Syracuse

[Chairman Moe]

So, to be fair, I checked to see which games Boeheim missed this year, and which ones he was on the bench as their coach. The games from Dec 5 through Jan 5 (inclusive) were the ones in which he had to sit out. Syracuse record in those games was 4-5, with "bad" losses to @ St Johns and @ Georgetown and home vs Clemson. Of course, the first of the three losses to Pitt was incurred when Mike Hopkins was coaching them.

As you continue to drill through their schedule - after Boeheim's return - the only two quality wins were @ Duke and home vs ND. Two of the three losses to Pitt were when JB was on the bench, and the other quality wins were OOC in November. They followed up their win in the Bahamas vs TAM with a home loss to the Badgers. Not to dismiss their win against the Aggies, but one can always use the excuse that the game there might have seemed more like a school break (Paradise Island has its distractions) than a game with a lot of emphasis.

Look, I'm not the biggest Boeheim fan, but he's taken his team to multiple FF's and won a NC. He is also nearing the final chapter (or maybe it's now a final page) of his coaching career. Perhaps this invitation to the NCAAT was a final "gift" to him for all of his prior achievements. Let's hope that was the case, and not the committee giving him/Syracuse high marks for their 2015-2016 record.

 

[maxxwell]

The fans on their message board and Filliponi pretty much all thought they had little hope. So, query: if the Pitt/Syracuse ACCT game wasn't a play-in game after all, would Pitt have made it in had they lost the game last week? Or maybe it was only a play-in for Pitt.

 

[orange830]

So, to be fair, I checked to see which games Boeheim missed this year, and which ones he was on the bench as their coach. The games from Dec 5 through Jan 5 (inclusive) were the ones in which he had to sit out. Syracuse record in those games was 4-5, with "bad" losses to @ St Johns and @ Georgetown and home vs Clemson. Of course, the first of the three losses to Pitt was incurred when Mike Hopkins was coaching them.

As you continue to drill through their schedule - after Boeheim's return - the only two quality wins were @ Duke and home vs ND. Two of the three losses to Pitt were when JB was on the bench, and the other quality wins were OOC in November. They followed up their win in the Bahamas vs TAM with a home loss to the Badgers. Not to dismiss their win against the Aggies, but one can always use the excuse that the game there might have seemed more like a school break (Paradise Island has its distractions) than a game with a lot of emphasis.

Look, I'm not the biggest Boeheim fan, but he's taken his team to multiple FF's and won a NC. He is also nearing the final chapter (or maybe it's now a final page) of his coaching career. Perhaps this invitation to the NCAAT was a final "gift" to him for all of his prior achievements. Let's hope that was the case, and not the committee giving him/Syracuse high marks for their 2015-2016 record.

So any game played in a tropical climate doesn't count? I guess we can throw the games played in Maui out also. 5 wins against the top 50 were better than any other teams on the bubble. I just don't get the questioning of Syracuse's inclusion. Mich,Vandy,Witch st, and Tulsa were much more questionable.

 

[Pittnerski]

Which one of the three losses to us this year was your favorite?

Mine was @ the dome. Jimmy back. Biggest crowd of the year. Man was that good.

 

[Chairman Moe]

So any game played in a tropical climate doesn't count? I guess we can throw the games played in Maui out also. 5 wins against the top 50 were better than any other teams on the bubble. I just don't get the questioning of Syracuse's inclusion. Mich,Vandy,Witch st, and Tulsa were much more questionable.]

No, all games count, but c'mon, man, your schedule and results did not = a 10 seed. Sorry. And if yours did, Pitt's should be a better seed, due to 3 wins over you guys

 

[orange830]

Our schedule was tough, we played Sbu, Uconn, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, and yes Pitt should have been ahead of us, I think both of us deserved ten seeds.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

So any game played in a tropical climate doesn't count? I guess we can throw the games played in Maui out also. 5 wins against the top 50 were better than any other teams on the bubble. I just don't get the questioning of Syracuse's inclusion. Mich,Vandy,Witch st, and Tulsa were much more questionable.

Look, in most years I root for you guys to make the tourney. The more the merrier. We are conference brethren. And I know some here thought you belonged. But I don't. A 72 RPI is a 72 RPI. Sorry. If you're gonna consider the 5 top 50 wins, then you must also consider all the other games that put your RPI so low. Can you name any sub 60 RPI at large bids in tourney history? How about sub 70?

Finally, maybe this one bothers me a bit because I think there should be consequences for cheating and corruption. The NCAA can make examples out of programs like Cuse, PSU, and UNC...which would help clean things up and make programs think twice before they cheat. Instead, they get let off lightly. And in this case, there's the appearance of the committee bending a bit. It sends the wrong message.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

The fact that Syracuse made to tourney is a joke…….The NCAA is a garage league!

 

[medixman]

8:30 you lost 5 of your last 6 games and you deserved to be in,no way you should of made it!

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Syracuse was an absolute no-brainer. I had very little doubt they'd be in. You never see wins like that by bubble teams

Beat a 3 seed at a neutral site
Won at a 4 seed
Beat a 9 seed at a neutral site
Beat a 6 seed at home
Beat an NIT 1 seed and fellow bubble team

Just too many top quality wins to leave out.

 

[pittzap]

Look, in most years I root for you guys to make the tourney. The more the merrier. We are conference brethren. And I know some here thought you belonged. But I don't. A 72 RPI is a 72 RPI. Sorry. If you're gonna consider the 5 top 50 wins, then you must also consider all the other games that put your RPI so low. Can you name any sub 60 RPI at large bids in tourney history? How about sub 70?

