Losses to Teams NOT Projected in NCAA Tournament Currently

[Tampa_cat54]

Purdue- 3 (Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State)
Marquette- 2 (Seton Hall, Providence)
Duke- 3 (Georgia Tech, Pitt, Arkansas)
Kansas- 3 (UCF, Kansas State, West Virginia)
Arizona- 4 (Stanford, Oregon State, Wash St, soon to be FAU after they lost again today)
UNC- 3 (Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Villanova)
Wisconsin- 5 (Providence, Penn State, Michigan, Rutgers, Iowa)- and the committee SOMEHOW ranked them #16 yesterday?!?!?

I could keep going down the list.

KENTUCKY- ZERO. I repeat- ZERO losses to teams not currently projected to make the NCAA tournament. Including UNC Wilmington.

ZERO.

We should not have all of our losses. We know that. Florida/Gonzaga/Wilmington especially. But man, it really feels like we are graded on a slightly different curve by the computers and media than everyone else is.

Some of these teams have bad, and I mean BAD losses. We have some losses that are certainly not to our standard, and Cal has been appropriately roasted for that.

But we don't have any losses like what some of the teams I mentioned above have, and no one seems to give us credit for that part of it.

UNC for instance only has 4 wins against the current field, 3 losses against teams outside of the current field, PLUS we beat them, yet it's just a forgone conclusion that they are 2 or 3 seed lines higher.

Idk, just wanted to point out something that I think is a pretty significant stat.

 

[Aike]

It’s the weird nature of Q1 games, and the way we schedule.

If we played a competitive holiday tournament we might get 3 Q1 opportunities in a week. We never do that.

I think relying so heavily on an arbitrary measure like Q1 wins is lazy reasoning, but we know they do it.

 

[UK90]

Purdue- 3 (Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State)

Both Northwestern and Nebraska are projected to be in.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

It’s the weird nature of Q1 games, and the way we schedule.

If we played a competitive holiday tournament we might get 3 Q1 opportunities in a week. We never do that.

I think relying so heavily on an arbitrary measure like Q1 wins is lazy reasoning, but we know they do it.

It's the old adage that for some reason, good or decent wins are worth WAY more than bad losses- yet our "bad" losses seem to tank us, while others (like Wisconsin, etc.), get a complete pass for just dropping games to ridiculously bad opponents.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

Both Northwestern and Nebraska are projected to be in.

Eh fair enough, those snuck past me as one is a last 4 in, but my point still stands.

 

[Aike]

It's the old adage that for some reason, good or decent wins are worth WAY more than bad losses- yet our "bad" losses seem to tank us, while others (like Wisconsin, etc.), get a complete pass for just dropping games to ridiculously bad opponents.

I think our bad losses hurt us more when other teams don’t have them. We are lucky that Arizona and UNC both have Q3 losses.

What we need are Q1 wins. We are the kind of team that can’t afford to have holes in our resume. If they are going to pick and choose what to care about, we need to be solid across the board.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

The Kenpom NCSOS really doesn't make sense to me. We seem far too low in that ranking based on 3-4 tournament teams and 2 or 3 top125ish teams.

Auburn has a better SOS but I can't figure out why, unless some of their cupcakes were slightly better than ours..

All that is to say, I think we had one of the harder total schedules, when you consider playing in the SEC and our OOC play. Tennessee x2, Florida x2, @Auburn, @USC, Bama etc.. then UNC, Kansas, Gonzaga, Miami, teams like Penn and UNCW are decent.

 

[KA4Prez]

This comes down to John Calipari simply not understanding how to schedule in the NET era. It's that simple.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

I think our bad losses hurt us more when other teams don’t have them. We are lucky that Arizona and UNC both have Q3 losses.

What we need are Q1 wins. We are the kind of team that can’t afford to have holes in our resume. If they are going to pick and choose what to care about, we need to be solid across the board.

UNC, Arizona, Duke, and Kansas all also have Q3 losses, all more recently than ours.

