The SEC is embarrasing
- Thread starter jalovell23
- Start date
- Status
Dude you can get stuck in a circular argument with zipp at the snap of a finger. My advice is to remove any emotion and realize that he has established baselines and positions that make his stances unassailable in his mind. If you can do that the back and forth with him is much more enjoyable.
I've answered nothing except that I would provide answers. And John offers sage advice for newbie slappies here.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Haven't forgotten anything... And your evidence here of his shortcomings is a little offbase. They were getting open outside looks, just weren't hitting shots they've been hitting. And they were running the zone offense well from the top of the lane. Not sure what game you were watching.
3-point shooting is what hurt us in that game, and you can't have glaring deficiencies against a team like Duke. Unlike what you can get away with playing Alabama and Arkansas.
"Elite program," my a$$...
The thread is about the SEC which is why I suggested a new thread. Leave it to a slapd!ck to wanna change the subject to another he thinks he likes.
Would you like me to contrast the level of TALENT on the two rosters since Lite came to town? (You won't like that analysis with respect to ANY other team...) Has nothing to do with your school or Lite's coaching genius.
LPT also has a Super Bowl with 2-3 teams every year like this game. IIRC, U of L played the slappies this year in a four-game stretch that included IU, Virginia, and ND. That's big boy basketball the likes of which an LPT fan can't really appreciate. (Well, maybe in football, but you don't really give an ish about that sport...)
I've already said that I would have rather won the two conference games and lost the LPT and IU games. We'd have tied for the ACC championship which means a helluva lot more than a December slappy exhibition. Hard to believe (not) that the basketball series reflects that.
Again, you're nowadays the little country school playing the big city school and looking for respect. The Super Bowl factor that Lite talks about works in every sport.
I don't know or care what the various U of L-LPT series are dating back a hundred years. I only care about today, and U of L gets next-to-nothing outta playing LPT in any sport. It's a lose-lose for U of L regardless of the game's outcome. Uncle Adolph had it right many years ago when the shoe was on the other foot.
And one title for Lite--which is really all that matters when you come outta the SEC and get overseeded past good teams in the tourney. Only to flame out when you HAVE to play those good teams in the final few rounds. It's why a Final Four means nothing for an LPT fan other than your team is uber-talented and you play in a $hit conference. Says nothing about Lite's coaching.
A relevant tie-breaker applies to championships, not meaningless Nov/Dec exhibitions. Granted those games often mean a lot to slapd!cks with little else on their basketball schedule each year.
Let's come back in a few years and assess how we've done in the ACC. Our initial draws in years one and two have been UNC and Duke; not exactly Vandy and LSU. And prior to the ACC, U of L fared pretty well in what was previously the best college basketball conference in the history of the sport. We haven't hung around to beat up on conferences like CUSA and the Metro to fill our trophy cases with meaningless hardware, or run up gaudy won-lost records to print on T-shirts. Congrats on those things BTW.
As I've also said many times, when Matt Hayes retracts the "play toy" reference, I'll take similar action under consideration. Right now, it bothers too many people who are special to me.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Please accept my apology. I thought we were debating established data and facts to support points. You made a statement, I addressed your statement, you requested me to provide and statistically support points regarding my statements, etc. I see your personal opinions are the only true facts here in your reality. Please accept my apology for giving you so much credit. My bust. I guess when you throw out a few insults, voice your personal opinions, provide alternative facts (rhetoric), and change the parameters of the discussion it makes you the winner. That is something a Slapd!ck Lite might do. I will leave you to your personal reality now. Good luck to all!
You aren't slapdick lite, you're a general in slapdick nation. Congrats.
Data are just that, information. They require analysis or suggest it. If my analysis doesn't conform to yours, that's not my problem. You come to a thread off topic and wanna start an unrelated discussion. Excuse me for engaging in it. I thought I was giving a slapd!ck what he wanted.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Well articulated!
I wish some of our fans would shut the door behind them.
