Hey thanks man. It's exciting to have games to look forward to watching involving our team once football season is officially wrapped up and not have to wait for Selection Sunday to get our juices flowing. January through March seems like forever for some fans, but not ours.
SEC: The Weakest Major Conference in College Basketball
- Thread starter Cardiotonic
- Start date
Hey thanks man. It's exciting to have games to look forward to watching involving our team once football season is officially wrapped up and not have to wait for Selection Sunday to get our juices flowing. January through March seems like forever for some fans, but not ours.
I'm not a conference honker, I'll save that for the UK football fans. UK would not have been close to a undefeated season had they been in any other P5 conference last year, but they aren't, so they were.
The UK fans live vicariously through their team, so they want to be able to brag about SEC championships: "yea, maybe I'm a loser, but "we're" SEC champs - Woo-hoo!" I would be embarrassed to brag about SEC basketball titles. The conference is a great football league, but a joke in basketball. The reason UK fans don't want to move to a real basketball conference is because they couldn't dominate it like the SEC and its "Little Sisters of the Blind" teams.
Actually skip beating them (I mean you guys troll) doesn't shut them (I mean you guys troll) up.
For evidence review football board.
For evidence review football board.
So you agree that UofL OOC schedule is a joke?
Outside of duke, unc and Maryland the acc is nearly as weak.
I disagree. BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Clemson, NC State, Miami, FSU, Wake Forrest, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Va Tech are better than anyone in the SEC not named UofK. Yet to be seen if the Cardinals are north or south of UofK this year. Time will tell, but the one thing I know for sure is the SEC is UofK and nobody else worth a crap.
BTW, Maryland is now in the B1G.
Last edited:
I do not know any UK fans that hang their hat on SEC championships...yes, it is nice, but that is all.
KU fans do hang their hat on their conference championships...and in UL wins the ACC- you guys should also be proud
I don't see how winning the SEC could even be characterized as "nice." How any legitimate basketball power could not at least win 9 out of 10 SEC championships is unfathomable. UK can't really be considered a top 5 program based on wins because it plays in the SEC. Therefore, a high amount of UK's wins are tainted because they came against SEC foes. I mean outside of the brief spurt FL had with Donovan, the SEC without UK is a mid-major basketball conference.
Yeah you love whistling Dixie don't you ? Duke, UNC, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina State, Louisville, Syracuse, Norte Dame and now Florida State !???! You calling the ACC weak LOL..........that little confederate cap on your head is a bit too tight !
This thread is a massive joke right? Its meant to bash UK but all it does is bash the other SEC teams and nothing more. Put UK in the SEC , Cal and UK would be battling for top spot in the conference every year.
Last edited by a moderator:
ESPN also says that the SEC is the weakest major conference in college basketball, hands down !
Actually I came here because I go to other boards to see what their buzz is and their takes on things. I have perfectly civil conversations with Duke fans, Mich st. fans, etc. But when I came here half your threads were about Kentucky; how weak their conference is, Skal shouldn't be able to play, Calipari denied in Memphis. But I'M insecure??
Last edited by a moderator:
It's no different than UL playing football in the ACC.
The SEC has put multiple teams in the FF too many times to be considered a bad conference.
If you seriously think UL would breeze through the SEC in any year you are mistaken. The league is full of great athletes but for far too long the coaching was bad. Well that has changed now. Give tge SEC a couple more years and this thread won't make any sense. Actually, it doesn't make any sense now. You guys played all those years in the Metro and the CUSA and now you want to talk smack about conference superiority because you played 1 year in the ACC?
The SEC has put multiple teams in the FF too many times to be considered a bad conference.
If you seriously think UL would breeze through the SEC in any year you are mistaken. The league is full of great athletes but for far too long the coaching was bad. Well that has changed now. Give tge SEC a couple more years and this thread won't make any sense. Actually, it doesn't make any sense now. You guys played all those years in the Metro and the CUSA and now you want to talk smack about conference superiority because you played 1 year in the ACC?
Last edited by a moderator:
The SEC is the weakest major conference in college basketball, has been for over five decades and it may be another decade until they crawl out of the hole they are currently in.
The Metro and CUSA were both better in college basketball during those decades......you want to talk football go the Football forum, this is the Basketball board.
Last edited:
Did you forget about all those years in the BE? If you knew your basketball history, you would recognize that the Metro and CUSA were just as good if not slightly better many of those years in comparison to the SEC.....sans uk.