Auburn is 7 in the NET with only 2 Quad-1 wins. Alabama is 5th in the NET with only 2 Quad-1 wins.

BYU is 9th with only 3 Quad-1 wins.

I get the metrics part of it but the NET is so incredibly flawed.

But you are right, we need more Quad-1 wins- got a HUGE one yesterday, have 2 more opportunities in the next 3 games to get some more.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

This comes down to John Calipari simply not understanding how to schedule in the NET era. It's that simple.

Having a season-opening tournament would be helpful, but it's certainly not the issue here.

Not sure what else we should be doing. People didn't like the amount of cupcakes, so we got some teams in the 100 to 150 range.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

This comes down to John Calipari simply not understanding how to schedule in the NET era. It's that simple.

Does the head coach determine the schedule by himself or who else is involved?

 

[Montana81]

It’s the weird nature of Q1 games, and the way we schedule.

If we played a competitive holiday tournament we might get 3 Q1 opportunities in a week. We never do that.

I think relying so heavily on an arbitrary measure like Q1 wins is lazy reasoning, but we know they do it.

The SEC tournament more or less not factoring into the selection process at all anymore robs us of another 1 or 2 Q1 opportunities as well. The last few years there’s been little to no movement from SEC teams based on their conference tourney performance.

So we’re competing against teams from other conferences for seed and draw with a hand tied behind our back essentially.

We really need to lobby harder to get that tourney moved up a day. Kentucky fans could definitely make a difference here if they stopped showing up to it.

 

[Bluegrass79]

It's all right we going to smash through the first two rounds. If its a #1 in game 2.... So be it. Whatever seed they want to give us it doesn't matter. Hate all they want but this Kentucky team brings eyeballs. Ratings matter and referees listen!
Mark it down

 

[Aike]

The SEC tournament more or less not factoring into the selection process at all anymore robs us of another 1 or 2 Q1 opportunities as well. The last few years there’s been little to no movement from SEC teams based on their conference tourney performance.

So we’re competing against teams from other conferences for seed and draw with a hand tied behind our back essentially.

We really need to lobby harder to get that tourney moved up a day. Kentucky fans could definitely make a difference here if they stopped showing up to it.

What’s crazy to me is the argument about getting that Sunday tv time and all the attention it brings.

Aren’t we one of the top 2 conferences now? Why don’t we flex our muscle and dictate terms - demand a switch to Saturday. Let the Big East or ACC play on Sunday.

Or play when they are playing. I really don’t care.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

What’s crazy to me is the argument about getting that Sunday tv time and all the attention it brings.

Aren’t we one of the top 2 conferences now? Why don’t we flex our muscle and dictate terms - demand a switch to Saturday. Let the Big East or ACC play on Sunday.

Or play when they are playing. I really don’t care.

For a while now I have thought the SEC should make the championship the first one on Saturday at 4. Because the big 12 gets the 6 game, and ACC gets the 8 o’clock game. You would get that window where people are watching the game and the game could still matter for seeding. 2016 is the perfect example. They could have and should have switched UK and Texas a&M after that game but for some reason they didn’t

 

[Aike]

For a while now I have thought the SEC should make the championship the first one on Saturday at 4. Because the big 12 gets the 6 game, and ACC gets the 8 o’clock game. You would get that window where people are watching the game and the game could still matter for seeding. 2016 is the perfect example. They could have and should have switched UK and Texas a&M after that game but for some reason they didn’t

Good idea. We benefit nothing by playing on Sunday. Only ever hurts us.

 

[FitchandMurray29]

Everything comes down to Quad 1 records anymore for bracketing purposes. It’s a silly metric. Perfect example: UK actually picked up a Q1 loss yesterday while getting their biggest win of the year. Huh? (Florida jumped into the top 30 in NET making that home L a Q1 loss)

We’ll only have 3 Q1 games left this regular season: Bama, at MSU, at UT.

SEC tournament overly simplistic thinking: every game Friday on will be Q1, any games before it won’t be.

