SEC: The Weakest Major Conference in College Basketball

[IL Wildcat]

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.

Yes, that's a tall task. I can tell you this- UK has been to 8 final fours since 85. In the last 10 years, UK has been to 4.
As for titles, I think we all know those numbers. UK has won 3 titles since 85 and 1 in the last 10 years.
So, that would bring the SEC totals down to 12 Final Fours since 85 and 4 in the last 10 years.
It would bring SEC titles down to 3 since 1985 and 2 in the last 10.

I would note that, even without UK's contributions, the SEC would still remain above the Big10 and BigEast in Final Fours since 1985 and tied with the Big12 and AAC in the last 10 years. I would also note that, in regard to national titles, and without UK's contributions, the SEC's 3 remaining titles would tie with the Big10 and remain ahead of the B12, PAC12, and AAC. The SEC's 2 titles in the last 10 years would keep it tied with the Big10 and ahead of B12, PAC12, and BigEast.

So, on this basis alone, I think the case has been made that the SEC is not the WORST of the major conferences in basketball.

Now, I don't think the comparison here needs to be made with the ACC. I have already conceded, and my own stats prove, that the ACC is the best college basketball conference historically. But the contention that has been made is that the SEC is the WORST of the major conferences. So, what could do is to look at the other conferences, Big10, PAC12, Big12, BigE, and AAC, and see if they have a one hit wonder to compare.

Just for the sake of argument though, I'll give you what you want...
IF you take away Duke, it would drop the ACC numbers significantly. Duke has 12 Final Fours since 1985, dropping the total for the ACC to 14. In the last 10 years, Duke has 2 Final Fours, dropping the total to 6. In regard to titles, Duke has 5 since 1985, dropping the ACC to 5. And they have 2 in the last 10, leaving the ACC with 2.

SEC without UK:
Final Fours since 1985- 12
Final Fours in last 10 years- 4
Titles since 1985- 3
Titles in last 10 years- 2

ACC without Duke:
Final Fours since 1985- 14
Final Fours in last 10 years- 6
Titles since 1985- 5
Titles in last 10 years- 2

Now, those numbers aren't far apart, first of all. But as I said above, the real comparison should be made to other conferences, if we're to either validate or invalidate the claim that the SEC is the worst of the major conferences in men's basketball.

Right off the bat, the AAC has a big red flag called UConn. They have 5 Final Fours and 4 titles since 1999.

AAC without UConn
Final Fours since 1985- 5
Final Fours in last 10 years- 1
Titles since 1985- 2
Titles in last 10 years- 0

I don't have time right now, but I'd like to see what the PAC12 would look like without Arizona. I'd also like to look at the Big12 without Kansas and the BIg10 without MIchigan State.

Bottom line: I think I've proven that the SEC is NOT the worst conference in college basketball from a statistical standpoint. I may come back and look at the stats for those other conferences without their best team.

 

[Louisvillian]

The only argument against the SEC not being the worst power 5 conference would be how disappointing the PAC-12 was last year. The SEC outside of UK was just plain awful even if LSU is interesting. Still, from top to bottom the SEC was the worst of the power 5 leagues.

Things change quickly in college basketball especially with the one and done rule so to me it's silly to go back any further than last year to discuss which conferences are the best or worst.

One thing that cannot be debated is that the ACC was the best conference last year. The Big 10 and Big 12 followed them IMO.

 

[94tarheel]

The only question would be why 1985? Why is that the starting point? Ten years, why not 15 or twenty? Would expanding the scope show something totally different? Looking at your history, Final Fours, runner ups and championships were somewhat sparse during the 70s and 80s.

 

[Cardiotonic]

Yes, that's a tall task. I can tell you this- UK has been to 8 final fours since 85. In the last 10 years, UK has been to 4.
As for titles, I think we all know those numbers. UK has won 3 titles since 85 and 1 in the last 10 years.
So, that would bring the SEC totals down to 12 Final Fours since 85 and 4 in the last 10 years.
It would bring SEC titles down to 3 since 1985 and 2 in the last 10.

I would note that, even without UK's contributions, the SEC would still remain above the Big10 and BigEast in Final Fours since 1985 and tied with the Big12 and AAC in the last 10 years. I would also note that, in regard to national titles, and without UK's contributions, the SEC's 3 remaining titles would tie with the Big10 and remain ahead of the B12, PAC12, and AAC. The SEC's 2 titles in the last 10 years would keep it tied with the Big10 and ahead of B12, PAC12, and BigEast.

So, on this basis alone, I think the case has been made that the SEC is not the WORST of the major conferences in basketball.

Now, I don't think the comparison here needs to be made with the ACC. I have already conceded, and my own stats prove, that the ACC is the best college basketball conference historically. But the contention that has been made is that the SEC is the WORST of the major conferences. So, what could do is to look at the other conferences, Big10, PAC12, Big12, BigE, and AAC, and see if they have a one hit wonder to compare.

Just for the sake of argument though, I'll give you what you want...
IF you take away Duke, it would drop the ACC numbers significantly. Duke has 12 Final Fours since 1985, dropping the total for the ACC to 14. In the last 10 years, Duke has 2 Final Fours, dropping the total to 6. In regard to titles, Duke has 5 since 1985, dropping the ACC to 5. And they have 2 in the last 10, leaving the ACC with 2.

SEC without UK:
Final Fours since 1985- 12
Final Fours in last 10 years- 4
Titles since 1985- 3
Titles in last 10 years- 2

ACC without Duke:
Final Fours since 1985- 14
Final Fours in last 10 years- 6
Titles since 1985- 5
Titles in last 10 years- 2

Now, those numbers aren't far apart, first of all. But as I said above, the real comparison should be made to other conferences, if we're to either validate or invalidate the claim that the SEC is the worst of the major conferences in men's basketball.

Right off the bat, the AAC has a big red flag called UConn. They have 5 Final Fours and 4 titles since 1999.

AAC without UConn
Final Fours since 1985- 5
Final Fours in last 10 years- 1
Titles since 1985- 2
Titles in last 10 years- 0

I don't have time right now, but I'd like to see what the PAC12 would look like without Arizona. I'd also like to look at the Big12 without Kansas and the BIg10 without MIchigan State.

Bottom line: I think I've proven that the SEC is NOT the worst conference in college basketball from a statistical standpoint. I may come back and look at the stats for those other conferences without their best team.

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.

