ADVERTISEMENT

Cats now #8 in the new NET.

We had 8 last year.

Hmm. Maybe.. 6 teams in the top25 since 2003? Heard it on the SECN this morning, can't quiet remember. I woke up to my littlest brother poking my face far too early in the morning.

Didnt know we had that many last year. Pretty legit.. But that hasn't been common in recent years. And this year seems to be not only a solid conference showing but also strong at the top with Kentucky Tennessee as top teams and Auburn, MissSt and LSU in the fold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
What a difference between the NET and RPI. Seems like some things need fixing in this new NET system they made.

Kansas is 19 in NET but 1 in RPI
Kentucky is 8 in NET but 21 in RPI
Oklahoma is 30 in NET but 6 in RPI
Wofford is 29 in NET but 45 in RPI

I don't think the committee really used the RPI actual ranking of a team that heavily in seeding but more how many top 50/100 wins (now quad 1/2 wins) more than the ranking itself.
Yep, I'm sure it will sound like bias based purely on being a UK fan, but the RPI is garbage. It gets better as the season comes to a conclusion, but it is usually just very bad for many teams (UK is that team right now) and it also is equally skewed for others in a positive direction. (Kansas and Oklahoma are good examples of that team right now)

It's clear that the B12 is weighted too heavily in the RPI right now.
 
Yep, I'm sure it will sound like bias based purely on being a UK fan, but the RPI is garbage. It gets better as the season comes to a conclusion, but it is usually just very bad for many teams (UK is that team right now) and it also is equally skewed for others in a positive direction. (Kansas and Oklahoma are good examples of that team right now)

It's clear that the B12 is weighted too heavily in the RPI right now.
The Big 12 hired a scheduling consultant to game the RPI at some point early this decade, and it worked. But not so coincidentally, no other major conference has underachieved vs seeding as much as the Big 12 this decade. And it's not even close.

Compare Big 12 and SEC NCAA tournament results from 2010-18:

Number of bids: Big 12= 57, SEC= 40
Number of teams seeded 1-5: Big 12= 33, SEC =18
Number of Sweet 16 appearances: Big 12= 20, SEC= 17
Overall record: Big 12= 68-57, SEC= 67-39.

I wouldn't argue that the SEC has been a better conference, but I would argue that there have been far, far, far too many cases where a 9-10 loss Big 12 team gets treated like royalty, while a 9-10 loss SEC team is considered bubble material. A 20/33 ratio of top 5 seeding vs actual Sweet 16 appearances is pathetic.
 
It's late January, and we are in a good position to get a 2 or 3 seed. The difficulty of our remaining schedule makes a 1 seed unlikely, but the next two games could go a long way towards improving our seed.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT