So if I'm reading that right, UK has more top 100 wins and less sub100 losses and an overall better Strength of Schedule yet they are a 7-9 seed and Duke is a lock for a 2 seed.

 

I think I may now rest my case, it's been proven what I've said all along about this.

 

Duke also has four more wins against the RPI Top 25, but that was omitted from the chart above, for some reason.

Saw this on twitter, not sure if anyone mentioned it or said it, this was before the games on saturday. [ATTACH=CONFIG]43159[/ATTACH]

 

How about top 25 wins? Duke kills them there.

How about top 25 wins? Duke kills them there.

 

Yeah they do. Like I said, I saw it on twitter and was just passing it along since it was relevant to the topic. That does need to be included though for sure.

It could be that your fellow Duke brethren understand how ridiculous it is.

 

Naw. RP did an excellent job and I gave up on this thread on Saturday when I answered your question.

Duke also has four more wins against the RPI Top 25, but that was omitted from the chart above, for some reason.

 

When Matt Jones makes the chart then you have your answer.

OK I'm as big an UK fan as anyone and don't care at all for Duke or for that matter ANY other team.

 

Can any UK fan honestly say after watching UK the last 4 weeks that they deserve to be in the same conversation with Duke when it comes to seeding this year. UK just doesn't pass the "Look Test" while Duke even in losses as played much better than UK has in wins the last several games.

 

I hope Duke gets beat in the first round and I hope UK wins it all, but recent history suggest strongly that Duke should be seeded much higher than UK in this tourney.

When Matt Jones makes the chart then you have your answer.

 

Matt has never been one to let facts-or the omission of them- get in the way of complete hack job journalism.

Matt has never been one to let facts-or the omission of them- get in the way of complete hack job journalism.

 

I may be wrong but I think the numbers he posted were the ones used by the Committee to seed the teams. He sat in on the process a few years ago and I think that is where he got that set of numbers.

 

I don't think the Record against Top 25 is in the data the committee gets.

OK I'm as big an UK fan as anyone and don't care at all for Duke or for that matter ANY other team.

 

Can any UK fan honestly say after watching UK the last 4 weeks that they deserve to be in the same conversation with Duke when it comes to seeding this year. UK just doesn't pass the "Look Test" while Duke even in losses as played much better than UK has in wins the last several games.

 

I hope Duke gets beat in the first round and I hope UK wins it all, but recent history suggest strongly that Duke should be seeded much higher than UK in this tourney.

To answer your question ... No!

I also would add no one is saying they should be a higher seed, shoot the way they played I don't know if they even deserve to be in the NCAA in the first place. That wasn't the conversation, what was was the comparison with other teams and how Duke always seems to get a big advantage when it comes to rankings. Their losses are largely ignored as if they haven't lost games in the first place.

 

To show you the big difference on depending who you talk to, I looked at 2 national basketball guys and their brackets right now for the NCAA. 1 has Duke as a #2 seed and another has Duke as a #4 seed. How on earth could there be that much of a difference? The answer is one (espn) is a national outlet that like many others have always over ranked Duke no matter what.

 

The bracket guys I'm talking about are Joe Lunardi with Espn who has Duke right now as a #2 seed and Jerry Palm of CBSSports who has Duke as #4 seed.

 

That just goes to show the way that Duke is seen by some and this year isn't the first time it's happened.

Most of the years Duke has been one or two and done in the tourney they have been ranked much too high and was said to be going into the tournaments and is why it was never a big surprise to many when they got knocked out before reaching the sweet 16 etc.

 

What you missed here is UK was just used as an example to compare with and I also used UNC also just as an example.

 

Yes UK is freaking horrible, they looked like a grade school team Saturday. But the reason they were being used was the disparaging way the folks who rank teams have treated Duke above all other teams from the beginning of the year. I will demonstrate.

 

At the beginning of the year no one thought UK would be this bad. Shoot they had UK ranked #1 pre season. UK's first loss was against the #2 team in the country at the time. The only loss UK had at the time. After that loss did everyone think UK was horrible? No, they lost a close game to the #2 team in the country. What happened to them? They dropped to the #4 spot in the rankings.

 

They lost 1 game and it was against the #2 team in the country and dropped to #4 spot. Now Duke who also started in the top 5 and after their first loss (to the #6 team in the country at the time) only dropped 2 spots.

 

Again, at the time no one knew UK would be this bad, so to look at it now and say UK doesn't deserve to be ranked high is foolish because at the time of their first loss they were believed to be the best team in the country and no reason to think otherwise at the time. So as I did, look at it from the first loss on and see the difference. UK lost to a high ranked team than the team that beat Duke the same week, yet Duke only dropped 2 spots while UK dropped from 1 to 4.

 

So please explain to me then if you don't want to take the entire season into account because how bad UK is now and explain to me how they lose to the #2 team in the country in a close game and drop more spots than Duke did after their first loss against what at the time was a worse ranked team than the team that beat UK?

 

That is my point.

Edited March 10, 201412 yr by Hellbird

I think you can expand the topic to the SEC in general. How on earth can the talking heads of ESPN say that the SEC is a 2 bid league and at the same time say that the American has 5 locks for the tourney. Really? Five locks for a league, who other than a 1 point, home win by UCONN over a short-handed Florida team, cannot boast a single victory over a true tourney lock. I know the SEC isn't what it used to be in basketball but come on, SMU? Their best non-conference win was Wyoming! Who has UC or UL beat out of conference (no one). And yet the AAC is a 5 lock league?

I think you can expand the topic to the SEC in general. How on earth can the talking heads of ESPN say that the SEC is a 2 bid league and at the same time say that the American has 5 locks for the tourney. Really? Five locks for a league, who other than a 1 point, home win by UCONN over a short-handed Florida team, cannot boast a single victory over a true tourney lock. I know the SEC isn't what it used to be in basketball but come on, SMU? Their best non-conference win was Wyoming! Who has UC or UL beat out of conference (no one). And yet the AAC is a 5 lock league?

 

How many OOC bad losses do they have? This is a season of bad losses, I don't think any of them has those on their resume except for SMU, but they have had the wins in conference to negate that.

I don't care what anybody says. As bad as UK was last year and they were bad, the only reason they didn't make the tourney was because they were UK.

 

Middle Tenn or Boise State not making the cut doesn't get near the headlines!

I don't care what anybody says. As bad as UK was last year and they were bad, the only reason they didn't make the tourney was because they were UK.

 

Middle Tenn or Boise State not making the cut doesn't get near the headlines!

 

Or the best player on an already bad team got hurt.

I think you can expand the topic to the SEC in general. How on earth can the talking heads of ESPN say that the SEC is a 2 bid league and at the same time say that the American has 5 locks for the tourney. Really? Five locks for a league, who other than a 1 point, ho

e win by UCONN over a short-handed Florida team, cannot boast a single victory over a true tourney lock. I know the SEC isn't what it used to be in basketball but come on, SMU? Their best non-conference win was Wyoming! Who has UC or UL beat out of conference (no one). And yet the AAC is a 5 lock league?

 

So you calling out Louisville? Do that, and you eliminate the only decent win OOC for UK. Careful you dont support the naysayers while you try to make your point.

I don't care what anybody says. As bad as UK was last year and they were bad, the only reason they didn't make the tourney was because they were UK.

 

What? :lol2: