P5 vs non-power 5. I've never seen that big of a discrepancy between AP and seeding in that siutaiton.
5-seed?????? (Lunardi)
- Thread starter FinancialPlannerZac
- Start date
They have beaten Gonzaga, Tennessee, Marquette, and Arizona. Why would they not be a 1?
lol UNC is def not a 5 seed either. They will torch the ACC, they are way better than Duke or Miami, and outside of those 2 no one else in the ACC is even decent, MAYBE Virgina.Kansas is 13th in Net Rankings and a 1 seed and Gonzaga and UNC is 36th & 37th in Net Rankings and a 5 seed with us.
We've seen this song and dance before. They look like monsters during the season and then dramatically go down in flames in the tourney.
Kentucky's seeding should be based on having the entire squad together. If that squad is available in mid-March. Losses where potential stars were missing should carry less weight.
Because these things are measuring two different things.
The polls is trying to rank teams based on how good they are. Whether they do a good job of this or not is another debate for another day.
The seeding is based on who has the best resumes.
Those two things while should be somewhat similar aren't always the same.
I don't think this is as crazy tho as some make it out to be. Even going by actual ranking in the polls........9 would be a 3 seed. We are a 5 seed in this thing. The teams are so close around this seed line I don't think it's all that crazy.
Plus if we are being honest, we probably aren't the 9th best team in America. At least not right now anyways. The test I always like to use is would UK on a neutral court be the favorite in those games with the others teams projected to be on those lines......and right now since Kenpom matches similar to Vegas........likely not.
I don't disagree at all but are you sure you want seed lines determined by previous seasons performances?
I agree with this. UK with Bradshaw is a lot different than UK without Bradshaw. If we get big Z in the future, again different team.
The big thing is what if it's the other way around. Teams that go complete seasons with a player then they happen to lose them for the tournament. Do you base their seed on what they did with that player or do you factor they won't be without that guy in the tournament.
Just saying.....anyone that buys into the Purdue hype train....is like a time traveler buying tickets for the Titanic.
Anyone that watched that UNC/UK would tell you either of those teams as a 5 seed is insanity. That was an E8/FF game. Even commentators were calling it a high level game.
This has been the issue with seeding forever now.
Teams with the "best resumes" aren't always the "best teams".
Conversely there's teams that might be very good and deserve a higher seeding but they might not exactly have the best resumes.
Teams with the "best resumes" aren't always the "best teams".
Conversely there's teams that might be very good and deserve a higher seeding but they might not exactly have the best resumes.
UK/UNC was high level no doubt. But then again it was just 1 game.
We lost to UNC-W and they are basically 1-3 against the good teams they have faced so far (beating UT but losing to us, Uconn and Nova).
We lost to UNC-W and they are basically 1-3 against the good teams they have faced so far (beating UT but losing to us, Uconn and Nova).
If we can work our way to top 5, maybe he’ll make us a 4-seed; move to #1 and a 3-seed is possible
I swear, I honestly couldn’t imagine the committee trying to justify a 5 seed for the #9 team in the country. I’d love to see that on the actual bracket.