Safe to say the Big Ten was grossly overrated

#26

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#26
Probably never, because they are a P5 conference. A P5 conference is always going to get the benefit of the doubt over a non-conference champ from a mid-major conference that played nobody.

The Big Ten doesn't have a title in 20 years, but they have multiple schools that are basically always at least pretty good, if not great.

Belmont had a great year, but they played nobody and went 1-2 against Morehead St, the conference champ. There's no way in hell the committee is going to put them in over a Michigan St team that went 1-1 against Michigan, 1-1 against Ohio St, 1-0 against Illinois, etc. If Belmont went 2-1 against Morehead St with the loss being in the conference title game, I think they probably would have gotten in.
Are you going to ignore the fact that Michigan St finished 9-11 in their conference, lost to Northwestern and Minnesota(25 point loss), 30 point loss to Iowa and a 40 point loss to Rutgers? They were getting smoked by teams this season. Those are some horrible losses. I could argue that Michigan St, Maryland and Rutgers didn’t belong in the tournament. Ole Miss had a better argument to be the tournament. Belmont definitely deserves a shot. If you go 26-4 (18-2), I don’t care what conference you play in, you should get a chance even if it’s a play in game. You miss out all because you get upset in the championship final of your conference tournament. That’s BS and you know it. The regular season champs should be rewarded for being the best team throughout the season. If you can’t even finish .500 in your conference then why the hell should you be going to the NCAAT?
 
#27

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
15,509
Likes
12,839
#27
Are you going to ignore the fact that Michigan St finished 9-11 in their conference, lost to Northwestern and Minnesota(25 point loss), 30 point loss to Iowa and a 40 point loss to Rutgers? They were getting smoked by teams this season. Those are some horrible losses. I could argue that Michigan St, Maryland and Rutgers didn’t belong in the tournament. Ole Miss had a better argument to be the tournament. Belmont definitely deserves a shot. If you go 26-4 (18-2), I don’t care what conference you play in, you should get a chance even if it’s a play in game. You miss out all because you get upset in the championship final of your conference tournament. That’s BS and you know it. The regular season champs should be rewarded for being the best team throughout the season. If you can’t even finish .500 in your conference then why the hell should you be going to the NCAAT?
Those were bad losses, but they were bad losses to great teams. Michigan St also had multiple wins over really good teams. Belmont only had one bad loss (Samford), but they also didn't play any great teams, and they went 1-2 against the team that won their conference's tournament. Like I said, if they went 2-1 against Morehead St with the loss being in the conference title game, they probably deserved a shot.

If you don't see the difference between a Big Ten SoS and an Ohio Valley SoS, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Belmont missed out on the tourney for the same reason UCF didn't get in the CFP a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
Likes: OriginalCoach
#28

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#28
Those were bad losses, but they were bad losses to great teams. Michigan St also had multiple wins over really good teams. Belmont only had one bad loss (Samford), but they also didn't play any great teams, and they went 1-2 against the team that won their conference's tournament. Like I said, if they went 2-1 against Morehead St with the loss being in the conference title game, they probably deserved a shot.

If you don't see the difference between a Big Ten SoS and an Ohio Valley SoS, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Belmont missed out on the tourney for the same reason UCF didn't get in the CFP a few years ago.
Well 1st of all, in football only 4 teams get in vs in basketball 68 teams get in so that’s a lame argument right there. 2nd of all, there are only a couple of great teams in bball. 3rd of all, it’s not about SOS, it’s about WINNING. That’s what matters the most. Why even have the other conferences if you aren’t going to let a team that wins almost 90% of their games into the tournament.

Michigan was the only team in the Big 10 this year you could make an argument for being great. Other than that, the others were good teams but not great. And you really think Northwestern, Minnesota and Rutgers are great teams? Get out of here with that BS. NW and MN finished 12th and 13th in the Big 10 and both were under .500 overall. That would be like losing to USCjr and A&M this year. I’m sorry but whenever you have loses like that, and you add in the fact they have 6 blowout loses you don’t deserve to go. It would be different if they lost those games by single digits but they have multiple 20+ point loses. Michigan St had no business being in the tournament. They only got in because they are “Michigan St.”

