The 25 Most Successful College Basketball Programs Of The 64-Team Era

[BlackKnight76]

Contributed to this today. Cuse is in the Top 10.

http://collegespun.com/national/the...m-era-scored-by-ncaa-tournament-bracket-rules

 

[rrlbees]

Some people aren't going to like that article. They probably think this failure of a program should be near the bottom of the top 25.

 

[BlackKnight76]

Some people aren't going to like that article. They probably think this failure of a program should be near the bottom of the top 25.

Clearly a second round loss should be like...a 500 point deduction.

 

[Eric15]

Contributed to this today. Cuse is in the Top 10.

http://collegespun.com/national/the...m-era-scored-by-ncaa-tournament-bracket-rules

No disagreement here - on any list of most successful programs, we should be in the 8-10 range.

 

[Alsacs]

We are good program no questions asked I would say from 1985 through 2004 we overachieved almost as equally to as many times as we underachieved. From 2005 till 2014 we have only overachieved 1 time in 2013, and met expectations 1 time in 2009. Our exits in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 have all be earlier than our seed would project.

I would guess without clicking the schools ahead of Syracuse would be 1. Duke 2. UConn 3. North Carolina 4. Kentucky 5. Michigan State 6. Kansas 7.Florida and maybe Louisville.

 

[BlackKnight76]

We are good program no questions asked I would say from 1985 through 2004 we overachieved almost as equally to as many times as we underachieved. From 2005 till 2014 we have only overachieved 1 time in 2013, and met expectations 1 time in 2009. Our exits in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 have all be earlier than our seed would project.

I would guess without clicking the schools ahead of Syracuse would be 1. Duke 2. UConn 3. North Carolina 4. Kentucky 5. Michigan State 6. Kansas 7.Florida and maybe Louisville.

Not the right order, but you nailed the eight teams. Nice job.

 

[gilardino]

I thought we sucked

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I thought we sucked

Just in the past month. What have you done for me lately?!

 

[SWC75]

It doesn't suck to be us. It just seems like it at the moment.

We are like the guy with a car that works fine but his neighbor has just bought his third new one since our guy got his.

 

[swish7]

Our exits in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 have all be earlier than our seed would project. 1. Duke 2. UConn 3. North Carolina 4. Kentucky 5. Michigan State 6. Kansas 7.Florida and maybe Louisville.

Those articles don't leave me with any sort of 'feel good' moment, and validates nothing. Wins like what UConn experienced, and deep runs like MSU has are what matters. Articles like that just make the early exit(s) and losses to the likes of a 6 win BC team hurt even more.

UConn, MSU, Florida, and Louisville is the peer group that I want Syracuse to lead, and playing style I wish Syracuse would emulate.

 

[Alsacs]

I thought we sucked

Anybody who says our program sucks are moronic trolls. We are a great program, but I am frustrated we have left more on the table than we have gotten everything out of our talent. My point above is a legit point. 1985 thru 2004 we overachieved in 1987, 1996,1998, 1999 2003, 2004 we met expectations in 1985, 1989 1992,1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, and underachieved in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991.

That is 6 overachieving years, 7 meeting expectations years, 4 underachieving years.
Since 2004 we have only overachieved 1 time in 2013, and met 1 expectations 1 time in 2009. We have underachieved in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011,2012, 2014.

How is this saying we suck? We don't suck, but underachieve in the postseason.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Can't argue with any of that. We gotta get some postseason mojo going again. Arizona isn't going anywhere and will be F4 contenders every year with the way Miller recruits.

 

[orange2win]

Anybody who says our program sucks are moronic trolls. We are a great program, but I am frustrated we have left more on the table than we have gotten everything out of our talent. My point above is a legit point. 1985 thru 2004 we overachieved in 1987, 1996,1998, 1999 2003, 2004 we met expectations in 1985, 1989 1992,1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, and underachieved in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991.

That is 6 overachieving years, 7 meeting expectations years, 4 underachieving years.
Since 2004 we have only overachieved 1 time in 2013, and met 1 expectations 1 time in 2009. We have underachieved in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011,2012, 2014.

How is this saying we suck? We don't suck, but underachieve in the postseason.

We overachieved in 1999 and 2004??? You must be kidding. In 1999 we lost in the 1st round to a #9 seed and 2004 we lost in the 3rd round to #8 seed. Move those two over to the underachieved list where they belong and your point goes out the window.

 

[HOFCeluck]

We overachieved in 1999 and 2004??? You must be kidding. In 1999 we lost in the 1st round to a #9 seed and 2004 we lost in the 3rd round to #8 seed. Move those two over to the underachieved list where they belong and your point goes out the window.

In 2004 we were seeded to lose in the second round.

 

[Alsacs]

We overachieved in 1999 and 2004??? You must be kidding. In 1999 we lost in the 1st round to a #9 seed and 2004 we lost in the 3rd round to #8 seed. Move those two over to the underachieved list where they belong and your point goes out the window.

2004 we were a 5 seed that got to the Sweet 16 we overachieved even if we lost to a 8 seed. I am going to be consistent we advanced further than our seed dictated.
1999 should be we met expectations instead of overachieving.

I am not going to go overboard I have to be fair.

 

[JoeSU]

We overachieved in 1999 and 2004??? You must be kidding. In 1999 we lost in the 1st round to a #9 seed and 2004 we lost in the 3rd round to #8 seed. Move those two over to the underachieved list where they belong and your point goes out the window.

