NIT

[81South]

We sucked….everyone gets it. But go ahead and continue to beat the dead horse.

 

[PhatOrange]

Well that sucks I was really hoping to see Symir run the team one more time.

 

[RF2044]

Well that sucks I was really hoping to see Symir run the team one more time.

Not going to lie... when I read your post, my initial reaction was to immediately hop over to Syracuse.com to see if Symir announced he was transferring.

WHEW!!!

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

It wouldn't surprise me if the NIT invited Syracuse. They want to have ratings and make money and Syracuse would deliver viewers.

The NIT has guaranteed TV money, despite the ratings. Not sure how ticket revenues are shared.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Remember when you couldn’t have a NCAA men’s lacrosse final four without Syracuse. This is that moment for hoops.

 

[kingtidge]

This team wasn't CBI caliber. That says a whole lot about how this season went for the team we all root for. That it transpired during a year when the ACC was unbelievably weak, and should have made our path to winning games that much easier also provides evidence about how about our lack of ability to compete.

TBF, we may have declined the CBI invite as well...

Look at it this way, we'd be expected to win that tournament - period.

Imagine this team losing to the University of North Colorado in the 2nd round of the CBI and JB getting on the presser justifying it as "they are a really good team..."

If we didn't walk that tournament, it would be a big negative and our team has shown they can basically lose to any team at any time. Lots of risk in underperforming.

 

[jgeorge322]

No. Much better against Marathon Oil. Actually, I don't think anyone is celebrating 1000 (Part Deux). But maybe the NCAA will reconsider the 101 this summer and we can all celebrate 1100.

Thats interesting that we wont celebrate it. We probably wont since he already got 1000. Itd be like a tacit admission the punishments were reasonable

 

[SWC75]

And once again, by all of the objective standards, we weren't competitive. As evidenced by the net results.

You spent a lot of time talking about individual games, what ifs, and rationalizing about what the perception would be if we'd managed to win a few more games.

Breaking down the resume settles a lot of that debate. Pretty sobering to see that we were 0-10 against quadrant 1 opponents. Thar's a lot more informative than subjective hair splitting about what "competitive" means.

This team wasn't CBI caliber. That says a whole lot about how this season went for the team we all root for. That it transpired during a year when the ACC was unbelievably weak, and should have made our path to winning games that much easier also provides evidence about how about our lack of ability to compete.

Competitive means you stayed in the game and had a chance to win it at the end. Uncompetitive means you have no shot. Successful means you won most of those games, which we did not do. We need to improve so we can be again be successful. We were uncompetitive with Duke the first two games but very competitive in the third game, but still lost.

Here is a very good summary of the season by Donna Ditota:

Syracuse’s 2021-22 basketball season in review: Defense, closing out games were biggest issues

The Orange finished 16-17 this year.

www.syracuse.com

"In nine Syracuse losses this season (at Georgetown, Virginia at home, Miami twice, at Wake Forest, FSU at home, at Notre Dame, at North Carolina, and Duke in Brooklyn), the Orange either led or was within four points or fewer with four minutes to play. SU could not make enough plays down the stretch of those games to win."

Don't treat every loss as if it were by 30 points. The margin of defeat tells you how much you have to improve to be successful. I agree that the state of the ACC this year suggests that the gap is wider than the scores make it appear. But the statement that "we don't have the players to compete with the teams we are playing" is a false statement. That's what I was responding to.

 

[RF2044]

Competitive means you stayed in the game and had a chance to win it at the end. Uncompetitive means you have no shot. Successful means you won most of those games, which we did not do. We need to improve so we can be again be successful. We were uncompetitive with Duke the first two games but very competitive in the third game, but still lost.

Here is a very good summary of the season by Donna Ditota:

Syracuse’s 2021-22 basketball season in review: Defense, closing out games were biggest issues

The Orange finished 16-17 this year.

www.syracuse.com

"In nine Syracuse losses this season (at Georgetown, Virginia at home, Miami twice, at Wake Forest, FSU at home, at Notre Dame, at North Carolina, and Duke in Brooklyn), the Orange either led or was within four points or fewer with four minutes to play. SU could not make enough plays down the stretch of those games to win."

