ADVERTISEMENT

That Loss Was Costly Seeding Wise

We were in the drivers seat for a 3 seed. Now it's almost certainly a 4. IMO that is a huge difference.

The 1s and 2s are set imo.

East
UConn
ISU

South
Houston
Tennessee

Midwest
Purdue
Marquette

West
UNC
Arizona

That leaves Illinois, Auburn, Creighton, Duke, Baylor and UK for the 3s. I think we get left out and deservedly so.
Duke doesn’t deserve a 3 seed lmao
 
People IMO getting too hung up over 3 seed or 4 seed.
The bottom line is this team doesn't have the defense to compete for a national title if we are being honest here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dynastydreamuk
People don't want to admit it but there's a reason Duke will be seeded ahead of us tomorrow.

Our "resume" is better. Their efficiency numbers are better.
 
Duke v/s UK (Duke has been talked in the 2/3 seed all year)

Quad 1A wins (best of quad 1)

Duke(1) - Baylor #14
UK (4) - UNC #7, UT #6, Auburn #5, Alabama #9

Bad losses :

Duke - Arkansas #115 / Georgia Tech #127
UK - LSU #95, UNCW #118
The UK loss to UNCW is sandwiched right between the losses to Arkansas and Georgia Tech by Duke.

Not counting Duke's win over Michigan St. (#25 neutral floor), also not counting UK's over Florida (#28 on the road).

Outside of the mentioned Baylor (#14) and Michigan State (#25), Duke's quad 1 wins : Pitt (#41 away) Virginia Tech (#60 away), and NC State (#68 away)
UK's - Miss. State (32 away), the home Miss. State win is Quad2) (not counting @ Florida (#28 Away)

Agree. But the problem is, it's not Duke we're fighting now, because I think their BAD loss puts them at a 4 seed.

We're fighting Baylor, Creighton, Illini, Auburn. And Auburn losing today would be huge for us, and it would probably keep them behind us.

I think we're a 4. Cant see the NCAA doing us any favors.
 
See my post above. The at Arkansas and Georgia tech losses are worse from a net ranking. We have a lot better wins, especially in the Quad 1A part. Baylor is their only 1A win (#14), UK has 4 Quad 1A wins: #5 Auburn, #6 UT, #7 UNC, and #9 Bama.

Duke quad 1 wins : Baylor #14, Michigan St. #25, Pitt #41, Virginia Tech #60, NC State #68.
UK quad 1 wins : Auburn #5, UT #6, UNC #7, Bama #9, Florida #28, and Miss. State #32.

Duke gets quad 1 credits for 3 shitty wins against NON tournament, or Bubble teams simply because they was on the road. Michigan St. doesn't deserve to be in, NC State, nope, Virginia Tech, nope, Pitt, doubt it.

So a quick recap - Duke - #14,#25,#41,#60,#68 total adding all the quad 1 win teams net ranking = 208
UK - #5,#6,#7,#28,#32 = 87

Possibly ALL of Duke's quad 1 opponent wins other than Baylor, MAY not even make the tournament. HTF are they quad 1 wins when the teams may not even get in ? (They will put Michigan State in, but don't deserve it)

NOT ONE of UK's wins are in danger of missing the field. UNC will be a 1 seed, UT 2 seed, Auburn, 3 seed, Bama 4 seed.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: dynastydreamuk
See my post above. The at Arkansas and Georgia tech losses are worse from a net ranking. We have a lot better wins, especially in the Quad 1A part. Baylor is their only 1A win (#14), UK has 4 Quad 1A wins: #5 Auburn, #6 UT, #7 UNC, and #9 Bama.
Arkansas is 115
UNCW is 118
GT is 127

Both of dukes losses to Ark and GT were on the road.
Our loss was at home to UNCW

That's why it's a quad 3 loss for us and only quad 2 loss for them.
So no, Dukes losses are not worse than ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cornbreadnmilk
They just said they have seeded the top 6 lines maybe the Auburn wins won't matter like they never do for Kentucky in years past when we did such things like win SEC tournament games.

I wonder if they will go back and scrub the top 4 lines after today or not.

It not Kentucky has been seeded regardless of what Auburn, Illinois and others do rest of the way as far as top 4 lines go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FitchandMurray29
People don't want to admit it but there's a reason Duke will be seeded ahead of us tomorrow.

Our "resume" is better. Their efficiency numbers are better.
The contrast between “resume” and efficiency(KP which is essentially NET) will be fascinating for all the bottom 2 seeds through 4 seeds.

I expect they’ll have a moving rationale to justify whatever they do tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Answer1313
The contrast between “resume” and efficiency(KP which is essentially NET) will be fascinating for all the bottom 2 seeds through 4 seeds.

I expect they’ll have a moving rationale to justify whatever they do tomorrow.

I think when push comes to shove they do go more resume based because that’s more of a commitee human thing to do. Who did you beat. Of course this is already factord in the actual NET rankings lol.

BUT I’d venture to say the efficiency teams do better relatively to whatever seed they get. Efficiency matches Vegas lines pretty good. So these teams that get mis seeded end up being the ones that are favorites against better seeds
 
  • Like
Reactions: FitchandMurray29
We were in the drivers seat for a 3 seed. Now it's almost certainly a 4. IMO that is a huge difference.

The 1s and 2s are set imo.

East
UConn
ISU

South
Houston
Tennessee

Midwest
Purdue
Marquette

West
UNC
Arizona

That leaves Illinois, Auburn, Creighton, Duke, Baylor and UK for the 3s. I think we get left out and deservedly so.
Im not sure we were getting a 3 unless we had also won today.
According to NET, we where never a 3 spot and committee loves that NET
 
The kentucky defense is so comically bad we have no chance no matter the seed. We could upset one of the good teams thought before flaming out
 
The kentucky defense is so comically bad we have no chance no matter the seed. We could upset one of the good teams thought before flaming out

I was just thinking the same thing.

Our defense won’t allow us to win six straight but this team did beat UNC who is a 1 last I checked, UT a 2. Auburn a 3 or 4 and Bama a 4.

I can’t imagine any 1 seed wants to see us on the 4 line. We won’t win six in a row but our offense any given night gives us a shot against anyone
 
  • Like
Reactions: FitchandMurray29
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT