Should Tyus play?

[cuse10]

He's officially out. It could get out of hand early.

 

[Cuse House]

He's officially out. It could get out of hand early.

Shock the world.

 

[MSOrange]

 

[tbonezone]

the tailbone's connected to the wagbone ?

 

[jec1521]

Is there a chance he misses time in the NCAA's?

 

[Marroniac]

Is there a chance he misses time in the NCAA's?

Nah. Having a bruised tailbone sucks but they heal.

 

[Day2]

So let me ask you this, if Tyus was 100%, does a potential 7 seed vs the 8/9 matchup mean absolutely zero?

I don’t think there’s enough of a disparity between any of the teams that will be seeded 7-10. Today’s 8 could be tomorrow’s 10 or vice versa. Same goes for the top seeds. We know we’re not playing Duke, UNC or UVA if we get to the Round of 32. Whomever we play could be a 1 or a 2, depending on how things play out this weekend. Whether or not Tennessee or Michigan State can win their conference tourneys has no bearing on whether or not we can beat them.

 

[Day2]

He should play, if he's ready to go. Nobody was saying these games were meaningless when we were competing for conference championships. That's become a narrative to shrug off our regular sesson crappiness these last few years. No game is meaningless and it's fun to play against the best if you can.

I’ve always considered them meaningless, going back to when I was a student in the 90s. The runs last decade were entertaining and memorable, but I would trade 2006 and 2009 for Elite Eights in a heartbeat.

Obviously if we’re on the bubble and need a win or two, they mean something. But once that business is taken care of, I’d rather have the guys rest as much as possible.

 

[Dawg]

Yes. it. Win the ACC tourney which Cuse is capable of.

 

[sufandu]

I’ve always considered them meaningless, going back to when I was a student in the 90s. The runs last decade were entertaining and memorable, but I would trade 2006 and 2009 for Elite Eights in a heartbeat.

Obviously if we’re on the bubble and need a win or two, they mean something. But once that business is taken care of, I’d rather have the guys rest as much as possible.

I guess I'm wrong. You and Bud Poliquin were the two poeple saying they're meaningless. You're both off base. The regular season has meaning. The conference tournaments have meaning, and the NCAA tournament has meaning. I don't know why people talk about it like it's a trade off. It's not like you have tomgive up one to be good at the others. The teams that regularly do the best in the first two tend to have the best track record in the last one. Duke and UNC didn't reach their national elite status by being mediocre prior to the big dance and then making unlikely runs. They did so by being great during all three parts of the season. We've had spurts of that in the past and I want it again.

 

[Day2]

I guess I'm wrong. You and Bud Poliquin were the two poeple saying they're meaningless. You're both off base. The regular season has meaning. The conference tournaments have meaning, and the NCAA tournament has meaning. I don't know why people talk about it like it's a trade off. It's not like you have tomgive up one to be good at the others. The teams that regularly do the best in the first two tend to have the best track record in the last one. Duke and UNC didn't reach their national elite status by being mediocre prior to the big dance and then making unlikely runs. They did so by being great during all three parts of the season. We've had spurts of that in the past and I want it again.

This was discussed last week. There’s no correlation between conference tourney success and NCAA Tournament success. We’ve won the Big East Tournament and lost in the first round of the NCAAs. We’ve lost our first round matchup in the ACC Tournament and gone on to the Final Four. If JB rests everyone and plays the walk-ons against Georgetown in 2010, he probably wins another title.

The conference tournaments are a cash grab and if they didn’t have the auto bid, few would care about them.

 

[sufandu]

This was discussed last week. There’s no correlation between conference tourney success and NCAA Tournament success. We’ve won the Big East Tournament and lost in the first round of the NCAAs. We’ve lost our first round matchup in the ACC Tournament and gone on to the Final Four. If JB rests everyone and plays the walk-ons against Georgetown in 2010, he probably wins another title.

The conference tournaments are a cash grab and if they didn’t have the auto bid, few would care about them.

