Perhaps our league wasn't as bad as previously thought. 3 (only 3 we got) of the sweet 16 are from sec. Unless I'm missing someone, acc has one (VA)
Printable View
Perhaps our league wasn't as bad as previously thought. 3 (only 3 we got) of the sweet 16 are from sec. Unless I'm missing someone, acc has one (VA)
I don't think there's ever been any question that the upper 1/4 of the league is pretty good. The problem is that our bottom half is probably pretty bad compared to the bottom halves of most, if not all, of the other major conferences, and also a good portion of several mid-major conferences.
Just because Florida is doing what everyone picked them to do and Kentucky and Tennessee are hot and finally coming together doesn't meant everyone else is worth a shit.
You're right it doesn't, but if you have 3 strong teams at the top it makes it hard for teams at the bottom to do well. Regardless the sec has made a good showing. I'm sure the acc would much rather have 3 teams in the sweet 16 rather than just be considered better conference top to bottomQuote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
All 4 SEC teams in the NIT ( which would be considered in the middle of the league) won their first round games too. I know Georgia and Mizzou lost to LA Tech and USM but when 4 of final 16 (25%) in the NIT are from the SEC it backs up the case that the SEC was not quite as down as perceived. Was the Big Ten and ACC better this year? Sure they were but the gap was not as far as most thought
Hasn't changed by opinion much that the SEC sucks in basketball as a whole. We all knew FL was very good. We all knew that KY has a heck of a lot of talent but just needed to grow up and they certainly have the most significant accomplishment in the tourney with their upset of Wichita State. TN is a pretty good basketball team that has gotten better but them winning against Iowa, UMass and Mercer is no shocker. Maybe winning all 3 but I could have seen them winning any of those games before the tourney started.
exactly. mercer upsetting duke really opened up the bracket for tennessee to make a run. obviously tennessee had to take care of their own business too, so not taking away from that, but they've had a pretty easy run thus far for a play-in 11 seed.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
so the SEC has arguably 7 of the top 85 or so teams in the country? and most of which are in the bottom 15-20 of those 85? that's not really all that impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by HailState39110
When the sec has 3 of the elite 8, will you change your mind? It's gonna happenQuote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
no because making a tourney run is fun and all, but there's a lot of factors that play into it besides actually being the best 16 or 8 teams. the tournament doesn't retroactively make our shitty season or any other of the sec's bottom 3/4 any better. sure having a dominant top tier can make it harder to win for the rest of the league, but the bottom 3/4 of the sec wasn't winning many big non-conference games (when they played them), there were some horrendous losses in the non-conference, and watching the games with my eyes tells me the quality of play is subpar to a majority of the rest of the major conferences and the best mid-major conferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
I think Louisville beats Kentucky. Tennessee's run will end in the Sweet 16 and I think Florida's run will end in the Elite 8. It's fun to see our top 3 teams make it at least to the Sweet 16 though. Louisville is a much more talented team then Wichita State is and matches up much better against Kentucky.
I agree though with Dawgs that the NCAA is all about match ups which is really why Stansbury teams never made it past the second round. The team we should have gone the deepest with played a very under seeded 7 (should have been more a 4 seed) in the second round. That was backed up by them making it all the way to the Elite Eight. Of course Thad Matta used that run to get the job at Ohio State but I digress....
Of course it can be argued that if we didn't lose bone headed stupid games in the regular season, we wouldn't be seeded low to begin with (two teams seeded 8,9).
The SEC has proved to be better than expected- there's no denying that. All 7 teams winning their 1st round games shows that.
yeah those 4 1st round Ws over san francisco, davidson, vermont, and indiana st really "proved" the sec is better than expected. especially since uga and mizzou already followed up their Ws with a L, while ark and lsu still have to play their 2nd round game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
you can still be a sec fan and not look for bad excuses to fluff the conference.
I expected Kentucky to beat Wichita State and I think the committee did too since they have that Kentucky/Louisville match up ready to go in the Sweet 16. Tennessee was a surprise but once Mercer beat Duke their road got considerably easier.
7-0 is 7-0...ask Dook, Oklahoma, Syracuse, and all these other ****ers that have been beaten by these lower-level teams if 7-0 is good. Sometimes you just have to give credit where its dueQuote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
Yes Coach, it's a pleasant surprise that our teams won all of their first round games. :)
I'm just saying those Ws don't prove anything about the quality of the sec. Overall the sec sucked in basketball this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Was the SEC great? No. Was it better than perceived? Yes . Like Coach said if Mercer sucked so bad why did they beat Duke ( and the better team won that game) and Tenn beat them handily? If the ACC was so great why did Syracuse lose to Dayton? If the SEC goes 7-0 during bowl season do you not take that into consideration either?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
i don't fluff bowl records outside of the national title game. too many teams are just enjoying their bowl game trip and not preparing for the game mentally like they would a big regular season game.Quote:
Originally Posted by HailState39110
what was the sec's perception? it's still the worst major conference.
and i didn't say mercer sucked, but if duke and mercer playing 10 times, duke wins at least 8 of them on avg. mercer happened to hit 1 of their 2 in round 1. you can also argue that mercer blew their load in round 1 and was emotionally spent and enjoying the moment a bit too much heading into round 2.
i can't believe people are really going to argue about the difference in the better overall team and the team that won a game on a given day. the best team doesn't win 100% of the time, especially in basketball and baseball, where the percentages favor the underdog far more than football.
there's a reason a lot of state fans were happy to see princeton beat ucla back in 1996.
It looks like the sec is little better than most people thought. ACC, Big12, missouri valley, etc. aren't as good as many thought,