NET rankings out
- Thread starter ReturnOfOakboy2
- Start date
Actually no , I can’t imagine there would be a hate fest if Cal said no . For one thing it probably would have never come out but mainly, people realize you can’t accommodate every Kentucky native playing college basketball for every little college in America . That’s just silly.
They had great records but they also in the long run will have played weaker schedules than us (with the exception of Baylor).
Just because we'll have played similar Quad 3/4 games, overall the sheer amount of Quad 1 games that we will have played compared to those other teams, our schedule will be better.
We are no doubt going to lose more games than those teams above. It still doesn't mean we can't have a good NET when it's all said and done.
We'll be fine. If UK takes care of business, they will be a 2 seed or 3 seed in the tournament. If we don't win the key out of conference games remaining and big conference games, we won't be. That's all I'm trying to say. In the end, this is completely in UKs hands as to what their overall seeding is going to look like.
I would be way more concerned about the whole 300 thing if they took NET and seeded teams 1 through 68. But we know from previous years they don't do that. We've seen teams be seeded way differently than what their end NET ranking would suggest. To me, the concern with the NET is not the actual number but rather the fact that everyone the committee receives on the team sheets are based on those numbers. So the fact UK 39th doesn't bother me so much as the fact that other teams might be ranked wrongly and that affects the number of Quad 1 2 3 and 4 games obviously.
Like the game vs Duke is barely a Quad 1 game for them.......which seems kind of silly to me.
Why it matters most of all is the quality of the product the fans see. Playing Butler instead of N Florida would have had more fans in the seats, increased t shirt sales, sold more ice cream and have gotten better ratings.
Fans that paid for season tickets do not really care that in February there will be good games if all the games in November at home are weak.
I agree with this in those terms. And I do think we should schedule less 300 ranked teams and more teams in the 100s.
I'm just speaking from a NET ranking and seeding standpoint which is what the thread is about.
Some of this is utterly absurd and the ones backing the schedule, or claiming things are “moral and classy” while defending Calipari need to step away for a while. You’re way overboard on your Cal first mantra and it’s becoming intolerable.
This is the University of Kentucky. Act like it.
This is the University of Kentucky. Act like it.
In all my years of watching the selection show and endless NCAAT coverage, I've never heard anyone argue that a team should have played better cupcakes. When you get to the end of the season, it doesn't matter.
That’s because this is something relatively new, the NCAA only adopted the NET a couple years ago as the official ranking system that it considers when selecting and seeding.
The rules have changed. You’re right that the quality of your cupcakes didn’t use to matter much, but now it matters a lot more. This new system equally factors in the strength of every single one of your opponents, there are no throwaway games.
Last edited:
This is another great point as to why we shouldn't schedule multiple teams from the bottom of D1. Top teams have nothing to gain because they won't get full value from their performance.
The schedule is trash. The games are boring, uninteresting and don't maximize our postseason opportunity. "Look! We have these tough conference games coming!" Cut the cowardice. We are UK. We are acting like we expect to lose games against strong competition.
Bingo.
At the end of the day there is no one on the committee that is going to say well UK really should have played more Ohio type teams and less Southern type teams when discussing where they are going to be seeded.
In all the years I've done bracketology, what matters at the top is the Quad 1 record. Eventually you go down the list and every team starts to have a crappy record vs Quad 1 teams so naturally it moves to Quad 2.
This is just a generalization but at the end of the day NET or no NET, it's still people sitting around a room deciding the seeding. These people don't care about a NET number. They care about who you beat. What the resume is.
The same thing was done in years before. It was just RPI instead of NET. But the committee still received the same type of team sheets that broke things down.
It's just one rating substituted out for another one.
The one thing that NET did do was weigh the road/neutral wins more in terms of Quadrants whereas in the past I don't believe the team sheets had different pods for home/road/neutral. But other than that...........same thing.
They always had it broken down into Quads.
No one talked about the quality of cupcakes then and they won't now.
But the thing is it's not as if we are ducking good competition. The number of high quality games that UK plays in the non conference is better than I would say pretty much anyone. It's just top heavy.
Lets say we have two teams (10 non conference games)
Team A plays 5 games against teams in the Top 50. The other 5 games are played 250-350.
Team B plays 10 games all against teams 100-200 say.
Which is better? I would argue Team A. It's certainly IMO the more exciting one.
I don't know how it's become UK's played a bad schedule, cause that's not the case when you look at the overall body of work. The biggest issue I see is that the high quality games are mostly away from Rupp. That's the problem that I see.
Just looked at the AP poll from yesterday. Only 2 teams dropped in the rankings despite not losing. UK and Arkansas.
Yeah but realistically that’s basically what all teams have done. I mean if I take a look at other teams schedules they either follow one format or the other. What top college basketball team would you trade UKs non conference for? I’m sure there’s some but probably not many.
And honestly I mean does anyone really get all that more excited over playing Ohio type teams. Heck most people have trouble even telling the strengths of non power conference teams apart
we are huge favorites against Southern. We are huge favorites over Ohio. TBH i don’t get much more excited about one over the other. So well beat one by 30 and one by 20. Or 40 and 30. It doesn’t really set off the excitement meter
all of this to say I still argue we should schedule more top 100 teams. I’m just saying from a seeding standpoint it’s not a huge deal. Especially this season where the SEC is crazy good
Yeah I know that is why I said as of now. However, there is no comparison to a team like Dook or the Zags schedule to ours overall. Some of Dook's Quad 1 games are against crap teams that could very well fall out of the NET range needed while a lot of ours probably won't with teams like TN, AUB, LSU, KU, ARK, etc...
The SEC teams this season are going to benefit like the Big Ten did last season.
Tons of opportunities for Q1 wins
Tons of opportunities for Q1 wins