(03-13-2016 06:27 PM)Blue Dynasty Wrote:  So Vandy is the only team to get in besides the Cats and Aggies, and they only get in the First Four segment of the tournament, with a tough game versus Wichita State. No South Carolina. I think Georgia really merited more consideration as an at-large, I'm surprised how little discussion the Dawgs received in the final days before the selection.

What do we think about the draw? The SEC and the tournament as a whole?

I'm surprised we got three in this year. I thought the SEC was down a lot compared to the Big East, Big 12, ACC, and Big Ten. If we want to earn some pride back, a strong showing in the NIT is a must.

The SEC just can't seem to get its act together when it comes to basketball.

Actually, I thought the SEC was much stronger this year compared to recent years. We had a lot of nice out of conference wins which were more rare in years past. Not that we have an elite league or anything, but we were probably the 5th or 6th best. I truly believe we warranted at least 4 bids this time and you can make a good argument for 5.

Now, we probably got hammered in the perception factor because the league has been down the last few years. We will have to start winning consistently, but I think in general that the committee always undervalues the SEC. The American should not have had more than us. The PAC 12 got 7? Frankly, that's ridiculous. That league has been fairly weak for years, but all of a sudden they are getting the benefit of the doubt?

the league as always gets absolutely trashed in the media and there's no way on Earth we shouldn't have gotten at least one more and really, should have been two more in. The guys saying the league was better this year are right - there were a few non-conference stinkers, as always, but I mean, I could go through the list of every other league's bottom-dwelling teams and find awful losses there too. We did much better in non-conference games this year as a whole, but selection committee made all the usual idiotic decisions they usually do. Nothing to see here.

Anyway the tournament tips off tonight!

(03-15-2016 12:48 PM)Blue Dynasty Wrote:  the league as always gets absolutely trashed in the media and there's no way on Earth we shouldn't have gotten at least one more and really, should have been two more in. The guys saying the league was better this year are right - there were a few non-conference stinkers, as always, but I mean, I could go through the list of every other league's bottom-dwelling teams and find awful losses there too. We did much better in non-conference games this year as a whole, but selection committee made all the usual idiotic decisions they usually do. Nothing to see here.

Anyway the tournament tips off tonight!

It's like I said in the post I took down because I thought I got a bit too negative, we deserved 5 in this year. The bottom of the SEC was better. Sure Auburn and Missouri had tough seasons, but it's not like they stunk it up in non-conference games and even my lowly Tigers managed some nice conference wins. Injuries kept Pearl from having a better showing. The same hurt Florida and A&M during the year as well. But face it. The NCAA Tourney committee is about as biased against the SEC as International Boxing is biased against the United States come Olympic competition time. It's a very pro Big 10, pro ACC, pro Northeast (AAC, A10, NBE) and very very pro must have all of the national brands.

What makes it worse is when we get a #1 seed we always have to play out of our region so that the ACC can have the Southeast. If we have a #5 seed quality team they get put in the #8 or 9 seed slot. If there are excellent small teams they get matched up in the first two rounds with the SEC representatives or sometimes Big 12 representatives. Seldom do they draw an ACC or Big 10 school. So we not only get hosed on the number of schools in (which represents tourney credits for revenue) but we get hosed on the seeds and draws as well.

And yet to spite our low rating, our constantly deflated RPI (which is very biased) we have won more national championships in hoops in the last 25 or so years than the Big 10, and just as many as the ACC. What's more we have been more than just Kentucky. Florida has two of those championships and Arkansas has one.

But we are the South, prefer football (which we have dominated for nearly 2 decades) get paid more than anyone in the bowls, so screw the SEC is the attitude of the basketball elite. That's just a fact of life. And when we win a championship we never get a bump in schools in the next year.

Let's see how deep the SEC was this year....Vanderbilt vs Wichita State on CBSsports.com

All Tide at 30 at the half; Vandy-Wichita State.

Ouch...Wichita State 70-50 Vanderbilt

Guess conference prides resides in Kentucky and Texas A&M.

Lots of upsets in round one so far. #2 Michigan State just lost to #15 Middle Tenn State. Little Rock with the cindarella upset of Purdue. #13 Hawaii over #4 Cal. Wichita State might be the first team to advance from the first round after advancing from the play-in game.

Round of 32 will have some great games tomorrow.

(03-18-2016 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Lots of upsets in round one so far. #2 Michigan State just lost to #15 Middle Tenn State. Little Rock with the cindarella upset of Purdue. #13 Hawaii over #4 Cal. Wichita State might be the first team to advance from the first round after advancing from the play-in game.

