But with a win over Kentucky? Not a chance. Mich St lost to V Tech, which is 48 in NET rankings and Utah is 62nd.
AP moves up UK two lousy spots for beating #3
- Thread starter HerrosHeroes
- Start date
Ummm 62 is 14 spots lower than 48. You also failed to mention the loss to 247th rated Evansville at home. Why do you keep leaving that out? That's the bell ringer man. If UK doesn’t lose that game, their net and AP/coaches poll rankings are MUCH higher.
Arizona is not going to fire Miller. The ncaa is not going to do anything to these big money making schools. The ncaa is about making money and with these big name schools, they bring in too much money. The only schools that they will burn will be small schools such as North Dakota, San Jose State, Pacific and schools such as this. When are you guys going to realize this.
It's funny how you keep leaving out the Evansville loss ...when it's the thing that easily explains what you seem confused about.
So MSU's worst loss is to No. 48? Oh, well ours is to No. 214. You get that there's a vast difference between these numbers, right?
The problem is the NET rankings doesn't give a true reflection who the good teams are. By using this system, by beating Wisconsin or LSU it is considered a better win in the computers eyes than beating Kentucky.
LSU is sitting at 8-4 with losses to VCU, Utah St, USC & Eastern Tenn St and their most notable win is Liberty and they are sitting at #35 in the NET rankings.
Wisconsin is at 8-5 with losses to Saint Mary's, Richmond, New Mexico, NC State, & Rutgers, with their best win being Indiana or Tennessee (Without Lamont Turner) and sitting at #27 in the NET rankings.
So is it better to lose to a bunch of teams between 30-75 in the NET Rankings, but no marquee wins or have some better wins and a really bad loss? Because the NET rankings seem to show the former is the better route in the computer's formula
Wow, none of the teams you mentioned lost to the 214th rated team on their home court. Losing to three or 4 teams rated better than 100 is sooo much better than losing to the 214th rated team. You know this, you just don’t want to admit it.
Dude, it's January 1st, this isn't something to.lose your crap over right now. By March, UK's net rating should be really high as long as they don't lose to teams like Vanderbilt at home.
Last edited:
These people on here that are crying about the Zags have no idea about them. They are either Jealous of the Zags or are scared of them .All they have to do is schedule a game with them. Coach Few will play anyone anywhere and anyone that knows anything about the Zags know this, so if they are as bad as a lot of you think they are, just schedule a game with them. If they are as bad as a lot of you think, it should be an easy win. We know that is not going to happen because Cal knows how good they are, unlike a bunch of you people.
We have 2 wins far better than Mich St has in the NET Rankings, but the bad 1 loss outweighs the wins that much? That's what has me confused. Our other 2 losses compared to Mich St's other 2 losses are comparable in the NET rankings.
The problem is, outside of those two wins, the rest of it is pretty much nothing.
The thing about the NET formula is EVERY game is factored in. The higher the NET ranking of the teams you beat the more it helps your number. And we've played some astonishingly low ranked teams this year, some examples:
Fairleigh Dickinson ranked 328th, EKU 327th, Mount St, Mary's 277th, Lamar 248th, Utah Valley 234th, etc.
Combine that with a home loss to 214th ranked Evansville and it shouldn't be any mystery as to why our NET number isn't higher right now.
Last edited:
Okay, let's look at some data besides just wins and losses. What do make of these numbers?.
2017
SOS
UNC #6
UK #19
KenPom Ratings
UNC #3
UK #4
Sagarin Rankings
UNC #2 - Record vs Sagarin top 25: 17-6
Kentucky #6 - Record vs Sagarin top 25: 4-5
2018
SOS
UNC #1
UK #12
KenPom
UNC #8
UK #17
Sagarin Rankings
UNC #10 - Record vs Sagarin top 25: 6-7
UK #14 - Record vs Sagarin top 25: 3-6
In 2018 the committee also started relying more on Quad One wins
Kansas 11 quad one wins
UNC 10 quad one wins
Kentucky 3 quad one wins
https://herosports.com/college-basketall/kansas-north-carolina-ncaa-team-sheets-quadrant-1-wins-ahah
2019
SOS
UNC #8
UK #19
KenPom
UNC #7
UK #8
Sagarin Rankings
UNC #5 - Record vs Sagarin top 25: 5-6
UK #7 - Record vs Sagarin top 25: 10-5
NET rankings
#6 UK
#7 UNC
Quad One Wins
UK 10
UNC 10
I can understand your argument for 2019, but I feel like the committee probably punished us for not winning the regular season or conference tournament last season. I dislike the NCAA but I doubt they hiding out in some secret bunker plotting our downfall like a few of posters on here would like to believe.
Good post.. was it a typo or did UNC really play 23 games against Top 25 teams in the Sagarin Rankings? I could see 7-6 being the correct number, but find 17-6 hard to believe lol
This is the part I hate about the SOS, Mich St has only played 4 teams in the top 50 of the NET rankings and they are 1-3. The rest of the teams have still been cupcake city and games they should win. There isn't that big of a difference of a team ranked #75 or 200 and is a game you should win, but in the formula it's a huge difference.
UK
Duke
V Tech
Seton Hall
But there is a clear difference.
When you play the 75th ranked team you're taking on a legit challenge and a real risk of being upset. But when you play a 328th ranked team like Fairleigh Dickinson ...well, that's nothing but a glorified exhibition.
They are different things, and the first type of win deserves to be rewarded more in the NET than the second type.
What it means is that we may need to upgrade our level of mid-major bums in the future. No need to scrounge from the very bottom of the barrel. Play teams in the 100s, not the 300s.
