Terrible form. Terrific result.
Note: In the Boeheim era, only once has Syracuse been denied an NCAA tournament bid after accumulating 20 wins over the course of the regular season and Big East Tournament. This was in the 2001-2002 season, where Syracuse lost in the Big East Tournament First Round to Villanova.
Syracuse's RPI that year was 66 and its strength of schedule was only 86th best in the nation. In addition, the Orange's out-of-conference RPI in 2001-2002 was ranked 61st, with an accompanying strength of schedule rating of only 166.
Of course, it must be conceded that none of those 20-win seasons saw Boeheim guide Syracuse to a sub-.500 regular season conference record. The last time the Orange accumulated a a sub-.500 conference record was in 1980-1981, when Syracuse went only 6-8. The Orange were forced to participate in the NIT that year.
If you don't post a response to this quote, I might just take you up on your offer to felch me.
"Without Gerry McNamara we wouldn't've won 10 fucking games this year, OK? Not 10. And everybody's talking to me and writing about Gerry McNamara being overrated?! It's the most bullshit thing I've seen in 30 years."
-Jim Boeheim after SU beats Cincy in 1st round of the Big East Tournament
You know what the funny thing is?
I actually have in draft queue an essay on why Gerry should not have his jersey retired at Syracuse. It's basically an assault on the McNamara mystique; that he peaked in year one.
Of course, now that Boeheim made me pee my pants, I will not be posting that for a little while.
In addition, I think that quote says more about Boeheim's lack of development of the juniors than Gerry's talents. Let's be serious, if this team could not win more than 10 games without Gerry, what does that say about the coaching staff's inability to maximize the talent that they described as "the best recruiting class" they've ever taken in.
I've managed to stop watching the press conference clip long enough to seriously ponder their bubble chances, and even if they lose today (not get crushed, but lose), I think they can get in. The 2-10 against RPI Top 50 teams is brutal, but hell, UConn and Villanova are 4 of those losses and their 1-2 in the country. I mean, Seton Hall wasn't very impressive last night at all, but there's still this...
Why did they have to lose by 39 to Depaul? Bastards.
After sitting on it for the night, I'm still at the same conclusion I was at yesterday: I think Syracuse is in, but I can't be sure until Saturday.
In terms of putting together a resume, I think Syracuse has done as more or more than conference mates Seton Hall and Cincinnati. However, I won't feel absolutely confident in the Orange's chances until some of these other conference tournaments start shaking down.
Frankly, it seems kind of ridiculous that a team like Creighton (who accumulated 6 RPI top-50 wins against Wichita State, Bradley, Northern Iowa, Bradley, Missouri State, and George Mason) may get in over a team like Syracuse. Even though the Orange is only 2-10 against the RPI top-50, it had to do it through the Murderers Row of the Big East, rather than feasting on a bunch of overrated MVC teams who have inflated RPI numbers due to the stupidity of the new RPI formula.
I think Boeheim was right and wrong.
He's right about how many games they would have won without him. That doesn't mean he isn't overrated.
It just means that the team seems to have had recruits now sophomores and juniors not panning out -- which happens to any program at times. By the way, I do think the 'Cuse freshmen look very good for the future.
As I recall this survey has been done every year for the last several. I never heard a peep of a complaint before, but then it was never his kid that was considered overrated.
It wasn't just the Syracuse paper. The week before, SI.com ran it's round-up on each conference and McNamara tied with Rudy Gay for overrated. McNamara took home biggest crybaby.
http://pittsportsblather.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_pittsportsblather_archive.html#114130561070115223
Don't recall hearing him bitch about that. Of course that's a national pub, he probably doesn't think he can bully and intimidate.
I guess I have two things to tag onto Chas' comments:
First, rumor has it that it was an SI guy who posed the question to Boeheim at the press conference. Apparently, Boeheim never saw the SI article or else he probably would've ripped the magazine along with the Post-Standard.
Second, Gerry is overrated. There's no question about it. That does not necessarily entail that he is a bad player; it just means that he isn't in the Holy Trinity of Syracuse Hoops (Bing, Douglas, and Carmelo). What I do have a problem with is that Boeheim believes that Syracuse would only win 10 games without Gerry. That, to me, signals that Boeheim has:
(a) no faith in the juniors (Watkins, McCroskey, Roberts, Nichols, and Gorman);
(b) no idea what to do on offense other than letting Gerry jack as many shots as he pleases.
That's troubling. I think the juniors can contribute a lot more than Boeheim has allowed this season (especially Nichols), but Boeheim has simply chosen to allow McNamania to rule the day, and given that Gerry is woefully inconsistent, it is squarely Boeheim's fault that this team has squandered opportunities.
So, it may be true that Syracuse would win only a handful of games with Gerry, but that problem is equally attributable to Boeheim as it is the other 14 guys on the team.
It's all moot now...fantastico.
Congrats on a huge win today!