RebKell's Junkie Boards

[PickledGinger]

Let's take a look at how the SEC has performed in the tournament so far.

They came into the field with SIX top 4 seeds, and only two of them are still alive in the Sweet 16. And that comes after 2-Seed Texas A&M almost lost their first round game.

6-Seed Oregon just took down 3-seed Georgia without their starter or primary backup at point guard. *Kudos to Maddie Scherr for stepping in to that role and dominating the perimeter with her defense, btw.

4-Seed Arkansas lost in the first round in what has been the biggest upset so far. Another 3-Seed Tennessee was upset by 6-Seed Michigan in the second round, along with 4-Seed Kentucky getting crushed by 5-Seed Iowa.

The only SEC berth outside the top 4 seeds was 7-Seed Alabama, who were lights out in round one but couldn't hang with Maryland in a 36 point loss.

Meanwhile, the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 have had teams outside the top 4 seeds advance to the Sweet 16. If Iowa State beats A&M, add them to the list.

So, the question is: Was the SEC overvalued / over-seeded by the selection committee, in comparison to the other 4 Power 5 conferences? And does that bring out questions about the NET in it's first year of use as their foundation for decision-making?

_________________
Unspoken expectations are just premeditated resentments.

[FrozenLVFan]

I'd have to say Yes. Some of this mirrors the over-valuing seen in the rankings all year. TAMU and KY were both over-ranked and overseeded. I'd say Tenn, UGa, and Ark were all probably seeded a level too high. I don't know if the committee purposefully avoided giving Tenn the #4 seed so that there'd be a better chance of meeting UConn in the E8. I was shocked Alabama made the tourney in the first place. Their OOC schedule was complete cupcakes, their "signature" win was over Miss St, and they didn't have a single win over the top echelon of the SEC.

Having said that, I'd give the committee a pass this year, given that COVID made both scheduling and player availability a crap shoot.

[undersized_post]

I'd tend to say yes. But I think it might just be more that there is a lot of parity among the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 seeds this year. I think if Iowa/Kentucky and Michigan/Tennessee had each played a 5 game series, for example, the SEC teams would win at least 2 if not 3 games in each of those series.

That said, I'm happy for my B1G teams

[myrtle]

Part of the issue comes from however they create the NET. So I don't know how the initial NET values are formed but once formed then all the SEC teams gain in the NET by playing against each other, which create a self-fulfilling circle. So they're all great...according to the NET because they end up with top 25 or top 50 NET wins. This was Peck's argument that there should be more SEC teams in the tournament and that A&M should be a #1.

[ClayK]

My long-running issue with the SEC is that it emphasizes athleticism over skill -- and I think the Georgia-Oregon game was the epitome of that.

Oregon struggled against the athleticism of Georgia the entire game. The Ducks would struggle, flail about, and somehow manage to deal with the pressure just enough to get a decent shot. Even so, Georgia's quickness, speed and defensive intensity were a huge problem for Oregon all game.

Georgia, on the other hand, can't shoot. They 315th out of 343 teams in points from three-point distance, and when faced with a competent zone -- and two strong, agile posts -- the Bulldogs just couldn't figure out a way to score.

And the only way for a smaller team to beat a zone is to make outside shots, and Georgia couldn't do that. They could rebound amazingly well, again using their quickness and athleticism, but in the end, they lacked the shooting to win the game.

A lot of this goes back to Pat Summitt's formula for victory: Get bigger, quicker athletes who could jump, then defend and pound the boards on both ends. That formula was made for the pre-three era, and can even work now -- if you have some shooters. But for whatever reason, SEC teams don't recruit enough shooters, it appears, relying on athletes to win.

In 2021, that doesn't work as well as it used to.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[patsweetpat]

[patsweetpat]

[PickledGinger]

I really want the Aggies to lose badly now. They've had 2 games handed to them on a platter by the refs so far in this tourney. When the announcers were suggesting that that no-call on Donarski could be a disqualifying foul I was screaming at the television. Her friggin eyes were closed, there is no way that was intentional.

That being said, great game Jordan Nixon. How the hell was she not their focal point of offense this season?

_________________
Unspoken expectations are just premeditated resentments.

[undersized_post]

[PickledGinger]

[pilight]

[TechDawgMc]

My impression is that the lack of inter-conference games has made it very difficult to have good rankings -- and the NCAA just tends to go with what it thinks are the best conferences anyway.

We've seen it in both tourneys -- the B10 totally underperformed in the men's side, and the B12 wasn't far behind. For the women, it's been the SEC failing. OTOH, the Pac for the men and the B10 for the women have surprised.

I suspect it was just a lot harder to evaluate teams this year.

[thardy929]

[ClayK]

[Howee]

[huskiemaniac]

[linkster]

[ClayK]

[RP]

Texas A&M almost lost in the same way Arkansas almost won. It's variance.

The short answer is "probably not." Arkansas beat UConn and Baylor during the regular season, Tennessee and Kentucky beat Indiana, and Georgia beat Georgia Tech, all teams that are in the Sweet 16.

[Howee]