"Elite program," my a$$...
If Vandy can win its first game against Northwestern I think they have a shot to beat Gonzaga.
I picked South Carolina to lose its first game against Marquette.
I have Arkansas beating Seton Hall in the first round then losing to UNC.
I have Florida winning its first game but I have UNC-W beating Virginia and the Florida beating them but losing to Villanova in S16
I picked South Carolina to lose its first game against Marquette.
I have Arkansas beating Seton Hall in the first round then losing to UNC.
I have Florida winning its first game but I have UNC-W beating Virginia and the Florida beating them but losing to Villanova in S16
SEC has had 3 titles since 2006 (2 different schools) And I'm pretty sure that's the same as the ACC in the time span, 3 titles by 2 schools(And Im going by schools winning as ACC members)
Big 12(or Big 8 and predecessors) has had 1 title in the last 25+ years..you'd have to go back to 1988 and both titles are Kansas. Going back 25 years the SEC has had 6 champions won by 3 different schools.
Pac-12 has not had a champion since 1997(20 years)
Big 10 has not had a champion since 2000 and I believe that is the only Big 10 title in the last 25 years as well(1980 Michigan).
I'll take that "Joke" of a conferences track record of producing champions over the Big 10, Pac-12, and Big 12. Because at the end of the day, winning the title is the ultimate goal of success. Especially since the big criticism about Cal is only 1 title and that his Final 4's do not really matter, so I'll judge by titles won. Obviously that "weak" schedule did not matter to 6 of the last 25 champions(over 25%) or 3 of the last 11. Or even the 8 out of the last 25 title games that featured an SEC team. And no, not just 2 team dominating the conference, 3 different champions and 5 different programs have made the Final 4 as SEC schools during that time span as well.
The ACC and Big East(new/old) are on another level and that is not to be debated. But in basketball conference is not as big of a deal when you can schedule 13 non-conference games and a tournament can determine in 1 game scenarios who can win and show if bias/predictions matter. Conference strength did not matter when you all were Metro and CUSA because you still proved in the tournament that it did not matter as long as you have a good team/coach.
Again, I concede the ACC is better by infinity...but only UK football fans brag about conference, and I'm pretty sure you do not want to be like sUcK(in your words) football fans. They do not hang banners for conference strength, they judge by how your individual team does in the tournament. And with Crum and Rick, you all have an amazing track record that should be able to held on its own and conference should not even matter.
Big 12(or Big 8 and predecessors) has had 1 title in the last 25+ years..you'd have to go back to 1988 and both titles are Kansas. Going back 25 years the SEC has had 6 champions won by 3 different schools.
Pac-12 has not had a champion since 1997(20 years)
Big 10 has not had a champion since 2000 and I believe that is the only Big 10 title in the last 25 years as well(1980 Michigan).
I'll take that "Joke" of a conferences track record of producing champions over the Big 10, Pac-12, and Big 12. Because at the end of the day, winning the title is the ultimate goal of success. Especially since the big criticism about Cal is only 1 title and that his Final 4's do not really matter, so I'll judge by titles won. Obviously that "weak" schedule did not matter to 6 of the last 25 champions(over 25%) or 3 of the last 11. Or even the 8 out of the last 25 title games that featured an SEC team. And no, not just 2 team dominating the conference, 3 different champions and 5 different programs have made the Final 4 as SEC schools during that time span as well.
The ACC and Big East(new/old) are on another level and that is not to be debated. But in basketball conference is not as big of a deal when you can schedule 13 non-conference games and a tournament can determine in 1 game scenarios who can win and show if bias/predictions matter. Conference strength did not matter when you all were Metro and CUSA because you still proved in the tournament that it did not matter as long as you have a good team/coach.
Again, I concede the ACC is better by infinity...but only UK football fans brag about conference, and I'm pretty sure you do not want to be like sUcK(in your words) football fans. They do not hang banners for conference strength, they judge by how your individual team does in the tournament. And with Crum and Rick, you all have an amazing track record that should be able to held on its own and conference should not even matter.