Round of 32 will have some great games tomorrow.

Now tell me the SEC should not have gotten more in.

The Big 10 loses Purdue and Michigan State. Iowa goes to overtime.

The PAC got 7 in and has already lost 5 first round games. Utah beat Fresno and Oregon is yet to play. The tournament is exactly what I said it was. It is a vehicle for the NCAA to compensate some conferences who don't earn much in football revenue. Personally speaking I'd say that small conferences got hosed worse than we did this year based on the results so far. MTS didn't upset Michigan State they dominated them tip to buzzer.

(03-18-2016 05:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Lots of upsets in round one so far. #2 Michigan State just lost to #15 Middle Tenn State. Little Rock with the cindarella upset of Purdue. #13 Hawaii over #4 Cal. Wichita State might be the first team to advance from the first round after advancing from the play-in game.

Round of 32 will have some great games tomorrow.

Now tell me the SEC should not have gotten more in.

The Big 10 loses Purdue and Michigan State. Iowa goes to overtime.

The PAC got 7 in and has already lost 5 first round games. Utah beat Fresno and Oregon is yet to play. The tournament is exactly what I said it was. It is a vehicle for the NCAA to compensate some conferences who don't earn much in football revenue. Personally speaking I'd say that small conferences got hosed worse than we did this year based on the results so far. MTS didn't upset Michigan State they dominated them tip to buzzer.

Based on all these poor results, South Carolina could have snuck in there, but I still feel the SEC had a very poor showing this season during a very average year in college BB where there are not any teams standing heads and shoulders over the group.

JR what I think hurt SC was their SOS & that the committee emphasized top 50 wins this year. SC was 52 in Sagarin with a SOS of 76 & 5-2 versus the top 50. The RPI had them 57 with a SOS of 159 but only 1-1 versus the top 50. Florida had a strong SOS but was 3-19 versus the top 50 in Sagarin & 2-7 in the RPI. Vanderbilt was a nice medium between the two.

To compare look at Cincinnati & Syracuse. Cincinnati is 32 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 32 & 5-8 versus the top 50. By the RPI they are 45 with a SOS of 39 & 4-4 versus the top 50. Syracuse is 40 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 36 & 7-15 versus the top 50. They are 68 in the RPI with a SOS of 39 & 5-6 versus the top 50. Michigan maybe a better example. They are 37 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 23 & 7-20 versus the top 50. They are 58 in the RPI with a SOS of 45 & 4-11 versus the top 50.

Looking at the numbers it was the record against the top 50 that separated the teams. Everyone had flaws. There's always controversy about the last few teams in. Should the PAC & Big 12 gotten 7 teams in each? I don't think so, especially after the first round, but I don't think that SC, Florida or even St Mary's would have faired much better. I think Vanderbilt should have been in but SC didn't play enough top 50 teams & Florida didn't win enough of their tough games against the top 50. Despite that, I don't think that the B12 deserved to get 70% of their conference in & the PAC was overrated. That should've opened up spots for teams like SC, Florida, St Mary's & even possibly Monmouth. It was certainly a below average performance by the committee this year, but it was a tough selection year.

(03-19-2016 09:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  JR what I think hurt SC was their SOS & that the committee emphasized top 50 wins this year. SC was 52 in Sagarin with a SOS of 76 & 5-2 versus the top 50. The RPI had them 57 with a SOS of 159 but only 1-1 versus the top 50. Florida had a strong SOS but was 3-19 versus the top 50 in Sagarin & 2-7 in the RPI. Vanderbilt was a nice medium between the two.

To compare look at Cincinnati & Syracuse. Cincinnati is 32 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 32 & 5-8 versus the top 50. By the RPI they are 45 with a SOS of 39 & 4-4 versus the top 50. Syracuse is 40 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 36 & 7-15 versus the top 50. They are 68 in the RPI with a SOS of 39 & 5-6 versus the top 50. Michigan maybe a better example. They are 37 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 23 & 7-20 versus the top 50. They are 58 in the RPI with a SOS of 45 & 4-11 versus the top 50.

Looking at the numbers it was the record against the top 50 that separated the teams. Everyone had flaws. There's always controversy about the last few teams in. Should the PAC & Big 12 gotten 7 teams in each? I don't think so, especially after the first round, but I don't think that SC, Florida or even St Mary's would have faired much better. I think Vanderbilt should have been in but SC didn't play enough top 50 teams & Florida didn't win enough of their tough games against the top 50. Despite that, I don't think that the B12 deserved to get 70% of their conference in & the PAC was overrated. That should've opened up spots for teams like SC, Florida, St Mary's & even possibly Monmouth. It was certainly a below average performance by the committee this year, but it was a tough selection year.