And Belmont was in the same situation as Drake but Drake got to be in a play in game. Why is that? Who did they beat outside of going 1-2 to Loyola Chicago? And that 1 win was in OT. They lost in the championship and finished 2nd in their conference. Same difference to me. The Big 10 just showed everyone why they no longer should get the benefit of the doubt. You get 1 out of 9 teams into the Sweet 16. That’s pathetic. They should have gotten 6 teams into the tournament but if you want to say they deserved 7 then I wouldn’t argue that. They need to stop looking at the name of the schools and start looking at the teams that actually won games.
 
#29

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
15,509
Likes
12,839
#29
Well 1st of all, in football only 4 teams get in vs in basketball 68 teams get in so that’s a lame argument right there. 2nd of all, there are only a couple of great teams in bball. 3rd of all, it’s not about SOS, it’s about WINNING. That’s what matters the most. Why even have the other conferences if you aren’t going to let a team that wins almost 90% of their games into the tournament.

Michigan was the only team in the Big 10 this year you could make an argument for being great. Other than that, the others were good teams but not great. And you really think Northwestern, Minnesota and Rutgers are great teams? Get out of here with that BS. NW and MN finished 12th and 13th in the Big 10 and both were under .500 overall. That would be like losing to USCjr and A&M this year. I’m sorry but whenever you have loses like that, and you add in the fact they have 6 blowout loses you don’t deserve to go. It would be different if they lost those games by single digits but they have multiple 20+ point loses. Michigan St had no business being in the tournament. They only got in because they are “Michigan St.”

And Belmont was in the same situation as Drake but Drake got to be in a play in game. Why is that? Who did they beat outside of going 1-2 to Loyola Chicago? And that 1 win was in OT. They lost in the championship and finished 2nd in their conference. Same difference to me. The Big 10 just showed everyone why they no longer should get the benefit of the doubt. You get 1 out of 9 teams into the Sweet 16. That’s pathetic. They should have gotten 6 teams into the tournament but if you want to say they deserved 7 then I wouldn’t argue that. They need to stop looking at the name of the schools and start looking at the teams that actually won games.
Not a lame argument - the concept is actually the same. "UCF went undefeated...how can you not give them a chance to play for a national title?"

The answer to your question is that Loyola is better than Morehead St. Loyola was a top 25 team when Drake went 1-1 against them during the regular season; Morehead St was not.

This is college sports, not professional where there are ~30 teams and everybody is on a level playing field. SoS has to matter.
 
#30

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#30
Not a lame argument - the concept is actually the same. "UCF went undefeated...how can you not give them a chance to play for a national title?"

The answer to your question is that Loyola is better than Morehead St. Loyola was a top 25 team when Drake went 1-1 against them during the regular season; Morehead St was not.

This is college sports, not professional where there are ~30 teams and everybody is on a level playing field. SoS has to matter.
Yes it is a lame argument. Only 3% of division 1 football teams make the playoff. Of course the Power 5 schools are going to be the only ones that make it. There’s too much money involved and the Power 5 conferences run college football. In basketball, 19% of division 1 teams make the tournament. It’s more open for winning teams to make the tournament. The committee just chooses not to reward those winning teams. You do the math. It’s not that hard to figure out.
 
#31

OriginalCoach

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
557
Likes
353
#31
Yes it is a lame argument. Only 3% of division 1 football teams make the playoff. Of course the Power 5 schools are going to be the only ones that make it. There’s too much money involved and the Power 5 conferences run college football. In basketball, 19% of division 1 teams make the tournament. It’s more open for winning teams to make the tournament. The committee just chooses not to reward those winning teams. You do the math. It’s not that hard to figure out.
JC, get off the SEC pulpit and start thinking realistically. There are 130 DI football schools. There are 350 DI BB schools. Outside of Bama, Georgia, LSU, A&M, FL and maybe Auburn, what does the SEC have in football at the moment.? Now the average fan will say “but the schedule in the SEC is brutal.” Got it. Translate that into all conferences in BB. Ya think Gonzaga shouldn’t be in? You going to hold them back because of their conference affiliation? Oral Roberts? Maybe Loyola? They win and they win their conference. That’s what makes the tournament worth watching. The B10 beats up on each other the same as SEC schools beat up on each other in football. Or is that argument only good for the SEC? C’mon. You can’t be serious.
 
