Not true. Kentucky has 9 games left and 8 of them are quad 1 at the moment. Our conference schedule was back loaded and the SEC is quite a bit stronger this year than it has been in the past. Michigan State has 8 left with 6 quad 1s.
As of Today, Rank Your Top 5 Teams Most Likely to Win the Tourney
- Thread starter DezyVol
- Start date
Not true. Kentucky has 9 games left and 8 of them are quad 1 at the moment. Our conference schedule was back loaded and the SEC is quite a bit stronger this year than it has been in the past. Michigan State has 8 left with 6 quad 1s.
The B10 is #1 per Kenpom and the SEC is 4th. The lowest rated B10 team per Kenpom is Rutgers at 94. Next lowest after that is 68. The SEC has 4 teams over 100. So, you may be right about Kentucky's schedule, but I can promise you MSU is going to have a very similar schedule.
So basically you're saying Kentucky has 2 more chances at quad 1 teams coming up than MSU has. Doesn't MSU already have a 3 game lead in quad 1 wins?
Indeed. And I think the the overall quality of msu’s opponents during that stretch are probably a little better. But you’re talking 2 top 5 games and 2 top 15 versus 2 top 5’s and 2 top 25’s. Which I’m not sure the committee has ever differentiated between that closely.
Also if the committee follows precedent they’ll likely take the Langford injury into consideration negatively against MSU. It’ll be interesting to see what they do with them and Kansas this Saturday. As well as gonzaga.
Depends on what you use for criteria.
The SEC has won three national titles this century between 2 teams. The BIG last won a title in 2000 and before that, 1989.
If the BIG was such a great conference, it would have more titles.
This year, it's looking like the SEC has two title contenders that are becoming more and more legit. The BIG, not so much. UofM is legit, but MSU, a team I really liked, is slipping into an abyss.
I also believe that if there was an SEC/BIG10 challenge where the matchups were correct top to bottom, the SEC would win.
So, I'll say it again: SEC>>>BIG10
If both teams win out MSU will still have more quad 1 wins. Langford has been out for a while. I'm sure it will have an effect, but MSU still will have a very good resume.
They just lost at home to a bad Indians team, then followed it up with a loss to a bad Illinois team.
Can't just look at the wins.
If national titles is your only criteria since 2000 then fine. However, in just about any other metric you'd be wrong. The SEC has pretty much only been Kentucky and then everybody else. The B10 has had way more teams make the championship game. They've had a better overall winning % in the tournament, have a deeper conference, etc. The SEC has become much more balanced as of late though, which is a good thing.Depends on what you use for criteria.
The SEC has won three national titles this century between 2 teams. The BIG last won a title in 2000 and before that, 1989.
If the BIG was such a great conference, it would have more titles.
This year, it's looking like the SEC has two title contenders that are becoming more and more legit. The BIG, not so much. UofM is legit, but MSU, a team I really liked, is slipping into an abyss.
I also believe that if there was an SEC/BIG10 challenge where the matchups were correct top to bottom, the SEC would win.
So, I'll say it again: SEC>>>BIG10
You say slipping into an abyss, but I think you aren't taking into account how tough their schedule is. I don't disagree that they aren't playing as well as they were a month ago, but I'd be shocked if they didn't figure out how to cover up their losses and play at a high level again. They have plenty of time to do so.
I still think MSU and Michigan are contenders from the B10. Both have slumped a bit and it's making people forget how well they each had been playing at one point. I can't believe I'm about to type these words, but I do think Purdue is a dark horse to make some noise. Win it all, no probably not. There's too much youth on the team. They have seriously picked it up though and playing at a very high level.
At this point. Kentucky would have to lose a head scratcher or two and one to Tennessee as well as MSU winning out convincingly in order for MSU to be seeded ahead of them. One seed or not.
That bad Indiana team is 44 in net rating and 45 per Kenpom and Illinois is 88 in the net rating and 71 per Kenpom. You can't just look at their overall record. These teams are good. They are just getting beat up in a brutal conference right now.
But the SEC isn't UK and everyone else.
Arkansas has a title
Florida has back to back titles
Tennessee is #1 in the country and has been for a while
South Carolina made the FF in 2017
Yup, Michigan state has had a tough schedule, you keep going back to that, but they just lost at home to an awful IU team, then followed it up with a loss to a bad Illinois team. 3 losses in a row. You can't explain that away by saying they've played a tough schedule. UK has played a tough schedule too.
Again though, Michigan state and Michigan are great teams that can win it all, they have looked a lot more mortal here lately though, the 2 SEC contenders have been surging.
I don't look at Purdue as a dark horse. I think the roster is flawed. You have Carson Edwards and a bunch of good veteran players, but nobody else that can carry the team. Haarms is going to get eaten alive by teams with strong frontcourts.
Last edited:
They lost to Indiana at home man, that shouldn't have happened.
A net 88 isn't very good, they are not a tournament team, I don't think IU is a tournament team right now either.
Those are upset losses any way you look at it. MSU is going to run into better teams in the first weekend of the NCAAT.
However, I expect Sparty to right the ship, this is just a short blip, but these losses are going to effect their seed big-time.
