Current Standing

[Tampa_cat54]

Currently, as of this morning, we are ranked 31st in the NET, which would put us as an 8 seed (Lunardi putting us "on the bubble" has just been an attempt to get clicks).

Breakdown below of the remaining schedule

Quad-1 Games
Auburn (Home)
Arkansas (Home)
Mississippi State (Away)
Tennessee (Home)
Florida (Away)
Arkansas (Away)

Quad-2 Games
Georgia (Away)

Quad-3 Games
Vanderbilt (Home)

Safe to say, with being 31 in the NET now with 6 potential Q1 wins and another Q2 win on the table, we could certainly make a run to get into the 4-5 seed range before the end of the regular season, and then SEC Tournament could get us a couple more.

Not saying that all happens, but find a way to go 6-2 or even 7-1 down the stretch here, win a couple in the SEC Tournament, and this season suddenly looks a lot different than it did a month ago.

 

[ganner918]

Lunardi putting us "on the bubble" has just been an attempt to get clicks

The consensus of nearly 100 bracketologies is that we are on the bubble. It's not an attempt to get clicks. It's reality, and we have too many homers here who refuse to accept that reality.

 

[KA4Prez]

We aren't on the bubble if we go 3-3 in those quad 1 games, remain over .500 the rest of the season.

Call it 6-4 rest of the way.

Including a conservative "bounce" in the SEC quarterfinals.

That's 22-11, would easily get in.

 

[Aike]

We are on the bubble because we have only 1 Q1 win and a Q4 loss.

Those first 2 games are borderline Q1. Us beating them could knock them off the Q1 line.

Probably need to win at least 2 of the last 4 and 3 of 4 to feel safe. A top 4 seed in the SEC Tournament and at least 1 more Q1 win would be great.

Our situation isn’t dire, but we still have work to do and could go either direction from here.

 

[EliteBlue]

Sweeping Arkansas would be big. But if we are going to split it would be best to drop the home game and win on the road. It guarantees it remains a Q1 regardless if the drop to 31-70 the rest of the season

 

[CB3UK]

We're on the bubble right now.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

The consensus of nearly 100 bracketologies is that we are on the bubble. It's not an attempt to get clicks. It's reality, and we have too many homers here who refuse to accept that reality.

I am far from a homer, I am a realist. The NET is their number 1 criteria (BY FAR).

We have only 1 loss in Quads 2-4, with a 31 NET ranking.

Last years "Last 4 in's" NET rankings were 43, 46, 58, and 80.

31 NET is not on the bubble. It's just a fact.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

We're on the bubble right now.

See above. I know most don't like Cal and hate this team but numbers are numbers. 31 in the NET has never missed the tournament.

We could certainly play our way back onto the bubble, but not currently.

 

[Aike]

Sweeping Arkansas would be big. But if we are going to split it would be best to drop the home game and win on the road. It guarantees it remains a Q1 regardless if the drop to 31-70 the rest of the season

Crazy but true. Committee member math.

“Let’s develop an algorithm to tell us how good teams are. Then instead of using it straight up, let’s count a road win over the number 1 team the same as a road win over the number 70 team.”

 

[mcwildcats04]

Currently, as of this morning, we are ranked 31st in the NET, which would put us as an 8 seed (Lunardi putting us "on the bubble" has just been an attempt to get clicks).

Breakdown below of the remaining schedule

Quad-1 Games
Auburn (Home)
Arkansas (Home)
Mississippi State (Away)
Tennessee (Home)
Florida (Away)
Arkansas (Away)

Quad-2 Games
Georgia (Away)

Quad-3 Games
Vanderbilt (Home)

Safe to say, with being 31 in the NET now with 6 potential Q1 wins and another Q2 win on the table, we could certainly make a run to get into the 4-5 seed range before the end of the regular season, and then SEC Tournament could get us a couple more.

Not saying that all happens, but find a way to go 6-2 or even 7-1 down the stretch here, win a couple in the SEC Tournament, and this season suddenly looks a lot different than it did a month ago.

Is the NET one of the most important rankings for the selection committee? I can't even keep track anymore what they are most focused on.

 

[Aike]

I am far from a homer, I am a realist. The NET is their number 1 criteria (BY FAR).

We have only 1 loss in Quads 2-4, with a 31 NET ranking.

Last years "Last 4 in's" NET rankings were 43, 46, 58, and 80.

31 NET is not on the bubble. It's just a fact.

Look at the NET of 10 seed San Francisco last year. Ended up 26th. Had a Q4 loss like us. Had a 4-7 Q1 record.

We have work to do to get to that level. If we have work to do to score a 10 seed, we are firmly on the bubble.

 

[bbncal02]

Either the NET matters or it doesn’t. In reality we have one truly bad loss.

