http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/04/23/mens-statistics-scoring-and-fouls-low/2107661/
Another article from 2013
Another article from 2013
SEC continued...
- Thread starter zipp_rivals
- Start date
- Status
What's your point here? Because I have never ONCE heard a Uk fan bring up the multitudes of injuries UofL teams have had as an excuse for losing any of their games. For example the 2010-2011 season when our team was a walking triage unit that had more injuries on that one team than Cal has had in his entire time at Uk. In fact all I ever hear is bragging about that Brandon Knight team winning @UofL that year despite the Cards losing their starting PF, back up PF, and center before the game. So that injury excuse won't find much traction here.
My point was other teams that were seeded higher than UK this year, but also had bad losses while players were injured got the benefit of the doubt by the committee and media members.
Who were the players that missed the game in 2011?
Why would UK fans single out 2011 to brag about?
Who were the players that missed the game in 2011?
Why would UK fans single out 2011 to brag about?
So is poop and ice cream. The point is, the changes were made after 2012-13 season (in theory to reduce physical contact and allow more freedom of movement)...in your own words, as a result of the "50 year scoring low". THOSE changes were ineffective, as indicated by scoring only increasing by .1 of a point.
What was the scoring difference the year following the rule change? The difference you're alluding too is last year.
The NCAA wants higher scoring, more free flowing games, more action.
The NCAA wants higher scoring, more free flowing games, more action.
I also think players use athleticism over skill too much now. Too much taking it to the hole trying to get an and 1.
What school seeded better than Kentucky had a worse resume? Kentucky had very few good wins, and several bad losses.
It's ok Jay, when you can't refute anything attacking the messenger is the easy way. Best for you to sit out of this one.
Who did West Virginia beat that wasn't in the Big 12? What about Villanova and Xavier? Who did they beat that wasn't artificially inflated? Texas A and M is an obvious pick. Duke is a higher seeded 4 than UK, and UK handled them easily, with Jefferson.
So conferences wins (e.g. winning games in a much tougher and better conference) don't really count now. It's who you beat outside your conference. Again, you're positively goofy, and have no clue what you're talking about. I think you come here just to hear yourself talk. You make no salient points whatsoever.
Haha c'mon Jay, you're missing the whole point. The Big 12 and Pac 12 were artificially inflated, it's a common occurrence with the Big 12. The conference looks better than it actually is because teams schedule cream puffs and enter conference play ranked with good records. Thats how you get several teams in the top 50 so when they beat each other it actually helps the conference.
I already defined the timeframe: 2010-present. That's when Pitino Lite started coaching your team. Hard to reason with LPT fans, but this isn't a debate about ancient LPT history and Neanderthal man moving around basketball-sized rocks.
The question is how much competition the ACC is for U of L and the SEC is for LPT. Has nothing to do with another team like Duke. That’s just your effort to blur the analysis. The SEC sucks except for LPT. And the ACC was really good before U of L and even better now. That speaks volumes about the OTHER TEAMS in your conference.
Tap dance around the facts all you want. As a conference home, the SEC sucks. NCAA tournament results are a great indicator of that, and the gap between the SEC and the better basketball conferences appears to be widening.
“Elite program”, my a$$...
No, you're removing the best team from one conference, and then removing a team that's been in the other conference 2 years, that's not an accurate way to come up with stats Zipp.
Yes, the ACC is a better basketball conference than the SEC. But you're intentionally tilting the stats more in your favor.
Again, the ACC has done extremely well this year, but they also benefitted of playing no seed higher than 7, match ups matter.
You're making an argument out of thin air, no one has said the SEC is better than the ACC, but it's not going to hurt UK.
Once again, we're comparing conferences, not teams. You can't logically subtract the best teams wins in conference A, and not in conference B, that's not logical Zipp.
I don't care about the other teams in the SEC, it's not my job as a UK fan to worry about that.
The ACC is also leading another stat between the conferences right now, but we won't get into that.
Yes, the ACC is a better basketball conference than the SEC. But you're intentionally tilting the stats more in your favor.
Again, the ACC has done extremely well this year, but they also benefitted of playing no seed higher than 7, match ups matter.
You're making an argument out of thin air, no one has said the SEC is better than the ACC, but it's not going to hurt UK.
Once again, we're comparing conferences, not teams. You can't logically subtract the best teams wins in conference A, and not in conference B, that's not logical Zipp.
I don't care about the other teams in the SEC, it's not my job as a UK fan to worry about that.
The ACC is also leading another stat between the conferences right now, but we won't get into that.
Didn't read all the post; but besides seeding; I think it doesn't prepare them as well for the NCAA tournament playing in a weak conference.
Now that Billy D is gone, the SEC won't have another elite team besides UK for a while. Maybe a long while.
UK's problem now is similar to what Calipari faced as coach at Memphis once UofL, Cincy and Marquette left C-USA. After the exodus, Memphis was the big dog team and no one else was even close. Calipari had to schedule tough teams OOC in February just to keep his team sharp. Once in a while one other team would be a little bit good, like UAB.
