My Questions for Tonight's Jim Boeheim Show | Syracusefan.com

My Questions for Tonight's Jim Boeheim Show

SWC75

Bored Historian
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
32,881
Like
63,298
Jim Boeheim’s radio show is on Thursdays, (Wednesdays until the Dino Babers Show ends) from 7-8 or 9PM on ESPN Radio in Syracuse, which is AM1200 or FM 97.7 on the dial. The show is at Carrabba's Italian Grill at 550 Towne Drive, Fayetteville, NY. The first hour, hosted by Matt Park, the Voice of the Orange, is on their general network. The second hour, which usually begins with the conference season, is hosted by Gomez, a local radio personality. Last year they did a third half hour segment on Twitch.
Their schedule: Americu Jim Boeheim Show Starts Nov. 9 - Syracuse University Athletics

You can call into the show locally at 315-424-8599 or nationally at 1-888-746-2873. For Gomez’s portion, use 315-424-8599. Or you can submit questions from this page:
Submit a Question! - Syracuse University Athletics
Or on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MattPark1 or https://twitter.com/hashtag/AskBoeheim?src=hashtag_click

The show can be heard in Syracuse on FM 99.5. It’s sometime simulcast on AM 1200 or FM 97.7. You can also get it on: TuneIn | Free Internet Radio | Live News, Sports, Music, and Podcasts
There’s now a third segment where Jim and Gomez can be seen on camera at:
The early shows tend to be in a one-hour format. I'll post a summary of them the same night. When they do two hour shows. I will do two posts: the Matt Park segment the night of the show and the Gomez segment the next day.


MY QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

For the Matt Park Segment:

“Coach, it bothers me when I hear that only Quad One and Quad Two games matter and the only games we get positive credit is to win a game in those quads. There’s no difference between close losses and blow-out losses. Shouldn’t we have a system that gives some credit for every game but more for games against better opponents, more for road games, more for wins, more for close losses, etc.?”

For the Gomez segment:

“Coach, is there a drill for saving the ball inbounds to teammates? It seemed like every time we tried to do that, the ball went right to a North Carolina player.”

(For the third segment on Twitch I’ll improvise a question or two after listening to the rest of the show.)
 
Maybe he will answer the question he walked out of at the last presser

troll dancing GIF
 
The selection committee does factor in advanced metrics that discern close losses from blowout losses (and close wins vs. blowout wins, on the flip side). But the Quad system is easier for fans to digest, and wins and losses have to matter more than how much you won or lost by.
 
For the Matt Park Segment:

“Coach, it bothers me when I hear that only Quad One and Quad Two games matter and the only games we get positive credit is to win a game in those quads. There’s no difference between close losses and blow-out losses. Shouldn’t we have a system that gives some credit for every game but more for games against better opponents, more for road games, more for wins, more for close losses, etc.?”

Apologies, for picking apart this questions but I think the system does consider most of those things.

1. You state it bothers you when people say only Quad one and Quad Two games matter... but then you say the system should give more credit for games against better opponents -- which is exactly what the quad system does -- it is the entire purpose of classifying Quad1A, Quad 1, and Quad 2 games.

2. You state the system should give more credit for road games... Which it actually does -- a Q1 win at home is against a top 35 team, a Q1 win on the road is against a top 75 team. Further # of road wins is also a separate important metric that is looked at by the committee. In essence road wins are even more valued because Q1 and Q2 metrics is stretched for them, plus you also get credit in the road win metric column.

3. You want the system to give more credit for total wins. A system that gives more consideration to quality wins, more weight to total wins and more weight to close losses?... that's really confusing as they to some degree run counter to each other.

4. You want the system to value close losses. It does but only to a limited degree. Inherently NET does consider margin as one of its factors in its calculation, so the process does capture it to a limited degree since standalone NET is one of the metrics considered.

That being said, Wins and losses (and against who and where) should ultimately be the most important factors no matter the score and that is the way the system generally works with some holes of course.
 
Last edited:
Just combine NIT and NCAA tournaments. Play NIT first, and let the final 4 of the NIT to be the 61-64 spots on the NCAA. Make the final 4 of one the first 4 of the other.
 
