We best be prepared

[DonLightfoot]

We were obviously on the bubble last year and the Committee received a lot of criticism for putting us in. My concern is wondering if there will be any kind of "hangover" situation in the Committee for this year.

There are lots of discussions on here about "where we need to be" to get in this year. Based on my comments in the first paragraph, I feel we need to have a better record than we currently think. I hope the Committee doesn't look at it in this context, but I would not want to leave anything to chance.

Let's finish strong guys. LGO

 

[Dave85]

We were obviously on the bubble last year and the Committee received a lot of criticism for putting us in. My concern is wondering if there will be any kind of "hangover" situation in the Committee for this year.

There are lots of discussions on here about "where we need to be" to get in this year. Based on my comments in the first paragraph, I feel we need to have a better record than we currently think. I hope the Committee doesn't look at it in this context, but I would not want to leave anything to chance.

Let's finish strong guys. LGO

I think it depends on who we beat here on out. The importance of winning an away game against a top 20 team is extremely important.

I think if we on the bubble again and we get in people will have the opposite reaction than last year because we made it to the final four. I think this team is lot like last years team capable of playing well enough to make it to the second weekend. Assuming we get in.

 

[weedsportwarriors]

I say we just win the ACC tournament and take all question out it.

 

[EastCoast2]

Didn't we validate the Selection Committee's decision, though? Shouldn't they have been happy that their controversial #10 seed won 4 games? If anything it spoke to the depth and quality of the ACC last year, which is even better this year.

 

[Dave85]

I say we just win the ACC tournament and take all question out it.

Win or not, we need 20 wins and a strong RPI.

 

[jdubs30]

Didn't we validate the Selection Committee's decision, though? Shouldn't they have been happy that their controversial #10 seed won 4 games? If anything it spoke to the depth and quality of the ACC last year, which is even better this year.

This.

I think it's the opposite of what OP is saying. People said we shouldn't have been at all, let alone a 10 seed, but we went to the Final 4. I think if we lost to Dayton last year, it could potentially hurt our chances this year.

 

[DoctorBombay]

I say we just win the ACC tournament and take all question out it.

 

[iommi]

I say we just win the ACC tournament and take all question out it.

Yeah, let's win ONE ACC tourney game first. Winning it playing 6 (okay 7?) guys is a tall order.

 

[jncuse]

I just don't think it will be possible for this team to have an easy Selection Sunday. It might be able to generate a good bubble resume that the fans can feel somewhat confident about. I just think that is the best case scenario -- hoping to be a lock might be too much to ask.

 

[Briancuse]

I'm not worried about last year, we validated our bid and then some, I am worried about our non conference resume,its beyond awful, the committee's biggest constant is who have you played who have you beat, we beat no one, outside of Monmouth, and lost to some bad teams.

 

[Newhouser]

We have no wins that elevate us above anyone else. We need to work before we are even in the bubble talk.

 

[sutomcat]

We were obviously on the bubble last year and the Committee received a lot of criticism for putting us in. My concern is wondering if there will be any kind of "hangover" situation in the Committee for this year.

There are lots of discussions on here about "where we need to be" to get in this year. Based on my comments in the first paragraph, I feel we need to have a better record than we currently think. I hope the Committee doesn't look at it in this context, but I would not want to leave anything to chance.

Let's finish strong guys. LGO

Syracuse has a chance to be a really unique candidate for an NCAA bid.

The team was horrible during the OOC portion of the schedule. But it has a chance to be a top 30 team in the conference portion of the schedule.

What to do when you are in effect looking at two completely different teams? If you count an ACC conference championship game, the conference portion of the schedule constitutes over 59% of the schedule (19 of 32). If SU goes on a road in the ACC tournament, it will only go up.

SU could well finish 6th or 7th in a conference that gets 12 bids.

What to do in this kind of a situation?

As others are saying, it won't be sufficient to finish with better numbers than 4 or 5 ACC schools. SU has to finish in the upper half of the conference to overcome the awful OCC results.

Going 11-7 in conference play in this conference makes it almost impossible to leave Syracuse out.
I think they might sneak in with a 10-8 record and a win or two in the ACC tournament. That would mean they piled up so many good wins it will be really hard to ignore them.

If this happens, the howls from the mid range defenders will largely be directed at Syracuse again. In that case, I bet the team will do well in the NCAA tourament and embarrass a lot of 'experts'. Again.

As Syracuse keeps piling up ACC wins, Lunardi must be sticking pins in Andrew White III dolls and reading books about black magic. How much longer will anyone listen to him as he continues to show he knows nothing about college basketball?

 

[bozophobe]

Problem is - there's a precedent for SU being left out after a fine conference record. There's that 10-6 record in the Big East that one year that didn't help. And the committee's change in tie-breaker philosophy every few years (last year's strong consideration for OOC games was huge for SU - angering many- but that same consideration could work against them this year).

SU should probably assume they can win each game as they come, including the one at Louisville. They can probably snag a couple of the big ones. But 9 losses through January is way too much for lock talk. The fun part in all this is that some of the better ranked ACC teams still have to play each other, and the loss column trickles upward for all but maybe 2 or 3 teams.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Problem is - there's a precedent for SU being left out after a fine conference record. There's that 10-6 record in the Big East that one year that didn't help. And the committee's change in tie-breaker philosophy every few years (last year's strong consideration for OOC games was huge for SU - angering many- but that same consideration could work against them this year).