I don't know of too many discussions I get into about the ACC that don't involve the performance of/comparison to LPT basketball which is distorted by conference affiliation. U of L basketball fans aren't fixated on the ACC except that we appreciate being in it. We certainly don't need to drum it to support ourselves like LPT football fans do about the SEC.
Ten years is ancient to go back and analyze how strong your conference is. While Florida has fielded competitive teams in the context of the SEC, their back-to-back championships were proven to be a flash-in-the-pan. Most SEC teams not named "LPT" are in a similar state. Arkansas had its run as did Florida, Tennessee has only occasionally been good since the 1970s, nor Auburn since the 1980s, Vandy was respectable a few years, etc., but nothing sustained. About what you'd expect from a conference that holds football miles higher than basketball.
As I like to say, "you can't play yourselves." If you have to look at conference results over a long timeframe... Take Louisville's record out of the ACC, and take LPT's out of the SEC, and look at the chasm between a really good and bad conference. The SEC is a mid-major conference without LPT. And that's who you're competing against because you can't play yourself.
I think a slapd!ck has better arguments to make than the SEC doesn't get enough respect.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Ten years is ancient to go back and analyze how strong your conference is. While Florida has fielded competitive teams in the context of the SEC, their back-to-back championships were proven to be a flash-in-the-pan. Most SEC teams not named "LPT" are in a similar state. Arkansas had its run as did Florida, Tennessee has only occasionally been good since the 1970s, nor Auburn since the 1980s, Vandy was respectable a few years, etc., but nothing sustained. About what you'd expect from a conference that holds football miles higher than basketball.
As I like to say, "you can't play yourselves." If you have to look at conference results over a long timeframe... Take Louisville's record out of the ACC, and take LPT's out of the SEC, and look at the chasm between a really good and bad conference. The SEC is a mid-major conference without LPT. And that's who you're competing against because you can't play yourself.
I think a slapd!ck has better arguments to make than the SEC doesn't get enough respect.
"Elite program," my a$$...
I'm 25 years old, so that's kind of how I am dating stuff. And I'm not debating Big East/ACC, I'm debating how the SEC is such a mid-major....but yet when you look at championships as the model of success, the SEC seems to be 3rd behind those 2 conferences
Ok then, take Kansas out of the Big-12 and what is the Big 12? They'd have NO titles in the modern era, the SEC would at least have 3 in the last 25 years by 2 different teams not named Kentucky. I'd say there's a way bigger case to be made that the Big 12 is solely dependent on Kansas than the SEC is on Kentucky.
Take Michigan State out of the Big 10, then you would have to go back to 1989 to the last time they won the title(Maryland was ACC in 2002).
And what is this strange argument about Florida's back to back? Like what does it not count because you don't want it to count? Because Florida was not a fluke after that, 4 consecutive Elite 8's and a #1 overall seed in 2014 with a final 4 trip. And if 10 years is ancient history, then what is recent 5 years. Ok, 1 SEC Title, 1 old Big East title, 1 new Big East title, 1 AAC title, and 1 ACC title. Does not seem like 1 conference is completely dominant.
Again I'll use 25 years as history, 6 championships, 8 title game appearances, 5 difference schools making the Final 4 and 3 different schools as champions. Other than the Big East and ACC, find me a better conference over that time span...or heck whatever time span you want to choose. You can try and use words like "sUcKs, $EC, biased, mid-major" but I'd like to see championship numbers. Remember, this is about the SEC, not UK.
I'm not saying anything good about other basketball conferences not named "ACC" or "BEast". Those two conferences have proven to have depth, sustained success, and a focus on basketball.
Kansas year in and out gets more tested in the Big XII than LPT does in the SEC, but that's not saying much. Same with Michigan State in the Big Ten or Arizona in the Pac-12. If you're the big dog in your conference, you don't really know how good you are when two-thirds of your schedule is playing puppies.
