Idiotic AP Voters with Duke still ahead of Kentucky (Week 3)

[UKMKG]

Kentucky made its largest leap EVER in the AP poll this week--10 spots from #19 to #9.

However, a few voters had absolutely dumbfounding ranking regarding Kentucky...here are the highlights:

Randy Heitz (who?!) 107.7 The Franchise: Kentucky #17 and Duke #7 -- was he in a coma last week?!

Parth Upadhyaya (the Daily Memphian): Kentucky #13 and Duke #8 -- was he/she in India watching cricket?!

Peter Rauterkus (AL.com): Kentucky #13 and Duke #8 -- Alabama bias?

Marcus Fuller (St. Paul Pioneer Press): Kentucky #10 and Duke #9 -- those two teams just played each other you know!

No other voter had Duke ranked ahead of UK...full list here: https://collegepolltracker.com/basketball/grid/2024/week-3

 

[HerrosHeroes]

And I should be surprised because?

 

[Wonky]

Kentucky made its largest leap EVER in the AP poll this week--10 spots from #19 to #9.

However, a few voters had absolutely dumbfounding ranking regarding Kentucky...here are the highlights:

Randy Heitz (who?!) 107.7 The Franchise: Kentucky #17 and Duke #7 -- was he in a coma last week?!

Parth Upadhyaya (the Daily Memphian): Kentucky #13 and Duke #8 -- was he/she in India watching cricket?!

Peter Rauterkus (AL.com): Kentucky #13 and Duke #8 -- Alabama bias?

Marcus Fuller (St. Paul Pioneer Press): Kentucky #10 and Duke #9 -- those two teams just played each other you know!

No other voter had Duke ranked ahead of UK...full list here: https://collegepolltracker.com/basketball/grid/2024/week-3

These fools should have their voting privileges revoked — especially the first 3 dudes and ESPECIALLY the first guy. If you don’t even care enough to know what is going on in college basketball you don’t deserve a vote IMO.

 

[UKMKG]

I'm not surprised at all by idiots and liar in the legacy media anymore...totally out of touch.

Shoutout to John Rothstein though for having us at #4!

 

[Bluegrass79]

Bias voters should be eliminated

 

[UKMKG]

Yes, but the whole lamestream media is biased.

 

[Mike-D]

You should lose points for stupidity, until you can't vote anymore. Simple solution.

 

[BC_Wader]

Not surprised. None of the "writers" have their own thoughts anymore for the most part. A lot of stuff out there anymore is just copied and pasted anyway.

 

[know1]

Actually, I don't really think it's conclusive that UK should have been ranked ahead of Duke. Yes - we beat them on a neutral court in a single game. And it's still early enough in the season where there aren't enough conflicting similar opponents and results to muddy the waters.

However, if UK and Duke Played 10 times, do you think UK would win the majority?

I would have had us around 12 and Duke about 9 or 10. The poll came out better than I figured.

 

[Oldbluefart]

You should lose points for stupidity, until you can't vote anymore. Simple solution.

Man I know some on here will lose their “s**t” for this, but I read your post and could resist.
Two weeks ago we had 74,000,000 just like you described
Sorry folks, the devil in me took over for a moment

 

[southvillecat]

I gotta be honest, jumping from #19 to #9 might’ve been a little high. I was surprised by it at least. Duke at #12 and Kentucky at #11 would’ve made sense to me. But hey, I’m not complaining. The team is playing great and has several opportunities coming up to get some big wins.

 

[ukcatz12]

Do you guys know how these polls work? Teams are ranked below teams they beat all the time and poll inertia is a thing. It's quite out of the ordinary for a team ranked as low as 19 to beat a top 10 team and be ranked higher than them the very next week.

This isn't some crazy anti-UK bias thing. It's just how college sports polls have worked since the beginning of time.

 

[Seth_C]

Actually, I don't really think it's conclusive that UK should have been ranked ahead of Duke. Yes - we beat them on a neutral court in a single game. And it's still early enough in the season where there aren't enough conflicting similar opponents and results to muddy the waters.

