New Nav
|
|
SEC: Five-Year Ranking
October 26th, 2008
by Shawn Siegel
» Tags
SEC Basketball
SEC FIVE-YEAR STANDINGS
This ranking tries to answer a simple question: Who has been the best team in the SEC over the last five years?
A heavy emphasis is put on league play & NCAA Tournament success. NIT wins are meaningless here, as are non-conference wins. Also, league tournaments wins are not taken into account. An original trial-scoring system included points for conference tourney wins. But then I realized the flukish nature of those tourney's did more harm than hurt: ie, 2008 Georgia, 2006 Syracuse, and 2004 Maryland ended up getting too much credit despite the reality that they were mediocre to sub-par teams. As it is, I feel satisfied this simple system does a good job of ranking the teams recent performance.
100 total points is set up to be the equivalent of batting .300 in baseball.. anything above and beyond is all-world stuff. 50 points is mediocre and you only start to get bad below 40 points.
The postseason scoring system is listed below, along with some related notes & thoughts.
| Pos. | Team | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | Wins | Gms. | Points | |
| 1 | Florida | 9 | 12 | 10 | 13 | 8 | 52 | 80 | 65 | Win % |
| 1st Round | 2nd Round | Champs | Champs | NIT | 31 | Post Pts. | ||||
| 96 | ||||||||||
| 3 | Kentucky | 13 | 14 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 57 | 80 | 71 | Win % |
| 2nd Round | Elite 8 | 2nd Round | 2nd Round | 1st Round | 22 | Post Pts. | ||||
| 93 | ||||||||||
| 2 | Tennessee | 7 | 6 | 12 | 10 | 14 | 49 | 80 | 61 | Win % |
| NIT | X | 2nd Round | Sweet 16 | Sweet 16 | 17 | Post Pts. | ||||
| 78 | ||||||||||
| 4 | Miss. St | 14 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 48 | 80 | 60 | Win % |
| 2nd Round | 2nd Round | X | NIT | 2nd Round | 13 | Post Pts. | ||||
| 73 | ||||||||||
| 5 | Vanderbilt | 8 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 43 | 80 |