Waters

[HOFCeluck]

The Rutgers game was at rutgers. A tough place to play. We were a young team that got better and better. By now, you should know that what happens in January is not who you might be in march. You made a point about losing twice to Uconn. Neither game was at syracuse. We lost at home, at D.C. and at MSG to G-town. The 03 team led almost the entire ncaa tournament.

Yes the 2003 team was a work in progress over the course of the entire season.

And that is exactly why I may be inclined to real them behind other teams that were more dominant over the course of the year but less fortunate wrt tournament mAtch ups/location/injuries.

And come on. Its Rutgers.

 

[jgeorge322]

An argument can be made for that, but I don't think that's what Waters is doing. He's ranking the success of the seasons.

I've been covering the Syracuse University basketball program for the past 25 seasons. Actually, it's 25 and a half since I started on the beat mid-way through the 1988-89 season.

Over two-plus weeks, I'll rank the teams that I've covered. That's 1 through 26 or, more precisely, 26 through 1.

Which teams would you rank among the best in the past 25 (actually 26) years? Let us know what you think of the rankings in the comments section.

 

[sufandu]

Bias toward the teams of the 80s/early nineties. Overall better play in college ball.

And Waters is only ranking teams that he covered. So you're not going to see the 1987 team at all.

Quite understandable. I loved that era. I was just becoming a fan then. I wish I was a bit older so I could've had better memories of those teams. My fanhood solidified during the down years. of the '90's, so one of my best memories is the run in '96. I think it was a couple other people that mentioned '87.

 

[sufandu]

I've been covering the Syracuse University basketball program for the past 25 seasons. Actually, it's 25 and a half since I started on the beat mid-way through the 1988-89 season.

Over two-plus weeks, I'll rank the teams that I've covered. That's 1 through 26 or, more precisely, 26 through 1.

Which teams would you rank among the best in the past 25 (actually 26) years? Let us know what you think of the rankings in the comments section.

Sure, that's all well and good. In the comments section of one of the articles, in response to a comment somebody left, he explains that how a team lived up to expectations has played a large roll in his rankings. So, for him, it hasn't been so much which team would beat the others but who had the most successful seasons based on how well they were expected to do.

 

[OttoMets]

Sure, that's all well and good. In the comments section of one of the articles, in response to a comment somebody left, he explains that how a team lived up to expectations has played a large roll in his rankings. So, for him, it hasn't been so much which team would beat the others but who had the most successful seasons based on how well they were expected to do.

I get the overall sense that this is more an "against expectations" ranking rather than the "best teams" list Waters claims it to be, but he's still inconsistent within that criterion, too. Ranking the 2000 team behind the 2013 team is weird (http://www.syracuse.com/orangebaske...g_east_and_advanced_to_the_sweet_16_no_8.html).

He's just all over the place with this list. What matters in judging one team (on 2004: "the loss to a very good" [are you kidding me?] "Alabama team hardly diminishes what this team accomplished" [which was lose eight of 31 games, finish third in the Big East, and get upset by Boston College in the first round) doesn't apply to others (2005 and 1991, which, respectively, won the Big East Tournament and won the Big East regular season while racking up excellent records and not getting dinged by bad teams; first-round NCAA losses, however, do diminish what those teams accomplished).

Of course his bosses want this to inspire discussion, and of course any list is subjective and open to dispute, but it would be nice to see some consistency and a clarification about exactly what he's ranking (best teams he's seen? best overall accomplishments? best success against expectations?).

 

[HOFCeluck]

I get the overall sense that this is more an "against expectations" ranking rather than the "best teams" list Waters claims it to be, but he's still inconsistent within that criterion, too. Ranking the 2000 team behind the 2013 team is weird (http://www.syracuse.com/orangebaske...g_east_and_advanced_to_the_sweet_16_no_8.html).

He's just all over the place with this list. What matters in judging one team (on 2004: "the loss to a very good" [are you kidding me?] "Alabama team hardly diminishes what this team accomplished" [which was lose eight of 31 games, finish third in the Big East, and get upset by Boston College in the first round) doesn't apply to others (2005 and 1991, which, respectively, won the Big East Tournament and won the Big East regular season while racking up excellent records and not getting dinged by bad teams; first-round NCAA losses, however, do diminish what those teams accomplished).

Of course his bosses want this to inspire discussion, and of course any list is subjective and open to dispute, but it would be nice to see some consistency and a clarification about exactly what he's ranking (best teams he's seen? best overall accomplishments? best success against expectations?).

He's going to have the 1990 team in his top six, which I would think goes against his "against expectations" criteria.

 

[OttoMets]

He's going to have the 1990 team in his top six, which I would think goes against his "against expectations" criteria.

Same for 2012, to some extent (they were preseason top-ten and went to the Elite Eight).

The inconsistency bothers me; the more I think about it, a more interesting piece would have involved a subjective ranking based on the eye test.