Jim Boeheim’s radio show is on Thursdays, (Wednesdays until the Dino Babers Show ends) from 7-8 or 9PM on ESPN Radio in Syracuse, which is AM1200 or FM 97.7 on the dial. The show is at Carrabba's Italian Grill at 550 Towne Drive, Fayetteville, NY. The first hour, hosted by Matt Park, the Voice of the Orange, is on their general network. The second hour, which usually begins with the conference season, is hosted by Gomez, a local radio personality. Last year they did a third half hour segment on Twitch.
Their schedule: Americu Jim Boeheim Show Starts Nov. 9 - Syracuse University Athletics

You can call into the show locally at 315-424-8599 or nationally at 1-888-746-2873. For Gomez’s portion, use 315-424-8599. Or you can submit questions from this page:
Submit a Question! - Syracuse University Athletics
Or on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MattPark1 or https://twitter.com/hashtag/AskBoeheim?src=hashtag_click

The show can be heard in Syracuse on FM 99.5. It’s sometime simulcast on AM 1200 or FM 97.7. You can also get it on: TuneIn | Free Internet Radio | Live News, Sports, Music, and Podcasts
There’s now a third segment where Jim and Gomez can be seen on camera at:
The early shows tend to be in a one-hour format. I'll post a summary of them the same night. When they do two hour shows. I will do two posts: the Matt Park segment the night of the show and the Gomez segment the next day.


MY QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

For the Matt Park Segment:

“Coach, it bothers me when I hear that only Quad One and Quad Two games matter and the only games we get positive credit is to win a game in those quads. There’s no difference between close losses and blow-out losses. Shouldn’t we have a system that gives some credit for every game but more for games against better opponents, more for road games, more for wins, more for close losses, etc.?”

For the Gomez segment:

“Coach, is there a drill for saving the ball inbounds to teammates? It seemed like every time we tried to do that, the ball went right to a North Carolina player.”

(For the third segment on Twitch I’ll improvise a question or two after listening to the rest of the show.)
I can already hear his response to the inbound drill question LOL
 
Just combine NIT and NCAA tournaments. Play NIT first, and let the final 4 of the NIT to be the 61-64 spots on the NCAA. Make the final 4 of one the first 4 of the other.

There are only 4 days between the end of the conference tournaments and the NCAA.

Timing just can't work to fit in 3 games before hand.
If you are going to expand just increase the play ins, so there is more importance to be a top 6 seed for example.
 
Apologies, for picking apart this questions but I think the system does consider most of those things.

1. You state it bothers you when people say only Quad one and Quad Two games matter... but then you say the system should give more credit for games against better opponents -- which is exactly what the quad system does -- it is the entire purpose of classifying Quad1A, Quad 1, and Quad 2 games.

2. You state the system should give more credit for road games... Which it actually does -- a Q1 win at home is against a top 35 team, a Q1 win on the road is against a top 75 team. Further # of road wins is also a separate important metric that is looked at by the committee. In essence road wins are even more valued because Q1 and Q2 metrics is stretched for them, plus you also get credit in the road win metric column.

3. You want the system to give more credit for total wins. A system that gives more consideration to quality wins, more weight to total wins and more weight to close losses?... that's really confusing as they to some degree run counter to each other.

4. You want the system to value close losses. It does but only to a limited degree. Inherently NET does consider margin as one of its factors in its calculation, so the process does capture it to a limited degree since standalone NET is one of the metrics considered.

That being said, Wins and losses (and against who and where) should ultimately be the most important factors no matter the score and that is the way the system generally works with some holes of course.


What we are told is that the Q1 +2 games are the only ones that matter and you have to win them. The other games are only important to avoid bad losses. I'd like a system where you get some credit for every game and play hard for 40 minutes because the net result of every game matters.

Maybe we have that and the system has been misrepresented by the media?
 
Just combine NIT and NCAA tournaments. Play NIT first, and let the final 4 of the NIT to be the 61-64 spots on the NCAA. Make the final 4 of one the first 4 of the other.
JB has long maintained that he believes everyone should be allowed in the tournament.

Google lists 351 schools in Division one college basketball. This would require an additional week of tournament play, i.e., day one could begin with all schools wishing to enter (minus top seeded 60). Each day cuts the list in half. Tournament officials will find a way of scheduling to end the week with 4, who will join the other 60.

This would also require ranking 1-351 schools and allow everyone an opportunity to advance and would be the fairest way to administer the tournament. In this day and age, at season's end, no one get's left out and everyone has a chance. Last year the catholic school from New Jersey did pretty well.
 
Just combine NIT and NCAA tournaments. Play NIT first, and let the final 4 of the NIT to be the 61-64 spots on the NCAA. Make the final 4 of one the first 4 of the other.
You want a month off between conference tourneys and the NCAA Tournament?
 
Just combine NIT and NCAA tournaments. Play NIT first, and let the final 4 of the NIT to be the 61-64 spots on the NCAA. Make the final 4 of one the first 4 of the other.
And the rest of the NCAA tournament teams just sit at home for a month? lol
 
I remember learning "Don't save the ball under your own basket" when I was in middle school. I'm sure being in front of 20,000 people in a game with that kind of pressure can change things, but geez...
 