 

[IL Wildcat]

The only question would be why 1985? Why is that the starting point? Ten years, why not 15 or twenty? Would expanding the scope show something totally different? Looking at your history, Final Fours, runner ups and championships were somewhat sparse during the 70s and 80s.

My reason for beginning with 1985 is because that was the year the NCAA Tournament was expanded to 64 teams. Otherwise, we're not really comparing apples to apples. It's not like I just plucked that number out of thin air.

 

[IL Wildcat]

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.

Cardiotonic. of all the posters in this thread, you've added the least to the discussion. Just because you continue to assert something as fact does not make it so. I've actually given evidence to the contrary. All you've given is your opinion again and again. If one didn't know any better, he might think you don't even believe this yourself, but you're just lobbing ad hominems for the purpose of angering the opponent. I'm pretty sure that's the case. But I will not respond in kind. I will say this- with your style of argument, you'd fail as a lawyer or in any kind of formal debate. Unless you can offer something, anything really, in the way of evidence (other than your closely held beliefs) as proof of your assertion, you've failed in making your case.

In short: "I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul." Haha!

 

[IL Wildcat]

The only argument against the SEC not being the worst power 5 conference would be how disappointing the PAC-12 was last year. The SEC outside of UK was just plain awful even if LSU is interesting. Still, from top to bottom the SEC was the worst of the power 5 leagues.

Things change quickly in college basketball especially with the one and done rule so to me it's silly to go back any further than last year to discuss which conferences are the best or worst.

One thing that cannot be debated is that the ACC was the best conference last year. The Big 10 and Big 12 followed them IMO.

I don't think you really want to only consider one year at a time for evaluating these kinds of things. If that were the case, we'd have to say Louisville is only a top 16 program. Right? They only made the Sweet 16 last season, so that must mean, based on your criterion of only one season being considered, that Louisville should be considered any better than top 16 programs.

IF the case were being made that LAST YEAR the SEC was the worst of the power conferences, then your idea would be valid. It would be easier to make a case for that, without a doubt. But that is not the idea in this thread. In order to make the case for this, you would have to show that this is consistently true. Problem is, it's just not true.

Bottom line here is that one of the best ways to slam UK today is not in actually slamming UK directly. It's tough to slam what has been going on under Calipari in Lexington. 4 Final Fours, a title game appearance, and a championship are tough to sneeze at. So, it can't be that UK is one of, if not THE, best programs in college basketball. It HAS to be that they're just beating cupcakes all the time. Nevermind the NCAA Tournament, that's just an anomaly. "The SEC is terrible, so UK is terrible. Again, forget their tournament results. Meanwhile, Louisville is playing in the best conference around (I'm not arguing that, btw) and must be better than UK. Again, forget the tournament, unless it helps the argument, and last year's doesn't help the argument." I get it. This is your best angle. Unfortunately, the title of this thread is simply false.

 

[Louisvillian]

Louisville is playing in the best conference around (I'm not arguing that, btw) and must be better than UK. Again, forget the tournament, unless it helps the argument, and last year's doesn't help the argument." I get it. This is your best angle. Unfortunately, the title of this thread is simply false.

How did you get that I said Louisville was better last year than UK out of what I posted? I will never understand what UK fans interpret when reading someone's reply over here. Amazing.

Forget the tournament? If you are speaking to my post, I certainly didn't disregard the tourney last year. The ACC won the National Title and made up 37.5% of the Elite 8. Louisville was a missed tip in OT from being in the Final Four.

I know I was going off topic when saying all that matters is last year and the present it just seems silly to argue about something so subjective. I will say this though I don't think any of the current power 5 conferences have a larger group of teams that have pretty much sucked year in and year out for the better part of the last 30 years as the SEC has. Teams like Auburn, Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama have mostly been the dregs of College basketball.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

I don't think you really want to only consider one year at a time for evaluating these kinds of things. If that were the case, we'd have to say Louisville is only a top 16 program. Right? They only made the Sweet 16 last season, so that must mean, based on your criterion of only one season being considered, that Louisville should be considered any better than top 16 programs.

What a complete fail. Louisville made the E8 last year LOL.

Jesus man fact check yourself.

Of course you don't look @ things one year at a time, but judging by your post above, you're incapable of keeping any facts in order using any time frame.

Just move on to another thread and try again. Maybe try using facts in your arguments and you'll score a point or two.

 

[IL Wildcat]

How did you get that I said Louisville was better last year than UK out of what I posted? I will never understand what UK fans interpret when reading someone's reply over here. Amazing.

Forget the tournament? If you are speaking to my post, I certainly didn't disregard the tourney last year. The ACC won the National Title and made up 37.5% of the Elite 8. Louisville was a missed tip in OT from being in the Final Four.

I know I was going off topic when saying all that matters is last year and the present it just seems silly to argue about something so subjective. I will say this though I don't think any of the current power 5 conferences have a larger group of teams that have pretty much sucked year in and year out for the better part of the last 30 years as the SEC has. Teams like Auburn, Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama have mostly been the dregs of College basketball.

I wasn't specifically just addressing you in some of that Louisvillian. I was speaking in a general sense of what the aim of a post like this is- the aim is to find a way to make Louisville superior to UK. That's the point of this thread. Since the direct comparison isn't advantageous to UofL, the conference strength argument is the best way to go. UK fans have done this to UofL fans in regard to football for many years, and did the same when UofL was in the Metro and CUSA. It's what fans do. It doesn't make it valid, but it's what we do. (and yes, I'm sure I've done it as well)

Regarding the idea that no other major conference has teams like Auburn, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Alabama, I would beg to differ. Pretty much every conference has those bottom feeders. By the way, Ole Miss won the SEC tournament in 2013 and made the NCAA the last 3 years in a row. But I will grant that historically they've been a bottom feeder.

But what about these 4 teams from some major conferences?
PAC12- Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona State, Colorado
Big12- Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St, Iowa St (until last season)
Big10- Northwestern, Nebraska, Penn State, Iowa
BigEast- DePaul, Seton Hall, Marquette, Providence
AAC- East Carolina, Tulane, Central Florida, South Florida

And yes, even the mighty ACC has bottom feeders...
ACC- Georgia Tech, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Clemson

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

^^^

We get that you care. Problem is, you aren't using a whole lot of facts. Some of the teams you listed above are on par with your bottom feeding SEC programs, but some aren't even close.

I cannot believe you listed Kansas State, Iowa State, Iowa, and Marquette as potential bottom feeding program types. The inclusion of those programs in your lengthy bomb post illustrates how out of touch you are with the national landscape of college basketball.

Kansas St has 4 FFs. They've made the tournament five of the last six years. Jesus, get a clue dude. They reached the E8 as a 2 seed this decade.

Iowa St has made the tournament 4 straight years. They advanced past the first round 3 of 4 times. It's official, they are not part of any "bottom feeding" discussion at this time. In other news, the Earth is round.

Iowa has made the tournament 15 times in the last 30 years. That's going to factor out to being nothing close to a bottom feeding type of resume. They have a winning record of 28-26 in the NCAAs. LOL Dude you are cracking me up.

Marquette - Wow. Marquette. They have made the NCAAs 8 of the last 10 years and are on everybody's list of probably at-large contenders this year after a couple down years. They are 41-32 in the NCAAs and have 3 FFs.

Hell I'd give you GA Tech maybe, but probably shouldn't. They've made the FF twice in the last 30 years. They've made the NCAAs roughly half the time since 1985. They are currently down, but at least they have been up at some point in the modern era.

Sure, the ACC has a couple bottom feeders. Good job! The counter is, the ACC also holds a number of powerful teams, and legit middling teams. Things the SEC, cannot say.


You clearly just do not know how "bad" the resumes are of some of the SEC programs, and how "few" NCAA games have been won by those SEC teams. OTOH, you have no idea how successful some other programs have been.

Just stop posting man. You're awful. You're too uninformed to be writing so many words in these forums.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Here's some more for you. Get a pen and paper.

UGA has 7 total NCAA wins. 4 since 1985.
Auburn has made the NCAA 8 times. 6 since 1985.
South Carlolina has won 4 NCAA games. Last win, 1973.
Ole Miss has won 5 NCAA games. 7 Appearances in the last 35 years.
Vandy - these guys are one of your big dogs. They've won 10 NCAA games, total. Have never gone beyond the SS. Ever.
LSU, while holding some history, has won 1 NCAA game in the last decade.
Miss St has made the NCAAs 10 times, total.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Here's some more for you. Get a pen and paper.

UGA has 7 total NCAA wins. 4 since 1985.
Auburn has made the NCAA 8 times. 6 since 1985.
South Carlolina has won 4 NCAA games. Last win, 1973.
Ole Miss has won 5 NCAA games. 7 Appearances in the last 35 years.
Vandy - these guys are one of your big dogs. They've won 10 NCAA games, total. Have never gone beyond the SS. Ever.
LSU, while holding some history, has won 1 NCAA game in the last decade.
Miss St has made the NCAAs 10 times, total.

If my post above was on a restaurant menu, it would be called...

"The Turd Sandwich" - $3.99 - no side items included. Must eat off premises. GTHO out if ordered.

 

[Louisvillian]

I
Regarding the idea that no other major conference has teams like Auburn, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Alabama, I would beg to differ. Pretty much every conference has those bottom feeders. By the way, Ole Miss won the SEC tournament in 2013 and made the NCAA the last 3 years in a row. But I will grant that historically they've been a bottom feeder.

But what about these 4 teams from some major conferences?
PAC12- Washington St, Oregon St, Arizona State, Colorado
Big12- Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St, Iowa St (until last season)
Big10- Northwestern, Nebraska, Penn State, Iowa
BigEast- DePaul, Seton Hall, Marquette, Providence
AAC- East Carolina, Tulane, Central Florida, South Florida

And yes, even the mighty ACC has bottom feeders...
ACC- Georgia Tech, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Clemson

As Hop took the time to illustrate how bad the SEC dregs look compared to some of the teams you pointed to from other conferences is glaring.

And don't forget about perrenial SEC lightweight Georgia.

 

[Cue Card]

Here's some more for you. Get a pen and paper.

UGA has 7 total NCAA wins. 4 since 1985.
Auburn has made the NCAA 8 times. 6 since 1985.
South Carlolina has won 4 NCAA games. Last win, 1973.
Ole Miss has won 5 NCAA games. 7 Appearances in the last 35 years.
Vandy - these guys are one of your big dogs. They've won 10 NCAA games, total. Have never gone beyond the SS. Ever.
LSU, while holding some history, has won 1 NCAA game in the last decade.
Miss St has made the NCAAs 10 times, total.

 

[Cardiotonic]

Way to drop that mike.......it's over !!

 

[IL Wildcat]

What a complete fail. Louisville made the E8 last year LOL.

Jesus man fact check yourself.

Of course you don't look @ things one year at a time, but judging by your post above, you're incapable of keeping any facts in order using any time frame.

Just move on to another thread and try again. Maybe try using facts in your arguments and you'll score a point or two.

I was going from memory on that one my friend, but it doesn't invalidate the point I was trying to make, which is that you can't base your entire argument around one season. That argument is true whether my example was correct or not.

^^^

We get that you care. Problem is, you aren't using a whole lot of facts. Some of the teams you listed above are on par with your bottom feeding SEC programs, but some aren't even close.

I cannot believe you listed Kansas State, Iowa State, Iowa, and Marquette as potential bottom feeding program types. The inclusion of those programs in your lengthy bomb post illustrates how out of touch you are with the national landscape of college basketball.

Kansas St has 4 FFs. They've made the tournament five of the last six years. Jesus, get a clue dude. They reached the E8 as a 2 seed this decade.

Iowa St has made the tournament 4 straight years. They advanced past the first round 3 of 4 times. It's official, they are not part of any "bottom feeding" discussion at this time. In other news, the Earth is round.

Iowa has made the tournament 15 times in the last 30 years. That's going to factor out to being nothing close to a bottom feeding type of resume. They have a winning record of 28-26 in the NCAAs. LOL Dude you are cracking me up.

Marquette - Wow. Marquette. They have made the NCAAs 8 of the last 10 years and are on everybody's list of probably at-large contenders this year after a couple down years. They are 41-32 in the NCAAs and have 3 FFs.

Hell I'd give you GA Tech maybe, but probably shouldn't. They've made the FF twice in the last 30 years. They've made the NCAAs roughly half the time since 1985. They are currently down, but at least they have been up at some point in the modern era.

Sure, the ACC has a couple bottom feeders. Good job! The counter is, the ACC also holds a number of powerful teams, and legit middling teams. Things the SEC, cannot say.


You clearly just do not know how "bad" the resumes are of some of the SEC programs, and how "few" NCAA games have been won by those SEC teams. OTOH, you have no idea how successful some other programs have been.

Just stop posting man. You're awful. You're too uninformed to be writing so many words in these forums.

