Surprising stat regarding SEC success in NCAA Tournament

[FiveStarCat]

Since 2010, only one conference has had an NCAA Tournament winning record in all five tournaments: the SEC.

Yes, this is largely due to Kentucky and Florida's success in the tournament but it is still an interesting stat when you consider the flak the league takes every year.

Even taking the fact that it is skewed by two teams in mind, you could argue that taking the top two teams out of each league would destroy any other conferences record as well. What would the Big 12 look like without Kansas? ACC without Duke and Carolina? Big 10 without Michigan State, Wisconsin, etc?

Links if anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Record_by_conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Record_by_conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Record_by_conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Record_by_conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Record_by_conference




This post was edited on 1/26 4:28 PM by FiveStarCat

 

[Smashcat]

You could show the stats to the taking heads and they would continue to rave about the ACC and the Big 12 ( been overrated for years).

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

Interesting that everybody's favorite conference has a losing record in the tourney the last two seasons.

This post was edited on 1/26 4:41 PM by SilentsAreGolden

 

[.S&C.]

Take any top 2 teams out of any league, including the ACC, And the league isn't a world beater.

People always fall short of "relative thinking" when they look at the SEC. yea, the league Wouldnt be that good without UK and Florida. Guess what!.?

Neither would the ACC if you removed Duke and UNCheat. The pac30? Please. Remove Michigan state from the BIG16. Remove kansas from the BIG12. What YA got? Mostly crap leagues. It's a false narrative and people only place that label on the sec when it's true of most conferences.

This post was edited on 1/26 2:59 PM by .S&C.

 

[WildMoon]

meh,

Kentucky makes that silly.

3 - 1
4 - 1
6 - 0
____
5 - 1

Most media said Kentucky and Florida has been great.

And in all honesty, if you take them out, the stats look like shit.

Why do we defend SEC anyways?

 

[BoulderCat]

The big 12 is clearly vastly overrated by the media. Period. Neither Oklahoma or Texas deserved to even be ranked let alone where they are. The ACC, I'll give them their due. Still, look at the standings for the ACC. Anything jump out at you? I'll tell you what does me. Their bottom 5 teams are 4-29! The bottom third of the entire league is just fodder to make the rest look good by padding their records. UVa gets taken to the wire by VT, which has to be one of the worst teams in any of the big 5 in a game similar to what UK plays every night on the road in the SEC.

 

[UKCatsFan10]

Based on your links, here are the cumulative records and winning percentages for the main conferences over the last five years.

ACC: 35-24 (59.3%)

Big 12: 33-30 (52.3%)

Big 10: 51-31 (62.2%)

Big East: 50-38 (56.8%)

Pac-12: 23-19 (54.8%)

SEC: 39-18 (68.4%)

I didn't go through each conference, but from the SEC Kentucky and Florida account for 31 of our wins and 8 of our losses. Though we easily have the best winning percentage, that leaves only 8 wins to 10 losses (44.4%) if you remove those two teams. I'd imagine the Big 10 would probably come out looking like the best if someone went through and removed the two best teams from each conference.

 

[cats2010]

The SEC has performed phenomenally better than any other conference over the last 5 years.

(ACC) 25 bids, 35-24 record (.593%), 4 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big East) 41 bids, 50-38 record (.568%), 7 Elite Eights, 5 FF, (17% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 12) 30 Bids, 33-30 record (.528%), 5 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16.6% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 10) 31 Bids, 51-31 record (.621%), 7 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (22.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(Pac 12) 19 Bids, 23-19 record (.547%), 2 Elite Eights, 0 FF, (10.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(SEC) 19 Bids, 39-18 record (.684%), 9 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (47.3% of bids make Elite 8)


SEC winning percentage and percentage of bids to make Elite 8 really stand out from the above statistics.

The awesome Big East all those years managed 2 less Elite 8 appearances and one more final four appearance than did the SEC all the while getting over twice as many bids into the tournament.

Take out the top few teams in each conference and there are no differences at all. SEC top tier teams has simply performed better in the tournament the last 5 years than those of the other conferences.

