SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,475
- Like
- 62,638
“Previously on The Adventures of SU Basketball….” We beat North Carolina in a dream-sequence of a game, 81-53. The Tar Heels had just dominated us in the Dome 79-92, twelve days previously. The contrast between those games is interesting:
In the first game, we were 22 for 39 inside the arc, (56.4%). UNC was 22/38 (57.9%)
In the second game, we were 21 for 40 inside the arc, (52.5%). UNC was 18/44 (40.9%)
In the first game, we were 6 for 24 outside the arc, (25.0%). UNC was 11/26 (42.3%)
In the second game, we were 7 for 21 outside the arc, (33.3%). UNC was 2/16 (12.5%)
In the first game, we were 17 for 19 from the line. (89.5%) UNC was 15 for 17 (88.2%)
In the second game, we were 18 for 28 from the line (64.3%) UNC was 11 for 13 (84.6%)
In the first game, we had 38 points in the “Inner Sanctum”, (the paint). UNC had 32.
In the second game, we had 34 points in the IS and so did UNC.
In the first game, we had 6 points in the “Twilight Zone”, (between the paint and the arc). UNC had 12
In the second game, we had 8 points in the TZ. UNC had 2.
In the first game we, had 18 points from the “Outer Limits”, (beyond the arc). UNC had 33.
In the second game, we had 21 points from the OL. UNC had 6.
We weren’t more efficient on offense in the first game: we played much better defense in the second game.
In the first game, we rebounded 10 of our 36 misses (27.8%). UNC rebounded 13 of 32, (40.6%)
In the second game, we rebounded 10 of our 39 misses (25.6%). UNC rebounded 13 of 42 (31.0%)
So our offensive rebounding didn’t improve but our defensive rebounding did.
In the first game, we had 9 turnovers. UNC had 10.
In the second game, we had 8 turnovers. UNC had 18.
Again, we stepped up our defense.
In the first game we scored 16 points off turnovers and second chances. UNC scored 37.
In the second game, we scored 35 points off second chances and turnovers. UNC scored 14
In the first game, we had 10 fast break points. UNC had 11.
In the second game, we had 15 fast break points. UNC had 2.
We were far more opportunistic in the second game. And those opportunities came from our defense.
Did that represent a turn-around for last year’s defensively-challenged team? Would they do what our 2013, 2016 and 2018 teams did- make a strong post-season run by playing fanatical defense? We’ll never know. But we do know the importance of defense.
Lindy’s asked “How did this program become a perennial NCAA Tournament bubble team?” That’s a good name for this era in SU basketball - the ‘Bubble Team Era’. We haven’t always been on the bubble in this era- we voluntarily excused ourselves from post season play in 2015 in an effort to get the NCAA to lessen sanctions on us, (did it work? – who knows what they were going to do to us?). In 2016 we were a 10 seed and didn’t need to play in a play-in game, (which is for 11 and 16 seeds). In 2017 we were an NIT team. In 2018 we were an 11 seed and won a play-in game. In 2019 we were an 8 seed and didn’t have to win a play-in game. Last year’s team looked as if it were headed for the NIT until that North Carolina game. We probably had to win the ACC Tournament to avoid that fate. But to me a ‘bubble team’ is a team that winds up the regular season in the teens in victories with double figures in losses. At the end of these regular seasons we were: 18-13, 19-12, 18-13, 19-12, 19-12, 17-14. Lather, rinse, repeat.
