NET rankings out
- Thread starter ReturnOfOakboy2
- Start date
You mean the Duke Rankings...
:flush:
:flush:
Beating higher rated Ohio State is a good chance to start moving up soon enough.
LSU at #2. That's a Big *** ranking.
What do you expect? When you play Duke and then dog **** U seven times.
Not to be confused with where we are actually at in terms of talent level which is around 10 to 15 lol.
It does make me wonder how prepared we really are to now face good competition.We will see soon enough.
True, but then why is LSU at 2? Best team they've played is Wake Forest, best team we've played is Duke. Both played Ohio, and we beat them by more.
Unfortunately yet another year of Cal not understanding how to schedule.
Of the 358 NET ranked teams, Kentucky has played:
334. Robert Morris
307. Mount St. Mary's
86. Ohio
335. Albany
329. North Florida
345. Central Michigan
This is a pathetic display of planning. You could still be 6-1 by playing more "Ohio" opponents and be racking up the quadrant 3 (and maybe a quad 2) wins. Instead, we've basically played 5 scrimmages, in games that do absolutely nothing.
Of the 358 NET ranked teams, Kentucky has played:
334. Robert Morris
307. Mount St. Mary's
86. Ohio
335. Albany
329. North Florida
345. Central Michigan
This is a pathetic display of planning. You could still be 6-1 by playing more "Ohio" opponents and be racking up the quadrant 3 (and maybe a quad 2) wins. Instead, we've basically played 5 scrimmages, in games that do absolutely nothing.
Maybe UK should have just played Ohio in a best of 7 series.
I've been saying this for years. UK just plays anyone. And they have been burned by not getting anything from the cupcakes they play. You could creatively look for games against teams who won't go 0-18 in their conference and end up in the bottom 2% of NCAA. Most likely, UK would still win just as many games but they would artificially inflate numbers/rankings like this which we KNOW impacts seeding down the road.
This would be a fantastic point... if the season ended in December.
If Kentucky is good enough, we will be top 5 or 10 regardless of schedule. NET Rankings in December worthless. They literally provide no new insight to what we already know.
This isn't true. Look at 2 years ago. Kentucky struggled to ever crack the top 20. The SEC as a whole was the same. It didn't matter what happened much after December, the out-of-conference numbers were set.
Kentucky is not doing themselves favors by playing teams in the 300's. Period. It's a lack of research and planning.
It has always been rumored that Duke had someone on staff that focused on ways to manipulate the old RPI (and new NET) system by getting winnable games against teams that will inflate their numbers.
Season really starts Saturday for those keeping track at home. Enjoy the cupcakes.
You’re referring to the season Kentucky was a 2 seed? Again, we really don’t play a patsy, with exception of High appoint (which will be a fun game) rest of season after Saturday.
If we are going to complain about scheduling, should be in context of entertainment for fans and traditional rivalries... not NET rankings
you guys are such a broken record... if UK had a tougher record, you would be bitching if they lost...
Just start every response with "I hate Cal, and want a new coach... and even if he does the same or worse; he is better than Cal"
Gee, that sounds eerily similar some people last November
Just start every response with "I hate Cal, and want a new coach... and even if he does the same or worse; he is better than Cal"
Gee, that sounds eerily similar some people last November
Low majors can vary wildly from year to year. UAlbany's Net rankings were sometimes in the 110's only a few years ago. Hard to tell where teams are going to be when you have to lock them down over a year in advanced.
I don't think Cal MEANT to play this many teams in the 300's. I think he wanted an easy schedule to start but figured some of these teams might land in the 200 or high 100's.
There is a science behind it. Games for basketball season are scheduled within 1-2 years of the game, and many years, within 6-9 months. You can loosely predict that a team will be competitive. This isn't college football.
I'm not the first one to say this. I guarantee there are teams out there who are trying to manipulate this very thing.
I'm not the first one to say this. I guarantee there are teams out there who are trying to manipulate this very thing.
Heck, UK picked up a few games on their schedule this past spring. And cancelled a few games on their schedule at the same times. There are 358 teams. It's HARD to not play five of the bottom 30.
This. Anyone surprised by our NET ranking doesn’t understand how those computer formulas work. There’s NOTHING to be gained by playing teams ranked in the 300s. Wins over such bottom-tier teams do nothing to move you up, and you take a HUGE fall if you get upset by one (see Evansville). There’s nowhere to go but down when you play those teams.
We need to schedule better non-con opponents. They don’t need to be top-tier teams, but simply playing teams in the 100s or 200s, instead of the 300s, can make a big difference in your NET score.
Last edited:
Of course, a lot of fans don't see the difference between Texas State and North Florida, but then they complain about UK's NET ranking. Haha.
I can't think of a more meaningless number tho at this point.
Of course our ranking is bad because our schedule but that's because we haven't played the tough portion of our out of conference schedule yet lol.
Like I have issues with the scheduling Cal does as well but I just think it's a bit silly to act like we aren't playing Ohio St, UL, ND and Kansas coming up lol. Along with a bunch of tough conference games.
Of course our ranking is bad because our schedule but that's because we haven't played the tough portion of our out of conference schedule yet lol.
Like I have issues with the scheduling Cal does as well but I just think it's a bit silly to act like we aren't playing Ohio St, UL, ND and Kansas coming up lol. Along with a bunch of tough conference games.
Duke has played:
92. Campbell
162. Gardner-Webb
134. Citadel
This accounts for 3 of their 5 cupcake wins.
It's very easy to not play teams 300 and below. Somehow, UK managed to play 5 of them already.
92. Campbell
162. Gardner-Webb
134. Citadel
This accounts for 3 of their 5 cupcake wins.
It's very easy to not play teams 300 and below. Somehow, UK managed to play 5 of them already.
The number is meaningless...except the fact that largely, these teams who are in the 100's or 300's won't change, because we have a big enough sample size of their non-conference schedules factored in.
Thus, UK will get very little credit for this chunk, which is 20% of their schedule.
I don't disagree. BUT acknowledge it is what the NCAA committee uses. Thus, why is the staff ignoring it and scheduling the games when they could easily schedule better cupcake wins? Seems like ignorance to me.
I think this is more of an issue in years where the SEC is terrible. I agree tho. There's no need to play teams in the 300s. I get doing some schools the favor of the paycheck but it could hurt the seeding some times.
At the end of the day if UK takes care of business in the tough OOC games as well as the conference schedule, the NET ranking is going to take care of itself. This despite playing cupcake city for the first 7 games.
Except the SEC is really good this year and there’s no shortage of opportunity to move up. So what are we arguing about?
Missed opportunities in meaningless cupcake games where the difference in a few points could be the difference in a seed line or a tournament location?
I agree with all you have said and agree with others that the NET is flawed.
But I can't see how anyone can dispute that UK has yet to actually exploit it, like I'm sure other programs are.
Why?
I’ll concede this. The schedule should be improved. I’m all for it. Bring in UNC, IU and Duke every year.
But in the light of NET Rankings, it’s not really relevant. Going to have plenty of opportunity to play top 25 teams this year. Patience.
The other note is the teams that we schedule down at the bottom usually have some kind of connection.
We are playing Southern because of that agreement with the SWAC.
We played Central Michigan cause of Tony Barbee
We are playing High Point because of Tubby.
These games should no doubt but limited but I get some of them.
We are playing Southern because of that agreement with the SWAC.
We played Central Michigan cause of Tony Barbee
We are playing High Point because of Tubby.
These games should no doubt but limited but I get some of them.