Should the SEC Tournament be changed?

[Original Rookie]

http://www.mrsec.com/story/how-the-sec-tourney-bracket-should-look

 

Pretty good article.

 

If the league were seeded from 1 through 12 instead, here’s how things would shake out:

 

1 Kentucky 14-2

2 Vanderbilt 12-4

3 Tennessee 11-5

4 Florida 9-7 (by virtue of head-to-head tiebreakers with MSU and UM)

5 Miss. State 9-7 (by virtue of head-to-head tiebreaker with UM)

6 Ole Miss 9-7

7 Arkansas 7-9

8 S. Carolina 6-10 (by virtue of win vs UK tiebreaker with UA and AU)

9 Alabama 6-10 (by virtue of division record tiebreaker with AU)

10 Auburn 6-10

11 Georgia 5-11

12 LSU 2-14

 

 

 

If you create a balanced bracket based upon those correct seedings, you’d have a more competitive bracket than the actual one waiting to be played out in Nashville. See for yourself:

 

 

#12 LSU would play #5 MSU with the winner facing #1 Kentucky

 

# 9 Alabama would play #8 S. Carolina with the winner facing #4 Florida

 

#11 Georgia would play #6 Ole Miss with the winner facing #2 Vanderbilt

 

#10 Auburn would play #7 Arkansas with the winner facing #3 Tennessee

 

 

The semi-finals — on paper — would feature the four best teams in the conference: Kentucky vs Florida and Vanderbilt vs Tennessee.

[SouthernSportsFan]

Never really thought about it, but I totally understand the point.

 

Based on what he provided, he needs to be reworked.

[SEMPERFIFALCON]

I think it should be changed, and oddly enough its Bruce Pearls reasoning that makes the most sense to me. He makes the point that at this point in the season you don't want your top teams taking a hit in the RPI and SOS like UT is going to do when they play LSU, and then it really hurts your top teams if one of those were to lose to a team like LSU. I agree that the top third should get a bye no matter what division, I think it’s only fair and like Pearl said it only helps your top teams improve their NCAA line.

[Original Rookie]

I think it should be changed, and oddly enough its Bruce Pearls reasoning that makes the most sense to me. He makes the point that at this point in the season you don't want your top teams taking a hit in the RPI and SOS like UT is going to do when they play LSU, and then it really hurts your top teams if one of those were to lose to a team like LSU. I agree that the top third should get a bye no matter what division, I think it’s only fair and like Pearl said it only helps your top teams improve their NCAA line.

 

This doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying a team like LSU shouldn't make the conference tournament?

 

If you are going to say change it, at least say how you are going to change it...

[SEMPERFIFALCON]

This doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying a team like LSU shouldn't make the conference tournament?

No I'm not saying that LSU shouldn't make the tournament (sorry that wasn't clear) just that they should have to play a team like Miss State and not one of the top 4 teams in their first game.

 

 

If you are going to say change it, at least say how you are going to change it...

That part seemed clear so lets try again, "I agree that the top third should get a bye no matter what division, I think it’s only fair and like Pearl said it only helps your top teams improve their NCAA line".

[Original Rookie]

No I'm not saying that LSU shouldn't make the tournament (sorry that wasn't clear) just that they should have to play a team like Miss State and not one of the top 4 teams in their first game.

 

 

That part seemed clear so lets try again, "I agree that the top third should get a bye no matter what division, I think it’s only fair and like Pearl said it only helps your top teams improve their NCAA line".

 

Ok.. I guess maybe I just don't totally follow the logic.

 

If I didn't have a bye, I would want to play the worst team possible in the first round.

[MountainThunder]

I like this type of seeding and would like to see it changed.

[gchs_uk9]

This is how the ACC and Big 12 (both 12 team leagues) do their tournaments.

[mobaar]

Ok.. I guess maybe I just don't totally follow the logic.

 

If I didn't have a bye, I would want to play the worst team possible in the first round.

 

The argument is that playing a bad team will lower your RPI.

[gametime]

The argument is that playing a bad team will lower your RPI.

Which means nothing in the selection room. The only argument that would work is not wanting to lose to said low RPI team...

[HT721]

To me the only way it's fair to change the tourney format is to do away completely with the divisions and make it random draw or some sort of schedule which teams you play twice a year. Otherwise you would have unbalanced schedules in most years.

[footballfever]

http://www.mrsec.com/story/how-the-sec-tourney-bracket-should-look

 

Pretty good article.

 

If the league were seeded from 1 through 12 instead, here’s how things would shake out:

 

1 Kentucky 14-2

2 Vanderbilt 12-4

3 Tennessee 11-5

4 Florida 9-7 (by virtue of head-to-head tiebreakers with MSU and UM)

5 Miss. State 9-7 (by virtue of head-to-head tiebreaker with UM)

6 Ole Miss 9-7

7 Arkansas 7-9

8 S. Carolina 6-10 (by virtue of win vs UK tiebreaker with UA and AU)

9 Alabama 6-10 (by virtue of division record tiebreaker with AU)

10 Auburn 6-10

11 Georgia 5-11

12 LSU 2-14

 

 

 

If you create a balanced bracket based upon those correct seedings, you’d have a more competitive bracket than the actual one waiting to be played out in Nashville. See for yourself:

 

 

#12 LSU would play #5 MSU with the winner facing #1 Kentucky

 

# 9 Alabama would play #8 S. Carolina with the winner facing #4 Florida

 

#11 Georgia would play #6 Ole Miss with the winner facing #2 Vanderbilt

 

#10 Auburn would play #7 Arkansas with the winner facing #3 Tennessee

 

 

The semi-finals — on paper — would feature the four best teams in the conference: Kentucky vs Florida and Vanderbilt vs Tennessee.

 

I don't think it's a bad idea but actually winner of 8 vs 9 play 1. 7 vs 10 winner play 2. 6 vs 11 play 3 and 5 vs 12 plays 4.

[gametime]

I don't think it's a bad idea but actually winner of 8 vs 9 play 1. 7 vs 10 winner play 2. 6 vs 11 play 3 and 5 vs 12 plays 4.

You are confusing this format with a 16 team format. #12 is the lowest seed so they get #1 in the 2nd round and it goes from there...

[CincySportsFan]

To me the only way it's fair to change the tourney format is to do away completely with the divisions and make it random draw or some sort of schedule which teams you play twice a year. Otherwise you would have unbalanced schedules in most years.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about the regular season schedule, right? I mean, there's no way you'd want to chance having Kentucky play Vandy in the opening round, with the winner having to play Tennessee...and still not be in the finals just because of the "luck of the draw"...would you?

[gchs_uk9]

You are confusing this format with a 16 team format. #12 is the lowest seed so they get #1 in the 2nd round and it goes from there...

 

Negative there GT. There is no distinction between a 12- and 16-team bracket except in a 12-teamer the 13, 14, 15, and 16 teams just disappear. Now if you wanted to make it like the NHL where the highest seed always plays lowest, then that's a different story.

 

As is, the only two 12-team conferences that play a 1-through-12 format, the Big 12 and ACC, have brackets that set up like this:

 

1

8-9

 

4

5-12

 

2

7-10

 

3

6-11

 

Here is the ACC bracket:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/acc/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/10bracket.pdf

 

Here is the Big 12 bracket:

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/championships/pdfs/2010_mbasketball_bracket.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410