But those teams were not identical. The 2015 team out-scored its opposition 67.6-63.4 (+4.2). 2016: 70.0-65.1 (+4.9), 2017: 76.3-71.1 (+5.2), 2018: 66.6-63.8 (+2.8), 2019: 69.7-66.1, (+3.6), 2020: 74.3-69.3 (+5.0). It’s interesting that the two highest point differentials belong to the one NIT and the likely NIT team. Being more offensively explosive makes it more likely that you will put some space between you and your opposition. (Last year we won four ACC games by at least 23 points – only Duke had more such wins). But it is defense that keeps control of games, protecting leads or at least giving you a chance to scrape up enough points to win when the offense malfunctions. If you have a 5 minute drought, you might fall behind by 5-6 points instead of 12 or 15. Defense also keys comebacks- you have to stop the other team from scoring, not just trade baskets. Finally, defense can produce offense through turnovers, defensive rebounds and fast breaks. Offense doesn’t produce defense. The ‘defensive’ teams in this stretch made three NCAA tournaments, (and the 2015 might well have made it four), and won 7 games in those tournaments, going to the Final Four in in 2016 and the Sweet 16 in 2018, where they almost beat Duke. (If Dolezaj hadn’t gotten into foul trouble for the first time all year…). Those miracle comebacks against Gonzaga and Virginia in 2016 were keyed by our use of defensive pressure. So if we have a choice between being an ‘offensive’ team, (in the basketball sense) for a ‘defensive’ team, we should choose the ‘defensive team.
But none of us are satisfied by that. We want to get off the bubble and get as far away from it as we can. We want to go back to the giddy days of the early 2010’s, when we had consecutive season of 28-10, 30-5, 27-8, 34-3, 30-10 and 28-6. Three of those teams achieved a #1 ranking for a combined 9 weeks. The 2009 team won that famous 6 overtime game. The 2010 was probably the best team in the country but we lost our center just before the NCAA tournament. The 2011 team is our least remembered team from that period, but wouldn’t we love to have a 27-8 record this year? That team won their first 18 games and the 2014 team their first 25. The 2012 team had the best numerical record we’ve ever had. I don’t think they were as good as Kentucky but I would love to have taken them on with our full roster available. Oh, and the 2013 team was the one that made the Final Four.
That has been our problem over the years: the wrong SU teams make the Final Four. We’ve had 5 teams achieve a #1 ranking and 6 teams make the Final Four. That’s 11 different teams. The 1975 team was a Cinderella team whose coach turned into a pumpkin in San Diego. (Not the head coach- the Cinderella coach.) The 1987 team was a 2 seed that probably was the best team there but let the championship slip away. the 1996 team was a 4 seed that used its zone to over-achieve. Both Kentucky and UMASS were clearly better. Our 2003 champions were a 3 seed and probably the best team, although we won it by the skin of our teeth. Our 2013 team was a 4 seed and our 2016 team the only 10 seed ever to make the Final Four. Meanwhile, the Louie and Bouie teams, (especially the last one), all the teams from 1986-1991, our 2000 and all of our 2009-14 teams were arguably as worthy. If we could have gotten more of them there, we’d have more than the one title we possess.
Jim Boeheim is going to turn 76 years old on November 17th. He is the oldest man ever to coach in Division I men's basketball. He has been the head coach here for a Syracuse-like 44 seasons. We’ve played 1,496 games in that time, (JB missed 11 of them for health reasons and an NCAA suspension). That’s 51% of all the games Syracuse has ever played. We’ve won 1083 of those games, (the NCAA only recognizes 982 due to their penalties but hasn’t given those other 101 game to the other team), 54% of all the wins in school history. His son Buddy is a junior on this year’s team. It’s been suspected that he might retire when Buddy graduates. It’s also been suspected that he wants to go out on top, (who wouldn’t?) We’d like to have a team that can make that dream come true.
