Gator Country

oneatatime · 03-07-2013, 06:30 AM

they have depth in their league, but have proven nothing compared to what the SEC football schools have accomplished in terms of championships

gator07 · 03-07-2013, 07:02 AM

And water is wet

**outbackjack** · 03-07-2013, 08:05 AM

Didn't Ohio State win the basketball NC in 2007?

Oh wait.

We've won the last 7 NCs in football.

They won't win 7 more NCs in basketball in the next 100 years.

GatorRade · 03-07-2013, 08:20 AM

I'm wondering why this is is becoming a recurring topic on our board. Are we really trying to say that they are not because they haven't won 7 national titles in a row? By comparing a sport with 68 final contestants to a sport with 2?

The Big 10 conference is good. I don't see any way around this fact.

**tcmba** · 03-07-2013, 11:35 AM

The SEC has 6 national championships in the last 20 years. As far as I know, the Big 10 has 1 (2000). They are a very average basketball conference that has the media's love this year. There is no way Big 10 basketball can compare with SEC football.

**outbackjack** · 03-07-2013, 12:29 PM

They in no way compare.

Not only is our football better than their basketball, our BASKETBALL is better than their basketball.

And I'll say this year TOO until proven wrong in March.

Last 20 years National Champions:

Football: SEC 11 Big Ten 2
Basketball: SEC 6 Big Ten 1

Real leagues win championships in March/January, not mid season.

GatorRade · 03-07-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outbackjack

Not only is our football better than their basketball, our BASKETBALL is better than their basketball.

And I'll say this year TOO until proven wrong in March.

I wonder what measure you are using to determine that the SEC is better than the Big 10 in basketball this year?

SmootyGator · 03-07-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorRade

I wonder what measure you are using to determine that the SEC is better than the Big 10 in basketball this year?

We beat Wisconsin. Isn't that all you need to know?

**outbackjack** · 03-07-2013, 03:20 PM

I will simply determine the better conference when I see how they do in the dance.

Who wins it, what conference records are in March.

I, for one, use my own eyeballs and don't rely on what ESPN tells me is the best conference.

Seems every time I look, these Big Ten teams are losing.

Does that make them "good" because Minesota is able to beat Indiana?

Or does it make the Big Ten "bad" cause Indiana lost to Minnesota?

I see a conference that is a step slower than our conference.

It certainly showed when we WAXED the floor with Wisconsin.

Don't think Bama, Mizz, UK, Tenn can't all beat any of those Big Ten teams.

They can.

REM08 · 03-07-2013, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outbackjack

They in no way compare.

Not only is our football better than their basketball, our BASKETBALL is better than their basketball.

And I'll say this year TOO until proven wrong in March.

Last 20 years National Champions:

Football: SEC 11 Big Ten 2
Basketball: SEC 6 Big Ten 1

Real leagues win championships in March/January, not mid season.

Your post is fine if we're talking about comparing conferences over time. But we're talking about this year. The SEC isn't nearly as good in basketball as the Big10 is - this year.

GatorRade · 03-07-2013, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outbackjack

I will simply determine the better conference when I see how they do in the dance.

Who wins it, what conference records are in March.

I think this is an extremely flawed way to compare the strength of conferences. First off, the tournament is one and done, so there is an extreme amount of randomness that determines the winner. Even more importantly, the schedules will be totally unbalanced. Some conference will only have 3 teams in. Some will have 6. 1, 2, 5, and 10 seeds are going to see totally different types of teams.

We have a whole body of work from the entire season. Why throw it all away for a couple of random winner take all games at the end?

Quote:

Originally Posted by outbackjack

I, for one, use my own eyeballs and don't rely on what ESPN tells me is the best conference.

I think the eye ball test is probably much superior to your March results model, but basically you are just trading ESPN's eyes for yours here. Maybe your eyes are better than the APs and Coaches, but there is a good chance that their's are pretty good as well. Not to mention non-eye ball tests, like Sagarin or KenPom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outbackjack

Seems every time I look, these Big Ten teams are losing.

Does that make them "good" because Minesota is able to beat Indiana?

Or does it make the Big Ten "bad" cause Indiana lost to Minnesota?