However, if UK and Duke Played 10 times, do you think UK would win the majority?

I would have had us around 12 and Duke about 9 or 10. The poll came out better than I figured.

Sounds great. Now actually justify what you said based on comparisons the results of the two teams. You can’t. Kentucky won head to head. Duke has no better win. Based on the data we actually have, Kentucky absolutely should be ranked ahead of Duke right now. If that changes based on future results, the rankings can change.

Anyone trying to justify Duke being ranked ahead of Kentucky, right now, is doing it based on “feeling” and not evidence.

 

[know1]

Sounds great. Now actually justify what you said based on comparisons the results of the two teams. You can’t. Kentucky won head to head. Duke has no better win. Based on the data we actually have, Kentucky absolutely should be ranked ahead of Duke right now. If that changes based on future results, the rankings can change.

Anyone trying to justify Duke being ranked ahead of Kentucky, right now, is doing it based on “feeling” and not evidence.

I just am confused that so many seem to not understand how polls work. Teams are ranked ahead of teams that beat them all the time.

I guess you all think that before the start of the season, everybody in college basketball should be ranked #1 since nobody had been beaten by anybody else yet.

 

[JonathanW]

Honestly, we won. But they looked like they may be a little better. I think if we play them 10 times, they win 6 and we win 4.
So if a voter is basing their votes more on where they think teams will finish, than what they have done so far, then I could see them having Duke slightly ahead of UK (I don't agree with it, but could see it). But those that have Duke 5 or especially 10 spots ahead of us, that's either laziness (maybe they only care about watching football) or bias.

 

[Blueisbest]

I was shocked that we jumped up so high in one week. After the win I predicted Kentucky would go to 12 or 13 and Duke would be right around the same. I don't think I've ever seen us jump up that much in a week. Normally, the bottom drops out when we lose.

 

[TucsonCat]

Remember when everyone was saying Evansville should be ranked ahead of us after beating us on our home court?

Me neither.

 

[BlueCat#8]

Remember these people/organizations have lied to us(American citizens) for years about what is going on with this country and the world. Do you think they have a pure motive when voting on this poll? Wake up America

 

[The_Answer1313]

Actually, I don't really think it's conclusive that UK should have been ranked ahead of Duke. Yes - we beat them on a neutral court in a single game. And it's still early enough in the season where there aren't enough conflicting similar opponents and results to muddy the waters.

However, if UK and Duke Played 10 times, do you think UK would win the majority?

I would have had us around 12 and Duke about 9 or 10. The poll came out better than I figured.

I tend to agree with this.
Duke had the lead the majority of that game.

What happened at the end was we kind of saw the reverse of what normally happens in Champions Classic games with UK. We executed down the stretch. Our experience showed and their inexperience did as well. Flagg tried to do too much and we were ready for it. Credit the team. Credit Pope. We got the W and that's huge for seeding.

But yeah........if you asked me who would win if this game was played 100 times, I don't think it's unreasonable to think it could be 60-40 Duke or maybe 55-45 Duke.

It could very well be the other way around too but I wouldn't necessarily hammer someone if they disagreed.

One could have an opinion either way. But basing it off one game is just completely the wrong way of looking at things.

 

[Mike-McD]

I just am confused that so many seem to not understand how polls work. Teams are ranked ahead of teams that beat them all the time.

I guess you all think that before the start of the season, everybody in college basketball should be ranked #1 since nobody had been beaten by anybody else yet.

I guess if this had been the title game, you would have said they should award the trophy to Duke, since they were ranked higher at the time. In other words, actually WINNING. THE. GAME. doesn't matter as much as the opinions of a bunch of overpaid blowhards.

How do you make it to the refrigerator without falling down?

 

[arenk]

I tend to agree with this.
Duke had the lead the majority of that game.

What happened at the end was we kind of saw the reverse of what normally happens in Champions Classic games with UK. We executed down the stretch. Our experience showed and their inexperience did as well. Flagg tried to do too much and we were ready for it. Credit the team. Credit Pope. We got the W and that's huge for seeding.

