Past Tourny failures?

[SBU72]

I ask because I don't want to do the work to look this up. SU has failed to get into the Sweet 16 since the earth was created. Ok, it was only back to 2004. But just who has gotten there. How good were the teams that beat SU or what teams that SU had beaten during the season got further? Its like this. Last year they lost to Marquette in the 2nd round. Not considering the horrendous officals call, people have to remember Marquette beat SU during the season, they knew how to do it. The year before lowly Butler beat Su but wait a minute that lowly team made it to the finals. The year before UConn, Pitt and Vill advanced further but then they all beat SU during the season and the lost to Oklahoma was to a higher seed team. 2008 & 07 were NIT teams. So you have to go back to 2006 and 2005 for the real What loss since since 2003. In 2004 they went to the S16 and lost. UConn went further and SU spit with them and oh by the way Texas a higher ranked team that year lost to a #7 seed during the same round. Yeah SU has had failures getting to the sweet 16, but then a lot of other teams have too and its not like those that do are vastly inferior to SU.

 

[Hoov50]

I agree with your assessment. Here is the list and my thoughts (for what they are worth):
2011- Marquette (even though they were a lower seed, I didn't like the possible matchup when the bracket was released)
2010- Butler (with Onuaku wouldn't have thought twice, but with him out they scared me from the moment I saw the bracket)
2009- Oklahoma (very good team, thought we would have to play very well to win)
2006- Texas A&M (thought we would win but losing to a B12 team isn't a What loss)
2005- Vermont (big time What loss!)
2004- Alabama (thought we should win the game beforehand)
2001- Kansas (wasn't surprised)
2000- Michigan St. (only What part was that we were up by 15 and didn't score the rest of the game!)
1999- Oklahoma St. (8/9 game was a toss up)

You don't always get the best teams advancing in a tournament format. That is the one advantage the BCS format has over tournament formats. In the BCS you are guaranteed to get two of the best teams in the championship game. You may have years were another team or two could say they are "as good" as the two teams, but the two playing are top teams.

In NCAA Basketball in most years you are getting the teams that have the most favorable matchups in the tournament and/or are hot at the right time. Without looking back I would say in the last 10 years one of the "best" teams has only won 5 of those years and on top of that I would bet that in those 5 years they weren't playing another of the "best" teams in the championship game.

 

[dollarbill44]

I'm pretty sure we made the Sweet 16 just two years ago, but I will cut you some slack because you did call yourself lazy for not wanting to do the research.

 

[SWC75]

I agree with your assessment. Here is the list and my thoughts (for what they are worth):
2011- Marquette (even though they were a lower seed, I didn't like the possible matchup when the bracket was released)
2010- Butler (with Onuaku wouldn't have thought twice, but with him out they scared me from the moment I saw the bracket)
2009- Oklahoma (very good team, thought we would have to play very well to win)
2006- Texas A&M (thought we would win but losing to a B12 team isn't a What loss)
2005- Vermont (big time What loss!)
2004- Alabama (thought we should win the game beforehand)
2001- Kansas (wasn't surprised)
2000- Michigan St. (only What part was that we were up by 15 and didn't score the rest of the game!)
1999- Oklahoma St. (8/9 game was a toss up)

You don't always get the best teams advancing in a tournament format. That is the one advantage the BCS format has over tournament formats. In the BCS you are guaranteed to get two of the best teams in the championship game. You may have years were another team or two could say they are "as good" as the two teams, but the two playing are top teams.

In NCAA Basketball in most years you are getting the teams that have the most favorable matchups in the tournament and/or are hot at the right time. Without looking back I would say in the last 10 years one of the "best" teams has only won 5 of those years and on top of that I would bet that in those 5 years they weren't playing another of the "best" teams in the championship game.

We were up 40-26 on the Spartans. They caught us at 58 and scored the last 17 points of the game.

 

[SWC75]

I'm pretty sure we made the Sweet 16 just two years ago, but I will cut you some slack because you did call yourself lazy for not wanting to do the research.

I think he was being sarcastic when he said that "we haven't been to the Sweet 16 forever". That's the way some other posters see it. He was arguing that our loses weren't all that bad.

 

[Hoov50]

We were up 40-26 on the Spartans. They caught us at 58 and scored the last 17 points of the game.

Funny how 10-12 beers in a DellPlain Hall dorm room can make the details fuzzy!

 

[orangecuse]

'06 didn't really have the services of GMac due to his injury.

