VTTW Board Index

There is a funkiness going on in our numbers the likes of which I've never seen. Let me sum up.

UT has played five games against the RPI top 25. UT is 1-4 in those games.

UT has played eleven more games against the RPI 26-100. UT is 6-5 in these games.

UT has played ten games against RPI 101+. UT is 8-2 in these games.

Now, when you just look at things in terms of these numbers you can see why UT is being talked about as a bubble team. We have 7 wins against the RPI top 100. We have two losses against 101+, but one was on the road and the other is offset by a great win over UVA.

A closer look makes it obvious that this is horseshizzle:

Those six 26-100 wins are against Alabama (100), Georgia (90), Ole Miss (72), Arkansas (68), LSU (65), and Xavier (52). Jay Coleman's Dance Card, which has correctly predicted 93% of at-large bids since inception in 2000 and 73 of 74 the last two years, says that not one of those six teams is likely to make the tournament. Yeah, we thought at least Xavier was a good win-- and then they lost 6 of their last 11 and promptly fell to the bubble if not out. Xavier is now 6 teams back of the bubble according to the Dance Card. Of the other five teams, the closest to dancing is Arkansas, 17 teams off the bubble (and right behind UT).

UT has one win against a team that will be dancing-- its pummeling of UVA back in December that nobody has really figured out.

But it gets even worse because UT has 11 losses, and only four of those were to teams that will definitely be dancing (Wichita, Kentucky, Florida x2). Missouri is a bubble team (just out of the tourney according to the Dance Card).

To sum up:

UT has played five games against surefire tourney teams and is 1-4.

UT has played three games against bubble teams (if we consider as many as 10 back from the bubble in the Dance Card to be bubble teams) and is 1-2.

UT has played 18 games against teams very unlikely to make the tourney, and is 13-5.

Yet due to flukey RPI numbers and a very soft bubble, somehow THAT is being seen as a tournament resume.  :rolleyes:

It isn't hard to figure out why we beat UVA. We shot lights out. Three pointers everywhere. You do that, you win. Hard to sustain though

It's funny how things can change in a week. We didn't do anything impressive from a numbers standpoint this week, yet our stock has risen considerably because of what's happened around us.

The Dance Card now has UT sitting just two back from the bubble, with a 33% chance of making the tourney. It has Arkansas and Missouri just ahead of the bubble and Xavier now comfortably in after nice wins over Creighton and St. Johns.

Two games (@Auburn and Mizzou in TBA) and the SECT to go. I fully expect to lose the next two, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

Doubt we lose to Auburn, but it is on the road and they are better this year.

I like our chances with Mizzou at home.  We could have beaten them in Colombia it was close.

I could see us winning the last two easily...but still might not be enough.

Just depends on which UT shows up. We could lose both or we could rout them both. I think our chances of getting in are pretty decent if we win both of these, even if we bomb in the SECT.

Yeah I've never adapted to all the changes in the tourney selection process, most of which are definitely improvements.

I just recall that years ago when the SEC played a 10-team round robin, we made it in with an SEC record of 9-9.  It seems that could never happen now.

It's not relative conference strength....the year I am thinking of is one of the Devoe years and no way was the SEC any better then, relatively, than it is now.

So I guess the main thing making it harder to get in is the increase in mandatory invites?  That and factoring in things like RPI, etc, but would you say that's the biggest factor limiting say, fourth place SEC teams from an at large bid?

There are 37 at-large bids now, which is an increase over what it used to be. The limiting factor for the SEC getting in more than 3-4 teams really just is the quality of the conference and horribly weak non-conference scheduling. There have been years where it was more of a perception problem, but this year it's just true. Top-to-bottom, SEC basketball is near historical lows right now, IMO. Florida is a legit final 4 threat but nobody else in the conference deserves better than a 6 or 7 seed.

We are helped by that UVA win more than I ever would have thought-- it's our saving grace when it comes to sneaking into the field. UVA is looking like a 2-seed.

I think of it this way, If you don't make the NCAA tourney, YOU SUCK!

I'm with Bobby Knight....I wouldn't give a nickel for the conference tourneys. Like him they serve no purpose but to make money for the conference and there is a chance that a team wins the tourney and gets a bid that has no business getting in. IMO it should be your body of work over 4 1/2 not over 4 days.

Was it Georgia a few years back that got hot and won the SECT and got to the dance with a losing SEC record?

Tornado hit the dome, moved the games somewhere else (GATECH?) year

Best thing about that tourney was Tyler Smith's dunk over Arkansas's Steven Hill. Of course we lost that game.  :thumbdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7lphsMzdHs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7lphsMzdHs)

Personally, I love the SEC tournament. And I like the fact that an underling can rise up and earn itself a spot in the Dance, like Georgia did (and like UT nearly did during a terrible year in the Wade Houston era). It adds to the whole Cinderella factor of March Madness.