Sec the worst conf in college basketball
- Thread starter 3skinny
- Start date
Ironically, the SEC has escalated its recruiting profile by bringing in big name coaches the past couple of years. That will take another year to kick in and thus that league will get better.
On the other hand, with that doofus coaching LSU, I don't know if it matters how much talent they have.
And people wonder why Kentucky has the most all-time wins.....
Bingo --- and even then a few years back when we passed them they scoured their "record" books and scraped up a bunch o' YMCA and Rehab school wins to stay ahead. Their wins don't compare to our competition over the decades.
There's no doubt they've played in a weaker league for decades. Other than UF when Donovan was there, they've pretty much had a cakewalk through the league every year. Most UK fans won't acknowledge it though.
Plus, they really need to pick up their non-conference schedule to gain any respect for in-conference wins. Not just Kensucky, but the entire league.
Last edited:
not to defend UK too much but they usually play a tough non-conference schedule. I could be wrong i'm just going off top of the head.
There's no denying this, they shy away from no one. Of course, that's easier to do when your conference is so weak.
UK has beat Duke and UL already this year from the ACC but would not finish in the top 4.....OK, keep believing that if it makes you happy. Other than North Carolina and Duke for the last thirty years has the ACC really been that tough to play in. I am talking before you added UL,Syracuse,and Pitt.
M1, I'm a Duke fan and I personally don't see Duke as top4 ACC so.....
UK plays in a terrible conference. Look at last year, sure they steam-rolled (who wouldn't with that talent) but buckled with their first 2 competitors of the year (ND and Wisky).
UK plays in a terrible conference. Look at last year, sure they steam-rolled (who wouldn't with that talent) but buckled with their first 2 competitors of the year (ND and Wisky).
I'm not debating the SEC is a weak basketball conference, because it is. What I am debating however, is how tough the ACC is.Besides Duke and North Carolina for the last thirty years who else has won a championship,maybe Maryland,I do not remember. I would venture to say the SEC in the last thirty years has more different national champions than the ACC. With the addition of the Big East teams the ACC is a monster of a conference now, but before it was no more difficult than the SEC.
Just look at Kenpom; so far this year, and all of last year, 5 ACC teams and 1 SEC team (UK) in the top 20. Very, very telling IMO. And yes, UMD, UNC, and Duke have 6 national titles since 2000, with other teams like GT making the title game or FF. Is the ACC that good this year? No, and I think UNC and UVA are the only two that can make a serious run, but the SEC is just bad yet again, with only 1 team capable of even doing anything remotely noisy in the tourney.
From what I can see, each SEC and ACC have 3 different teams with titles since 1985, but the
ACC has 9 with SEC having 6. What screws this all up is that this doesn't factor teams that are now in the ACC like Cuse and Louisville. Again, is the ACC the best conference? No, not IMO, but top-to-bottom its been much better than SEC, especially last year.
From what I can see, each SEC and ACC have 3 different teams with titles since 1985, but the
ACC has 9 with SEC having 6. What screws this all up is that this doesn't factor teams that are now in the ACC like Cuse and Louisville. Again, is the ACC the best conference? No, not IMO, but top-to-bottom its been much better than SEC, especially last year.
Last edited:
Kensucky ain't going to be above Unc Virginia or UofM and probably not UofL since u guys only beat them on your home court with a lot of home cooking and still only one by a bucket. So you better keep believing.
Yeah, guess their players enjoy playing to a half-empty arena for their home games...Of course, it's that way at just about every venue in the SEC with the exception of Kentucky...
SEC fans for the most part could care less about basketball....Watched the S.C./Memphis game yesterday, and the Gamecocks are undefeated, and yet are still playing to a half-empty arena....SEC has more bandwagon fans than any other conference....
OK home cooking for UK against UL. Never mind UL was in the double bonus with 13 minutes to go in the second half and UK did not reach the regular bonus until 7 minutes to go in the game. If that is home cooking I would hate to see if the refs was against UK.
Last edited:
Living down here in the panhandle or LA (lower AL) I can assure you about 90% of the SEC fans don't give a hoot about anything other than football. Unless a SEC team gets into the Final Four.
Last edited:
YEP! You are so right. I live in TN. Almost everyone is a Tennessee fan, or Alabama or Auburn. They don't care a bit about basketball (we all know why), but all I see on my Facebook feed from them these days is chest thumping about the SEC supremacy in football and how the SEC bowl record is so amazing this year. You can be sure once football is over, you won't hear squat from them. Needless to say I'm happy football season is about over so they'll shut up.
