Current Standing

[Aike]

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.

Yeah pretty much true. But it’s a starting point from the standpoint that they are measuring teams on Q1 wins and Q3/Q4 losses. They say this right on their website.

So they can easily justify decisions on this basis. Doesn’t mean they won’t contradict themselves or twist themselves in knots on other decisions.

But if you’re Kentucky, you know going in to expect to be judged harshly if you are low on Q1 wins or have a Q4 loss. No one in that room is going to defend you.

 

[BlueSince92]

Right now I’m more concerned with whether we can win any first round game with a lineup Cal will actually play.

 

[kyjeff1]

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.

LOL, you have become very good at telling others to be kind and stop being so mean, which is cool, but you can't say that, then turn around and trash someone. You did that.

 

[TheDude73]

LOL, you have become very good at telling others to be kind and stop being so mean, which is cool, but you can't say that, then turn around and trash someone. You did that.

Yeah, but man it was so hard when I thought about a real homer example...it just came out! Hahaha!

 

[YouKay]

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

2011 team had 8 losses (6 in the SEC) and was a 4 seed. That team won only 2 SEC road games.

 

[ruppcat]

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.

I hope you're right but the committee seems to have ever changing standards....especially when UK is involved.

 

[jbne222]

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.

To be fair I don’t believe the committee just looks at the record in each quadrant in a vacuum. They’re not going to discount a win at home vs. Arkansas or auburn as not as impressive if they’re 31st in the NET instead of 29th.

Say we win both of those at home and two other quad 1 games - were not gonna be seeded differently if auburn and Arkansas finish 31st and 32nd in the NET (making it quad 2) vs. if they finish 29th and 30th.

 

[Aike]

To be fair I don’t believe the committee just looks at the record in each quadrant in a vacuum. They’re not going to discount a win at home vs. Arkansas or auburn as not as impressive if they’re 31st in the NET instead of 29th.

Say we win both of those at home and two other quad 1 games - were not gonna be seeded differently if auburn and Arkansas finish 31st and 32nd in the NET (making it quad 2) vs. if they finish 29th and 30th.

I think you’re probably mistaken about that, but it’s nice to dream.

 

[jbne222]

I think you’re probably mistaken about that, but it’s nice to dream.

I mean neither of us know what goes on in those meetings so it’s a moot point, but we can agree thats just a ridiculous way to assess games. A team that’s 29th in the NET vs. that same team finishing 31st in the NET are basically equivalent.

We do know that they have full team sheets of each team printed out with each game’s result and the other teams NET ranking. Not all wins within a quadrant are equal whatsoever (there’s a zero percent chance they would consider a road win at Tennessee = to a home win vs. an Arkansas team ranked 29th for example)

 

[Aike]

I mean neither of us know what goes on in those meetings so it’s a moot point, but we can agree thats just a ridiculous way to assess games. A team that’s 29th in the NET vs. that same team finishing 31st in the NET are basically equivalent.

We do know that they have full team sheets of each team printed out with each game’s result and the other teams NET ranking. Not all wins within a quadrant are equal whatsoever (there’s a zero percent chance they would consider a road win at Tennessee = to a home win vs. an Arkansas team ranked 29th for example)

We know what’s been reported. We know what comes out of the meeting. It isn’t exactly a black box.

I’ve heard and seen enough through the years to be confident that the stuffed shirts in that room aren’t doing much deep analysis. That’s why they like simple tools like Quad wins.

 

[Runnin'Ramel]

They'd probably love to get a team like UK in Dayton for the "First Four" nonsense. Not that they need 'em, since it usually sells out.

 

[jbne222]

We know what’s been reported. We know what comes out of the meeting. It isn’t exactly a black box.

You’re not wrong, but just to push the point further, say it’s the Friday or Saturday before selection Sunday and the committee has started a rough bracket and we have a given seed. Let’s say Arkansas and auburn start the day at 31st and 32nd in the NET, but then by the following morning they move up into the top 30 just barely after the results of games that day.

I highly doubt the committee would look at us and be like “ope! UK just added 2 more quad 1 wins because those two teams marginally moved up, guess we should move them up a seed line or two”.

 

[Aike]

You’re not wrong, but just to push the point further, say it’s the Friday or Saturday before selection Sunday and the committee has started a rough bracket and we have a given seed. Let’s say Arkansas and auburn start the day at 31st and 32nd in the NET, but then by the following morning they move up into the top 30 just barely after the results of games that day.

I highly doubt the committee would look at us and be like “ope! UK just added 2 more quad 1 wins because those two teams marginally moved up, guess we should move them up a seed line or two”.

They wouldn’t give us the benefit of the doubt, no. But if those teams are all Quad 1 early in the week, it will matter.

Not much that happens the last couple days matters unless they want it to.

 

[jbne222]

They wouldn’t give us the benefit of the doubt, no. But if those teams are all Quad 1 early in the week, it will matter.

Not much that happens the last couple days matters unless they want it to.

My main point is I don’t think that would make much of difference outside of a spot or two on the S-curve. But let’s just keep winning and this argument won’t even matter.

 

[Wildcatsworld]

Kentucky. Eats. First.