 

[SeattleKat]

Originally posted by WildMoon:

Why do we defend SEC anyways?



It has absolutely NO bearing on UK.

The NCAA Selection folks always put us where they want us, with matchups they think will get viewers.

I really don't care if any other SEC team plays in the NCAAT.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Originally posted by SeattleKat:

Originally posted by WildMoon:

Why do we defend SEC anyways?



It has absolutely NO bearing on UK.

The NCAA Selection folks always put us where they want us, with matchups they think will get viewers.

I really don't care if any other SEC team plays in the NCAAT.

Yeah, people are missing the point here. The SEC sucks in the OOC most years and loses too many conference games to lower level SEC teams...and do not make the tournament as a result of that.

You have to earn a tournament spot to do well in the tourney, which clearly the SEC has over the past 5 years. So simple solution...win more OOC games, and beat the cupcake SEC teams and mid and lower level ones. I'm talking to you Arkansas, LSU, UGA, and I guess TX A&M at this point. Those are the 5 I'd say are most likely to get a bid at this point. That said...they won't do it. They never do. Ark and LSU already have some bizarre losses. UGA and A&M have been the most consistent (A&M undefeated with their guy back) and UGA has two close losses to ARK and LSU and has beat everyone else (bravo UGA so far).

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by cats2010:

The SEC has performed phenomenally better than any other conference over the last 5 years.

(ACC) 25 bids, 35-24 record (.593%), 4 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big East) 41 bids, 50-38 record (.568%), 7 Elite Eights, 5 FF, (17% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 12) 30 Bids, 33-30 record (.528%), 5 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16.6% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 10) 31 Bids, 51-31 record (.621%), 7 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (22.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(Pac 12) 19 Bids, 23-19 record (.547%), 2 Elite Eights, 0 FF, (10.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(SEC) 19 Bids, 39-18 record (.684%), 9 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (47.3% of bids make Elite 8)


SEC winning percentage and percentage of bids to make Elite 8 really stand out from the above statistics.

The awesome Big East all those years managed 2 less Elite 8 appearances and one more final four appearance than did the SEC all the while getting over twice as many bids into the tournament.

Take out the top few teams in each conference and there are no differences at all. SEC top tier teams has simply performed better in the tournament the last 5 years than those of the other conferences.

That's all UK and Florida. UK is 18-3, Florida 13-5 (with the 2 teams responsible for 8 of the 9 Elite 8's). That makes everyone else 8-10.

I understand that most conferences are going to look bad when you take out the top 2 teams, but don't act like the fact that the SEC has had 2 elite programs the last 5 years somehow makes it a great conference. That ship won't sail.

I am optimistic about the next 5 years. I think guys like Pearl, Billy Kennedy, and Frank Martin aren't satisfied with squeaking out a few tourney appearances and collecting fat checks. And Johnny Jones can clearly recruit (not sure about anything beyond that). I think someone is going to step up and make a third SEC team relevant nationally, at least for a few years.

This post was edited on 1/26 6:13 PM by mj2k10

 

[fatguy87]

The SEC's tournament record would certainly look worse if more mediocre teams from the conference participated. That winning percentage isn't a surprise when a large percentage of NCAA bids comes from just two teams that happened to be elite nationally during that span.






This post was edited on 1/26 4:27 PM by fatguy87

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by cats2010:

The SEC has performed phenomenally better than any other conference over the last 5 years.

(ACC) 25 bids, 35-24 record (.593%), 4 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big East) 41 bids, 50-38 record (.568%), 7 Elite Eights, 5 FF, (17% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 12) 30 Bids, 33-30 record (.528%), 5 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16.6% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 10) 31 Bids, 51-31 record (.621%), 7 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (22.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(Pac 12) 19 Bids, 23-19 record (.547%), 2 Elite Eights, 0 FF, (10.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(SEC) 19 Bids, 39-18 record (.684%), 9 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (47.3% of bids make Elite 8)


SEC winning percentage and percentage of bids to make Elite 8 really stand out from the above statistics.

The awesome Big East all those years managed 2 less Elite 8 appearances and one more final four appearance than did the SEC all the while getting over twice as many bids into the tournament.

