I just don't see how that's possible. Yes, they finished tied for second in the SEC with a 10-6 record but they were pathetic in non-conference, with losses to Oakland, Austin Peay and College of Charleston. Those three losses were part of a 6 game losing streak. Their RPI is also in the high 70s. If Alabama didn't get in last year, I don't see how UT gets in this year unless they make a run to the SEC tourney title game.
FWIW, Lunardi now has Tennessee as his first team out of the NCAA tourney
- Thread starter o_riverdawg
- Start date
they did add a very good player so the UT team now is different than the one pre-Stokes. He has had a big impact on them being much better. I think they look at injuries so this could be the reverse of that. With the addition of Stokes, Tennessee deserves to get in, or something like that.
..of course not.
If a struggling team suddenly gets hot down the stretch, it doesn't matter: If you lost to them early, it' still a bad loss.
And if you beat them early (like MSU did), it was against that bad team; not the present good team.
Such are the mental gymnastics required to assess college basketball.
If a struggling team suddenly gets hot down the stretch, it doesn't matter: If you lost to them early, it' still a bad loss.
And if you beat them early (like MSU did), it was against that bad team; not the present good team.
Such are the mental gymnastics required to assess college basketball.
They have less bad losses than us, more good wins, a much better strength of schedule, a very similar RPI, finished with a 2 game higher conference record in a significantly tougher division (all for byes went to SECE teams). We won 3 of our last 8. UT won 7 of its last 8.
Eyeball test: Once UT got its freshman center settled in, they've been almost unstoppable, including sweeping ranked Florida., and playing UK to its closest game in conference play. 1 loss to sub .500 conference opponents.
MSU: MSU crashed and burned late season, and their early season wins don't look very impressive anymore. aTm finished with a losing record, Zona finished 4th in the pitiful Pac12, and WVU went on a huge skid and finished below 20 wins. 4 losses to sub .500 conference opponents.
Eyeball test: Once UT got its freshman center settled in, they've been almost unstoppable, including sweeping ranked Florida., and playing UK to its closest game in conference play. 1 loss to sub .500 conference opponents.
MSU: MSU crashed and burned late season, and their early season wins don't look very impressive anymore. aTm finished with a losing record, Zona finished 4th in the pitiful Pac12, and WVU went on a huge skid and finished below 20 wins. 4 losses to sub .500 conference opponents.
Mississippi State has a win at Vandy and vs Bama to compare to UT's 3 good in-conference wins (1 on the road), plus wins over two fellow bubble teams andone at hopefully NCAA-bound Detroit (go Titans!), with 2 bad losses in conference play. UT has1 quality OOC win in UConn, lost at least a pair to teams they shouldn't have in the pre-conference stretch (really 3 or 4), and also managed to drop a game at UGA.
Oh, and State has the head-to-head victory.
With the emphasis lately that they don't consider the way a team finished the season, I can't see UT getting in without at least a run to the title game.
Oh, and State has the head-to-head victory.
With the emphasis lately that they don't consider the way a team finished the season, I can't see UT getting in without at least a run to the title game.
Our win over UT become a good win for us?
I don't think the committee places as much emphasis on how teams are playing late as they use to. Maybe they make an exception because they feel like people will tune in to watch Stokes, who they haven't had all year. However, I think that's unlikely.
I think UT has to play in the SEC Tournament Finals to make the NCAAs.
I don't think the committee places as much emphasis on how teams are playing late as they use to. Maybe they make an exception because they feel like people will tune in to watch Stokes, who they haven't had all year. However, I think that's unlikely.
I think UT has to play in the SEC Tournament Finals to make the NCAAs.
The de facto standard seems to be Top 50 RPI status, which for us would be Vandy, Bama, and WVU, with Vandy, UF(x2), and UConn for them.
I remember some commentary a few years back about how the committee would factor in short-term injuries, but wouldn't put as much emphasis on long-term absences or long-term suspensions.
I see the experts seem to be putting UT a lot closer (or even in) than I would, so this'll be something to keep an eye on.
I remember some commentary a few years back about how the committee would factor in short-term injuries, but wouldn't put as much emphasis on long-term absences or long-term suspensions.
I see the experts seem to be putting UT a lot closer (or even in) than I would, so this'll be something to keep an eye on.
Remember the 09-10? We were 20-10, 9-7 in the SEC. After the SECT we were 23-11 having beaten UF and #23Vandy and losing in the finals to #2 UK in OT for the second time that season I might add (had both games literally stolen by the zebra's. Especially in the SECT) We were left out of the dance. The primary reason given was ONE 'bad' loss in the FIRST GAME of the season (Rider). UT is 18-13 and 10-6 with MULTIPLE 'bad' losses in the early season.
Whats fair for one is fair for another. They really should have to win the SECT to make it in.
Whats fair for one is fair for another. They really should have to win the SECT to make it in.
..that mental gymnastics are required to assess college basketball.
You sound like UT's corporate publicist.
College basketball is the only sport in the history of the world where defeat is rationalized into a good thing & victory is rationalized into a bad thing.
You sound like UT's corporate publicist.
College basketball is the only sport in the history of the world where defeat is rationalized into a good thing & victory is rationalized into a bad thing.