New Ap poll

[ctfjr]

The SEC myth continues.

we shall see

The test starts in a couple of weeks. We will know for sure just how big a myth it is then.

 

[Icebear]

5 years or more since there was a SEC team at the FF.

 

[Vowelguy]

5 years or more since there was a SEC team at the FF.

Not sure what myth you speak of. SEC had 3 teams in F8 last year. A new myth seems to have started that the SEC is "weak." Not the strongest conference, but generally the 2nd-4th strongest. This year it may even be 2nd again. Sagarin has it 3rd.

 

[Icebear]

Phil pointed out very well in another thread the problems with the SEC as a power conference. I'm not saying it is weak just that it doesn't deserve some of the deference given to it in the past.

 

[stwainfan]

Right now the SEC has two of the top six ranked teams in the poll.

 

[Vowelguy]

Phil pointed out very well in another thread the problems with the SEC as a power conference.

Lol. If the 3rd best conference (at worst) is not a power conference, then I don't know what is.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Not sure what myth you speak of. SEC had 3 teams in F8 last year. A new myth seems to have started that the SEC is "weak." Not the strongest conference, but generally the 2nd-4th strongest. This year it may even be 2nd again. Sagarin has it 3rd.

Term better used is not "weak" but "overrated," as there is talk on certain boards or in the articles written down south that still refer to the SEC as the supreme conference. In another millennium, that was true much of the time, but not now. Among the P5, the SEC consistently has ranked below the B12 and ACC and above the B10 and PAC. So it's middling.

Or maybe just call the conference "semi-elite," because SEC members have done pretty well at getting to the 3rd and 4th rounds of the NCAA tourney in recent years, and in the main they have done fairly well at meeting expectations. In the last 5 years, 7 SEC teams have gotten #1 or #2 seeds and 7 have made it to the Elite 8, though some of the E8 teams were not the highly seeded ones.

But of course none of the SEC teams have gone to the FF in the last 5 years, so the conference's bus has enough fuel to get to the E8 and then runs out of gas. Then again, only the BEast, B12, and PAC have had FF teams the last 5 years, so the SEC has to be considered better than the B10 but still likely weaker than the ACC (also 7 E8's in last 5) at having the strong upper level teams that can get to the FF. Sure the SEC is a "P5 power conference," but it just hasn't had the juice in the batteries to keep the flashlight on full power in recent times.

 

[hussybulldog]

Yes. The #1 and #2 teams are placed on opposite sides of the draw by the committee. That is the rule.

Were ND and UCONN No 1& 2 in 2001? they met in the semi final

 

[DobbsRover2]

Lol. If the 3rd best conference (at worst) is not a power conference, then I don't know what is.

Again, we can all choose our own special markers for labeling who is and who is not a power conference. A number of pundits last year talked up how much better they thought the SEC was because they had a far higher Sagarin conference rating than the poor Big East. But of course the Big East still got 8 teams in the tourney to the SEC's 7, and I don't think we need to go over again who had three teams in the FF and who had 0.

And this year the committee will likely pack the tourney selections with 8 SEC teams though a few have crappy resumes recently while giving the AAC two bids now that Rutgers has slumped and USF is just in a horrendously weak conference I guess, but we do know that this is because the SEC is a power conference.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Were ND and UCONN No 1& 2 in 2001? they met in the semi final

UTenn was top seed, followed by UConn, ND, and Duke. UTenn and Duke got knocked off in the Sweet 16.

 

[Vowelguy]

Were ND and UCONN No 1& 2 in 2001?

At some point long ago, the Region winners had a pre-determined final 4 bracket. That is no longer the case.

Also I dont believe UConn was #2 in 2001 -- because of the injuries to to Svet & Shea, I think the committee dropped them to #4.

 

[DobbsRover2]

At some point long ago, the Region winners had a pre-determined final 4 bracket. That is no longer the case.

Also I dont believe UConn was #2 in 2001 -- because of the injuries to to Svet & Shea, I think the committee dropped them to #4.

It's possible. UTenn, ND, and UConn all had 2 losses, and the Vols had by far the best RPI and SOS, so I think there's a good shot they were the #1 seed. UConn was 2-2 after playing both of them twice pre-tourney while ND and UTenn did not play, so they did have a much tougher schedule at the top of the top. I do believe UConn and ND were ranked #1 and #2 pre-tourney, but rankings don't necessarily conform to seed order.

May well have been the pre-assigned brackets rule back then, but I know the Vols fans thought their team was #1 in early March.

 

[Boxerpups4me]

From top to bottom, the SEC is easily the most solid and competitive conference in WCBB. There are really only two elite teams right now, ND and Uconn, so just because the SEC doesn't have that elite team doesn't really mean much. Ole Miss, the bottom dweller this year in the conference, only lost to Baylor by 7 points, and this was at Baylor. Every SEC team that Tennessee faced, played us very competitively, with the exception of Auburn, whom we beat by 30. Tennessee could have easily had a few more SEC losses. Basically the top teams in the SEC have been seriously challenged or even beat by some of the bottom teams. Kentucky beat Louisville, Tennessee played ND tougher than anyone else has all year, Florida beat ranked Kentucky twice...Bama, historically a horrible team, has some pretty decent conference wins, including one over Kentucky. There are more examples, but you get the picture. The coaches in the league are also really good..It also helps that the SEC is also the top football conference. It'll be interesting to see how well the SEC does in the tournament this year.