Hell even the MVC, in its hey day years was as good/better as the SEC if you consider NC's and FF appearances. UC's back to back FF's and NC's during the Oscar Roberson's years and Oklohoma A&M 2 NC's (now Ok State) yes they were in the MVC at one time. Look it up. Also, Bradley had some FF's in its history.
I do agree that the SEC has taken steps with recent hires to improve the coaching in the league. Time will tell if positive results follow......but it is a step in the right direction.....about time!
LOL, "
And just because YOU say those mid major conferences were better doesn't make it fact. You are going to pump up whatever favors louisville and that's fine but you look really bad talking about final fours and titles that happened before sny of us were even born. Come with something real. In the modern era, heck, in ANY era those conferences were awful. And you bring up one team in their best 2 or 3 years from each conference. Nothing is sustained there. Once Oscar left UC went back in their hole.
I get it, the SEC isn't the best basketball conference but it isn't as far behind the ACC as you guys want it to be. Count up national titles snd final fours. The SEC has as many if not more. Especially now that Maryland has left the picture. I know for a fact the SEC has more of both thsn the BIG so you look silly when you say the SEC is a terrible conference. 3 teams out of tge SEC have won titles and I believe Georgia Tech may have won one when they were in the SEC but I'll have to check that.
LOL "All those years in the BE". That's hilarious. You were in the big east for such a short amount of time it's not even worth mentioning. All those years??? Seriously?
And just because YOU say those mid major conferences were better doesn't make it fact. You are going to pump up whatever favors louisville and that's fine but you look really bad talking about final fours and titles that happened before sny of us were even born. Come with something real. In the modern era, heck, in ANY era those conferences were awful. And you bring up one team in their best 2 or 3 years from each conference. Nothing is sustained there. Once Oscar left UC went back in their hole.
I get it, the SEC isn't the best basketball conference but it isn't as far behind the ACC as you guys want it to be. Count up national titles snd final fours. The SEC has as many if not more. Especially now that Maryland has left the picture. I know for a fact the SEC has more of both thsn the BIG so you look silly when you say the SEC is a terrible conference. 3 teams out of tge SEC have won titles and I believe Georgia Tech may have won one when they were in the SEC but I'll have to check that.
Last edited by a moderator:
No use discussing this with some one that is blind to history and has the big blue bias. The national media recognized the BE (that the Cards were in) as the greatest conference ever assembled to date top to bottem and that is common knowledge. Except for you who or so uncommon.
Since many of the best BE programs moved to the ACC from that OBE, the ACC is nationally recognized as the best BB conference ever assembled. I realize that your BBN SEC heart can not see or accept that.....so carry on with your pitiful life of delusion. LoL. Get a grip.
No, the real reason you don't want to argue is I'm bringing too many facts to the discussion and you don't know how to fire back.
The fact that you keep talking about the Big East simply tells me that you are running out of things to say. Like I said, UL was not in the Big East long enough to take credit for what that league accomplished. You are thought of as a CUSA team because that's where you spent so many years compiling wins against teams like South Florida. Don't act like UL is some longtime staple of the BE or the ACC. See, you would have a point if any of the leagues you keep spouting off about had more success in the NCAAT than the SEC but the fact is the SEC has more than held it's own in the tournament…. You know, where it counts. Hey at least UK has actually settled on a conference,
Last edited by a moderator:
You haven't brought any fact that matters what matters and it also happens to be true is this.........The SEC is the weakest major conference in college basketball, has been for over five decades and it may be another decade until they crawl out of the hole they are currently in.
The Metro and CUSA were both better in college basketball during those decades.
Look guys, I get it. You hate UK and you're looking for every way to belittle UK. I hear you loud and clear. And I will grant you this: if you're looking top to bottom, the SEC isn't filled with perennial contenders. But the trouble you run into is the fact that this hasn't stopped the conference from producing excellent teams every year which compete very well when it counts most- in the Big Dance. The stats bear it out.
These stats are for current conference alignment...
Since the expansion of the NCAA-T in 1985, who has the most Final Fours?
ACC-26
SEC- 20
P12- 16
B12- 14
B10- 11
BigEast- 10
AAC- 10
What about the last 10 years?
ACC- 8
SEC- 8
B10- 8
PAC12- 5
B12- 4
AAC- 4
Who has the most titles since 1985?
ACC- 10
SEC- 6
AAC- 6
B10- 3
B12- 2
PAC12- 2
BE- 1
Who has most titles in last 10 years?