Well hey, I'm glad someone at least attempted to respond with some facts. I didn't look up every record of all those teams I mentioned. Those were just some guesses.

But I note you never chimed in with any retort above. You have well disputed that some of those teams I mentioned aren't bottom feeders. I'll give you that. But many of them are. But the thing you can't dispute is the information I posted above breaking down the conferences by their success in the tournament and winning titles. The only one who bothered responding to that was with an ad hominem line he's repeated 20 times in this thread.

To sum up, so far you've proved several teams have decent programs. Now how about addressing what I posted in answer to the original assertion of this thread, rather than trying to shout me down with this side issue.

 

[Cardiotonic]

I was going from memory on that one my friend, but it doesn't invalidate the point I was trying to make, which is that you can't base your entire argument around one season. That argument is true whether my example was correct or not.

Well hey, I'm glad someone at least attempted to respond with some facts. I didn't look up every record of all those teams I mentioned. Those were just some guesses.

But I note you never chimed in with any retort above. You have well disputed that some of those teams I mentioned aren't bottom feeders. I'll give you that. But many of them are. But the thing you can't dispute is the information I posted above breaking down the conferences by their success in the tournament and winning titles. The only one who bothered responding to that was with an ad hominem line he's repeated 20 times in this thread.

To sum up, so far you've proved several teams have decent programs. Now how about addressing what I posted in answer to the original assertion of this thread, rather than trying to shout me down with this side issue.

Here's the only fact that matters in this conversion...........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.

 

[IL Wildcat]

Haha! Cardiotonic, you're a riot! No substance but consistency is what you have.

 

[Cardiotonic]

Haha! Cardiotonic, you're a riot! No substance but consistency is what you have.

No you're the riot, I mean a big riot !! My posts have been all substance but yours has been total BS that has nothing to do with the Primal Fact of this thread which is (once again)......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.
You are really worried over this thread because the truth has you embarrass about the conference uk plays in.......while your posts truly have no true substance or even consistency, your posts are indicative of being a true blue hole . Congratulations LOL

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

To sum up, so far you've proved several teams have decent programs. Now how about addressing what I posted in answer to the original assertion of this thread, rather than trying to shout me down with this side issue.

I was probably a little too rough on you, you are just here to talk basketball.

I'll address anything you'd like. It's a rather humorous path we're going down. So I debunked a portion of your post as being complete BS so now you want me to tackle some more of your POVs.

Seems like a strange request, but ok. But what I need you to do is provide me with your original assertion of the thread, because there's just so much going on in here I honestly don't know what your original assertion is. I'm sure whatever it is has merit. Your "guesses" about Iowa/Iowa St/Marq/KSt sure didn't though. Neither did your recollection of Louisville's most recent NCAA showing. I found it odd that you armed yourself with such little artillery, but yo bring to the table whatever you can.

Before you respond, I'll just say my assertion is the OP found an article where an author trashed the SEC, and that lead to a handful of insecure UK fans to go to the wall with him, which turned the thread into the intended smack thread it became. The thread hasn't been all that entertaining, nor has it been all that educational - though now you might have a better handle on some "guesses" you previously made. So my assertion is, the OP wins. He got almost 2 pages worth of responses on a basketball board during football season, he got some UK fans to show how insecure they are, and in some cases, uninformed. Most importantly, if there is any of that - he confirmed that UK fans really care about what he posts. He owns the bait, the hook, and the tank. You guys are his fish.

He says the same thing, and you guys keep coming back for more.

It's the strangest thing.

 

[Louisvillian]

The Marquette reference was really baffling considering their history and the fact that they knocked UK out of the tourney in an Elite 8 game back in 2003.

True story, I was living in Lexington at that time and a guy I regularly worked with was stunned when Marquette beat UK. He could tell you in detail about UK basketball history and the SEC but when I told him about how good Marquette was that year he just gave me a blank stare and said he hadn't never heerd (yes he said heerd not heard) of that dude that went off for 36 points. I said, are you serious that you have never heard of Dwayne Wade?

Even after I informed my friend that Wade was a Wooden award finalist and was probably the best player in the country he still couldn't understand it. Him and a lot of his friends in Lexington back then were convinced that anytime UK got beat it was a fluke.

 

[Cardiotonic]

The Marquette reference was really baffling considering their history and the fact that they knocked UK out of the tourney in an Elite 8 game back in 2003.

True story, I was living in Lexington at that time and a guy I regularly worked with was stunned when Marquette beat UK. He could tell you in detail about UK basketball history and the SEC but when I told him about how good Marquette was that year he just gave me a blank stare and said he hadn't never heerd (yes he said heerd not heard) of that dude that went off for 36 points. I said, are you serious that you have never heard of Dwayne Wade?

Even after I informed my friend that Wade was a Wooden award finalist and was probably the best player in the country he still couldn't understand it. Him and a lot of his friends in Lexington back then were convinced that anytime UK got beat it was a fluke.

Even now a loss by uk is always blamed on anything, everyone but the coach or the players that just how the blue holes roll.

 

[IL Wildcat]

I was probably a little too rough on you, you are just here to talk basketball.

I'll address anything you'd like. It's a rather humorous path we're going down. So I debunked a portion of your post as being complete BS so now you want me to tackle some more of your POVs.

Seems like a strange request, but ok. But what I need you to do is provide me with your original assertion of the thread, because there's just so much going on in here I honestly don't know what your original assertion is. I'm sure whatever it is has merit. Your "guesses" about Iowa/Iowa St/Marq/KSt sure didn't though. Neither did your recollection of Louisville's most recent NCAA showing. I found it odd that you armed yourself with such little artillery, but yo bring to the table whatever you can.

Before you respond, I'll just say my assertion is the OP found an article where an author trashed the SEC, and that lead to a handful of insecure UK fans to go to the wall with him, which turned the thread into the intended smack thread it became. The thread hasn't been all that entertaining, nor has it been all that educational - though now you might have a better handle on some "guesses" you previously made. So my assertion is, the OP wins. He got almost 2 pages worth of responses on a basketball board during football season, he got some UK fans to show how insecure they are, and in some cases, uninformed. Most importantly, if there is any of that - he confirmed that UK fans really care about what he posts. He owns the bait, the hook, and the tank. You guys are his fish.

He says the same thing, and you guys keep coming back for more.

It's the strangest thing.