Waters is someone who watches a lot of basketball and has access to this program at a level that 99% of us don't have. Why not do a list, then, based on things that we can't identify? Give us some basketball analysis, tell us why one team's good and why another team is better. This whole enterprise just smacks of Bleacher Report; it's blurbs and statistics that anyone could have thrown together (with a little bit of baseless subjectivity [SU would have won the Michigan State game "going away" had it not been played in Michigan; Alabama was "very good" in 2004; our 1995 team was so "close to being great," as if that has nothing to do with how we played in the 30 games he watched] sprinkled in for good measure). In this current form, the list could have been assembled not just by someone who doesn't know anything about basketball but by someone who didn't watch many of the Syracuse games at all. Write like an expert, Mike; give examples, write in specifics rather than generalities.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Same for 2012, to some extent (they were preseason top-ten and went to the Elite Eight).

The inconsistency bothers me; the more I think about it, a more interesting piece would have involved a subjective ranking based on the eye test.

Waters is someone who watches a lot of basketball and has access to this program at a level that 99% of us don't have. Why not do a list, then, based on things that we can't identify? Give us some basketball analysis, tell us why one team's good and why another team is better. This whole enterprise just smacks of Bleacher Report; it's blurbs and statistics that anyone could have thrown together (with a little bit of baseless subjectivity [SU would have won the Michigan State game "going away" had it not been played in Michigan; Alabama was "very good" in 2004; our 1995 team was so "close to being great," as if that has nothing to do with how we played in the 30 games he watched] sprinkled in for good measure). In this current form, the list could have been assembled not just by someone who doesn't know anything about basketball but by someone who didn't watch many of the Syracuse games at all. Write like an expert, Mike; give examples, write in specifics rather than generalities.

I agree with everything, except for 2012. I actually thought they exceeded expectations given the loss of Melo right before the tournament.

 

[OttoMets]

I agree with everything, except for 2012. I actually thought they exceeded expectations given the loss of Melo right before the tournament.

That brings up an interesting point, further complicating things: which team do we evaluate? 2012 had a Fab team (excellent), a team with Fab suspended (three or four games, decent), a post-suspension team (good, but never as good as before the suspension), and the final team (which I think did exceed expectations, though it was obviously inferior to the one that played so well against Florida and North Carolina State).

We'll see which one Mike considers to be the "true" 2012 team. So far, it seems like four days in New York summed up the true character of the 2006 and 2009 teams; surely six NCAA games weigh heavily in favor of the 1996 team as a top-six pick (along with their overachiever status).

It's an endlessly entertaining exercise.

 

[LennX6]

I put wes johnson team #1. Maybe 87 and then 03.

2003, 1987, 1989, 2010, 2012 in that order

 

[LennX6]

That brings up an interesting point, further complicating things: which team do we evaluate? 2012 had a Fab team (excellent), a team with Fab suspended (three or four games, decent), a post-suspension team (good, but never as good as before the suspension), and the final team (which I think did exceed expectations, though it was obviously inferior to the one that played so well against Florida and North Carolina State).

We'll see which one Mike considers to be the "true" 2012 team. So far, it seems like four days in New York summed up the true character of the 2006 and 2009 teams; surely six NCAA games weigh heavily in favor of the 1996 team as a top-six pick (along with their overachiever status).

It's an endlessly entertaining exercise.

How do you score a 1979-80 team that was great in the context of its point in history but looking back perhaps not so much?
Or like 1980-81 who at the end of it all would have taken against anyone.
2006 kind of same thing.
1996 not a 2003 or 1987 but still came a breath away from a championship.
None top-5 for sure but I think the more interesting discussions are who lines up 5 through 12.

 

[HOFCeluck]

How do you score a 1979-80 team that was great in the context of its point in history but looking back perhaps not so much?

How so? This was before my time.

 

[OrangeDW]

I'm curious what '89 is based on? They had more losses and lost earlier in the tournament. Don't get wrong. I love that team. I just don't think their season was as good.

They didn't have the best season. But top to bottom, that was the best SU team ever. Arguably 3 of our top 5 players ever all on one team, plus Stevie Thompson? The other teams were better back then too though.

I really don't see the arguments for 2010 or 2012 over 2003...they did not have better seasons(nobody did!) and they also didnt have better players. The 2010 team has become a bit overrated and our freakin NC team has become underrated by our own fanbase.

2003 had 3 of our all time greats including our best player ever. I realize the 2010 team had fantastic offensive balance and chemistry...so did 2003!

2012 was one of our best and most talented teams ever. Very deep. All kinds of guys who could play. But didn't have that great player at the top. Waiters was very good, but Melo, Sherman, DC, Owens, Wes don't lay the egg Dion did against Ohio St. He wasn't quite there yet.

 

[thebigeast44]

I'd take the 88-89 team over any other during Waters time here. They lost to a terrific Illinois team in the Elite 8. But overall, they were the most talented team we've had in that time period IMHO. The 2010 team was simply beautiful to watch - if only AO had not been injured. And of course, 2003 had the ultimate ending. If Sherman Douglas had redshirted his freshman year, the 89-90 team would have been the best ever.

