No SEC teams in the top 25...

[DawgMedic]

When was the last time this happened? I noticed there were a couple of 12-6 Big East teams in there, and I didn't think they should be ranked ahead of UF or UK.

Top 25 Link

With UK at 16-4, and UF at 17-3, we should not just be mentioned in the "others receiving votes" column.

Edited to add: Georgetown has lost five of their last seven (and they were beaten by Tennessee), and Notre Dame has lost four of their last six games.

 

[msudawg12]

agreed

 

[BlindDawg]

No SEC team deserves to be ranked. I could see UK and TN being in the "others receiving votes" category, but that's about it. Some of you really have an inflated view of the SEC, and it is no where near as good as it has been in the past.

 

[gtowndawg]

I've wondered at what point is the SEC so good in football, that basketball falls by the way side?

 

[patdog]

You can be good in both football and basketball, and over the past 20 years the SEC has consistenly been one of the top 3 or 4 conferences in both.

 

[RebelBruiser]

That's because there are only two schools that put more effort into basketball than football. Those are Vanderbilt and Kentucky. The other 10 schools in the league look at basketball as secondary to football in terms of investment, etc. The Big East has quite a few schools that don't even field football teams. Almost half of the ACC schools put basketball first.

I think the push in football has increased exponentially in the SEC recently, which may be part of the reason for the recent drop in basketball.

I really didn't think it could get much worse than last year, but I really think this year's SEC is actually weaker than last year's.

 

[graddawg]

I had no idea that being good in football and being good in basketball were mutually exclusive.

 

[gtowndawg]

Honest question. Is the SEC down this year (and last) because of youth, or will that continue next year? I'm just concerned it will become a trend. That is, it will become normal for the SEC to get in 4 tourney teams every year, not 7 like years past. While at the same time, we completely dominate football.

 

[RebelBruiser]

It's too early to tell if it will be a trend, but I do think there is something to being a football school or a basketball school. Most schools can't really afford to have the type of investment it takes to be a really good football school and a really good basketball school. It takes major investments in coaching salaries, facilities, etc. to be able to maintain a high level of success at both sports.

A lot of people will say "why can't we be good at both?" And the answer is, you can be good at both, but only a select few schools can afford to be really good at both. Schools like Texas, Florida, Ohio State, USC, etc. can afford to be good at both. Most of the rest of our schools end up having to sacrifice a little bit in one sport to fully support another. The SEC, very clearly, is a football league. And like I said, Kentucky and Vandy are the only ones that really put more into basketball than football, and in Vandy's case that has more to do with the overall ineptitude of their football program than an overwhelming desire to spend on basketball. Simply put, Vandy realizes they have no shot at football, so they instead give a little more effort to the basketball program.

 

[DawgMedic]

Your athletic budget has nothing to do with how good your teams are... It's all about chemistry and coaching... Just because Ole Miss "doesn't care bout basketball" doesn't mean their athletic department spends less on the program...

 

[Frances Drebin]

...deserve to be there. They're going to have losses because they're playing in a brutal league. Tennessee was in the top 25 last week and would still be there if they would've taken care of business, and that's the bottom line. The SEC doesn't deserve any ranked teams at this point. UK will play their way in, as will UT and Florida. The rest of the league sucks, and that's a pretty nice way of putting it. All you guys that think our league is as good or better than the Big East really need a reality check. Any one of six teams in that league would probably run away with the SEC if they played in this league.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Actually we do spend less in terms of facilities, coaching salaries, etc. when you're talking about basketball. Memphis, for example, has a high quality basketball practice facility, and they pay their basketball coach in the $2M+ range. They pay their football coach right around $1M, and their football facilities are crappy.

Kansas pays more for their basketball coach, and their basketball program has its own plane. We all know what Kentucky does.

On the other end, look at Auburn and Georgia. Both put a lot of money into their football coaches and football facilities, yet both have some of the worst basketball facilities around, and they really don't make much of an effort to get a top notch basketball coach.

Point being, there are not a ton of schools that can afford to invest enough in both sports to have sustained success. ESPN even did an article on it not too long back, talking about the "super" programs, like Ohio State, Texas, Florida, etc. that have the ability to compete nationally in both sports on a consistent basis.

That doesn't mean you can't win at both. It just means most programs can't afford to build sustained success at both. Kansas, for instance, has had some football success recently, but they likely won't be able to compete at the top of the Big 12 for a sustained period.

 

[hdghdawg]

Your argument would carry more water if it wasn't tailor-made for what your own team is being successful at right now. Money drives everything, but I could have sworn coaching, team chemistry, players, etc. throw more than just a few variables in there. You can't say the rich schools will always win.

Look at Ole Miss. Team chemistry alone pretty much opened the door for your season. It's not like you're all of the sudden a rich football school.

 

[EmoryBellard]

nm