Did you miss my last post? I just pointed out how Indiana and Illinois are better teams than you're giving them credit for.
This sounds like you haven't been paying attention to Purdue at all the last month/month and a half. Did you miss out on Trevion Williams? Didn't you see that Purdue beat MSU by 10 and Carson only had 14 points? Hell, Purdue was up by `20+ for a decent amount of time. You don't get the #3 rated offense per Kenpom from having just one guy that can score.
A bunch of veteran players? We have 2 seniors. One was a former walk on. We are hardly a bunch of veteran players.
I didn't say they were a tournament team. All I'm saying is that the 8-15 record doesn't tell the story of how good they really are.
So you're saying they aren't an 8-15 team? They have 15 losses, are you saying we should look at them like they're some top 25 team? 15 losses won't even Garner and NIT invite.
Oh I saw your last post.
Great, Purdue beat MSU at home. MSU turned around and lost two more games to NIT teams, one of them at home.
So how good was that home win against MSU when you look at the downfall that they're in?
Let me guess, those losses should be forgotten about because MSU is better than that? No, it doesn't work that way. MSU is in a slide and they're losing games they shouldn't lose.
As far as my stance on Indiana and Illinois, they are what their record says they are. You are sitting there saying they are better than what I "think they are". Really? IU lost 7 in a row. Illinois is 8-15 with a loss to Florida Atlantic. Neither team is any good. You want everyone to believe they are better than what their records are but they're just not and you look bad when you say they are good teams. They're awful.
Illinois is playing the 2nd toughest schedule in the country per Kenpom. You can easily take a really good team and give them a gauntlet and have a poor record. Again, a teams record doesn't tell the whole story...
UK beat KU, and KU is now shtting the bed. How good is that win now?
Only Illinois would be an NIT team. They're good enough, but their record will probably keep them out. IU is a NCAA tournament team at this point.
Last edited:
I don't care what their schedule is. They lost 15 times. Once to Florida Atlantic, they lost to Northwestern, they lost to Indiana when IU had a lot of injuries.
They've lost every tough game they have played except the one at home against MSU.
Just stop with the Illinois and IU propoganda, both teams are bad.
UK beat North Carolina, how's that win looking now?
UK beat Louisville at Louisville, how's that win looking now.
South Carolina making the Final Four kind of invalidates all your "points" about Purdue doesn't it? They had one player (Thornwell) a bunch of "good veteran players."
Anyway, it's clear you've watched probably less than 10 minutes of Purdue all season.
You should probably take a closer look at that South Carolina team.
You think PJ Dozier was average?
Chris Silva?
Duane Notice?
You're kidding me right?
I've watched 3 Purdue games. Do yourself a favor and watch one of their non home games.
Rarely see them as an option to watch. That and the fact that watching Big10 games and the hackfest/free throw shooting contest they usually are is just boring.
They're not good enough. They have 15 losses for a reason.
Who have they beaten that has a pulse?
You can play the toughest schedule all you want, but at some point you have to beat someone. Illinois hasn't beaten anyone, but they've lost to a crap load of bad teams. They suck and they most certainly are not an NIT team.
IU is an NIT team.
Those names seem about like what this Purdue team has. Purdue is a bit better to be honest. That SCar team was what, a 7 seed? They are lucky they played in the SEC, otherwise they might have missed the Tourney altogether. Lost to a barely .500 Clemson team (per usual). Lost to a Memphis team that didn't make the NIT.
Agree to disagree. Illinois worst loss is to Florida Atlantic the 170 rated Kenpom team. Xavier at 102 and Notre Dame at 94 are their worst losses.
They've beaten 58, 52, 32, 18 and 4. I get it, you must not give a shit about advanced metrics. Either that or ignorant about them. Either way, this conversation isn't going anywhere.
Then you've missed most of their best games. All the games from the first MSU game on they've been very good. Beat Wisconsin and Ohio St on the road. I'd recommend watching more.
Put them in your conference and they'd probably be .500 at least. Maybe even 12-9.
Seems like South Carolina did pretty well against non SEC teams in the tournament.
But the whole "if you played in a different conference because the SEC sucks" is getting pretty lame, especially when we're talking about a team that struggled in SEC play, but then made the final four. Your argument just doesn't make sense.
They beat Duke straight up, Duke was the hottest team in the country and had just won the ACCT.
So you want me to ignore the losses and focus on road wins against unranked teams? Got it.
What conference is Florida Atlantic in?
The talk about the SEC being weak doesn't apply this year.
Some of it's luck. You can't tell me that if Duke and South Carolina played 10 times Duke wouldn't have beat them down most of the time.
They lost 15 games man, that's the only metric I need. That's the only metric that means a damn thing when we are talking about a team that is not going to make the tournament. They suck and you look bad trying to defend them.
Wisconsin is 11 in Kenpom and currently ranked. Ohio St is 33 in Kenpom and Purdue beat them by double digits on the road. Seriously, do you think before you post?
Oh I got it, record tells the whole story the entire time. Got it. I thought advanced metrics meant something. Moneyball maybe... or am I missing something?
Similar threads