Folks better get used to it now. Come Selection Sunday we will probably be ranked higher in the polls than we get seeded. I think in general we’ll end the season on a positive run, but most teams in our range will have more Q1 wins for the committee to point to.

It’s so hard to predict where we’ll end up as everyone else beats up on each other too. But I’m looking at it as having the goal of getting 3 more Q1 wins before Selection Sunday. Bama/MSU/UT/Friday/Saturday/Sunday of SEC tourney. Find a way to win 3 of those.

 

[Montana81]

For a while now I have thought the SEC should make the championship the first one on Saturday at 4. Because the big 12 gets the 6 game, and ACC gets the 8 o’clock game. You would get that window where people are watching the game and the game could still matter for seeding. 2016 is the perfect example. They could have and should have switched UK and Texas a&M after that game but for some reason they didn’t

It happened in 2011 too. We beat Florida twice in as many weeks, had 1 more loss overall than them, and they got a 2 and we got a 4. To me that made it pretty obvious the brackets were set before that game and they didn’t bother to make an adjustment.

 

[Wildcats1st]

Purdue- 3 (Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State)
Marquette- 2 (Seton Hall, Providence)
Duke- 3 (Georgia Tech, Pitt, Arkansas)
Kansas- 3 (UCF, Kansas State, West Virginia)
Arizona- 4 (Stanford, Oregon State, Wash St, soon to be FAU after they lost again today)
UNC- 3 (Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Villanova)
Wisconsin- 5 (Providence, Penn State, Michigan, Rutgers, Iowa)- and the committee SOMEHOW ranked them #16 yesterday?!?!?

I could keep going down the list.

KENTUCKY- ZERO. I repeat- ZERO losses to teams not currently projected to make the NCAA tournament. Including UNC Wilmington.

ZERO.

We should not have all of our losses. We know that. Florida/Gonzaga/Wilmington especially. But man, it really feels like we are graded on a slightly different curve by the computers and media than everyone else is.

Some of these teams have bad, and I mean BAD losses. We have some losses that are certainly not to our standard, and Cal has been appropriately roasted for that.

But we don't have any losses like what some of the teams I mentioned above have, and no one seems to give us credit for that part of it.

UNC for instance only has 4 wins against the current field, 3 losses against teams outside of the current field, PLUS we beat them, yet it's just a forgone conclusion that they are 2 or 3 seed lines higher.

Idk, just wanted to point out something that I think is a pretty significant stat.

UNCW May be picked to win their conference but they are not an at large team. They are 107 with 7 losses. I see how you try to spin it but no one’s buying.

 

[Wildcats1st]

This comes down to John Calipari simply not understanding how to schedule in the NET era. It's that simple.

He didn’t know on the rpi era either

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

I think our bad losses hurt us more when other teams don’t have them. We are lucky that Arizona and UNC both have Q3 losses.

What we need are Q1 wins. We are the kind of team that can’t afford to have holes in our resume. If they are going to pick and choose what to care about, we need to be solid across the board.

Plus Dook. They lost to 2 teans with a losing record in ARK and GA Tech. GA Tech a Quad 3 loss. GA Tech was at home and they're 141, way worse than UNCW. And they really don't play anyone as the ACC is trash.

 

[CincinnatiWildcat]

The whole quadrant thing is stupid imo. We use the computers to rank the teams. Then we use the results against arbitrary lines we draw to determine a resume and the human rank them again from there? Seems like it would be easier to just human rank them or take the computer rankings. Trying this weird fusing them together thing doesn’t make sense

 

[ukfan1622]

Purdue- 3 (Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State)
Marquette- 2 (Seton Hall, Providence)
Duke- 3 (Georgia Tech, Pitt, Arkansas)
Kansas- 3 (UCF, Kansas State, West Virginia)
Arizona- 4 (Stanford, Oregon State, Wash St, soon to be FAU after they lost again today)
UNC- 3 (Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Villanova)
Wisconsin- 5 (Providence, Penn State, Michigan, Rutgers, Iowa)- and the committee SOMEHOW ranked them #16 yesterday?!?!?

