Tournament take aways | Syracusefan.com

Tournament take aways

OCESIP

Walk On
Joined
Sep 22, 2022
Messages
191
Like
340
So what do the tournament results show us regarding
individual teams and conferences? It's certainly a
crap shoot and 1 game doesn't necessarily represent
a whole season. On the other hand, these games are
the most important of the year and how you play in
them makes or breaks your season.

It certainly gives the ACC some talking points when
3 of the last 8 are in. Of these, they have 25 combined
losses, which must be some indication that the rest
of the league was a little better than advertised.
 
Certainly the crazy nature of the tournament can't be used to judge whole conferences. At the same time, we should learn from that and conclude that early non-conference games should also not be weighed too heavily. Teams grow and regress throughout the year, and with the way the portal has eroded year to year continuity, the way teams change throughout the season now is exaggerated compared to the past. I would love to see more non-conference games in late January and early February.
 
Certainly the crazy nature of the tournament can't be used to judge whole conferences. At the same time, we should learn from that and conclude that early non-conference games should also not be weighed too heavily. Teams grow and regress throughout the year, and with the way the portal has eroded year to year continuity, the way teams change throughout the season now is exaggerated compared to the past. I would love to see more non-conference games in late January and early February.

Edit
I made a mistake and updated. The B12 is actually worse than what I had before. Their future 16 schools have a combined 7 Final Fours over the last 15 seasons.



I don't think conference performance is random when you see the same patterns year in and year out.

Looking at the last 13 Final Fours by future conference:

12x ACC with 6 teams making up those 12 appearances.
10x Big Ten with 6 teams
8x Big East with 3 teams
8x SEC with 5 teams
7x Big 12 with 5 teams
2x A10 with 2 teams
2x AAC with 2 teams
2x WCC with 1 team
1x MWC with 1 team

This year will add to that...

1-2 ACC and 0-2 new teams
0-2 Big Ten and 0-2 new teams
0-1 Big East and 0 new teams
0 Big 12
0-2 SEC and 0-2 new teams
0 A10, AAC, WCC, MWC

Kinda crazy that the ACC could see 8 of its current 15 schools make a Final Four in the last 15 years.
 
Last edited:
So what do the tournament results show us regarding
individual teams and conferences? It's certainly a
crap shoot and 1 game doesn't necessarily represent
a whole season. On the other hand, these games are
the most important of the year and how you play in
them makes or breaks your season.

It certainly gives the ACC some talking points when
3 of the last 8 are in. Of these, they have 25 combined
losses, which must be some indication that the rest
of the league was a little better than advertised.
Coaching matters
IQ matters
Talent matters
Execution matters
Chemistry matters
Every little detail matters

The path matters too

I love watching these games. Every team plays at such a high level. Most individuals play their role to perfection. In the end, it comes down to 1 or 2 plays. A miracle or mistake here or there deciding everything
 
So what do the tournament results show us regarding
individual teams and conferences? It's certainly a
crap shoot and 1 game doesn't necessarily represent
a whole season. On the other hand, these games are
the most important of the year and how you play in
them makes or breaks your season.

It certainly gives the ACC some talking points when
3 of the last 8 are in. Of these, they have 25 combined
losses, which must be some indication that the rest
of the league was a little better than advertised.
I wouldnt be as diplomatic as you

none of the ACC teams still alive got lucky to win any of their games...if anything UNC couldve easily made it 4 of 8

ACC got totally jobbed by the NET - the new formula sucks

the NET really really really sucks

games in november and decemeber need to get a lot less weight imo

that said, the difference between the top 50 or 100 teams or whatever isnt as big as it has been - but for a reason - there isnt continuity in many programs these days ...new roster every year will not lead to high quality basketball...NIL/portal isnt only killing continuity...its lowering quality of play...at least for the first half of the season


in terms of style of play - having a post scorer is ESSENTIAL...almost all of these teams that went far have a guy or two they can drop it down low to for a bucket

this era of SU bigs who can barely catch the ball needs to end

imagine having filipowski on this year's team (he was recruited)...i think theyd have been a 1 seed or somewhere close.

the difference between these teams is pretty slim in general imo
 
I wouldnt be as diplomatic as you

none of the ACC teams still alive got lucky to win any of their games...if anything UNC couldve easily made it 4 of 8

ACC got totally jobbed by the NET - the new formula sucks

the NET really really really sucks

games in november and decemeber need to get a lot less weight imo

that said, the difference between the top 50 or 100 teams or whatever isnt as big as it has been - but for a reason - there isnt continuity in many programs these days ...new roster every year will not lead to high quality basketball...NIL/portal isnt only killing continuity...its lowering quality of play...at least for the first half of the season


in terms of style of play - having a post scorer is ESSENTIAL...almost all of these teams that went far have a guy or two they can drop it down low to for a bucket

this era of SU bigs who can barely catch the ball needs to end

imagine having filipowski on this year's team (he was recruited)...i think theyd have been a 1 seed or somewhere close.

the difference between these teams is pretty slim in general imo
I was with you until you said we would've been a 1 seed. Do you the think the rest of our roster was that good? If it was, we would've at least squeaked in to the tournament as is. A really good big gets us in the tournament and gets us flirting with top 25. That would've been our ceiling with our inconsistent 3 pt shooting.
 
