Yet UK remains #19 in the NET rankings
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
16 games against Quad 3 and Quad 4.
That's the difference between UK and everyone else.
Not enough Quad 2 wins.
That's the difference between UK and everyone else.
Not enough Quad 2 wins.
UNC moved up 3 spots for beating a crap Duke team, which they had already beaten. And Duke is ranked lower than UT.
Kansas, for instance, despite being 21-9, remains ahead of UK in the NET. They have played 21 games against Quad 1 and Quad 2 (UK only played 15). Kansas has only played 9 games against Quad 3 and Quad 4.
NET is such a flawed metric. Teams that lose will go up 5-7 spots like Arkansas did, but Kentucky can win at one the best teams in the country and not move any
The NET rates overall performance similar to Kenpom and Torvik. A lot of people think the uncw game is an anchor…and that’s part of it but not that big a factor ultimately.
What hurts is the games we were killing teams and let off the gas at the end or the officials call a bunch bs to close the gap(Georgia, Bama a few others).
Basically we didn’t run up the score enough when we had the chance. Our 10 point average margin of victory isnt that much considering how many possessions per game we average as well.
We were up on Mississippi State by 8 with under a minute and let them tie it. We were up on tennessee by 11 with 2 and some change they had a chance to tie. We were up on bama by 39 at one point with around 8 minutes left and let them shave 17 points off that. Up on Georgia by 30+ and won by 9.
We’ve sucked at closing out games and it’s effected our metrics a great deal. By my count we’ve even taken 3 losses because of it (Kansas, Florida, LSU)
At the end of the day it might cost us a seed line but they know what we can do to the best teams in the country. The wins speak for themselves. Nobody wants to see us in the tournament. If we can beat Tennessee in an away game then people can't rely on "wait until they face a good defense". And you better pack a lunch if you want to beat us in a shootout.
If we can't beat a 12 seed as opposed to a 13 seed it wasn't going to matter anyway.
If we can't beat a 12 seed as opposed to a 13 seed it wasn't going to matter anyway.
What I'm realizing in the SOS nonsense, is that Kentucky should have done what Auburn did..
Which is, DONT schedule marquee games that will be tough challenges.. instead pad your resume with power conference bottom feeders and more 120ish ranked mid majors lol.
Nice system lol. We played a schedule that in theory, offered more teams that actually had a realistic chance to beat us, in Kansas, UNC, Gonzaga.. but got punished for it.
So lesson learned.. schedule Notre Dame, Arizona St and Northwestern next year and play an OOC slate that is virtually impossible to have more than one loss, a la Auburn.
Which is, DONT schedule marquee games that will be tough challenges.. instead pad your resume with power conference bottom feeders and more 120ish ranked mid majors lol.
Nice system lol. We played a schedule that in theory, offered more teams that actually had a realistic chance to beat us, in Kansas, UNC, Gonzaga.. but got punished for it.
So lesson learned.. schedule Notre Dame, Arizona St and Northwestern next year and play an OOC slate that is virtually impossible to have more than one loss, a la Auburn.
If Kentucky takes care of business on Friday and Saturday in the SEC Tournament, they have a shot at the 2-line. Definitely on the 3-line right now.
Nothing much more they can do. The resume is what it is. Must beat Texas A&M/Ole Miss. Then it's a 2 or 3-seed.
Nothing much more they can do. The resume is what it is. Must beat Texas A&M/Ole Miss. Then it's a 2 or 3-seed.
Your last line says it all. Give us whatever seed you're going to give us. All I know is the 15 teams that end up with us are going to be pissed that they got put in the bracket of death with a hot UK team.
Home vs New Mexico State (285)
Home vs Texas A&M Commerce (332)
Home vs Stonehill (356)
Home vs Marshall (243)
These were 4 games that were pointless to play. Could have been MUCH better opponents. Even Penn (neutral vs 212) would be tolerable.
UNCW is 112th. Losing to them isn't great, but it isn't a dealbreaker.
Florida (35), Tennessee (5), Gonzaga (16) are missed opportunities, but it's not like they are BAD losses.
Home vs Texas A&M Commerce (332)
Home vs Stonehill (356)
Home vs Marshall (243)
These were 4 games that were pointless to play. Could have been MUCH better opponents. Even Penn (neutral vs 212) would be tolerable.