I could keep going down the list.

KENTUCKY- ZERO. I repeat- ZERO losses to teams not currently projected to make the NCAA tournament. Including UNC Wilmington.

ZERO.

We should not have all of our losses. We know that. Florida/Gonzaga/Wilmington especially. But man, it really feels like we are graded on a slightly different curve by the computers and media than everyone else is.

Some of these teams have bad, and I mean BAD losses. We have some losses that are certainly not to our standard, and Cal has been appropriately roasted for that.

But we don't have any losses like what some of the teams I mentioned above have, and no one seems to give us credit for that part of it.

UNC for instance only has 4 wins against the current field, 3 losses against teams outside of the current field, PLUS we beat them, yet it's just a forgone conclusion that they are 2 or 3 seed lines higher.

Idk, just wanted to point out something that I think is a pretty significant stat.

Nice post. It's frustrating when you think your team should only have 4-5 losses right now and a top 5 ranking but...things seem to be going in the right direction with UK and the players seem tough and ready for the challenge.

 

[bcox13]

Seeding always matters for sure, but this year maybe less than previous years. Other than maybe UCONN, I
don't think anyone is an automatic to make it out of the first weekend

 

[Smashcat]

Purdue- 3 (Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State)
Marquette- 2 (Seton Hall, Providence)
Duke- 3 (Georgia Tech, Pitt, Arkansas)
Kansas- 3 (UCF, Kansas State, West Virginia)
Arizona- 4 (Stanford, Oregon State, Wash St, soon to be FAU after they lost again today)
UNC- 3 (Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Villanova)
Wisconsin- 5 (Providence, Penn State, Michigan, Rutgers, Iowa)- and the committee SOMEHOW ranked them #16 yesterday?!?!?

I could keep going down the list.

KENTUCKY- ZERO. I repeat- ZERO losses to teams not currently projected to make the NCAA tournament. Including UNC Wilmington.

ZERO.

We should not have all of our losses. We know that. Florida/Gonzaga/Wilmington especially. But man, it really feels like we are graded on a slightly different curve by the computers and media than everyone else is.

Some of these teams have bad, and I mean BAD losses. We have some losses that are certainly not to our standard, and Cal has been appropriately roasted for that.

But we don't have any losses like what some of the teams I mentioned above have, and no one seems to give us credit for that part of it.

UNC for instance only has 4 wins against the current field, 3 losses against teams outside of the current field, PLUS we beat them, yet it's just a forgone conclusion that they are 2 or 3 seed lines higher.

Idk, just wanted to point out something that I think is a pretty significant stat.

Purdue won't make it to a FF again imo. They have those bad losses plus the entire Big 10 is really down.

 

[Smashcat]

KENTUCKY- ZERO. I repeat- ZERO losses to teams not currently projected to make the NCAA tournament. Including UNC Wilmington.

Not only that, UK has not played with a full roster all season except for the Ole Miss game, and even then, Mitchell had to leave early. 🤪

 

[ukjenning44]

Good idea. We benefit nothing by playing on Sunday. Only ever hurts us.

When did we last play on a Sunday? I honestly can’t remember!

 

[EliteBlue]

UNCW/UF/Gonzaga (one of those you had sealed and blew it). You win those 3 like you should have and we are a 2 seed at worse if not a 1

 

[Aike]

When did we last play on a Sunday? I honestly can’t remember!

Good old days

 

[bucsrule8872]

What’s crazy to me is the argument about getting that Sunday tv time and all the attention it brings.

Aren’t we one of the top 2 conferences now? Why don’t we flex our muscle and dictate terms - demand a switch to Saturday. Let the Big East or ACC play on Sunday.

Or play when they are playing. I really don’t care.

When the SEC goes to 16 teams, it would be the perfect time to change the tourney.

