In any other year

[18IsTheMan]

Went all the way back to the 2011-2012 season when SEC went to a single division. A 13-5 record would have placed in the top 4 every season.

Just a stout conference this year and the tiebreaker didn’t happen to fall in our favor. Bring on the tournament!

 

[18IsTheMan]

In 7 of the 12 previous years of the single division, 13-5 would have been good enough for 1st or 2nd. Only on year would we have been in a tie for the last spot and it would have been a 2-way tie in the '21-'22 season.

'11-'12: 2nd
'12-'13: 2nd
'13-'14: 2nd
'14-'15: t2nd
'15-'16: t1st
'16-'17: 3rd
'17-'18: t1st
'18-'19: 4th
'19-'20: 2nd
'20-'21: 3rd
'21-'22: t4th
'22-'23: 3rd

 

[Uscg1984]

Look at it this way. By playing an extra game, we are now more likely to go 1-1 than 0-1 in the SECT tournament.

And if we advance beyond our seeding, we'll have an extra win than we would otherwise. 2-1 is better than 1-1, 4-0 is better than 3-0, etc.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Look at it this way. By playing an extra game, we are now more likely to go 1-1 than 0-1 in the SECT tournament.

And if we advance beyond our seeding, we'll have an extra win than we would otherwise. 2-1 is better than 1-1, 4-0 is better than 3-0, etc.

Maybe helps that the Arky/Vandy winner will only have about 17 hours between the end of their game on Wednesday and the start of our game on Thursday.

 

[Blues man]

I am extra curious to see how stout the conference actually is. Nice to be relevant and in the mix. I'll probably be a conference homer more so this year. I think.

 

[Uscg1984]

Maybe helps that the Arky/Vandy winner will only have about 17 hours between the end of their game on Wednesday and the start of our game on Thursday.

It probably doesn't hurt. Not that we couldn't lose to Arkansas or Vandy, but had we switched seeds with Auburn, our first game of the SECT would have been against Auburn. If the goal is to win as many games as possible, I'd rather play Arkansas first, then move on to Auburn.

That's the thing about byes for conference tournaments. While they ostensibly favor the top seeds toward winning the overall tournament, they also aid the worse teams by helping them get wins against teams they actually have a chance to beat. For example, either #13 or #12 Arkansas _will_ get a win on Wednesday (same for #14 Mizzou and #12 Georgia). In a straight-up bracket with no seeds, all of those teams would have been matched up with top-4 seeds in the first round, virtually guaranteeing they would all go 0-1.

Where it really comes into play is for bubble teams like Texas A&M. As a #7 seed, in a straight-up bracket, they would be matched up against #8 LSU. But, because of the byes, they are matched up against #10 Ole Miss in their first tournament game, thereby increasing the likelihood they get a resume-boosting win. If they beat LSU, they will face #2 Kentucky, which is a more winnable game than #1 Tennessee.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It probably doesn't hurt. Not that we couldn't lose to Arkansas or Vandy, but had we switched seeds with Auburn, our first game of the SECT would have been against Auburn. If the goal is to win as many games as possible, I'd rather play Arkansas first, then move on to Auburn.

That's the thing about byes for conference tournaments. While they ostensibly favor the top seeds toward winning the overall tournament, they also aid the worse teams by helping them get wins against teams they actually have a chance to beat. For example, either #13 or #12 Arkansas _will_ get a win on Wednesday (same for #14 Mizzou and #12 Georgia). In a straight-up bracket with no seeds, all of those teams would have been matched up with top-4 seeds in the first round, virtually guaranteeing they would all go 0-1.

Where it really comes into play is for bubble teams like Texas A&M. As a #7 seed, in a straight-up bracket, they would be matched up against #8 LSU. But, because of the byes, they are matched up against #10 Ole Miss in their first tournament game, thereby increasing the likelihood they get a resume-boosting win. If they beat LSU, they will face #2 Kentucky, which is a more winnable game than #1 Tennessee.

True. I guess I'm glad we won't go into the Auburn game cold. What kind of concerns me is that our last 4 games, and 5 of the last 6, have been heart-pounding, down-to-the-wire finishes. If we have another MSU kind of game on Thursday, I'd be concerned about a quick turnaround. We don't have the makeup to just put someone away and get the starters a bit of a rest down the stretch in the 2nd half, but hopefully it won't be an emotionally/physically exhausting game like we've been having.

And, of course, if we lose, it won't matter.

 

[Uscg1984]

True. I guess I'm glad we won't go into the Auburn game cold. What kind of concerns me is that our last 4 games, and 5 of the last 6, have been heart-pounding, down-to-the-wire finishes. If we have another MSU kind of game on Thursday, I'd be concerned about a quick turnaround. We don't have the makeup to just put someone away and get the starters a bit of a rest down the stretch in the 2nd half, but hopefully it won't be an emotionally/physically exhausting game like we've been having.

And, of course, if we lose, it won't matter.

Indeed. I might be wrong, but I don't feel like we are a team built for a conference tournament where teams play on back-to-back-to-back days. It seems no matter who we play, our games are going to be slugfests. Rocky Balboa beat Apollo Creed, but he didn't have to turn around and fight somebody else the next day.