Up to 12 in NET

[TheDude73]

Honest question...do you really believe that the committee looks at Kentucky and talks about how they want to make it more difficult for them than other teams?

No, I do not believe they sit and collectively have explicit discussions around Kentucky and making it purposely harder.

I do believe they each have their ways of framing opponents for competitive matchups. I work in the corporate world, and there are all sorts of ways to conceal motive with convincing rationales to throw off the scent of their actual true motive.

So in a nutshell, not explicit talks, but around about methods.

 

[bthaunert]

No, I do not believe they sit and collectively have explicit discussions around Kentucky and making it purposely harder.

I do believe they each have their ways of framing opponents for competitive matchups. I work in the corporate world, and there are all sorts of ways to conceal motive with convincing rationales to throw off the scent of their actual true motive.

So in a nutshell, not explicit talks, but around about methods.

I can agree with that across the board. Always looking for interesting matchup's if the seed lines match up.

 

[TheDude73]

I can agree with that across the board. Always looking for interesting matchup's if the seed lines match up.

Well yes, but I am going a step further than you. You're presuming they are all honestly just looking for interesting matchups and seed line alignment. I believe there are many on the committee who come in with a plan to give off the perception that they are not operating with an ulterior motive and are very good and convincing others to go along with what appears to be a harmless push for certain match ups and bracket set ups.

Do we really think Duke and Gonzaga were just randomly given some of the crazy easy and no-story match ups all these years? I mean think about it - how often does UK get set up with some kind of storyline, yet it's rare to see the same thing laid out for Puke, KU or Gonzaga? Michigan St is another one that gets a bracket layout that is pretty much void of any kinds of storylines or match up challenges.

Yet UK always gets pitted against pretty much the best of the best of mid majors with weapons that are coincidentally falling into our biggest weaknesses. Defending the three was one of Cal's worst defensive schemes - they set us up with a team that had crazy sharp shooters who literally ONLY shoots threes (the accountant where nearly 90-something % of his shots come from the perimeter and he was sitting at something like 45% going in).

If I'm on a committee and I want a specific matchup, I'm not going to be obvious as to WHY I want that matchup (the true motive) - I'm going to use data and other storyline or matchup justifications to get others to buy in without even knowing what it is I'm up to. I also believe there are people on these committees that realize the motive when the matchup proposals are given by others and then jump in to go along as they have the same motive. Kind of a speak easy "ahhhh, I know what you're trying to do here, Joe, and I'm all in with you...but we need to make it look like we are being completely objective!".

 

[bthaunert]

Well yes, but I am going a step further than you. You're presuming they are all honestly just looking for interesting matchups and seed line alignment. I believe there are many on the committee who come in with a plan to give off the perception that they are not operating with an ulterior motive and are very good and convincing others to go along with what appears to be a harmless push for certain match ups and bracket set ups.

Do we really think Duke and Gonzaga were just randomly given some of the crazy easy and no-story match ups all these years? I mean think about it - how often does UK get set up with some kind of storyline, yet it's rare to see the same thing laid out for Puke, KU or Gonzaga? Michigan St is another one that gets a bracket layout that is pretty much void of any kinds of storylines or match up challenges.

Yet UK always gets pitted against pretty much the best of the best of mid majors with weapons that are coincidentally falling into our biggest weaknesses. Defending the three was one of Cal's worst defensive schemes - they set us up with a team that had crazy sharp shooters who literally ONLY shoots threes (the accountant where nearly 90-something % of his shots come from the perimeter and he was sitting at something like 45% going in).

If I'm on a committee and I want a specific matchup, I'm not going to be obvious as to WHY I want that matchup (the true motive) - I'm going to use data and other storyline or matchup justifications to get others to buy in without even knowing what it is I'm up to. I also believe there are people on these committees that realize the motive when the matchup proposals are given by others and then jump in to go along as they have the same motive. Kind of a speak easy "ahhhh, I know what you're trying to do here, Joe, and I'm all in with you...but we need to make it look like we are being completely objective!".

This is where I disagree with you. I think we are more keenly aware of any storyline that involves UK because we know about them. But Duke having Davidson, or playing Johnny Dawkins in the 2nd round or playing South Carolina in South Caroline as a 2 seed in the 2nd round or facing UNC Wilmington in the first round, etc., or Few facing his former assistant in 2022 etc.

Storylines absolutely happen, but it's not unique to UK. Also, in terms of the difficulty of the bracket, I disagree 100%. UK has had some pretty good paths to the Final Four along the way. Have they had some tough ones, absolutely, but every other team has too.

 

[BlueWorldOrder74]

Dropped to 13 after yesterday. Off days hurt us apparently.

 

[CatEye2010]

Dropped to 13 after yesterday. Off days hurt us apparently.

Jumped by Maryland, who won at ranked Michigan last night.