As of Today, Rank Your Top 5 Teams Most Likely to Win the Tourney

[GE Nole]

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.

You just reiterated my point for me, thanks.

Tournament is a crap shoot that very often sees a veteran team with great guard play make a deep run. Which is exactly why Purdue fits the bill as a non-1 seed that could have a good 4 game stretch and make the Final Four.

The Boilermakers aren’t a legit title threat, but they could definitely make a run to the Final Four.

 

[kyjeff1]

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.

South Carolina dominated them. They were more physical.

But it's funny how you are trying to discount South Carolina's final four run, but you want to pump up every BIG 10 teams wins.
You're just being a huge home right now. You know you're a homer when you're trying to pump an 8-15 team.

 

[kyjeff1]

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?

Yes, you're missing the fact that Illinois has lost 15 games. I don't care what their KenPom numbers say, they have lost 15 games.

 

[GE Nole]

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.

That South Carolina team lost 11 games and lost at home to a Clemson team that lost 16 games. Just saying.

 

[kyjeff1]

You just reiterated my point for me, thanks.

Tournament is a crap shoot that very often sees a veteran team with great guard play make a deep run. Which is exactly why Purdue fits the bill as a non-1 seed that could have a good 4 game stretch and make the Final Four.

The Boilermakers aren’t a legit title threat, but they could definitely make a run to the Final Four.

Well, we will see in a couple of months. But at some point doesn't Purdue actually have to accomplish something in the NCAAT? We get this every year with them and every year they fall short of expectations.
Do pardon me if I don't just buy into the hype for the ump-teenth time.

 

[Boilermaker03]

South Carolina dominated them. They were more physical.

But it's funny how you are trying to discount South Carolina's final four run, but you want to pump up every BIG 10 teams wins.
You're just being a huge home right now. You know you're a homer when you're trying to pump an 8-15 team.

LOL, no you are basing the SC run off of a one game tournament. I'm not pumping anything. I'm trying to educate you on the merits of advanced metrics and how you can't judge a team based on one number. Have fun being thick headed.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Well, we will see in a couple of months. But at some point doesn't Purdue actually have to accomplish something in the NCAAT? We get this every year with them and every year they fall short of expectations.
Do pardon me if I don't just buy into the hype for the ump-teenth time.

Please go back and pull up every single NCAA tournament Purdue has been in under Painter and tell me how many times they fell short of expectations. Get back to me...

 

[kyjeff1]

That South Carolina team lost 11 games and lost at home to a Clemson team that lost 16 games. Just saying.

That's right, but South Carolina made the final four .
Purdue has a team every year that is supposed to be a threat, but they never do it.
I'll buy in when they actually achieve something in the tournament.
They had that team two years ago with Swannigan, that was a better squad than this one, but they bonked just like they always do.

 

[kyjeff1]

LOL, no you are basing the SC run off of a one game tournament. I'm not pumping anything. I'm trying to educate you on the merits of advanced metrics and how you can't judge a team based on one number. Have fun being thick headed.

What good are the metrics when a team is 8-15? At that point, the metrics don't matter. That's what you're not getting.

 

[kyjeff1]

Please go back and pull up every single NCAA tournament Purdue has been in under Painter and tell me how many times they fell short of expectations. Get back to me...

LMAO, yeah, that's what I'm going to do.

 

[JC for 3]

Put them in your conference and they'd probably be .500 at least. Maybe even 12-9.

....love when fans from Big10 schools do this....pretty consistent in never providing any basis for such a claim other than their opinion.

Dude.... Illinois blows.

 

[GE Nole]

That's right, but South Carolina made the final four .

Because the Tournament is a single elimination crap shoot! Defining a season solely off that is just silly. Of all people, a Kentucky fan should grasp that.

 

[Boilermaker03]

LMAO, yeah, that's what I'm going to do.

You should, because your comments on Purdue and the tournament are uneducated.