The best recruiting we’ve ever done was in the late 80’s. We had Pearl Washington, Sherman Douglas and Rony Seikaly on the same team. Later we had Douglas, Derrick Coleman, Stevie Thompson and Billy Owens on the same team. Then came the first probation. The allegations, the investigation and the penalties led to a period where we could not afford to make another mistake and lost prominent players to other programs. We were saved mostly by a sleeper in the form of Lawrence Moten and a blue-chipper who grew up in neighboring Rochester and always wanted to play for SU, John Wallace, who even led us to the national championship game as a senior. Finally the recruiting began to open up again with a five man class in 1996. I still recall the numbers from one source: Winfred Walton was listed as the #8 recruit in the nation, Ramel Lloyd #19, LaSean Howard #38 ‘Dedrick’ (Etan) Thomas #45 and Jason Hart #64. The gloves were off. Ironically only the bottom two recruits stayed for four years and Thomas and Hart were mainstays of our fine 2000 team that won its first 19 games and led national champion Michigan State by 14 points in the second half of our NCAA game against them. Then came the classes of 2001 and 2002 that created the 2003 national championship team. Some recruiting failures caused what now seems like a brief slump in the late 2000’s but then came 2009-2014, followed by another probation. That put us back on eggshells again but with no one on the level of a Moten or Wallace to keep us above the 20 win level. Now with the commitment of 5 star recruits Benny Williams for next year and Dior Johnson for the year after that and rumors of other such commitments we seem to be building towards a peak. Was it just the distance between this last probation and now or is this an attempt to get Jim Boeheim that last title? (Update: Dior Johnson has decommitted but we are in the hunt for other top recruits for the 2022 class.)
What we will need to return to Top Ten teams with a chance to win it all is to become once again a team capable of dominating on both ends of the court rather than an “offensive” or a “defensive” team. Looking at this year’s roster I think we’ll have little trouble scoring against most teams. The quality of this team will depend on how much improved our defense can be. That is the primary thing to look for this year.
Another thing to look for is the complexity of decisions that need to be made about his players. The NCAA allows basketball teams to have 13 players on scholarship. Jim has traditionally not used all those scholarships on recruited players, preferring to limit that to 10-11 players and give the others to deserving walk-ons. (He himself had been a walk-on when he played here.) He normally boils his rotation down to 7-8 players by the end of the season and 10-11 guys gives him enough competition and emergency depth as well as the ability to scrimmage with recruited players vs. recruited players. Anybody beyond those 10-11 players isn’t going to play much and Jim doesn’t like dealing with disgruntled players. Better to give those spots to those who feel lucky to be on the team.
The 2018 season showed how this can work. We started out with 10 players but one guy never showed up. One guy left the team after the first two weeks of the season. A third player ripped up his knee halfway through the season, leaving us with 7 recruited players. But in basketball your real depth is the number of players who have proven to the coach they can be more of an asset than a liability in a close game against a good team, plus the number of additional positions those players can play. That determines the number of different combinations you can use. The guys we had lost had not yet demonstrated they could be a part of that group: the main rotation was intact. That was enough to win 3 NCAA tournament games and push Duke to the limit in a 65-69 loss in the Sweet 16
But last season we had 12 recruited players on scholarship. At one time it was 13 but Oshae Brissett jumped to the NBA. I asked Jim Boeheim on his radio show if this represented a change in philosophy: did he want the “next man up” to already be here, learning his program instead of trying to use walk-ons or pick up a late transfer or a late recruit, unfamiliar with his system? His response: “100% correct. You’ve got to protect the program.” The 12 guys came in handy as we redshirted one and two others both opted for surgery, shutting down their year early to preserve a year of eligibility. That got us down to 9 guys. After the season was over, anticipating the new transfer rule when there won’t be a penalty, three guys, (all our reserve guards), hit the transfer portal looking for somewhere they could start. Then our star player, Elijah Hughes, jumped to the NBA.
This year we have a full complement of 13 recruited players. That gives us something approaching football-like overall depth. Football had 22 starters plus three specialists, (placekicker, punter, long snapper) but allows 85 scholarships. That’s a ratio of 3.4 scholarships for every starter. 13 recruited players for 5 positions is 2.6. There may be a drop-off but football doesn’t run out of guys and neither will Jim Boeheim this year.
But the extra players can also create extra problems. Jim likes to boil it down to 7-8 guys for continuity reasons: players who play a lot with each other will work together better, knowing each other’s moves. Also, he’d rather have his best guys in there while the opposing coach shuffles players in and out to give them all playing time and to wear us down. He likes when the best of our players play against the less-than-their-best players. Because college ball is a 40 minute game, of which we play 30 something a year and they are full of TV time outs, Jim doesn’t believe fatigue is a big factor and he prefers quantity to quality.
But now he’s got both and deciding how to take advantage of the talents of these players – and how to retain them when they can leave without penalty can provide some headaches. For example, let’s look at the question of how Alan Griffin, a transfer from Illinois, (no relation to Jim’s former point guard and current assistant Allen Griffin), might be used this year. He’s a high scoring swing-man who played back-up guard for the Illini, behind a guard who was a better defensive player. People see Griffin as a replacement for Hughes, who was a small forward. Besides Griffin, our 12 scholarship players divide neatly into four groups: 4 centers, 4 forwards and 4 guards. How Griffin in used will impact every one of those players.
If Griffin never came, our starting forwards would be Marek Dolezaj and Quincy Guerrier. Marek will be our best all-around player, a 6-10 guy who can score a little but is the team’s best passer and biggest hustler and who can also rebound and block shots. Casey Stengel was once asked the secret of his success and cryptically replied that “I never play a game without my man”. The questioner didn’t know who that was but realized that Stengel always had Yogi Berra in the game in some capacity, even when he wasn’t catching. Marek will be Jim’s “man” this year because the offense runs so much more smoothly when he’s in there and he can help the team in so many other ways. Guerrier is the team’s strongest player, (and one of our few players in recent years noted for that), and showed late last season that he can drive to the basket to score and rebound well enough to collect double-doubles. Behind them are Robert Braswell, an athletic 6-7 player who put up some amazing numbers in a limited role and is still waiting his chance to show what he can do. Rumor has it that he considered leaving last year but decided to stay. The acquisition of Griffin was probably not good news to him. Then there’s Woody Newton, a 6-8 freshman who proclaimed himself “the nation’s #1 lock down defender” in high school last year. I don’t know if he is or not but I’d like to find out, since we are looking to improve our defense. If Griffin plays small forward, Guerrier will be relegated to a 6th man type role when we hoped he would find his shot and develop into a star. Braswell will play little and may decide, finally, to leave. Newton might be redshirted. Boeheim may, as he has done in this first three years here, play Marek at center against teams that don’t have big, muscular centers. And that would impact the four centers. Bourama Sidibe seems primed for a big senior year and jessie Edwards, John Bol Ajak and Frank Anselem all what to show what they can do and prove that they would be the best replacement for Bourama next year. How do they do that if Dolezaj is playing center to get him on the court?
If Griffin plays guard for us, as he did for Illinois, the biggest impact will be on the coach’s son, Buddy Boeheim, our shooting guard, who averaged 15.3 points a game last year. Can Griffin do more for us than Buddy at that position? Would he share time and the coach would go with the hot hand? The returning point guard is Joe Gerard who averaged 12.4. Joe scored 50 points a game in high school and, like the player he’s most compared to, Gerry McNamara, proved he could also be an acceptable point guard at this level. But here comes Kadary Richmond, 4 inches taller than Joe who has wowed people in practice with his point guard skills on both offense and defense. Neither Joe nor Buddy was considered a good defensive player and Kadary could really improve us in that spot. I had thought that we’d sometimes see Kadari and Joe in there together and sometimes with Buddy in a three-man rotation. But if Griffin plays there, he’ll split time with Buddy and Joe and Kadari will split time with each other. The other guard is legacy recruit Chaz Owens., who is not the player his father Billy was but has decent all-around skills and could help us at some point. But with Griffin in the backcourt, he won’t be needed.