 

[Boxerpups4me]

It's possible. UTenn, ND, and UConn all had 2 losses, and the Vols had by far the best RPI and SOS, so I think there's a good shot they were the #1 seed. UConn was 2-2 after playing both of them twice pre-tourney while ND and UTenn did not play, so they did have a much tougher schedule at the top of the top. I do believe UConn and ND were ranked #1 and #2 pre-tourney, but rankings don't necessarily conform to seed order.

May well have been the pre-assigned brackets rule back then, but I know the Vols fans thought their team was #1 in early March.

As a Tennessee fan, I thought we had a top five team, and I think we def have top five talent, but poor coaching and not enough motivation and mental readiness, has cost us several games. As crazy as it sounds, Tennessee and South Carolina still have an outside shot at a 1 seed. I think it's very important that we get that 1 seed, because if we get put in the Uconn or ND bracket, we can kiss a final four goodbye, and that would be a bummer being that the FF is in Nashville.

 

[doggydaddy]

From top to bottom, the SEC is easily the most solid and competitive conference in WCBB. There are really only two elite teams right now, ND and Uconn, so just because the SEC doesn't have that elite team doesn't really mean much. Ole Miss, the bottom dweller this year in the conference, only lost to Baylor by 7 points, and this was at Baylor. Every SEC team that Tennessee faced, played us very competitively, with the exception of Auburn, whom we beat by 30. Tennessee could have easily had a few more SEC losses. Basically the top teams in the SEC have been seriously challenged or even beat by some of the bottom teams. Kentucky beat Louisville, Tennessee played ND tougher than anyone else has all year, Florida beat ranked Kentucky twice...Bama, historically a horrible team, has some pretty decent conference wins, including one over Kentucky. There are more examples, but you get the picture. The coaches in the league are also really good..It also helps that the SEC is also the top football conference. It'll be interesting to see how well the SEC does in the tournament this year.

I think using Kentucky as a reason the SEC is great is a little silly.

Just because the conference is competitive and balanced doesn't make it solid.

Personally I think the way the SEC has played out, it's full of equally mediocre teams.

 

[UcMiami]

Boxer - interesting stuff and i will admit that the SEC doesn't have true door mats, but I think they are also lacking at the top end - the best teams in the SEC are not consistent (not unlike the Big12 a few years ago when they had a bunch of middling teams that were as likely to win or lose based on the phases of the moon it seemed.) On top of that you have two teams that absolutely imploded down the stretch LSU and KY. There is a lot of talent and some pretty good coaches, but ... Obviously the two best teams are SC and TN - but I think it is just as likely that they neither make the final of the tournament than that they both make it. And that isn't because they are bad teams or because the other teams are so good - it is that no one has proven to be able to string four good games together this year.

 

[DobbsRover2]

From top to bottom, the SEC is easily the most solid and competitive conference in WCBB. There are really only two elite teams right now, ND and Uconn, so just because the SEC doesn't have that elite team doesn't really mean much. Ole Miss, the bottom dweller this year in the conference, only lost to Baylor by 7 points, and this was at Baylor. Every SEC team that Tennessee faced, played us very competitively, with the exception of Auburn, whom we beat by 30. Tennessee could have easily had a few more SEC losses. Basically the top teams in the SEC have been seriously challenged or even beat by some of the bottom teams. Kentucky beat Louisville, Tennessee played ND tougher than anyone else has all year, Florida beat ranked Kentucky twice...Bama, historically a horrible team, has some pretty decent conference wins, including one over Kentucky. There are more examples, but you get the picture. The coaches in the league are also really good..It also helps that the SEC is also the top football conference. It'll be interesting to see how well the SEC does in the tournament this year.

No, I'm sorry, the SEC is still a middling muddle again this year, as it has been a few times lately. I agree that there is a vast middle for the conference, and that only the Mississippi schools are really bad. But half of the schools played really nobody OOC, and some like the Hogs hogged almost all the games for their homecourt. Only solid OOC win were KY's back-to-backs over Baylor and Lville, but the Wildcats are a team capable of losing at home to Bama. UTenn did beat the UNC freshmen in a very early game, but UTenn's once strong SOS has fallen way back and the Vols lost to the only other top teams they played, Stanford and ND.

The SEC just featured a merry-go-round of teams beating each other, with some of the losses for even some of the supposed better teams being pretty bad. USCar came through the best, but the Gamecocks' schedule was very unimpressive.

Despite everything, USCar could pull off a #1 seed if the chips fall right for it, but it seems at best an Elite 8 team.

 

[Icebear]

Right now the SEC has two of the top six ranked teams in the poll.

Yes, and they may well be ranked too high. We will see what they do in the tournament.

 

[easttexastrash]

You don't know this. Creme projects that, and ESPN therefore naturally touts it. And many others in the media dutifully follow the accepted narrative, of course.