 

[SWC75]

I posted a detailed examination of SU's NCAA record after last season:

Round of 64
1979: Bye
1980: Bye
1983: 6-11 Morehead State 74-59
1984: Bye
1985: 7-10 DePaul 70-65
1986: 2-15 Brown 101-52
1987: 2-15 Georgia Southern 79-73
1988: 3-14 North Carolina A&T 69-55
1989: 2-15 Bucknell 104-81
1990: 2-15 Coppin State 70-48
1991: 2-15 Richmond 69-73L
1992: 6-11 Princeton 51-43
1994: 4-13 Hawaii 92-78
1995: 7-10 Southern Illinois 96-92
1996: 4-13 Montana State 88-55
1998: 5-12 Iona 63-61
1999: 8-9 Oklahoma State 61-69L
2000: 4-13 Samford 79-65
2001: 5-12 Hawaii 79-69
2003: 3-14 Manhattan 76-65
2004: 5-12 Brigham Young 80-75
2005: 4-13 Vermont 57-60L (OT)
2006: 5-12 Texas A&M 58-66L
2009: 3-14 Stephen F. Austin 59-44
2010: 1-16 Vermont 79-56
2011: 3-14 Indiana State 77-60
Total: 19-4 We were favored in every game.
8-9 match-ups: 0-1
7-10 match-ups: 2-0
6-11 match-ups: 2-0
5-12 match-ups: 3-1
4-13 match-ups: 3-1
3-14 match-ups: 4-0
2-15 match-ups: 4-1
1-16 match-ups: 1-0

Round of 32
1957: Connecticut 82-76 (neither team ranked: we were 16-6 to their 17-7 and they were in the Yankee conference so we were probably favored)
1966: Bye.
1973: Furman 83-82 (We were ranked #14: they weren’t ranked)
1974: Oral Roberts 82-86L (OT) (Both teams were ranked #20 in different polls: the ESPN encyclopedia calls this an upset.)
1975: LaSalle 87-83 (OT) (Neither team was ranked. We had beaten them 82-78 during the regular season in Manley but they had the better record at 22-6 vs. 20-7 and the game was in Philadelphia so they were probably slight favorites)
1976: Texas Tech 56-69L (We were unranked: they were #16)
1977: Tennessee 93-88 (OT) (We were ranked 10/9 in the polls: they were 7/8)
1978: Western Kentucky 86-87L (OT) (We were #18 in one poll: they were unranked)
1979: 4-5 Connecticut 89-81
1980: 1-8 Villanova 97-83
1983: 6-3 Ohio State 74-79L
1984: 3-6 Virginia Commonwealth 78-63
1985: 7-2 Georgia Tech 53-70L
1986: 2-7 Navy 85-97L
1987: 2-10 Western Kentucky 104-86
1988: 3-11 Rhode Island 94-97L
1989: 2-10 Colorado State 65-50
1990: 2-7 Virginia 63-61
1992: 6-3 Massachusetts 71-77L (OT)
1994: 4-12 Wisconsin-Green Bay 64-59
1995: 7-2 Arkansas 94-96L (OT)
1996: 4-12 Drexel 69-58
1998: 5-4 New Mexico 56-46
2000: 4-5 Kentucky 52-50
2001: 5-4 Kansas 58-87L
2003: 3-6 Oklahoma State 68-56
2004: 5-4 Maryland 72-70
2009: 3-6 Arizona State 78-67
2010: 1-8 Gonzaga 79-65
2011: 3-11 Marquette 62-66L
Total: 18-11, 14-5 as a favorite and 4-6 as an underdog.
We are:
2-0 vs. 12 seeds
0-2 vs. 11 seeds
2-0 vs. 10 seeds
2-0 vs. 8 seeds
1-1 vs. 7 seeds
3-0 vs. 6 seeds
2-0 vs. 5 seeds
2-1 vs. 4 seeds
0-2 vs. 3 seeds
0-2 vs. 2 seeds

The Sweet 16
1957 Lafayette 75-71 (We were 17-6 and they were 22-4 and has had a bye so they must have been the favorite.
1966: Davidson 94-78 (We were ranked 16th: they were unranked so we must have been a favorite)
1973 Maryland 75-91L (We were ranked #14: they were #8/#10 and had a bye so they were the favorite.)
1975 North Carolina 78-76 (We were unranked and they were #7 in the country and certainly the favorite)
1977 UNC-Charlotte 59-81L (We were ranked #19/#9 and they were #18 in one poll so we were the favorite)
1979 4-9 Pennsylvania 76-84L
1980 1-5 Iowa 77-88L
1984 3-7 Virginia 55-63L
1987 2-6 Florida 87-81
1989 2-3 Missouri 83-80
1990 2-6 Minnesota 75-82L
1994 4-1 Missouri 88-98L (OT)
1996 4-8 Georgia 83-81 (OT)
1998 5-1 Duke 67-80L
2000 4-1 Michigan State 58-75L
2003 3-10 Auburn 79-78
2004 5-8 Alabama 71-80L
2009 3-2 Oklahoma 71-84L
2010 1-5 Butler 59-63L
Total: 7-12 As a favorite we are 5-7. As an underdog we are 2-5
We are:
1-0 vs. 10 seeds
0-1 vs. 9 seeds
1-1 vs. 8 seeds
0-1 vs. 7 seeds
1-1 vs. 6 seeds
0-2 vs. 5 seeds
0-0 vs. 4 seeds
1-0 vs. 3 seeds
0-1 vs. 2 seeds
0-3 vs. 1 seeds