Four opening round games on Tuesday and four on Wednesday.

Four quarterfinal games on Thursday.

Two semifinal games on Friday night.

Championship on Saturday.

That would be the smart move.

 

[Montana81]

When did we last play on a Sunday? I honestly can’t remember!

2018. I hadn’t thought about that but damn.

 

[ukjenning44]

2018. I hadn’t thought about that but damn.

Well on the bright side, the Sunday SEC championship game hasn’t affected our seeding for a longgggg time!

 

[Tampa_cat54]

When the SEC goes to 16 teams, it would be the perfect time to change the tourney.

Four opening round games on Tuesday and four on Wednesday.

Four quarterfinal games on Thursday.

Two semifinal games on Friday night.

Championship on Saturday.

That would be the smart move.

Agreed with this completely!

 

[Smashcat]

Meanwhile, here's an IU fan.
There's a very real chance this season will end without a single win vs. an eventual NCAA tournament team. Just, damn. Send shooters, wings & money. #iubb

 

[kennyskywalker34]

They really need to play in a holiday tournament. Many of the teams in those tournaments end up being tournament teams. You get extra chances for Q1 wins and the losses don't kill you if you're losing to Q1 teams.

 

[$Z71$]

I think our bad losses hurt us more when other teams don’t have them. We are lucky that Arizona and UNC both have Q3 losses.

What we need are Q1 wins. We are the kind of team that can’t afford to have holes in our resume. If they are going to pick and choose what to care about, we need to be solid across the board.

This. If we handled business and beat Florida and Texas A&M in the overtime games we'd be sitting pretty currently. You could swap one of those two with Kansas game were we lead by 14 in second half and by 6 at under 4 timeout. Win 2 of those 3 and we'd be in the drivers seat. Totally different expectations and outlook with very small changes in outcomes.

 

[Fox2monk]

It’s the weird nature of Q1 games, and the way we schedule.

If we played a competitive holiday tournament we might get 3 Q1 opportunities in a week. We never do that.

I think relying so heavily on an arbitrary measure like Q1 wins is lazy reasoning, but we know they do it.

I cannot believe Purdue has lost only 3 games but they have been to terrible teams in conference. Makes no sense. I couldn’t believe they lost to Ohio State.

 

[Fox2monk]

What would have helped us is if Miami wasn’t a total fraud. We whipped the sh@t outta them ranked #8 and now it’s like that game don’t matter.

 

[Fox2monk]

Everything comes down to Quad 1 records anymore for bracketing purposes. It’s a silly metric. Perfect example: UK actually picked up a Q1 loss yesterday while getting their biggest win of the year. Huh? (Florida jumped into the top 30 in NET making that home L a Q1 loss)

We’ll only have 3 Q1 games left this regular season: Bama, at MSU, at UT.

SEC tournament overly simplistic thinking: every game Friday on will be Q1, any games before it won’t be.

Folks better get used to it now. Come Selection Sunday we will probably be ranked higher in the polls than we get seeded. I think in general we’ll end the season on a positive run, but most teams in our range will have more Q1 wins for the committee to point to.

It’s so hard to predict where we’ll end up as everyone else beats up on each other too. But I’m looking at it as having the goal of getting 3 more Q1 wins before Selection Sunday. Bama/MSU/UT/Friday/Saturday/Sunday of SEC tourney. Find a way to win 3 of those.

Doesn’t that mean we have a q1 win down there too? I’m assuming that’s already in the resume anyway.

 

[$Z71$]

I cannot believe Purdue has lost only 3 games but they have been to terrible teams in conference. Makes no sense. I couldn’t believe they lost to Ohio State.

Believe it or not had Purdue won it would have been a Quad 1 win for then. This is the problem with the NET. The rankings are based off the rankings. Metrics are involved but when 14-11, and 13-12 are considered Quad 1 wins on the road in conference that's a huge flaw IMO. Lots of cheap Quad 1 wins in the Big East and Big 10 this year.