Started By
Message
re: SEC Basketball: Is it the Big 3 compared to Big 6 of football?
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:04 am to BHMKyle
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:04 am to BHMKyle
quote:
While partly true, this type of thinking is GREATLY exaggerated by Bama fans. Alabama is certainly way out front in football at #1... but its not even in the same ballpark compared to how out front at #1 Kentucky is in basketball.
We really shouldn't be trying to compare two different sports to begin with, there are many more D1 teams in basketball than football. That is one reason alone it really shouldn't be done.
0
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:07 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Kentucky just outright dominates this league.
They also dominate at the national level. One thing Kentucky and Alabama sure tho is 5 different coaches taking their teams to the top in a given season.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:11 am to BHMKyle
Top Basketball Programs of all-time:
1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Louisville
7. Indiana
8. UConn
9. Michigan State
10. Syracuse
11. Ohio State
12. Villanova
13. Cincinnati
14. Oklahoma State
15. Utah
16. Marquette
17. Arizona
18. Georgetown
19. NC State
20. Michigan
21. Arkansas
22. Florida
23. Kansas State
24. Illinois
25. Oklahoma
How does the SEC rank:
1. Kentucky
2. Arkansas
3. Florida
4. LSU
5. Missouri
6. Tennessee
7. Alabama
8. Vanderbilt
9. Mississippi State
10. Texas A&M
11. Georgia
12. Auburn
13. South Carolina
14. Ole Miss
How bad is the SEC as a whole though? Florida would have been dead last of this group in 1990. Within 16 years they had shot up to #3 in the league. Any program could get hot and move up quick.
Kentucky is set in stone at #1 and it would take Florida (1990-2016) level success for another 100 years to even get mentioned in the same breath assuming Kentucky kept playing their normal basketball.
1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Louisville
7. Indiana
8. UConn
9. Michigan State
10. Syracuse
11. Ohio State
12. Villanova
13. Cincinnati
14. Oklahoma State
15. Utah
16. Marquette
17. Arizona
18. Georgetown
19. NC State
20. Michigan
21. Arkansas
22. Florida
23. Kansas State
24. Illinois
25. Oklahoma
How does the SEC rank:
1. Kentucky
2. Arkansas
3. Florida
4. LSU
5. Missouri
6. Tennessee
7. Alabama
8. Vanderbilt
9. Mississippi State
10. Texas A&M
11. Georgia
12. Auburn
13. South Carolina
14. Ole Miss
How bad is the SEC as a whole though? Florida would have been dead last of this group in 1990. Within 16 years they had shot up to #3 in the league. Any program could get hot and move up quick.
Kentucky is set in stone at #1 and it would take Florida (1990-2016) level success for another 100 years to even get mentioned in the same breath assuming Kentucky kept playing their normal basketball.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:13 am to Triple Daves
It is a much different animal than football because March can be such a crapshoot. It's a tourney sport so you have to value postseason success, but many times you will see teams play way above or below their talent level in the tourney and games often times come down to one possession.
Tennessee has had two 1 point losses in the Sweet 16 and another 1 point loss in the Elite 8 in the past 10 years alone and Tennessee's best team in that time frame was not even one of those 3.
If you get hot or get a good draw you can run off 3 or 4 wins pretty easily as evenly matched as most of the teams in the tourney are.
Tennessee has had two 1 point losses in the Sweet 16 and another 1 point loss in the Elite 8 in the past 10 years alone and Tennessee's best team in that time frame was not even one of those 3.
If you get hot or get a good draw you can run off 3 or 4 wins pretty easily as evenly matched as most of the teams in the tourney are.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:16 am to MSUbulldogs03
quote:
MSU is the only school with a final four appearance.
But is far behind in every other category
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:17 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Alabama is certainly way out front in football at #1... but its not even in the same ballpark compared to how out front at #1 Kentucky is in basketball.
Of course, but mainly because the SEC is deeper and stronger nationally in football historically than basketball.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:19 am to volfan30
quote:
Tennessee has had two 1 point losses in the Sweet 16 and another 1 point loss in the Elite 8 in the past 10 years alone and Tennessee's best team in that time frame was not even one of those 3.
If you get hot or get a good draw you can run off 3 or 4 wins pretty easily as evenly matched as most of the teams in the tourney are.
Yep, spot on
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:34 am to TheDude321
quote:
This subject has already been decided with a thorough discussion: LINK.
That ranking was horrible
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:40 am to rockiee
quote:
That ranking was horrible
If you read the entire thread, literally everyone thought it was fair except for the Arky fans (which is odd, because I was nice enough to break the rankings down into pre-1992 and post-1992 eras, so Arky's accomplishments would stand out more).