What it all comes to is that Alan Griffin is the first domino in a row no matter where you put him. Each decision Jim Boeheim makes about him will impact everyone else. Such is college basketball, circa 2020.
In the first game, we were 22 for 39 inside the arc, (56.4%). UNC was 22/38 (57.9%)
In the second game, we were 21 for 40 inside the arc, (52.5%). UNC was 18/44 (40.9%)
In the first game, we were 6 for 24 outside the arc, (25.0%). UNC was 11/26 (42.3%)
In the second game, we were 7 for 21 outside the arc, (33.3%). UNC was 2/16 (12.5%)
In the first game, we were 17 for 19 from the line. (89.5%) UNC was 15 for 17 (88.2%)
In the second game, we were 18 for 28 from the line (64.3%) UNC was 11 for 13 (84.6%)
In the first game, we had 38 points in the “Inner Sanctum”, (the paint). UNC had 32.
In the second game, we had 34 points in the IS and so did UNC.
In the first game, we had 6 points in the “Twilight Zone”, (between the paint and the arc). UNC had 12
In the second game, we had 8 points in the TZ. UNC had 2.
In the first game we, had 18 points from the “Outer Limits”, (beyond the arc). UNC had 33.
In the second game, we had 21 points from the OL. UNC had 6.
We weren’t more efficient on offense in the first game: we played much better defense in the second game.
In the first game, we rebounded 10 of our 36 misses (27.8%). UNC rebounded 13 of 32, (40.6%)
In the second game, we rebounded 10 of our 39 misses (25.6%). UNC rebounded 13 of 42 (31.0%)
So our offensive rebounding didn’t improve but our defensive rebounding did.
In the first game, we had 9 turnovers. UNC had 10.
In the second game, we had 8 turnovers. UNC had 18.
Again, we stepped up our defense.
In the first game we scored 16 points off turnovers and second chances. UNC scored 37.
In the second game, we scored 35 points off second chances and turnovers. UNC scored 14
In the first game, we had 10 fast break points. UNC had 11.
In the second game, we had 15 fast break points. UNC had 2.
We were far more opportunistic in the second game. And those opportunities came from our defense.
Did that represent a turn-around for last year’s defensively-challenged team? Would they do what our 2013, 2016 and 2018 teams did- make a strong post-season run by playing fanatical defense? We’ll never know. But we do know the importance of defense.
Lindy’s asked “How did this program become a perennial NCAA Tournament bubble team?” That’s a good name for this era in SU basketball - the ‘Bubble Team Era’. We haven’t always been on the bubble in this era- we voluntarily excused ourselves from post season play in 2015 in an effort to get the NCAA to lessen sanctions on us, (did it work? – who knows what they were going to do to us?). In 2016 we were a 10 seed and didn’t need to play in a play-in game, (which is for 11 and 16 seeds). In 2017 we were an NIT team. In 2018 we were an 11 seed and won a play-in game. In 2019 we were an 8 seed and didn’t have to win a play-in game. Last year’s team looked as if it were headed for the NIT until that North Carolina game. We probably had to win the ACC Tournament to avoid that fate. But to me a ‘bubble team’ is a team that winds up the regular season in the teens in victories with double figures in losses. At the end of these regular seasons we were: 18-13, 19-12, 18-13, 19-12, 19-12, 17-14. Lather, rinse, repeat.