The Elite 8
1957 North Carolina 58-67L (The Tar Heels were undefeated and ranked #1 and went on to win the national championship)
1966 Duke 71-81L (The Blue Devils were ranked #2)
1975 Kansas State 95-87 (OT) (Both teams were unranked and neither had a bye. SU was 22-7 to the Wildcats 20-8, had just beaten UNC and the game was in the providence Civic Center so I think we were favored.)
1987 2-1 North Carolina 79-75
1989 2-1 Illinois 86-89L
1996 4-2 Kansas 60-57
2003 3-1 Oklahoma 63-47
Total: 4-3 As a favorite we are 1-0. As an underdog we are 3-3
We are:
1-0 vs. 2 seeds
2-1 vs. 1 seeds

The Final Four
1975 Kentucky 79-95L (We were unranked and they were ranked #6/#4)
1987 2-6 Providence 77-63
1996 4-5 Mississippi State 77-69
2003 3-1 Texas 95-84
Total: 3-1 As a favorite we are 2-0. As an underdog we are 1-1
We are:
1-0 vs. 6 seeds
1-0 vs. 5 seeds
1-0 vs. 1 seeds

The Championship Game:
1987 2-1 Indiana 73-74L
1996 4-1 Kentucky 67-76L
2003 3-2 Kansas 81-78
Total: 1-2 We were the underdog in each game
We are:
1-0 vs. 2 seeds
0-2 vs. 1 seeds.

In all rounds, we are 52-33, (.612). We are 41-16, (.719) as a favorite and 11-17, (.393) as an underdog. When we are favored the other team has a 28% of upsetting us. When we are underdogs, we have a 39% chance of pulling off the upset.
We are:
3-2 as a 1 seed
11-5 as a 2 seed
11-4 as a 3 seed
10-5 as a 4 seed
5-4 as a 5 seed
2-2 as a 6 seed
2-2 as a 7 seed
0-1 as an 8 seed

We have never been seeded below 8th since the seeding of teams began in 1979.
We are:
3-6 vs. 1 seeds
2-3 vs. 2 seeds
1-2 vs. 3 seeds
2-1 vs. 4 seeds
3-2 vs. 5 seeds
5-1 vs. 6 seeds
1-2 vs. 7 seeds
3-1 vs. 8 seeds
0-2 vs. 9 seeds
5-0 vs. 10 seeds
2-2 vs. 11 seeds
5-1 vs. 12 seeds
3-1 vs. 13 seeds
4-0 vs. 14 seeds
4-1 vs. 15 seeds
1-0 vs. 16 seeds

Here is a summary of seeding vs. achievement since the seedings began in 1979.
1 seed means you are projected to make the Final Four
2 seed means you are projected to make the Elite 8
3 or 4 seed means you are projected to make the Sweet 16
5, 6, 7, or 8 seed means you are projected to make the Round of 32
Below 8 seed means you are projected to lose in the first round
1979 We were a 4 seed and lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1980 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
1983 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1984 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1985 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1986 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -2 rounds
1987 We were a 2 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +2 rounds
1988 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -1 round
1989 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Elite 8 = Even
1990 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -1 round
1991 We were a 2 seed that lost in the First Round = -3 rounds
1992 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1994 We were a 4 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1995 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1996 We were a 4 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +3 rounds
1998 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = +1 round
1999 We were an 8 see that lost in the First Rounds = -1 round
2000 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2001 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
2003 We were a 3 seed that won the National Championship = +4 rounds
2004 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2005 We were a 4 seed that lost in the First Round = -2 rounds
2006 We were a 5 seed that lost in the First Round = -1 rounds
2009 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2010 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
2011 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even

Totals: 26 tournaments. We broke even 13 times. We exceeded our seed 4 times and came up short 9 times. Our net achievement compared to the round we were supposed to lose in was -5. Rounds. We were even at the point where we had won the national championship, so we are -5 since. Of course some of our losses in the “even” years were to lower-seeded teams that had pulled off upsets in earlier rounds so we might still have expected to beat those teams. That was the case in 1979, 1984, 2004 and 2011. In none of the four “positive” years did we lose to a lower (worse) seed.

