Haha I guess at this rate we will be the worst rated top 5 team ever in the tourney.
Bracketology today we’ve moved up to a 4 seed
- Thread starter CatEye2010
- Start date
Yeah it matters because this isn’t the same team. Cal has done it before and we finally look to be playing a good style again. So yeah I’d like a good seed.
Did you read the part where I said I didn't read the entire post where he corrected himself about Bryant being a home game. Nope, probably not. Anyways, what I stated is correct with the data as it is right now. The loss to UNCW had a magnified effect because of weaker SOS of UK. That is all.
You can argue about why we should be in a different position in bracketology until the cows come home. My point is that we currently do have a weaker SOS and that bad loss was magnified in the eyes of the media because of it. They don't care about your system or calculations. Nor do I.
You do realize that per KenPom, Duke has played the 80th toughest schedule and UK has played the 168th?
I don't know if that's for the season or just to the date.
But I don't buy for a second that Duke had a harder schedule than us, which I outlined in a previous post if I need to go grab it.
Kansas/Miami/UNC is not any discernable easier schedule than Arizonq/MSU/Baylor. Georgia Tech and Arkansas are actually only slightly higher than St. Joe's and Penn.
Not only are our two schedules comparable to date, but I'd actually argue that ours was harder, playing 3 top10 teams. At the very least, there's just no way Dukes schedule is 100 spots higher lol. And that will get proven come march.
What I haven’t seen talked about much, is that UNC Wilmington is actually a good team and is probably going to run roughshod over their conference. Charleston is a bit down this year but will be Wilmington’s main comp for regular season title. Wilmington likely gets the tournament bid from the CAA and if they only drop a couple games, they’ll be a 6 or 7 seed. It’s never going to be a “good loss” (lol @ Tennessee) but 2 months from now it’s likely not going to be the bad loss dragging us down like it is now.
You very well could be right about that. And furthermore UK could win the SEC. I think we all hope that's how it plays out.
This loss is not as bad as many make it. We were not full strength and it came down to the wire.
I’m not making excuses. We should not have lost that game, but it isn’t dropping us two whole seeds based on where we are on the standings now.
By itself, you are correct. But that loss in combination with our strength of schedule is what is hurting us with media projections. I think our projected strength of schedule barely scrapes the top 25 this year. If we win is not a problem.
Everyone here needs to remember how sketchy metrics like Kenpom and NET are at this point. They will get more accurate as more games are played. They’re partially relying on last season’s stats rather than starting from zero.
So chill with using stats like sos.
So chill with using stats like sos.
You are also correct about SOS, but I still do t think that warrants a drop of two seeds based on rankings.
Maybe so. I think part of it with the media is also our recent history in SEC play and tournaments.
Last edited:
I don't know why so many are talking SOS. The SOS is already baked into the ratings in each computer model.
I guess I just want to point out that the difference between the 60th ranked SOS and the 160th.. seems to come down to just one or two slightly more difficult games. But that difference in ranking would have you think the 160th ranked SOS is playing all mid majors and the 60th is playing power conferences every night, and that's just not the case.
I mean, I look at Duke and Kentuckys schedule and I don't see a discernable difference in toughness. Not the schedule to date and not for the entire year.
Yeah that might be a bit high, 8-9 seed might be their ceiling because of their weak conference. But if they’re 30-4 heading into the tournament, that’s a lot like FAU last year but with away win over a team that’s probably a 2-3 seed. That’s going to have them higher than 12-14 range if they can pull that off.
Inspirational bag thief. He’s kept his con going for literal decades now.
It's entirely possible that we are better than Duke. I actually think when it's all said and done that will play itself out to be true by the end of the season.
IMO, the methodology (at least on KP) seems sound. I agree the gap in SOS isn't as great as the difference between say 160th and 60th would suggest. The difference between UK and Duke isn't great at all. The margins are so thin here.
Duke is sitting at 7th with an EM of 23.22
UK is sitting at 19th with an EM of 20.82
23.22 - 20.82 = 2.4. Say 70 possession game. You are basically saying that Duke is 12 spots ahead of UK but only really a 1.5 favorite on a neutral court.
That's how close the two teams are according to Kenpom and by extension Vegas.
The ability to move up is drastic. There's not much difference in this thing. When UK beat UNC, they were ranked 20th after that game. At one point after that, they were 11th. The move up based solely on the merits of their win vs Oklahoma. They are currently 15th.
I think that people are seeing the 7 and seeing the 19th and thinking there's a wider gap than there actually is. The gap between the two is so minimal. IMO to the point that one could definitely argue UK as 1) getting a better (or equal) seed and 2) the actual better team of the two.
The beauty about these systems is that basically humans suck at rating mid majors and non power conference teams. If you look at bracket matrix, it's always those teams that are just all over the map in terms of disagreements when it comes to seeding and what not.
The SOS calculation isn't perfect but it at least tries to put everyone on a level playing field.
The SOS calculation isn't perfect but it at least tries to put everyone on a level playing field.
