A little early but..Next year's basketball team?

it feels like ive given my opinion on this subject dozens of times already, but what the hell.

i completely disagree. you need to consistently have a full roster of guys that can/will compete. no wasted spots. losing a spot because of the 1 and done recruits kills you.

if a program is managed well, every year you have about 6 upperclassmen. and you sprinkle in the occassional stro or randolph, late bloomer (tt), and maybe even stud jc transfer (lloreda, thornton) and the team will be in the mix every year.

 

seems like youre undervaluing the recent history of SEC bball. half of the teams have made the FF since 83 and 5 if 6 since 95. 3 different teams have won NC.

im not sure how this compares with other conferences but id guess its better than all but acc and big east. another real strength is that every school has had very good teams. off the top of my head, every team has been to FF or been a 3 seed or higher.

 

little research to compare with other conferences.

teams with FF appearances

since 83

SEC 6 of 12
ACC 6 of 9
Big East 10 of 16
P10 3 of 10
B12 4 of 12
B10 6 of 11

since 95

SEC 5 of 12
ACC 4 of 9
Big East 6 of 16
P10 3 of 10
B12 4 of 12
B10 6 of 12

# of teams with NC since 94 (total titles in parentheses)

SEC 3 (5)
ACC 3 (4)
Big East 2 (3)
P10 2 (2)
B12 1 (1)
B10 1 (1)

so, i'd have to say that its hard to put the SEC any lower that the 3rd best conference and you can argue #2.

 

Well, I applaud the homework. :yelwink2: But, I think like anything, you can "play with" the statistics to paint the picture. I post my comments based upon "recent" impression... in the 2000's only UF has won a NC on behalf of the SEC (they won two with essentially one good recruiting class), and only UF and LSU have gotten to the FF in the 2000s. The other thing about your stats, is that most of the stats you use pull in the UK glory years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the SEC shouldn't be up there--I think they can be now with Cal at Kentucky, but clearly you have to look at conference strength in terms of history, recent dominance and conference depth. Sure enough, championships in each conference are concentrated within a few schools, but recent history would argue that the SEC's down, largely b/c Kentucky and Arkansas are down. I do think, for what it's worth, the SEC is a pretty deep basketball conference (you've got schools like 'Bama, Vandy, Georgia and Auburn, Miss St, Tennessee, that are very good sort of 4-9 seeds over time), but not dominant in terms of winning it all (only UK, UF and Arkansas). In terms of winning the big prize historically, the Big East is dominant (Marquette, Cincy, UConn, GTown, Louisville, Syracuse, Villanova--all with NCs), the ACC is pretty dominant although less deep (Duke, UNC, Maryland, NC State+ a lot of FFs by other teams), the Big 10 has it's fair share of history (Indiana, Michigan St, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin), and the Pac 10 can boast 5 national championships schools (UCLA, Arizona, Cal, Oregon and Stanford). So while your stats suggest that the SEC is a strong conference in terms of statistical wins, I'd put them right there in the top 5-6 jockeying with the Big 12, Big10 and Pac10 in terms of recent success, behind the Big East and ACC.

I think realistically, the only schools with shots in the SEC for NCs (in the next decade) may be the upper echelon SEC schools, who have invested serious $$s in their programs and big time coaches. Right now, IMO, that's Kentucky and Florida, and a handful of other schools looking in... Arkansas, LSU, Miss St, and until these guys can get to a FF, 'Bama, Vanderbilt, Tennessee. Schools like Georgia, Miss, Auburn, South Carolina have the chips stacked against them... but again, given coaching hires like Horn at South Carolina, Fox at Georgia, I do think that the SEC will improve and become deeper, but not necessarily dominant. Although, I do think with the SEC/ESPN contract, better coaching, better interest from the fan bases at SEC schools for hoops, I do think that in the next few years, the SEC will have a resurgence, and get back to putting 6-8 schools in the NCAA tournament. Whether they can win it all in the near future remains to be seen, but I have to acknowledge what Kentucky is doing, and I think Tennessee, Florida, Bama and a few others are all going to be challenging Kentucky for SEC supremecy. Similarly, I do think Trent is doing what needs to be done to put LSU as a consistent, upper echelon SEC team, especially in the SEC West. He will need to sign a few impact players in future classes, to truly make a run though. opcorn:

 

Anyone getting syched? First public scrimmage TONIGHT at the annual purple-gold game.

Trent at least says that they're "as healthy as they've ever been." That's encouraging. Hopefully us non-BR folks will be able to see footage after tonight...

2theadvocate.com | Sports | LSU holds scrimmage, seeks intensity — Baton Rouge, LA

 

i was picking the time period that made the SEC look the best but i didnt skew anything. and for the record 83 was used to include UGA's FF and 95 was used to include Arky's NC.

the stats you counter with go way to far back and arent very relevant. the fact that Oregon won a NC in 39 doesnt affect their program at all now, but Ark winning in 94-95 is still pulling in huge money.

the strength of the SEC is that program can be relevant. there is no Northwestern, VaTech, OregonSt, Nebraska, FloridaSt. every year obviously there is a down program or two but they dont stay down.

also the stats i showed are only for when the teams were in the conference. not really sure if it matters, but cincy and marquette werent in the BEast when they won.

im not sure i agree with you that the sec is down because UK and Ark are down. maybe the perception, which perhaps is all that matters, but i think domination by a few programs hinders the success of others. itll be interesting to see if UT heads south if UK becomes dominant again.

 

ESPN's Pat Forde wrote this yesterday on the state of SEC baseketball:

Pat Forde: Chance to bash the SEC has likely passed - ESPN

...

Horn and other league coaches with players who flirted with the NBA managed to shepherd their talent back to campus for at least one more year. Tyler Smith tested the waters and returned to Tennessee. Patrick Patterson did the same at Kentucky (though teammate Jodie Meeks stayed in the draft). So did LSU's Tasmin Mitchell, Mississippi State's Jarvis Varnado and Arkansas' Michael Washington.
With all those borderline prospects returning for another year of seasoning, a league that was awful last season should be powerful this season.
The SEC put a paltry three teams into the 2009 NCAA tournament. That was the lowest total for the league since 1979 -- and there were only 48 teams in the Dance then, and 10 teams in the league.
Only one SEC team was seeded in the top half of last season's tournament (8-seed LSU). None made it past the second round.
"We weren't as good [as a league] last year," said Vanderbilt coach Kevin Stallings. "Let's not try to trick anybody. We weren't."
This season, with five teams returning all five starters and three others returning four -- not to mention coaching upgrades at Kentucky, Alabama and Georgia -- the SEC will again compete with the best leagues in the land.
"It's loaded," said Georgia coach Mark Fox.
"Seven or eight NCAA tournament teams," said Kentucky coach John Calipari.
"Most of the premier guys," said Stallings, "came back."

...

[in] the East, which is stacked with five potential NCAA teams.... the youngest team might be the best.
That would be landslide preseason favorite Kentucky. The Wildcats could start three freshmen (John Wall, Eric Bledsoe and DeMarcus Cousins), a sophomore (Darius Miller) and a junior (Patterson).
"This is a tough league for freshmen, I can tell [Calipari] that from experience," Stallings said. "Not that he needs me to tell him anything.
"We started three freshmen a year ago. If he can win the league starting three freshmen, then he's as good a coach as I think he is and those freshmen are as good as advertised."

...

 

im still ticked off that the committee screwed lsu by giving them an 8 seed. lsu proved that given a higer seed they had a decent shot to make the FF.

 

Look, I love the hoops debate--this board needs more of it. I think my point is that from my point of view, the SEC was down recently, but as the last post suggests, it's not too long before the SEC is back "up". I debated your point around the SEC being the #3, maybe #2 hoops conference. Sure, I pointed out some very historic NCs in the Pac10 and Big10, and the like, but they ARE NCs in a sport where the SEC, outside of UK, hasn't dominated in. My belief also is that, however, over time, I think the SEC could be almost as dominant in hoops as it is in football. Largely b/c of very good recruiting bases, the $s that the schools devote to athletics (part of that is the ESPN contract and increased media coverage which is coming from that), and more recently, increasing the basketball IQ points among its coaches. If you look at last year and back a decade though, my belief still stands that the Big East, ACC, Big 12 and Pac10 even, might have been stronger conferences. Not just b/c of national championships and FFs but look beyond that at the number of "relevant" teams. In the Big 12, you have Texas, Kansas, Ok St, and Ok. In the Pac10, you continually have UCLA, Arizona, and you sprinkle in Oregon, Washington, Washington St in there. Really in the SEC, you had teams with "glimmer" of success--Florida, LSU, maybe you can look at a Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy. To say that teams like Florida State were non relevant or softies, is a little basketball ignorant. Likewise, I could say that Georgia, Ole Miss, Auburn, South Carolina have all been fairly weak over the last decade. Now, I think some of that will get turned around b/c of Fox, Kennedy, and Horn (jury's out on Lebo)--again, hire good coaches and the league will get better.

So, for the record, my only point was that the SEC wasn't that strong in the 2000s. I do think they'll be very strong in the 2010s.

Also, have to love this quote, which was not shared from the ESPN article...

"Mitchell said LSU coach Trent Johnson consistently encouraged him before he worked out for NBA general managers and scouts to do his best. "He told me, 'I don't want you to do this one foot in, one foot out. I want you two feet in,'" Mitchell said. "He cared about what's best for me. He's just a great guy. A lot of people think he's mean, but he's not."

This is the modern reality of coaching in college basketball: Championships and NCAA bids often are won and lost in the spring, based on who goes pro and who does not. And coaches must walk a fine line between naked self-interest in retaining young talent and at least giving the convincing appearance of full support."

To Gumbo's point, I do think there's a lot to the sentiment that just as important as recruiting, is retention. I do think that Trent has that skill in spades, b/c players see that he cares about them first, can develop each player to improve, and so, at the end of the day, LSU can do more with a little less on the front end. That is a far departure from the prior regime, and I think that is why LSU will ultimately be more successful. :geauxtige :bball:

That next chapter of improvement begins tonight... I hope folks that can go will post what they see out of Bass, Green, Harris, Warren, Ludwig and Dotson.

 

You and I do agree on this. :wink:

But, as you said, perception can be reality.