NIT

[RF2044]

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.

SWC, as I mentioned in the other thread, you perform a valuable service for the board. As such, I apologize for responding in such a pointed manner, but it is pretty clear that you aren't viewing this objectively.

I'm borrowing information shamelessly by a post SUFan44 made today. You act like we either won games, or lost close ones -- when in actuality, that wasn't the case. From his post:

We lost 0 games by 1-2 points in our last 10.​

​

In fact, we lost 1 game in our last 10 by less than 9 points (Miami).​

​

9, 3, 9 (OT), 25, 10, 12 were the margins of our last 6 losses.​

In actuality, the team started out the season horribly uncompetitive -- posting several embarrassing losses to the likes of Colgate and Georgetown, looking hapless defensively at times.

About 25 games into the season -- far too late, BTW -- they started to figure things out. Winning several games in a row, and getting a few games over the .500 mark, which we'd hovered around all season.

Understandably, fans got excited. People started talking about maintaining "the streak," and talking about us making a run in the standings. But then we hit the back stretch of the conference schedule and things fell apart. And we didn't perform great in key games -- several of which SUFan44 outlines above.

So we're going to have to disagree both about how competitive the team was, and how the players -- who essentially the reasons for the team's numerous shortcomings -- were equipped to compete. Not only does the data not support your conclusion, but the net results of the season don't, either.

It's nice to think about what might have been if we'd been able to maintain that midseason uptick, but we didn't. It's nice to pretend that we were as good as we were against BC or Florida State in the ACCT, but we weren't consistently. What we were was a streak shooting team that could get hot and torch the nets in individual games [or portions of games], but couldn't do that on any sort of consistent basis. Which is why they are what the team's record suggests they are.

 

[upperdeck]

final score of a game has little to do with close the game was actually played.. depending on fouling goes its pretty easy to see a 3-7 pt swing in 30-45 secs.

 

[RF2044]

final score of a game has little to do with close the game was actually played.. depending on fouling goes its pretty easy to see a 3-7 pt swing in 30-45 secs.

Big picture, playing and losing to a bunch of mediocre teams doesn't make you a good team -- it makes you even worse than even the mediocre competition.

Why do I bring this up? Because our record speaks volumes. In a year where the ACC conference was historically bad, and should have theoretically set up favorably for SU to win games, we posted a losing record of 9-11. We lost 11 games in the worst ACC of this century. We lost 17 games overall, because we weren't competitive in the non-conference portion of the schedule, either.

We got anhilated by the two ranked teams we played, and could only hang with a third for a half, en route to getting blown out.

Rationalize individual game outcomes however you'd like. If you want to look at a 9 point loss, and convince yourself that it was "really" a closer loss because of fouling, be my guest. But big picture, we weren't competitive. We weren't competitive with anyone who wasn't a tomato can in the non-conference portion of our schedule, and we weren't even competitive in the ACC conference, despite it being so down.

 

[upperdeck]

Big picture, playing and losing to a bunch of mediocre teams doesn't make you a good team -- it makes you even worse than even the mediocre competition.

Why do I bring this up? Because our record speaks volumes. In a year where the ACC conference was historically bad, and should have theoretically set up favorably for SU to win games, we posted a losing record of 9-11. We lost 11 games in the worst ACC of this century. We lost 17 games overall, because we weren't competitive in the non-conference portion of the schedule, either.

We got anhilated by the two ranked teams we played, and could only hang with a third for a half, en route to getting blown out.

Rationalize individual game outcomes however you'd like. But big picture, we weren't competitive. We weren't competitive with anyone who wasn't a tomato can in the non-conference portion of our schedule, and we weren't even competitive in the ACC conference, despite it being so down.

not sure the ACC was as bad as people really think.. I thought bball as a whole was pretty bad.. the ACC just had a bunch of middle of the road teams. But if you watched enough ball you really think the B10 was that good? Not saying they didnt win games, but the quality was not very good. MSU/Mich/Ind/Rut/OSU all just avg teams as well and the reason they got so many in is that people are in love with the top few teams who struggled to beat the avg teams

 

[RF2044]

not sure the ACC was as bad as people really think.. I thought bball as a whole was pretty bad.. the ACC just had a bunch of middle of the road teams. But if you watched enough ball you really think the B10 was that good? Not saying they didnt win games, but the quality was not very good. MSU/Mich/Ind/Rut/OSU all just avg teams as well and the reason they got so many in is that people are in love with the top few teams who struggled to beat the avg teams

You're not sure that the ACC was as bad as people really think?

Okay.

 

[upperdeck]

You're not sure that the ACC was as bad as people really think?