Age old question: When a top team gets upset by a conference bottom feeder, does this mean that the conference is better or worse than you thought? The answer is both. Which is why conference results do not really feed into conference strength ratings. It's like watching the Orange and Blue game to figure out if Florida will be good that year. The offense scoring 3 or 45 points is meaningless, because they had to do it against the gator defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outbackjack

I see a conference that is a step slower than our conference.

It certainly showed when we WAXED the floor with Wisconsin.

Don't think Bama, Mizz, UK, Tenn can't all beat any of those Big Ten teams.

They can.

So here is your claim: Bama, Mizz, UK, and Tenn can all beat IU, Mich, Mich St, Ohio St, Wisc, etc. I'm not sure what "can beat" means (5 out of 10? 1 out of 100?), but let's go with some other facts that we know as well:

Mercer can beat Bama
UCLA can beat Missouri
Baylor can beat Kentucky
Memphis can beat Tennessee

So what did we prove here? Conference USA is better than the SEC? Mercer can beat Indiana? The SEC's speed can only be bested by Baylor's brawn?

Sometimes random upsets are really random upsets, and the best team doesn't win. So sure, Alabama could beat Indiana. But if I was you, I wouldn't take a straight up bet on it. We have a whole season's worth of evidence that should tell us that.

oneatatime · 03-07-2013, 07:18 PM

I was surprised when Michigan State dropped three in a row, including one at home and was hardly penalized.

Michigan loses to a winless Penn State team and hardly falls.

The big 10 is not that good.

**outbackjack** · 03-07-2013, 11:28 PM

We'll see.

I think it's a northern bias with ESPN.

I think we are the better basketball conference right now.

Michigan St. losing 3 in a row.

Indiana losing 2 this week at home.

Michigan losing to Penn St?

The only reason people think the Big 10 is better is because we keep getting told, ad nauseum, that it is better, despite the top team losing.

They will absolutely get more in, but you can compare winning percentages in tourney.

Yes it's one and done, and the better teams will more likely win those "one and done" games.

GatorRade · 03-08-2013, 07:28 AM

Again, I really don't see how we can use conference losses as evidence of a poor conference. Also, why does it matter that a team loses three in a row? Would it be somehow better if those three losses were spaced out over 6 games? Plus, that same Michigan St team just beat the Wisconsin team that you are using as evidence of the SEC's superiority.

And in case you haven't noticed the top teams in the SEC lose quite frequently too...and sometimes to Mississippi St! (considered by many the worst team in a big 6 conference). You can't just use that metric to penalize the Big 10 and then overlook it in the SEC.

And if you are worried about bias, you should look to the computer models, as I mentioned above. If you do this with, say, KenPom, the top teams from each conference look like this:

#.............SEC (rank).............Big 10 (rank)
1.............Florida (1)...............Indiana (2)
2............Missouri (18).............Ohio St (8)
3...........Kentucky (44).........Michigan St (9)
4..........Mississippi (51).........Wisconsin (11)
5..........Tennessee (64)..........Michigan (12)

Not only does the big 10 look better here, it looks like ESPN might actually be underselling them. KenPom would give a tossup to their sixth best team playing our second best team.

And what if ESPN has biased the computer models too? Well, then I have one last, very serious, piece of advice: bet the farm. If all agencies -the media, coaches, computers, Vegas- are overestimating the Big 10's teams, put heavy wagers against each one. Especially against Tennessee...unless of course the bias is so strong that Tennessee fails to even make the tourney.

gulfgator · 03-08-2013, 07:55 AM

The big 10 is having a nice year in hoops, why would anyone compare what their doing this year to the SEC in football?

UF alone, has won as many NCAA championships in the last 7 years, as the entire big 10 has won over the last 30.

themistocles · 03-09-2013, 12:27 PM

The Big 10 consistently fields good basketball teams, although they only rarely field the really exceptional one that wins the NCAA title.

The Big 10 consistently fields mediocre football teams, although, once in a while a good one incidentally occurs.

Their Basketball league this year has the same difficulty that a couple of other conferences this year have, several teams that don't differ substantially from each other, thus, they tend to trade losses.

It this year's Gator team were playing in the Big 10, given the almost unending injury stream to key players, I would expect them to have between 5 and 7 losses. Had they been healthy throughout a Big 10 season, we likely would only see 3 or perhaps 4 losses. If healthy, I certainly would not have expected a worse conference record than Wisconsin has. 11-6, and likely considerably better since the Gators soundly defeated Wisconsin without either Wilbekin or Prather.