March 22, 201610 yr Maryland is now Big Ten. I realize. Just trying to frame the argument to more than what exists in the last two years.
March 22, 201610 yr Who says the SEC was ever good? I could make some arguments for some years. 1994, 1995, 1996, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2014 just to name some years.
March 22, 201610 yr I could make some arguments for some years. 1994, 1995, 1996, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2014 just to name some years. Just because a team from the conference wins a title, doesnt mean the conference is good.
March 22, 201610 yr Just because a team from the conference wins a title, doesnt mean the conference is good. So I guess we need to break it down. 1994: Arkansas - Champ, Florida - Final Four, KY Ranked in Top 10. 1995: Arkansas - Runner up, KY Elite 8, Miss State lost in Sweet 16 to Champ UCLA 1996: KY - Champ, Miss State - Final Four, Georgia - Sweet 16 loss to Runner up Syracuse. 2006: Florida - Champ, LSU - Final Four, Tennessee was a 2 seed, Alabama lost to Final Four UCLA 2007: Florida - Champ, Tennessee lost in Sweet 16 to Runner up Ohio State (1 point) 2010: UK was a 1 seed and Elite 8. Tennessee lost by 1 in Elite 8. Vandy was a 4 seed. 2012: UK was champion. Florida lost in OT in Elite 8 to L'ville. Vandy was a 5 seed. 2014: UK was runner up. Florida was overall #1 seed and Final Four. Tennessee lost in Sweet 16 to Michigan by 2. I'm sure there are other years, but what is the criteria for when a conference is good? Just the top 3 or 4? Every conference has a top 3 or 4 and then the rest are not so good. Big East is the only winner I recall producing Champs that finished in the middle of their Conference pack and won the whole thing.
March 22, 201610 yr So I guess we need to break it down. 1994: Arkansas - Champ, Florida - Final Four, KY Ranked in Top 10. 1995: Arkansas - Runner up, KY Elite 8, Miss State lost in Sweet 16 to Champ UCLA 1996: KY - Champ, Miss State - Final Four, Georgia - Sweet 16 loss to Runner up Syracuse. 2006: Florida - Champ, LSU - Final Four, Tennessee was a 2 seed, Alabama lost to Final Four UCLA 2007: Florida - Champ, Tennessee lost in Sweet 16 to Runner up Ohio State (1 point) 2010: UK was a 1 seed and Elite 8. Tennessee lost by 1 in Elite 8. Vandy was a 4 seed. 2012: UK was champion. Florida lost in OT in Elite 8 to L'ville. Vandy was a 5 seed. 2014: UK was runner up. Florida was overall #1 seed and Final Four. Tennessee lost in Sweet 16 to Michigan by 2. I'm sure there are other years, but what is the criteria for when a conference is good? Just the top 3 or 4? Every conference has a top 3 or 4 and then the rest are not so good. Big East is the only winner I recall producing Champs that finished in the middle of their Conference pack and won the whole thing. While tournament success is one indicator, relying heavily upon it can paint distorted views. For instance, just because Butler made consecutive title games, that doesn't mean the Horizon was the second strongest conference, but that it they type of broad brush people paint when judging strictly on tournament results. Most seasons conferences will have a handful of really good teams at the top. It is what is beyond those teams is what shows conference strength. The SEC from my perspective has often been much weaker beyond the top teams than others, imo. Not always, but it seems that way more often than not. There is subjectivity in how teams are seeded in the NCAA tournament, but by-in-large, they are decent indicators of conference strength. If we had some snapshot of how conferences break down by average seeds over the amount of teams, I feel that would be the best indicator.
March 22, 201610 yr While tournament success is one indicator, relying heavily upon it can paint distorted views. For instance, just because Butler made consecutive title games, that doesn't mean the Horizon was the second strongest conference, but that it they type of broad brush people paint when judging strictly on tournament results. Most seasons, conferences will have a handful of really good teams at the top. It is what is beyond those teams is what shows conference strength. The SEC has often been much weaker beyond the top teams than others, imo. Not always, but it seems that way. There is subjectivity in how teams are seeded in the NCAA tournament, but by-in-large they are decent indicators. If we had some snapshot of how conferences break down by average seeds over the amount of teams, I feel that would be the best indicator of conference strength. I certainly don't disagree with you there. But your analogy of Butler is different than the data I showed. I only grabbed years when SEC teams (more than 1) did well. Usually at least 3 teams finished well in the tourney regardless of seed. I also find it ironic that the same measure of tourney success this year (11-1 or so for the ACC) is touted as the tell all sign of how dominant their conference is this year. And I agree. But can not the same matrix be afforded the SEC in the years I have made a case for?
March 22, 201610 yr Just because a team from the conference wins a title, doesnt mean the conference is good. Are you talking about the SEC or the Big 12? How good can a league be when the same team wins it every single year?
March 22, 201610 yr Absolutely have to get things going in Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and (at the current) Florida. These schools have to be knocking on the ncaa door, for the SEC to be completely relevant.
March 22, 201610 yr Absolutely have to get things going in Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and (at the current) Florida. These schools have to be knocking on the ncaa door, for the SEC to be completely relevant. And there's no reason they shouldn't be good. All of those schools have histories of some success and reside in fairly fertile recruiting areas. But without them in the mix, then the SEC is a sub-par league.
March 22, 201610 yr When they have been relevant, the SEC has been a good conference. When they have not, well . . . you get this year and last year.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.