 

[dollarbill44]

I think he was being sarcastic when he said that "we haven't been to the Sweet 16 forever". That's the way some other posters see it. He was arguing that our loses weren't all that bad.

"SU has failed to get into the Sweet 16 since the earth was created. Ok, it was only back to 2004." From the OP.

I got the gist of his point, just wanted to make sure everyone is historically accurate, as a public service.

 

[kuethstheman]

I think he was being sarcastic when he said that "we haven't been to the Sweet 16 forever". That's the way some other posters see it. He was arguing that our loses weren't all that bad.

He meant "past" the sweet 16.

 

[dollarbill44]

He meant "past" the sweet 16.

Is that what he meant? We didn't make it past the sweet 16 in '04.

 

[kuethstheman]

Is that what he meant? We didn't make it past the sweet 16 in '04.

You got me. I was trying to make sense of it but you're right.

 

[Madbiker]

If SU could play the 1st and 2nd round games in Albany every year...like Duke and UNC get to in Greensboro every year...we'd make it to a hell of a lot more Sweet Sixteens.

 

[newmexicuse]

Poor excuse thread - yeah it is the nature of the Dance that sometimes a favorite gets upended. It seems like if we lose to a favorite that is to be expected, but if a dog beats us then there is some excuse like "I didn't like the bracket" or the team that beat us went to the FF, etc.. The only excuse that I buy was in 2010 because of AO's injury.

All BS - the record speaks for itself & relative to the status & overall success of our program our tourney record is abominable (how do you spell that word) ????

Anyways, this team right now is not playing well despite the illusion of the record. Either we turn that around or there will be a total meltdown on this board when our 32 & 1 heros get knocked out in the second or third round.

I believe my eyes. I see a team headed for a fall if it stays on the present track.

Yeah, we have the potential and the talent to get it done, but those here hiding behind the record are dillusional. We need to improve and start to play well pass the "look" test like we did earlier in the season before we can have any realistic thoughts of a FF or NC.

 

[dollarbill44]

Poor excuse thread - yeah it is the nature of the Dance that sometimes a favorite gets upended. It seems like if we lose to a favorite that is to be expected, but if a dog beats us then there is some excuse like "I didn't like the bracket" or the team that beat us went to the FF, etc.. The only excuse that I buy was in 2010 because of AO's injury.

All BS - the record speaks for itself & relative to the status & overall success of our program our tourney record is abominable (how do you spell that word) ????

Anyways, this team right now is not playing well despite the illusion of the record. Either we turn that around or there will be a total meltdown on this board when our 32 & 1 heros get knocked out in the second or third round.

I believe my eyes. I see a team headed for a fall if it stays on the present track.

Yeah, we have the potential and the talent to get it done, but those here hiding behind the record are dillusional. We need to improve and start to play well pass the "look" test like we did earlier in the season before we can have any realistic thoughts of a FF or NC.

Do we need to improve? Yes, but this "look test" of which you speak means very little. Coming away from each NCAA tourney game with more points than the opponent means everything. We have passed the "look test" many, many times heading into the Dance and it didn't mean squat when the ball got tossed up at mid-court.

Take it one game at a time. Win and advance. Lose and go home. It really is that simple. Not easy, but simple.

 

[Hoov50]

Poor excuse thread - yeah it is the nature of the Dance that sometimes a favorite gets upended. It seems like if we lose to a favorite that is to be expected, but if a dog beats us then there is some excuse like "I didn't like the bracket" or the team that beat us went to the FF, etc.. The only excuse that I buy was in 2010 because of AO's injury.

All BS - the record speaks for itself & relative to the status & overall success of our program our tourney record is abominable (how do you spell that word) ????

Anyways, this team right now is not playing well despite the illusion of the record. Either we turn that around or there will be a total meltdown on this board when our 32 & 1 heros get knocked out in the second or third round.

I believe my eyes. I see a team headed for a fall if it stays on the present track.

Yeah, we have the potential and the talent to get it done, but those here hiding behind the record are dillusional. We need to improve and start to play well pass the "look" test like we did earlier in the season before we can have any realistic thoughts of a FF or NC.

Did UConn pass your look test last year or Duke the year before? How about the NY Giants this year in the NFL. A little luck and a good or bad matchup outweighs how teams "look" much of the time.

