3 way tie for overall SEC championship?

[MaleBovineK9]

If we win out we are 13-3, if UK wins out, they are 13-3, and if UT wins out except for UK, they are 13-3.

UT beat us...we beat UK...UK beats UT.

Would we all be crowned SEC Champions? Has this happened before? Is there some sort of tiebreaker?

I stole this list from Maroon Eagle:
Eastern Division Games Remaining
1. Tennessee (11-2) UK, @UF, SC (3)
2. Kentucky (10-3) @UT, @SC, UF (3)
3. Vanderbilt (9-4) @AR, MS, @UA (3)
4. Florida (8-5) MS, UT, @UK (3)
5. South Carolina (4-9) @AU, UK, @UT (3)
6. Georgia (3-10) @LS, @AU, UM (3)

Western Division Games Remaining
1. Miss. State (10-3) @UF, @VU, LS (3)
2. Arkansas (7-6) VU, @UM, AU (3)
3. Alabama (4-9)# @UM, @LS, VU (3)
4. Auburn (4-9)# SC, UG, @AR (3)
6. LSU (4-9)# UG, UA, @MS (3)
6. Ole Miss (4-9)# UA, AR, @UG (3)

 

[MaleBovineK9]

If we win out we are 13-3, if UK wins out, they are 13-3, and if UT wins out except for UK, they are 13-3.

UT beat us...we beat UK...UK beats UT.

Would we all be crowned SEC Champions? Has this happened before? Is there some sort of tiebreaker?

I stole this list from Maroon Eagle:
Eastern Division Games Remaining
1. Tennessee (11-2) UK, @UF, SC (3)
2. Kentucky (10-3) @UT, @SC, UF (3)
3. Vanderbilt (9-4) @AR, MS, @UA (3)
4. Florida (8-5) MS, UT, @UK (3)
5. South Carolina (4-9) @AU, UK, @UT (3)
6. Georgia (3-10) @LS, @AU, UM (3)

Western Division Games Remaining
1. Miss. State (10-3) @UF, @VU, LS (3)
2. Arkansas (7-6) VU, @UM, AU (3)
3. Alabama (4-9)# @UM, @LS, VU (3)
4. Auburn (4-9)# SC, UG, @AR (3)
6. LSU (4-9)# UG, UA, @MS (3)
6. Ole Miss (4-9)# UA, AR, @UG (3)

 

[RebelBruiser]

It doesn't matter who beat who. If you finish with the same record, you all would be crowned SEC champs. I remember in 2001, we were 1 win away from finishing in a 4 way tie for the overall SEC title. I think 3 teams from the East shared the title at 12-4. All 3 got trophies though there was still a tiebreaker to determine which one got seeded where in the tournament.

Technically though, if all that happened and there was a tiebreaker, UT would be first, MSU second, and UK third, because UT would be 2-1 against MSU and UK. MSU would be 1-1 against UT and UK. And UK would be 1-2 against UT and MSU.

 

[dawgstudent]

someone is first. Even if it's a tiebreaker.

 

[MagnificentBastard]

[No message]

 

[MSUCE99]

[No message]

 

[patdog]

Tell it to the SEC dawgstudent. If we all finish 13-3, we're all SEC champions. There are no tiebreakers to determine an SEC or division champion. You can think it's horseshit all day long and the SEC really won't give a ****.

 

[8dog]

b/c they want to please as many teams as possible and they want to give all teams as much to boast about as possible.

It reminds me of when your little league team has a team party after the season and everyone gets a trophy.

But I honestly don't see a legit tiebreaker for the potential of a 3 way tie b/w us and KY and TN.

 

[patdog]

I think that's part of the reason they do that. But I also think it's because if, after a 16-game season, the teams haven't separated themselves, then there's no real difference between them. Take the SEC West for example. If we lose out and Arkansas wins out, the tiebreaker will probably come down to whether Vandy or Kentucky finishes second in the East. To say that one team deserves a championship while another one doesn't because of who finishes 2nd and who finishes 3rd in the other division is what's ********.

 

[MSUCostanza]

if UT loses to both UK and Florida to finish 12-4, and us and UK win out.

Then it'll be just us and UK at 13-3, and we beat them head to head.

Either way, it's a credit to the great job Stansbury, the staff and the players have done to go from 5-5 and in deep trouble to us talking about potentially sharing an SEC overall championship.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

Quote:_________________________________________________But I honestly don't see a legit tiebreaker for the potential of a 3 way tie b/w us and KY and TN. _________________________________________________

I gotta think that's the big issue...how do you break a three way tie? Football has an easier time of breaking the tie, and must do so for bowl games. In basketball, there really is no reason to worry about it.

 

[8dog]

that if teams split, then they can both claim.

But if Ark beat us twice or vice versa, then I would be opposed to the other team claiming.

 

[8dog]

b/c the winners settle it on the field in Atlanta. This is a unique situation.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Through the Years, from the SEC Men's Basketball Media Guide.

Annual league standings are listed, beginning on page 112. They used different criteria to name a champion over the years, but standings since the divisional split start on page 118. There are some years where there are multiple SEC Champions (noted by an asterisk). For instance, in 2000 there was a four-way tie (Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, and LSU) at 12-4.

 

[wpnetdawg]

what's the point of not acknowledging all of the tied teams as champions?

Even the best of the tiebreakers (the head-to-head) has problems. None of them effectively addresses the problem of declaring someone the best team. The only way to do this is an after-season playoff, but there simply isn't time for that.