Ok. I'll grant him the win on the baiting thread. I suppose I've taken it too seriously, eh? Me and my wanting to have a substantive conversation and all. I suppose I must be pretty naive to expect that.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

The Marquette reference was really baffling considering their history and the fact that they knocked UK out of the tourney in an Elite 8 game back in 2003.

Marq has knocked UK out of the NCAAs 3 times in the modern era. It was a baffling inclusion for many reasons, hard to pinpoint which reason would be the most head scratching.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Ok. I'll grant him the win on the baiting thread. I suppose I've taken it too seriously, eh? Me and my wanting to have a substantive conversation and all. I suppose I must be pretty naive to expect that.

It boils down to not only accepting reality, but also not having thin skin and being insecure about it. The SEC is probably the weakest of the P5 conferences. It's an anti "SEC" thread but it's pretty much true. I suppose a lot of time could be wasted lining up the PAC vs SEC, but I don't find the topic interesting enough to do really extensive research, I've already done enough.

Let's not pretend as if the SEC doesn't get taken to task nationally. Many of the programs have brought it on themselves. Just because a message is being posted here doesn't make it some sort of distortion of truth. Any UK fan kicking and screaming in this thread is insecure. You can't tell me with a straight face the conference isn't what the entire nation perceives it to be. UK fans sit around on their own boards complaining about it, yet for some reason when the rival pretty much shares the same opinion, it's worth getting worked up about. Whatevs!!!

The SEC always has enough athletes but those athletes aren't ready made players within most of the programs in most instances, and the coaching level has been inadequate for many years - which is the biggest problem. I won't pretend I don't notice Bruce Pearl as a good addition, or Avery Johnson might be, or whatshisname down @ Miss St.... but let's not pretend losing Billy D. at FLA doesn't impact the SEC either.

Arky and LSU are sleeping giant types. Maybe this wicked recruiting class for LSU will go to a high level, I'm not going to rule that out. Arky just doesn't appear poised to break through in the way they did under Nolan. Tenn is under appreciated I don't have time to look them up but they have won their share of games in the NCAAs. A&M and Missouri were kind of nice additions, but now Missouri looks more like a Division 2 roster than they do a team to be taken seriously.

USC/A&M/Vandy all look to be trending up.

Fine.

As of right now this league has underperformed for years I don't see how the league can be defended by anybody other than a UK fan that doesn't want their # of wins against this barf bag group of opponents to be laughed at.

I just don't get the insecurity. If you want to point out, for example, that the UofL football team's win last weekend was against a chump I'd respond and say, true story.

 

[Cardiotonic]

It boils down to not only accepting reality, but also not having thin skin and being insecure about it. The SEC is probably the weakest of the P5 conferences. It's an anti "SEC" thread but it's pretty much true. I suppose a lot of time could be wasted lining up the PAC vs SEC, but I don't find the topic interesting enough to do really extensive research, I've already done enough.

Let's not pretend as if the SEC doesn't get taken to task nationally. Many of the programs have brought it on themselves. Just because a message is being posted here doesn't make it some sort of distortion of truth. Any UK fan kicking and screaming in this thread is insecure. You can't tell me with a straight face the conference isn't what the entire nation perceives it to be. UK fans sit around on their own boards complaining about it, yet for some reason when the rival pretty much shares the same opinion, it's worth getting worked up about. Whatevs!!!

The SEC always has enough athletes but those athletes aren't ready made players within most of the programs in most instances, and the coaching level has been inadequate for many years - which is the biggest problem. I won't pretend I don't notice Bruce Pearl as a good addition, or Avery Johnson might be, or whatshisname down @ Miss St.... but let's not pretend losing Billy D. at FLA doesn't impact the SEC either.

Arky and LSU are sleeping giant types. Maybe this wicked recruiting class for LSU will go to a high level, I'm not going to rule that out. Arky just doesn't appear poised to break through in the way they did under Nolan. Tenn is under appreciated I don't have time to look them up but they have won their share of games in the NCAAs. A&M and Missouri were kind of nice additions, but now Missouri looks more like a Division 2 roster than they do a team to be taken seriously.

USC/A&M/Vandy all look to be trending up.

Fine.

As of right now this league has underperformed for years I don't see how the league can be defended by anybody other than a UK fan that doesn't want their # of wins against this barf bag group of opponents to be laughed at.

I just don't get the insecurity. If you want to point out, for example, that the UofL football team's win last weekend was against a chump I'd respond and say, true story.

Very impressive post........well done.

 

[Blue Power Cat]

Once again it does not matter how weak the SEC is or is not it does not stop UK from being the all time king of college basketball. That is just facts there.

 

[IL Wildcat]

It boils down to not only accepting reality, but also not having thin skin and being insecure about it. The SEC is probably the weakest of the P5 conferences. It's an anti "SEC" thread but it's pretty much true. I suppose a lot of time could be wasted lining up the PAC vs SEC, but I don't find the topic interesting enough to do really extensive research, I've already done enough.

Let's not pretend as if the SEC doesn't get taken to task nationally. Many of the programs have brought it on themselves. Just because a message is being posted here doesn't make it some sort of distortion of truth. Any UK fan kicking and screaming in this thread is insecure. You can't tell me with a straight face the conference isn't what the entire nation perceives it to be. UK fans sit around on their own boards complaining about it, yet for some reason when the rival pretty much shares the same opinion, it's worth getting worked up about. Whatevs!!!

The SEC always has enough athletes but those athletes aren't ready made players within most of the programs in most instances, and the coaching level has been inadequate for many years - which is the biggest problem. I won't pretend I don't notice Bruce Pearl as a good addition, or Avery Johnson might be, or whatshisname down @ Miss St.... but let's not pretend losing Billy D. at FLA doesn't impact the SEC either.

Arky and LSU are sleeping giant types. Maybe this wicked recruiting class for LSU will go to a high level, I'm not going to rule that out. Arky just doesn't appear poised to break through in the way they did under Nolan. Tenn is under appreciated I don't have time to look them up but they have won their share of games in the NCAAs. A&M and Missouri were kind of nice additions, but now Missouri looks more like a Division 2 roster than they do a team to be taken seriously.

USC/A&M/Vandy all look to be trending up.

Fine.

As of right now this league has underperformed for years I don't see how the league can be defended by anybody other than a UK fan that doesn't want their # of wins against this barf bag group of opponents to be laughed at.

I just don't get the insecurity. If you want to point out, for example, that the UofL football team's win last weekend was against a chump I'd respond and say, true story.