 

[orangehipfan]

Last year's match up with Marquette seems to be deemed as a "bad" match up for Cuse. Good teams get by those somehow. Marquette played UNC in the sweet 16 (next round) and I think the halftime score was 40 - 15 after a late Marquette run to cut in to the UNC lead. Marquette was not a good team. UNC is hardly a defensive power and they held Marquette to 15 in the first half. I think we were 18 - 1 at one point last season before finishing 27 - 8. That won't happen this year but the team is struggling right now.

That being said let's hope we can continue to win the close games this year.

 

[newmexicuse]

Did UConn pass your look test last year or Duke the year before? How about the NY Giants this year in the NFL. A little luck and a good or bad matchup outweighs how teams "look" much of the time.

All those teams passed my "look" test at tourney time when it counted. I am not saying it is hopeless for our guys, I am just saying they have to get it together for March Madness. I do believe that we are a FF caliber team if we can play the way we played earlier this season. We simply have to get back to what we were doing then & certain players have to lift their games accordingly. The way they are playing now is not having it all together.

 

[Col. Bleep]

I posted a detailed examination of SU's NCAA record after last season:

Round of 64
1979: Bye
1980: Bye
1983: 6-11 Morehead State 74-59
1984: Bye
1985: 7-10 DePaul 70-65
1986: 2-15 Brown 101-52
1987: 2-15 Georgia Southern 79-73
1988: 3-14 North Carolina A&T 69-55
1989: 2-15 Bucknell 104-81
1990: 2-15 Coppin State 70-48
1991: 2-15 Richmond 69-73L
1992: 6-11 Princeton 51-43
1994: 4-13 Hawaii 92-78
1995: 7-10 Southern Illinois 96-92
1996: 4-13 Montana State 88-55
1998: 5-12 Iona 63-61
1999: 8-9 Oklahoma State 61-69L
2000: 4-13 Samford 79-65
2001: 5-12 Hawaii 79-69
2003: 3-14 Manhattan 76-65
2004: 5-12 Brigham Young 80-75
2005: 4-13 Vermont 57-60L (OT)
2006: 5-12 Texas A&M 58-66L
2009: 3-14 Stephen F. Austin 59-44
2010: 1-16 Vermont 79-56
2011: 3-14 Indiana State 77-60
Total: 19-4 We were favored in every game.
8-9 match-ups: 0-1
7-10 match-ups: 2-0
6-11 match-ups: 2-0
5-12 match-ups: 3-1
4-13 match-ups: 3-1
3-14 match-ups: 4-0
2-15 match-ups: 4-1
1-16 match-ups: 1-0

Round of 32
1957: Connecticut 82-76 (neither team ranked: we were 16-6 to their 17-7 and they were in the Yankee conference so we were probably favored)
1966: Bye.
1973: Furman 83-82 (We were ranked #14: they weren’t ranked)
1974: Oral Roberts 82-86L (OT) (Both teams were ranked #20 in different polls: the ESPN encyclopedia calls this an upset.)
1975: LaSalle 87-83 (OT) (Neither team was ranked. We had beaten them 82-78 during the regular season in Manley but they had the better record at 22-6 vs. 20-7 and the game was in Philadelphia so they were probably slight favorites)
1976: Texas Tech 56-69L (We were unranked: they were #16)
1977: Tennessee 93-88 (OT) (We were ranked 10/9 in the polls: they were 7/8)
1978: Western Kentucky 86-87L (OT) (We were #18 in one poll: they were unranked)
1979: 4-5 Connecticut 89-81
1980: 1-8 Villanova 97-83
1983: 6-3 Ohio State 74-79L
1984: 3-6 Virginia Commonwealth 78-63
1985: 7-2 Georgia Tech 53-70L
1986: 2-7 Navy 85-97L
1987: 2-10 Western Kentucky 104-86
1988: 3-11 Rhode Island 94-97L
1989: 2-10 Colorado State 65-50
1990: 2-7 Virginia 63-61
1992: 6-3 Massachusetts 71-77L (OT)
1994: 4-12 Wisconsin-Green Bay 64-59
1995: 7-2 Arkansas 94-96L (OT)
1996: 4-12 Drexel 69-58
1998: 5-4 New Mexico 56-46
2000: 4-5 Kentucky 52-50
2001: 5-4 Kansas 58-87L
2003: 3-6 Oklahoma State 68-56
2004: 5-4 Maryland 72-70
2009: 3-6 Arizona State 78-67
2010: 1-8 Gonzaga 79-65
2011: 3-11 Marquette 62-66L
Total: 18-11, 14-5 as a favorite and 4-6 as an underdog.
We are:
2-0 vs. 12 seeds
0-2 vs. 11 seeds
2-0 vs. 10 seeds
2-0 vs. 8 seeds
1-1 vs. 7 seeds
3-0 vs. 6 seeds
2-0 vs. 5 seeds
2-1 vs. 4 seeds
0-2 vs. 3 seeds
0-2 vs. 2 seeds