But yeah........if you asked me who would win if this game was played 100 times, I don't think it's unreasonable to think it could be 60-40 Duke or maybe 55-45 Duke.

It could very well be the other way around too but I wouldn't necessarily hammer someone if they disagreed.

One could have an opinion either way. But basing it off one game is just completely the wrong way of looking at things.

Worse yet, UK often drops several spots if they lose a close game to a team ranked higher. Duke can lose to teams ranked lower and not drop at all or drop maybe 1 or 2 spots. It's the same with Kansas, UNC and probably Uconn as of late. The earlier post was correct i saying that some of these idiots should have their credentials revoked for stupidity, bias or simply ignorance.

 

[EliteBlue]

I just am confused that so many seem to not understand how polls work. Teams are ranked ahead of teams that beat them all the time.

I guess you all think that before the start of the season, everybody in college basketball should be ranked #1 since nobody had been beaten by anybody else yet.

I know you say it in jest… but I do personally believe the first month of the season we shouldn’t have polls (never happen bc it’s TV driven for “top 25 matchups”). It ultimately matters less in basketball bc the length of the season and larger data sample but in football…..

In football since only 12 teams make the playoffs. Make teams play out of conference traditional P5 matchups in week 1-3. Release the top 25 rankings heading into week 4. Limits teams from being preseason 1 and getting benefit of the doubt for 1-3 losses compared to a team trying to climb from unranked w 2 losses.

Agree w you tho… I have no issue with Duke being 1-3 spots ahead of us still even with the win. It’s the difference between ppl basing polls on big picture (how do we thin. This plays out over a season) vs moment in time analytically. I understand someone saying “Duke looked like they were slightly better and just got beat due to mistakes late therefore I think they have more talent and are more likely to make a final 4”…and then using that bias in a week 4 ranking

 

[The_Answer1313]

Worse yet, UK often drops several spots if they lose a close game to a team ranked higher. Duke can lose to teams ranked lower and not drop at all or drop maybe 1 or 2 spots. It's the same with Kansas, UNC and probably Uconn as of late. The earlier post was correct i saying that some of these idiots should have their credentials revoked for stupidity, bias or simply ignorance.

There's always this running joke on this board when Duke losses a game that they are going to move up in the rankings.

I don't think it's entirely accurate tho. I don't believe there's this bias that most people seem to think.

Basically:
If you thought UK was better than Duke coming into that game, that game should have just reaffirmed what you've already felt.
If you thought Duke was slightly better than UK coming into that game, maybe then that game tips the scales.

But most people fell into the 3rd category. They felt Duke was better than UK coming into the game. The gap in ranking to begin the season, the Vegas line on the game. Whether correctly or incorrectly, this is the bucket most people fell in. And if that's the case, then a game determined by two possessions one way or the other shouldn't drastically change the opinions. These pollsters from above I'm certain fall into this category. As such, I can't blame them.

I think it's obviously clear UK was underrated. That wasn't bias. That was just based on having a completely new roster and no one knowing how to properly rate us. Even people on this board I think vastly underrated this team. That was evident.

But really that game didn't change my opinion one bit on Duke. I think they are legit. I saw a very good team where their 3s weren't dropping and their inexperience at the end of the game cost them. It didn't really change my feelings on where they should be ranked tho. I'd have moved us up but I wouldn't have moved them down all that much IMO.

 

[Blueheart32]

Should Marquette now jump ahead of Purdue because they beat them? And Purdue ahead of Bama since they beat them? And Bama should also be below Marquette because Marq beat the team that beat Bama? It can't function that way.

 

[know1]

I guess if this had been the title game, you would have said they should award the trophy to Duke, since they were ranked higher at the time. In other words, actually WINNING. THE. GAME. doesn't matter as much as the opinions of a bunch of overpaid blowhards.

How do you make it to the refrigerator without falling down?

Regardless of whether we are slightly ahead of them or they slightly ahead of us at this point, it's not clear cut either way. And certainly not idiotic. What's idiotic is claiming that it is so emphatically.

