Solid Points by Andy Demetra
- Thread starter GamecockJL
- Start date
The SEC has 2 teams in the top 50 rpi. This is how the ACC feels during football season.
Andy ain't lying. He makes one hell of a point & he has the facts to back it up!
The ACC gets an automatic bid to the BCS in football. What is your point?
When the rest of the league is not good enough , you do not get respect for beating that league
Cherrypicking stats is easy. Why doesn't he compare the conference RPI in these situations? Because in that time the sec has been last of all the power conferences (and big east) every year except once. One year (2013) they were ranked 8th in conference RPI behind the powers and the A-10. So of course the other power conferences get more teams in when the objective RPI (which is almost the sole metric the committee uses) ranks the sec last every year.
The sec needs better OOC scheduling. The basketball teams can't rely on their conf schedule to boost numbers like the football teams.
The sec needs better OOC scheduling. The basketball teams can't rely on their conf schedule to boost numbers like the football teams.
No, they don't. One loss would have ruined an ACC school's chances to get in the playoff. A one or two loss school from the SEC, PAC-10, Big 10 or Big XII would have gotten in ahead of them. Basically, an ACC school has to go undefeated to have a chance to get in (perhaps sans FSU) and then it's no guarantee.
We need to stop scheduling games inside of our geographic footprint. Sharing the same footprint as the worst conferences hurts us in the rpi. It's what helps our baseball rpi.
Andy Demetra hasn't made a good point in his life, just ask Frank Martin. As much as it pains me to say this, the SEC wasn't very good this year and we wilted down the stretch. Also, we had the weakest in-conference schedule and one of the weakest out-of-conference schedules. Something that pocket-protector boy didn't point out in his attention-seeking tweets.
As someone mentioned, it is easy to cherry-pick stats to make a point. Darrin Horn was a master at convincing everyone we should've gone in his first year because we were the "Eastern Division Champions". In reality, the East was awful, and we got thumped by Tennessee twice, who actually finished as the top seed in the East.
Then we embarrassed ourselves in the 1st round of the conference tourney, much like we did this year.
We never should have lost to Mizzou, Georgia 3x, etc. Next year our out of conference schedule will help us not hurt us like it did this year.
On the bright side, there's no reason we can't win the NIT. There's no reason Thornwell won't be better next year. If Dozier works on his game, we should be in the big dance next year. I still think Frank has us in the right direction as painful as the end of this season was.
As someone mentioned, it is easy to cherry-pick stats to make a point. Darrin Horn was a master at convincing everyone we should've gone in his first year because we were the "Eastern Division Champions". In reality, the East was awful, and we got thumped by Tennessee twice, who actually finished as the top seed in the East.
Then we embarrassed ourselves in the 1st round of the conference tourney, much like we did this year.
We never should have lost to Mizzou, Georgia 3x, etc. Next year our out of conference schedule will help us not hurt us like it did this year.
On the bright side, there's no reason we can't win the NIT. There's no reason Thornwell won't be better next year. If Dozier works on his game, we should be in the big dance next year. I still think Frank has us in the right direction as painful as the end of this season was.
Don't exactly agree that SEC is so weak. Clemson lost to Ga, Al and USC while beating Syracuse and Pittsburg. I often relate to racing , What's the chance of a Dodge winning a NASCAR race this year?
Rankings, RPI, BPI, etc are just opinions.
The metrics are calculations, not opinions. Yes, someone decides how the metrics are determined, however: RPI is known by all (unchanged since 1982), the importance is known by all, everyone knows how to schedule to improve it, and the calculations are stagnant (in that there is zero subjective component of RPI - no opinion can change RPI rankings).
Me thinks it's time to expand the tournament again...Not sure what the number should be but there are too many good teams being left out. Another idea is have the winner of the NIT get automatic bid to the NCAA tourny the following year. You could put some stipulations on that like must have a winning record, etc.
OK, a real question, did any of the teams left out really had a chance at a title? We do not need to expand.
Absolutely no need for expansion. In fact, without the entertainment factor of television involved, one could easily cut the field to 32, maybe even 16. After all, there are only really a handful of teams with the talent to win the national championship. All the rest are just bit players in the March Madness cash cow.
On point.
