I still don't think those numbers disprove my point. If anything, it shows that the top team in the SEC is really good each year, the second banana is pretty good, and the rest suck.

 

So what does that make the ACC? Everything in their conference has essentially been accomplished by two teams.

 

Or of the Pac-10 & Big 12? They don't have anything close to the SEC's resume in the last 20 years or so. Would they also lose their automatic bid?

 

The Big East had a whopping 2 Final Fours in the 1990's. Would they have lost their automatic bid in those days?

So what does that make the ACC? Everything in their conference has essentially been accomplished by two teams.

 

Or of the Pac-10 & Big 12? They don't have anything close to the SEC's resume in the last 20 years or so. Would they also lose their automatic bid?

 

The Big East had a whopping 2 Final Fours in the 1990's. Would they have lost their automatic bid in those days?

 

Each of the conferences you mention still has more depth year-in and year-out than the SEC. Plus, schools in those conferences also actually seem to care about basketball, which most certainly can't be said about the SEC.

 

Just looking at Final Four appearances is not enough -- as I said, that just proves my point about the SEC being a one-trick-pony historically. A more telling stat would be conference records in the NCAA tournament.

Did you copy/paste that off another site?

 

 

What difference does it make? It's a quote by Roy Williams. No copyright violation.

What difference does it make? It's a quote by Roy Williams. No copyright violation.

 

Wasn't concerned about that. I'll give you a pass for the error because you're a pretty good guy, if it was something you transcribed while listening to the quote. But if it was copied off another news site, I was going to have a laugh about something within the quote.

Wasn't concerned about that. I'll give you a pass for the error because you're a pretty good guy. But if it was copied off another news site, I was going to have a laugh about something within the quote.

 

 

Well please point it out so we can all get a laugh. For the record it was part of the post game quotes handed out by the UK Athletics Department.

Well please point it out so we can all get a laugh. For the record it was part of the post game quotes handed out by the UK Athletics Department.

 

Ahhh ... then the folks there need to learn the difference between "eluded" and "alluded." :lol:

Each of the conferences you mention still has more depth year-in and year-out than the SEC. Plus, schools in those conferences also actually seem to care about basketball, which most certainly can't be said about the SEC.

 

Just looking at Final Four appearances is not enough -- as I said, that just proves my point about the SEC being a one-trick-pony historically. A more telling stat would be conference records in the NCAA tournament.

 

Jim Schue... king of dismissing facts that don't agree with his agenda, and always unwilling to present his own.

It's not about the schedule being too tough. From my understanding its about the amount of money that the school is potentially mising out on. I could have sworn I read that somewhere. Wish I paid more attention to give more details.

 

What Coach Cal was asking and there was a poll which I voted in, was if UK were not to renew a contract would the fans prefer we not renew Louisville, Indiana or UNC. He said this was just for him to measure the pulse of the BBN on the issue essentially.

 

Coach Cal also indicated that his concerns are that too many out of conference competitive matchups could put his teams in a bind as far as their learning curves if his teams continue to have high turn over rates in terms of players leaving and new players arriving. People need to keep in mind that UK typically plays in some sort of a early season tourney or event that often results in them playing at least one other top 25 team as well. Jim is just silly that's all.

Each of the conferences you mention still has more depth year-in and year-out than the SEC. Plus, schools in those conferences also actually seem to care about basketball, which most certainly can't be said about the SEC.

 

Just looking at Final Four appearances is not enough -- as I said, that just proves my point about the SEC being a one-trick-pony historically. A more telling stat would be conference records in the NCAA tournament.

 

I will get that info on tournament records. Might take a while.

 

If indeed the SEC is a one-trick pony, my response would be: at least they have a pony. Not sure that could be said of other conferences in either of the two major sports.

I still don't think those numbers disprove my point. If anything, it shows that the top team in the SEC is really good each year, the second banana is pretty good, and the rest suck.

 

The points you've made fit the ACC better than the SEC (at the present time, before Syracuse and Pitt). Other than Maryland's title year, the only teams that have been a factor have been Duke and UNC.

No doubt the SEC has been down as a whole for the last 6 or so years. However your last statement is way off saying people would be wanting the SEC to lose its automatic bid. Especially since over the last 6 or 7 years the SEC has produced two national championships. Several teams in the top 10 and 5, and then one of the top teams in basketball in UK in 2009-2010 and then a final four last year. So yes a whole the SEC has not been that strong, however it still has produced some top teams usually each year. Which is something you can't say about the Big East in football, there has been no schools who have even been much of a threat to win a National Championship.

 

You should have just stuck with the the SEC as whole has been weak for awhile now, because that would be hard for people to argue with.

 

Or be a threat to win a BCS bowl game.

The points you've made fit the ACC better than the SEC (at the present time, before Syracuse and Pitt). Other than Maryland's title year, the only teams that have been a factor have been Duke and UNC.

 

Just because I'm being critical of one conference doesn't mean I'm automatically elevating another.

 

That being said, UNC and Duke still count as two. They are consistent, and there's almost always a third in there somewhere -- usually a rotating cast between GaTech, Maryland, Wake or somebody like that. Kind of like that rotating cast of second bananas behind UK -- the lone consistent top dog in the SEC -- every year.

Or be a threat to win a BCS bowl game.

 

Nobody's proclaiming the BEast as great in FB, and the conference has lost its past three BCS bowls. However, it won three in a row before that, including a win over an almighty SEC team.

Alright Jim. Here's what I've got for you. Regarding NCAA tournament wins by conference, here's the 1990-2011 breakdown (the 2000's I got on a Scout website & the 1990's I got from me counting them...one of those means is subject to error :lol:, though I don't think it effects the overall numbers)

 

1. ACC- 106 in 90's/87 in 00's= 193

2. Big East- 73 in 90's/96 in 00's= 169

3. Big 10- 79 in 90's/83 in 00's= 162

4. Big 12- 60 in 90's/88 in 00's= 148

5. SEC- 78 in 90's/68 in 00's= 146

6. Pac 10- 55 in 90's/70 in 00's= 125

^ So when you combine both yours & my methods of evaluating conference strengths...& you use my little numeric system of assigning points 1-6 in these five categories, you come up with these numbers:

 

1. ACC- 1.6

2. SEC- 2.6

3. Big East- 2.8

4. Big 10- 3.2

5. Big 12- 4.4

6. Pac 10- 5