But those teams were not identical. The 2015 team out-scored its opposition 67.6-63.4 (+4.2). 2016: 70.0-65.1 (+4.9), 2017: 76.3-71.1 (+5.2), 2018: 66.6-63.8 (+2.8), 2019: 69.7-66.1, (+3.6), 2020: 74.3-69.3 (+5.0). It’s interesting that the two highest point differentials belong to the one NIT and the likely NIT team. Being more offensively explosive makes it more likely that you will put some space between you and your opposition. (Last year we won four ACC games by at least 23 points – only Duke had more such wins). But it is defense that keeps control of games, protecting leads or at least giving you a chance to scrape up enough points to win when the offense malfunctions. If you have a 5 minute drought, you might fall behind by 5-6 points instead of 12 or 15. Defense also keys comebacks- you have to stop the other team from scoring, not just trade baskets. Finally, defense can produce offense through turnovers, defensive rebounds and fast breaks. Offense doesn’t produce defense. The ‘defensive’ teams in this stretch made three NCAA tournaments, (and the 2015 might well have made it four), and won 7 games in those tournaments, going to the Final Four in in 2016 and the Sweet 16 in 2018, where they almost beat Duke. (If Dolezaj hadn’t gotten into foul trouble for the first time all year…). Those miracle comebacks against Gonzaga and Virginia in 2016 were keyed by our use of defensive pressure. So if we have a choice between being an ‘offensive’ team, (in the basketball sense) for a ‘defensive’ team, we should choose the ‘defensive team.
But none of us are satisfied by that. We want to get off the bubble and get as far away from it as we can. We want to go back to the giddy days of the early 2010’s, when we had consecutive season of 28-10, 30-5, 27-8, 34-3, 30-10 and 28-6. Three of those teams achieved a #1 ranking for a combined 9 weeks. The 2009 team won that famous 6 overtime game. The 2010 was probably the best team in the country but we lost our center just before the NCAA tournament. The 2011 team is our least remembered team from that period, but wouldn’t we love to have a 27-8 record this year? That team won their first 18 games and the 2014 team their first 25. The 2012 team had the best numerical record we’ve ever had. I don’t think they were as good as Kentucky but I would love to have taken them on with our full roster available. Oh, and the 2013 team was the one that made the Final Four.
That has been our problem over the years: the wrong SU teams make the Final Four. We’ve had 5 teams achieve a #1 ranking and 6 teams make the Final Four. That’s 11 different teams. The 1975 team was a Cinderella team whose coach turned into a pumpkin in San Diego. (Not the head coach- the Cinderella coach.) The 1987 team was a 2 seed that probably was the best team there but let the championship slip away. the 1996 team was a 4 seed that used its zone to over-achieve. Both Kentucky and UMASS were clearly better. Our 2003 champions were a 3 seed and probably the best team, although we won it by the skin of our teeth. Our 2013 team was a 4 seed and our 2016 team the only 10 seed ever to make the Final Four. Meanwhile, the Louie and Bouie teams, (especially the last one), all the teams from 1986-1991, our 2000 and all of our 2009-14 teams were arguably as worthy. If we could have gotten more of them there, we’d have more than the one title we possess.
Jim Boeheim is going to turn 76 years old on November 17th. He is the oldest man ever to coach in Division I men's basketball. He has been the head coach here for a Syracuse-like 44 seasons. We’ve played 1,496 games in that time, (JB missed 11 of them for health reasons and an NCAA suspension). That’s 51% of all the games Syracuse has ever played. We’ve won 1083 of those games, (the NCAA only recognizes 982 due to their penalties but hasn’t given those other 101 game to the other team), 54% of all the wins in school history. His son Buddy is a junior on this year’s team. It’s been suspected that he might retire when Buddy graduates. It’s also been suspected that he wants to go out on top, (who wouldn’t?) We’d like to have a team that can make that dream come true.