Take out the top few teams in each conference and there are no differences at all. SEC top tier teams has simply performed better in the tournament the last 5 years than those of the other conferences.

That's all UK and Florida. UK is 18-3, Florida 13-5 (with the 2 teams responsible for 8 of the 9 Elite 8's). That makes everyone else 8-10.

I understand that most conferences are going to look bad when you take out the top 2 teams, but don't act like the fact that the SEC has had 2 elite programs the last 5 years somehow makes it a great conference. That ship won't sail.

Name me ONE conference that if you took out it's top two tourney performers would still be a "great conference".

 

[Seth C]

Originally posted by fatguy87:
The SEC's tournament record would certainly look worse if more mediocre teams from the conference participated. That winning percentage isn't a surprise when a large percentage of NCAA bids comes from just two teams that happened to be elite nationally during that span.






This post was edited on 1/26 4:27 PM by fatguy87

Sure. But does it help that when they do get in a 10 loss Tennessee team would get a 12 seed and a 9 loss ACC team would get a 5?

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by SilentsAreGolden:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by cats2010:

The SEC has performed phenomenally better than any other conference over the last 5 years.

(ACC) 25 bids, 35-24 record (.593%), 4 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big East) 41 bids, 50-38 record (.568%), 7 Elite Eights, 5 FF, (17% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 12) 30 Bids, 33-30 record (.528%), 5 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16.6% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 10) 31 Bids, 51-31 record (.621%), 7 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (22.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(Pac 12) 19 Bids, 23-19 record (.547%), 2 Elite Eights, 0 FF, (10.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(SEC) 19 Bids, 39-18 record (.684%), 9 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (47.3% of bids make Elite 8)


SEC winning percentage and percentage of bids to make Elite 8 really stand out from the above statistics.

The awesome Big East all those years managed 2 less Elite 8 appearances and one more final four appearance than did the SEC all the while getting over twice as many bids into the tournament.

Take out the top few teams in each conference and there are no differences at all. SEC top tier teams has simply performed better in the tournament the last 5 years than those of the other conferences.

That's all UK and Florida. UK is 18-3, Florida 13-5 (with the 2 teams responsible for 8 of the 9 Elite 8's). That makes everyone else 8-10.

I understand that most conferences are going to look bad when you take out the top 2 teams, but don't act like the fact that the SEC has had 2 elite programs the last 5 years somehow makes it a great conference. That ship won't sail.

Name me ONE conference that if you took out it's top two tourney performers would still be a "great conference".

With all due (?) respect, can you read? Read the last sentence of the post you quote.

 

[SaguaroCat]

I took out Wisconsin, Michigan state, Kansas, Baylor, duke, north Carolina, uconn, Louisville, Ucla, and Arizona. Might not have been the very top two teams for each, but close enough.

Big ten is now 31-21.
Big east is now 34-33.
Acc is now 16-16.
Pac 12 is now 12-13
Big 12 is now 14-22
Sec is 8-10

So everyone else is winning at a better clip, with more teams and harder schedules (5/12, 6/11 seeds and the like). Except the big twelve. But again. What makes you think that those nit teams from the sec would win games against better opponents. They always lose out of conference, tourney isn't going to help that. and even if you give it.it still does we are the fifth best in that metric.

It's not that the sec sucks. It's that REST of the sec sucks. And right now there are more people aging for then than their own damn ad departments. They don't care.

 

[CatsRWild]

Originally posted by SilentsAreGolden:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by cats2010:

The SEC has performed phenomenally better than any other conference over the last 5 years.

(ACC) 25 bids, 35-24 record (.593%), 4 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big East) 41 bids, 50-38 record (.568%), 7 Elite Eights, 5 FF, (17% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 12) 30 Bids, 33-30 record (.528%), 5 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16.6% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 10) 31 Bids, 51-31 record (.621%), 7 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (22.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(Pac 12) 19 Bids, 23-19 record (.547%), 2 Elite Eights, 0 FF, (10.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(SEC) 19 Bids, 39-18 record (.684%), 9 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (47.3% of bids make Elite 8)


SEC winning percentage and percentage of bids to make Elite 8 really stand out from the above statistics.

