JohnWardForever
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 11,578
- Likes
- 8,208
The perks of being the #1. What's the question? There are tie-breakers in place that determine seeding, and the conference winner always gets the easier seeds.Lsu has a breeze to the Title game while UT has to deal with 2 legits in Msu & UK----And Vice versa for the Kitties. The seeding looks a little Questionable to me.
...and I take exception to this just a bit. The logic in seeding Kentucky over Tennessee isn't very strong. They are both 15-3 in conference and split during the season. The reality is they earned a 2 seed... but you can't have two 2 seeds. They had to go all the way to the games vs the 5th place team in the conference to find a difference... that is weak.You get what you earn. Vols earned a 3 seed. Deal with it.
...and I take exception to this just a bit. The logic in seeding Kentucky over Tennessee isn't very strong. They are both 15-3 in conference and split during the season. The reality is they earned a 2 seed... but you can't have two 2 seeds. They had to go all the way to the games vs the 5th place team in the conference to find a difference... that is weak.
The rest of the SEC got jobbed by LSU and SEC refs. LSU should disqualify themselves from the tourney. They know as we all do. Their coach is a cheat and they’ve been playing ineligible players .
I don't think there is a good way to differentiate when you have an 18 game schedule in a conference with 14 teams... there will invariably be inequity. My point is Tennessee and Kentucky tied for 2nd - which means that Tennessee didn't "earn the 3rd seed".What other way would you do it? Number of ranked wins? That's UK. SOS? That's UK. NET? That's UK.
Sure they did. Beat Auburn (like Kentucky did) and you earned the 2. If Bama was the 5, and we got the 2, you'd be saying they earned it.I don't think there is a good way to differentiate when you have an 18 game schedule in a conference with 14 teams... there will invariably be inequity. My point is Tennessee and Kentucky tied for 2nd - which means that Tennessee didn't "earn the 3rd seed".
No, I would still say that is a weak way to differentiate seeds.... but there just isn't a fair way to do it in a conference with 14 teams that plays an 18 game schedule.Sure they did. Beat Auburn (like Kentucky did) and you earned the 2. If Bama was the 5, and we got the 2, you'd be saying they earned it.
II think that can't be understated. It has been a long grind, and I think the team is at least emotionally tired.
...and I take exception to this just a bit. The logic in seeding Kentucky over Tennessee isn't very strong. They are both 15-3 in conference and split during the season. The reality is they earned a 2 seed... but you can't have two 2 seeds. They had to go all the way to the games vs the 5th place team in the conference to find a difference... that is weak.