Lumping the big dog's results in with the conference is fine if you wanna talk about how good the teams are on average. Granted, it's still an average of the have and have-nots. But when you start talking about PLAYING IN the conference, it matters a lot who's playing. If it's the big dog, the important thing is you don't get to play another big dog.
And if you want actual data, look how well the ACC did in last year's NCAA tourney WITHOUT Louisville playing. Head-and-shoulders better than any other conference.
Sorry but that analysis is not valid just because I like it.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Kansas year in and out gets more tested in the Big XII than LPT does in the SEC, but that's not saying much. Same with Michigan State in the Big Ten or Arizona in the Pac-12. If you're the big dog in your conference, you don't really know how good you are when two-thirds of your schedule is playing puppies.
Lumping the big dog's results in with the conference is fine if you wanna talk about how good the teams are on average. Granted, it's still an average of the have and have-nots. But when you start talking about PLAYING IN the conference, it matters a lot who's playing. If it's the big dog, the important thing is you don't get to play another big dog.
And if you want actual data, look how well the ACC did in last year's NCAA tourney WITHOUT Louisville playing. Head-and-shoulders better than any other conference.
Sorry but that analysis is not valid just because I like it.
"Elite program," my a$$...
I get it.
We're supposed to believe YOU when you say the ACC isn't as good as people think in BB...but you guys blow that smoke about the $EC in FB. (when the bowl season totally proves otherwise)
Check.
Ok, I think in principle we agree. But you do not understand the level of talent in conferences in the SEC are far superior to schools in conferences like the current CUSA, OVC, MAC, and ETC. I will agree that ACC/Big East are far and away better conferences and have way more talent top to bottom. But again, you saying that the SEC and others stink because they and are mid-major level is the equivalent to saying that Kyle Lowry is not a great NBA player because he is not as good as LeBron James. I think the fact that the ACC/BEast are so great it does make every conference in comparison look terrible, but it is not the case usually.
Go look on those rosters around the P5, you'll see size and speed that most REAL mid-majors cannot compare to on a night to night basis. And in basketball, most of the time talent usually prevails in the end. When you get high level talent that all the P5 has or just equivalent talent, then I believe coaching, style, and matchups are the difference. And I do believe that is where the SEC has failed the last 10 years, getting good coaches. Now with Pearl, Howland, Drew, and Barnes coming in the league..I think the SEC has stepped up marginally(as seen in RPI and moving up to 5 bids and having a few more teams considered bubble teams in Feb.).
I think the difference between the bottom tier P5 schools and mid-majors is the talent. Put those bottom tier schools in the WCC, MAC, CUSA, OVC, MWC, and etc and they probably are conference champs or top 2-3 in every league. Now, there are teams that are bad regardless of conference (Washington, Mizzou, Texas, Oklahoma), but most of the time there is a big talent gap. My Murray State Racers in 2012 were top 10 in the nation and had an NBA player, but when we got to round 2 we just could not match Marquette's size and depth and you could tell how big the difference was at the time. In 2014, we were top 25 and had a good team, but could not even hang with the depth and size of a team like Houston.
Now trust me, there is talent in the SEC. But the coaching is far to be desired. And to be honest, if player are good enough to get multiple D1 scholarships then I respect them...even if they play at NKU or Morehead State. Playing against Division 1 teams and having a good record against D1 competition is not misleading. Yes, a Murray State running through the OVC does not mean they are #1 in the nation...but they were a good team in those years they were ranked. And yes, Gonzaga probably is not on the level of a UNC/Kansas because of their record, but it still showed they were a great basketball team and should not be taken lightly by anyone. Wichita State runs through their conference yearly, and they made a Final 4 so that showed that a regular season great record was indicative of them being a good team. Butler was thought to be just a flash in the pan, but then they've moved to the Big East on top of losing Brad Stevens and there has not been a huge drop off. Heck, in 2011 my hometown Christian County Colonels had a good record but everyone said that West Ky basketball was weak and would not prepare them for a state tournament. They went and beat a nationally ranked Eastern team and then took the state title. Denny Crum ran through the Metro Conference and was not tested, but it did not matter as they were a good team regardless and won a national title.