The Sweet 16
1957 Lafayette 75-71 (We were 17-6 and they were 22-4 and has had a bye so they must have been the favorite.
1966: Davidson 94-78 (We were ranked 16th: they were unranked so we must have been a favorite)
1973 Maryland 75-91L (We were ranked #14: they were #8/#10 and had a bye so they were the favorite.)
1975 North Carolina 78-76 (We were unranked and they were #7 in the country and certainly the favorite)
1977 UNC-Charlotte 59-81L (We were ranked #19/#9 and they were #18 in one poll so we were the favorite)
1979 4-9 Pennsylvania 76-84L
1980 1-5 Iowa 77-88L
1984 3-7 Virginia 55-63L
1987 2-6 Florida 87-81
1989 2-3 Missouri 83-80
1990 2-6 Minnesota 75-82L
1994 4-1 Missouri 88-98L (OT)
1996 4-8 Georgia 83-81 (OT)
1998 5-1 Duke 67-80L
2000 4-1 Michigan State 58-75L
2003 3-10 Auburn 79-78
2004 5-8 Alabama 71-80L
2009 3-2 Oklahoma 71-84L
2010 1-5 Butler 59-63L
Total: 7-12 As a favorite we are 5-7. As an underdog we are 2-5
We are:
1-0 vs. 10 seeds
0-1 vs. 9 seeds
1-1 vs. 8 seeds
0-1 vs. 7 seeds
1-1 vs. 6 seeds
0-2 vs. 5 seeds
0-0 vs. 4 seeds
1-0 vs. 3 seeds
0-1 vs. 2 seeds
0-3 vs. 1 seeds

The Elite 8
1957 North Carolina 58-67L (The Tar Heels were undefeated and ranked #1 and went on to win the national championship)
1966 Duke 71-81L (The Blue Devils were ranked #2)
1975 Kansas State 95-87 (OT) (Both teams were unranked and neither had a bye. SU was 22-7 to the Wildcats 20-8, had just beaten UNC and the game was in the providence Civic Center so I think we were favored.)
1987 2-1 North Carolina 79-75
1989 2-1 Illinois 86-89L
1996 4-2 Kansas 60-57
2003 3-1 Oklahoma 63-47
Total: 4-3 As a favorite we are 1-0. As an underdog we are 3-3
We are:
1-0 vs. 2 seeds
2-1 vs. 1 seeds

The Final Four
1975 Kentucky 79-95L (We were unranked and they were ranked #6/#4)
1987 2-6 Providence 77-63
1996 4-5 Mississippi State 77-69
2003 3-1 Texas 95-84
Total: 3-1 As a favorite we are 2-0. As an underdog we are 1-1
We are:
1-0 vs. 6 seeds
1-0 vs. 5 seeds
1-0 vs. 1 seeds

The Championship Game:
1987 2-1 Indiana 73-74L
1996 4-1 Kentucky 67-76L
2003 3-2 Kansas 81-78
Total: 1-2 We were the underdog in each game
We are:
1-0 vs. 2 seeds
0-2 vs. 1 seeds.

In all rounds, we are 52-33, (.612). We are 41-16, (.719) as a favorite and 11-17, (.393) as an underdog. When we are favored the other team has a 28% of upsetting us. When we are underdogs, we have a 39% chance of pulling off the upset.
We are:
3-2 as a 1 seed
11-5 as a 2 seed
11-4 as a 3 seed
10-5 as a 4 seed
5-4 as a 5 seed
2-2 as a 6 seed
2-2 as a 7 seed
0-1 as an 8 seed

We have never been seeded below 8th since the seeding of teams began in 1979.
We are:
3-6 vs. 1 seeds
2-3 vs. 2 seeds
1-2 vs. 3 seeds
2-1 vs. 4 seeds
3-2 vs. 5 seeds
5-1 vs. 6 seeds
1-2 vs. 7 seeds
3-1 vs. 8 seeds
0-2 vs. 9 seeds
5-0 vs. 10 seeds
2-2 vs. 11 seeds
5-1 vs. 12 seeds
3-1 vs. 13 seeds
4-0 vs. 14 seeds
4-1 vs. 15 seeds
1-0 vs. 16 seeds