You're right. In a given year the two don't correlate. That's not what I was saying. If you look at the teams that regularly compete for regular season and conference tournament championships, those are the teams that more frequently are in the running for national championships. They also get more recognition by from the media (remember when Hakim Warrick was a regular on sportcenter's top 10) and attention from recruits. It's not hard to explain why either. They're better teams. I want syracuse to be that again.

There is this implied idea on this board that being better in the regular season or conference tournament would prevent us from being as good in the NCAA tournament or that regular season success has no bearing on post season success. It's nothing more than a fabrication to make people feel better about our recent lack of regular season success.

 

[Day2]

You're right. In a given year the two don't correlate. That's not what I was saying. If you look at the teams that regularly compete for regular season and conference tournament championships, those are the teams that more frequently are in the running for national championships. They also get more recognition by from the media (remember when Hakim Warrick was a regular on sportcenter's top 10) and attention from recruits. It's not hard to explain why either. They're better teams. I want syracuse to be that again.

There is this implied idea on this board that being better in the regular season or conference tournament would prevent us from being as good in the NCAA tournament or that regular season success has no bearing on post season success. It's nothing more than a fabrication to make people feel better about our recent lack of regular season success.

While it may be a fabrication for some, I’ll reiterate that I’ve felt this way for over 20 years. And I’m not alone. It’s almost as if you’re fabricating the fabrication in order to justify your own point of view.

Your argument about Warrick doesn’t make sense. Before winning the Big East Tournament as a senior, his record in the conference tourney was 1-3.

 

[sufandu]

While it may be a fabrication for some, I’ll reiterate that I’ve felt this way for over 20 years. And I’m not alone. It’s almost as if you’re fabricating the fabrication in order to justify your own point of view.

Your argument about Warrick doesn’t make sense. Before winning the Big East Tournament as a senior, his record in the conference tourney was 1-3.

I'm grouping regular season and conference tournament success together. Not sure how you missed that. The point was when we were having regular season/conference tournament success our perception was higher and national media coverage better than when we've had a subpar regular season followed by an unlikely tournament run.

Virginia is another example of my point. Which had a stronger influence on their perception, last year's regular season or their loss in the tournament? They were still considered an elite team coming into this year and will be a 1 seed after another great season.

Of course the teams that excel at all of them get the most recognition. Duke is the best definition of that.

If you only care about the NCAA tournament that's fine. It's your choice. To suggest that it's the only thing that subjectively or objectively matters in the grand scheme of the sport (if that's what you're doing) is false.

 

[Day2]

I'm grouping regular season and conference tournament success together. Not sure how you missed that. The point was when we were having regular season/conference tournament success our perception was higher and national media coverage better than when we've had a subpar regular season followed by an unlikely tournament run.

Virginia is another example of my point. Which had a stronger influence on their perception, last year's regular season or their loss in the tournament? They were still considered an elite team coming into this year and will be a 1 seed after another great season.

Of course the teams that excel at all of them get the most recognition. Duke is the best definition of that.

If you only care about the NCAA tournament that's fine. It's your choice. To suggest that it's the only thing that subjectively or objectively matters in the grand scheme of the sport (if that's what you're doing) is false.

Aren’t you moving the goalposts then? When did I ever say the regular season was meaningless? This conversation was originally about conference tourneys only.

The funny thing is, we really haven’t had a ton of success in conference tourneys since I was a freshman in 94-95. And some of our best Big East Tournament runs came during subpar regular seasons, where we needed those runs just to get in (2006 being a perfect example).

I have to assume you’ve been a fan since the ‘80s or earlier, because that’s when we saw more of that combination of regular season and conference tournament success. Of course, aside from 1987, we had a lot more disappointing results in the NCAAs back then as well. Perhaps that’s why our perspectives differ.

One last thing. All things considered, I would take our season last year over UVA’s. Yeah, beating MSU and getting to the Sweet 16 covered up a lot of warts. But I would not want to go through the regular season UVA had only to have it end in such embarrassing fashion. My local team is Mizzou. I do not have fond memories of the 2011-12 season. Yes, they had one of their best regular seasons ever and won the Big 12 Tournament. What sticks out the most, though, is losing to Norfolk State in the first round. Not good times.