The best recruiting we’ve ever done was in the late 80’s. We had Pearl Washington, Sherman Douglas and Rony Seikaly on the same team. Later we had Douglas, Derrick Coleman, Stevie Thompson and Billy Owens on the same team. Then came the first probation. The allegations, the investigation and the penalties led to a period where we could not afford to make another mistake and lost prominent players to other programs. We were saved mostly by a sleeper in the form of Lawrence Moten and a blue-chipper who grew up in neighboring Rochester and always wanted to play for SU, John Wallace, who even led us to the national championship game as a senior. Finally the recruiting began to open up again with a five man class in 1996. I still recall the numbers from one source: Winfred Walton was listed as the #8 recruit in the nation, Ramel Lloyd #19, LaSean Howard #38 ‘Dedrick’ (Etan) Thomas #45 and Jason Hart #64. The gloves were off. Ironically only the bottom two recruits stayed for four years and Thomas and Hart were mainstays of our fine 2000 team that won its first 19 games and led national champion Michigan State by 14 points in the second half of our NCAA game against them. Then came the classes of 2001 and 2002 that created the 2003 national championship team. Some recruiting failures caused what now seems like a brief slump in the late 2000’s but then came 2009-2014, followed by another probation. That put us back on eggshells again but with no one on the level of a Moten or Wallace to keep us above the 20 win level. Now with the commitment of 5 star recruits Benny Williams for next year and Dior Johnson for the year after that and rumors of other such commitments we seem to be building towards a peak. Was it just the distance between this last probation and now or is this an attempt to get Jim Boeheim that last title? (Update: Dior Johnson has decommitted but we are in the hunt for other top recruits for the 2022 class.)
What we will need to return to Top Ten teams with a chance to win it all is to become once again a team capable of dominating on both ends of the court rather than an “offensive” or a “defensive” team. Looking at this year’s roster I think we’ll have little trouble scoring against most teams. The quality of this team will depend on how much improved our defense can be. That is the primary thing to look for this year.
Another thing to look for is the complexity of decisions that need to be made about his players. The NCAA allows basketball teams to have 13 players on scholarship. Jim has traditionally not used all those scholarships on recruited players, preferring to limit that to 10-11 players and give the others to deserving walk-ons. (He himself had been a walk-on when he played here.) He normally boils his rotation down to 7-8 players by the end of the season and 10-11 guys gives him enough competition and emergency depth as well as the ability to scrimmage with recruited players vs. recruited players. Anybody beyond those 10-11 players isn’t going to play much and Jim doesn’t like dealing with disgruntled players. Better to give those spots to those who feel lucky to be on the team.
The 2018 season showed how this can work. We started out with 10 players but one guy never showed up. One guy left the team after the first two weeks of the season. A third player ripped up his knee halfway through the season, leaving us with 7 recruited players. But in basketball your real depth is the number of players who have proven to the coach they can be more of an asset than a liability in a close game against a good team, plus the number of additional positions those players can play. That determines the number of different combinations you can use. The guys we had lost had not yet demonstrated they could be a part of that group: the main rotation was intact. That was enough to win 3 NCAA tournament games and push Duke to the limit in a 65-69 loss in the Sweet 16
But last season we had 12 recruited players on scholarship. At one time it was 13 but Oshae Brissett jumped to the NBA. I asked Jim Boeheim on his radio show if this represented a change in philosophy: did he want the “next man up” to already be here, learning his program instead of trying to use walk-ons or pick up a late transfer or a late recruit, unfamiliar with his system? His response: “100% correct. You’ve got to protect the program.” The 12 guys came in handy as we redshirted one and two others both opted for surgery, shutting down their year early to preserve a year of eligibility. That got us down to 9 guys. After the season was over, anticipating the new transfer rule when there won’t be a penalty, three guys, (all our reserve guards), hit the transfer portal looking for somewhere they could start. Then our star player, Elijah Hughes, jumped to the NBA.
This year we have a full complement of 13 recruited players. That gives us something approaching football-like overall depth. Football had 22 starters plus three specialists, (placekicker, punter, long snapper) but allows 85 scholarships. That’s a ratio of 3.4 scholarships for every starter. 13 recruited players for 5 positions is 2.6. There may be a drop-off but football doesn’t run out of guys and neither will Jim Boeheim this year.
