Joe Lunardi has Kentucky as a three-seed at the moment
- Thread starter preacher_tom
- Start date
I think it all depends on how the freshman mature. Learning to mesh together as a team is important. And the seeding will take care of it's self.
That's fine. Seeds don't matter this year. The biggest issue for me is keeping away from UNC's bracket. Their size would give Kentucky fits and Paige offsets Murray from any scoring advantage Jamal might offer.
I'd suspect that Kansas, UNC, and two of Oklahoma, Maryland, and MSU are the 1 seeds when the whole thing comes together. UNC is really the only bad matchup out of that bunch. Given that UK has the most room to grow out of that bunch, I don't feel overwhelmingly pessimistic about our chances against any of the "big boys". The key will be getting Skal to buy in defensively. He has about three months to make it happen. I suspect he'll get there, and if he does, UK will have a decent chance to at least make a legit run at the Final Four.
I'd suspect that Kansas, UNC, and two of Oklahoma, Maryland, and MSU are the 1 seeds when the whole thing comes together. UNC is really the only bad matchup out of that bunch. Given that UK has the most room to grow out of that bunch, I don't feel overwhelmingly pessimistic about our chances against any of the "big boys". The key will be getting Skal to buy in defensively. He has about three months to make it happen. I suspect he'll get there, and if he does, UK will have a decent chance to at least make a legit run at the Final Four.
I'm okay with a 3 seed as long as we get the Yum Center for potential Sweet 16/Elite 8 games.
And with the potential 3 seeds we could be battling with, we would need to finish ahead of them to get that spot. Say Purdue, Xavier, and Butler joined us as 3 seeds (which at this point could be possible). 3 of those 4 would want Louisville. Purdue would want Chicago I guess.
And with the potential 3 seeds we could be battling with, we would need to finish ahead of them to get that spot. Say Purdue, Xavier, and Butler joined us as 3 seeds (which at this point could be possible). 3 of those 4 would want Louisville. Purdue would want Chicago I guess.
Teams like X, Butler and Purdue could throw monkey wrenches into the seeding process and don't forget our buddies the Zags. It is way too early to project, worry or even think about seedings . I think college basketball will look much different by March 1 than it has in the past few years. We will see some names near the top that we haven't seen in awhile
I know most people think its silly but I always like to look at location. If these did end up being the top 24 seeds they would be placed like this in the regionals:
Louisville:
1. Oklahoma
2. Xavier
3. Kentucky
4. Butler
5. Texas A&M
6. UCLA
Chicago:
1. Michigan State
2. North Carolina
3. Iowa State
4. Villanova
5. West Virginia
6. Pittsburgh
Philadelphia:
1. Kansas
2. Maryland
3. Duke
4. Miami
5. Providence
6. George Washington
Anaheim:
1. Virginia
2. Purdue
3. Louisville
4. Arizona
5. Cincinnati
6. Oregon
Once again the west looks the weakest. An 8 seed might get to the Final 4 out of there if it shaped up similar to this.
Louisville:
1. Oklahoma
2. Xavier
3. Kentucky
4. Butler
5. Texas A&M
6. UCLA
Chicago:
1. Michigan State
2. North Carolina
3. Iowa State
4. Villanova
5. West Virginia
6. Pittsburgh
Philadelphia:
1. Kansas
2. Maryland
3. Duke
4. Miami
5. Providence
6. George Washington
Anaheim:
1. Virginia
2. Purdue
3. Louisville
4. Arizona
5. Cincinnati
6. Oregon
Once again the west looks the weakest. An 8 seed might get to the Final 4 out of there if it shaped up similar to this.
Last edited:
Well I guess it helps us if UL is on the same seed line as far as YUM goes lol.
Our chances go from 25% to 33.3% being in Louisville lol
Our chances go from 25% to 33.3% being in Louisville lol
Exactly. Which is why having them on the same seed line as us increases our chances of going there
If UK is a 3 they will not be in the Louisville region. That would not reward the 1 and 2 seeds in the region.
UK still has a chance at a one or two seed. It is way too early. History suggests Cal will have this team ready in March.
The top seeds are only protected in the first round from having the worse seed have a HFA in the tournament.
Not saying that UK would get that region as a 3 seed, but it's likely and won't be because of whatever 1 or 2 is there. Especially if the seeds pan out like above.
All it will depend on is WHERE we are on the line and the other teams on that line.
One thing is certain. If UK is a 3 seed or lower, they will not be in Louisville. I'm not quite sure the committee would allow it even as a two seed. They know it would be like road games for the opponents and only do that for Duke and UNC.