Now, if we collapse and go 3-4 in our next 7 yeah we are in trouble. But I don’t think as of this exact moment we are in the bubble. Get a win Tuesday and bubble talk shouldn’t happen at all.

 

[Runnin'Ramel]

I had a vision last night:

UK is in the 8/9 game (likely a 9 seed) with Purdue as the 1 seed. Everyone hypes up the game between the last two National Players of the Year ... and then boom, UK loses in rd 1 as the 9 seed to an 8 seed like Iowa or some other underwhelming mediocre team from a major conference.

 

[ganner918]

I am far from a homer, I am a realist. The NET is their number 1 criteria (BY FAR).

We have only 1 loss in Quads 2-4, with a 31 NET ranking.

Last years "Last 4 in's" NET rankings were 43, 46, 58, and 80.

31 NET is not on the bubble. It's just a fact.

Your ranking in the NET is not a major piece in the seeding process. We have an atrocious loss, one good win, just an overall mediocre resume. Every bracketologist out there agrees we are on the bubble. If you do not accept this then yes, you are a homer. Argue all you want whether we SHOULD be. That's another discussion. But it is 100% indisputable that we ARE.

 

[bbncal02]

Look at the NET of 10 seed San Francisco last year. Ended up 26th. Had a Q4 loss like us. Had a 4-7 Q1 record.

We have work to do to get to that level. If we have work to do to score a 10 seed, we are firmly on the bubble.

P5 conference has to factor in right? As well as SOS?

I don’t see how an 8 loss UNC doesn’t get mentioned on the bubble in a very weak ACC.

 

[CB3UK]

See above. I know most don't like Cal and hate this team but numbers are numbers. 31 in the NET has never missed the tournament.

We could certainly play our way back onto the bubble, but not currently.

That's not how it works.

 

[Aike]

Either the NET matters or it doesn’t. In reality we have one truly bad loss.

Now, if we collapse and go 3-4 in our next 7 yeah we are in trouble. But I don’t think as of this exact moment we are in the bubble. Get a win Tuesday and bubble talk shouldn’t happen at all.

Unfortunately, this just isn’t how the committee works. NET is only a starting point. Q1 wins and Q3/Q4 losses weigh heavily in their decisions. We have put ourselves behind the eight ball, but we still have some runway.

 

[bbncal02]

Your ranking in the NET is not a major piece in the seeding process. We have an atrocious loss, one good win, just an overall mediocre resume. Every bracketologist out there agrees we are on the bubble. If you do not accept this then yes, you are a homer. Argue all you want whether we SHOULD be. That's another discussion. But it is 100% indisputable that we ARE.

So scrap the dman NET. It’s worthless.

 

[CB3UK]

So scrap the dman NET. It’s worthless.

Correct

 

[Aike]

I had a vision last night:

UK is in the 8/9 game (likely a 9 seed) with Purdue as the 1 seed. Everyone hypes up the game between the last two National Players of the Year ... and then boom, UK loses in rd 1 as the 9 seed to an 8 seed like Iowa or some other underwhelming mediocre team from a major conference.

Won’t be Iowa with Purdue looming but your scenario doesn’t sound unreasonable at all.

Only problem I see is committee not wanting to disadvantage Purdue by letting us play so close to home.

 

[bbncal02]

Unfortunately, this just isn’t how the committee works. NET is only a starting point. Q1 wins and Q3/Q4 losses weigh heavily in their decisions. We have put ourselves behind the eight ball, but we still have some runway.

I realize that USC loss is bad. But it’s also year full of parity. Lots of teams have a clunker loss. But I also realize that UK gets no damn help ever.

We could have tha be our only loss and get a stupid 2 seed.

That committee os one of the stupid most things in basketball and I’ve seen them Mia-seed on purpose or just out of stupidity.

This is why I’m not overly a stats guy no offense. I use them but I trust my eyes more. We look way better than we did a month ago.

Win both this week and the bubble talk should be done.

 

[ganner918]

So scrap the dman NET. It’s worthless.

The NET, just like the RPI before it, permeates the entire process but the exact ranking you are isn't used much in determining your seed. NET is used more just to define your SOS and what are good wins and bad losses, but "Kentucky is 31 while team X is 38" is not taken into strong consideration when determining where to seed the two of us. I don't like the NET as a system, though I do prefer it to RPI at least (which isn't saying much), but SOME system has to be used to define these things. I have no problem with HOW it is used, only with how it was designed - it's a pretty slapped together rating system without much intention behind it.

 

[Aike]

P5 conference has to factor in right? As well as SOS?

I don’t see how an 8 loss UNC doesn’t get mentioned on the bubble in a very weak ACC.

They’re on the bubble too, whether it gets mentioned or not. Only thing they have over us is no terrible losses.