But the extra players can also create extra problems. Jim likes to boil it down to 7-8 guys for continuity reasons: players who play a lot with each other will work together better, knowing each other’s moves. Also, he’d rather have his best guys in there while the opposing coach shuffles players in and out to give them all playing time and to wear us down. He likes when the best of our players play against the less-than-their-best players. Because college ball is a 40 minute game, of which we play 30 something a year and they are full of TV time outs, Jim doesn’t believe fatigue is a big factor and he prefers quantity to quality.
But now he’s got both and deciding how to take advantage of the talents of these players – and how to retain them when they can leave without penalty can provide some headaches. For example, let’s look at the question of how Alan Griffin, a transfer from Illinois, (no relation to Jim’s former point guard and current assistant Allen Griffin), might be used this year. He’s a high scoring swing-man who played back-up guard for the Illini, behind a guard who was a better defensive player. People see Griffin as a replacement for Hughes, who was a small forward. Besides Griffin, our 12 scholarship players divide neatly into four groups: 4 centers, 4 forwards and 4 guards. How Griffin in used will impact every one of those players.
If Griffin never came, our starting forwards would be Marek Dolezaj and Quincy Guerrier. Marek will be our best all-around player, a 6-10 guy who can score a little but is the team’s best passer and biggest hustler and who can also rebound and block shots. Casey Stengel was once asked the secret of his success and cryptically replied that “I never play a game without my man”. The questioner didn’t know who that was but realized that Stengel always had Yogi Berra in the game in some capacity, even when he wasn’t catching. Marek will be Jim’s “man” this year because the offense runs so much more smoothly when he’s in there and he can help the team in so many other ways. Guerrier is the team’s strongest player, (and one of our few players in recent years noted for that), and showed late last season that he can drive to the basket to score and rebound well enough to collect double-doubles. Behind them are Robert Braswell, an athletic 6-7 player who put up some amazing numbers in a limited role and is still waiting his chance to show what he can do. Rumor has it that he considered leaving last year but decided to stay. The acquisition of Griffin was probably not good news to him. Then there’s Woody Newton, a 6-8 freshman who proclaimed himself “the nation’s #1 lock down defender” in high school last year. I don’t know if he is or not but I’d like to find out, since we are looking to improve our defense. If Griffin plays small forward, Guerrier will be relegated to a 6th man type role when we hoped he would find his shot and develop into a star. Braswell will play little and may decide, finally, to leave. Newton might be redshirted. Boeheim may, as he has done in this first three years here, play Marek at center against teams that don’t have big, muscular centers. And that would impact the four centers. Bourama Sidibe seems primed for a big senior year and jessie Edwards, John Bol Ajak and Frank Anselem all what to show what they can do and prove that they would be the best replacement for Bourama next year. How do they do that if Dolezaj is playing center to get him on the court?
If Griffin plays guard for us, as he did for Illinois, the biggest impact will be on the coach’s son, Buddy Boeheim, our shooting guard, who averaged 15.3 points a game last year. Can Griffin do more for us than Buddy at that position? Would he share time and the coach would go with the hot hand? The returning point guard is Joe Gerard who averaged 12.4. Joe scored 50 points a game in high school and, like the player he’s most compared to, Gerry McNamara, proved he could also be an acceptable point guard at this level. But here comes Kadary Richmond, 4 inches taller than Joe who has wowed people in practice with his point guard skills on both offense and defense. Neither Joe nor Buddy was considered a good defensive player and Kadary could really improve us in that spot. I had thought that we’d sometimes see Kadari and Joe in there together and sometimes with Buddy in a three-man rotation. But if Griffin plays there, he’ll split time with Buddy and Joe and Kadari will split time with each other. The other guard is legacy recruit Chaz Owens., who is not the player his father Billy was but has decent all-around skills and could help us at some point. But with Griffin in the backcourt, he won’t be needed.
What it all comes to is that Alan Griffin is the first domino in a row no matter where you put him. Each decision Jim Boeheim makes about him will impact everyone else. Such is college basketball, circa 2020.