 

[Titpwhami2014]

My only ask is that it goes both ways. Let’s say the Anthony Davis team had played Duke (Austin Rivers, Plumlee, etc.) at MSG instead of Kansas in 2011-12. Let’s pretend Duke wins that game by 5 points. Does anyone seriously think UK would have been ranked ahead of them on many ballots? An eventual national champion, with the NYPOY (which Flagg could very well be) and a team that lost to Lehigh in the first round? I seriously doubt that would have been reality.

 

[ukcatz12]

I guess if this had been the title game, you would have said they should award the trophy to Duke, since they were ranked higher at the time. In other words, actually WINNING. THE. GAME. doesn't matter as much as the opinions of a bunch of overpaid blowhards.

How do you make it to the refrigerator without falling down?

But this isn't the title game. It was a single game sample three games into the season. Arizona lost to Wisconsin and is still ranked ahead of them. Texas A&M lost to UCF and is still ranked ahead of them. This is simply poll inertia at work.

At the end of the day none of this matters though, because college basketball has a tournament to sort it all out. But nothing about a few voters still having Duke above UK is out of the ordinary.

 

[jrpross]

There are merits to both arguments. Personally, I feel that Kentucky being ranked just above Duke is justified. And yes, part of that is the head to head result. But it’s not as simple as the winner being ranked ahead. Some of the voters probably had Duke 15-20 spots ahead. At what point is it acceptable to not put the lower ranked team ahead of the team they beat? If a 25 beats a 5 should they move ahead? What about an unranked but receiving votes?

Rankings are very subjective, especially this early in the year. And hey, there may even be some bias. But it’s just not as cut & dry as some people seem to think.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

We should write bad things about their roofing business.

 

[arenk]

But this isn't the title game. It was a single game sample three games into the season. Arizona lost to Wisconsin and is still ranked ahead of them. Texas A&M lost to UCF and is still ranked ahead of them. This is simply poll inertia at work.

At the end of the day none of this matters though, because college basketball has a tournament to sort it all out. But nothing about a few voters still having Duke above UK is out of the ordinary.

I'm not making any judgments about whether UK is better than Duke at this juncture. That's debatable as most of you have said. What bothers me is when a team ranked 13th or 14th loses to a team ranked 1, 2 or 3 by fewer than 5 points. If the winning team happens to be Duke, UNC, Kansas or maybe Uconn, the lower ranked team drops 3 or 4 places and the winner moves up a slot or two unless they were already ranked No 1. Isn't a 13th or 14th ranked team supposed to lose to a top 3 ranked team? Yes, and according to how the sports writers or coaches vote, that's exactly what should happen. What bugs me is when a team ranked 6-10, for example, beats a 1-3 ranked team and the loser stays in the same place or drops only one or two places the following week while the team that is 6-10 only moves up one or two places.

True, that analysis is too simplistic because you have to take into account bad shooting nights, why they occur, whether the refs were blatantly biased, where the game was played, whether one of the teams was playing at less than full strength, comparative strength of schedules, etc. All of those factors and many others have to be considered. IMO, and obviously that all it is, is that too often there are certain teams that seem to curry favor with the pollsters as well as the refs in games, especially important ones.

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

Kentucky made its largest leap EVER in the AP poll this week--10 spots from #19 to #9.

However, a few voters had absolutely dumbfounding ranking regarding Kentucky...here are the highlights:

Randy Heitz (who?!) 107.7 The Franchise: Kentucky #17 and Duke #7 -- was he in a coma last week?!

Parth Upadhyaya (the Daily Memphian): Kentucky #13 and Duke #8 -- was he/she in India watching cricket?!

Peter Rauterkus (AL.com): Kentucky #13 and Duke #8 -- Alabama bias?

Marcus Fuller (St. Paul Pioneer Press): Kentucky #10 and Duke #9 -- those two teams just played each other you know!

No other voter had Duke ranked ahead of UK...full list here: https://collegepolltracker.com/basketball/grid/2024/week-3