SU should probably assume they can win each game as they come, including the one at Louisville. They can probably snag a couple of the big ones. But 9 losses through January is way too much for lock talk. The fun part in all this is that some of the better ranked ACC teams still have to play each other, and the loss column trickles upward for all but maybe 2 or 3 teams.

I don't think anyone thinks we are a lock. I also wouldn't think it is fair to compare a 10-6 record in the 2007 Big East to the 2017 ACC. This Conference is much stronger than that conference. It's not even debatable IMO.

 

[SoBeCuse]

11-7 or 10-8 and two wins in ACCT and we are probably ok. Conference record doesn't matter. They have emphasized that. Whole body of work.

 

[realorange]

I don't think anyone thinks we are a lock. I also wouldn't think it is fair to compare a 10-6 record in the 2007 Big East to the 2017 ACC. This Conference is much stronger than that conference. It's not even debatable IMO.

That year or that conference?? Big debate if you are talking Big East conference before Syracuse left vs ACC.

 

[Cusefan0307]

That year or that conference?? Big debate if you are talking Big East conference before Syracuse left vs ACC.

The 2007 Big East was not very strong IMO. It was the 5th best conference that season according to RPI. Probably the worst season the conference had after Louisville and Marquette joined. UConn was 17-14 that year and we lost to them. That hurt us. Cincinnati was 11-19. The league was not very good collectively in the OOC that year, so that's why our 10-6 record wasn't good enough. We had two wins against tournament teams all year(Georgetown and Marquette).

 

[sd24601]

Didn't we validate the Selection Committee's decision, though? Shouldn't they have been happy that their controversial #10 seed won 4 games? If anything it spoke to the depth and quality of the ACC last year, which is even better this year.

Completely agree with this. If we are on the bubble I would like to think our run to the final four last year proved we belonged. Add in that we struggled going into the tourney and this year we may come in hot (or hotter than we did last year). Add in the fact our fans like to travel and we have a nationwide fan base, and those are all positives for us. The biggest issue will be if we can't get some road wins. Committee weighs road wins and wins on neutral courts more than a great home record. We need some serious wins away from the Dome

 

[jncuse]

That year or that conference?? Big debate if you are talking Big East conference before Syracuse left vs ACC.

We tend to overrate the Big East (at various periods), and think it was a great conference for its entire existence. In reality, there was an extended period of mediocrity in the middle. The expansion with CUSA seem to bring in some good programs to add depth, and it also coincided with an uplift of some programs who had not been great for a while (Villanova, Georgetown)

It was great in the 80's. Around 1992 or so, the conference started to slip relative to others and this continued until about 2005. During this period for most years the ACC was clearly superior to the Big East - over the period it was not even close. That is supported by rankings, seeds, tourney results, F4 appearances. The Big East had a few shining years in between 1993 and 2005. 1996 it had the elite talent and elite teams. Syracuse did get a national title in 2003. UConn, sad to say, carried this conference for a lot of this period. There were years in here that modest Miami teams or Boston College teams or Pitt teams were winning the conference.

Around 2005/2006 with the CUSA expansion the league started to turn positively and became amongst the best again, but I would say it wasn't about until 2008 or 2009 that the league could say it was the dominant league in America. Those years might compare to the ACC now, but not 2007.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Didn't we validate the Selection Committee's decision, though? Shouldn't they have been happy that their controversial #10 seed won 4 games? If anything it spoke to the depth and quality of the ACC last year, which is even better this year.

I've never believed that how you do in the tournament validates whether or not you should have made it. I think making the field should be based on if you had a good regular season - not your potential to make a run in the tourney.

 

[jdubs30]

I've never believed that how you do in the tournament validates whether or not you should have made it. I think making the field should be based on if you had a good regular season - not your potential to make a run in the tourney.

While in a vacuum your point is valid - you can't disagree with the fact that if we lose by 20 to Dayton last year, the committee would get killed for putting us in.

When you get around the 10,11 seed line - everyone is so close (including those being left out). So the committee thought our 3 big wins proved we belonged more than others, and as such, they most likely thought we would be more likely to make a run than others. If Villanova is the #1 overall this year and loses to the 16, that doesn't mean Nova didn't belong - they certainly would have earned their spot. But I think when you get down to the 10/11 area you are looking at more who could have potential as well.

 

[MSOrange]

We were obviously on the bubble last year and the Committee received a lot of criticism for putting us in. My concern is wondering if there will be any kind of "hangover" situation in the Committee for this year.

There are lots of discussions on here about "where we need to be" to get in this year. Based on my comments in the first paragraph, I feel we need to have a better record than we currently think. I hope the Committee doesn't look at it in this context, but I would not want to leave anything to chance.

Let's finish strong guys. LGO

It's an interesting question but I would be irate if they considered anything from a previous year. It goes against everything that they have always said about each year being it's own individual year.

 

[orange79]

It's an interesting question but I would be irate if they considered anything from a previous year. It goes against everything that they have always said about each year being it's own individual year.

Presumably, every season is a season unto itself. Past history is not considered.

Having said that, it's hard to legislate what someone thinks...

 

[MSOrange]

Presumably, every season is a season unto itself. Past history is not considered.

Having said that, it's hard to legislate what someone thinks...