 

[kyjeff1]

Because the Tournament is a single elimination crap shoot! Defining a season solely off that is just silly. Of all people, a Kentucky fan should grasp that.

So what's Purdue's excuse? South Carolina made a final four and beat some damn good teams on the way. Purdue has had better teams and hasn't made it a final four in the modern era.

 

[Boilermaker03]

So what's Purdue's excuse? South Carolina made a final four and beat some damn good teams on the way. Purdue has had better teams and hasn't made it a final four in the modern era.

Moving the goal posts now?

 

[kyjeff1]

You should, because your comments on Purdue and the tournament are uneducated.

But you're the one pumping an 8-15 Illinois team? Got it.

 

[GE Nole]

So what's Purdue's excuse? South Carolina made a final four and beat some damn good teams on the way. Purdue has had better teams and hasn't made it a final four in the modern era.

I think you’re missing the definition of the term “crap shoot.”

What was Kentucky’s excuse in 2010? What was Kansas’ excuse when they lost to Northern Iowa? What was Michigan State’s excuse when they lost to Middle Tennessee? What was Gonzaga’s excuse last year? Hell, what was Kentucky’s excuse last year? That was a tailor made draw for the Final Four and y’all still blew it.

The Tourney is a crap shoot.

 

[kyjeff1]

Moving the goal posts now?

Please explain? What goalposts did I move?

You seem to be awful butthurt just because I m not going along with your BIG10/Illinois/Purdue homer crap.
You should see what it's like as an SEC fan, we get dumped on even when we're good.
Seeing what I'm seeing out of you in this thread when faced with the reality that the BIG isn't that great, you would probably go on a murder spree if you had to hear the criticism that SEC fans see all the time.

 

[JC for 3]

"What was Kentucky’s excuse in 2010?" Taking 32 threes.

"What was Kentucky’s excuse last year?" None....but missing free throws played a huge part in it. Thank goodness they've improved quite a bit at the FT line this year.

 

[kyjeff1]

I think you’re missing the definition of the term “crap shoot.”

What was Kentucky’s excuse in 2010? What was Kansas’ excuse when they lost to Northern Iowa? What was Michigan State’s excuse when they lost to Middle Tennessee? What was Gonzaga’s excuse last year? Hell, what was Kentucky’s excuse last year? That was a tailor made draw for the Final Four and y’all still blew it.

The Tourney is a crap shoot.

All those teams you mentioned were good enough to come back and get to a final four were they not? Every one.
That's my point, eventually you have to accomplish something in the tournament to Garner some respect. Purdue hasn't done that and this team won't do it either.

 

[GE Nole]

Please explain? What goalposts did I move?

You seem to be awful butthurt just because I m not going along with your BIG10/Illinois/Purdue homer crap.
You should see what it's like as an SEC fan, we get dumped on even when we're good.
Seeing what I'm seeing out of you in this thread when faced with the reality that the BIG isn't that great, you would probably go on a murder spree if you had to hear the criticism that SEC fans see all the time.

I’m with you on Illinois. Metrics or not, at some point you have to win games. Frankly, I’ve been saying the same thing about UF—a team that is loaded with talent but has zero identity.

But you have to acknowledge that the SEC as a whole hasn’t been all that great in basketball the last 10 years. Kentucky has been, absolutely. But the conference overall is a clear notch or two below the top tier conferences most years. Just no depth.

The last two years have been better. I’ll give you that. Not elite, but better.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

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.

The Florida guys may be mad at you for that lie.

 

[GE Nole]

All those teams you mentioned were good enough to come back and get to a final four were they not? Every one.
That's my point, eventually you have to accomplish something in the tournament to Garner some respect. Purdue hasn't done that and this team won't do it either.

None of those teams made the Final Four. Those PROGRAMS have made the Final Four (though Gonzaga just once, right? And Michigan State hasn’t made it since losing to Middle Tennessee, right?) but those teams didn’t. And that’s my point. Almost any team that’s a top 11 seed can make a Final Four run in any one random year, and almost any team can be upset early in the Dance in any one given year. See UVA last year.