 

[bbncal02]

The NET, just like the RPI before it, permeates the entire process but the exact ranking you are isn't used much in determining your seed. NET is used more just to define your SOS and what are good wins and bad losses, but "Kentucky is 31 while team X is 38" is not taken into strong consideration when determining where to seed the two of us. I don't like the NET as a system, though I do prefer it to RPI at least (which isn't saying much), but SOME system has to be used to define these things. I have no problem with HOW it is used, only with how it was designed - it's a pretty slapped together rating system without much intention behind it.

But by the committee’s own words when it was established would be a huge factor.

Anyone know the highest NET ranking to be snubbed? Best I could find was NC State in 2019. Net of 33. Who made it in that year? A bad St John’s team with a. Ranking of 78.

I was never a fan of it. It’s obviously worthless. Bilas panned it upon inception too.

 

[Bluegrass79]

Best they could possibly do is a two seed and they have to win every game here on out and the SEC tournament. Momentum would be pretty good. I still might get stuck on the three line though even undefeated.


6 and 2 and SEC championship and they could probably get a 5 seed.
But let's be real it doesn't matter what this team seed is they can beat anybody. Got the best rebounder in the ****ing country. We got some shooters we got a couple point guards. I would not want to play Kentucky in the tournament so the rest of the damn NCAA better hope we keep losing.

I've watched this tournament to know that there's a better seed sometimes than the number ONE or two seed. A five or seven is a good seed in my opinion. All the teams are garbage this year

 

[Tampa_cat54]

Unfortunately, this just isn’t how the committee works. NET is only a starting point. Q1 wins and Q3/Q4 losses weigh heavily in their decisions. We have put ourselves behind the eight ball, but we still have some runway.

See this confuses me. "The NET is worthless, but NET wins and NET losses are what weigh heavily"....the NET isn't worthless?

Our NET ranking is literally the formula of our NET wins and losses, which puts us at 31. You can't say the NET doesn't weigh heavily, and then use NET criteria (Q1 wins, Q3/4 losses, etc.) for what is holding is back.

 

[BBNinSC]

I’m not buying the bubble talk either. At this moment, 14 teams in the top 25 have 5-7 losses.
If UK wins the next two games, we should be ranked in the top 20.
I know there are many bracketologists in here, but if this team ends the season with single digit losses, we’re a 4 seed or better

 

[bbncal02]

I

See this confuses me. "The NET is worthless, but NET wins and NET losses are what weigh heavily"....the NET isn't worthless?

Our NET ranking is literally the formula of our NET wins and losses, which puts us at 31. You can't say the NET doesn't weigh heavily, and then use NET criteria (Q1 wins, Q3/4 losses, etc.) for what is holding is back.

its the NCAA man. Everything is made up and the only points that matter come on the floor.

 

[Aike]

See this confuses me. "The NET is worthless, but NET wins and NET losses are what weigh heavily"....the NET isn't worthless?

Our NET ranking is literally the formula of our NET wins and losses, which puts us at 31. You can't say the NET doesn't weigh heavily, and then use NET criteria (Q1 wins, Q3/4 losses, etc.) for what is holding is back.

I didn’t say it was worthless. I said it was a starting point.

On the rest, you’re preaching to the choir. I’m just acknowledging how it’s actually done, not commenting on how it should be done. Gave up on that years ago.

 

[Bluegrass79]

As long as we don't lose 11 or 12 games we're fine. Kentucky brings ratings. we ain't getting left out of the tournament unless we're God awful.

I'm fine with the 5 seed or a 7. 11 or 12. That's the easiest way throu a tournament bracket imo other than one or two seed this year.

I believe this is a tournament where you just need to get in it doesn't matter what you're seeding is if you're kentucky. Oscar will be ready this time. Cal will be ready

 

[yoshukai]

Currently, as of this morning, we are ranked 31st in the NET, which would put us as an 8 seed (Lunardi putting us "on the bubble" has just been an attempt to get clicks).

Breakdown below of the remaining schedule

Quad-1 Games
Auburn (Home)
Arkansas (Home)
Mississippi State (Away)
Tennessee (Home)
Florida (Away)
Arkansas (Away)

Quad-2 Games
Georgia (Away)

Quad-3 Games
Vanderbilt (Home)

Safe to say, with being 31 in the NET now with 6 potential Q1 wins and another Q2 win on the table, we could certainly make a run to get into the 4-5 seed range before the end of the regular season, and then SEC Tournament could get us a couple more.

Not saying that all happens, but find a way to go 6-2 or even 7-1 down the stretch here, win a couple in the SEC Tournament, and this season suddenly looks a lot different than it did a month ago.