UNCW is 112th. Losing to them isn't great, but it isn't a dealbreaker.
Florida (35), Tennessee (5), Gonzaga (16) are missed opportunities, but it's not like they are BAD losses.
Alabama:
Home vs Morehead State (106)
Home vs Indiana State (26)
Home vs Arkansas State (145)
Neutral vs Liberty (133)
Four games that flew under the radar for them, but ended up being good wins relative to what UK did.
Home vs Morehead State (106)
Home vs Indiana State (26)
Home vs Arkansas State (145)
Neutral vs Liberty (133)
Four games that flew under the radar for them, but ended up being good wins relative to what UK did.
I believe St. Joe's was near the 100s for much of the year. And we still had a ton of big matchups.
But either way a lot of teams play those games.
To me, it's how many games did you schedule where your opponent actually has a realistic chance to beat you? We had 3 or 4 of those games, where a lot of other teams (like Auburn) had just 1 .
But message received lol. No more 250 teams.. just schedule a lot of 100 teams, most of whom are really no different to a team like UK. For teams like UK and Auburn.. it ain't much of a differe ce if you're 175th or 275th.
St. Joe's and UNCW were not bad opponents to play. If you just play those versus absolute bottom feeders, you improve your NET by a few slots at least.
How dare you besmirch the historic and noteworthy Wildcat Challenge or whatever they're calling the UK Invitational this year!
And some random game against Marshall.
Apparantly. But I'm not sure I agree with that. I keep choosing Auburn because they are seen to have a better NonConf schedule by like 40 spots.
And when I compare the two, I just don't see it.
Miami also didn't help us, but I also feel like they were a different team coming off of that F4, than they are now. They had F4 aspirations when we played them. They proceeded to totally kill our SOS after we beat them.
Man Miami ended up hot garbage. Even for the dumpster fire that is ACC basketball this year. The even hotter, larger dumpster fire that is Louisville basketball was the only reason they didn't come in last.
Yeah I think Cal likes scheduling a bunch if heavy weights, and then exhibition matches in between.
I think if Miami didn't collapse and UofL could just get back to even the top75.. that would have been a heck of a schedule.
But I still don't like this whole notion that scheduling the 150th team is really any difference than the 225th team.
That's like a senior in HS saying "I won't beat up the neighborhood 11 year old.. I'll beat up the 13 year old".. ain't much of a difference there IMO.
I think if Miami didn't collapse and UofL could just get back to even the top75.. that would have been a heck of a schedule.
But I still don't like this whole notion that scheduling the 150th team is really any difference than the 225th team.
That's like a senior in HS saying "I won't beat up the neighborhood 11 year old.. I'll beat up the 13 year old".. ain't much of a difference there IMO.
Nerd numbers are for nerds.
Play the games.
KenPomPom can edit the numbers but he can’t edit the games.
Look at this nerf number, Kenect(sp?) was -8 for the game yesterday.
Yet without him we probably win by 30.
Just stupid numbers.
Works great for a model. But thankfully models aren’t playing the games.
Play the games.
KenPomPom can edit the numbers but he can’t edit the games.
Look at this nerf number, Kenect(sp?) was -8 for the game yesterday.
Yet without him we probably win by 30.
Just stupid numbers.
Works great for a model. But thankfully models aren’t playing the games.
If a player scores 100 points on 50 for 50 FGA, and he plays the entire game
And his team loses..
He's going to have a negative plus/minus.
You can't go by that. Its clear that Dalton Knecht had maybe the best performance of the YEAR last night, or one of.
Completely ridiculous, I have been watching the Net and Kenpom after every game, how can North Carolina have a similar but not as good win and move from 10 to 7?
Because the gap between 7 and 10 was smaller than the gap between 19 and 18.
I think yesterday’s win removes any possibility of Kentucky being a 5 seed in the tourney. Kentucky is either a 3 seed or the highest 4
And conference championships on the weekends don’t matter at all
Unfortunately, the committee is made up of a bunch of non-sports college administrators spattered with a few athletic directors who actually give a sh*t. They usually just go chalk on the NET and only reference the NET and several other "factors" to explain controversial seeding decisions, usually around the following teams and scenarios:
Duke - higher seeding than their NET ranking, SOS, cherry-picked subset of past games and outcomes, losses by 5 pts or less, and some anecdotal rambling about "body of work".