Don't treat every loss as if it were by 30 points. The margin of defeat tells you how much you have to improve to be successful. I agree that the state of the ACC this year suggests that the gap is wider than the scores make it appear. But the statement that "we don't have the players to compete with the teams we are playing" is a false statement. That's what I was responding to.

Again, it doesn't matter to me how you personally define "competitive," or what you're responding to.

I never said every loss was by 30 points -- more interpretive spin you're reading into this. This group of players couldn't handle the ball, couldn't execute at the end of games, couldn't defend, and was very poor in terms of defensive rebounding. It all amounts to the same -- 0-10 in quadrant 1 games, 5 losses against quadrant 3 opponents.

That's the epitome of not being competitive, and no amount of rationalization can put lipstick on that pig. That it occurred during a season when the ACC as a WHOLE wasn't competitive nationally should highlight even more how poorly the team performed, but apparently intellectual honesty is getting in the way.

I invite you to step back from individual games and take a look at the season in aggregate.

 

[SWC75]

Again, it doesn't matter to me how you personally define "competitive," or what you're responding to.

I never said every loss was by 30 points -- more interpretive spin you're reading into this. This group of players couldn't handle the ball, couldn't execute at the end of games, couldn't defend, and was very poor in terms of defensive rebounding. It all amounts to the same -- 0-10 in quadrant 1 games, 5 losses against quadrant 3 opponents.

That's the epitome of not being competitive, and no amount of rationalization can put lipstick on that pig. That it occurred during a season when the ACC as a WHOLE wasn't competitive nationally should highlight even more how poorly the team performed, but apparently intellectual honesty is getting in the way.

I invite you to step back from individual games and take a look at the season in aggregate.

The season in the aggregate stinks. We had our first losing season in 53 years. we were withing 3 winning seasons of tying UCLA's record and now it's over. I saw the whole thing. You can tell from the "Tribute to the Streak" thread how much that meant to me. I have never expressed any satisfaction with this season.

You are correct that this series of posts have really been about the definition of a word. All defeats reveal problems. They don't all reveal the same problems or the same level of problems. Close losses mean you need to get better and loses that are not close mean that you need to get a lot better. We needed to get a lot better at the beginning of the season to win games- We were losing one-sided games or games to teams that we should never have lost to. We needed to get better to win the many close games at the end of the season and a lot better to compete with Duke and be the kind of program we used to be.

But the guy who said that we didn't have the players to compete with the teams we were playing was wrong.

 

[Gotothehole]

Just embarrassing just embarrassing right now

 

[Fly Rodder]

"In nine Syracuse losses this season (at Georgetown, Virginia at home, Miami twice, at Wake Forest, FSU at home, at Notre Dame, at North Carolina, and Duke in Brooklyn), the Orange either led or was within four points or fewer with four minutes to play.

There are couple of ways to look at this,

1) I'm curious about how common this is. Because of the nature of basketball, I imagine that most teams can claim something similar. Just looking at BC's schedule, they lost 20 games this season, but 10 were by less than 10 points, which is just three possessions. However, I'm not curious enough to go through a bunch of mediocre teams and look at their game logs to check "led or was within four points or fewer with four minutes to play" and I'm fairly certain that no else did either.

2) If SU isn't closing out games, then maybe the iron-man 4x40 approach might not be putting the team in the best possession position to win. The players are going to be like, yeah, I can do that and few are going to want to come out. But it's on the head coach to manage the team when guys have their hands on their knees with 3 minutes to play and are walking up court or standing around instead of moving without the ball. It doesn't like much to lose a competitive advantage.

 

[miamicuse]

The streak is over, but then again, it's an unofficial streak anyway, if it were an official streak, it would have ended the year the wins were vacated anyways and it would have been a streak with an *.

 

[orangecuse]

Hugh Jackson went 3-36-1 as the Browns head coach. In quite a few of those losses (diehard/lifer Browns fan here) the game was right there for the taking. Perhaps, in his mind, he believed he had his team "competitive."