The SEC is a little different than C-USA in that the level of recruiting across the league is better, and there are some random NBA studs here and there. And a few good coaches might get it together. Probably no one else in the league can get to championship level like Florida did under Donovan.
So Calipari is stuck basically right back where he was at Memphis, playing a weak conference schedule and desperately looking for competition. Playing Kansas so late in the year is probably Calipari trying to mitigate the problem.
I just don't know if UK can get prepared for the Tournament playing tomato cans every night like they have the past 2 years.
LOL isn't that what the dribble drive offense is all about?
Awesome, they both played no one out of conference and got tons of credit simply because of beating teams in their conference.
The Big 12 was overrated once again, the Big East still gets credit from years past.
Utah was in the top 10 in Rpi, did you see what Gonzaga did to them? They got a bloated Rpi and ranking due to the Pac 12 being perceived as strong.
Not "tilting" anything... You said that the real difference is "fan support" which is complete ********. Your conference doesn't care about basketball except for LPT. It cares more about football practice and recruiting than it cares about basketball. It probably cares more about baseball than it cares about basketball.
And I'm not including LPT in those generalizations. ...Rather, the teams you compete against, because that's what really matters.
"Elite program", my a$$...
You said in 1 sentence what took me paragraphs. You should post more!
UK will continue winning 25-30 games a year, but the weak SEC is not getting them ready for teams like Notre Dame, Wisconsin, and IU. There is just a big difference with playing easy teams the last month of the year.
Or maybe they beat the teams they were supposed to beat unlike UK did.
Cal has specialized in perfecting a schtick - mailing in the SEC games and getting up for big games. Those midseason losses were as embarrassing as those in the NBA when you can tell the only time those guys go all out is in the 4th quarter. Especially at the end of road trips. In the SEC, UK can fall over backwards and make the tourney, drunk or on ether. He knows that.
What happened this season was that the weak front court got murdered. Poythress was groomed as a 3 shooter, a luxuriously over sized 3. It was like Cal putting Patterson out on the wing. Terrible development issues, although Patterson overcame it.
UK ended up pretty much exactly as they should have. How ironic will it be to see the underwhelming star of that class get drafted and a fan base breathe a sigh of relief?
What happened this season was that the weak front court got murdered. Poythress was groomed as a 3 shooter, a luxuriously over sized 3. It was like Cal putting Patterson out on the wing. Terrible development issues, although Patterson overcame it.
UK ended up pretty much exactly as they should have. How ironic will it be to see the underwhelming star of that class get drafted and a fan base breathe a sigh of relief?
The truth is the committee doesn't look at conference affiliation. The only look at a teams resume. They look at several factors, but two key ones are wins against the RPI top 50 and losses outside the top 100. The SEC RPI wise only hurt UK it didn't help. Kentucky had zero wins in the SEC that really helped their RPI until the SEC championship game which apparently too late. The other part our UK fan wants to ignore are the awful loses to teams ranked higher than 100 in the RPI. Pitino has said it over and over losing to a low RPI isn't a problem losing to high RPI teams is a problem. The other factor the committee looks at is how did teams do against teams in the field. Again, the SEC provided no real value outside of Vandy and Texas A&M.
Indiana is really not that different. They didn't have many good wins by the end of the year. The argument should be should the committee use the RPI at all but since they do that is key tool in the seeding process.
Indiana is really not that different. They didn't have many good wins by the end of the year. The argument should be should the committee use the RPI at all but since they do that is key tool in the seeding process.
Yea you are, I came up with my own stats kinda like you do. That proves the ACC is only a 2 team league.
Since the ACC has 2 more teams than the SEC I chose to remove the NCAA tourney wins of UNC and Duke since that's the rule you apply to sway things your way.
Oddly enough since 2010 the ACC has 66 wins, subtracting the 30 of UNC and Duke and you get 36 wins. In the same timeframe the SEC has 48 wins, Obviously the SEC isn't that far behind the ACC using that logic.
I don't believe a word of what I just typed, but that's how you come to ridiculous conclusions Zipp. Throw in a few childish names UNCheat, Puke, OTIS, cheatercuse and that's a perfect example of a Zipp post.
The one part of your post that is accurate is the front court was murdered. That was the main issue with the team.
Spoken like a yut fan i.e. someobe who doesn't understand football drives everything. Louisville is in the ACC because of their football program primarily. Nobody's getting thrown anywhere.
The problem with your analysis is that U of L plays Duke and UNC regularly--seven times in the last two years--so eliminating the records of those teams is erroneous. LPT doesn't regularly play them because they're not in your conference. (Duke once about every four years; UNC approx. every other year). That's just your lame attempt to dummy down U of L's schedule to where LPT's is.
How about we take the two best teams off of LPT's schedule every year and re-rate it? Wouldn't leave much but the godawful SEC.