I was with you until you said we would've been a 1 seed. Do you the think the rest of our roster was that good? If it was, we would've at least squeaked in to the tournament as is. A really good big gets us in the tournament and gets us flirting with top 25. That would've been our ceiling with our inconsistent 3 pt shooting.
i think the rest of the roster + filipowski would be a 1 or 2 seed...maybe a 3...and i dont think thats controversial.

he might be the best player in NCAA...

when you add the best player in the sport to a 20 win team...while also filling in the biggest and most glaring holes on that 20 win team...how many extra wins do you think that would be worth??

something significant!

think about it like this - how many of the 12 losses wouldve been wins with filipowski? 50%?

that team would be 26 or 27 wins minimum...maybe better than Duke's actual record...or very similar

duke is pretty good but i dont think the rest of their roster is THAT good...

I dont think duke wouldve made the tourney without kyle
 
i think the rest of the roster + filipowski would be a 1 or 2 seed...maybe a 3...and i dont think thats controversial.

he might be the best player in NCAA...

when you add the best player in the sport to a 20 win team...while also filling in the biggest and most glaring holes on that 20 win team...how many extra wins do you think that would be worth??

something significant!

think about it like this - how many of the 12 losses wouldve been wins with filipowski? 50%?

that team would be 26 or 27 wins minimum...maybe better than Duke's actual record...or very similar

duke is pretty good but i dont think the rest of their roster is THAT good...

I dont think duke wouldve made the tourney without kyle
We were never really going to get Flip though. We recruited him but he was going to go bigger than what we are now.
 
in terms of style of play - having a post scorer is ESSENTIAL...almost all of these teams that went far have a guy or two they can drop it down low to for a bucket
Yup. A legimate interior scoring threat, a natural PG who can initiate offense, and at least two 3 point shooters who can shoot over 35% are nearly universal truths for offenses that do well.

We need to focus our recruting attention there.
 
ACC got totally jobbed by the NET - the new formula sucks

the NET really really really sucks
I certainly agree with you. But I would much rather “game” the system and be strategic about it if it means increasing our chances of getting in than I would complaining about the Big 12 doing it.
 
I certainly agree with you. But I would much rather “game” the system and be strategic about it if it means increasing our chances of getting in than I would complaining about the Big 12 doing it.

The ACC, where they were in early season,. wasn't really good enough to game the system this year. They played plenty of Q4 games themselves. Now of course they can be better as a whole next year when they can take advantage of it more. I also think more importantly than playing Q4 (which most leagues are doing), is if the league has a informal understanding in terms of not "letting up" against jabroni squads. Everybody plays plenty of Q4 teams sadly in all conferences (the B12 more)which is unfortunate that it makes it matter.

Leagues that go 25-1 (B12) against Q3 teams vs 26-8 (ACC) are going to be able to squash and control the narrative quite a bit better than the when they go a tier down in opponent.
 
We were never really going to get Flip though. We recruited him but he was going to go bigger than what we are now.
well yeah...but kyle did take an official visit to syracuse.


and that wasnt even my point anyway...was just a "thought experiment"

trying to drive home the importance of having a big who can score and dominate and how much of a difference that can make to the team.

i think this year wouldve been totally different with that type of center who couldve been a force...

ever since I can remember - whenever Syracuse has one of those guys...its pretty much a lock that the team will have a good year.

there arent many of those guys out there - but look at what happened with NC state - seems they started featuring burns more and it got them going

I just want the Orange to get away from the profile of big theyve had for a long time now - big body, take up space, maybe be skinny, maybe be undersized, mostly a defender and nothing more...no expectation of anythig on offense.

maybe they cant get flip or the best big in the country but they must be able to get a big who can score and be a real basketball player...so many other teams seem to have that ...even smaller schools
 
Last edited:
well yeah...but kyle did take an official visit to syracuse.


and that wasnt even my point anyway...was just a "thought experiment"

trying to drive home the importance of having a big who can score and dominate and how much of a difference that can make to the team.

i think this year wouldve been totally different with that type of center who couldve been a force...

ever since I can remember - whenever Syracuse has one of those guys...its pretty much a lock that the team will have a good year.

there arent many of those guys out there - but look at what happened with NC state - seems they started featuring burns more and it got them going

I just want the Orange to get away from the profile of big theyve had for a long time now - big body, take up space, maybe be skinny, maybe be undersized, mostly a defender and nothing more...no expectation of anythig on offense.

maybe they cant get flip or the best big in the country but they must be able to get a big who can score and be a real basketball player...so many other teams seem to have that ...even smaller schools
I agree. I thought this year would have been different if Edwards had stayed
 
i think the rest of the roster + filipowski would be a 1 or 2 seed...maybe a 3...and i dont think thats controversial.

he might be the best player in NCAA...

when you add the best player in the sport to a 20 win team...while also filling in the biggest and most glaring holes on that 20 win team...how many extra wins do you think that would be worth??

something significant!

think about it like this - how many of the 12 losses wouldve been wins with filipowski? 50%?

that team would be 26 or 27 wins minimum...maybe better than Duke's actual record...or very similar

duke is pretty good but i dont think the rest of their roster is THAT good...