 

[GE Nole]

"What was Kentucky’s excuse in 2010?" Taking 32 threes.

"What was Kentucky’s excuse last year?" None....but missing free throws played a huge part in it. Thank goodness they've improved quite a bit at the FT line this year.

At least you actually answer questions directly. More than some in this thread.

 

[JimboBBN]

How did this thread turn into a debate about Purdue?

 

[JC for 3]

How did this thread turn into a debate about Purdue?

....the endless need for recognition, I guess. Wake me up when Purdue actually does something worth remembering.

 

[kyjeff1]

I’m with you on Illinois. Metrics or not, at some point you have to win games. Frankly, I’ve been saying the same thing about UF—a team that is loaded with talent but has zero identity.

But you have to acknowledge that the SEC as a whole hasn’t been all that great in basketball the last 10 years. Kentucky has been, absolutely. But the conference overall is a clear notch or two below the top tier conferences most years. Just no depth.

The last two years have been better. I’ll give you that. Not elite, but better.

I guess, but if the SEC is so bad and the BIG is so great, why is the SEC putting teams in the final four and winning titles in the modern era, but the BIG is not?
Not to mention, the BIG teams usually get higher seeds due to bring in a "better conference".
Again, at some point the BIG needs to win some titles.

 

[kyjeff1]

How did this thread turn into a debate about Purdue?

Illinois is a large topic too, because apparently they're better than their 8-15 record.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

....the endless need for recognition, I guess. Wake me up when Purdue actually does something worth remembering.

I can put in the last great thing for Purdue. I was there.

Purdue made the final game in 1969. I was there and watched UCLA beat them by 20. My good friend bought the tickets and got sick, so he gave them to me.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Illinois is a large topic too, because apparently they're better than their 8-15 record.

Illinios and Purdue would slay Kentucky this year and most years. Playing in the B1G keeps them down.

If you believe such shit I have some mountain top real estate to sell you in South Florida.

 

[JimboBBN]

Illinois is a large topic too, because apparently they're better than their 8-15 record.

....the endless need for recognition, I guess. Wake me up when Purdue actually does something worth remembering.

I just don't understand how they became the subject? I think Purdue has a pretty good team this season but I wouldn't have them in my top 5 at all.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

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.

Not getting into the my conference is better argument. But anybody who watched Duke that year knows that them winning 4 games in a row to win the ACCT was a mind blowing event. I don't think that necessarily. Made them the hottest team in the country. It certainly gave us fans false hope. They had lost 3 out of their last 4 to end the regular season and the games they won in February that year were not impressive at all. In fact, outside of a couple comfortable wins, they could have lost any of them.

SC took it to Duke and it paid off. The 2016/17 Duke team played such bad defense, it is offensive to claim they played defense at all. It made for some fun games at times, but it was a clear indicator of how their season was going to end.

Don't want to take too much away from SC's win against Duke because they definitely earned it with their 2nd half performance. But it was more of an example of Duke as a team than it was of SC.

 

[GE Nole]

I guess, but if the SEC is so bad and the BIG is so great, why is the SEC putting teams in the final four and winning titles in the modern era, but the BIG is not?
Not to mention, the BIG teams usually get higher seeds due to bring in a "better conference".
Again, at some point the BIG needs to win some titles.

1. I said last 10 years. How many titles does the SEC have in the last 10 years?

2. Having 1-2 good teams at the top isn’t the same as having 10-12 legit tournament quality teams. SEC fans know this from football. The wear and tear over a full conference season in a loaded league is brutal.

3. I said the SEC was a notch or two below the top tier leagues. Where did I say the Big 10?

Sometimes I feel like you read a completely different post than what you quote.

 

[oldsports_]

, but they could definitely make a run to the Final Four.