#32

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#32
JC, get off the SEC pulpit and start thinking realistically. There are 130 DI football schools. There are 350 DI BB schools. Outside of Bama, Georgia, LSU, A&M, FL and maybe Auburn, what does the SEC have in football at the moment.? Now the average fan will say “but the schedule in the SEC is brutal.” Got it. Translate that into all conferences in BB. Ya think Gonzaga shouldn’t be in? You going to hold them back because of their conference affiliation? Oral Roberts? Maybe Loyola? They win and they win their conference. That’s what makes the tournament worth watching. The B10 beats up on each other the same as SEC schools beat up on each other in football. Or is that argument only good for the SEC? C’mon. You can’t be serious.
Is that why they only sent 1 out of their 9 teams to the Sweet 16? Because they beat up on each other over the course of the season? Or is it because everyone is just better than them, just like the last 20 years? At least the SEC is validated in football since the BCS era. The SEC has proof that it’s been the best conference in football over an extended period of time by winning 60% of all the championships since the BCS started in 1998. That’s a pretty large sample size. What does the Big 10 have to show for all their national bias in basketball? You’re telling me the best conference in America can’t win a SINGLE championship in a 20 year period? Yeah it’s a crapshoot of a tournament, but not a single championship is pretty pathetic. And if you want to go back even further, they’ve won 3 championships from 1985-present. 3 in 35 years. I am serious, what have they done to get labeled as the best conference in America? Because the stats don’t lie. The Big Ten is the most overhyped conference in America, by not winning a championship, year in and year out.
 
#33

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
15,509
Likes
12,839
#33
Is that why they only sent 1 out of their 9 teams to the Sweet 16? Because they beat up on each other over the course of the season? Or is it because everyone is just better than them, just like the last 20 years? At least the SEC is validated in football since the BCS era. The SEC has proof that it’s been the best conference in football over an extended period of time by winning 60% of all the championships since the BCS started in 1998. That’s a pretty large sample size. What does the Big 10 have to show for all their national bias in basketball? You’re telling me the best conference in America can’t win a SINGLE championship in a 20 year period? Yeah it’s a crapshoot of a tournament, but not a single championship is pretty pathetic. And if you want to go back even further, they’ve won 3 championships from 1985-present. 3 in 35 years. I am serious, what have they done to get labeled as the best conference in America? Because the stats don’t lie. The Big Ten is the most overhyped conference in America, by not winning a championship, year in and year out.
I'm not aware of anybody who claims the Big Ten as the best conference in America in either football or basketball. I'm not talking about any particular single year, but a pattern over a period of time. The SEC is clearly the premier football conference, and the ACC is clearly the premier basketball conference.

The Big Ten happened to have a number of strong teams this year, most of whom have come up short in the tournament. The SEC has laid eggs during bowl season too. It happens. I don't think I or anybody else has said they are the best basketball conference though.
 
Likes: OriginalCoach
#34

OriginalCoach

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
557
Likes
353
#34
Is that why they only sent 1 out of their 9 teams to the Sweet 16? Because they beat up on each other over the course of the season? Or is it because everyone is just better than them, just like the last 20 years? At least the SEC is validated in football since the BCS era. The SEC has proof that it’s been the best conference in football over an extended period of time by winning 60% of all the championships since the BCS started in 1998. That’s a pretty large sample size. What does the Big 10 have to show for all their national bias in basketball? You’re telling me the best conference in America can’t win a SINGLE championship in a 20 year period? Yeah it’s a crapshoot of a tournament, but not a single championship is pretty pathetic. And if you want to go back even further, they’ve won 3 championships from 1985-present. 3 in 35 years. I am serious, what have they done to get labeled as the best conference in America? Because the stats don’t lie. The Big Ten is the most overhyped conference in America, by not winning a championship, year in and year out.
No, Bama and 3 others have proven themselves the last 20 years. Are you saying the SEC is up there in BB as well??? Silly. And unrealistic. Puhleeeese....
 
#35

AthensVol2007

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
168
Likes
277
#35
Probably never, because they are a P5 conference. A P5 conference is always going to get the benefit of the doubt over a non-conference champ from a mid-major conference that played nobody.

