I was probably in that vast majority group.

Since then, it has been a slow trickle to the other side - and I would say the majority of people are unhappy with the current state of the program. Do they still want it to succeed? Absolutely. But what has happened the last 9 years has been an erosion. And as I stated before, status quo isn't acceptable.

So what are those root causes? What are the factors that have led to the erosion? Those are the hot button topics and where the contention comes. Unless those are clearly stated with your posting history, it's very difficult to have an honest conversation about it though. And both sides might come across as arrogant because the argument isn't worth having due to the different levels of expectation the two parties have.

Personally, it's clear to me that the factors a lot of people cite as reasons for why we have been near .500 in the ACC is the direct result of the head coach's actions - recruiting and sanctions being the top two. And that is why I have that opinion. Are there other reasons? No one thing creates where we are. But in my estimation the head coach is the overseer of the program. He is the CEO. And for a program that has a healthy budget, outstanding facilities, and one of the top fan bases in the sport, the performance isn't up to snuff. You can debate why and what the reasons are, but at the end of the day, head coaches for numerous other programs at other high-D1 schools are being held accountable.

Jim Boeheim has been a great asset to the city of Syracuse and Syracuse University. However, he is not above standards and expectations. Nobody should be.

I agree that JB has slipped since 2014 and have stated my frustration numerous times over the past few years, but where you lose me is when every thread turns into that same referendum and same macro discussion we have had over and over to the point that thread get's hijacked and people get attacked for discussing anything else. The horse is dead beaten and buried at this point. I don't feel the need to repeat the same thing every day. Some people actually want to discuss the future without bringing up JB or our past recruiting misses.

I happen to have an opinion that Reid Ducharme is a good player, but some of you who have never seen him play came at me from all angles in his recruiting thread acting like he sucks because of a ranking. No matter what I say I'm an idiot because I am not hammering home the same point we make over and over in every thread and you're just assuming he sucks because of his ranking without watching him play.

I don't think you realize that people can be upset and frustrated about the decline, but at the same time want to discuss other things and look toward the future. If some aren't hammering the same point over and over in every thread people get angry that others aren't being negative enough when in reality they want to discuss other things. I get being upset about past recruiting, JB and our past record, but some of you make it impossible to bring up anything else without hijacking said topic and bringing it back to the same referendum discussion that dominates the board.

Your post has been made 100 times in 100 different threads including by myself over the past 5 years. If people don't get it at this point they never will.

 

[SUFan44]

Where did you get that list? I think... your post cherry picks as it looks at basketball revenues and not expenses or net income. The top 7 of 8 on that list are so called "basketball schools". You also try to connect revenues with recruiting which have nothing to do with one another given the AAU and basketball jam fest that go on now. Given the weak ACC contract, crappy Nike deal we will be lucky to be on this list as it has nothing to do with recruiting. My point being... coaching changes or better recruiting - SU like the rest of the top six will plummet from such a list going forward.

Forbes put the list together - is that quality enough for you?

And the list represents schools that have high end, revenue generating basketball programs - and are treated like their universities as such.

I don’t know where you are getting your ACC schools won’t be on this list narrative. That’s presumptuous and a very big leap.

ACC basketball isn’t going anywhere and I have no idea where you’re getting your info but there’s a lot of opinion in there and not much fact.

 

[SWC75]

At the moment, it’s only conjecture that we have any capable ACC level forwards. Both forwards are not proven. We can only hope JB is correct and Benny and the freshmen are capable. We’re not going to know for sure until about 7-8 months.

That's been true for the last couple of seasons. Having to replace both starting forwards is getting to be a habit.