 

[jncuse]

There are couple of ways to look at this,

1) I'm curious about how common this is. Because of the nature of basketball, I imagine that most teams can claim something similar. Just looking at BC's schedule, they lost 20 games this season, but 10 were by less than 10 points, which is just three possessions. However, I'm not curious enough to go through a bunch of mediocre teams and look at their game logs to check "led or was within four points or fewer with four minutes to play" and I'm fairly certain that no else did either.

2) If SU isn't closing out games, then maybe the iron-man 4x40 approach might not be putting the team in the best possession position to win. The players are going to be like, yeah, I can do that and few are going to want to come out. But it's on the head coach to manage the team when guys have their hands on their knees with 3 minutes to play and are walking up court or standing around instead of moving without the ball. It doesn't like much to lose a competitive advantage.

Regarding #1, KenPom might help in that regard. It has a stat called "luck" and Syracuse is 310th in it (out of 358). This likely indicates we have not played well in close/late situations.

As KP is a possession efficiency (margin to a large degree) based system the theory is if you are winning more games than expected based on your efficiency you will be deemed to have positive luck -- it typically indicates you are winning more close games than expected. Vice versa if you are losing more games than expected based on your efficiency you will have negative luck. We have lots of negative "luck" this year,

Some will argue that "luck" is probably closer to "clutch" and that it should not be called luck at all. Our negative luck indicates that we have not been good in close/late situations this year.

 

[pfister1]

Regarding #1, KenPom might help in that regard. It has a stat called "luck" and Syracuse is 310th in it (out of 358). This likely indicates we have not played well in close/late situations.

As KP is a possession efficiency (margin to a large degree) based system the theory is if you are winning more games than expected based on your efficiency you will be deemed to have positive luck -- it typically indicates you are winning more close games than expected. Vice versa if you are losing more games than expected based on your efficiency you will have negative luck. We have lots of negative "luck" this year,

Some will argue that "luck" is probably closer to "clutch" and that it should not be called luck at all. Our negative luck indicates that we have not been good in close/late situations this year.

Hard to “like” this, but definitely can’t argue that we didn’t seem to be clutch this year. Oh yeah, and I do appreciate the KenPom perspective that your post offers, so I guess I “like” that part.

 

[tbonezone]

The streak is over, but then again, it's an unofficial streak anyway, if it were an official streak, it would have ended the year the wins were vacated anyways and it would have been a streak with an *.

heretic.

 

[CousCuse]

heretic.

View attachment 215650

That's great, great, great , great grandfather CousCuse.

 

[Orangefan1]

It really bothers me that we decided not to go to CBI though we could of had a winning season

 

[tbonezone]

"In nine Syracuse losses this season (at Georgetown, Virginia at home, Miami twice, at Wake Forest, FSU at home, at Notre Dame, at North Carolina, and Duke in Brooklyn), the Orange either led or was within four points or fewer with four minutes to play. SU could not make enough plays down the stretch of those games to win."

steve i need your address. want to send you a box of Honduras finest CLOSEBUTNO cigars. enjoy amigo.

 

[SWC75]

steve i need your address. want to send you a box of Honduras finest CLOSEBUTNO cigars. enjoy amigo.

View attachment 215651

I don't smoke. I ate a cigarette when I was 4 years old because the people on TV kept lauding its flavor. I did not agree.

 

[miamicuse]

It really bothers me that we decided not to go to CBI though we could of had a winning season

CBI is a sixteen team tournament. That means four rounds. We have to get to the championship game at least to have a winning record.

 

[kingtidge]

It really bothers me that we decided not to go to CBI though we could of had a winning season

Which is more bothersome?

Not taking a CBI invite or losing handily to Stephen F. Austin in the 2nd round??

If you say "could never happen!"...

I say, "toothpaste".

 

[Briancuse]

It really bothers me that we decided not to go to CBI though we could of had a winning season

The cbi is for low and mid majors. We are Syracuse if we weren't good enough to make the nit put the balls away and move on to next year.

 

[CousCuse]

put the balls away

What the...