Division 1 basketball is D1 basketball, respect the talent.
If the rosters in the SEC are better than a mid-major conference--and I'm not a student of SEC teams--the likely conclusion is that SEC coaching is worse. And looking at SEC coaches, I would strongly suspect you're right about that. What are the best examples of SEC coaches not named "Donovan" who have gone onto greater things outside the conference in recent years?
But it doesn't really matter WHY you're mid-major or whether you have better talent. The bottom line is what your conference does for you. In LPT's case, it merely enables you to stack up a lotta wins. And it's been that way for a generation or more with little exception.
Again, your time is probably better spent trying to score other points about your team. I have a really good feeling that in a couple weeks, we will have even more evidence how bad SEC basketball continues to be.
"Elite program," my a$$...
But it doesn't really matter WHY you're mid-major or whether you have better talent. The bottom line is what your conference does for you. In LPT's case, it merely enables you to stack up a lotta wins. And it's been that way for a generation or more with little exception.
Again, your time is probably better spent trying to score other points about your team. I have a really good feeling that in a couple weeks, we will have even more evidence how bad SEC basketball continues to be.
"Elite program," my a$$...
And to a point, that's where we can agree. Coaching is why the SEC has failed. I mean there was a point in time the year before Calipari arrived you had Dennis Felton, John Pelphrey, Darin Horn, Billy Gillispie, Mark Gottfried, Trent Johnson, and Jeff Lebo all roaming the sidelines. There was Donovan, Pearl, and Stansbury who I think are good coaches, and then Stallings and Kennedy were supposed to round out the top 5 in the conference(laughable I know).
That was terribly embarrassing on the part of those schools and proved the lack of commitment to their programs on the part of the schools. And I have lived in Tennessee near Memphis, and there are some parts of the SEC that love basketball if given a good team. Tennessee, Arkansas, LSU, and Mizzou all have followings that would love to watch some good basketball. Georgia with the Atlanta market could have a basketball fan base. Mississippi State loves basketball but Ole Miss could care less. The Alabama schools and Florida could care less to be honest. A&M has had decent support going back to the Big 12.
I think with the change in leadership at the top and the advent of the Network made the SEC realize they needed better games to produce ratings year round. The ACC Network will be a financial success because it will have solid games from August through March.
The SEC does not have programs like a Duke, UNC, UofL, and Cuse that have tradition and fan bases with passionate followings like those schools other than UK. Its honestly a regional thing to be honest. The South and rural areas tend to just love football more and coastal/urban areas love basketball.
I am a UK fan that can admit that the SEC bores me to death. The game Sunday in Nashville did not interest me one bit. I miss the days where there were at least a few decent matchups to get excited about, but there are not any other than Florida. I planned my day Saturday around watching the ACC title game and then the Pac-12 game.
The SEC is average at best. Not a mid-major but not a juggernaut. I went to a mid-major at Murray State and I've seen the differences...trust me. I think the coaching and recruiting has improved a bit over the last 2-3 years and hopefully it will improve further.
From a pure talent standpoint, the SEC recruits plenty of excellent players and puts plenty into the NBA;
# Schools W/ Players Avg. # NBA
Conference (# teams) NBA Players in NBA Players/Team
Atlantic Coast (15) 15 75 5.0
Pacific 12 (12) 11 55 4.6
Southeastern (14) 10 62 4.4
Big 12 (10) 7 33 3.3
Big East (10) 10 28 2.8
Big Ten (14) 10 38 2.7
Mountain West (11) 7 15 1.4
American (11) 5 12 1
Of the 14 SEC teams, 10 are represented in the NBA and they have the 2nd most players overall - and yes, I realize that 24 of those 62 are UK players, so if we just peel those off and call it 38 among the rest of the conference, that would still put them tied for 3rd most with the Big Ten. Clearly, once you get past the P5 and the BE, there is a massive dropoff. That talent gap alone is enough to distance the SEC from the mid majors.