Wake up: None of that makes your statement true. It is one of two possibilities -- assuming Notre Dame and Stanford are #1 seeds.

The reason UConn fans prefer not to go to Lousville is to avoid the tedium of yet another game against the Cardinals. That leaves Nebraska as the better option ... for the fans and the good of the game. It also gives some new teams, perhaps Nebraska, an opportunity to play against the best.

Going to Nebraska or Lullvil won't make any difference regarding UConn chances for #9, BTW.

Go to sleep: wake up when the brackets are announced.

 

[easttexastrash]

You don't know this. Creme projects that, and ESPN therefore naturally touts it. And many others in the media dutifully follow the accepted narrative, of course.

Wake up: None of that makes your statement true. It is one of two possibilities -- assuming Notre Dame and Stanford are #1 seeds.

The reason UConn fans prefer not to go to Lousville is to avoid the tedium of yet another game against the Cardinals. That leaves Nebraska as the better option ... for the fans and the good of the game. It also gives some new teams, perhaps Nebraska, an opportunity to play against the best.

Going to Nebraska or Lullvil won't make any difference regarding UConn chances for #9, BTW.

I think that after what Louisville did against Baylor that there is not one fan that wouldn't be a bit nervous about going to Louisville. Walz has proven that he wants to win at all costs. He could have some tricks up his sleeve. Take Stewart of the game like he did Griner? Would surprise me to see him put in a rarely used player to rough her up. I don't trust that man. Nothing he may try would surprise me.

 

[baggerbob]

Oh, but it does matter, becuase if they are a 2 seed, UCONN heads to the Louisville region.

Actually the SEC champion is the closest team to Louisville, so if all # 1's go to closest location, UConn in Lincoln, SEC champion to Louisville, Notre Dame, and Stanford home.

 

[Boxerpups4me]

I think using Kentucky as a reason the SEC is great is a little silly.

Just because the conference is competitive and balanced doesn't make it solid.

Personally I think the way the SEC has played out, it's full of equally mediocre teams.

Ya, I don't remember saying anything about Kentucky being "great". Your words not mine. They are a solid and scrappy team though. As far as the conference overall being solid and competitive from top to bottom, all the SEC teams were in the top 100 in the RPI rankings to end the SEC regular season. I don't think any other conference can say that...

 

[UConnCat]

Ya, I don't remember saying anything about Kentucky being "great". Your words not mine. They are a solid and scrappy team though. As far as the conference overall being solid and competitive from top to bottom, all the SEC teams were in the top 100 in the RPI rankings to end the SEC regular season. I don't think any other conference can say that...

See thread (RPI Scheduling) for discussion about how SEC teams in particular gamed the brain-dead RPI.

 

[doggydaddy]

Ya, I don't remember saying anything about Kentucky being "great". Your words not mine. They are a solid and scrappy team though. As far as the conference overall being solid and competitive from top to bottom, all the SEC teams were in the top 100 in the RPI rankings to end the SEC regular season. I don't think any other conference can say that...

I didn't say Kentucky was great either. Your words not mine.

You mentioned 5-6 Kentucky games in your post. A few wins to show how good they are and a few losses to show how good other teams are.

Top 100 RPI?

Well, whoopdie doo.

 

[doggydaddy]

See thread (RPI Scheduling) for discussion about how SEC teams in particular gamed the brain-dead RPI.

That they did.

 

[Boxerpups4me]

I didn't say Kentucky was great either. Your words not mine.

You mentioned 5-6 Kentucky games in your post. A few wins to show how good they are and a few losses to show how good other teams are.

Top 100 RPI?

Well, whoopdie doo.

As compared to what, the super stout AAC? That def deserves a whoopie doo (end sarcasm )

 

[doggydaddy]

As compared to what, the super stout AAC? That def deserves a whoopie doo (end sarcasm )

I never mentioned the AAC. You did.

The Whoopdie Doo was your mentioning top 100 teams. The ones that Uconn beats by 30-50.

 

[UConnCat]

As compared to what, the super stout AAC? That def deserves a whoopie doo (end sarcasm )

No one made that comparison or said anything about the AAC. It was simply a response to your giving kudos to the SEC about a meaningless RPI stat.

 

[Boxerpups4me]

No one made that comparison or said anything about the AAC. It was simply a response to your giving kudos to the SEC about a meaningless RPI stat.

That was a reply to the other poster, not you. And that's your subjective opinion. I wasn't giving the SEC "kudos". I simply made the statement to all that seem to think that the SEC is some kind of joke. The conference's RPI speaks for itself as far as it being a competitive and solid league, which it is. There is something to be said about the RPI since the NCAA does list it as a viewable stat on their official website. I don't think there is much debate here, but we can def debate the subject if you'd like

 

[Boxerpups4me]

I never mentioned the AAC. You did.

The Whoopdie Doo was your mentioning top 100 teams. The ones that Uconn beats by 30-50.

Yes, but UConn has been the best team for a long time and has been very consistent with how successful they have been. With that success, it's understandable how fans can look down on other teams and try to compare that success...