-
My biggest gripe about the NCAA pairings is the committee completely disregarding SEC tourney.. The ACC Nd Big 12 tourney winners are always rewarded with a higher seed or favorable placement, the SEC winner goes to Boise. Someone on the committee should be forced to explain how that works. Mitch Barnhart should explain how that happens , and yes I know we lost 10games, but so did UNC and they got a 2 and a cake walk why is nobody in authority confronting that, once again I’d like to hear Mitch explain it, he was there. In my book he is not very effective on the committeeComment
-
This tells you all you need to know about this guy, he is the one who is talking about it, not the NCAA. I am sure you would know but it is possible that this has happened before. No one knows about it because both sides didn't talk about. We only know because TV Teddy talked. As I said that tells you all you need to know about him.Comment
-
I,m not so much talking about UK here as I am about the SEC. Why does the committee reward teams for winning and in UNCs case just making the final in the ACC and Big 12 but give little or no credence to the SEC winner , I want someone to explain how that works. Our AD is on the committee and I believe he aught to explain that thinking process, as for him having Zero influence in what happens to UK , that might be true but I also don’t buy that nobody ever influences other committee members at least indirectly toward their schools, just not buying it. I also don’t understand why the SEC commissioner doesn’t demand an explaination. Seeding is critical to this tourney, a team that has to fight a war 4 straight games is at a disadvantage to a team that only had to beat one top flight team to get to Final Four. The committee seems to set certain teams up for easy runs every year. They all generally have the same hing in common, they are from the ACC or Big 12,Comment
-
I actually think he has to leave the room when all SEC schools are discussed, but I could be wrong. The people who think we got a bad draw want Barnhart to do more about our opponents and city we play in, but we don't know what he does or doesn't do. I actually think UK has a great region this year. Davidson is dangerous with their shooting but we have the nation's number one three point defense. Arizona is dangerous but they didn't beat one top 25 team this year and we all know how Miller has struggled in the tournament. Virginia is beatable if a team can score more than 65 and they live and die by the three. Again, the nation's number one three point defense. I haven't watched Cincinnati this year so I can't comment on them. We just beat Tennessee. But, the big thing is after Boise we would move to Atlanta. I think we are setup pretty dang well for a deep run this year.Comment
-
I have given Mitch Barnhart down the road for what I believed were questionable contracts. A lot of folks cat-nation wide are trying to burn him at the stake for UKs seed. Please point this out:
swept by Florida
Swept by Tennessee
Finished FOURTH in the SEC.
first four game losing streak under Calipari
Lost to Kansas
Lost to UCLA
very few quad 1 wins
Prayed for Arkansas to beat Missouri to get that fourth spot in the SEC
last regular season poll was sitting at 28.
So what kind of ammunition other than the SEC tourney did Mitch have to lean on....with his one vote....while he was out of the room when UK was being discussed?Comment
-
I agree with the fact that Barnhart could do nothing...but I also kind of agree with the fact that the SEC Tournament was pretty meaningless.
In most years you could kind of understand it as down as the league generally is. This year we got 8 teams in. The tournament probably could've been weighted a little more.
I mean if Michigan--a team that lost to LSU, Northwestern, and was killed by Nebraska--can move up to a 3 because of their tournament, that tells me they definitely will weight some tournament runs.
Kentucky was pretty much an agreed-upon 5 before St. Louis. And we stayed at a 5. That has happened pretty regularly throughout Calipari's run at UK, where the conference tournament just has not factored in at all. I'd be okay with that if they didn't factor any of these other tourneys in, but they do.
Comment
-
Five was the correct seeding for UK. You can argue a four but there is little difference between the two seeds. Anyone having a problem with that doesn't know what they are talking about. Also anyone who doesn't like where they were sent,Boise,can't say much either. Once you drop below that two line you have very little to complain about to where you are playing. IIRC, in 2012 UK played the first two rounds in Louisville. They were a one seed too. They may have played there in 2015 too. Again a one seed. So the have gotten good placement when they have been a one.Kentucky fan since 1971.Comment
-
Kentucky fan since 1971.Comment
-
I think it's fairly obvious that the NCAA always gives Kentucky the tournament shaft in some way, either through incorrect seeding or a gauntlet path.
We don't see this for a lot of the other blue-bloods. The question is, "why?"
The NCAA wants ratings, and Kentucky delivers them. The NCAA in theory should want Kentucky to advance.
Do they hate Calipari that much?Comment
-
Really in only two years (2011 and 2014) have I felt like we've gotten really shafted. Ironically both those years ended up with a tournament run.
But I think generally with Kentucky they love that Saturday/Sunday game on the first weekend with us against a marquee team. The NCAA swears everything is seeded without match-ups in mind, but that's a crock if you look at the match-ups.
And really I don't mind that in most years. But when we beat Florida two out of three times and see them get a 2 seed like it went down in 2011, it leaves you pretty enraged.
This year I don't think there's much of anything to get enraged about.Comment
-
I think the only year, in the Cal era, that UK got screwed in the seedings was 2011. Will mentioned this one day. That year UK was a 4 seed they should have been two,no lower than a three. TV wanted Cal to play Huggy Bear that year and they got it was the reason for that. The other years I think were about right. 2016 was a four but that was about right for that team. IU got screwed that year by being a five. They were Big Ten champs and should have been higher. Again TV wanted an UK/IU matchup. They got it. In 2014 UK was a 9 seed. I really think that was about right for them that year. If they had two more losses they would have been out of the tourney,IMO. TV wanted a UK/Wichita game and they got it. Again the higher seed got screwed by playing someone who may have been just under seeded and as we know probably should have been higher. This year I think they want an Arizona/UK matchup for some reason. Actually Arizona is the team that got screwed. They should have been a seed or two higher.
You have to play the teams in front of you on the bracket. UK has had bad luck in that no one has been upset in any of these tournaments during the Cal era in their bracket. With all of the upsets that happen in NCAA play that is almost mind boggeling. Maybe this year Buffalo will have a big upset. Maybe someone else too. But lets get by Davidson first then we will see what is before us.Kentucky fan since 1971.Comment
-
You make a good point about UK & ratings.
In that same vein, we were sent to Boise partly because the NCAA knows that UK fans will buy tickets no matter how remote the location. Let's face it, there can't be that many BB fans in Idaho
Yes, IMHO, they do hate Calipari that much.
Comment
Comment