How many SEC teams get a better seed than us?

[deputy assistant]

Considering our SECT performance we clearly do not deserve a 3 or 4 seed.

I feel as though the early SECT exit has UK fans bored and looking for another thing to obsess over while they wait for the NCAAT. A 3 vs 4 vs 5 seed is largely meaningless. In theory, if a team isn't good enough to advance past their potential opponents at any of those seeds, they aren't going to do anything in the NCAAT. The point I'm probably not making well here, is that this is much ado about nothing. At some point, you are going to have to beat good teams. Whether it's now or later doesn't matter if your ultimate goal is a national championship. If your goal is to not get embarrassed by a potential first round loss, then this seeding babble is important.

 

[The_Answer1313]

As I just replied to the other poster, there are some issues with using that method, but I do understand what he was trying to say. It's not a bad argument, but it's also not perfect.

These decisions are ultimately made by a set of humans with no real set criteria other than what they prefer to use.

There is no perfect argument regardless of what's used lol.

Sites like warren nolan actually break down the team sheets similar to how the poster did it. Not all Q1 wins are equal. It SHOULD be looked at it on this level. If you beat the teams at the top of a Quad, that SHOULD mean more than beating teams at the lower end. To say just because team A is 6-1 vs Q1 teams and team B is only 4-2, that Team A is definitely more impressive, that's a flawed argument.

 

[The_Answer1313]

In reality, they should just use the tool completely and not have a committee. NET weighs all these things already. It's not perfect but it at least stops a bunch of people tinkering with things cause they "think" X win is better than Y win.

 

[deputy assistant]

There is no perfect argument regardless of what's used lol.

Sites like warren nolan actually break down the team sheets similar to how the poster did it. Not all Q1 wins are equal. It SHOULD be looked at it on this level. If you beat the teams at the top of a Quad, that SHOULD mean more than beating teams at the lower end. To say just because team A is 6-1 vs Q1 teams and team B is only 4-2, that Team A is definitely more impressive, that's a flawed argument.

Well, I agree somewhat but it depends. If you are 6-2 against the top half, but 0-5 against the bottom half, that has somewhat of a cancelling out effect. Not totally, but it does bear consideration. If the record was 6-2 period, and those losses to the bottom half didn't exist, then yes it would be a solid argument.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Well, I agree somewhat but it depends. If you are 6-2 against the top half, but 0-5 against the bottom half, that has somewhat of a cancelling out effect. Not totally, but it does bear consideration. If the record was 6-2 period, and those losses to the bottom half didn't exist, then yes it would be a solid argument.

This is why I feel you just let the computer metric weigh everything which is the whole purpose of having said metric.

 

[Sejonesy]

Tennessee and that’s it.

What you laughing at @cornbreadnmilk

 

[JFCats22]

Tennessee will
Auburn will
Florida might.
Alabama will not.
South Carolina will not.

We will be fortunate to get a 3.

Good call on this. 🤡

 

[bucsrule8872]

This is why I feel you just let the computer metric weigh everything which is the whole purpose of having said metric.

Let the computers run everything.

Good idea. Worked well in the Terminator series. LOL!