Lenville, have you ever stopped to ask who, why, and how the top 50 are decided because a lot of those top 50 didn't just get upset in the last two days they got their butts handed to them. The committee pulls this crap every year. The same way the polls favored the SEC in football. How long are we going to put up with it for any sport. I'd be perfectly happy with a champs only or even a champs and runner up only tourney for hoops. But what we have now is pure B.S.

What we have seldom crowns the best team as national champion. It makes a mockery of the regular season. And it is serves as an instrument to deliver revenue which is equally low for the minor conferences an unequally distributed among the major ones. That's why I call it the welfare system of the NCAA. The criteria is selected because it is fairly easy to manipulate.

(03-19-2016 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  JR what I think hurt SC was their SOS & that the committee emphasized top 50 wins this year. SC was 52 in Sagarin with a SOS of 76 & 5-2 versus the top 50. The RPI had them 57 with a SOS of 159 but only 1-1 versus the top 50. Florida had a strong SOS but was 3-19 versus the top 50 in Sagarin & 2-7 in the RPI. Vanderbilt was a nice medium between the two.

To compare look at Cincinnati & Syracuse. Cincinnati is 32 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 32 & 5-8 versus the top 50. By the RPI they are 45 with a SOS of 39 & 4-4 versus the top 50. Syracuse is 40 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 36 & 7-15 versus the top 50. They are 68 in the RPI with a SOS of 39 & 5-6 versus the top 50. Michigan maybe a better example. They are 37 in the Sagarin with a SOS of 23 & 7-20 versus the top 50. They are 58 in the RPI with a SOS of 45 & 4-11 versus the top 50.

Looking at the numbers it was the record against the top 50 that separated the teams. Everyone had flaws. There's always controversy about the last few teams in. Should the PAC & Big 12 gotten 7 teams in each? I don't think so, especially after the first round, but I don't think that SC, Florida or even St Mary's would have faired much better. I think Vanderbilt should have been in but SC didn't play enough top 50 teams & Florida didn't win enough of their tough games against the top 50. Despite that, I don't think that the B12 deserved to get 70% of their conference in & the PAC was overrated. That should've opened up spots for teams like SC, Florida, St Mary's & even possibly Monmouth. It was certainly a below average performance by the committee this year, but it was a tough selection year.

Lenville, have you ever stopped to ask who, why, and how the top 50 are decided because a lot of those top 50 didn't just get upset in the last two days they got their butts handed to them. The committee pulls this crap every year. The same way the polls favored the SEC in football. How long are we going to put up with it for any sport. I'd be perfectly happy with a champs only or even a champs and runner up only tourney for hoops. But what we have now is pure B.S.

What we have seldom crowns the best team as national champion. It makes a mockery of the regular season. And it is serves as an instrument to deliver revenue which is equally low for the minor conferences an unequally distributed among the major ones. That's why I call it the welfare system of the NCAA. The criteria is selected because it is fairly easy to manipulate.

That's why I included the Sagarin as well. I don't mind the current setup. Is it perfect, no, but it seems to get the job done. The top teams with the best chance to win it all are there & there's a nice blend of the mid majors as well. The ones that get complained about the most are the last few in & the ones that just missed. Those teams have a minute chance of winning anyway & there usually isn't much separating them. You gotta have something positive that stands out like a strong SOS or a better record versus the top 50 for example. This year it seems that the top 50 wins is what stood out, next year it could be SOS. With the level of parity in basketball you have to have something standout. Monmouth tried, having only 1 home OOC game & beat some PAC teams but their overall SOS was still to weak.

I like this system better than the one for football because it's far more inclusive. The CFP is far superior than the old BCS system though because over 90% of the teams were eliminated before the first kickoff.

Can the system be improved, I'm sure it could but how? Having a rule eliminating teams with sub .500 conference records really wouldn't have changed anything this year. The committee says that they don't look at conference affiliation while selecting teams, maybe they should. Why did the Big 12 get 7 out of 10 in & why did the PAC get more than half? Perhaps limit conferences to 50% inclusion, do we really need conference seller dwellers? Would switching Texas Tech & Oregon St for South Carolina & Florida had made a difference in the tourney this year? I doubt it & no one would have complained about it. It is possible for a team in the bottom half of a power conference to win it all however, UCONN did it after finishing 9th in the Big East. I don't see anyone ever repeating that though.

The SEC made some coaching changes at the end of last season & amped up recruiting, it will take a couple of years for those positive changes to produce results. LSU had a lot of talent this year but didn't do anything with it.

Sorry Blue Dyansty. I had held greater hopes for you guys and I know you did as well. They just never looked like they were moving to the ball. Lethargic as a whole and Indiana played better as a team.

(03-19-2016 06:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sorry Blue Dyansty. I had held greater hopes for you guys and I know you did as well. They just never looked like they were moving to the ball. Lethargic as a whole and Indiana played better as a team.

You got it brother JR, the bigs just were non-existent for us almost all year, and they were eaten alive inside by Bryant from IU, in a similar fashion to what we are accustomed to doing to teams. Hey, next year is looking brighter for UK and the SEC as a whole!

So about this football stuff you guys are always talking about...

(03-20-2016 05:19 PM)Blue Dynasty Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sorry Blue Dyansty. I had held greater hopes for you guys and I know you did as well. They just never looked like they were moving to the ball. Lethargic as a whole and Indiana played better as a team.

You got it brother JR, the bigs just were non-existent for us almost all year, and they were eaten alive inside by Bryant from IU, in a similar fashion to what we are accustomed to doing to teams. Hey, next year is looking brighter for UK and the SEC as a whole!

So about this football stuff you guys are always talking about...

Well.....to be honest I'm not certain anything will happen until 2022 at the earliest. But if it did blow up in the Big 12 it could get real interesting real fast so stay tuned.

(03-20-2016 05:19 PM)Blue Dynasty Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sorry Blue Dyansty. I had held greater hopes for you guys and I know you did as well. They just never looked like they were moving to the ball. Lethargic as a whole and Indiana played better as a team.

You got it brother JR, the bigs just were non-existent for us almost all year, and they were eaten alive inside by Bryant from IU, in a similar fashion to what we are accustomed to doing to teams. Hey, next year is looking brighter for UK and the SEC as a whole!

So about this football stuff you guys are always talking about...

Even though it didn't go UK's way, I was glad to see another UK/IU match-up again. I hope y'all renew that regular season series.

But hey, it was a very good year for you all. You replaced what...10 players that left for the NBA last year?

(03-20-2016 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 05:19 PM)Blue Dynasty Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sorry Blue Dyansty. I had held greater hopes for you guys and I know you did as well. They just never looked like they were moving to the ball. Lethargic as a whole and Indiana played better as a team.

You got it brother JR, the bigs just were non-existent for us almost all year, and they were eaten alive inside by Bryant from IU, in a similar fashion to what we are accustomed to doing to teams. Hey, next year is looking brighter for UK and the SEC as a whole!

So about this football stuff you guys are always talking about...

Even though it didn't go UK's way, I was glad to see another UK/IU match-up again. I hope y'all renew that regular season series.

But hey, it was a very good year for you all. You replaced what...10 players that left for the NBA last year?

Haha I think it was seven but yes, it was considered a bridge year, and a few bounces here or there and we're talking a Sweet 16 in a bridge year so I guess we don't have it so bad. Next year in all likelihood we start off as a top 3 team.

But hey, we still have one team alive, how about that Texas A&M comeback?! Down 12 (!) in the last 45 secs and come back to win in double OT!

(03-20-2016 11:01 PM)Blue Dynasty Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 05:19 PM)Blue Dynasty Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sorry Blue Dyansty. I had held greater hopes for you guys and I know you did as well. They just never looked like they were moving to the ball. Lethargic as a whole and Indiana played better as a team.

You got it brother JR, the bigs just were non-existent for us almost all year, and they were eaten alive inside by Bryant from IU, in a similar fashion to what we are accustomed to doing to teams. Hey, next year is looking brighter for UK and the SEC as a whole!

So about this football stuff you guys are always talking about...

Even though it didn't go UK's way, I was glad to see another UK/IU match-up again. I hope y'all renew that regular season series.

But hey, it was a very good year for you all. You replaced what...10 players that left for the NBA last year?

Haha I think it was seven but yes, it was considered a bridge year, and a few bounces here or there and we're talking a Sweet 16 in a bridge year so I guess we don't have it so bad. Next year in all likelihood we start off as a top 3 team.

But hey, we still have one team alive, how about that Texas A&M comeback?! Down 12 (!) in the last 45 secs and come back to win in double OT!

That only happens about as often as Halley's Comet and even then all the rest of the stars in the galaxy have to be lined up just right. Now go get OU!