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

I agree and that was a great game and a real good SU team!

 

[RF2044]

I'd take the 88-89 team over any other during Waters time here. They lost to a terrific Illinois team in the Elite 8. But overall, they were the most talented team we've had in that time period IMHO. The 2010 team was simply beautiful to watch - if only AO had not been injured. And of course, 2003 had the ultimate ending. If Sherman Douglas had redshirted his freshman year, the 89-90 team would have been the best ever.

Great post!

 

[HOFCeluck]

They didn't have the best season. But top to bottom, that was the best SU team ever. Arguably 3 of our top 5 players ever all on one team, plus Stevie Thompson? The other teams were better back then too though.

I really don't see the arguments for 2010 or 2012 over 2003...they did not have better seasons(nobody did!) and they also didnt have better players. The 2010 team has become a bit overrated and our freakin NC team has become underrated by our own fanbase.

2003 had 3 of our all time greats including our best player ever. I realize the 2010 team had fantastic offensive balance and chemistry...so did 2003!

2012 was one of our best and most talented teams ever. Very deep. All kinds of guys who could play. But didn't have that great player at the top. Waiters was very good, but Melo, Sherman, DC, Owens, Wes don't lay the egg Dion did against Ohio St. He wasn't quite there yet.

I hear what your saying and I don't like to deal in conjecture, with that said if Onuaku didn't injure his quad and we went all the way itd be hard for me not to consider them the undisputed best team in the JB era.

 

[sufandu]

They didn't have the best season. But top to bottom, that was the best SU team ever. Arguably 3 of our top 5 players ever all on one team, plus Stevie Thompson? The other teams were better back then too though.

I really don't see the arguments for 2010 or 2012 over 2003...they did not have better seasons(nobody did!) and they also didnt have better players. The 2010 team has become a bit overrated and our freakin NC team has become underrated by our own fanbase.

2003 had 3 of our all time greats including our best player ever. I realize the 2010 team had fantastic offensive balance and chemistry...so did 2003!

2012 was one of our best and most talented teams ever. Very deep. All kinds of guys who could play. But didn't have that great player at the top. Waiters was very good, but Melo, Sherman, DC, Owens, Wes don't lay the egg Dion did against Ohio St. He wasn't quite there yet.

Can't argue with any of that.

 

[OttoMets]

How do you score a 1979-80 team that was great in the context of its point in history but looking back perhaps not so much?
Or like 1980-81 who at the end of it all would have taken against anyone.
2006 kind of same thing.
1996 not a 2003 or 1987 but still came a breath away from a championship.
None top-5 for sure but I think the more interesting discussions are who lines up 5 through 12.

That's a good point, too. The 1980 team was dominant (for SU, in that era) but played a different schedule than all our teams of the last 25 years.

Still arbitrary, but any list like this should include a rubric with scores assigned to each factor considered. 1-5: regular-season success, consistency, post-season success, talent, success against expectations, eye test, that kind of thing.

 

[OttoMets]

... Waiters was very good, but Melo, Sherman, DC, Owens, Wes don't lay the egg Dion did against Ohio St. He wasn't quite there yet.

Man, I was all set to contradict you. Then I did my research: http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300840183

Contrary to my memory, Wes had a solid game that night. How did he not touch the ball in the last four minutes? Criminal.

 

[OrangeDW]

Man, I was all set to contradict you. Then I did my research: http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300840183

Contrary to my memory, Wes had a solid game that night. How did he not touch the ball in the last four minutes? Criminal.

Agreed. That whole game was maddening in every way. Part of the reason why I really question those who rate that team over 2003. No AO, bad breaks, bad bounces, that's all true but also...we sucked in that game.

 

[rrlbees]

Agreed. That whole game was maddening in every way. Part of the reason why I really question those who rate that team over 2003. No AO, bad breaks, bad bounces, that's all true but also...we sucked in that game.

Outplayed them in every facet except the turnovers.

 

[OrangeDW]

Outplayed them in every facet except the turnovers.

Yeah. 18 turnovers in a game with that few possessions(I'm guessing, it as a slow paced game from memory), is a ridiculous amount. We were the better team, even without AO. Should've beaten them.

 

[LennX6]

Agreed. That whole game was maddening in every way. Part of the reason why I really question those who rate that team over 2003. No AO, bad breaks, bad bounces, that's all true but also...we sucked in that game.

And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there a 35ft, no time on the shot clock left, bank and *swish* in this game?. Seems like every remarkable loss there is a s h * t shot from 3 that goes in.
Its like the Pink Teddy Bear on Breaking Bad. When it showed up, death followed.

 

[LennX6]

Yeah. 18 turnovers in a game with that few possessions(I'm guessing, it as a slow paced game from memory), is a ridiculous amount. We were the better team, even without AO. Should've beaten them.

That box score was crazy. 18 TO and we still won! Our teams since then are never near that number. I remember 20 TO games in the 90's.