Mike Waters' Syracuse basketball rankings: 1996-97 team ...

[Orangeyes]

Mike Waters' Syracuse basketball rankings: 1996-97 team ...

 

[OttoMets]

Interesting idea; it's a little surprising that Waters would undertake this. It's a quiet period, of course, but Boeheim surely doesn't like the beat writers a) comparing teams to one another and b) claiming that several of his players showed poor effort.

[Also, one can't mention the 1997 Alabama game without talking about Otis Hill's spectacular offensive performance.]

Fun exercise, either way. I agree that 1997 was the worst Boeheim team but don't see justification for 2002 as the second-worst - as Waters notes, that team didn't quit down the stretch. They also put up decent numbers and did have a run of sustained success to start the season, something not every team can claim.

I'll look forward to reading the rest of Mike's list. For mine:

26: 1997
25: 2008
24: 2006
23: 2002
22: 2007
21: 1999
20: 1993
19: 2001
18: 1992
17: 2014
16: 2009
15: 2013
14: 1998
13: 2004
12: 2011
11: 1995
10: 2000
9: 1991
8: 1994
7: 1990
6: 1996
5: 2005
4: 2012
3: 2003
2: 1989
1: 2010

 

[MSOrange]

When I think of next year's team, my first comparison was to 1996-1997. But now that I read this and refreshed my mind, the only real comparison is the freshman point guard (Hart vs Joseph). 96-97 had more established scoring coming back with Burgan and Otis My Man Hill (one of my favorite underrated players) than I think we have next year, although there is certainly potential next year.

Next year will be interesting. For one of the few times, I really have no idea what to expect.

 

[moqui]

Interesting idea; it's a little surprising that Waters would undertake this. It's a quiet period, of course, but Boeheim surely doesn't like the beat writers a) comparing teams to one another and b) claiming that several of his players showed poor effort.

[Also, one can't mention the 1997 Alabama game without talking about Otis Hill's spectacular offensive performance.]

Fun exercise, either way. I agree that 1997 was the worst Boeheim team but don't see justification for 2002 as the second-worst - as Waters notes, that team didn't quit down the stretch. They also put up decent numbers and did have a run of sustained success to start the season, something not every team can claim.

I'll look forward to reading the rest of Mike's list. For mine:

26: 1997
25: 2008
24: 2006
23: 2002
22: 2007
21: 1999
20: 1993
19: 2001
18: 1992
17: 2014
16: 2009
15: 2013
14: 1998
13: 2004
12: 2011
11: 1995
10: 2000
9: 1991
8: 1994
7: 1990
6: 1996
5: 2005
4: 2012
3: 2003
2: 1989
1: 2010

I largely agree, especially the top 4, but I think you have 2005 too high and 2013 too low

 

[HOFCeluck]

Interesting idea; it's a little surprising that Waters would undertake this. It's a quiet period, of course, but Boeheim surely doesn't like the beat writers a) comparing teams to one another and b) claiming that several of his players showed poor effort.

[Also, one can't mention the 1997 Alabama game without talking about Otis Hill's spectacular offensive performance.]

Fun exercise, either way. I agree that 1997 was the worst Boeheim team but don't see justification for 2002 as the second-worst - as Waters notes, that team didn't quit down the stretch. They also put up decent numbers and did have a run of sustained success to start the season, something not every team can claim.

I'll look forward to reading the rest of Mike's list. For mine:

26: 1997
25: 2008
24: 2006
23: 2002
22: 2007
21: 1999
20: 1993
19: 2001
18: 1992
17: 2014
16: 2009
15: 2013
14: 1998
13: 2004
12: 2011
11: 1995
10: 2000
9: 1991
8: 1994
7: 1990
6: 1996
5: 2005
4: 2012
3: 2003
2: 1989
1: 2010

You may not have noticed, but you ranked a final four team well behind a team that had one of the most embarrassing losses in the history of college basketball.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Anyway...

2008
1997
2002
1991
1999
2007
2006
1995 (possibly the most overrated SU team by fans)
1992
1993
2001
2005
2014
1994
1990
2004
2011
1998
2009
2013
2000
1996
2012
2003
1989
2010

 

[Eric15]

Mike Waters' Syracuse basketball rankings: 1996-97 team ...

If that 1997 team had just beat Pitt at home in the regular season finale, they probably would have made the tourney - a testament to the unbelievable consistency of our program that our crappiest team of the past quarter century was right on the cusp.

 

[Eric15]

Anyway...