I'm not really insecure about it at all. I just don't think it's true. I appreciate the fact that you were able to write all that without cursing me or namecalling, though, so you're clearly one of the most reasonable posters here. The stats I posted earlier in the thread regarding titles and Final Fours, along with the additional statistical analysis I did in comparing even the ACC and SEC without Duke and Kentucky included, proves the point I've made. It's not insecurity. The stats back me up.

Now, if you want to look at the bottom feeders and compare them, then you could make the case. If I concede anything that has been pointed out here, it is that the bottom of the SEC, historically, has been worse than the bottom of the other 4 major conferences. But 4 teams do not a conference make. And, as I said a VERY long time ago, before most decided this is just a flame and bait thread rather than trying to discuss the actual topic, the weakness of the bottom of the league hasn't kept from the teams at the top from performing well in the postseason.

The "superbowl effect" likely has much to do with the reason UK is pretty much always prepared for the postseason by going through the SEC road games. I'm certain many dismiss this, but there is validity to it. At every stop along the SEC road schedule for UK, it's their best attendance of the season. They have an emphasis of some kind- a white out, a red out, a maroon out, a black out, a jersey give away, you name it. Every game is a sell-out and any loss just made someone's season. That's pressure. Some of those teams may suck in a given year (some in most years) but when UK rolls into town they play over their heads.

So, bottom line, for UK it works. And apparently the league prepares its best teams every season when you consider the performance of its teams in the postseason.

The other thing I'd differ with you on is the purpose of this thread. The purpose is not to slam the SEC. The purpose is to slam UK. I think we all know that. It's a round-about way to slam UK and its most wins in the history of the NCAA.

As for which major conference is truly weakest in men's basketball historically, I'd say that it would be the PAC12 or BIG12. They've both only won 2 titles since 1985 and NONE in the last 10 years. I suppose you can explain that away, but I'm sure it would sound pretty foolish. Think of that now, 12 schools, 30 years, 2 titles. That's 360 seasons with 2 titles. And ZERO titles in the last 10. Is the SEC truly weaker than that? No. Even without UK included, the SEC has 3 titles in that same time frame and 2 titles in the last 10. Include UK and the number is 6 since 1985 and 3 in the last 10. It's cut and dry. 6>2 and 3>0. Correct my math there, if you will.

But what's funny is that you don't back it up, but just say, "let's not pretend that the SEC doesn't get taken to task nationally." Who cares what media members say, especially sports media members? They all have their little pet agendas. And the SEC gets taken to task in basketball because the media has to deal with their dominance in football. So seriously, tell me the numbers that support the thought and I'll listen. Just because you don't feel like comparing the PAC12 and the SEC, should I conceded your point because you're lazy? Ha! I just did it for you. The PAC12 and BIG12 have 2 titles each since 1985 and 0 in the last 10. There it is. I don't know what else to say.

 

[earsky]

Once again it does not matter how weak the SEC is or is not it does not stop UK from being the all time king of college basketball. That is just facts there.

That's one way to look at it.

 

[Louisvillian]

I'm not really insecure about it at all. I just don't think it's true. I appreciate the fact that you were able to write all that without cursing me or namecalling, though, so you're clearly one of the most reasonable posters here. The stats I posted earlier in the thread regarding titles and Final Fours, along with the additional statistical analysis I did in comparing even the ACC and SEC without Duke and Kentucky included, proves the point I've made. It's not insecurity. The stats back me up.

Now, if you want to look at the bottom feeders and compare them, then you could make the case. If I concede anything that has been pointed out here, it is that the bottom of the SEC, historically, has been worse than the bottom of the other 4 major conferences. But 4 teams do not a conference make. And, as I said a VERY long time ago, before most decided this is just a flame and bait thread rather than trying to discuss the actual topic, the weakness of the bottom of the league hasn't kept from the teams at the top from performing well in the postseason.

The "superbowl effect" likely has much to do with the reason UK is pretty much always prepared for the postseason by going through the SEC road games. I'm certain many dismiss this, but there is validity to it. At every stop along the SEC road schedule for UK, it's their best attendance of the season. They have an emphasis of some kind- a white out, a red out, a maroon out, a black out, a jersey give away, you name it. Every game is a sell-out and any loss just made someone's season. That's pressure. Some of those teams may suck in a given year (some in most years) but when UK rolls into town they play over their heads.

So, bottom line, for UK it works. And apparently the league prepares its best teams every season when you consider the performance of its teams in the postseason.

The other thing I'd differ with you on is the purpose of this thread. The purpose is not to slam the SEC. The purpose is to slam UK. I think we all know that. It's a round-about way to slam UK and its most wins in the history of the NCAA.

As for which major conference is truly weakest in men's basketball historically, I'd say that it would be the PAC12 or BIG12. They've both only won 2 titles since 1985 and NONE in the last 10 years. I suppose you can explain that away, but I'm sure it would sound pretty foolish. Think of that now, 12 schools, 30 years, 2 titles. That's 360 seasons with 2 titles. And ZERO titles in the last 10. Is the SEC truly weaker than that? No. Even without UK included, the SEC has 3 titles in that same time frame and 2 titles in the last 10. Include UK and the number is 6 since 1985 and 3 in the last 10. It's cut and dry. 6>2 and 3>0. Correct my math there, if you will.

But what's funny is that you don't back it up, but just say, "let's not pretend that the SEC doesn't get taken to task nationally." Who cares what media members say, especially sports media members? They all have their little pet agendas. And the SEC gets taken to task in basketball because the media has to deal with their dominance in football. So seriously, tell me the numbers that support the thought and I'll listen. Just because you don't feel like comparing the PAC12 and the SEC, should I conceded your point because you're lazy? Ha! I just did it for you. The PAC12 and BIG12 have 2 titles each since 1985 and 0 in the last 10. There it is. I don't know what else to say.

Here's some numbers that will shed light on this whole argument instead of all of us cherry picking results.

In 30 seasons from 1985-2014 comparing just the SEC, Big 12 and the PAC-12 since that is what this thread seems to be about. If you want I can add the 2014-15 season and see what happens later. These results only include a certain team's years as a member of said conference. In other words we are only going to use West Virginia's 3 years results as a member of the big 12 not their results from the previous 27 years as a member of the Big East etc. Same goes for teams Like Arkansas whose years in the Southwest Conference prior to 1990 won't figure in.

