Why SU is built for a deep tourney run

by Lots of Pulp on Jan 11, 2012 9:29 AM EST

This has been in my mind all night since watching Louisville get wrecked by Providence and Ohio State lose its third game of the season last night. It occurred to me that the knock on Syracuse everyone continues to make is actually exactly what makes this team so capable of going deep into the NCAA Tournament.

Note: Please forgive me for stating the obvious, and re-stating what many of us have been preaching all year, but I hope I'm taking it at least a half step farther this time.

In my opinion (and I think many people's opinions), the reason it's so hard to predict who will win the national title is because it's just so difficult to win six consecutive games against the toughest competition on the country. Even if you are a No. 1 seed, you could potentially play five ranked teams (or close-to-ranked teams) in a row. You have to be on every one of those nights, and if you have a bad day, your season is over. This is why the "best" teams continually get bounced early in the tournament and teams like UConn and Butler can wind up in the championship game last year.

The point: Many people (idiots) doubt Sryacuse's national title hopes because they don't have a "go-to-guy." The thinking being, you need that guy to step up in a big game, and that's what takes a great team and makes it a championship team.

But what if that "go-to-guy" has a bad game? Your season is over. Just like that.

Now, this didn't happen in the Ohio State game last night. Sullinger scored 21 points in 38 minutes. Ohio State just ran into a 43-point performance from Brandon Paul and got flat out beat. But in the Buckeyes' previous two losses, that's all you kept hearing about.

Dec 10 - Ohio State loses to Kansas. Sullinger didn't play. If only he had played, they would have won. Therefore, they're still the best.

Dec 31 - Ohio State loses to Indiana. Sullinger was in foul trouble. He only had 15 points in 29 minutes. If he had stayed out of foul trouble, they would have won. So they're still the best.

Syracuse doesn't have this problem. Kris Joseph can literally disappear for a game against a soon-to-be-ranked Seton Hall, and the Orange still cruise to victory. If any one guy has an off night, there are so many other guys that can step up in his place. There's a reason SU is 17-0 right now, and it's because of that consistency.

The most important thing to remember (Ron Morris!) is that the National Championship might not go to the "best" team.

It's going to go to the only team that can win six games in a row on the biggest stage. And right now, there's no team that looks more capable of that than your Syracuse Orange.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My take

Although I appreciate your verbose explanation, mine is simple.

Syracuse will go deep in the tournament because we take other teams’ lunch money.
We are men among mostly boys.
We enter the cafeteria and the other kids clutch their lunch boxes in fear of losing them.
We are ’Cuse

by W.A.Wilson on Jan 11, 2012 9:41 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

The most important thing to remember (Ron Morris!) is that the National Championship might not go to the “best” team.

I would take it a step further and say that, in a single elimination tournament, the “best” team usually does not win.

Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-tip

by MrPlow99 on Jan 11, 2012 9:49 AM EST reply actions

I disagree

I think in most year’s the title does go to the best team. In some years the hottest team gets it, but very few years there are a clear cut number 1 (consensus media/fan #1) entering the tourney, but when there is they usually win. quick refresher. Since 1990 here are the clear #1s entering the tourney and their outcome

1990 UNLV won
1991 – UNLV lost title game
1992 – Duke- won
1993 North Carolina- won
1994 Arkansas won
1995 UCLA won
1996 Kentucky won
1997- debatabel Kentucky or Kansas – either way both lost to Arizona
1998- Duke lost to Kentucky who won title
1999 – Duke – lost to Uconn title game
2000 Michigan state- won
2001 Duke- won
2002 – Probably duke, but could make case for Maryland – Maryland won
2003 – Kentucky- Cuse won
2004 – No consensus, this was the Stanford/St joe’s almost going unbeaten in weak conference year – Uconn won
2005 – Illinois – lost in title game to Carolina
2006- Duke- Florida won
2007- Florida won
2008 The year of the #1. No consensus – Kansas won
2009 – North Carolina -won
2010 arguments for all 4 #1s being the best team – Duke won
2011 Ohio state or Kansas – UConn

by krackatoan on Jan 11, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

There are two formulas for national championships (BTW - OSU is so last week, its UNC now)

there are the Go-to-guy teams ( the kemba walkers, etc)
-These teams are the ones that are beloved b/c the go to guy makes such a great media story for everyone to get all hot and bothered about

Then there are the balance teams (Kentucky in 96 vs the john Wallaces, or the big time UCLA teams, or The Florida teams with 5 guys in double figures but none over 20.
- These teams generally come in considered a “best team in the country” and win just like this Syracuse team wins.

Both models work, but if you want to go all the way you’re much better off being a balanced team. Figure more often than not one of those balance teams will at least make it to the final four. When they loose, it is because a one man show team gets the best of them on a hot night.

by Pubsky on Jan 11, 2012 10:17 AM EST reply actions

So, basically what you're saying

Is that there is no formula for winning a title, and that the best team really does win.

Maybe I’m oversimplifying but, to me, the best team wins the games that matter most. I don’t think there’s ever going to be another undefeated national champion. But, assuming a team makes the NCAA, the only games that really matter are the last 6. Conference titles (regular season and tournament) don’t mean much. Major college basketball is all about who makes the NCAA Tournament, who makes the Final Four, who wins the title. That’s why there’s Bracketology before the season even starts.

So, the NCAA is kind of the ultimate test of what I think the “best team” does; beats any team, any time, any where. I don’t think you can say that a team that wins 6 straight under those circumstances isn’t the best team in the country.

"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes

by FeloniousPhunk on Jan 11, 2012 10:27 AM EST up reply actions

I'm saying the best team really does win with a caveat

that caveat being that a team with a top tier scoring machine can get hot on any given night and take down even the best team.

In other sports, one star can’t serve as such an equalizer.

by Pubsky on Jan 12, 2012 7:46 AM EST up reply actions

I'll take that

If only because I can’t disprove it. I’m of the opinion that, as much as basketball is a sport where one player can take a team from good to champion, that the better team will win out over the better singular player. The best team finds a way to overcome a double nickle. But, then again, in the single elimination format, you’re right. G-Mac dropping 40 over BYU in Denver was enough to get it done.

"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes

by FeloniousPhunk on Jan 12, 2012 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

I don’t think you can say that a team that wins 6 straight under those circumstances isn’t the best team in the country.

This.

A Georgetown degree is life's technical foul. - H/T HoyaSuxa

by theNYsportsguy on Jan 11, 2012 3:40 PM EST reply actions

Agreed

The tourney definitely provides all entered teams ample opportunity to make it happen.

You can argue playing #1 seeds vs #16 seeds is kind of dumb – and really the only part I dont get about it, but other than that I think its a really good system for taking the top 65 (or is it 68 now? I cant keep track) and deciding how good each team really is when it counts.

by Pinker on Jan 11, 2012 4:05 PM EST up reply actions