Not saying you are wrong but, I thought I saw where Auburn is no longer a quad 1 team. I’m probably mistaken.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

Not saying you are wrong but, I thought I saw where Auburn is no longer a quad 1 team. I’m probably mistaken.

NET home wins is for top 30 opponents, Auburn is currently 27th.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Simple to me. We cant lose anymore home games and need to go 2 and 2 on the road and we are easily in.

Honestly with the schedule we have left 6 and 2 is easily doable. If this was a real UK team I'd say other than at Arkansas all the other road games should be wins. Sorry not sorry on the real UK team comment.

 

[crawfords corner]

Not going to keep a 12-6 in conference Kentucky out of the NCAAT even with the South Carolina loss. Only concern with the tournament in that instance is seeding. The SCjr loss no matter the rest of UKs wins is likely to cost them at least 1 seeding line.

 

[cats2010]

The consensus of nearly 100 bracketologies is that we are on the bubble. It's not an attempt to get clicks. It's reality, and we have too many homers here who refuse to accept that reality.

The “bubble” doesn’t even exist until the end of the regular season and leading into conference tournaments. By then there is a pretty clear picture whose in, whose out, and who is on the bubble and would need a win or two in their conference tournaments to make it in or have to sweat it out. You can’t be on the bubble until there is one and right now there isn’t despite what any bracket “expert” wants to roll out,

 

[TheDude73]

Your ranking in the NET is not a major piece in the seeding process. We have an atrocious loss, one good win, just an overall mediocre resume. Every bracketologist out there agrees we are on the bubble. If you do not accept this then yes, you are a homer. Argue all you want whether we SHOULD be. That's another discussion. But it is 100% indisputable that we ARE.

You could try a little nicer way of speaking and perhaps call him "hopeful" rather than "homer". I'd say he's just looking for any shred of hope, and if the data shows some hope, let them have it.

It's like people can't stand, or simply can't discern, hope vs. homerism.

You know who's a homer? HerrosHeroes. By far the biggest homer we have. He's not hopeful, he's over the top homer.

 

[entropy13]

Not going to keep a 12-6 in conference Kentucky out of the NCAAT even with the South Carolina loss. Only concern with the tournament in that instance is seeding. The SCjr loss no matter the rest of UKs wins is likely to cost them at least 1 seeding line.

^This. I kinda see us shaping up as a six-seed if we keep playing moderately well. I'd prefer a six over a four or five-seed because it keeps us on the other side of the bracket from the one-seed.

Putting aside my Cal skepticism/antipathy for the moment, if we go finish 7-1 and win or finish as the runner-up in the SEC tournament, we could conceivably finish as a high as a three-seed. I view that scenario as unlikely, however.

 

[TheDude73]

I didn’t say it was worthless. I said it was a starting point.

On the rest, you’re preaching to the choir. I’m just acknowledging how it’s actually done, not commenting on how it should be done. Gave up on that years ago.

It's not just a starting point. The committee loves to use it when it supports their decisions, but will throw it right out the window and come up with some wacky seeding. It's more of window dressing, frankly, that the committee throws out there to cover up their storyline/favoritism and NCAA advertising dream matchup choices.

Yes, this is conspiracy-like, but I think we can all agree that the committee has made some horrible decisions many, many times in the past, and it doesn't take much work to figure out that a lot of it is linked to money, eyeballs, storylines, etc., and the "NET" they've created was more of a cloak than a tool.

 

[Big Cat fan]

I am far from a homer, I am a realist. The NET is their number 1 criteria (BY FAR).

We have only 1 loss in Quads 2-4, with a 31 NET ranking.

Last years "Last 4 in's" NET rankings were 43, 46, 58, and 80.

31 NET is not on the bubble. It's just a fact.

They even said they don't really use that anymore.

 

[The_Answer1313]

They even said they don't really use that anymore.

No they definitely use the NET.
It's plastered all over the team sheets they receive. It's the official number the NCAA uses. It's also used to determine the Quads which are so important to the seeding process. It's also used to determine SOS numbers that are on the sheets.

Having said that, it's incorrect to look at the number itself and think we are safe. You can't just go 1 through 44 (or however many at large bids there are) and think the seeding is going to go accordingly to that. It just doesn't work that way.

The Bracket Project's Bracket Matrix - 2022

We aren't an 8 seed currently. We are an 11 seed currently. The consensus usually misses on one or two teams making the tournament and they most certainly do not miss on a team that people say is an 8 seed as missing out completely.

I will say this tho. It's kind of weird to me to have a committee that determines seeding because all they do is look at the Quads and who you beat to try to determine where you should be seeded. But that's essentially what the NET is already be doing. In other words, it would not bother me in the least bit if they scrapped the committee and just used NET. Or Kenpom. Or BPI. Or Sagarin. Or a combination.