Here is a summary of seeding vs. achievement since the seedings began in 1979.
1 seed means you are projected to make the Final Four
2 seed means you are projected to make the Elite 8
3 or 4 seed means you are projected to make the Sweet 16
5, 6, 7, or 8 seed means you are projected to make the Round of 32
Below 8 seed means you are projected to lose in the first round
1979 We were a 4 seed and lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1980 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
1983 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1984 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1985 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1986 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -2 rounds
1987 We were a 2 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +2 rounds
1988 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = -1 round
1989 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Elite 8 = Even
1990 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -1 round
1991 We were a 2 seed that lost in the First Round = -3 rounds
1992 We were a 6 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1994 We were a 4 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
1995 We were a 7 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
1996 We were a 4 seed that made it to the National Championship game = +3 rounds
1998 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = +1 round
1999 We were an 8 see that lost in the First Rounds = -1 round
2000 We were a 2 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2001 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Round of 32 = Even
2003 We were a 3 seed that won the National Championship = +4 rounds
2004 We were a 5 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2005 We were a 4 seed that lost in the First Round = -2 rounds
2006 We were a 5 seed that lost in the First Round = -1 rounds
2009 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even
2010 We were a 1 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = -2 rounds
2011 We were a 3 seed that lost in the Sweet 16 = Even

Totals: 26 tournaments. We broke even 13 times. We exceeded our seed 4 times and came up short 9 times. Our net achievement compared to the round we were supposed to lose in was -5. Rounds. We were even at the point where we had won the national championship, so we are -5 since. Of course some of our losses in the “even” years were to lower-seeded teams that had pulled off upsets in earlier rounds so we might still have expected to beat those teams. That was the case in 1979, 1984, 2004 and 2011. In none of the four “positive” years did we lose to a lower (worse) seed.

My takeaway from this is that in the Boeheim era we don't pull any big tourney upsets but have been victims of big upsets a number of times.
My cursory look shows that only once have we beaten a team ranked more than one peg above us...Kansas in the '96 regional final.
And that was a case of a 4 beating a 2.

Thanks to SWC75 for all the effort in putting this together.
(And I think -I- have too much free time )

 

[BuffOrange]

I ask because I don't want to do the work to look this up. SU has failed to get into the Sweet 16 since the earth was created. Ok, it was only back to 2004. But just who has gotten there. How good were the teams that beat SU or what teams that SU had beaten during the season got further? Its like this. Last year they lost to Marquette in the 2nd round. Not considering the horrendous officals call, people have to remember Marquette beat SU during the season, they knew how to do it. The year before lowly Butler beat Su but wait a minute that lowly team made it to the finals. The year before UConn, Pitt and Vill advanced further but then they all beat SU during the season and the lost to Oklahoma was to a higher seed team. 2008 & 07 were NIT teams. So you have to go back to 2006 and 2005 for the real What loss since since 2003. In 2004 they went to the S16 and lost. UConn went further and SU spit with them and oh by the way Texas a higher ranked team that year lost to a #7 seed during the same round. Yeah SU has had failures getting to the sweet 16, but then a lot of other teams have too and its not like those that do are vastly inferior to SU.

The loss @Marquette was a close game in the midst of a 4game losing streak where they threw in a bunch of hail marry 3's. I have a hard time using that as proof that "OMG they know how to beat us". That's like saying Michigan St should be afraid of playing Illinois in the 2nd round this year.

I do still agree though that the 'tournament failure' tag is overblown. Coaches often talk about the thin line between winning & losing but fans never want to hear it. If UNC played Washington on a neutral court in the 2nd round last year they lose. If Duke played Miss. St on a neutral court in the 2nd round (the same year we lost to Vermont), they lose. If we play Vermont on a neutral court like every other #4 seed vs a #13 in history, it goes in the crowded pile of forgotten "almost upsets".

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

If you really look at our tourny resume the last 30 years.. we've been an excellent tourny team. One of the best in the country. You can't blame JB for losses to Marquette, Butler, Richmond, Vermont, Texas A & M, Navy, etc.. those are just bad matchups or cases where we had injuries...every team loses games like those.

 

[Marsh01]

The only What loss since 2004 was IMO Vermont. The aTm matchup in 2006 was ridiculous and I remember swearing like a drunken sailor at the TV when they posted that matchup. We were clearly not a 5 seed and aTm was clearly not a 12 seed. That game was more like an 8/9 game. We had the Gmac run and were way overseeded and aTm had the talent to be an 8/9 seed. It looked like a What loss based on the 5-12 numbers but that was nowhere near the upset that people make it out to be.

We had no chance against Oklahoma (IMO) and was not surprised we lost. Butler without Arinze was more disappointing than What. Marquette was another terrible draw given to us by the NCAA committee.