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:47 am to Triple Daves
quote:
Tier 3 - LSU (mainly due to Final 4s...)
...and a National Championship from 1935 and second most conference championships.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:50 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Top Basketball Programs of all-time:
1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
1 Kentucky
2 North Carolina
3 Indiana
4 Kansas
UCLA and Duke are 1 coach schools. I can see the Line Beards being #2 in the ACC (possibly #1) after coach K calls it quits. Indiana has fallen in the last decade but they have at least another decade to come back up. IN and KY have been, and still are, the 2 craziest states for basketball fans and per capita high school support.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:51 am to TheDude321
quote:
If you read the entire thread, literally everyone thought it was fair except for the Arky fans (which is odd, because I was nice enough to break the rankings down into pre-1992 and post-1992 eras, so Arky's accomplishments would stand out more
I'm not sure how you can think it is fair to just not include a team's previous accomplishments because they were not in the conference since its creation. To have Arkansas below 3 in all time rankings of teams in the SEC is foolish. I also don't agree with your point system. I guess the two separate rankings isn't "that bad" but trying to combine them is just silly.
This post was edited on 1/19/17 at 11:59 am
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:57 am to rockiee
quote:
I'm not sure how you can think it is fair to just not include a team's previous accomplishments because they were not in the conference since its creation.
SEC competition > SWC competition
The NCAA tournament used to only take one team per conference for decades. The SWC had no team even slightly remotely close to Kentucky in stature. Hence, the bulk of Arky's conference championships and NCAA tournament appearances would never have occurred if they had been a member of the SEC in the early years, because UK would have taken it.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 12:00 pm to TheDude321
quote:
SEC competition > SWC competition
The NCAA tournament used to only take one team per conference for decades. The SWC had no team even slightly remotely close to Kentucky in stature. Hence, the bulk of Arky's conference championships and NCAA tournament appearances would never have occurred if they had been a member of the SEC in the early years, because UK would have taken it.
So, the answer is to not give them any credit for anything before '92? How does that make sense to you? I could even understand counting them for less or something but to not even count the is just ignorant.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 12:01 pm to TheDude321
quote:
literally everyone thought it was fair
This isn't even close to true, after going through all the first two pages there are a few LSU fans that thing the point system is dumb.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 12:04 pm to rockiee
quote:
So, the answer is to not give them any credit for anything before '92? How does that make sense to you?
Because Texas League is AA.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 12:21 pm to rockiee
quote:
So, the answer is to not give them any credit for anything before '92?
Dude, I'm not trying to scam anyone here. I listed accomplishments by SEC teams, not SWC or Big 8 or Big XII teams. It becomes an apples-and-oranges comparison when trying to compare each conference's accomplishments. I mean, the SWC had no "blueblood" programs like UK, and honestly, LSU, Bama, and Tennessee would have won more conference titles and qualified for the NCAA's more often if they had joined the SWC instead of the SEC.
Again, I did try to accommodate Razorbackers by breaking down the results by pre- and post-expansion eras.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 12:23 pm to TheDude321
quote:
The NCAA tournament used to only take one team per conference for decades
Which has already been discussed in this thread. Arkansas made no NCAA tourney 16 seasons when they finished 2nd or 3rd in their league in those seasons. In today's tourney set up, they would have at least 15 more appearances.
Arkansas wasn't just a regional SWC program before the SEC. They regularly played upper echelon national competition OOC and won.
Attempting to deflate the program's accomplishments prior to joining the SEC in 1991 is laughable at best.
A good example of this is Arkansas winning against LSU(at the time #2 in SEC) 18 of its first 19 games against them in league play.
This post was edited on 1/19/17 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 1/19/17 at 12:36 pm to TheDude321
quote:
Dude, I'm not trying to scam anyone here
I'm not accusing you of scamming anyone. This is a subjective ranking. I'm giving you reasons on why I think it was bad after you said only Arkansas fans had a problem with it which wasn't true anyway. quote:
It becomes an apples-and-oranges comparison when trying to compare each conference's accomplishments. I mean, the SWC had no "blueblood" programs like UK, and honestly, LSU, Bama, and Tennessee would have won more conference titles and qualified for the NCAA's more often if they had joined the SWC instead of the SEC.
I agree for the most part which makes it even odder that you tried to combine them at the end. You should have just kept them separate and it would have made more sense.
I also think the point system could be better adjusted but people are always going to argue over that.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News