Finally, maybe this one bothers me a bit because I think there should be consequences for cheating and corruption. The NCAA can make examples out of programs like Cuse, PSU, and UNC...which would help clean things up and make programs think twice before they cheat. Instead, they get let off lightly. And in this case, there's the appearance of the committee bending a bit. It sends the wrong message.

FK, that was my thinking. I do like Cuse as a conference partner and respect Boeheim for what he has done, but cannot believe so many wanted to "forgive" the games that he missed. He didn't miss them because he was sick, but because he broke the rules. Overlooking those games defeats the purpose of suspending him.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Syracuse was an absolute no-brainer. I had very little doubt they'd be in. You never see wins like that by bubble teams

Beat a 3 seed at a neutral site
Won at a 4 seed
Beat a 9 seed at a neutral site
Beat a 6 seed at home
Beat an NIT 1 seed and fellow bubble team

Just too many top quality wins to leave out.

No brainer to you doesn't mean absolute no brainer to all. There's a reason why most experts didn't have them in. Those wins are nice. But the body of work doesn't suggest "no brainer". Kudos to you for getting this one right. But a loss to St John's certainly cancels out their win vs a 3 seed in the very least. If the committee wants to put a sub 70 RPI team in the tourney, then it's time to stop using it as a criteria.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

No it doesn't.

The criteria SHOULD ALWAYS be, "Who did you play and who did you beat?"

Having the bad losses means they are a higher seed is all.

The fact that you say "SHOULD" tells everyone that you don't know what the criteria is. But that's ok because the fact is that NOBODY knows the criteria. The committee is always moving the goalposts. It's why coaches have no clue what they need to do from year to year. It's why your statement is fine, but it doesn't make it any more of a criteria than "overall body of work", which frankly we hear more than anything else. It's why Syracuse has been debated by plenty of people over the last 36 hours. Should Syracuse be in? To some yes...but it's NOT a no brainer. It just isn't.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

No brainer to you doesn't mean absolute no brainer to all. There's a reason why most experts didn't have them in. Those wins are nice. But the body of work doesn't suggest "no brainer". Kudos to you for getting this one right. But a loss to St John's certainly cancels out their win vs a 3 seed in the very least. If the committee wants to put a sub 70 RPI team in the tourney, then it's time to stop using it as a criteria.

Fk, you have to do the research. A lot of "experts" didnt have them in because they didn't look at all the teams. They just saw a 9-9 team with 13 losses and said lets put in Monmouth or SMC. But the quality wins are nowhere close. I have been doing this for years, and I can honestly say I dont remember a bubble team with the quality and quantity of Syracuse's top wins. That's why I said it was a no-brainer. I'm better than the "experts" at this.

Top 50 wins matters and I'll blow you away with this one: Had GT beaten UVa on Thursday night, they would have be VERY VERY close to getting in. Nobody realizes how close they would have been.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

GT did work their way close to the discussion. I know that. A lot of us pay just as much attention. Even with that loss, one metric, I forget which one, had them close.

And you've been doing a lot of things for years. I can't tell you how many times that I've read some of your long and well thought out thread topics on this forum and actually felt bad for you because you took so much time to research, gather thoughts, and put them into a thread...yet a day early your thoughts were proven wrong on the pay board. You would have saved yourself hours of work if you had access to that board.

What you say about having never seeing top 50 wins like Syracuse had is nice. I believe you. Have you ever seen an at large team with a 72 RPI make the tourney? In my years of "doing this", I've never seen that. I've never seen anyone even close to a 72 make it. It's why they were not a "no brainer". You say they have the profile of a tourney team? Ok. That's your educated opinion and the committee agreed. But it's not a no brainer. No "no brainers" reside in the last 6 at-large teams selected.

Did you see my link to Kentucky's body of work from two years ago? They had 3 top 50 wins vs Syracuse's 5 this year. But they didn't have a loss to #245 that year and went 12-6 in their P5 league. Kentucky didn't get in. Not sure how Syracuse, with their resume as compared to Kentucky, skips right over the bubble and into no brainer territory with you.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Did you see my link to Kentucky's body of work from two years ago? They had 3 top 50 wins vs Syracuse's 5 this year. But they didn't have a loss to #245 that year and went 12-6 in their P5 league. Kentucky didn't get in. Not sure how Syracuse, with their resume as compared to Kentucky, skips right over the bubble and into no brainer territory with you.

One thing you do have to consider is that the ACC is a good league this year and the SEC that year was (typically) awful. All 9-9s aren't the same, and all 12-6s aren't the same.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

One thing you do have to consider is that the ACC is a good league this year and the SEC that year was (typically) awful. All 9-9s aren't the same, and all 12-6s aren't the same.

I agree with you. I guess my main point is that if Syracuse was a no brainer, they wouldn't be a 10. Heck, Syracuse was a couple spots behind Pitt on the S curve, and I know plenty of people who were starting to sweat a bit on selection Sunday.

 

[orange830]

One thing you do have to consider is that the ACC is a good league this year and the SEC that year was (typically) awful. All 9-9s aren't the same, and all 12-6s aren't the same.

Exactly and all schedules aren't equal, We had to play you guys twice, as well as Unc and Fsu, and had to play road games against Uva,Lville,Miami,Duke.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

The more ACC teams in the tourney the better!
I rout for them all!
ACC final would be great!

Leave Cinderella home in March let her get her own date!

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Haven't seen Jim do very much this year even when he was there, but they deserve to be in with such a weak field. As for Cuse, thank God for them for Pitt bb. They're like Va Tech for Pitt fb.