 

[pfister1]

I ask because I don't want to do the work to look this up. SU has failed to get into the Sweet 16 since the earth was created. Ok, it was only back to 2004. But just who has gotten there. How good were the teams that beat SU or what teams that SU had beaten during the season got further? Its like this. Last year they lost to Marquette in the 2nd round. Not considering the horrendous officals call, people have to remember Marquette beat SU during the season, they knew how to do it. The year before lowly Butler beat Su but wait a minute that lowly team made it to the finals. The year before UConn, Pitt and Vill advanced further but then they all beat SU during the season and the lost to Oklahoma was to a higher seed team. 2008 & 07 were NIT teams. So you have to go back to 2006 and 2005 for the real What loss since since 2003. In 2004 they went to the S16 and lost. UConn went further and SU spit with them and oh by the way Texas a higher ranked team that year lost to a #7 seed during the same round. Yeah SU has had failures getting to the sweet 16, but then a lot of other teams have too and its not like those that do are vastly inferior to SU.

You're making least common denominator arguments.

We like to consider ourselves an Elite program. Elite program demonstrate they are elite by doing things the majority of other programs don't do, not by offering the excuse "we didn't get it done, but either did they."

I think if we are all honest about it (JB included), we'd like to see Syracuse have more success in the NCAA tournament. Yes, we've had some success, including a Championship, but we've also had a high number of flame outs. Have others had them? Sure, but that doesn't make them any more acceptable. Do you want to be measured with the Dukes, UNCs, Kentuckys, UConns, Michigan States and Kansas programs or with the Arizonas, Louisvilles, Floridas, Pitts, Texas, Ohio States etc. - Either category is outstanding, but one level is clearly higher than the other.

 

[PoppyHart]

If SU could play the 1st and 2nd round games in Albany every year...like Duke and UNC get to in Greensboro every year...we'd make it to a hell of a lot more Sweet Sixteens.

I don't think this is true. In order to get the benefit of playing in a favorable environment, you need to be highly seeded. I don't have the data in front of me, but I don't think Duke or UNC were playing in front of partisan crowds as 4, 5, and 6 seeds.

Being a four seed, which was our penchant in many years, only gets you a protected seed if you are not already bumped by better teams from your geographic region, and the East/Northeast has been traditionally strong.

Until 2009, we had been seeded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd only once (2003) dating back to 1991 I believe.

Beginning in 1985 (64 teams), most years in which we were ranked 1st-3rd (1987, 1989, 1990, 2003, 2009, 2010), we made the Sweet 16 anyway, so its hard to argue we were somehow harmed. (And we did play in Syracuse in 1987 and Buffalo in 2010)

So, really 1986, 1988, 1991 and 2011 are the years to contest. In 1986 we played in the Carrier Dome. The ultimate home game. In 1991 we lost to a 15 seed in College Park, making CBB history. There was no excuse for that loss, even if it had been played in Richmond.

Now we're left with 1988 (URI) and 2011. Would we have reached the Sweet 16 by playing URI and Marquette in Albany, Buffalo, or Long Island? Perhaps.

Bottom line: The Duke-UNC argument is a red herring. If you're not good enough (or don't play a strong enough schedule) to warrant a top-3 seed, you'll almost never be rewarded with a pseudo home-game.

 

[SWC75]

My takeaway from this is that in the Boeheim era we don't pull any big tourney upsets but have been victims of big upsets a number of times.
My cursory look shows that only once have we beaten a team ranked more than one peg above us...Kansas in the '96 regional final.
And that was a case of a 4 beating a 2.

Thanks to SWC75 for all the effort in putting this together.
(And I think -I- have too much free time )

Each year I do an Upside/Downside on JB. Here's an excerpt from last years:

- JB is 46-27, (.630) in conference tourney games. I also checked how he did when seeded as a favorite and an underdog. He’s 28-11 as a favorite, (.718) and 18-16, (.529) as an underdog. In the NCAA/NIT he’s 57-35, (.620), 41-12, (.773) as a favorite, (I have nothing on NIT seedings prior to this year and the NCAA began formal seedings only in 1979) but only 7-15 (.318), as an underdog. It should be noted that as an NCAA dog, SU has generally been up against a very high seeded team. The Orange has always been at least an 8 seed. They’ve been that once, a 7 and a 6 twice each, four times a 4 seed, five times a 4 or 2 seed, five times a 3 seed and twice, a #1 seed. JB’s overall post season record is 103-62, (.624), including 69-23 as a higher seed, (.750) and 25-31 as a lower seed (.446). The fact that they’ve been the higher seeded team far more times than the lower seed speaks for itself. He’s pulled off more upsets than he has been upset and in fewer chances. When Jim Boeheim has a chance to pull of an upset, he does so 45% of the time but only gets upset 25% of the time when he’s the favorite.