The Big Ten doesn't have a title in 20 years, but they have multiple schools that are basically always at least pretty good, if not great.

Belmont had a great year, but they played nobody and went 1-2 against Morehead St, the conference champ. There's no way in hell the committee is going to put them in over a Michigan St team that went 1-1 against Michigan, 1-1 against Ohio St, 1-0 against Illinois, etc. If Belmont went 2-1 against Morehead St with the loss being in the conference title game, I think they probably would have gotten in.
I’m biased as an alum but a 20-6 regular season conference champion WKU team with a road win over Bama, 6 pt loss on a neutral court to WVU (in a game they blew a double digit lead) and neural court win against Memphis plus playing UofL and Houston on the road is deserving of a spot over Rutgers or even MSU who both had sub .500 conference records. There aren’t many mid-majors who played a tougher schedule than the one they played.
 
Likes: VolPack22
#36

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#36
No, Bama and 3 others have proven themselves the last 20 years. Are you saying the SEC is up there in BB as well??? Silly. And unrealistic. Puhleeeese....
If you actually read what I posted, I started with the BCS era since that’s when things changed for the championship game. So I started with 1998. Yes, Bama has the majority, and it’s not really close, but if you want to look at it in totality, there have been 5 different SEC programs since 1998 win the national championship.

We actually have some of the best coaches in America in basketball if you haven’t noticed. I remember whenever it was a struggle to get 3 teams into the tournament. Now it’s a snub whenever we get 6 teams in. If you put those Big 10 schools in the SEC they would have similar records. I never said the SEC was better than the Big 10 in basketball. All I said is the SEC is just as good as the Big 10 and they had no business getting 9 teams into the tournament. I believe the SEC is a top 3 basketball conference. This year was a down year for the ACC but they are usually the best imo, then after that I feel like it’s a toss up between the Big 10/Big 12/SEC. The SEC has closed the gap, some people just haven’t realized it yet.
 
#37

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#37
I'm not aware of anybody who claims the Big Ten as the best conference in America in either football or basketball. I'm not talking about any particular single year, but a pattern over a period of time. The SEC is clearly the premier football conference, and the ACC is clearly the premier basketball conference.

The Big Ten happened to have a number of strong teams this year, most of whom have come up short in the tournament. The SEC has laid eggs during bowl season too. It happens. I don't think I or anybody else has said they are the best basketball conference though.
You may not think of them as the best but the NCAA basketball selection committee and national media claims them as such. My biggest gripe is that they put teams with a losing conference record into the tournament. There’s no credibility in doing that whenever there were mid majors that could’ve been given a spot, or Ole Miss since they actually had a winning record in the SEC.
 
#38

OriginalCoach

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
557
Likes
353
#38
If you actually read what I posted, I started with the BCS era since that’s when things changed for the championship game. So I started with 1998. Yes, Bama has the majority, and it’s not really close, but if you want to look at it in totality, there have been 5 different SEC programs since 1998 win the national championship.

We actually have some of the best coaches in America in basketball if you haven’t noticed. I remember whenever it was a struggle to get 3 teams into the tournament. Now it’s a snub whenever we get 6 teams in. If you put those Big 10 schools in the SEC they would have similar records. I never said the SEC was better than the Big 10 in basketball. All I said is the SEC is just as good as the Big 10 and they had no business getting 9 teams into the tournament. I believe the SEC is a top 3 basketball conference. This year was a down year for the ACC but they are usually the best imo, then after that I feel like it’s a toss up between the Big 10/Big 12/SEC. The SEC has closed the gap, some people just haven’t realized it yet.
Name the coaches in the SEC that are the best in America.
 
#39

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#39
Name the coaches in the SEC that are the best in America.
Honestly all the coaches outside of Jerry Stackhouse and Tom Crean are good to great coaches. Right now Nate Oats and Eric Musselman have it rolling. Rick Barnes, John Calipari, and Bruce Pearl are all great recruiters and have had tournament success. Mike White has taken Florida to the tournament consistently and made an Elite 8 run not that long ago. Will Wade is a cheater but LSU always finds ways to win. Frank Martin is a good coach. Kermit Davis is good. Cuonzo is a good coach and always has a tough-minded team. Buzz Williams was good at Marquette and Virginia Tech but he hasn’t found that type of success at A&M for whatever reason. Doesn’t mean he’s not a good coach because it’s not working out at one place. Ben Howland isn’t that good imo but his teams always play tough. Nobody is going to be considered the best coach in the country but from top to everyone outside of Crean and Stackhouse, it’s hard to beat the quality of the collective group of coaches in the SEC.
 