ACC- 4
SEC- 3
AAC- 3 (UConn)
B12- 1
B1G- 0
PAC12- 0
Big East- 0
Now, if you're looking for a weak conference when the chips are down, try the B12, the PAC12, the new Big East, or even that media darling the B10, which folds like a cheap suit on the biggest stage. If you're looking for a one-trick pony (i.e. one team winning all the games, titles) it's not the SEC. It's the AAC. UConn is all they have now.
As I said above, and it bears repeating, the SEC somehow (despite your protests) produces teams which win in March. That's a fact. You and others may accuse the conference of being filled with cupcakes, but somehow the best teams in this conference rise to the top and do well when it matters most. The last team to win back to back titles was an SEC team not named UK- Florida. Just 2 seasons ago, UK and Florida were both in the Final Four. Last season, UK went back again. How can this be considered the weakest major conference if it consistently produces winners in March?
If you want to make an argument for the current ACC as the best, there is no argument. You win. The stats bear that out. But if you want to make a case for the SEC being the WORST among the major conferences, you've got no numerical backing. It's just your assumption and opinion, which is fine. But it's not a fact. I believe that there is some validity to the fact that there are several schools in the conference which are clearly more concerned about football than basketball. And since the SEC is so good in football, the media (and opposing fans) are quick to slam the basketball teams when they get the chance. I will say that I am encouraged with some of the new names that are now coaching in the league. It shows that these schools are interested in making basketball a priority.
I await a well-reasoned response.
These stats are for current conference alignment...
Since the expansion of the NCAA-T in 1985, who has the most Final Fours?
ACC-26
SEC- 20
P12- 16
B12- 14
B10- 11
BigEast- 10
AAC- 10
What about the last 10 years?
ACC- 8
SEC- 8
B10- 8
PAC12- 5
B12- 4
AAC- 4
Who has the most titles since 1985?
ACC- 10
SEC- 6
AAC- 6
B10- 3
B12- 2
PAC12- 2
BE- 1
Who has most titles in last 10 years?
ACC- 4
SEC- 3
AAC- 3 (UConn)
B12- 1
B1G- 0
PAC12- 0
Big East- 0
Now, if you're looking for a weak conference when the chips are down, try the B12, the PAC12, the new Big East, or even that media darling the B10, which folds like a cheap suit on the biggest stage. If you're looking for a one-trick pony (i.e. one team winning all the games, titles) it's not the SEC. It's the AAC. UConn is all they have now.
As I said above, and it bears repeating, the SEC somehow (despite your protests) produces teams which win in March. That's a fact. You and others may accuse the conference of being filled with cupcakes, but somehow the best teams in this conference rise to the top and do well when it matters most. The last team to win back to back titles was an SEC team not named UK- Florida. Just 2 seasons ago, UK and Florida were both in the Final Four. Last season, UK went back again. How can this be considered the weakest major conference if it consistently produces winners in March?
If you want to make an argument for the current ACC as the best, there is no argument. You win. The stats bear that out. But if you want to make a case for the SEC being the WORST among the major conferences, you've got no numerical backing. It's just your assumption and opinion, which is fine. But it's not a fact. I believe that there is some validity to the fact that there are several schools in the conference which are clearly more concerned about football than basketball. And since the SEC is so good in football, the media (and opposing fans) are quick to slam the basketball teams when they get the chance. I will say that I am encouraged with some of the new names that are now coaching in the league. It shows that these schools are interested in making basketball a priority.
I await a well-reasoned response.
Nice fact filled post. My one question would be: how would those stats change taking uk out of the equation?.
What many are saying here is that the performance of the rest of the teams in the last 20-30-40 years (pick a #) is more in line with the other conferences or lagging behind or barely equal to them in results. Are you willing to concede to that point? Your stats clearly support the ACC as the best without a doubt..
What many are saying here is that the performance of the rest of the teams in the last 20-30-40 years (pick a #) is more in line with the other conferences or lagging behind or barely equal to them in results. Are you willing to concede to that point? Your stats clearly support the ACC as the best without a doubt..
Look guys, I get it. You hate UK and you're looking for every way to belittle UK. I hear you loud and clear. And I will grant you this: if you're looking top to bottom, the SEC isn't filled with perennial contenders. But the trouble you run into is the fact that this hasn't stopped the conference from producing excellent teams every year which compete very well when it counts most- in the Big Dance. The stats bear it out.
These stats are for current conference alignment...
Since the expansion of the NCAA-T in 1985, who has the most Final Fours?
ACC-26
SEC- 20
P12- 16
B12- 14
B10- 11
BigEast- 10
AAC- 10
What about the last 10 years?
ACC- 8
SEC- 8
B10- 8
PAC12- 5
B12- 4
AAC- 4
Who has the most titles since 1985?
