2016 SEC Thread

South Carolina is very good--starting with their defense, and McCaskill (sp) (a tank with feet who's than she seems) pretty much gets a goal every game. Arkansas is having an unbelievable season for a team that was not good, at all, last year. Not sure how they're doing it--but they certainly are getting results. I watched the hogs play bama and both teams looked OK--fairly even match--and Arky scored in OT, as a recall, to win.

Vandy was playing well but didn't look great against Tennessee and was kind of gifted that game, and then the 'dores got handled by arkansas.

The SEC seems to have a couple of teams annually who have the polish to compete with good teams nationally, maybe a third team who is good but not quite at a level to compete with national big boys then a bunch of teams (7 or 8) who can be competitive and play well but who are inconsistent and hard to predict, and then three or four teams that struggle. Top to bottom it is competitive, as is typically the case in the SEC.

 

I saw McCaskill blatantly dive in the OT, and I think she did it one other time. There is no place for it in football. I was glad to see the Florida player scream at her after the play.

 

The SEC should drop the idea of a 10-team tournament and go to eight teams, which is much more sensible. To expect any of the 6-10 seeds to win four games in one week is absurd. Hell, it's absurd to even play four games in one week, much less expect to win four. Everybody wants to get in the tourney--but you have to be sensible. It's also unfair that the winner of game 1--in this case, Tennessee--has to play the first quarterfinal, meaning it will play two games in the tournament before most of the teams play one game. That's seems unfair. Why not let the two first day winners play the late games on Wednesday?

 

What other conference has a 10-team tourney? Has a 6-10 seed ever won the tourney? I'd be shocked if they had. It's dumb because nobody can play four effective games in a week; you'd be hard pressed to play three, and even with three need some major minutes from subs. It's also an easy way to get injured. Don't like it. Also, if you're going to have 10 teams and in theory make the games 1 and 2 winners play four games, at least give those teams a bit more rest. Instead, the conference makes the game 1 winner play the first game on Wednesday.

I would hardly call the penalty on Ole Miss a phantom call. Most officials would have called that one, IMO. The keeper may have tipped the ball with her toe--but she was also slamming into and pulling down the Tennessee forward at the same time. Playing auburn might be a hill too steep for Tennessee--I think auburn could be a sleeper team in the NCAA. Texas a&M v. South Carolina could be interesting as the aggies have got some key players back....

 

You make my point. Both of the teams you cite lost in the semifinals, and no doubt both were spent already. It's hard enough to win two games much less three or four. I watched the Tennessee seminal game in 2014, and they had starters hobbling around. You'd have to give every player on your team big minutes just to survive four games. The March Madness analogy doesn't quite work because in the NCAA basketball tourney, you play two games Friday-Sunday and then get at least four days off before the start of the next round. Big difference. It /seems/ fun and inclusive to have 10 teams, it's good for coaches, but, IMO, eight seems a lot more sensible. Watching tired players drag themselves around the field isn't all that pretty.

 

Do you mean the Southern Conference, CP? You are right--they have a 10-team tourney. BUT: their tournament is over two weeks! They played their quarterfinals last Saturday and play their semifinal matches this Friday--six days to recover from your first two games! That's very doable. Playing four matches in 6 days--Monday through Sunday--is crazy and, in terms of player safety, not very smart.

 

It's a rare player who doesn't like a tournament--and in this case the tournament is a chance for lower-seeded teams to make a case for an NCAA bid--maybe they can nudge out...Va Tech! That's fine. My point, which I may not have made clearly enough, is that if you are going to have a tournament, then every team should have a /fair chance/ to win the tournament. Playing four matches in six days is not even close to a fair chance--it's an impossible task. Three is extremely difficult and not good; four is just plain dumb. Look at the ACC: 8 team tourney--and their two finalists will play three games in 7 days--with a full 5 day break between the Sunday quarterfinals and the Friday semifinals. Sensible. The SEC quarterfinalists must play 3 games in 5 days--big difference--and the first round winners, as mentioned, are playing 4 games in six days. Not sensible at all--and let's remember that everyone has just finished a tough regular season, so players are already a bit worn by the start of the tourney.