It's not certain at all. Just like a spelled out above, if those teams are the 3 seeds in that order, that is how it will pan out.
This just isn't accurate.
There has been plenty of times where even in the second round, the worst seed has been at an advantage.
If UK is a 3 seed, they won't even meet the 1 seed unless they both reach the Elite 8. The committee isn't going to not stick UK in that region just because of the possibility that could happen.
There is a very real chance UK ends up in the South region. Those odds just go up if UL happens to be on the same line as that's one team that cannot go there.
***This is what I've got currently:
Louisville:
1. Kansas
2. Xavier
3. Duke
4. Purdue
5. Villanova
6. George Washington
Chicago:
1. Michigan State
2. North Carolina
3. Iowa State
4. Butler
5. West Virginia
6. South Carolina
Philadelphia:
1. Maryland
2. Virginia
3. Providence
4. Miami (FL)
5. Cincinnati
6. UConn
Anaheim:
1. Oklahoma
2. Arizona
3. Kentucky
4. Louisville
5. Texas A & M
6. Baylor
It just depends on who the others on our seed line are guys and where we are rated in relation to them. Its that freaking simple.
In the case of this:
9. Iowa State
10. Kentucky
11. Duke
12. Louisville
That would be totally easy for the committee. Louisville can't play in the YUM anyway and they would be the lowest of the 4 so they get shipped west. The other 3 the committee gets to put in their preferred regional with Iowa State being close to Chicago, Kentucky being close to Louisville, and Duke getting its 'natural' spot in the Northeast.
Now what would be interesting is if UK ended up on the 2 or 3 line with: Purdue, Xavier, & Butler.
Don't expect any favors unless we are a #1 seed.
Although, when we all talked about this in Feb/.March last year, didn't it turn out that location to school was a huge factor? Is in, trying to make the games played as close to the team as possible for cost and fan support.
Could be wrong, But one thing I DO remember saying is "It seems some schools get moved for proximity purposes and others based on amtchups and how good they are". There is no set rubric for all teams, it's here and there, and THAT'S what's scary.
Although, when we all talked about this in Feb/.March last year, didn't it turn out that location to school was a huge factor? Is in, trying to make the games played as close to the team as possible for cost and fan support.
Could be wrong, But one thing I DO remember saying is "It seems some schools get moved for proximity purposes and others based on amtchups and how good they are". There is no set rubric for all teams, it's here and there, and THAT'S what's scary.
The thing that stinks for people trying to buy tickets is picking a region is very unpredictable. It's much easier for the first two rounds as you go down the list and base it on location.
The regionals it's a bit more difficult. Say your the last 1.........well your gonna play your first round games real close to home, but your gonna be shipped out West most likely for the regional.
Regionals it depends where your at on a particular line
The regionals it's a bit more difficult. Say your the last 1.........well your gonna play your first round games real close to home, but your gonna be shipped out West most likely for the regional.
Regionals it depends where your at on a particular line
***Once you get 3 and below it's not just nearest site though. They also like to avoid matchups played earlier in the season such as Kansas / Kentucky, or Duke / Kentucky, etc. and/or prevent conference match-ups 'til much later on as well.
Actually it's ALL about location. There are some bracketing rules that prevent things from happening (ie you can only have a certain number of teams from each conference in each region on the top 4 lines......things like that.......but barring any rule, it's STRICTLY LOCATION.
You could take the seed list......1 to 68 and pretty much figure out why teams went where they did. I do this every year and it's all location
They do this in the first 2 rounds.....maybe. But they don't for regionals. Believe that if you want.
Got it, thought you were inferring that, if UofL is a higher seed, they could potentially play at YUM.
And it seems like in recent history they don't really care about previous matchups.
It matters much more in conference. For example if you play someone in conference three times in a season, you can't meet until the regionals. Things like that.
It matters much more in conference. For example if you play someone in conference three times in a season, you can't meet until the regionals. Things like that.
Exactly. Which is why I listed the top 6 seeds as I did. I took into account conference affiliation first to ensure no matchups of conference foes before the Elite 8. Then you just go by preferred location of the highest to lowest team on each seed line. That's how it's supposed to work in general.
I am one all for conspiracies against UK, but if it ended this way (of course it won't) there's no way they'd not send UK to Louisville.
Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines. Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament. Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament. Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the third round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament. Any principle can be relaxed if two or more teams from the same conference are among the last four at-large teams selected to the field to participate in the First Four.