The awesome Big East all those years managed 2 less Elite 8 appearances and one more final four appearance than did the SEC all the while getting over twice as many bids into the tournament.

Take out the top few teams in each conference and there are no differences at all. SEC top tier teams has simply performed better in the tournament the last 5 years than those of the other conferences.

That's all UK and Florida. UK is 18-3, Florida 13-5 (with the 2 teams responsible for 8 of the 9 Elite 8's). That makes everyone else 8-10.

I understand that most conferences are going to look bad when you take out the top 2 teams, but don't act like the fact that the SEC has had 2 elite programs the last 5 years somehow makes it a great conference. That ship won't sail.

Name me ONE conference that if you took out it's top two tourney performers would still be a "great conference".

I agree with SilentsAreGolden on this...everyone saying its just KY and UF, yes the rest of the league is sub 500 but you can do that for most of these other leagues also. Take UNC/Duke out of the ACC, OSU/MSU out of the Big 10, Texas, Kansas out of the Big12, etc...Each league has it's top 2 teams that are responsible for its tourney success. So I think the comparison is valid on its own the SEC has done more with less bids.

Every year an SEC team or 2 gets left out of the tourney, then they usually perform very well in the NIT (most notably USC winning the NIT back to back in early 2000's). Meanwhile the old Big LEast would get everyone in on total wins alone, playing an unbalanced league schedule, only to fail early in the NCAA's. Now its going to happen in the ACC's favor with UL, Cuse, ND, Pitt joining their bunch...I expect their league's tourney win% to drop as a result.

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by CatsRWild:

Originally posted by SilentsAreGolden:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by cats2010:

The SEC has performed phenomenally better than any other conference over the last 5 years.

(ACC) 25 bids, 35-24 record (.593%), 4 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big East) 41 bids, 50-38 record (.568%), 7 Elite Eights, 5 FF, (17% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 12) 30 Bids, 33-30 record (.528%), 5 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16.6% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 10) 31 Bids, 51-31 record (.621%), 7 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (22.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(Pac 12) 19 Bids, 23-19 record (.547%), 2 Elite Eights, 0 FF, (10.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(SEC) 19 Bids, 39-18 record (.684%), 9 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (47.3% of bids make Elite 8)


SEC winning percentage and percentage of bids to make Elite 8 really stand out from the above statistics.

The awesome Big East all those years managed 2 less Elite 8 appearances and one more final four appearance than did the SEC all the while getting over twice as many bids into the tournament.

Take out the top few teams in each conference and there are no differences at all. SEC top tier teams has simply performed better in the tournament the last 5 years than those of the other conferences.

That's all UK and Florida. UK is 18-3, Florida 13-5 (with the 2 teams responsible for 8 of the 9 Elite 8's). That makes everyone else 8-10.

I understand that most conferences are going to look bad when you take out the top 2 teams, but don't act like the fact that the SEC has had 2 elite programs the last 5 years somehow makes it a great conference. That ship won't sail.

Name me ONE conference that if you took out it's top two tourney performers would still be a "great conference".

I agree with SilentsAreGolden on this...everyone saying its just KY and UF, yes the rest of the league is sub 500 but you can do that for most of these other leagues also. Take UNC/Duke out of the ACC, OSU/MSU out of the Big 10, Texas, Kansas out of the Big12, etc...Each league has it's top 2 teams that are responsible for its tourney success. So I think the comparison is valid on its own the SEC has done more with less bids.

Every year an SEC team or 2 gets left out of the tourney, then they usually perform very well in the NIT (most notably USC winning the NIT back to back in early 2000's). Meanwhile the old Big LEast would get everyone in on total wins alone, playing an unbalanced league schedule, only to fail early in the NCAA's. Now its going to happen in the ACC's favor with UL, Cuse, ND, Pitt joining their bunch...I expect their league's tourney win% to drop as a result.

Simple question here: If it's just UK and Florida (which it pretty demonstratively is), how in God's name can you make any claim about the conference as a whole when you have jack sh** to support that?