If you add up all the seasons since 1985 for members of each conference you can see you get different numbers. The Big 12 has 310 teams' seasons, the Pac-12 has 312 and the SEC has 356. For example the Pac-12 had only 10 teams for 27 of those 30 years and has had 12 teams for 3 years since adding Colorado and Utah. The Big-12 had only 8 teams till 1995, then 12 until Nebraska, Mizzou, Texas A&M and Colorado left and they added WVU and TCU. The SEC had 10 teams till they added Arkansas and USC in 1990 then had 12 until 2012 when Mizzou and Texas A&M joined.

So the percentage number at the end is more important.

Numbers: Since 1985:
Teams finishes:NCAA Tourney, Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final Four and National Champions.

PAC-12:
NCAA -126 or 40.4%
Sweet 16 -47 or 15.1%
Elite 8 -21 or 6.7%
Final Four -9 or 2.9%
Champs -2 or 0.6%

Big-12:
NCAA -169 or 54.2%
Sweet 16 -56 or 18.1%
Elite 8 -30 or 9.6%
Final Four -13 or 4.2%
Champs -2 or 0.6%

SEC:
NCAA -147 or 41.3%
Sweet 16 -61 or 17.1%
Elite 8 -34 or 9.6%
Final Four -18 or 5.1%
Champs -6 or 1.7%

These numbers would indicate to me that over the last 30 years top to bottom the Big 12 is the best of the 3 with the SEC next and the PAC-12 last. I don't think you can argue that the ACC has been the best conference over the last 30 years of the remaining 5 power conferences.

If you want to give more weight to the Final Four and Championship numbers that's fine but that really doesn't address the quality of the conferences overall. I guess you could take it further and add NIT appearances but I ain't going there.

 

[Cardiotonic]

Once again it does not matter how weak the SEC is or is not it does not stop UK from being the all time king of college basketball. That is just facts there.

You've got to be the Queen of blue holes ! UCLA is the all time KING of college Basketball...........uk is the king of probation, the most penalized college basketball program in history ! Now those are the facts for your arse !
Only in the blue hole world that you live in with a blue hole mentality could anyone believe that BS post of yours.......pathetic !

 

[IL Wildcat]

Louisvillian, I appreciate your work and this very helpful information. Your numbers are very telling, without question. But I don't know if I would agree with your conclusions. I suppose it depends on what you value. If you value making the tournament and perhaps winning a game, then your conclusion would be correct.

However, that's not what is valued in college basketball. You've got to make the second weekend to even matter, right? And what do schools hang banners for, NCAA-T appearances or Final Fours and championships? If Final Fours and Titles are your measure, and it pretty much is THE measure in college basketball, then your numbers only further prove my point. The SEC is better than Big12 or PAC12.

By the way, if you limit this to the last 10 years only, what you'll see is that the SEC is even more dominant over these other conferences.

 

[Cardiotonic]

I'm not really insecure about it at all. I just don't think it's true. I appreciate the fact that you were able to write all that without cursing me or namecalling, though, so you're clearly one of the most reasonable posters here. The stats I posted earlier in the thread regarding titles and Final Fours, along with the additional statistical analysis I did in comparing even the ACC and SEC without Duke and Kentucky included, proves the point I've made. It's not insecurity. The stats back me up.

Now, if you want to look at the bottom feeders and compare them, then you could make the case. If I concede anything that has been pointed out here, it is that the bottom of the SEC, historically, has been worse than the bottom of the other 4 major conferences. But 4 teams do not a conference make. And, as I said a VERY long time ago, before most decided this is just a flame and bait thread rather than trying to discuss the actual topic, the weakness of the bottom of the league hasn't kept from the teams at the top from performing well in the postseason.

The "superbowl effect" likely has much to do with the reason UK is pretty much always prepared for the postseason by going through the SEC road games. I'm certain many dismiss this, but there is validity to it. At every stop along the SEC road schedule for UK, it's their best attendance of the season. They have an emphasis of some kind- a white out, a red out, a maroon out, a black out, a jersey give away, you name it. Every game is a sell-out and any loss just made someone's season. That's pressure. Some of those teams may suck in a given year (some in most years) but when UK rolls into town they play over their heads.

So, bottom line, for UK it works. And apparently the league prepares its best teams every season when you consider the performance of its teams in the postseason.

The other thing I'd differ with you on is the purpose of this thread. The purpose is not to slam the SEC. The purpose is to slam UK. I think we all know that. It's a round-about way to slam UK and its most wins in the history of the NCAA.

As for which major conference is truly weakest in men's basketball historically, I'd say that it would be the PAC12 or BIG12. They've both only won 2 titles since 1985 and NONE in the last 10 years. I suppose you can explain that away, but I'm sure it would sound pretty foolish. Think of that now, 12 schools, 30 years, 2 titles. That's 360 seasons with 2 titles. And ZERO titles in the last 10. Is the SEC truly weaker than that? No. Even without UK included, the SEC has 3 titles in that same time frame and 2 titles in the last 10. Include UK and the number is 6 since 1985 and 3 in the last 10. It's cut and dry. 6>2 and 3>0. Correct my math there, if you will.

But what's funny is that you don't back it up, but just say, "let's not pretend that the SEC doesn't get taken to task nationally." Who cares what media members say, especially sports media members? They all have their little pet agendas. And the SEC gets taken to task in basketball because the media has to deal with their dominance in football. So seriously, tell me the numbers that support the thought and I'll listen. Just because you don't feel like comparing the PAC12 and the SEC, should I conceded your point because you're lazy? Ha! I just did it for you. The PAC12 and BIG12 have 2 titles each since 1985 and 0 in the last 10. There it is. I don't know what else to say.

LOL...... you don't what to say but yet here you are posting again !

 

[Louisvillian]

Louisvillian, I appreciate your work and this very helpful information. Your numbers are very telling, without question. But I don't know if I would agree with your conclusions. I suppose it depends on what you value. If you value making the tournament and perhaps winning a game, then your conclusion would be correct.

However, that's not what is valued in college basketball. You've got to make the second weekend to even matter, right? And what do schools hang banners for, NCAA-T appearances or Final Fours and championships? If Final Fours and Titles are your measure, and it pretty much is THE measure in college basketball, then your numbers only further prove my point. The SEC is better than Big12 or PAC12.

By the way, if you limit this to the last 10 years only, what you'll see is that the SEC is even more dominant over these other conferences.

Sounds like you are in need of validation for your argument so be it.

Let's just wrap this up by saying that by your rationale that these things are the indisputable truth:
*UCLA is the greatest college basketball program of all time.
*The best conference in 2014 was the AAC
*West Virginia was a better team than Kentucky in 2010 and on and on.....