ACC- 10
SEC- 6
AAC- 6
B10- 3
B12- 2
PAC12- 2
BE- 1
Who has most titles in last 10 years?
ACC- 4
SEC- 3
AAC- 3 (UConn)
B12- 1
B1G- 0
PAC12- 0
Big East- 0
Now, if you're looking for a weak conference when the chips are down, try the B12, the PAC12, the new Big East, or even that media darling the B10, which folds like a cheap suit on the biggest stage. If you're looking for a one-trick pony (i.e. one team winning all the games, titles) it's not the SEC. It's the AAC. UConn is all they have now.
As I said above, and it bears repeating, the SEC somehow (despite your protests) produces teams which win in March. That's a fact. You and others may accuse the conference of being filled with cupcakes, but somehow the best teams in this conference rise to the top and do well when it matters most. The last team to win back to back titles was an SEC team not named UK- Florida. Just 2 seasons ago, UK and Florida were both in the Final Four. Last season, UK went back again. How can this be considered the weakest major conference if it consistently produces winners in March?
If you want to make an argument for the current ACC as the best, there is no argument. You win. The stats bear that out. But if you want to make a case for the SEC being the WORST among the major conferences, you've got no numerical backing. It's just your assumption and opinion, which is fine. But it's not a fact. I believe that there is some validity to the fact that there are several schools in the conference which are clearly more concerned about football than basketball. And since the SEC is so good in football, the media (and opposing fans) are quick to slam the basketball teams when they get the chance. I will say that I am encouraged with some of the new names that are now coaching in the league. It shows that these schools are interested in making basketball a priority.
I await a well-reasoned response.
Good research. Thanks for providing it. If you have the time (and desire), could you please subtract UK from those SEC numbers, and whatever single team you choose from the ACC numbers (I assume it will be Duke). I think the point many are making is that over the years, the SEC in basketball, is a one team conference, with Florida making some noise for a relatively short period of time.
There's only a few issues with the post, but the one that really stands out is his claim the AAC has been around since 1985. It has not. The AAC he is lisitng is not the SAME AAC of today. Today the new BE is the AAC.
Okay, now let's take Florida State out of the ACC and take a look at what ACC football looks like? SEC Basketball >>>>ACC football. The bottom line is the SEC is more consistent between the two money maker sports. There isn't another conference that is more balanced than the SEC in that arena than the SEC. Not the ACC, not the Big East, not tge Metro and not CUSA.
Last edited by a moderator:
Relatively short period? Florida was in the title game in 2000 and has been a staple in cbb ever since.
But again, look at ACC football, lets take FSU out of the equation and lets see what you have.
Or, how bout we take Kansas out of the B12?
Let's take Indiana's 5 titles out of the BIG.
Let's take UCLA's titles out of the PAC12. Suddenly the SEC doesn't look so bad. The only conference that is head and shoulders better thsn the SEC is the ACC when you consider what really matters and that's Titles and FF's.
Let's also consider that the SEC gets half their teams in the NCAAT every year just because everyone THINKS they aren't worthy of more. They base that on games played in November and December.
Okay, lets take Uconn out of the Big East when UL and Syracuse were in it. For such a great conference you end up with, what, 4 total titles?
So the SEC stacks up better than the B12 and is nearly equal with the BIG if you remove IU in this scenario. Definitely not the worst of the big 5 conferences and one could argue it is the second best.
What conference was UL a part of when it racked up most of it's wins? That's what you should be judged by.
Last edited by a moderator:
You can post all the "what ifs", the "then agains" and the "how abouts" you want to. None of that ( which is your whole post) will change the fact that ..............."The SEC is the weakest major conference in college basketball, has been for over five decades and it may be another decade until they crawl out of the hole they are currently in."
Look guys, I get it. You hate UK and you're looking for every way to belittle UK. I hear you loud and clear. And I will grant you this: if you're looking top to bottom, the SEC isn't filled with perennial contenders. But the trouble you run into is the fact that this hasn't stopped the conference from producing excellent teams every year which compete very well when it counts most- in the Big Dance. The stats bear it out.
These stats are for current conference alignment...
Since the expansion of the NCAA-T in 1985, who has the most Final Fours?
ACC-26
SEC- 20
P12- 16
B12- 14
B10- 11
BigEast- 10
AAC- 10
What about the last 10 years?
ACC- 8
SEC- 8
B10- 8
PAC12- 5
B12- 4
AAC- 4
Who has the most titles since 1985?
