Anyone remember "Last 10" being important?

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

That's why I'm against it.

The more criteria the committee has, the more of a moving target things can become. Someone can say well I value last 10 games super importantly while others might not.

Whereas if u just had like 1 or 2 criterias and u kept those consistent year in and year out, its harder to move the goal posts.

 

[chroix]

Cals got this team fighting through it with a chip on their shoulder mentality. We’ll get screwed on seeding and he’ll use it to help motivate them even more. I think we make some noise this year.

 

[TortElvisII]

https://goheels.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule/2019-20

3-7 in last ten. Two straight wins.

 

[Poetax]

That's why I'm against it.

The more criteria the committee has, the more of a moving target things can become. Someone can say well I value last 10 games super importantly while others might not.

Whereas if u just had like 1 or 2 criterias and u kept those consistent year in and year out, its harder to move the goal posts.

They surely can't screw it up anymore then they have now, can they? LOL

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

https://goheels.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule/2019-20

3-7 in last ten. Two straight wins.

Shoot UNC gonna get in lol

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

They surely can't screw it up anymore then they have now, can they? LOL

If it was my choice, I wouldn't even give them the chance.

Use this and call it a day.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

 

[EliteBlue]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

Is that the same year the media advocated extremely hard to give 10 loss UNC a 2 seed??

Bc that’s your answer more than likely.

 

[Poetax]

If it was my choice, I wouldn't even give them the chance.

Use this and call it a day.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

That's impressive but I bet its way over the committee's head, lol.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Convenient, to use Last 10 during some of Kentucky's worst conference years in the early-mid 2010's. You can bet your sweet bippy they aren't using Last 10 this year..

 

[kyriver]

Indiana has lost 7 of their last 10, but they're firmly in. They're in the powerhouse conference, so nothing to see here.

 

[Poetax]

Indiana has lost 7 of their last 10, but they're firmly in. They're in the powerhouse conference, so nothing to see here.

Now you are understanding the NET and its metrics.

 

[Kyfan37]

I believe it was mainly used more to determine which bubble teams deserved to be in or where their seedlings should be placed, along with the RPI and the like. It made sense to not really use that to determine anything anymore cause of mid majors like Gonzaga going on a 20 game winning streak cause of their weak conference. Early games did not determine who was playing great because they just didn't have the schedule strength.

 

[KyCatFan1]

The answer is: YES.
Winning or Losing a single game in November should not influence March.

They should do like the judges in Olympic events. You automatically drop the best and worst ones and average the rest. Isn't there a saying like you're never as bad or as good as you think you are? The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[saxonburgcat]

It’s been a couple years now that they did away with that. I always thought it was a good thing to consider. The one thing I always consider is if you put less emphasis on the Evansville loss, does that also mean you put less emphasis on the Michigan State win?

Keep in mind, Duke was not penalized for losing games without Zion in the lineup. However, UNC WAS given credit for beating Duke twice without Zion in the lineup. The NCAA just makes up their own criteria as it fits their agenda.

I hope UK wins out and we can honestly see this year where UK and Duke are seeded. Duke is falling apart at the seams and we are rolling along. The seedings will tell if the NCAA has any integrity left.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

https://goheels.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule/2019-20

3-7 in last ten. Two straight wins.

Number 1 seed for sure.

 

[26MichaelUK]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

Oh I remember that as well. It's funny how they change everything about how they seed on a yearly basis practically. That's why we have brackets of death and cakewalk brackets.

 

[UKGrad93]

I thought unbalanced schedules were one of the reasons it went away. Some teams play tough schedules at the end, others play easier schedules. I think there was a push to make “the body of work” mean more.

 

[revcort]

Being completely honest, although it was criteria years back.......I never really found much evidence they really used it.

Whenever they talk about seeding it's always who did u beat. It's never well this team beat them in November and this team beat them in February so that one is more important.