Last edited:
if you have paid attention over the years, you will have seen that the FINAL AP rankings, after the NCAAT, usually closely resemble the PRE-SEASON rankings. Basically, it means that the folks voting before the season starts, are pretty smart. It also means that some (maybe a lot of) people thought that UK would be a FF team. It is looking more and more likely.....
I typed in the wrong column, that was their record vs the top 50. They were 10-4 vs the top 25.
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/2017/team/
UK fell from 6th to 19th also cuz resume said 2 bad losses with only 1 good win.
Now we are 17th in AP poll for reason. how many teams ahead of us have 3 losses. Only 2. Everyone else 1 or 2
Now we are 17th in AP poll for reason. how many teams ahead of us have 3 losses. Only 2. Everyone else 1 or 2
Last edited:
wow. read the thread. look at Michigan's schedule...is it that hard? there is no conspiracy a foot. its math. literally. non partisan statistics. jeepers.
Utah was a bad loss. If we weren't Kentucky we would be ranked lower after losing to Evansville and Utah. We are getting some of our ranking on potential.
Well St. Mary’s and BYU are pretty good teams. But your point is incorrect, it actually hasn’t hurt us at all. We have played to or exceeded our seed something like 18 out of 20 straight years.
2002 6 seed Gonzaga lost to 11 seed Wyoming in the first round
2004 2 seed Gonzaga lost to 10 seed Nevada in the second round
2005 3 seed Gonzaga lost to 6 seed Texas tech in the second round
2008 7 seed Gonzaga lost to 10 seed Davidson in the first round
2013 1 seed Gonzaga lost to 9 seed Wichita state in the second round
2019 1 seed Gonzaga lost to 3 seed Texas tech in the elite 8
I count 6/20 years at least that you did not perform to seed
Add to that the year you lost in the first round which was "performing to seed" as a 10 seed.
Also you have performed better than your seed just 4/20 times, so it is more likely that you underachieve than overachieve based on that
Last edited:
I did not say that and if you think a 9 loss UK team in the weak SEC will be a 2 seed then you haven't been paying attention. UNC with 9 losses yes but UK no.
What I'm trying to point out is you can't simply look at just wins and losses then ask why is one ranked higher than another. Other factors are in play here.
I agree with you but my point is we have 1 horrible loss, 1 bad loss and 1 that isn't. If we were to lose 6 more in the SEC there would have to be at least 2-3 to bad teams due to the SEC being so bad this season. With 9 losses in a weak SEC and 2 bad losses OOC there isn't anyway we could be a 2 seed.
It might be difficult but I think we could be a high seed if we win the regular season and tournament with only a couple of more losses. Other teams are going to lose and their will be more upsets to come. Problem is with our schedule, and losing to Evansville, there's only a small margin for error now.
I agree that 2 losses and win the conference and conference tourney and we have a shot at 1 or 2 seed but the margin for error is slim because of Evansville.
Last edited:
I think what is confusing 2007 is the eye test. He sees the teams like MSU ahead of you in the NET and compares that to the Kentucky team that beat MSU or Louisville (at their best) and says no way can MSU be ahead of Kentucky. Statistics out the window.
What he ignores is the losses and the weak schedule, which the computers don't.
He's right. Kentucky in March will be a legit contender. MSU won't. But the computers won't reward teams, no matter how good they are, for playing a weak schedule.
What he ignores is the losses and the weak schedule, which the computers don't.
He's right. Kentucky in March will be a legit contender. MSU won't. But the computers won't reward teams, no matter how good they are, for playing a weak schedule.
So 14 out of 20 years we played to our seed or better? And to you that is, “underachieving”? OK
Except you originally said 18 out of 20. There's a significant difference between 14 and 18.
I think you knew you were fibbing when you made the false statement, you just didn't think anyone here would call you on it.
Last edited:
Ah, you should probably worry more about Portland right now. Looks like another big upset.in the making.
I wasn’t “fibbing”, I was guessing. And I was off a little bit. It’s not a big deal. I’ve never understand people like you are so desperate to always be right about everything. I was wrong, no big deal. Nothing happens to me if I am wrong on a message board. I do not get uncontrollable diarrhea, my daughters do not stop loving me, my eyelashes do not fall out. I was wrong. And guess what… It’s OK.
Where did i say that 14/20 is underachieving? You claimed you played to seed 18/20 times i proved that to not be true and showed that you are actually more likely to underachieve than overachieve, i never said as a whole you have underachieved
You don't know a damn thing about Gonzaga and every time you try to run them down it just makes you look even more stupid. Why are you so worried about the Zags anyway ? Just schedule a game with them and you will find out they can play. Then maybe you will stop crying about them.
Again i haven’t said a single bad word about Gonzaga just corrected the guy who made a blatantly false claim about the amount of success they have had and showed the correct numbers
Only people being made to look stupid I see in this thread is the Zag fan who made a completely false and incorrect statement then got embarrassed with the actual truth. That Gonzaga is partly infamous for underachieving in the tourney. Now to be fair I also think Few has shed that mindset the past few years performing on par or beyond.
But, it still stands that Gonzaga has to go out and play some OOC big time games bc it is a simple fact their conference schedule is junk. It’s actually slightly less junk this year as you mentioned St M and SDS are not entirely terrible this year.
And I am not sure if you realize this or not, so I want to make sure you do realize that us UK fans don’t make our teams schedule. You keep spouting off for us to schedule GU when it’s not really anything we control. Nonetheless, our OOC schedule is always pretty stout and I would guess comparable to whatever Few goes and and plays to try and compensate for that joke of a conference you play in. Cal has weakened it in recent years bc the SEC has been better lately. But, we still play multiple ranked teams OOC. We don’t need to play GU honestly.