And as far as your last remark, I don't know what to tell ya if you're getting tired of your treatment here. There may be a lotta U of L fans ganging up on you now. But after reading some of your comments, I can understand why. Whatever door you came through is probably still open. I don't know what you expected, and sorry if that's your only relief.
"Elite program", my a$$...
Last edited:
They have 3 teams in the Sweet 16. Good grief you're just awful at this.
Oh and I'll be sure to remind you of your moronic quip about getting credit for only beating other conference teams the next time you talk about the grind that SEC football teams go thru in conference.
I ask again: why exactly are you here?
No.1 NIT seed So Carolina (3rd best SEC team) is doing quite well against the 10th best team in the ACC right now only down at home 27 points against Ga Tech with a minute to play.
The SEC may not qualify as mid-major anymore.
"Elite program", my a$$...
"Elite program", my a$$...
So let me first say bravo to the ACC for really playing lights out in the tourney. Great job by a great conference, you can tell they value roundball over pigskin.
Secondly, yes, the SEC is pretty terribad. To one poster's point, they do recruit better athletes than most mid major conferences and as a whole the conference puts a decent number of guys in the NBA, but most of the coaches can't get out of their own way. Stallings is a disaster. Mike Anderson is nothing more than a lite version of Nolan Richardson. Andy Kennedy? Ugh. The other Kennedy looks to have a bright future, and maybe Howland can recapture some of the UCLA magic eventually, but as whole the conference is subpar.
All that said, I don't put a bit of stock into the conference schedule not preparing a team for the post season. If a team is well balanced, well coached, experienced, and talented enough, it wins in March regardless of the schedule it played. The problem Calipari has is that he rarely has any "experienced" talent on his teams. His reputation for churning out one and done players is detrimental to winning YoY since guys who have no business leaving end up in the D League or washed out within a couple of years. Yes, this is the bed Cal makes so he has to lay in it. Ultimately he should have one more title at UK IMO. Either 2010 or 2015 UK should have figured out a way to win it all, especially when you look at how good the main players on those teams are right now in the NBA. Wall and Cousins are perennial all stars, Towns is headed that way, Booker and Lyles have been excellent.
Looking forward to next year in the Yum. You guys will have the better roster along with more experience and home court. Should be a battle, I think this is the year the tide turns.
Secondly, yes, the SEC is pretty terribad. To one poster's point, they do recruit better athletes than most mid major conferences and as a whole the conference puts a decent number of guys in the NBA, but most of the coaches can't get out of their own way. Stallings is a disaster. Mike Anderson is nothing more than a lite version of Nolan Richardson. Andy Kennedy? Ugh. The other Kennedy looks to have a bright future, and maybe Howland can recapture some of the UCLA magic eventually, but as whole the conference is subpar.
All that said, I don't put a bit of stock into the conference schedule not preparing a team for the post season. If a team is well balanced, well coached, experienced, and talented enough, it wins in March regardless of the schedule it played. The problem Calipari has is that he rarely has any "experienced" talent on his teams. His reputation for churning out one and done players is detrimental to winning YoY since guys who have no business leaving end up in the D League or washed out within a couple of years. Yes, this is the bed Cal makes so he has to lay in it. Ultimately he should have one more title at UK IMO. Either 2010 or 2015 UK should have figured out a way to win it all, especially when you look at how good the main players on those teams are right now in the NBA. Wall and Cousins are perennial all stars, Towns is headed that way, Booker and Lyles have been excellent.
Looking forward to next year in the Yum. You guys will have the better roster along with more experience and home court. Should be a battle, I think this is the year the tide turns.
Old Bill would torture a newborn goat to make UK look good. Look what he tries doing to your brain, lol. Had UK played in the ACC, Virginia, UNC, Miami, Notre Dame, Clemson and Ga Tech (at home), Va Tech and probably Pitt and Syracuse would have beat them - and this doesn't include possible second games with Louisville or Duke. Based on UK's midseason losses, even Wake would have tied them in knots.
Drawing Stony Brook and Indy was an easy draw, actually, lol. Pssst - don't tell anyone.
Drawing Stony Brook and Indy was an easy draw, actually, lol. Pssst - don't tell anyone.
We're talking about the NCAA tourney results Zipp, not the regular season. You're whole premise was using tourney results, do you not remember?
I was making fun of YOU with that post, your tired and childish name calling, ridiculous stats with cherry picked data.
Both Louisville and UK have top notch basketball programs. They will continue to be top notch no matter of conference affiliation.
3 teams out of how many? A 1,2, and 4 seed advanced to the sweet 16 imagine that. Again ISU had 11 losses, why were they a 4 seed? Oklahoma had 7, and they're a 2 seed.
They're seeded that high because the Big 12 was supposedly the NBA east. Match ups matter
As for SEC football, it too gets overvalued.
Last edited:
My God you're hopeless! You just spew crap all the while saying nothing. Iowa St wasn't a 1 seed. You seem to be hitting the bottle or the bong early today. No one knows why you're here.
- Status