Playing IU , a 13 seed and shown as an automatic qualifier because they presently lead the B1G with a 2-0 record, lol. How lazy is Lunardi to simply award the current conference leaders an AQ. Of course pUKe also a 4 seed.
Bracketology today we’ve moved up to a 4 seed
- Thread starter CatEye2010
- Start date
That's about right. If we go on a 22 game win streak that may change.
If we are a 4 seed, Duke can't be a 4. They have 3 losses, and they just aren't that good. I don't get the math.
The math is, ESPN told him to put duke at 4.
UK RIGHT NOW IS A HIGH 2 or a low 3. but whatever. We will end up being a 1 seed as we will lose 3 games in the SEC and win it by a game or 2 as there just arent any other great teams in the league . UT is a top 20 team NOT top 10 like they are ranked.
This ^^^. If it were not for that terrible loss we might be a 1 seed right now and no worse than a 2 for sure.
This is everything, and why UK will be a seed line lower than they should be on Selection Sunday
You're assuming we win the SECT as well? Otherwise, we'd have six losses in your scenario. How does that equate to a 1 seed with a loss to UNCW?
A borderline top5 team, and we're a 4 seed. Makes sense.
Without looking, why do I get the sense everyone else falls in seed line with their ranking?
Without looking, why do I get the sense everyone else falls in seed line with their ranking?
FAU lost to Bryant! But they are a 2.
UNCW Net is 107, one spot behind Missouri.
Bryant is 176. That is a much worse loss by FAU than our loss to UNCW.
Last edited:
Yes the 8th ranked team should be a 4 seed🙄
Check that sos after fau zips through the powerful (not) AAC, while UK handles most of one of the toughest conferences in the country.
That may be the future, but we only have the data to go on for now. I think UK just needs to worry about taking care of business in the SEC. If they don't then same results as last few years.
You are incorrect. Losing to the 107 team at home is not quite as bad as losing to the 176 team on a neutral court. The 107 home loss is right in the middle of Q3 home losses, but the 176 neutral loss is in the bottom 1/3 of Q3 neutral loses.
But I was wrong, the Bryant loss was at HOME, making it a MUCH WORSE LOSS than UNCW.
I think a lot of people are just misunderstanding what a lot of bracketologists are doing. I think, in most cases, they're not forecasting what the actual seeding will be in March. They're showing what the seeding would be, today, based on today's resumes. It's a horserace snapshot, not a prediction.
Two things, from my expert statistical perspective:
1) most SOS are calculated incorrectly, by averaging the rank of a team’s opponents. Thus extreme values (Opp 250+ can skew a team’s SOS in a biased way. Wins over teams more than 150 worse than you should not be considered much better than those 250 or 300 worse.
2) SOS rankings (or any ranking) is not uniform. For example 5 and 87 could be really close together, while 105 and 187 could be really far apart (or vice versa)
That may very well be what their goal is.. but I don't think they are applying it 100% of the time.
Duke is 16th with 3 losses, one good win over Baylor. Maybe kentucky is truly worth being a 4-seed, but I fail to see how Duke is on the same seed line as us.
Now the metrics may have Duke higher than their record would indicate, but it's hard for me to think, if selection Sunday was today, Kentucky would be a 4-seed with just 2 losses and two top10 wins against UNC and Miami. I still believe there's a fair bit of the committee looking at resumes, at how a team has been playing, and what big wins they have.
I feel like a lot of humans when ranking teams ignore things that are important such as margin of victory that computers do a better job taking into account.
The differences between Duke and UK really isn't that great. But you can kind of see why they are rated higher at least in computer systems. We have a win over UNC (15th in KP). They have TWO of those type of wins tho (Baylor 18th and MIchigan St (21st). One of their losses was to Arizona (3rd) by 5 points, Then u got road losses of 5 points and 4 points.
So they have an extra good win. UNCW and Georgia Tech are similarly ranked except their loss was on the road and ours was at home.
You add it all up and u could see why they would be placed a tiny bit higher.
Duke would be about a 1-2 point favorite on a neutral court currently. To me, that probably indicates they are a seed line ahead of us currently.
The differences between Duke and UK really isn't that great. But you can kind of see why they are rated higher at least in computer systems. We have a win over UNC (15th in KP). They have TWO of those type of wins tho (Baylor 18th and MIchigan St (21st). One of their losses was to Arizona (3rd) by 5 points, Then u got road losses of 5 points and 4 points.
So they have an extra good win. UNCW and Georgia Tech are similarly ranked except their loss was on the road and ours was at home.
You add it all up and u could see why they would be placed a tiny bit higher.
Duke would be about a 1-2 point favorite on a neutral court currently. To me, that probably indicates they are a seed line ahead of us currently.
My problem here is that I just don't think highly of MSU. At the end of the day you still have to win games, and MSU lost 5 of them before Christmas. One of them was JMU. I don't care what the metrics say about Michigan State, they are practically a .500 win team.
How come it seems Kentucky MUST win its games, but a team like MSU can lose and pundits (and even posters) go "well their metrics are nice, no big deal"?
I can tell you this, we'd be in freakout mode on this forum if we had their schedule and results, offensives points per possession be damned.
This feels like a 2/3 seed year to me, but we’ll be on a trajectory to outperform that in the tourney. We’ll be that 2/3 seed that none of the higher seeds will want to play.
Nope, I am correct. Losing to a team like that at home is worse. Try again.
Are you bad at reading comprehension? FAU lost AT HOME to Bryant, who is a worse team than uncW thus far. My God, man.
And I sure hope you’re not my CPA.
I don't think you are getting the whole picture, so let me enlighten you. UK has a worse strength of schedule than FAU. That gives UK a smaller margin for error. That is why the UNCW loss hurts UK more. This team is not being disrespected, it is reaping the results of playing a bad schedule and losing to a bad team. Can they overcome it, yes, if they get their stuff together in SEC play.
My reading comprehension is fine. I just didn't take the time to read the entire agenda post. Not worth it.
Last edited:
Dumb. All that means is that the predictors don't believe we'll remain in the top 10. They might be wrong, but you apparently aren't smart enough to even realize what they're trying to say. If we continue losing 20% of our games we'll be a 4 seed guaranteed.
Are you illiterate? We BOTH (UK and FAU) lost AT HOME, UK to 106 UNCW, and FAU to 176 Bryant. You can’t be that dumb.
But even if the Bryant loss had been on a neutral court, the way the Quad system uses the NET indicates a neutral loss to 176 is slightly worse than a home loss to 107.
All you got is “well I said so”. While I instead provide evidence.
I explained this above, why statistically SOS is misused by most ranking systems.
So let’s compare UK and FAU opponents in order of quality:
FAU: Ariz, Illinois, TAMU, Liberty, VaTech, Butler, St Bon,
Loy-Chi, E.Mich, Charleston, Bryant, Liberty, FIU
UK: KU, UNC, Miami, St Joe, UNCW,
Penn, Marshall, UL, NM St, TAMU-Com, Stonehill
When you look at those there appears to be very little difference. We both had 6 games vs teams 150+. FAU played 2 more games, in the 50-60 range.
But that is not what you said, you claimed loss to UNCW worse than loss to Bryant, which is incorrect.
