Ok, yea, I know they arent but with Sears and Nelson coming back and landing some of the best dudes in the portal, they are maybe the first "super team" in college basketball in quite some time.
Is Alabama going to go undefeated?
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
What do you find strange about it? They aren't messing around with a lot of sports.
And no. They aren't going undefeated.
It seems you're veering off course to your earlier claim that "all teams are the same" now and "it's just whoever hits the most shots'.
13 schools in the SEC play softball. All 13 of them made this year's NCAA tournament. Even the team (Ole Miss) that finished in last place in the conference.
And Oklahoma and Texas, two schools that will be in the SEC next year, play for the championship tonight.
SEC softball may be, relatively speaking, the best sports conference in the country. And they are going to get better.
I'm not saying it's going to be that way in every sport. But they have a lot of schools that seem to think that if they are going to compete in some sport, they ought to actually try to be good at it.
That’s somehow much more impressive than them getting 11 teams into the baseball regionals. 4/11 advanced.
As I said, there are a lot of people at those schools with the attitude of "if we are going to play this sport we might as well try to be as good as possible at it."
Quite frankly, most schools don't think that way.
Wins are the ultimate finite resource. So obviously not every school can win in a sport they sponsor but I don't think that means they need to drop it. I don't think Pitt should drop softball just because we've only made one NCAA tournament. But maybe it means it's ok to spend less on softball and more comparatively on volleyball and wrestling for example. We have a nice new field, good enough to host the conference championship.
Every school can't win in every sport. But every school could try to win in every sport. And most of them don't, not really.
Am I mistaken or didn’t UConn walk thru the NCAA Tournament the past two seasons?
Good question. They are probably the Alabama Basketball of College Soccer
At some point, spending correlates pretty strongly with wins. And since schools don't have monetary sovereignty to print more money, most can't really try to win in every sport at the higher levels. Now there is an argument to be less like the Big 10 and more like the SEC, sponsoring less total sports. I understand the logic of it, but I don't think Pitt should drop any sports we currently sponsor.
Funny thing is the Big Ten won less national championships this year than the ACC, PAC 12, SEC, and the Big 12.
The Big Ten won 3 national champions while the ACC won 8 (with a 50% to add an 9th with baseball). Furthermore, Stanford won 2 national championships and Cal won one.
I wonder if part of the Pac 12's downfall was top much spending on Olympic sports. Their Olympic sports are the best but when you look at the Big Ten, they suck minus PSU and Iowa wrestling and a few women's volleyball teams. The Pac 12 had 2 volleyball's, 2 soccer's, baseball, softball, swimming, water polo, etc all competing at the highest level.
Similar threads