2008
1997
2002
1991
1999
2007
2006
1995 (possibly the most overrated SU team by fans)
1992
1993
2001
2005
2014
1994
1990
2004
2011
1998
2009
2013
2000
1996
2012
2003
1989
2010

Doc, I'm not sure I understand your methodology. You have 1991 as the 4th worst team of the past 25 years? That team would have been a 1 seed in the NCAA tourney if they had not blown a 17 point lead against Nova in the BET.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Doc, I'm not sure I understand your methodology. You have 1991 as the 4th worst team of the past 25 years? That team would have been a 1 seed in the NCAA tourney if they had not blown a 17 point lead against Nova in the BET.

Yep, but in reality they lost to Richmond...I just can't rank them higher I thought it was that humiliating.

 

[RF2044]

I'm surprised that Waters didn't mention that 96-97 was submarined by the Winfred Walton fiasco.

What might have been...

 

[OrangeDW]

I loved the 2010 team, but I really can't see them as #1. 2003 went 30-5 and won it all, featured 3 of our all time greats. How can they not be #1?

I, like many others, believe we would've won it in 2010 with AO. But...we still shou;d've beaten Butler. I know Joseph got suplexed, I know that fluke 3 bounced around and somehow went in...but we SUCKED. All game. Still should've won, regardless and didn't.

1989 is clearly(IMO) our most talented and winning 30games(same as 2010) and making the elite 8(further than 2010) in a much tougher era puts them at #2.

1. 2003
2. 1989
3. 2010
4. 2012
5. 1996
6. 1990
7. 1991
8. 1994
9. 2000
10. 2013
11. 2009
12. 1998
13. 2004
14. 2005
15. 1995
16. 2014
17. 1992
18. 2011
19. 1993
20. 2001
21. 1999
22. 2007
23. 2006
24. 2002
25. 1997
26. 2008

 

[OttoMets]

I largely agree, especially the top 4, but I think you have 2005 too high and 2013 too low

I think 1992 and 1990 are also arguable (actually, they all are).

2005 and 2013 kind of had mirror-image seasons, one had a very good regular season, excellent Big East Tournament, and poor NCAA; the other had a mediocre regular season, excellent Big East Tournament, and very good NCAA.

I think I've got a bias for regular season success (and, honestly, a bias for 2005, a team that looked forward to for 18 months, only to see an incredible start go down in a blaze of disappointing player development and a kind of raw deal in terms of seeding and placement). There's also some eye test in here, which is why, for example, 1995 is so high and 2014 is so low, despite very different records.

EDIT: Glancing at it again, I'd certainly place 2013 above 1998. If Janulis doesn't hit the prayer against Iona and/or Burgan gets called for the travel against St. John's, we'd remember that team very differently. As it stands, they were decent but not clearly better than 2013.

 

[Eric15]

I think I've got a bias for regular season success (and, honestly, a bias for 2005, a team that looked forward to for 18 months, only to see an incredible start go down in a blaze of disappointing player development and a kind of raw deal in terms of seeding and placement). There's also some eye test in here, which is why, for example, 1995 is so high and 2014 is so low, despite very different records.

I know that every team has their player drama and there's nothing unique about us, but man if we just could have had Billy E. in the 2004 and 2005 tourneys, it would have changed everything.

 

[OttoMets]

You may not have noticed, but you ranked a final four team well behind a team that had one of the most embarrassing losses in the history of college basketball.

Gosh, there have been a couple bad losses. Are we talking about 2011's Seton Hall rout?

It's an imperfect list (just a first impression - I've already noticed a couple changes that I should make), but one thing I'm comfortable with is 2011 over 2013. That was a popular topic on the board a little over a year ago.

EDIT: After seeing your list, I'm guessing you're talking about 1991? I'm ambivalent. On one hand, that was a talented group and 26-4 while staying in the top-ten all season is impressive. On the other hand, the Villanova/Richmond double-header was -- and I don't use this lightly -- shameful and I think some of the veteran leaders played a large part in the underachievement that year. For several months, though, it was a very good team.

 

[OttoMets]

I know that every team has their player drama and there's nothing unique about us, but man if we just could have had Billy E. in the 2004 and 2005 tourneys, it would have changed everything.

2006, too.

 

[OttoMets]

I'm surprised that Waters didn't mention that 96-97 was submarined by the Winfred Walton fiasco.

What might have been...

To be fair, that would be consistent with his strange illogic in rationalizing his placement of the Uncoachables of 2008 as only the third-worst team.

