This will work itself out to an extent, but those games against so many 300+ ranked teams will continue to hurt us. At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Whoever is playing best come March will make deep runs, and based on history we should be one of those teams.
NET rankings out
- Thread starter ReturnOfOakboy2
- Start date
Because it makes our margin for error that much thinner for no good reason.
What happened to Cal saying we wouldn’t play anyone ranked over 150 when he got here? I guess that was a shot at Billy G’s scheduling. Now his is worse.
I am wondering if the schedule started getting worse when he stopped being able to get the best players and the "best" players we did get were duds like your Skals and Bostons and so on.
I am too lazy to go back and look at who we played through 2015, and honestly a cupcake name is a cupcake name to me so I wouldn't have any idea if they were 300th in 2012 or 157th.
It would seem that someone at UK could try to present a schedule with higher ranked teams (at least projections) that UK would still beat but looks better.
It’s provides no insight at this time because our schedule has provided no insight. It’s been pathetic and everyone knows it. Yes, it’s getting ready to improve, but there’s absolutely no reason to play so many sub 300 schools. One or two is fine, but not five of them. It’s ridiculous. Like others have stated, we should’ve scheduled more games against the likes of Ohio and not the jokes we’ve played to this point. What does playing those teams do for us? Absolutely nothing.
You just don’t get it. It’s not those games we’re concerned with. It’s the FIVE against sub 300 teams. Again a couple of games against really poor competition is OK, but five is way too many. At least three of those should’ve been against teams similar to Ohio.
Yep. This is the main point.
The seed UK wants and fans want, they are going to look at one big thing........how did you do in Quad 1 games. Did you beat ND on the road? Did you beat OSU on a neutral court? Did you take care of UL at home?
At the end of the day, no one on the committee is going to be like well OSU won 10 Quad 3 games and UK won 10 Quad 4 games soooooo lol.
It just doesn't work that way. So while the 300s affects the NET number no doubt, it always boils down to the same thing with the seeding........who did you beat.
This is also why despite LSU scheduling well and being 2 in the NET, no one is currently impressed with their resume lol.
Bracket Matrix currently:
UK projected 3 seed
LSU projected 5 seed.
We think it’s going to be the best conference but that remains to be seen. And even if it is, teams will beat up on each other and have more in-conferences losses than usual. Will the number of in-conferences losses offset the fact that we have a lot of good teams? I don’t know what the NET impact will be under those circumstances.
Minus UF just acting stupid last night, we have the talent in this conference to play with anyone.
Does beating up on the bottom dwellers really build confidence? I don’t know about that. Maybe, maybe not.
You don’t think 11 Quad 4 games is WAY too many? I certainly do.
Wouldn't have been a word said if Cal had turned them down. We've got Kentucky kids scattered all over the country playing college ball...every podunk team w/ a Kentucky kid doesn't deserve to be on our schedule. Especially if Cal's scheduling w/ end of the year seeding in mind; like he should be.
He’s not here to schedule based on being nice. That’s ridiculous. Should we play every crappy team that has a player from Kentucky?
The Quad placement of those games can and will change as the year goes on. We could end up playing more or fewer Quad 1 games in the end.
Cal should have know the citadel would be a higher net...and gardner webb (we already know their awesomeness)
Okay but why does this matter. We are going to have like 14 Quad 1 games this season. We'll be fine.
I do but it is what it is.
I'm just saying at the end of the day, this number is only about seeding and the fact we played Quad 4 teams instead of Quad 3 teams isn't really going to make a difference one way or the other.
It matters for the sake of discussion for this thread, which is current NET rankings. Will it matter in the end? It remains to be known what impact, if any, it has on our tournament seed.
It all makes a difference. The NCAA uses the NET rankings as one component of seeding. That’s a fact.
Yeah they use NET at the end of the season.
It's silly to think this matters right now when we have a ton of Quad 1 games coming up and our NET is only going to go up after they are played.
Look, there’s zero doubt that our future schedule is going to push our NET up considerably (how much depends on how many we win and lose). There’s also zero doubt playing 11 or so Quad 4 games is going to draw it down to some extent. Both of these statements are facts. The total effect of our scheduling won’t be known until the season comes to a close and we see what type of record we have. The bottom line is the schedule in totality is going to have an effect, both good and bad.