Comedy Central

 

[kyjeff1]

1. I said last 10 years. How many titles does the SEC have in the last 10 years?

2. Having 1-2 good teams at the top isn’t the same as having 10-12 legit tournament quality teams. SEC fans know this from football. The wear and tear over a full conference season in a loaded league is brutal.

3. I said the SEC was a notch or two below the top tier leagues. Where did I say the Big 10?

Sometimes I feel like you read a completely different post than what you quote.

1) why are we cherry picking 10 years? Got to 12 years and the SEC has 3 titles

2) 10-12 tournament teams? 8 or 9 is about as high as you're going to get for legit tourney teams and even that is extreme. But I don't get why that matters. Having 2 legit FF threats is better than what most conferences have. The 7th, 8th, 9th + teams aren't really a threat to do anything.

3) okay, at the end of your post you said that you feel I'm sometimes reading a different post than what you are reading. Then I look at your #3. You jumped in the middle of a conversation about the BIG and the SEC and defended the BIG10. But then you're saying the BIG isn't a top tier conference??? Who is then? The ACC and that's it? You're not going to say the BIG12 is.....or are you?
How would you ranked the power 5 + the BIG East?

My rankings:
-ACC
BIG EAST
SEC/BIG10/BIG12


PAC12

I put the SEC, BIG10 and BIG12 together because it depends on the criteria you use, all three have Ave warts and all three have good arguments for being better than the other.
I know BIG10 and BIG12 fans don't like it, but titles matter .

 

[kyjeff1]

I just don't understand how they became the subject? I think Purdue has a pretty good team this season but I wouldn't have them in my top 5 at all.

That doesn't sit well with BIG10 and Purdue fans.

Like I said, they should see what it's like for UK fans. We have had to defend our league for many years, yet the SEC has performed very well in the NCAAT in the modern era, better than the BIG10 and the BIG12. That can't be denied.
The NCAAT is the true measuring stick....until we talk about the SEC, then all the sudden the NCAAT is too random to be the true measuring stick.

But hey, Illinois is better than their 8-15 record.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Please explain? What goalposts did I move?

You seem to be awful butthurt just because I m not going along with your BIG10/Illinois/Purdue homer crap.
You should see what it's like as an SEC fan, we get dumped on even when we're good.
Seeing what I'm seeing out of you in this thread when faced with the reality that the BIG isn't that great, you would probably go on a murder spree if you had to hear the criticism that SEC fans see all the time.

Your original take was that Purdue supposedly had teams that were supposed to make the final four. Now it's simply that Purdue hasn't done more because South Carolina did.

Again, if your only criteria is what conference has had more championships then that's all you have in your favor. The B10 is better in pretty much every other metric. I'm not the one that's butthurt over this. You're the one that can't accept the facts. FACTS, like advanced metrics. Things that get used at the professional level.

If my use of Illinios is that bothersome for you then I'll pick other teams.

Texas is 25 with a 13-10 record
Florida is 37 with a 12-10 record
Creighton 49 with a 13-10 record
and so on...

I specifically DIDN'T pick B10 teams for your sake since you think I'm being a "homer". All of those teams records would suggest they aren't very good, but all are considered top 50 teams per advanced metrics.

 

[Boilermaker03]

The Florida guys may be mad at you for that lie.

Meh, wasn't an intentional lie. Just has been so long ago, I forgot.

 

[Boilermaker03]

That doesn't sit well with BIG10 and Purdue fans.

Not true, I've specifically said ITT that I was shocked to see anyone mention Purdue.

 

[JimboBBN]

That doesn't sit well with BIG10 and Purdue fans.

Like I said, they should see what it's like for UK fans. We have had to defend our league for many years, yet the SEC has performed very well in the NCAAT in the modern era, better than the BIG10 and the BIG12. That can't be denied.
The NCAAT is the true measuring stick....until we talk about the SEC, then all the sudden the NCAAT is too random to be the true measuring stick.

But hey, Illinois is better than their 8-15 record.

I'm not reading all the way back ITT to find out why someone has brought up Illinois. I haven't heard of them since 2005 lol