whats the Best SU team to not win it all?

[HOFCeluck]

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.

That's a pretty good point. The road to the final four after Arkansas was quite favorable.

But nevertheless I don't think 1995 or 1996 belong in the conversation for "best to never win a title."

 

[albanycuse]

we need a computer simulated match ups of like 5 or 6 SU teams heads up to see who wins.

 

[alphaorange]

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.

IMO, you simply can't just look at the records earlier in the year. That team was very talented and had started really putting it all together in the tournament. They had everything and were playing well together. Over the course of a season, they may very well have been mediocre, but as far as any team's level of play and potential at the end of the season, they were as good as any team we have had. Arkansas was a beast and we had them.

 

[CaptainSyracuse]

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.

Not only was the 87 team the best team not to win the title, it was also my favorite team.

 

[AZOrange]

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

I liked the 2010 team as much as anyone, but there was no one on that team that was going to stop DC at either end.

 

[AZOrange]

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

1989 was the best team we had talent wise (and I really dont think it is close).

1987 was the biggest downer. Followed by 2010.

 

[MooseHaas]

I loved the 1996 team. John Wallace was a beast and Z Sims was great, even though it was his first time getting real playing time.

 

[MooseHaas]

I liked the 2010 team as much as anyone, but there was no one on that team that was going to stop DC at either end.

Hard to say really. DC was a frosh in 1987 and at that point didn't have a very well developed offensive game. I think Seikaly would actually do more damage against the 2010 frontcourt in terms of scoring. But yeah, DC would probably crush the 2010 team on the boards.

 

[Marsh01]

1989 Hands down. College Basketball was loaded (as were we) and that was the year had we beaten Illinois we could have won. Would have stomped Michigan in the FF and Seton Hall in the Finals.

 

[AZOrange]

Hard to say really. DC was a frosh in 1987 and at that point didn't have a very well developed offensive game. I think Seikaly would actually do more damage against the 2010 frontcourt in terms of scoring. But yeah, DC would probably crush the 2010 team on the boards.

Sherm/Coleman would torch the zone with their backdoor alley oops. Rick and Arinze were nice players but this is DC we are talking about. That said, I dont know if Rick or Arinze would score on him.

 

[HOFCeluck]

IMO, you simply can't just look at the records earlier in the year. That team was very talented and had started really putting it all together in the tournament. They had everything and were playing well together. Over the course of a season, they may very well have been mediocre, but as far as any team's level of play and potential at the end of the season, they were as good as any team we have had. Arkansas was a beast and we had them.

That's the thing. They were ON FIRE after losing to George Washington. They ripped like 15 straight and peaked at #6.

Then they lost @ Uconn and the wheels came seemingly off.

Let's get something straight. The 1995 team wasn't like 2003 or 2005 where they were coming into the dance hot. They lost to Providence in the first round of the BET and barely got by Souther Illinois. Then they played one hell of a game vs Arkansas and would have won if Moten realized we had the possession arrow. They could have made the final four, but they could also have lost to Memphis or UVa or whoever was the next team.

 

[albanycuse]

we need some computer simulated games of these teams like they did in the rocky balboa movie.

 

[HOFCeluck]

we need some computer simulated games of these teams like they did in the rocky balboa movie.

http://whatifsports.com/ncaab/default.asp#top

Neutral court, 1987 beat 2010 8 of 10 times

 

[AZOrange]

http://whatifsports.com/ncaab/default.asp#top

Neutral court, 1987 beat 2010 8 of 10 times

am i the only one that cannot get the results to work (pop up blocker is off).

 

[thecuseman]

I liked the 2010 team as much as anyone, but there was no one on that team that was going to stop DC at either end.

Absolutely true. And Seikaly was too tall and quick for any other team's center. Throw in Sherm and the talent was unbelievable.

After '87 I would go with 2010 and then '96.

 

[Eric15]

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

I absolutely loved that 1996 team (I have a signed picture of the entire squad in my upstairs hallway), but in all reality, they were the product of a very, very favorable NCAA draw. They only had to play one high-level team (Kansas) to get to the national title game.

In my opinion, it has to be 2010.

 

[BostonOrange]

I'll go with 88-89. Sherman-Roe-Stevie-Billy-DC. Not to mention Tony (3-16) Scott coming off the bench. Lost a classic to a great Illinois team in the elite 8, if they win that one I think they win the whole thing (Mich and Seton Hall).

 

[albanycuse]

seems like 89 is the best team so far. hmmmmm.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

I personally think that the 96 team was the best team to not win it all. It may not have seemed like the most talented team but it came within 9 points and john wallace had fouled out from beating what many people consider one of the top 3 college basketball teams of all time.

 

[acusefan44]

I liked the 96 team (the most heart) and the 2010 team and the 89 team but I really liked the 99-00 team with seniors Hart, Blackwell and Thomas. 26-6 that year, 16-1 at home, a 19 game winning streak to open the season, had we not had to play Mich St 70 miles from their campus in the tourney we might have gone a lot farther that year. SU was up big at the half too from what i remember but got destroyed in the 2nd half.

 

[VaSaltine]

10 beats 87. Such a shame coulda woulda

 

[kirbivore]

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

The Midwest bracket was messed up that year, so the Orangemen could have made the final four, but they lose to UNC (Wallace/Stackhouse) in the semi-finals.

 

[OttoMets]

The Midwest bracket was messed up that year, so the Orangemen could have made the final four, but they lose to UNC (Wallace/Stackhouse) in the semi-finals.

The 1995 team just didn't want to play defense. Boeheim hadn't hitched his wagon to the 2-3 yet, and those guys couldn't consistently defend anyone, despite the fact that they were very gifted offensively.

We did hand away the Arkansas game, and perhaps we could have made a run through the regional, but I feel that 20-10 was an honest record for that bunch. Talented but limited team.

1989 was the best and 2010 was the most fun.

I loved 1996, but we overrate them. That team was simply the most fortunate. Our half of the bracket lost both #1 seeds. Drexel and Georgia folded down the stretch, and nobody had seen that kind of zone before. Check out those old tapes. By today's standards, the zone was slow and lazy. Outside of Wallace and Hill, most of those guys would have gotten no court time for 3/4 of Boeheim's teams. Burgan couldn't do anything right until the two Final Four games; even then, he couldn't play a lick of defense on the wing. Cipolla and Janulis defined limited. Still, Z was as good as he needed to be and made everyone around him better. Getting 29 wins and a national runner-up out of that talent was a great credit to Boeheim's coaching ability.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I'm embarrassed 1995, 1996, and 2000 are in this conversation.

The thread title is "Best SU team to never win a national championship" not "Name a random SU team that was good."