It's been a few years since I did the analysis, but that would only make the numbers more dominant for UK as they've been really good in the SEC the last few years.
But, the question was how strong was the ACC vs. SEC prior to Syracuse and Louisville joining? Well, UNC and UK are clearly two of the better programs in NCAA history. UK definitely hasn't avoided playing strong OOC schedules. They, like UNC, will play anyone home or away (cough, cough we know that's not the case for everyone). So, I want to be clear that playing in a weaker SEC doesn't mean UK wouldn't still be an all-time great program. They would be. They were dominant in the early years of the SEC for 20+ years under Rupp. They won nearly 90%+ of their games. They shouldn't apologize for that. No one is asking them to either. The comment was the SEC is weaker than the ACC traditionally.
The above poster mentioned National Titles by teams and conference over the last 30 years. Fair statement. Kentucky has multiple Titles ('96, '98 & '12), Florida has two (back to back years) and Arkansas has 1. Florida and Arkansas haven't been consistent over the years of the SEC....or even the last 30 years. For starters, Arkansas just joined in 1992 and outside of their teams in the mid 90's, no one would call them a basketball powerhouse. The ACC has UNC ('93, '05 & '09) and Duke ('91, '92, '01, '10 and '15) and Maryland ('02) with teams that have won Titles while in the ACC and Louisville ('86 & '13), Syracuse ('03). So, 9 Titles to 6 for conferences National Titles. In addition, the ACC has had 25 Final Four appearances to the SEC's 16, with the top two from each conference (Duke/UNC vs. UK/Florida) being 21 to 12. Duke and UNC have more Final Fours than the the entire SEC over the last 30 years.
That brings me to UNC/Duke. Kentucky has no "Duke" in their conference compared to UNC in the ACC. In fact, UK's lowest winning percentage against an SEC team is 71% and that is against Tennessee. So, their most competitive opponent only beats them 29% of the time. UK's in conference winning % is higher than it's overall winning %, which means their conference schedule is easier than their overall schedule. UNC has winning % against 7 ACC opponents that are lower than Kentucky's most competitive opponent. So, teams are much more competitive against UNC than they are against Kentucky IN CONFERENCE. Over a 70-80 year period, one can see how Kentucky could have a win or two a year more than UNC in conference, which can equate to an overall winning % and total wins that Kentucky has. That also can lead to higher seeding in the NCAA tournament....which helps in your likelihood to win those games.
When you look at UNC vs. the SEC and UK vs. the ACC....the numbers show UK winning about 67% of their games and UNC winning about 73% of their games (about the same if you pull out the head to head games). UNC's success is similar to their success against everyone and UK's is about 10 percentage points lower. It's assumption that it would be that if they were to flip conferences (an assumption I won't make), but it's a data point nonetheless.
I respect Kentucky's program overall and what they've done. I haven't hidden that. I'm not threatened by them or any program. I like when the top programs are good. This isn't a slight to them, rather just using facts to show that the ACC has been a deeper and more competitive basketball conference over time. It's even more of a gap now that Syracuse and Louisville have joined.
Overall, we play in the conferences we're in. The ACC is a better basketball conference this year and historically. Football....um, we won't even go there. : )
But, the question was how strong was the ACC vs. SEC prior to Syracuse and Louisville joining? Well, UNC and UK are clearly two of the better programs in NCAA history. UK definitely hasn't avoided playing strong OOC schedules. They, like UNC, will play anyone home or away (cough, cough we know that's not the case for everyone). So, I want to be clear that playing in a weaker SEC doesn't mean UK wouldn't still be an all-time great program. They would be. They were dominant in the early years of the SEC for 20+ years under Rupp. They won nearly 90%+ of their games. They shouldn't apologize for that. No one is asking them to either. The comment was the SEC is weaker than the ACC traditionally.
The above poster mentioned National Titles by teams and conference over the last 30 years. Fair statement. Kentucky has multiple Titles ('96, '98 & '12), Florida has two (back to back years) and Arkansas has 1. Florida and Arkansas haven't been consistent over the years of the SEC....or even the last 30 years. For starters, Arkansas just joined in 1992 and outside of their teams in the mid 90's, no one would call them a basketball powerhouse. The ACC has UNC ('93, '05 & '09) and Duke ('91, '92, '01, '10 and '15) and Maryland ('02) with teams that have won Titles while in the ACC and Louisville ('86 & '13), Syracuse ('03). So, 9 Titles to 6 for conferences National Titles. In addition, the ACC has had 25 Final Four appearances to the SEC's 16, with the top two from each conference (Duke/UNC vs. UK/Florida) being 21 to 12. Duke and UNC have more Final Fours than the the entire SEC over the last 30 years.