I dont think duke wouldve made the tourney without kyle
I'm not saying we're not a good team with him. I certainly think we're solidly in the tournament with him. I'm just saying that it's a reach to say simply adding him makes us a 1 seed. Duke is a 4 seed with him. You really think the rest of our roster is that much better than Duke's? Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
 
I certainly agree with you. But I would much rather “game” the system and be strategic about it if it means increasing our chances of getting in than I would complaining about the Big 12 doing it.
I would rather the system be exposed and fixed so it can't be gamed.
 
My biggest takeaway is how far we are from being a legit 2nd weekend and title contender.

Teams have multiple bigs that can guard, score inside and rebound. Many can get their own shot and that allows their teams to play some inside out.

Teams have multiple shooters

Multiple guys that create for themselves and teammates

I don’t see many, if any, one-dimensional players that get 25+ minutes per game.

And coaching is such a big element of teams that are still playing. I just don’t see Red close to that level, at least yet.
 
My biggest takeaway for the tourney is that you need a star on your team, specifically a future nba first round draft pick, in order to win the tourney. Per cbs sports, since the nba-aba merger in 1976 , every champion, with the exception of Indiana in 1987, had a first round pick on their team. In 87, Steve Alford from Indiana was picked # 26 when there were only 23 players drafted in the first round. Su had two first round draft picks on that 1987 team, Seikaly and Coleman and also Sherman Douglas, who was the first pick of the second round.
 
Many of these comments -unntentionally of course - illustrate what a good job Red Autry did this season.
Winning 20 games with an injury-depleted roster.
He had a makeshift front court with a power forward at center who played his heart out but was often overmatched and certainly wasn't a post player on offense.
And a backcourt that wasn't exactly a great threat to connect on 3-pointers.
 
Should’ve paid up. Principal cost the team the tournament. Edwards won’t be the last good player to run a bidding war.
I said that last year when it was happening and got a hard time from lots of people on this site. It was true then and it’s true now. An extra few hundred grand to be in the tournament is worth it, and I think all the dissenters realize that now.
 
Many of these comments -unntentionally of course - illustrate what a good job Red Autry did this season.
Winning 20 games with an injury-depleted roster.
He had a makeshift front court with a power forward at center who played his heart out but was often overmatched and certainly wasn't a post player on offense.
And a backcourt that wasn't exactly a great threat to connect on 3-pointers.
And that PF was smallish for the position, which makes it even more impressive we hung around as much as we did. Get a penetrating and distributing pg and a threat in the post, and we're looking good next year.
 
Edit
I made a mistake and updated. The B12 is actually worse than what I had before. Their future 16 schools have a combined 7 Final Fours over the last 15 seasons.



I don't think conference performance is random when you see the same patterns year in and year out.

Looking at the last 13 Final Fours by future conference:

12x ACC with 6 teams making up those 12 appearances.
10x Big Ten with 6 teams
8x Big East with 3 teams
8x SEC with 5 teams
7x Big 12 with 5 teams
2x A10 with 2 teams
2x AAC with 2 teams
2x WCC with 1 team
1x MWC with 1 team

This year will add to that...

1-2 ACC and 0-2 new teams
0-2 Big Ten and 0-2 new teams
0-1 Big East and 0 new teams
0 Big 12
0-2 SEC and 0-2 new teams
0 A10, AAC, WCC, MWC

Kinda crazy that the ACC could see 8 of its current 15 schools make a Final Four in the last 15 years.

Updating for yesterday and today…

Looking at the last 14 Final Fours (15 years) by future conference:

13x ACC with 6 or 7 teams making up those 13 appearances.
11x Big Ten with 7 teams
9x SEC with 6 teams
9x Big East with 3 teams
7x Big 12 with 5 teams
2x A10 with 2 teams
2x AAC with 2 teams
2x WCC with 1 team
1x MWC with 1 team


I would say the Big East is the most impressive with 9 appearances for their 11 schools. Then the ACC. While the B12 comes across the worst.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
167,964
Messages
4,740,471
Members
5,934
Latest member
bspencer309

Online statistics

Members online
255
Guests online
1,137
Total visitors
1,392


Top Bottom