# Schools W/ Players Avg. # NBA
Conference (# teams) NBA Players in NBA Players/Team
Atlantic Coast (15) 15 75 5.0
Pacific 12 (12) 11 55 4.6
Southeastern (14) 10 62 4.4
Big 12 (10) 7 33 3.3
Big East (10) 10 28 2.8
Big Ten (14) 10 38 2.7
Mountain West (11) 7 15 1.4
American (11) 5 12 1
Of the 14 SEC teams, 10 are represented in the NBA and they have the 2nd most players overall - and yes, I realize that 24 of those 62 are UK players, so if we just peel those off and call it 38 among the rest of the conference, that would still put them tied for 3rd most with the Big Ten. Clearly, once you get past the P5 and the BE, there is a massive dropoff. That talent gap alone is enough to distance the SEC from the mid majors.
Last edited:
NBA threads belong on rafters.
Coaching and talent make strong teams, the SEC hires retreads because football is king and baseball is second in that conference.
Gotcha - so the 75 ACC players in the NBA is meaningless. It's K and Roy who are the real stars.
Yeah, if anything I feel Boeheim has underachieved - 1 title in like 40 years with no shortage of talent. Rick belongs in the same sentence as Roy and K. Brey and Williams aren't in the same zip code.
Rocky can be a little abrasive--
--but his point is valid. The SEC doesn't attract premier coaches; if anything, it repels them. It's not just a U of L message board that proclaims the SEC to be first and foremost a football conference. Basketball coaches wanna perform on the biggest and brightest stages. Except for one school, that's not the SEC.The only reason the other 13 basketball teams in the SEC aren't truly mid-major is because of FOOTBALL MONEY. And that's also the only reason their basketball coaches aren't worse. SEC schools give lip service to basketball while more important sports like baseball and Spring football are underway. But with $100+ million athletic budgets pretty commonplace, SEC basketball will never sink all the way to mid-major even if the distinction is meaningless.
The South is home to a collection of the best athletes in the country, period. That some play for SEC basketball teams is no surprise. That most never demonstrate that ability WHILE PLAYING in the SEC is even less of a surprise. That LPT will prosper among those teams is almost a guarantee even if no one but LPT fans really give a damn.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Rocky can be a little abrasive--
The only reason the other 13 basketball teams in the SEC aren't truly mid-major is because of FOOTBALL MONEY. And that's also the only reason their basketball coaches aren't worse. SEC schools give lip service to basketball while more important sports like baseball and Spring football are underway. But with $100+ million athletic budgets pretty commonplace, SEC basketball will never sink all the way to mid-major even if the distinction is meaningless.
The South is home to a collection of the best athletes in the country, period. That some play for SEC basketball teams is no surprise. That most never demonstrate that ability WHILE PLAYING in the SEC is even less of a surprise. That LPT will prosper among those teams is almost a guarantee even if no one but LPT fans really give a damn.
"Elite program," my a$$...
All well said zipp - you don't have to convince me of the subpar coaches that have run through the SEC over the years - it's sad. And to your point, it could be even worse. But, as you pointed out, the conference does naturally attract a good bit of talent, which ultimately prevents it from being on the same plane as the OVC or MVC or WAC or whatever other 1-2 bid league any of us care to name.
By your own admission you are too young to get a clear picture of the Metro Conference. Despite numerous FFs and a couple of NCs, we never RAN through it. There was always the Dark Side down in west Tennessee with whom we had a death struggle 3 times a year. How good were they? Not as good as us, but good enough to make a couple of FFs.