That brings me to UNC/Duke. Kentucky has no "Duke" in their conference compared to UNC in the ACC. In fact, UK's lowest winning percentage against an SEC team is 71% and that is against Tennessee. So, their most competitive opponent only beats them 29% of the time. UK's in conference winning % is higher than it's overall winning %, which means their conference schedule is easier than their overall schedule. UNC has winning % against 7 ACC opponents that are lower than Kentucky's most competitive opponent. So, teams are much more competitive against UNC than they are against Kentucky IN CONFERENCE. Over a 70-80 year period, one can see how Kentucky could have a win or two a year more than UNC in conference, which can equate to an overall winning % and total wins that Kentucky has. That also can lead to higher seeding in the NCAA tournament....which helps in your likelihood to win those games.
When you look at UNC vs. the SEC and UK vs. the ACC....the numbers show UK winning about 67% of their games and UNC winning about 73% of their games (about the same if you pull out the head to head games). UNC's success is similar to their success against everyone and UK's is about 10 percentage points lower. It's assumption that it would be that if they were to flip conferences (an assumption I won't make), but it's a data point nonetheless.
I respect Kentucky's program overall and what they've done. I haven't hidden that. I'm not threatened by them or any program. I like when the top programs are good. This isn't a slight to them, rather just using facts to show that the ACC has been a deeper and more competitive basketball conference over time. It's even more of a gap now that Syracuse and Louisville have joined.
Overall, we play in the conferences we're in. The ACC is a better basketball conference this year and historically. Football....um, we won't even go there. : )
Last edited:
Simmons barely played that first half due to foul trouble and LSU is up 10 in a horribly played basketball game. Hopefully we see UK in the tourney because they are fortunate that we don't play this season.
Didn't see the final for that game but yeah, neither team looked great, neither looked anything close to top 10. The LSU coach saved Simmons for the second half, what at times we have to do with Brice because he picked up his second foul and LSU held the lead pretty well. if not for Ulis & Murry that Ky team has a severe problem, they have a real front court problem that does not look like will be solved this season.
Still think Kensucky would finish in the top 4 of the acc. Your guys front court is terrible and Briscole can't shoot. All you guys have is a midget for a point guard and a guard that racks up a bunch of points at garbage time when teams like Ohio st and lsu are making Kensucky look like a mid major team.
Maryland is not in the ACC.
UK has already beat Duke and UL, so that leaves UNC and Virginia in your opinion. So by your opinion we're already third.
I'm not confident right now where we are at the moment, but I have faith, come March, we'll hang.
But to say we wouldn't be top four in the ACC is absurd.
I agree with jc, UK would be in the top four of our league. I also agree that they will be much better later in the year, as they gain experience. And no, the SEC isn't the ACC or the B1G but it's far from being the worst conference. Hope you're doing well jc.
First of all that's Miami not Maryland spanky. So that's Unc Virginia and Miami and duke is a better team than Kensucky you guys got them early lucky for you and played your best game of the year. So there no doubt Kensucky and there overrated one and dones wouldn't finish in the top four of the acc.
It's not absurd. When you have to play tough teams every game, it takes a toll. Want to go to WFU? Pitt? Syracuse? ND? Just because UK beat duke and UL doesn't at all mean they'd finish in the top 4. I too have my doubts about that. UK is getting worse. What about the rematches with those teams? Oh, that's right, you won't play them again. Duke has already improved considerably since the UK game despite losing Jefferson. I have a feeling the outcome of a duke/uk rematch would different. If UL got UK at home, I'd say the Cards would be favored.
Most years this discussion is moot because most years UK is good enough to finish top 3 or 4 in the ACC. This year,...I doubt it. We'll see, I reckon. But there's no disputing that UK has played in an historically weak conference and they have benefitted significantly from doing so.
No you need to wake up if you don't think there's four teams in the acc not better than Kentucky. Big difference in playing in that football conf than the sec. Have you even watched Kentucky this year that can't shoot it and have one of the worst frontcourts they have had in a long time. So I think you need to be realistic.
Similar threads