Stop with the everyone should get in talk. Think about the number of teams with losing records that would get in if that were to be the rule. Yuck.

I love the suspense of selection Sunday. I love the current format. Leave it alone.
 
JB has long maintained that he believes everyone should be allowed in the tournament.

Google lists 351 schools in Division one college basketball. This would require an additional week of tournament play, i.e., day one could begin with all schools wishing to enter (minus top seeded 60). Each day cuts the list in half. Tournament officials will find a way of scheduling to end the week with 4, who will join the other 60.

This would also require ranking 1-351 schools and allow everyone an opportunity to advance and would be the fairest way to administer the tournament. In this day and age, at season's end, no one get's left out and everyone has a chance. Last year the catholic school from New Jersey did pretty well.

I've never heard JB say everyone should be in. I've heard him say the tournament should be expanded.

I think they should dump the post-season NIT and put those teams in the tournament. Give auto bid to any team that wins a regular season championship and very conference tournament winner. Concentrate on the pre-season NIT, (which should be a championship of Catholic schools - it could raise money for Catholic Charities).
 
What we are told is that the Q1 +2 games are the only ones that matter and you have to win them. The other games are only important to avoid bad losses. I'd like a system where you get some credit for every game and play hard for 40 minutes because the net result of every game matters.

Maybe we have that and the system has been misrepresented by the media?
Breaking news: we need to beat good teams.

We haven’t.

That’s a problem.
 
What we are told is that the Q1 +2 games are the only ones that matter and you have to win them. The other games are only important to avoid bad losses. I'd like a system where you get some credit for every game and play hard for 40 minutes because the net result of every game matters.

Maybe we have that and the system has been misrepresented by the media?

The number you are probably looking for then as the primary basis for selection is something like KenPom. Its something I have been OK with in the past myself as a way to pick teams as its a non subjective formula (other than the formula itself)... that is a clear advantage... but there are clear disadvantages as well. Let's be clear however, under either criteria Syracuse is in a bad position this year.

KenPom is an efficiency based (i.e essentially margin based) ranking system that ranks teams on its schedule adjusted efficiency margin.

So if you are playing a team that has an adjusted efficiency margin of 10 points better than you, and you only lose by 2, your adjusted efficiency margin will actually increase and you move up the rankings a bit.

KP ratings can be an extra non key metric the margin can consider, and margin based rating systems are baked into part of the NET.

So they are considered in the selection process but are certainly not primary considerations like quality wins, or just plan who you beat and when.

If you chose something like KP to select all your teams there would be some advantages to it
a) it adjusts everything for SOS - so you don't necessarily get punished or rewarded because you have more Q1 or Q2 opportunities.
b) Its a non biased way to pick teams. The formula is was it is and it spits out information.

Here are the main disadvantages;
1) Winning or losing should matter:
If Team A beats Team B 71-70, it basically gets treated the exact same as whether they lost 70-71 under KP. Your efficiency margin gets impacted a bit if you lose, but at the end of the day you are on larger equal footing win or lose.

Winning or losing that game, especially if its a key game, should matter to the winner or loser.

2) It rewards teams that get more blowout wins (when adjusted for schedule). It basically places equal importance to a Q1 or Q4 game, and basically analyzes the result by how much you beat them vs expectations. Is that how you want to pick teams?

At the end of the day if the committee favoured KP more, there might be a handful of teams that are different than how the committee currently focuses on who you beat and how good they were (and if was on the road)
 
Just to add to the above, even if we add more weight to how we did in Q3 and Q4 games, that still does us zero favours this year.

A #50 KP team (which would typically be the cutoff for the NCAA) if that was your baseline for selection has an AdjEM of 14.0 this year. Colgate is 4.5. Bryant is -1.7. When you add home court and pace of play, that means Syracuse should have won those games by 10 and 14 points respectively (24 points total) and we lost them by 13 points total. That 37 point swing over 2 games is hard to make up over the rest of your OOC.
 
Based on what we've done so far, we probably wouldn't make a 68-team field by any system, including the one I proposed. I just don't like the idea that only certain games 'count'. I'd like a system where every game against a D1 foe matters.
 
What we are told is that the Q1 +2 games are the only ones that matter and you have to win them. The other games are only important to avoid bad losses. I'd like a system where you get some credit for every game and play hard for 40 minutes because the net result of every game matters.

Maybe we have that and the system has been misrepresented by the media?
All games matter.

You have to win at least some Q1 & Q2 games. But you also must "avoid bad losses" against Q3 & Q4. Avoiding a loss is another way of saying "win".
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,215
Messages
4,756,609
Members
5,944
Latest member
cusethunder

Online statistics

Members online
40
Guests online
721
Total visitors
761


Top Bottom