It's always been resume based and I'm not entirely sure when they consider all of the factors that just ever played much a role.

I'm not entirely sure it should either. I think it adds complexity and you have a bunch of humans already having to deal with seeding teams and bracketing.

For example you can't just be like well Team A went 7-3 down the stretch and Team B went 3-7. But then you have to consider schedules, where the games were played etc etc. And you have to do this for all teams.

Plus one would assume if a team does poorly in their last 10, that's already accounted for in the resumes to begin with. Same with a hot win streak.

Yep, I actually agree with some of what you're saying here. That's why I say I don't think it should be the most important criteria at all, but just one of the factors to consider. A team being hot should make a difference. A team finishing on a 10-game winning streak, for example, is clearly a better team with a similar record but which finished 3-7. Recency has value. What have you done for me lately? Some teams really improve over the season. Some have players get hurt and aren't the same team. I'm just saying it should matter.

And just to be clear, I do think considering this as a criteria would help our Cats. It would also hurt Duke's seeding.

 

[dave5164]

We are now at #14 in the NET Rankings. I still believe we should be ahead of UL(we beat), Michigan State(9 losses & we beat), Arizona (10 losses), Creighton, BYU, Florida state, and Duke(losers 3 of 4). We should be at #6 or #7 in the NET Rankings with the losses these teams had over last 2 weeks. The Sagarin Ranking has us at #5 this week. If we beat UT at Rupp, UF on the road Saturday, and get to at least the Championship Game on Sunday in the SEC Tourney we should get that 2 Seed for the NCAA Tourney.

 

[Wildcat Sheli]

I remember it mattered in 2012-2013! Still bothers me that Loserville took a place in the Tournament that year when they were cheating, preventing someone else from having a spot. Most agree we were the “last team out” that year.
Funny how the Committee will change the criteria when it benefits Duke, as others have also said! We were shown no mercy without Nerlens, yet Duke’s losses last year were scrubbed without Zion. (Yes, I know we didn’t get Nerlens back, but teams with much worse records somehow get in....)

LOVED Cal’s “Evansville, Evansville, Evansville” rant! Epic!

Go ‘Cats!

 

[caneintally]

It WILL be considered.

I refuse to believe the Selection Committee is going to forfeit their credibility and recuse their responsibility by mirroring idiotic nonsensical screwed-up metrics.

Exactly. It matters still but they just won't say " last 10 games" they will say " we have seen team X has won all of thier games the past month or so and that went into consideration " or something to that effect.

I hate this time of year for 1 reason - we talk about all the minutia of the NCAA like NET , last 10 wins , SOS and so on when in reality if you are a team like UK you will get what you earn within 2-4 seeding spots. Last season we should of been between 5-8 and were 7 . The year before we should of been between 15-20 and were 18 . It is the teams on the bubble that this stuff reallllly matters to.

 

[caneintally]

I remember it mattered in 2012-2013! Still bothers me that Loserville took a place in the Tournament that year when they were cheating, preventing someone else from having a spot. Most agree we were the “last team out” that year.
Funny how the Committee will change the criteria when it benefits Duke, as others have also said! We were shown no mercy without Nerlens, yet Duke’s losses last year were scrubbed without Zion. (Yes, I know we didn’t get Nerlens back, but teams with much worse records somehow get in....)

LOVED Cal’s “Evansville, Evansville, Evansville” rant! Epic!

Go ‘Cats!

Yes but also the way the committee worked then and now are very different .

 

[Kingslayer07]

It WILL be considered.

I refuse to believe the Selection Committee is going to forfeit their credibility and recuse their responsibility by mirroring idiotic nonsensical screwed-up metrics.

It most definitely will be. You can’t ignore recency bias no matter how hard you try.

 

[JC CATS]

I don’t think it does anymore because the only thing that matters is how you’re playing 3 games into the season

Committee: How did UK do on Nov 12th? We need to consider that the most when seeding them