#40

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
15,509
Likes
12,839
#40
You may not think of them as the best but the NCAA basketball selection committee and national media claims them as such. My biggest gripe is that they put teams with a losing conference record into the tournament. There’s no credibility in doing that whenever there were mid majors that could’ve been given a spot, or Ole Miss since they actually had a winning record in the SEC.
I've never heard the national media say the Big Ten is the best basketball conference. Some corners of the media have claimed they are the best football conference on different occasions, but the national media loves them some ACC when it comes to basketball.
 
#41

OriginalCoach

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
557
Likes
353
#41
Honestly all the coaches outside of Jerry Stackhouse and Tom Crean are good to great coaches. Right now Nate Oats and Eric Musselman have it rolling. Rick Barnes, John Calipari, and Bruce Pearl are all great recruiters and have had tournament success. Mike White has taken Florida to the tournament consistently and made an Elite 8 run not that long ago. Will Wade is a cheater but LSU always finds ways to win. Frank Martin is a good coach. Kermit Davis is good. Cuonzo is a good coach and always has a tough-minded team. Buzz Williams was good at Marquette and Virginia Tech but he hasn’t found that type of success at A&M for whatever reason. Doesn’t mean he’s not a good coach because it’s not working out at one place. Ben Howland isn’t that good imo but his teams always play tough. Nobody is going to be considered the best coach in the country but from top to everyone outside of Crean and Stackhouse, it’s hard to beat the quality of the collective group of coaches in the SEC.
And how did White do against Oral Roberts? His coaching cost them the game. TN went one and done. Where was Calapari this year? Is Wade a good coach because he can coach or because he’s a cheater? Same goes for Pearl. Barnes had 10x the talent at Texas and how did he do? Puhleeeese....
 
#42

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#42
And how did White do against Oral Roberts? His coaching cost them the game. TN went one and done. Where was Calapari this year? Is Wade a good coach because he can coach or because he’s a cheater? Same goes for Pearl. Barnes had 10x the talent at Texas and how did he do? Puhleeeese....
So if we are going just based off this season I guess Coach K is the worst coach in the country? You can’t just look at one season. Puhleeeese....
 
#43

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#43
I've never heard the national media say the Big Ten is the best basketball conference. Some corners of the media have claimed they are the best football conference on different occasions, but the national media loves them some ACC when it comes to basketball.
If everyone loves the ACC so much why was their highest seed a 4?
 
#44

golfballs

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
69,790
Likes
46,896
#44
Honestly all the coaches outside of Jerry Stackhouse and Tom Crean are good to great coaches. Right now Nate Oats and Eric Musselman have it rolling. Rick Barnes, John Calipari, and Bruce Pearl are all great recruiters and have had tournament success. Mike White has taken Florida to the tournament consistently and made an Elite 8 run not that long ago. Will Wade is a cheater but LSU always finds ways to win. Frank Martin is a good coach. Kermit Davis is good. Cuonzo is a good coach and always has a tough-minded team. Buzz Williams was good at Marquette and Virginia Tech but he hasn’t found that type of success at A&M for whatever reason. Doesn’t mean he’s not a good coach because it’s not working out at one place. Ben Howland isn’t that good imo but his teams always play tough. Nobody is going to be considered the best coach in the country but from top to everyone outside of Crean and Stackhouse, it’s hard to beat the quality of the collective group of coaches in the SEC.
The SEC has better basketball coaches than football coaches IMO
 
Likes: VolPack22
#45

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
15,509
Likes
12,839
#45
If everyone loves the ACC so much why was their highest seed a 4?
Because the best team in the conference this year (Virginia) had 4 conference losses, and because their 2 bread and butter teams (Duke and UNC) sucked this year. There's no spinning how bad they were this year, even though the media loves them.
 