I'll just say that according to the thread the conferences over the last 30 years are ranked:
1.ACC
2.Big 10
3.Big 12
4.SEC
5.PAC 12

And if the Big East was included in this, everyone drops down a spot after the ACC. Not that any of this means much other than message board fodder before the season begins.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

You gave us a UK/FLA infomercial cherry picking criteria, not statistical analysis, or any real-in depth look of all the teams in any leagues and the performance of those teams within the leagues. You just locked in on your "brightest stars" - but that's not what conference evaluation boils down to. I guess it does for you because that's the way to even this playing field, but that's not how it's universally reviewed.

Let's review the accomplishments of the other 85% of league participants, removing the top 2 dogs from both. You know, let's look over some data with a large sample.

And yeah, we know the ACC gets 2 more teams, which doesn't skew data.


Arky 41-30 1 title, 6 ff, 10 E8s, 10 SS, 30 bids
LSU 24-24 4 ff, 6 E8s, 9 SS, 21 bids
Missouri 22-26, 5 E8s, 7 SS, 26 bids
Alabama 21-20, 1 E8, 8 SS, 20 bids
Tenn 19-21, 1 E8, 7 SS, 20 bids
Auburn 12-8, 1 E8, 4 SS, 8 bids
Miss St 11-10 1 ff, 1 E8, 3 SS, 10 bids
Vandy 10-14, 1 E8, 6 SS, 13 bids
Ole Miss 5-8, 1 SS 8 bids
A&M 9-13, 3 SS, 12 bids
Georgia 7-12 1ff, 1 E8, 3 SS, 12 bids
South Carolina 4-9, 3 SS, 8 bids





Louisville 75-42 3 titles, 10 ff, 14 E8s, 28 SS, 41 bids
Syr 61-37 1 title, 5 ff, 9 E8s, 21 SS, 37 bids
NC St 37-25 2 titles, 3 ff, 6 E8s, 12 SS, 26 bids
ND 34-38, 1 ff, 6 E8s, 16 SS, 38 bids
WF 28-22, 1 ff, 6 E8s, 8 SS, 22 bids
UVA 25-19 2 ff, 5 E8s, 8 SS, 19 bids
PITT 24-26, 1 ff, 3 E8s, 7 SS, 25 bids
G Tech 23-16 2 ff, 4 E8s, 7 SS, 16 bids
BC 22-19, 3 E8s, 9 SS, 18 bids
FSU 15-14, 1 FF, 2 E8, 4 SS, 14 bids
Clemson 9-11, 1 E8, 3 SS, 9 bids
Miami 6-7, 2 SS, 7 bids
VA Tech 6-8, 1 E8, 1 SS, 8 bids (OK these guys have done nothing but hell they gave us Dell Curry who gave us Steph Curry so they aren't totally useless!) - It's a joke man lighten the F up guy!

SEC
185-195, at 49%, a losing record w/o the inclusion of UK and FLA. Take a long look at that stat and analyze it.

The conversation should probably stop here.


1 title, for Arky. You like statistical analysis talk, this point of reference is referred to as an "outlier" when reviewing their title and bouncing it up against all those other SEC schools that don't have a title, meaning... everybody not named UK and/or FLA.

12 FF, 25 E8s, 64 SS, 188 bids
Avg 15 NCAA wins per program
Avg 16 NCAA bids per program

9 teams are combining up to get to 4 E8s.

The proportion of do nothings is large in quantity here.

ACC
365-284 56%
6 titles
26 FF, 59 E8s, 126 SS, 280 bids
Avg 28 NCAA wins per program
Avg 22 NCAA bids per program

Six titles spread between 3 different programs, no outlier.

You called out Ga Tech as a bottom feeder, their resume is by far better than 10 of the 14 programs in the SEC. Not a major arguing point, but humorous.

You also called out BC as a bottom feeder, and like Ga Tech, their resume is better than 10 of the 14 programs in the SEC, though by not as far.

9 of the remaining 13 teams have hit the FF. That's a lot of variance.


6>1 discrepancy for titles
59>28 discrepancy in E8s
126>64 discrepancy in SSs
280bids>188 discrepancy in bids

This is statistical analysis. I could dig deeper, but I'm not going to do it.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

The other thing I'd differ with you on is the purpose of this thread. The purpose is not to slam the SEC. The purpose is to slam UK. I think we all know that. It's a round-about way to slam UK and its most wins in the history of the NCAA.

I told you it was a bait thread. You chose to let the OP get in your head that's on you. But since you think it is a slam on UK, and you're engaging in the discussion, you know exactly what you're getting into - so why hit us with this cloak of disguise suggesting you're seeking civil basketball discussion?

If this thread is what you say it is, there is not much room in it for civil discussion.

The purpose of the thread was to trash the SEC, and all the teams in it. There's enough laughter in the world go around to poke fun at multiple teams at the same time, not just UK.

It's incredible to research UGA and see they have 7 total NCAA wins. They had the human highlight film and Vern carry them to a FF, meaning they have literally done nothing else in their existence.

You want to try to turn this thread into a thought provoking thread and I gave you a few responses that were full of fun facts.

If the league is awful, which it is historically - see NCAA losing record for all teams combined not named UK/FL (you know, 85% of the league), then it's not too big of a stretch to dig on those teams that, lose on their own with or without threads like these.

OMG, a hater from a rival is knocking "our most wins in NCAA history" by calling out some of the toads we've beaten up on all these years! It's not like he's posting this on a UK board, a National Board, or your Facebook timeline. You got insecurity issues, bruh.

 

[Dreklie]

Nice try blue hole, the fact is the SEC is the weakest basketball conference among the major conferences..........no matter how you spin with what if's and some phony beliefs about the SEC's future. Right now as it has been for two decades the SEC is the weakest conference in college basketball........period!
The SEC is perhaps the weakest major conference in college basketball, and it may be a while until they crawl out of the hole they are currently in.

And you played in the Metro Conference and Conference USA for about 90% of your schools existence ... LOL

 

[Ameoba Offense]

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



Since '85, MSU has been to 7 FF's, OSU 4, UM 4, IU 3, Wisky 3, IL 2 & Minny 1...

Yeah dude, that equals 11.

 

[Louisvillian]

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



Since '85, MSU has been to 7 FF's, OSU 4, UM 4, IU 3, IL & Wisky 2, Minny 1...

Yeah dude, that equals 11.

Nothing like someone who mis-represents the facts....