Sec basketball

[HailState39110]

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.

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.

Your argument contradicts itself. You basically are giving no credit to the SEC when they beat the Vermonts, San Fransiscos, and Indiana States of the world but when other leagues lose to the North Dakota States, Mercers, and Harvards of the world you just chalk it up to a bad day and that anyone can beat anyone on a given day. If that's the case you should be impressed by the SEC winning all of their first round NIT games

[RougeDawg]

The SEC is always perceived to be an inferior basketball conference to the ACC, Big10, and BigEast even when the SEC has a good conference top to bottom. It's all national media and historical perception that the SEC sucks in basketball outside of a few programs. As long as football and baseball continue to dominate, don't expect
SEC basketball to get any love. The media has to play to the other conferences in one of the major sports, and with Basketball being the worst SEC sport, the media vultures are going to make it seem worse than it really is, to give other conferences hope and a chance to beat their chest a few weeks out of the year.

[Schultzy]

The ACC has some awful teams at the bottom of their conference too. All of college hoops is down from what it was 15 to 20 years ago.

[dawgs]

Your argument contradicts itself. You basically are giving no credit to the SEC when they beat the Vermonts, San Fransiscos, and Indiana States of the world but when other leagues lose to the North Dakota States, Mercers, and Harvards of the world you just chalk it up to a bad day and that anyone can beat anyone on a given day. If that's the case you should be impressed by the SEC winning all of their first round NIT games

you obviously have never heard of the concept of a "no win" situation in sports. it's when a better team plays an inferior team, and even if the better team blows them out, everyone shrugs their shoulders and moves on. but when the <10% chance that the underdog has their day, it's a big deal. it's doesn't mean the duke is a worse team than mercer, it means duke lost a game to mercer. that's why it's an upset and gets the headlines. and outcomes of a few games doesn't really have a huge bearing on relative strength of conference between the ACC and SEC, you have to look at the full bodies of work, top to bottom, of both conferences.

of course it's better for the SEC to win those NIT games against shit opponents than to lose those games, but it's not exactly the kinda evidence i want to present when i'm starting to holler about being underrated. i know i'm in the minority by not giving into hyperbole over isolated outcomes from the last 5 days.

[dawgs]

Woohoo! Sec sec sec!!! Underrated underrated!!!

Nice to see us put all those teams in the final 8 of the NIT.

[Sam&DeansDawg]

The ACC has some awful teams at the bottom of their conference too. All of college hoops is down from what it was 15 to 20 years ago.

You sir are correct.

[msstate7]

Woohoo! Sec sec sec!!! Underrated underrated!!!

Nice to see us put all those teams in the final 8 of the NIT.

You downplay the wins and celebrate the losses.

[esplanade91]

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.

Bingo. Mizzou got punished at home by USM in the NIT.

[Johnson85]

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).

This is Stansbury's legacy. Stansbury's lackluster tournament resume is not a result of having good teams lose to hot teams like Butler or Xavier. That is going to happen. Had Stansbury not had two very good teams end up as 8,9 seeds playing Duke and Memphis in the second round, he would have made a sweet 16. Both his 8,9 seeded teams played well in the tournament, and would have beaten most teams they played, but they played one of the top 4 teams in the tournament in the second round b/c they underachieved in teh regular season.

[Johnson85]

The ACC has some awful teams at the bottom of their conference too. All of college hoops is down from what it was 15 to 20 years ago.

^^^^THIS^^^^

The SEC may not be that bad compared to other conferences, but it's pretty bad.

I don't watch enough college basketball anymore to know how it compares (because college basketball is not as enjoyable to watch), but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the NCAA or NIT 1st and second round results. Teams get hot and/or lucky. Sometimes very good teams don't make it far; sometimes pretty mediocre teams make it to the sweet 16 and teams that are only pretty good make it to the elite 8.

[dawgs]

You downplay the wins and celebrate the losses.

i'm not "celebrating", i just found it hilarious that after all the hollering about going 4-0 in the 1st round of the NIT like it proved something, the SEC went 0-4 int he 2nd round of the NIT.

how about we just agree that the SEC was not really all that underrated? i mean what major conferences would you put the SEC ahead of? if you think we are the 7th best conference in the country TOP TO BOTTOM (not just the top), then we are pretty much accurately rated.