#46

OriginalCoach

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
557
Likes
353
#46
So if we are going just based off this season I guess Coach K is the worst coach in the country? You can’t just look at one season. Puhleeeese....
Tell me what Texas Teams under Barnes did? Same for Pearle even at TN? What has FL and White done since he’s been there? Coach K isn’t coaching in the SEC, fool. Other than KY, and throw in the gators, what SEC team has made real noise in the tournament the last several years? But yet, the SEC has arguably the best collective group of coaches in the country. You’re silly.
 
#47

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
15,509
Likes
12,839
#47
Honestly all the coaches outside of Jerry Stackhouse and Tom Crean are good to great coaches. Right now Nate Oats and Eric Musselman have it rolling. Rick Barnes, John Calipari, and Bruce Pearl are all great recruiters and have had tournament success. Mike White has taken Florida to the tournament consistently and made an Elite 8 run not that long ago. Will Wade is a cheater but LSU always finds ways to win. Frank Martin is a good coach. Kermit Davis is good. Cuonzo is a good coach and always has a tough-minded team. Buzz Williams was good at Marquette and Virginia Tech but he hasn’t found that type of success at A&M for whatever reason. Doesn’t mean he’s not a good coach because it’s not working out at one place. Ben Howland isn’t that good imo but his teams always play tough. Nobody is going to be considered the best coach in the country but from top to everyone outside of Crean and Stackhouse, it’s hard to beat the quality of the collective group of coaches in the SEC.
I think you overrate the SEC coaches. This current crop of SEC coaches isn't bad by any stretch, but I don't think they are as good as you make it out to be.

- Oats and Musselman have it rolling currently but you're talking about limited sample size.
- Barnes has been a good coach throughout his career but is an underachiever who rarely brings it in March.
- Cal is a great coach.
- Pearl is a good/great coach but has baggage. Don't get too carried away with Pearl; he was great at Tennessee but left under a cloud. At Auburn, yes, he had the Final Four run, but he's missed the tournament 4 times in 6 years (self-imposed this year and they wouldn't have made it anyway).
- Wade has gigantic baggage and just one Sweet Sixteen appearance, but his teams are always competitive.
- Frank Martin has had zero success at South Carolina outside of a flash-in-the-pan Final Four appearance 5 years ago (he hasn't made a single NCAAT at USCjr outside of that run). He's nearly 20 games below .500 in SEC play over 9 years there.
- The jury is still out on Kermit; he's a .500 coach through 3 seasons.
- Cuonzo Martin is not a good basketball coach. He has not won a single tournament game at Mizzou, and the last tournament game he won was 7 years ago when he was still at UT. Well below .500 in SEC play during his Mizzou tenure.
- Buzz Williams has absolutely stunk thus far at A&M, but limited sample.
- Ben Howland has stunk at Miss St.
- Mike White might be the single biggest underachiever in all of college basketball; there is no way Florida should have only one Sweet Sixteen appearance in 5 tournaments.

Of the coaches that have a large enough sample size at their current schools, the SEC would probably throw Cal, Pearl, and Barnes at you as their top 3. The Big Ten would counter with Izzo, Painter and any one of Gard/Underwood/Holtmann. Their top 3 is marginally better, and their depth is definitely better.
 
Last edited:
Likes: OriginalCoach
#49

VolPack22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
2,400
Likes
2,350
#49
I think you overrate the SEC coaches. This current crop of SEC coaches isn't bad by any stretch, but I don't think they are as good as you make it out to be.

- Oats and Musselman have it rolling currently but you're talking about limited sample size.
- Barnes has been a good coach throughout his career but is an underachiever who rarely brings it in March.
- Cal is a great coach.
- Pearl is a good/great coach but has baggage. Don't get too carried away with Pearl; he was great at Tennessee but left under a cloud. At Auburn, yes, he had the Final Four run, but he's missed the tournament 4 times in 6 years (self-imposed this year and they wouldn't have made it anyway).
- Wade has gigantic baggage and just one Sweet Sixteen appearance, but his teams are always competitive.
- Frank Martin has had zero success at South Carolina outside of a flash-in-the-pan Final Four appearance 5 years ago (he hasn't made a single NCAAT at USCjr outside of that run). He's nearly 20 games below .500 in SEC play over 9 years there.
- The jury is still out on Kermit; he's a .500 coach through 3 seasons.
- Cuonzo Martin is not a good basketball coach. He has not won a single tournament game at Mizzou, and the last tournament game he won was 7 years ago when he was still at UT. Well below .500 in SEC play during his Mizzou tenure.
- Buzz Williams has absolutely stunk thus far at A&M, but limited sample.
- Ben Howland has stunk at Miss St.
- Mike White might be the single biggest underachiever in all of college basketball; there is no way Florida should have only one Sweet Sixteen appearance in 5 tournaments.