Seriously?
In 199 we were an 8 seed that lost to a 9 seed.
In 2004 we were a 5 seed, that lost in the Sweet 16 to a #8 seed Alabama team, that had beaten a #1 seed (Stanford) in their previous game. (We had beaten a #4 seed to get to that game).
Not exactly my definition of underachieving.

 

[Briancuse]

It doesn't suck to be us. It just seems like it at the moment.

We are like the guy with a car that works fine but his neighbor has just bought his third new new one since our guy got his.

Things could be a lot worse, we could be a Rutgers or Bc type program, but they could also be better. It would be nice to finally get title number two.

 

[NKR1978]

Things could be a lot worse, we could be a Rutgers or Bc type program, but they could also be better. It would be nice to finally get title number two.

It actually can't be that much better. We're the #9 tournament team in the 64 team era. And it could be worse, we could be Indiana or Michigan.

 

[orange2win]

Seriously?
In 199 we were an 8 seed that lost to a 9 seed.
In 2004 we were a 5 seed, that lost in the Sweet 16 to a #8 seed Alabama team, that had beaten a #1 seed (Stanford) in their previous game. (We had beaten a #4 seed to get to that game).
Not exactly my definition of underachieving.

Yes seriously.

You seriously think we over achieved in 1999? Okay take 2000. Much the same team, a great team (Hart, Blackwell, Thomas, Brown Bland, Shumpert). Ranked #4 in the nation near the end of conference play. Blown out by Michigan State 75-58. Those guys also did not underachieve I suppose?

In 2004 we got to the S16, so you are a happy guy. Even if we did lose to a #8 seed - unranked Alabama.

Low expectations produces fans who are easy to please.

 

[rrlbees]

Can't argue with any of that. We gotta get some postseason mojo going again. Arizona isn't going anywhere and will be F4 contenders every year with the way Miller recruits.

Get some post season mojo going again? What was last year?

 

[Briancuse]

Yes seriously.

You seriously think we over achieved in 1999? Okay take 2000. Much the same team, a great team (Hart, Blackwell, Thomas, Brown Bland, Shumpert). Ranked #4 in the nation near the end of conference play. Blown out by Michigan State 75-58. Those guys also did not underachieve I suppose?

In 2004 we got to the S16, so you are a happy guy. Even if we did lose to a #8 seed - unranked Alabama.

Low expectations produces fans who are easy to please.

It wasn't so much losing to msu that was underachieving, there is a reason they won the title that year. It was going 6-6 down the stretch after the 19-0 start.

 

[Alsacs]

Get some post season mojo going again? What was last year?

Since 2004 we have underachieved in 2005,2006,2010,2011,2012,2014.
We overachieved 1 time in 2013 and met expectations in 2009.
I think the point being made by the poster is fair. Our postseason needs some good mojo. None of us expect NCs every season. Underachieving 6 times, overachieving 1 time, meeting expectations 1 time, and missing the tournament 2 times isn't good mojo.
Why can't people express legit opinions without you responding to the 2013 Final Four as if that makes your point. We have underachieved in the postseason 5 times more than we have overachieved this past decade that is a fact. I would say we could use some good mojo and that isn't insulting anyone.

 

[rrlbees]

Since 2004 we have underachieved in 2005,2006,2010,2011,2012,2014. We overachieved 1 time in 2013 and met expectations in 2009. I think the point being is fair our postseason needs to get going some more. Non of us expect NCs every season, it underachieving 6 times, overachieving 1 time, meeting expectations 1 time, and missing the tournament 2 times isn't good mojo. Why can't people express legit opinions without you responding to the 2013 Final Four as if that makes your point. We have underachieved in the postseason 5 times more than we have overachieved this past decade that is a fact. I would say we could use some good mojo and that isn't insulting anyone.

You must have replied to the wrong post.

 

[JoeSU]

Yes seriously.

You seriously think we over achieved in 1999? Okay take 2000. Much the same team, a great team (Hart, Blackwell, Thomas, Brown Bland, Shumpert). Ranked #4 in the nation near the end of conference play. Blown out by Michigan State 75-58. Those guys also did not underachieve I suppose?

In 2004 we got to the S16, so you are a happy guy. Even if we did lose to a #8 seed - unranked Alabama.

Low expectations produces fans who are easy to please.

I never claimed we overachieved those years. I was simply refuting your statement: "Move those two over to the underachieved list where they belong...."
Since you bring up 2004... assuming we were accurately seeded (#5), that means we were considered somewhere somewhere between the 17th and 20th best team in the tournament. So technically, making the Sweet 16 would be overachieving.
Unrealistically high expectations produces fans who are impossible to please.

 

[rrlbees]

Since 2004 we have underachieved in 2005,2006,2010,2011,2012,2014. We overachieved 1 time in 2013 and met expectations in 2009. I think the point being is fair our postseason needs to get going some more. Non of us expect NCs every season, it underachieving 6 times, overachieving 1 time, meeting expectations 1 time, and missing the tournament 2 times isn't good mojo. Why can't people express legit opinions without you responding to the 2013 Final Four as if that makes your point. We have underachieved in the postseason 5 times more than we have overachieved this past decade that is a fact. I would say we could use some good mojo and that isn't insulting anyone.

Btw, the under and over achieving by seed stuff is crap. Every single year there are teams seeded incorrectly or get some advantage in some way. It's one thing to be a 2 and lose to a 15, but if a 4 loses to a 6, big deal.