Okay.

honestly how much did you watch all the leagues play other than the big games.. it wouldnt shock me if every team on the top 4 lines loses round 1 other than Gonz. There are no elite teams .

 

[RF2044]

honestly how much did you watch all the leagues play other than the big games.. it wouldnt shock me if every team on the top 4 lines loses round 1 other than Gonz. There are no elite teams .

Are you kidding? I watch college basketball about 4 or 5 nights a week on average. I watch a ton of teams from other conferences, across all levels, all season long.

Are you aware that the ACC basically had 1 team ranked all season, with that changing only the last week or so of the regular season? Or how we only got 5 teams into the NCAA tournament, when we routinely have 7, 8, 9 or more with several of them ranked in the top 10 / 25?

I'm not even sure how someone can claim with intellectual honesty that the ACC wasn't down. Just because there might not be obvious elite teams [which is also subjectively debatable] doesn't change that fact. Nor does other conferences like the B1G not having the quality they usually have.


Edit -- I'm not trying to get into an argument with you about who watches more basketball, upperdeck. Honestly, one of the things I often wonder / have long suspected-- especially about the crowd who thinks that the program isn't on a steady decline -- is whether they watch college basketball outside of SU games [and a few other random games here and there], because the difference in quality is often stark.

 

[Otto'd]

You're not sure that the ACC was as bad as people really think?

Okay.

It was historically bad. I dont think it can ever happen again. Put it this way. Duke did not play a top 25 ranked team from December on through March. How does that happen in the ACC? It's insane the way things had to break to create that fact.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Overall the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 were substantially better than the ACC this year. And just a notch behind them was the Big East, but still well ahead of the ACC. Based on my untrained eye at least. I think the PAC 12 have 3 teams better than Duke.

 

[CousCuse]

Overall the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 were substantially better than the ACC this year. And just a notch behind them was the Big East, but still well ahead of the ACC. Based on my untrained eye at least. I think the PAC 12 have 3 teams better than Duke.

Bags man, bags.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Bags man, bags.

Shhhh

 

[CousCuse]

Shhhh

NIL is legal and the rest of the big teams are employing to its furthest extent. It's the new normal.

 

[NineOneSeven]

NIL is legal and the rest of the big teams are employing to its furthest extent. It's the new normal.

Great!

 

[hoopsupstate]

It was historically bad. I dont think it can ever happen again. Put it this way. Duke did not play a top 25 ranked team from December on through March. How does that happen in the ACC? It's insane the way things had to break to create that fact.

I believe Duke beat both Gonzaga and Kentucky.

 

[Alsacs]

I believe Duke beat both Gonzaga and Kentucky.

Both of those games were in November.

 

[Orangezoo]

Whoa. Just seeing this now.

His team had 1 or 2 Quad 1 wins going into the SECT. I think it is pretty clear that outside the auto bids, the committee is almost completely de valuing the conference tourneys. You saw this year in seeding and inclusions. Buzz might not like it but this is straight out of the Seth Greenberg playbook.

 

[Otto'd]

I believe Duke beat both Gonzaga and Kentucky.

They did. Earlier.

 

[Otto'd]

Overall the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 were substantially better than the ACC this year. And just a notch behind them was the Big East, but still well ahead of the ACC. Based on my untrained eye at least. I think the PAC 12 have 3 teams better than Duke.

Zona definitely is.

UCLA probably a tossup.

 

[RF2044]

It was historically bad. I dont think it can ever happen again. Put it this way. Duke did not play a top 25 ranked team from December on through March. How does that happen in the ACC? It's insane the way things had to break to create that fact.

#truth

 

[tbonezone]

Are you kidding? I watch college basketball about 4 or 5 nights a week on average.

wow. you work at buffalo wild wings ? what's your favorite sauce. i like haberno salsa.

 

[rrlbees]

NIL is legal and the big donors are employing to its furthest extent. It's the new normal.

Fixed

 

[4evaOrange]

Whoa. Just seeing this now.

His team had 1 or 2 Quad 1 wins going into the SECT. I think it is pretty clear that outside the auto bids, the committee is almost completely de valuing the conference tourneys. You saw this year in seeding and inclusions. Buzz might not like it but this is straight out of the Seth Greenberg playbook.

Dayummmmm

 

[br801]

Whoa. Just seeing this now.

His team had 1 or 2 Quad 1 wins going into the SECT. I think it is pretty clear that outside the auto bids, the committee is almost completely de valuing the conference tourneys. You saw this year in seeding and inclusions. Buzz might not like it but this is straight out of the Seth Greenberg playbook.

That's just a tad too melodramatic.

 

[Orangezoo]

That's just a tad too melodramatic.

Just a tad...

That is going to stick with him a long time as well.

 

[CousCuse]

The NCAA is done for.