Welcome aboard. I watched some of your game on Saturday. The big guy is good. He had a monster game against Vermont. He's the type of player UK has a lot of trouble with. Stony Brook may hang around with UK for a half or so. If UK can't wear them down then they may hang in till the end.
-
Welcome aboard. I watched some of your game on Saturday. The big guy is good. He had a monster game against Vermont. He's the type of player UK has a lot of trouble with. Stony Brook may hang around with UK for a half or so. If UK can't wear them down then they may hang in till the end.Kentucky fan since 1971. -
Not sure how true this is but I have heard several people talking about it but Any Katz asked the NCAA chair about the seeding .he said Texas A &M was just better than UKLast edited by TrueblueCATfan; 03-14-2016, 09:40 AM.Comment
-
Saw another article by a guy who believes the four seed is right for us - mainly due to the bad losses we've all worried about - and that the wrong seed was actually A&M. Says they should've been a four, as well.
That might've been a little bit easier to swallow, and yes, we knew Auburn and OSU were going to hurt us, but I still think our play of late and our performance in the tourney should've earned us a #3.Comment
-
RPI was higher. KenPom was higher. Beat them in the SEC Tournament. Lost to them on the road on a fluke technical foul with a starter out and another key player who was injured halfway through. They were absolutely not "better."
But I can handle the North Carolina draw. They weren't the overall 1, they're just a bad match-up for UK. That's just bad luck. And I can handle the 4.
What I don't understand is Texas A&M getting a 3 AND maybe the easiest bracket AND all the geographical gifts they got. It's so reminiscent to me of 2011, when we clobbered Florida twice in the last two weeks of the season and saw them get a 2 to our 4.Comment
-
I actually don't think they are that bad of a match up for us. They like to run, Paige has been mediocre this year, and I think Lee and Poythress can match up athletically against Johnson. What worries me most about them is Hicks and Meeks because they are both big bodies but playing a faster tempo wears them down. I think a game against them could be something our guards not only love but thrive in.Comment
-
A number of teams got hosed on seeding. Obviously they've been picked prior to the completion of Sunday tournaments - probably even Saturday's rounds.
Sagarin's ratings early this morning (after yesterday's games) indicate we should have been a 2 seed and IU a 3 seed. Texas A&M should have been a 4.
Surprising that California was a 4 seed - should have been a 6.Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.
Clint EastwoodComment
-
Syracuse had 13 losses and they got in....South Carolina went undefeated in non conference play......Did Syracuse do something I have missedComment
-
Kentucky fan since 1971.Comment
-
Why make UK/IU a possible 2nd round game? That will draw a lot of TV audience. Why not wait until further in the tourney for a match up like that one?Comment
-
Not certain they would both be there later in the tournament. Good chance both advance to that Saturday game.
I personally don't like the Indiana match-up. I think Kentucky would do better against plodding teams that struggle to score. Virginia would've been the best 1 seed for us.
We're very hard to stop offensively. So is Indiana. Neither is great defensively. That game should look like 2012 and be played in the 80s.Comment
-
Syracuse and Michigan are in Sagarin's top 40. South Carolina's ranked 57. I understand that some of the rankings won't matter since many of these teams get automatic bids due to conference tournaments or regular season conference titles. I'd be curious as to how many of the 12-16 seeds are automatic bids. Austin Peay is ranked 219th and their schedule is 234th, but they're in for winning their conference - rightly so.
Syracuse was 2-5 against top 25 teams and 5-10 against top 50. Their SoS played a big part in them getting in.
I don't know where they draw the line on how many teams from conferences get in. 7 of 10 from the Big 12 got in. 6 of 12 from the Big Ten got in. 7 of 15 from the ACC got in. Had Louisville not self imposed, Syracuse doesn't get in.
Half of those ranked in the top 68 (3) from the SEC got in. Half of those ranked in the top 68 (6)in the ACC. However, all but 1 of those ranked in the top 68 (7) in the Big 12 got in and all but 2 of those ranked in the top 68 (7) got in from the Big 10.
Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.
Clint EastwoodComment
-
Actually it looks like Tulsa and Wichita State were the lowest at-large seeds. Vandy and Michigan were the next two. So even if SMU and Louisville had been eligible then Syracuse still would've made it.
There is no set number for the number of teams from each conference. The out-of-conference record is weighted in basketball (and IMO should be weighted more than it is) much more than football. So you might have two teams with similar conference records, one getting in and one getting left out, but the difference is what they did before conference season started. South Carolina seemed to be Exhibit A for that whole theory this year.Comment
-
That's what I said.
Yes, I know. But sometimes the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm just pointing out that a case could be made for MORE teams from a conference making it than actually do. South Carolina was ranked high enough in Sagarin's rankings that they should have been included.
I think Sagarin's system is balanced sufficiently to take those variables, including schedules, into account.
I don't think OCS schedules can be weighted evenly. It has to be a team by team basis, IMO. A team that plays well in a weak conference and has a tough OCS should have more credence than a team's OCS that plays in a tough conference but has a weak OCS.Last edited by surveyor; 03-14-2016, 11:32 AM.Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.
Clint EastwoodComment
Comment