Of the coaches that have a large enough sample size at their current schools, the SEC would probably throw Cal, Pearl, and Barnes at you as their top 3. The Big Ten would counter with Izzo, Painter and any one of Gard/Underwood/Holtmann. Their top 3 is marginally better, and their depth is definitely better.
Ok I’ll just put an end to this argument since you don’t know what you are talking about. These are the numbers from the current coaches from each conference overall. I did not include Stackhouse because he is a joke of a coach and everyone knows he should have never been hired to begin with. Did you know that after some simple research the current SEC coaches have 12 different guys with Sweet 16 appearances? 8 different coaches with Elite 8 appearances? 6 different coaches with Final 4 appearances? There are 3 schools changing coaches in the Big 10 so I just used whoever was the most recent coach. Even so, only 1 of their coaches have ever been to a Final 4 and we all know who that is. Wanna guess what the current Big 10 coaches are in their career without Izzo? 2 Elite 8s and 13 Sweet 16s. That’s mighty impressive lol. So thank you for allowing me to validate what I knew all along through research that the SEC has better coaches than the Big 10. I’ll leave you with the numbers to show you how laughable it is to compare them. Have a good day!

SEC Overall Win-Loss: 4920-2558
Winning Percentage: .658
National Championships: 1 (0 w/o Cal)
Final 4: 13 (7 w/o Cal)
Elite 8: 26 (14 w/o Cal)
Sweet 16: 47 (32 w/o Cal)

Big 10 Overall Win-Loss: 3594-2286
Winning Percentage: .611
National Championships: 1 (0 w/o Izzo)
Final 4: 8 (0 w/o Izzo)
Elite 8: 12 (2 w/o Izzo)
Sweet 16: 27 (13 w/o Izzo)
 
#50

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
15,509
Likes
12,839
#50
Ok I’ll just put an end to this argument since you don’t know what you are talking about. These are the numbers from the current coaches from each conference overall. I did not include Stackhouse because he is a joke of a coach and everyone knows he should have never been hired to begin with. Did you know that after some simple research the current SEC coaches have 12 different guys with Sweet 16 appearances? 8 different coaches with Elite 8 appearances? 6 different coaches with Final 4 appearances? There are 3 schools changing coaches in the Big 10 so I just used whoever was the most recent coach. Even so, only 1 of their coaches have ever been to a Final 4 and we all know who that is. Wanna guess what the current Big 10 coaches are in their career without Izzo? 2 Elite 8s and 13 Sweet 16s. That’s mighty impressive lol. So thank you for allowing me to validate what I knew all along through research that the SEC has better coaches than the Big 10. I’ll leave you with the numbers to show you how laughable it is to compare them. Have a good day!

SEC Overall Win-Loss: 4920-2558
Winning Percentage: .658
National Championships: 1 (0 w/o Cal)
Final 4: 13 (7 w/o Cal)
Elite 8: 26 (14 w/o Cal)
Sweet 16: 47 (32 w/o Cal)

Big 10 Overall Win-Loss: 3594-2286
Winning Percentage: .611
National Championships: 1 (0 w/o Izzo)
Final 4: 8 (0 w/o Izzo)
Elite 8: 12 (2 w/o Izzo)
Sweet 16: 27 (13 w/o Izzo)
Stopped reading after "I did not include Stackhouse." That was a great meal I had at that restaurant, except for the rat turd in my beer.

Are you including wins/tournament achievements from before they became an SEC coach? For example, are you counting Howland's 3 Final Fours from UCLA or Rick's Final Four from Texas? I mean, Howland has stunk at Miss St, and Rick's Final Four appearance was nearly 20 years ago at a non-SEC school, but whatever makes your argument look better...
 
Last edited:
Likes: OriginalCoach

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top