SEC only conference with 2 teams in Elite Eight

[JxnDawg39211]

hopefully nation perception is gradually changing. I think this will help with getting in as many 5 or 6 teams next year.

Quick question ,because I am too lazy to look it up, but since the '92 expansion ,what is the mosts teams the SEC has gotten in the NCAA tournament (and what year/years were those accomplished)?

 

[Coach34]

not that the bottom of the conference wasnt weak

as to your question- I think around 95-96 or so the SEC got 7 or 8 into the Tourney

 

[vicious]

Playing solid teams like Alabama, Georgia, Vandy, etc contributed to these teams doing well in this tourney. I can't quantify it, but tough in conference schedules (playing in tough conferences) contribute to making teams more competitive. Goes along the same lines as your beaf with a tougher schedule (Mine too). I think the tourney is a reflection on teams that didn't make the big dance as well...whether positive or negative (big east). You can't say one thing and then take a totally different approach here. </p>

 

[FlabLoser]

When the B1g Ten has 2 good teams, it means they are a good conference.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

that maybe the rest of the league has gotten a bad rap, and that Bama should have been dancing.

 

[dawgatUSM]

1. The SEC is far better than perception. Yes, there were some really bad bottom tier teams (LSU, Auburn, USC), but Alabama, UGA, and Vandy were very solid teams that all deserved to be in the tournament. UGA should have beaten or could have beaten a very good UW team. Vandy got a horrible draw in Richmond as a 12 seed. Bama should have been in over UAB (period!).

2. The Big East isn't nearly as good as the media would like them to be. Yeah, they are a very good conference, but Villanova lost 11 of their last 16 games, not to mention they lost to some SEC teams. I would have been ok with the Big East getting 8-9 teams in, but c'mon!

 

[patdog]

The national perception was that the SEC was down and Kentucky was the only good team in the league. That perception changed when 4 of the 5 made the Sweet 16 and 2 made the Final Four. I think this year it means just what you said it does. The SEC just had 2 good teams. Outside of those 2 nobody else in the league really did anything either in the season or the tournament.

 

[SLUdog]

they were 1 game behind UF for the SEC regular season and beat UK. I don't care about their RPI, they got screwed.<div>
</div><div>Having said that, MSU should have had at least 11-12 SEC wins.</div><div>
</div>

 

[Indndawg]

hopefully nation perception is gradually changing. I think this will help with getting in as many 5 or 6 teams next year.

Quick question ,because I am too lazy to look it up, but since the '92 expansion ,what is the mosts teams the SEC has gotten in the NCAA tournament (and what year/years were those accomplished)?

again, I hate the NCAA

 

[Dawg in a pile]

2. The Big East isn't nearly as good as the media would like them to be. Yeah, they are a very good conference, but Villanova lost 11 of their last 16 games, not to mention they lost to some SEC teams. I would have been ok with the Big East getting 8-9 teams in, but c'mon!

Can you show any evidence of this at all? I think they deserve maybe about 5 teams in the dance and several teams got screwed because of the media and voter infatuation with the Big Least. This **** needs to end because it is starting to become a drain on the tournament. It's just not as fun to watch when there are several teams that obviously shouldn't be there and others that are more deserving being left out.

 

[dawgatUSM]

that UK and Florida were in toe to toe battles with us, Ole Miss, Alabama, Georgia, Vandy, and Tennessee on a weekly basis. I'll agree that Auburn, LSU, Arky, and USC were pretty horrible teams, but every conference has bottom feeders. The SEC is better than people will give it credit for.

 

[patdog]

and none of them did anything in the NCAA tournament. Bama may have deserved a shot, but with 11 losses and a RPI of 80, it's kind of hard to make too strong of a case for them. Not saying any of those were bad teams (although both us and UM were bad at times), but none were even close to being anything special.</p>