Those Quad 4 games won't have any impact whatsoever on our seeding. As long as we win them.
The committee uses the number but they care way more about the actual resume and the more specifically what you did in Quad 1 games.
No one is going to care if you won a bunch of Q3 games vs a bunch of Q4 games.
In fact, it’s the ONLY rankings the committee uses (if you believe what they say is true). In terms of what they declare to be the official criteria, the committee does not consider the AP, UPI, Kenpom or any other rankings other than the NET.
So it is rather important to keep your NET score up. Those other rankings are just for show, this is the one that matters on decision day.
Last edited:
Yes it going to go up considerably, but the number of Quad 4 games is also going to pull in the opposite direction. It is going to matter in the end. How much remains to be seen. You can’t just look at the effect the Quad 1 games are going to have on the final NET ranking. They all contribute to the final ranking. You seem to want to ignore that fact and only look at the good part of the schedule. They all count.
LOL, you are just wrong. They matter because they affect our final NET and the NET is one component of seeding. You’re just ignoring known facts.
This would be the case if they used the NET to completely seed the teams, but the truth of the matter is they don't.
The number is used. The team sheets are all based on that number. But again they don't strictly seed teams based on it. No one is looking at LSU at 2 right now and giving them a 1 seed.
So yeah of course the Quad 4 games pulled the NET number down but I'm telling you this doesn't really matter in the whole grand scheme of things. The number of Quad 1 games we play in the end is going to completely negate whatever little effect is had from playing teams in the 300s vs playing teams in the 200s or upper 100s.
I know this because it happens all the time. You can beat one or two bottom feeders and beat them badly and your NET can drop the following week. It happens all the time because we’ve seen it. The extent of how much it matters in the end is unknown until the end, but it does have an effect. You can ignore it if you want to. That’s your prerogative.
We are currently at 39 and we only have two more bottom feeders to play along with a slew of major conference and non conference games.
I mean last season the two teams that were 1 and 2 in NET were Gonzaga and Baylor
Gonzaga played 7 Quad 4 games and 6 Quad 3 games
Baylor played 5 Quad 4 games and 8 Quad 3 games
It didn't seem to hurt them all that much.
Gonzaga played 7 Quad 4 games and 6 Quad 3 games
Baylor played 5 Quad 4 games and 8 Quad 3 games
It didn't seem to hurt them all that much.
Heck Houston at 5 played a grand total of 17 Quad 3/4 games.
Loloya Chicago at 10 played 12 Quad 4 games.
You can still play these games and have a good NET.
Loloya Chicago at 10 played 12 Quad 4 games.
You can still play these games and have a good NET.
OK. And your point? Had we played 2 sub 300 teams instead of 5, where would we be sitting? I don’t know but I do know it would be quite a bit higher and we wouldn’t have as far to climb from this point forward.
And we are currently projected to play 11. Quite a bit of difference don’t you think? Plus, look at their records from last year. Gonzaga was undefeated. Baylor had a great record as well. We’re going to lose several games.
First we don't know our total number. It's possible some of those 11 move to Quad 3 right. But even if the number is 11 so what. It just means our Quad 3 number of games is going to be lower.
It will look more like Chicago number last season 4-0 Quad 3 12-0 Quad 4.
Too much is being made of this. It's not as if the NET rankings doesn't factor SOS either. Or Margin of Victory.
The only reason UK is like 12th currently in Kenpom and only 39th in NET is because the NET caps MOV. That's it.
I promise you at the end of the season, it won't matter anywhere you think it will.
If we were to blow through the rest of our schedule it will have less of an effect. Those teams you’ve mentioned all had great records to offset some of the games that drew down their NET. So sure, if we win the rest of our non-conference games and finish 15-3 in the SEC, the effect will be very minimal. But, the more games we lose the more it will amplify those Quad 4 games. Only time will tell the results.
lol at “Cal saying “. Cal talks ALOT but usually seems to have no idea what he’s talking about or even what he said 5 minutes prior. Even when I was Cal guy I realized he was like listening to Charlie Browns teacher , blah….blah…..blah .