The committee does not discount conference tournaments....

[Goat Holder]

Can we put this argument to bed? At the VERY LEAST, the host sites aren't established yet. The PAC-12 is still playing their regular season this week with no tournament, so tell me again how the hosts can already be chosen? They can't.

If we want to have a logical discussion as to why we are or aren't hosting, you must first move past the above point. It matters. Maybe not to Florida who is a national seed and can't play their way out of it, but to the rest of us.

The reason why we likely aren't hosting, is that our resume may not stack up AFTER THE TOURNAMENT to the others. We've got some bad losses. You can point to 2012, when our record was 34-21 (16-14) vs. 35-20 (18-12) this year before the SEC tournament. Even if we go 5-0 this week we are still just 40-20. All the other potential hosting teams already have 40 wins, BEFORE the tournament, excluding Florida (and they don't matter anyway because their RPI is 2).

Our RPI is just simply too low. Losing to Memphis, Jax State, LSU Saturday, Alabama Sunday and Tennessee Friday killed our hosting. In every single one of those games, we can legitimately say we bumbled around the gave them the game on dipshit errors. Yeah Holy Cross/UCSB/Arizona hurt, but they just beat us. In the 5 games I mentioned, we beat ourselves. We'd have been 40-15 (21-9), SEC Champions and probably been a national seed.

Here's to hoping the RPI really does jump this week, because it would matter.

[blacklistedbully]

Yep. Good post.

[smootness]

I think all you've done is explain exactly why those who say that we're not going to host regardless believe that.

I haven't seen anyone say, 'The host sites are already determined, conference tournaments don't mean anything'. I've seen plenty say that even if we win the SECT we won't host because we're too far behind, not because we aren't there right now.

[ClancyDawg]

Want to know why I always harp on the bunting. Because at the margins, those 3-4 games, it costs us host sites. That's been my point all along. It doesn't take us from 50 wins to 30 wins, but 41 to 38 is a huge difference when coming down to host time.

[Goat Holder]

Because at the margins, those 3-4 games, it costs us host sites.

Errors cost us every one of those games I listed.

[blacklistedbully]

I think all you've done is explain exactly why those who say that we're not going to host regardless believe that.

I haven't seen anyone say, 'The host sites are already determined, conference tournaments don't mean anything'. I've seen plenty say that even if we win the SECT we won't host because we're too far behind, not because we aren't there right now.

Well I like that he spelled out those costly losses where we stepped on our own dicks. Yes, we may well have all been thinking it, but he did take the trouble to tie them specifically to the debate, and stress them as the main obstacles. I think that's dead-on and was worthy of spelling out relative to the hosting discussion.

[ScoobaDawg]

Want to know why I always harp on the bunting. Because at the margins, those 3-4 games, it costs us host sites. That's been my point all along. It doesn't take us from 50 wins to 30 wins, but 41 to 38 is a huge difference when coming down to host time.

Or we could say the NOT bunting would have us at 34-36 wins right now and sitting bubble for a 3 seed.

[ClancyDawg]

Or we could say the NOT bunting would have us at 34-36 wins right now and sitting bubble for a 3 seed.

If the results were in that favor, yes.