There in lies the problem with the SEC over the years. No more than 3 or 4 of the schools give a rip about BB at any one time. Name one school other than UK, Arkansas or Vandy who has consistently cared about BB in the last 25 years. The recent hires at Bama and Arkansas seem to be a step in the right direction. LSU is STILL looking for someone to get them back to the Dale Brown level. Florida blows hot and cold. UGA has been a colossal failure before and after Hugh Durham. Need I go on?
And if an SEC apologist wants to respond to Boone's challenge, let's quantify that "rip"...
Please let us know what the basketball budget is for any SEC school you believe is being shortchanged. And put those numbers alongside of some benchmark basketball programs for comparison.
No idea what you're going to find, but I like distilling everything down to dollars and "sense" wherever possible. It's usually where the rubber meets the road.
"Elite program," my a$$...
To me they are. The NBA is nonexistent to me. I don't have anything against it, but it interests me zero.
Of the top 100 things I like to watch/do, the NBA is somewhere around 900.
In a way, the SEC is in a good position for the post season since if anyone besides UK can win a game or 2, that will be considered a huge success and over-achievement for that team and the league.
The bar is low and the single elimination format favors a horrible league with that many bids.
The bar is low and the single elimination format favors a horrible league with that many bids.
I can't find anything more recent than this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/thes...sketball-teams-2012-1?op=1/#-north-carolina-6
Granted there's a little dust on that info, but next time I might check the data before I ask for it.
I'm looking for the explanation, not necessarily the evidence. Boone's "rip" comment simply isn't supported by THIS info. But it certainly doesn't mean he's wrong; in fact, I 100% agree with him. You could argue that SEC schools make the monetary commitment, but they don't execute on it. It's a fact that SEC schools take in a lotta money on athletics. I simply gave them more credit than they deserved on how they spent it.
Good find.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Granted there's a little dust on that info, but next time I might check the data before I ask for it.
I'm looking for the explanation, not necessarily the evidence. Boone's "rip" comment simply isn't supported by THIS info. But it certainly doesn't mean he's wrong; in fact, I 100% agree with him. You could argue that SEC schools make the monetary commitment, but they don't execute on it. It's a fact that SEC schools take in a lotta money on athletics. I simply gave them more credit than they deserved on how they spent it.
Good find.
"Elite program," my a$$...
That's a great point zipp - in terms of "bang for the buck," the SEC is getting very little in the basketball category. They are spending money but not in an effective way. Overall, there is a solid commitment of funds and a good, but not elite pool of talent in the conference. That tells me it boils down to leadership - ADs who are simply too football minded, and overpaid coaches who underachieve relative to their rosters seem to be the obvious factors. Thoughts?
I disagree about the pool of talent. Look at Florida, Georgia, Texas and how many elite players come out of those areas. Even Arkansas and Alabama have produced a few elite players that have played for Kentucky.
I'm more referring to talent that ends up at SEC schools - obviously if you include UK, the pool is absolutely elite. Take UK out of the equation and it's simply "good" IMO. I realize that UK is part of the SEC so those players should be included, but since the discussion is around how much the rest of the SEC performs, I felt my assertion was accurate in this case.
No question though you're right about the region. Tons of top shelf talent comes from SEC country.
I was referring to the region.
Look at Georgia for example. No excuse that they should suck year after year when you have such talent inside that state.
I also realize that we (Kentucky) end up with a lot of the high
Profile kids in the region but dang you would think eventually you could keep some home. Alabama has a good class coming in maybe they will turn the page
Money will attract talent.
And I've never seen an SEC team in any sport that I thought was talent deficient. John knows the SEC/NBA stats better than I do, but I have no reason to doubt it. If SEC athletic programs are investing in basketball, there's no good reason that the quality of the product shouldn't be better.
"Elite program," my a$$...
And I've never seen an SEC team in any sport that I thought was talent deficient. John knows the SEC/NBA stats better than I do, but I have no reason to doubt it. If SEC athletic programs are investing in basketball, there's no good reason that the quality of the product shouldn't be better.
"Elite program," my a$$...
- Status
Similar threads