Tiebreakers are a necessity for seeding (although you could just as easily flip a coin), but when it comes to declaring championships, it is just a pointless exercise.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Quote:_________________________________________________It reminds me of when your little league team has a team party after the season and everyone gets a trophy._________________________________________________

Except for the fact that everyone doesn't get a trophy, only those that earn it by winning enough games. If you go 12-4, and another team goes 12-4, and you went 1-1 head to head with that team, how would it make sense to pick one team over another and call only one of them a champion?

Obviously they have to use a tiebreaker for tournament seeding, but that's the only reason those tiebreakers even exist. I can see the argument more in football because head to head is always going to be 1-0 in favor of someone, but in basketball, if you split head to head, what makes one team better than another and more deserving of the title?

 

[8dog]

and I clarified above in response to Pat.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

First of all, how can you call that a tiebreaker when we would have played two games against those two teams and they each have three.

Furthermore, if UK wins out, then they will have swept UT so they would be 2-1, State 1-1 and UT 1-2.

If that's the case then I say that since UK would be the 1 seed in the East and we beat UK, that we are SEC Champions.

 

[oem]

If MSU and Kentucky both finished 13-3, it would be an amazing job by both coaching staffs to turn each team's season around.

Heck, if each team only wins one more game, either one could win coach of the year without too much arguement.

 

[MSUCostanza]

Gillispie was about to get run straight out of town in December. They have made a remarkable recovery.

 

[patdog]

Actually, football does have to deal with this for division titles. The SEC recognizes both MSU and Arkansas as 1998 SEC West champions and both LSU and UM as SEC West champions in 2003(?).

 

[RebelBruiser]

My mistake on the records. The only reason I mentioned that was to show what would be the tiebreaker if one were to exist.

But there is no tiebreaker for overall SEC title. The only tiebreakers are used for seeding, so you wouldn't be a part of any tiebreaker discussion in that scenario, because there would be no tie for you to have to break.

Now, I think this whole discussion is a moot point (or mute point if you're on the Spirit), because UT is going to win the overall title without tiebreakers. I don't see MSU or UK winning out, and I don't see UT losing more than 1 at the most the rest of the way.

 

[patdog]

That's one thing I like about MLB. If there's a tie at the end of the season, they have a 1-game playoff to break the tie. Of course, like you said, that would be pretty much impossible in any other sport.

 

[8dog]

I understand that. They don't ever have to deal with the situtation being discussed though, determining an overal champion.

 

[oem]

Jasper and Meeks were both injured. Crawford and Meeks were still works in progress. He has done an extreme makeover on those two. He even has Perry Stevensen contributing.

If Tubby Smith was still there, they would really be struggling because Patrick Patterson would be playing at Florida.

Gillispie's job was never in danger.

 

[8dog]

he is going to really have to preach patience to the Big Blue nation. They will be without Crawford, Bradley and likely patterson.

He will need to sign about 5 Hopsons.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

True for the overall champ. I was referring to divisional ties in general.

In short, they are forced to break ties in football...b'ball is not.

 

[BriantheDawg]

MSU would be 1-1 against UK and UT
UT would be 1-2 against UK and MSU and
UK would be 2-1 against UT and State

 

[oem]

If the administration up there is patient and gives him time to get the talent coming in on a consistent basis, he will have a lot of success there.

If he feels pressured into taking shortcuts with JUCO players, things could get rocky.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

13-5 in the SEC, finished second and didn't get an invite to the NCAA or NIT, and Ron Greene left MSU to go to Murray State.

 

[ScoobaDawg]

Maroon, as I wasn't around yet..I'm still catching up on events such as this.
How could MSU at 13-5 not get a bid to either the NCAA or NIT (Nit popularity had drizzled and become more of the tournament as we know it now..the leftovers)
The field had been expanded to 32 in 75, and rules changed to allow more than one team from a conference.

Have to see if i can find a bracket or sec records for that season.

 

[noxdog]

Your conference. I seem to remember one year Bob Boyd at USC(Trojan variety) going 24-2, with his only losses to the eventual champ UCLA, being left out of the dance.

 

[patdog]

Back then the SEC in basketball was Kentucky and the 9 dwarfs. Even though we were 13-5 in the SEC, we were only 18-9 overall. Kentucky got the SEC's only NCAA bid that year. The previous year, Alabama went 14-4 in the SEC and 25-6 overall and didn't get an NCAA bid. The only 2 bids that year went to Kentucky and Tennessee, who both finished 16-2 in the SEC.

Edited to add: The fact that 3 teams could go a combined 46-8 when they had to play each other a total of 6 times shows how weak the rest of the league was. Those 3 teams were a combined 40-2 against the rest of the league.

 

[patdog]

Bob Boyd and USC got left out at 24-2 back when the rule was that you had to win your conference to get an NCAA bid. That rule had been changed by 1978.

 

[WillemWallace]

Quote:_________________________________________________If that's the case then I say that since UK would be the 1 seed in the East and we beat UK, that we are SEC Champions. _________________________________________________

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[patdog]

Quote:_________________________________________________That doesn't make any sense. _________________________________________________

It does if you approach it from the standpoint of how can I spin this so that MSU would be conference champions.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Let me try one. We should be SEC champions because we beat Florida, who beat Vanderbilt, who beat UT, who beat MSU, who beat Kentucky, who beat Arkansas, who beat Auburn, who beat LSU, who beat South Carolina, who beat Georgia, who beat Alabama.

All the other games in the SEC are meaningless, and we deserve our trophy now. It's only fair.

 

[8dog]

when you were the one that above endorsed some ridiculous tiebreaker which was essentially to ensure that State wouldn't win it.

 

[lowcountrydawg.sixpack]

nothing and like it!

 

[WillemWallace]

[No message]