In reality, your team consists of the guys who you're running out there every night, not a guy who quit the team in December after being recruited over, not a kid who blew out his knee in July, and not a top scorer who "led" the team to a 6-3 start and then missed the rest of the year with an injury.

If Waters wants to play that silly game, then 1997 would have been ranked much higher, since Walton would have filled a huge game and dominated alongside Hill. 2014 would end up #1, since Michael Carter-Williams and Dion Waiters would have been our starting guards and Fab Melo would have averaged a triple-double.

But the list isn't about how good these teams could have been. It's about how good they were.

 

[RF2044]

To be fair, that would be consistent with his strange illogic in rationalizing his placement of the Uncoachables of 2008 as only the third-worst team.

In reality, your team consists of the guys who you're running out there every night, not a guy who quit the team in December after being recruited over, not a kid who blew out his knee in July, and not a top scorer who "led" the team to a 6-3 start and then missed the rest of the year with an injury.

If Waters wants to play that silly game, then 1997 would have been ranked much higher, since Walton would have filled a huge game and dominated alongside Hill. 2014 would end up #1, since Michael Carter-Williams and Dion Waiters would have been our starting guards and Fab Melo would have averaged a triple-double.

But the list isn't about how good these teams could have been. It's about how good they were.

I'm not suggesting that Waters needed to play the "what if" game and project how good that team might have been with Walton. I'm just pointing out that the Walton eligibility fiasco ended up being a major subplot in the way that season unfavorably unfolded, so it struck me as odd that it wasn't mentioned.

It was the first domino to topple in an all around disappointing year.

Man, I don't miss those times.

 

[MSOrange]

I'm not suggesting that Waters needed to play the "what if" game and project how good that team might have been with Walton. I'm just pointing out that the Walton eligibility fiasco ended up being a major subplot in the way that season unfavorably unfolded, so it struck me as odd that it wasn't mentioned.

It was the first domino to topple in an all around disappointing year.

Man, I don't miss those times.

I somehow forgot that 96-97 was the Winfred Walton fiasco to start the year. I sure remember the NIT game at the end of the year. I think the only time in my life I have ever turned off a game. I can handle losing but the lack of effort was disgusting

 

[OttoMets]

I'm not suggesting that Waters needed to play the "what if" game and project how good that team might have been with Walton. I'm just pointing out that the Walton eligibility fiasco ended up being a major subplot in the way that season unfavorably unfolded, so it struck me as odd that it wasn't mentioned.

It was the first domino to topple in an all around disappointing year.

Man, I don't miss those times.

No, I was just taking your point and running with it because it segued cleanly into a problem I found with Mike's thinking in the 2008 write-up.

I don't miss those times, but we're never out of the woods as far as that goes. Hopefully we continue to have good fortune with our staff finding the right kids who can stay eligible.

And, yeah, if Josh Wright -- someone who couldn't earn court time -- deserved mention in the 2008 blurb, Walton surely should have been included in 1997.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Gosh, there have been a couple bad losses. Are we talking about 2011's Seton Hall rout?

It's an imperfect list (just a first impression - I've already noticed a couple changes that I should make), but one thing I'm comfortable with is 2011 over 2013. That was a popular topic on the board a little over a year ago.

EDIT: After seeing your list, I'm guessing you're talking about 1991? I'm ambivalent. On one hand, that was a talented group and 26-4 while staying in the top-ten all season is impressive. On the other hand, the Villanova/Richmond double-header was -- and I don't use this lightly -- shameful and I think some of the veteran leaders played a large part in the underachievement that year. For several months, though, it was a very good team.

Yeah. ..I was referring to 1991 which on further deliberation I should have probably ranked higher. That's what happens when you real 25 teams of the cuff.

 

[Cuse_1999]

Wasn't Burgan suspended for the first 7 games or so? I think that contributed to the terrible start

 

[RandygoCuse]

If that 1997 team had just beat Pitt at home in the regular season finale, they probably would have made the tourney - a testament to the unbelievable consistency of our program that our crappiest team of the past quarter century was right on the cusp.

Absolutely. Had the field always been 68, we may have made it every year.

 

[OttoMets]

Wasn't Burgan suspended for the first 7 games or so? I think that contributed to the terrible start

It was more like the middle seven, but I think we lost two or three (including a winnable Notre Dame game on the road) and very likely would have made the tournament if Burgan had kept himself eligible.

 

[SWC75]

I could see the 2014-15 team being a lot like the 1996-97 team: just too young at too many spots with no one relaly able to carry the team through the rough spots.

I can see the 2014-15 tam being a lot better than that, too, but the similarities concern me.