Kansas - same as Puke.
Gonzaga - same as Puke.
Kentucky - seeding that doesn't pass the eye test - if the NET has us ranked 19th, then by God they are going to stick us right where the NET says. There is no other factor taken into consideration - the NET is the end all be all if it means a lower seed. If we are high in the NET, the committee goes on and on rambling about Quad 3, UNCW, close games we should have won (notice we don't get credit for those close losses, but the aforementioned teams do), and a plethora of other word salad rationales. CASE IN POINT - our 8 seed with the twins. The entire world knew we should have been seeded higher, but the NET was pretty new and the committee stuck right on it, even though we had been surging.
In a nutshell, the NET says what it says and the committee will use it to get teams where they want them, full of a bunch of lazy rationale, fan or media backlash be damned.
I don't know about you but the thirteen-year-olds in my friend group were different from me and other 11-12s.
A thirteen-year-old had hit a growth spurt, voice a little deeper, can stay home by himself doesn't need a babysitter. He has crossed over from "elementary" to "middle" school. Not quite legal employment age but over the summer does man shit like help dad replace some old boards and paint the deck and mow grass for the old ladies in the neighborhood. At the pool he can go to the deep end without his older brother/sister having to "watch him"
None of us would ever say, "eh, rankings, there's not much difference between uk and whoever the 8th best basketball program of all time is..."
There's a big difference. I don't even know who the 8th best program of all time is.
That 2nd round exit...eh, pretty much the same as a final four year. Just a couple games different.
How about you and your homeboy deciding who gets who at the dance? "Hey uh, ya know Suzie is a 5.5 and Stacey is an 8, I'll go ahead and take Stacey...there's no difference really."
But I digress, back to topic of our schedule. It sucks. It sucks especially considering we are UK the best of all time, have Cal an 800+ win HOF coach, typically have multiple pros on our roster, and are playing these teams in Rupp. We should be penalized even harder for not scheduling a bit tougher.
Texas AM Commerce...what the heck does that even mean?
Stonehill...Kentucky has bigger high schools.
Context matters. At the top of rankings, things are a lot closer. Using Kentucky and the 8th best program of all time doesn't really apply here.
And a 5.5 compared to an 8.. on a 10pt scale lol.. yeah that's not applying here either.
The 250th program, compared to the 180th program, just isn't moving the needle much against teams like UK and Auburn. That 180th program MIGHT have better odds of an upset.. but they are both going to be 10pt+ favorites.
And no, we should not be penalized for playing the 300th team, when it's hard to know a year in advanced where these low majors will be lol.
I tend to agree with this. I feel like the committee is lazy in this regard. Will the committee look back on their reveal a few weeks back and say “who has played well enough and played poor enough to move these teams around”. I don’t think there will be a ton of movement. I think they lean on the NET and screw us with a bad 4 seed or 5. I’ll gladly eat the crow if they do the right thing.
It just cracks me up that some fans would be happy with 185th Jacksonville state, but scoff at 250th North Alabama. We're beating one of them by 25 and the other by 18.
The net and quad ignorance needs to go.
Any human eye can see who's the top 20 teams and very close to the order of them.
Any human eye can see who's the top 20 teams and very close to the order of them.
Cal schedules genuine cupcakes for his team because the uncw’s bite these neophytes in the backside.
How many times do we have to remind ourselves that early season losses in December against GARBAGE programs will screw your seed and metrics all season? Evansville, anyone?
Losing to UNCW was unacceptable, regardless of the fact that Wagner/Ugo/Z were out. UK had plenty of talent to beat that team. They blew it.
Take a loss in December to a team like Cincy, Utah, or Richmond if you have a young team that needs to grow up. That 100% gets overlooked and not flagged in March like UNCW.
Losing to UNCW was unacceptable, regardless of the fact that Wagner/Ugo/Z were out. UK had plenty of talent to beat that team. They blew it.
Take a loss in December to a team like Cincy, Utah, or Richmond if you have a young team that needs to grow up. That 100% gets overlooked and not flagged in March like UNCW.
And yet the Cal Dingleberries chide the Bennys when they get upset about these losses.
I WILL say with some positivity that the last couple years the selection committee HAS looked heavily at who you beat on the road. And our resume has that in spades…..
Similar threads