SEC basketball is average at best, and weak at worst. With the exception of UK,UF and Vandy, mens BB has been mostly an afterthought throughout the league. Sure, once in a while some teams surprise and are good for a year or two, but the league lacks consistency.
Just look up and down the league, can one really argue with a straight face that the SEC is equal to any Power 5, or even the BIg East
Tell that to NC State (83) and the other higher seeds who has advanced far in the tournament. Now more then ever is there parity in college basketball. With the one and dones these days smaller schools now have a chance with players who been around for 3 or 4 years. There will be a day when 96 teams are invited...just like there will be a day when college football will go to 8 or 16 team playoff.
HMM, it seems to me as if the ACC had a representative in the College Football playoffs last year?? But if I am wrong please, feel free to correct me??
And i remember the old "you just have to play who is on your schedule" adage that the ACC throws out there in Football..
Actually, SEC men's basketball is closer to weak than average. You saw that perception reflected in USC's rankings - before we imploded.
Clem wouldn't have been in with one loss - unlike the SEC rep that made it in with one loss. Some conferences are stronger than others - and teams from the weak conferences have to win more in order to get included.
you may be right, however we will never know, ACC is the NCAA darlings, but i do understand the Anti-SEC bias..
but who determines that a conference is weak? is it based on head to head matchups or more on perception??
SEC has won several NCAA titles (not just uk) in my lifetime (im 30)
I recall several different teams making runs in the tourney during that same span.
I see SEC teams beat ACC, Big East, Big 12 , Big 10 teams regularly.
Top to bottom, the SEC is on par or not far below those conferences. I mean, if the Big 12 is so so great, then why does Kansas win the conference every single year (literally)?? Seems top heavy to me. Watch how many of those 7 teams are gone after this weekend. Ill bet 3 or less make it out. Same with ACC
SEC is percieved as a football league and there is some truth to that. Our weather and traditions dictate to kids that football is the sport to play. Basketball is a sport you play in high school during the football offseason, etc... so there are hurdles to overcome there. That I understand. But this idea that an SEC team is incompetent and cant hang with the big boys is false.
Conference RPI. Sec is consistently last of the "power conferences". And when the sec conference RPI is higher, and another "power conference" has a low conference RPI, then those conferences get fewer bids. Perfect example was in 2012 when the Pac-12 was the lowest of the "power conferences" and only got 2 bids because of it.
It's not a conspiracy, it's not because the committee hates USC, it's not just opinions. RPI is the major metric used by the NCAA since 1982. It's no secret. Schedule better (and win those games), and the sec can stop being at the bottom of the "power conference" barrel.
Alabama beat Clemson and Wichita State. It's all about perception. The SEC isn't as bad as some make them out to be. We had some talent in the league this year. Some teams underachieved but there was still talent. LSU should have been a lot better. UGA has some talent on their team. The state of Georgia produces some pretty good ball players. There's no reason they can't be a perennial contender. I guess it's the same reason that their football team seems to always underachieve.
You do realize that the "metrics" were developed by humans and programmed into a computer. Because a "computer" spits out the garbage, people think it's fact. JMO. My point is, it's just another way of judging and it sure isn't an exact science.
If you would have read my post you know that I was aware of the point in your first sentence.
The SEC is the bottom of big time college basketball this year. No team in the league is dominate, only a few are even decent. It hurts the league when Florida is not good, when UK has a down year and when the 3rd place team basically goes .500 over the last half the season. The league is not garbage but it is below average. I would swear I am listening to UNC fans trying to explain why winnin the crap side of the ACC is impressive. It isn't!
Alabama beat Clemson - in Greenville
Georgia beat Clemson too
Georgia beat Ga. Tech
South Carolina beat Clemson in Greenville
Georgia beat Clemson too
Georgia beat Ga. Tech
South Carolina beat Clemson in Greenville
And what about the Big Ten this year? Nearly identical conference RPI, yet they received 7 bids to the SEC's 3.
How about the SEC sue the NCAA so they will severely sanction the Cheating ass Tarholes. They need a 2-3 year post season ban and 3 scholly per year reduction.
Latest posts
-
-
-
It sickens me when I realize Muschamp ran our program so far into the ground it's going to take- Latest: Southern Fried Chicken
-
-