8 wins, 10 losses, 5 years. And 6 of those 8 wins are from UT, meaning the other 11 SEC teams have combined to win a staggering total of 2 NCAA Tournament games the last 5 years. We're supposed to think that the SEC is getting screwed out of bids, and would have vastly better numbers if those borderline teams that end up in the NIT just got a shot? Why should anyone buy that, other than trying to cheerlead for the conference?

The SEC had a time when it was getting a lot of teams in the tournament every year, and a lot of those teams were getting good seeds. Those teams lost. Over, and over, and over, and over again. Look it up (start with SC, 3 seed, 1997, Georgia, 3 seed 1997. Go year by year from there until about 2006, the appxt point at which the SEC stopped getting a lot of teams in the tourney, and stopped getting high seeds).

The SEC needs to EARN a change in reputation.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by SilentsAreGolden:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by cats2010:

The SEC has performed phenomenally better than any other conference over the last 5 years.

(ACC) 25 bids, 35-24 record (.593%), 4 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big East) 41 bids, 50-38 record (.568%), 7 Elite Eights, 5 FF, (17% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 12) 30 Bids, 33-30 record (.528%), 5 Elite Eights, 1 FF, (16.6% of bids make Elite 8)
(Big 10) 31 Bids, 51-31 record (.621%), 7 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (22.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(Pac 12) 19 Bids, 23-19 record (.547%), 2 Elite Eights, 0 FF, (10.5% of bids make Elite 8)
(SEC) 19 Bids, 39-18 record (.684%), 9 Elite Eights, 4 FF, (47.3% of bids make Elite 8)


SEC winning percentage and percentage of bids to make Elite 8 really stand out from the above statistics.

The awesome Big East all those years managed 2 less Elite 8 appearances and one more final four appearance than did the SEC all the while getting over twice as many bids into the tournament.

Take out the top few teams in each conference and there are no differences at all. SEC top tier teams has simply performed better in the tournament the last 5 years than those of the other conferences.

That's all UK and Florida. UK is 18-3, Florida 13-5 (with the 2 teams responsible for 8 of the 9 Elite 8's). That makes everyone else 8-10.

I understand that most conferences are going to look bad when you take out the top 2 teams, but don't act like the fact that the SEC has had 2 elite programs the last 5 years somehow makes it a great conference. That ship won't sail.

Name me ONE conference that if you took out it's top two tourney performers would still be a "great conference".

With all due (?) respect, can you read? Read the last sentence of the post you quote.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but if you agree with me that in that scenario. there would be no great conferences, then what is the point of calling out the SEC? Whatever, this issue has been beaten into the ground anyway.

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:

Yeah, people are missing the point here. The SEC sucks in the OOC most years and loses too many conference games to lower level SEC teams...and do not make the tournament as a result of that.

You have to earn a tournament spot to do well in the tourney, which clearly the SEC has over the past 5 years. So simple solution...win more OOC games, and beat the cupcake SEC teams and mid and lower level ones. I'm talking to you Arkansas, LSU, UGA, and I guess TX A&M at this point. Those are the 5 I'd say are most likely to get a bid at this point. That said...they won't do it. They never do. Ark and LSU already have some bizarre losses. UGA and A&M have been the most consistent (A&M undefeated with their guy back) and UGA has two close losses to ARK and LSU and has beat everyone else (bravo UGA so far).

This is a really good point. In theory, NCAA Tournament bids are earned, playing a few good teams and beating them OOC, then winning most of your conference games. Just about every team in the Power 5 is capable of making a Sweet 16 run, once they get in the NCAA Tournament. Heck, just about every team, period, these days, with the exception of 16 seeds, is capable of reaching the Sweet 16.

It seems like I've seen North Carolina sneak into the NCAA Tournament with 18 wins before and make the Final Four. And every year, it seems like we see a team from the play-in game get to the Sweet 16 or beyond.

Tournament success isn't that great of an indicator of how strong a league was all year. It shows which teams were hot at the right time and got a little luck. I'd prefer to look at the percentage of the league that makes the NCAA Tournament, and take the whole season into account. The best way to change a league's reputation around is to go out and beat some people, all year long.