It's not awful tho. Just keep winning and taking care of business and seeding will play itself out.
The UNCW loss will never be a “good loss” but I think there’s a chance it won’t look nearly as bad by Selection Sunday. They may win their conference and be a 12 seed and work their way up to the 80s or so in the NET.
If we take care of business in the SEC and win 12-14 games in addition to beating Gonzaga, we should end up with a 3 seed at the absolute worst
If we take care of business in the SEC and win 12-14 games in addition to beating Gonzaga, we should end up with a 3 seed at the absolute worst
Plus good wins always matter more than bad losses. Just gobble up as many Q1 wins you can get and the seeding will be fine.
I think the committee understands that upsets happen. If you've shown the ability to beat good teams and especially if those teams are seeds around where you are projected to be, it could only help to jump teams.
I think the committee understands that upsets happen. If you've shown the ability to beat good teams and especially if those teams are seeds around where you are projected to be, it could only help to jump teams.
Especially with wins over UK, UT and Uconn. IU and MIssouri aren't bad wins either.
BYU at 4th is surprising to me lol.
Here are the Kenpom rankings of Duke and then Kentucky's schedule. Keep in mind Duke's SOS is 100 spots higher.. yet when you boil it down, their opponents average kenpom is only 12 spots lower. That sure doesn't look like Duke has had any bit of a harder schedule to date. And I think it's silly to even have MSU in the same realm as Kansas, when MSU has 5 losses and Kansas has 1.
Arizona - 4
Dartmouth - 325
Bucknell - 314
Lasalle - 193
MSU - 21
Southern Indiana - 340
Arkansas - 66
Georgia Tech - 110
Hofstra - 106
Charloette - 123
Baylot - 18
Average = 147
UNC - 15
Kansas - 18
Miami - 64
Stonehill - 358
Penn - 177
St. Joes - 77
New Mexico St - 246
Texas AM commerce - 301
Marshall - 188
Louisville - 202
UNCW - 113
Average = 159
Arizona - 4
Dartmouth - 325
Bucknell - 314
Lasalle - 193
MSU - 21
Southern Indiana - 340
Arkansas - 66
Georgia Tech - 110
Hofstra - 106
Charloette - 123
Baylot - 18
Average = 147
UNC - 15
Kansas - 18
Miami - 64
Stonehill - 358
Penn - 177
St. Joes - 77
New Mexico St - 246
Texas AM commerce - 301
Marshall - 188
Louisville - 202
UNCW - 113
Average = 159
I almost wonder if the SOS is factoring in the entire ...........well nvm that doesn't make much sense either cause the SEC is rated higher than the ACC so that would help UK.
Duke +3.20 (80th)
UK +0.36 (168th)
You know what is really making the difference here? They played Arizona. Arizona has an EM of 29.85. That one game is certainly skewing things a bit.
Duke +3.20 (80th)
UK +0.36 (168th)
You know what is really making the difference here? They played Arizona. Arizona has an EM of 29.85. That one game is certainly skewing things a bit.
Instead of doing this by ranking, do it by EM and there's your answer. It's mostly Arizona have a very high EM compared to all the other teams on both those lists.
So it's all just based on one teams EM? That's kind of silly. DOn't get me wrong, efficiency matters.. but maybe there's a team out there that is less efficient but just throttles you with volume.. Why is that team seen as worse? ANd who is to say that style doesn't beat Arizonas?
EIther way, Duke's schedule is a heck of a lot closer than we think.. and thats probably the same for a lot of teams in the rankings. The 150th team might have had just one slightly better opponent than the 250th ranked sos
This is why I think SOS numbers sometimes are a bit misleading. I mean what they are doing is simply taking the average EM of all your opponents. It seems like a good way to do it but I'm not so sure it's the best way.
Of course as the season goes on, that Arizona one is going to matter less and less.
Duke played at Arkansas, one of the toughest environments in the country. Duke also played at GT. UK's 1 true road game so far? Louisville. Road games matter.
Duke has 2 quad 1 wins, UK has 1.
The numbers speak for themselves. Duke has played a tougher schedule. 2 road games that were both tougher than at Louisville. Duke should never have lost at GT, but at least it was AT GT. A HOME loss to UNC-W is much much more crippling, even though yes a case could be made that UNC-W is a better team than GT.
That's it? 2 road games to 1. That's the big difference maker here lol.
And no, a loss to 1 team at home isn't all the sudden "crippling" compared to losing to a similarly ranked team that's not at home lol.
Kentucky could quite literally play just one more lesser P5 team and our schedule could surpass yours. That's how close this is, despite you thinking that the 60th schedule is THAT much more daunting than the 160th. I just proved to you it wasn't, and I didn't even need to say intangible bullshit like "waahh we had to play at arkansas wahh"
Not to mention on top of all this, you still LOST 3 games in a schedule that's practically identical to ours. Kentucky didnt. You beat Baylor and now unranked, "might miss the tournament" MSU. That's it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
