whats the Best SU team to not win it all?

[albanycuse]

87? 96? 10? any others? im goin with 96

 

[MikeSU02]

In terms of pure talent? '89
In terms of best "team"? '10

I love that '96 team, and to this day I think we could have beat UK if John Wallace doesn't get into foul trouble and foul out. But they aren't the best. They may have had the most heart and were the most clutch in the tourney, but they weren't the best.

By the way, that 96 game is viewable in the NCAA vault... it still pisses me off.

 

[jekelish]

Yeah, it's got to be 89. The 96 team didn't actually have that much talent, when you think about it. They were maybe seven deep, and that's even stretching it, because Reafsnyder and Janulis wouldn't have played on a lot of teams, and we had zero backups at the PG spot (David Patrick? Really?).

That second weakness was really evident when Lazarus went down with his wrist injury against UK...with Burgan and Cipolla trying to shoulder that load (primarily Cipolla), I believe we turned it over on 5 of the next 6 ensuing trips until Z got back into the game.

 

[Rocco]

96 was a tough one to swallow, but I'm still bumming about the 2010 team. They were purely dominating teams not named Louisville that year. That Butler game was horrible all around, starting with the coaching.

 

[HOFCeluck]

96 was a tough one to swallow, but I'm still bumming about the 2010 team. They were purely dominating teams not named Louisville that year. That Butler game was horrible all around, starting with the coaching.

87 beats 2010 7/10 at least.

 

[albanycuse]

87 beats 2010 7/10 at least.

what youre not going to provide the scores also?

 

[HOFCeluck]

I could if it made you feel better.

 

[albanycuse]

please do so, i would feel fantastic afterwords.

 

[Rocco]

87 beats 2010 7/10 at least.

I was only 5, so I can't really relate. I am 2010 by default.

 

[cuseclappy]

im saying 10 bc that was the easiest team to root for in my recent memory

 

[jekelish]

As good as the 87 team was, I'm not sure I'd give them the edge 7 of 10 times. Yes, DC and Rony would be tough to stop but at the same time, that team didn't shoot it like the 2010 team did. Monroe was 44% but after that, the only person who even attempted a decent number of threes was Sherm (who hit on around 32% of his attempts). The 2010 team, I think, will be thought of as one of our all-time great teams over time. It's still too recent for us to really appreciate how talented they were, I think.

 

[690West]

i think 7/10 is spot on.

 

[albanycuse]

yeah have to agree the 2010 was the easiest team to root for in recent memory.

 

[Alcuse01]

2010 team was crushing everyone... double digit wins all over. They were at a diff level. I don't know which of the 2 years is better, but I can tell you I had to call out of work and dissappeared from all-things-tournament after the loss. Threw out all my brackets, stopped checking sports sites, no espn, nothing.

 

[dash-30-dash]

2010 we were #1 after the regular season.

 

[NKR1978]

2010 team was crushing everyone... double digit wins all over. They were at a diff level. I don't know which of the 2 years is better, but I can tell you I had to call out of work and dissappeared from all-things-tournament after the loss. Threw out all my brackets, stopped checking sports sites, no espn, nothing.

I was the same way. I didn't watch a second of basketball until our first exhibition game. Avoided CBS and ESPN. Facebook status updates were my only source of information about the tournament. That was heartbreaking.

 

[Rossco123]

87 beats 2010 7/10 at least.

87 = super talent but 10 (healthy) kills them with defense and scores tons from outside against poor guard D. Arinze and Rick neutralize DC.

 

[DeGrozz]

2010 we were #1 after the regular season.

I thought that was the second or third-to-last week and then we lost @ Louisville. I think Kansas ended the regular season ranked #1 that year.

 

[alphaorange]

I thought that was the second or third-to-last week and then we lost @ Louisville. I think Kansas ended the regular season ranked #1 that yeah.

I actually thought the '95 team was better than the '96 team. IMO, one bad TO call from a title...

 

[HOFCeluck]

Why do people think the 95 team was that good? They were terrible at the end of the season and came into the tourney as a 7 seed. Does a great game against the eventual runner up negate that?

Regarding the 2010 team I realize that they acheived a #1 ranking after the beatdown of Villanova and earned a 1 seed in the dance, but that was against 2010 talent which I think everyone agrees is not to the level of late 80's early 90's. Does that team still get a 1 seed if they played in 87? I just don't see it. BTW, they barely beat a mediocre UCONN team at home, held on for dear life @ Georgetown, were losing in the second half to Cinicinatti before their epic defensive lockdown, were losing at the half to a bad Providence team, got SWEPT by a less than mediocre Lville team, and had a double digit loss to Pitt at home (again). That was a top-2 team since I started rooting for Syracuse in 95 but they weren't "crushing everyone."

87 had much better guard play (Sherman Douglas vs anyone else) and I think their frontcourt (Rony/Coleman) outmatches 2010's.

 

[PeteCalvin]

I actually thought the '95 team was better than the '96 team. IMO, one bad TO call from a title...

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

You hit it on the head, Alpha. That 1995 team could have breezed to the FF and taken out UCLA. That, to me, is still the greatest crime in SU bball. Luke Jackson makes probably the all time best steal in SU history, and then Moten stole the game for Arkansas.

 

[HOFCeluck]

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

You hit it on the head, Alpha. That 1995 team could have breezed to the FF and taken out UCLA. That, to me, is still the greatest crime in SU bball. Luke Jackson makes probably the all time best steal in SU history, and then Moten stole the game for Arkansas.

http://www.orangehoops.org/GameResults/G1994-1995.htm

Not sure if this is serious or not.

I'm not flaming, I'm just curios what everyone saw that makes them think that a team that was 2-5 vs the top 25 and went into the tourney 5-7 with losses to Providence and Seton Hall would "breeze to the final four."

 

[jekelish]

Yeah, I don't see why everyone suddenly thinks the 95 team was so great. As has been mentioned, they were a 7 seed. A very good 7 seed, yes, but still not one of the best teams in Syracuse history.

 

[PeteCalvin]

Yeah, I don't see why everyone suddenly thinks the 95 team was so great. As has been mentioned, they were a 7 seed. A very good 7 seed, yes, but still not one of the best teams in Syracuse history.

The match-ups, plain and simple. The 1995 team had more pure talent than the 1996 team. Plus, if you looked at the bracket beyond the Arkansas game, there wasn't a team in there that could match us in the 2-3. The NCAA tourney isn't about regular season stats. It's about the here and now and the match-ups. If people are going to nominate the 1996 team, then the 1995 team has to be in the discussion.

My personal vote is for the 1989 team.

 

[JAXCUSE]

89 Team was pretty darn good. So was the 79-80 club. Liked 2010 - at it's peak, the best in the country during a weaker talent level era.