I mean you got rules like that^^^
But once the rules are taken into account, it's basically all about geography
I mean you got rules like that^^^
But once the rules are taken into account, it's basically all about geography
History shows the committee gives "home" treatment to Duke and UNC. It would be great; if it were simple...like they said it would be.
Yep. I also think it helps Louisville is considered the SOUTH region and not MIDWEST. Alot more teams considered Midwest (OK, Perdue, MSU, Kansas etc etc.)
I think it helps UK's chances of landing in the South by having the midwest region be Chicago. Of course I'm just speculating at this point.
That's because North Carolina just happens to have alot of arenas. Now with the YUM center, we get the advantage too. We were there 2012, there again last season. With this being a regional it's a bit trickier and will depend on other factors,but there's a shot we go there again.
Sad YUM doesn't have anything for the 2017 and 2018 tournaments tho
I mean, that's a lot of rules. SOunds like even though location is #1 priority, it certainly doesn't shake out that way once you apply the 15 match-up rules they have.. which I don't agree with. I don't really care that Duke played ND 3 times.. I'd rather see ND get placed appropriately then shuffled around because of in-season matchups.
alue. Additional Considerations 1. If possible, rematches of non-conference regular-season games should be avoided in the First Four and second round. 2. If possible, after examining the previous two years’ brackets, teams or conferences will not be moved out of its natural region or geographic area an inordinate number of times
They say these things but by the time they reach these considerations I don't think they consider them at all. How many times have we played WVU in the tournament since Cal has been here? Three times in the five years we were in it? lol
They say these things but by the time they reach these considerations I don't think they consider them at all. How many times have we played WVU in the tournament since Cal has been here? Three times in the five years we were in it? lol
It's not that many rules to be honest.
But I agree with you.
I mean ultimately it comes down to this.........location vs fairness. Do you want a fair tournament where all the regions are perfectly balanced? Go 1-68 and place teams on an S Curve. Throw everything out the window.
Or do you want it based on location.
Apparently when they talked to athletic directors years ago, they all opted for location which is a big reason you have what you have today.
This is why currently the Midwest will always be stacked and the West will always be weak.
There's just no way to even come close to satisfying everything. And that's what I don't like. I feel like sometimes they get choosy about what's important depending on the team.
The key point in all this: There's about 10-15 match-up rules, that must be taken into consideration first, which completely skew the Location Principle.
The key point in all this: There's about 10-15 match-up rules, that must be taken into consideration first, which completely skew the Location Principle.
Poor ole Utah wishes they had these rules from 1993-2005.....6 times of the 11 tourneys they made it to we knocked them off. Of course one was the national title, so they were placed completely opposite that time.
Nah not that many rules. Mostly just the main one about making sure conference teams don't meet up soon if they played each other a bunch of times. You'd be surprised at how much it's about location tho.
But that's not really a fair way to do this lol
But then again...........maybe it should be somewhat location.
I mean if UK earns a 1 seed......maybe they deserve to play closer to home. They've earned it.
It makes the regular season somewhat more important when thinking about it like that.
I mean if UK earns a 1 seed......maybe they deserve to play closer to home. They've earned it.
It makes the regular season somewhat more important when thinking about it like that.
This is one that still has me shaking my head
Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Several independent elements are combined to produce the RPI. These elements are a part of the statistical information that may or may not be utilized by each member in any manner they choose. The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties, the emotional effects of specific games, etc. Beginning each January, the NCAA will release the official RPI on a weekly basis at www.ncaa.com. Each committee member independently evaluates a vast amount of information during the process to make individual decisions. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of various data -- that each individual ultimately will determine their vote on all issues related to selections, seeding and bracketing. The individual components (i.e., win-loss record, opponents‟ record, opponent opponents‟ record, where the game is played) of the RPI in and of themselves, are important in the evaluation process.
We have better systems. Committee still using RPI is just SMH
Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Several independent elements are combined to produce the RPI. These elements are a part of the statistical information that may or may not be utilized by each member in any manner they choose. The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties, the emotional effects of specific games, etc. Beginning each January, the NCAA will release the official RPI on a weekly basis at www.ncaa.com. Each committee member independently evaluates a vast amount of information during the process to make individual decisions. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of various data -- that each individual ultimately will determine their vote on all issues related to selections, seeding and bracketing. The individual components (i.e., win-loss record, opponents‟ record, opponent opponents‟ record, where the game is played) of the RPI in and of themselves, are important in the evaluation process.
We have better systems. Committee still using RPI is just SMH
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Kentucky Owns The State Of Tennessee In Basketball
- Latest: CaptainBoogerBuns
