Agree. I thought that Boeheim was talking about NIL and paying players, but that’s how those players got to Pitt. And freedom to come and go is likely a matter of rights. (Might cut down on certain kinds of abuse?)
It will be interesting to look at who benefits and who does not–over time, do the best players land at certain schools, anyway? (Thinking of M football cherry-picking these Stanford players.) That will be hard to disentangle from NIL and play-for-pay.
I guess there’s a thread for this convo, though. . .
If the Pitt transfers were so desired by all that their services were only attainable via a bidding war beyond the capability of Syracuse boosters it seems odd that everyone agrees preseason that the team was doggy doo
Well, the last five years they’ve been seeded 1, 4, 1, 1 and 1. If you’re a 1 seed, by definition you’ve got to reach the Final Four to live up to expectations.
But that’s like MSU fans asterisking our 2017/18 run because of the seeds we played. It doesn’t make sense.
Why is it a knock on Gonzaga that in 2020/21 Michigan (1 seed) and Alabama (2 seed) lost to the UCLA team that Gonzaga beat? You can only play who’s in front of you. The fact that none of the 1-3 seeds that year could even make it into Gonzaga’s path to a runner up isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a knock on Gonzaga.
I’m surprised about their PASE. Being a 1 seed five times and making two Final Fours doesn’t seem like it would rank all that highly. I guess making it out of the first weekend every time is the key.
But from a fan perception standpoint, people see a team that is a 1 seed every year but falls short of the FF frequently.
per some quick math from here, i think ~60% of 1 seeds don’t make the final four. so i can see how their fans would see it as a disappointment to only make the final four in two of their four years as a 1 seed, but actually it’s a little better than expected, historically!
“For example, No. 1 seeds since 1985 are 484-121 at-time in the NCAA Tournament. There have been a total of 36 tournaments played since 1985, each with four No. 1 seeds. So, this means that No. 1 seeds historically win 3.36 games per tournament (484 divided by 36 and then divided by four).
This same calculation can be performed on the No. 2 seed (who on average win 2.35 games per tournament), No. 3 seeds (who win 1.85 games per tournament), and so on down to the No. 16 seeds who win only 0.01 games per tournament, not counting the more recent play-in games.”
Bolded are the years Gonzaga won more tournament games than their average seed does aka exceeded seed expectations.
2 seed Elite 8 11 seed Sweet 16 1 seed National Championship Runner Up 4 seed Sweet 16
1 seed Elite 8 1 seed National Championship Runner Up
1 seed Sweet 16