ACC- 10
SEC- 6
AAC- 6
B10- 3
B12- 2
PAC12- 2
BE- 1
Who has most titles in last 10 years?
ACC- 4
SEC- 3
AAC- 3 (UConn)
B12- 1
B1G- 0
PAC12- 0
Big East- 0
Now, if you're looking for a weak conference when the chips are down, try the B12, the PAC12, the new Big East, or even that media darling the B10, which folds like a cheap suit on the biggest stage. If you're looking for a one-trick pony (i.e. one team winning all the games, titles) it's not the SEC. It's the AAC. UConn is all they have now.
As I said above, and it bears repeating, the SEC somehow (despite your protests) produces teams which win in March. That's a fact. You and others may accuse the conference of being filled with cupcakes, but somehow the best teams in this conference rise to the top and do well when it matters most. The last team to win back to back titles was an SEC team not named UK- Florida. Just 2 seasons ago, UK and Florida were both in the Final Four. Last season, UK went back again. How can this be considered the weakest major conference if it consistently produces winners in March?
If you want to make an argument for the current ACC as the best, there is no argument. You win. The stats bear that out. But if you want to make a case for the SEC being the WORST among the major conferences, you've got no numerical backing. It's just your assumption and opinion, which is fine. But it's not a fact. I believe that there is some validity to the fact that there are several schools in the conference which are clearly more concerned about football than basketball. And since the SEC is so good in football, the media (and opposing fans) are quick to slam the basketball teams when they get the chance. I will say that I am encouraged with some of the new names that are now coaching in the league. It shows that these schools are interested in making basketball a priority.
I await a well-reasoned response.
No matter how many words you put in your post it doesn't change the fact that The SEC is the weakest major conference in college basketball, has been for over five decades and it may be another decade until they crawl out of the hole they are currently in.
I understand the point you are trying to make but the comparison is apples to oranges. How so? Well, the national championship in football was basically a popularity contest based on opinion; hence the word "mythical" that was usually accompanied the words national champion. Basketball at least have a tournament and I really don't think a single elimination tournament is the best way either but I digress. Not saying that performance on the field wasn't needed but the football title really wasn't won during a tournament. It was based off a body of work during the season and over time. Usually traditional powers were voted to a certain rank and maintained that rank by manipulation of their schedule. Yes, the SEC is great at football; however, over the last couple of years, the strength of that conference in football has taken a hit. People are now pointing to the not so difficult schedules the SEC teams play prior to conference play. So, as a conference, if I have 10 teams ranked in the preseason poll and all of those teams have extremely weak OOC games, the perception the conference strength can be maintained for the season. They beat up on cupcakes in order to keep their preseason rank, they go into conference play and beat up on each other. But, those loses only help the conference because the illusion has already been established. The argument is a ranked SEC team just beat another ranked SEC team so how can they fall out of the poll. For reference please look at SEC west last season. It is quite ingenious how the SEC consistently control the narrative of their conference football strength.
Now, back to basketball. Prior to the Old Big East with eleven million teams, people seem to forget who ruled the roost. Yes, the ACC. Now that the OBE is gone, the ACC is back to it's old self. How so? Well, UNC and Duke represent two of the top four programs of all time. UNC, Duke, Cuse and the 'Ville represent four of the top 15 programs of all time if not top 10 of all time. Add State and the ACC has five of the top 25 of all time. No other conference can compare and arguably that just might trump SEC football. Then there is UVa that is returning to its Ralph Sampson days. State seems to have gotten their act together. ND just stepped up big time. Really, the only dregs of the conference are BC, Wake and VaTech; but, Wake isn't to far removed from the Chris Paul days and are taking steps to return to prominence. VaTech hired Buzz and although they have a ways to go to compete in this league, they will be a tough out and I will not be surprised to see them make a leap forward under his watch. BC just need to get back to where they used to be. So, unlike the SEC, the ACC doormats actually have solid bball history and really are not that far removed from that time. I can honestly say that if you placed the top 4 from the ACC into any conference, they would do either as much or better than their counterparts in other conferences. Really don't think that is case if it was visa versa. But I get your point.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how weak the SEC is or isn't it hasn't stopped UK from being the KING of college basketball now has it? Answer truthfully. If the SEC was sooo weak like and hurt UK to play such a weak schedule then how come we always, always do well in the tourney? Shouldnt UK be getting bounced out in the first and second round like Kansas as of late and Duke before last season? Tell me why we keep making Final Four after final four playingg in such a weak conference?
And congrats to us for being the last team from the state of Kentucky to win the National Title.
