February 8, 200818 yr IMO, if Arkansas can go 20-14 and 7-9 in conference last year and get in then UK can get in at 17-12 and 12-5 in conference...Now if they do this and lose in the 1st game of the SEC, and are looking at 17-13, then, I feel they're squarely on the bubble and alot would depend on other conference tourney outcomes and we would want no surprise conf tourney winners if thats the case, but, 1 win or more in the SEC tourney and I feel they're a lock...So a minimum of 6-3 and 1 SEC tourney win the rest of the way and they'll be dancing..
February 8, 200818 yr If they get 19 wins and make it to the SEC tourney finals, they'll make it in. Sure would be nice to sweep the Vols. We have to beat Florida at home. UK can't lose at home.
February 8, 200818 yr Agreed with you, but they have won 3 games against top 125 teams. They need to win the tourney, which I think is possible. Yeah, further down I said Kentucky was 3-7 vs top 100 RPI, I must not have been thinking about South Carolina when I typed that sentence.
February 8, 200818 yr Yeah, further down I said Kentucky was 3-7 vs top 100 RPI, I must not have been thinking about South Carolina when I typed that sentence. Clear out your PM's...
February 8, 200818 yr They will have to win 18-20 to make it into the tourney. If not, I think the way they are playing, they could win the NIT.
February 8, 200818 yr Guys who are we talkin about the University of Kentucky Wildcats. If I'm not mistaken we're one of the best dynasties in college basketball. UK will always get a look because of their tradition and like people are saying we will get in if we win 20 games this year and maybe if even 19. Every game is going to be hard down the road we will probably not see another blowout the rest of the year except maybe LSU because people still bring their "A" game when they see that Kentucky on the jersey. We just have to worry bout the next game and let are wins do the talking for us.
February 8, 200818 yr 17-14 will not get them in. There going to have to get up to the 19-20 range. LC: I'm just using your quote as a starting point. Now I'm just throwing this out here for "debate fodder," and I am in no way trying to start something, and granted I do not have any specifics on why this may have happened....but In the '95-'96 season, Duke had a regular season record of 18-11 going 8-8 in ACC play. On Jan. 25th of '96, they were 11-7 (2-4). They lost in the first round of the ACCT, yet still made it into the Dance. Again, I don't know what other factors were involved that the committee took into consideration. I use Duke as an example because they are a high profile team, just as UK is (regardless of recent years). Now, maybe some things have changed in 12 years, regarding what the committee looks at in a team....UK is currently 11-9 (5-2). Again, maybe this is a bad comparison. I just thought from a "record" standpoint, they seemed like a bubble team??? Thoughts? If any....
February 8, 200818 yr LC: I'm just using your quote as a starting point. Now I'm just throwing this out here for "debate fodder," and I am in no way trying to start something, and granted I do not have any specifics on why this may have happened....but In the '95-'96 season, Duke had a regular season record of 18-11 going 8-8 in ACC play. On Jan. 25th of '96, they were 11-7 (2-4). They lost in the first round of the ACCT, yet still made it into the Dance. Again, I don't know what other factors were involved that the committee took into consideration. I use Duke as an example because they are a high profile team, just as UK is (regardless of recent years). Now, maybe some things have changed in 12 years, regarding what the committee looks at in a team....UK is currently 11-9 (5-2). Again, maybe this is a bad comparison. I just thought from a "record" standpoint, they seemed like a bubble team??? Thoughts? If any.... I think you make a good point, but I am not sure how much the losses to GW and SD play into the factor. I am not sure, but I don't think Duke had any of these kind of losses.
February 8, 200818 yr Vandy was overrated out of conference. If they lose to Vandy then it would be pretty bad! If you're just going to go ahead and chalk up a win at Vandy you have a lot more confidence in UK than I do. Vandy is going to be very difficult, UK will be an underdog in the game. They gave UK all they wanted and more in Rupp.
February 8, 200818 yr If you're just going to go ahead and chalk up a win at Vandy you have a lot more confidence in UK than I do. Vandy is going to be very difficult, UK will be an underdog in the game. They gave UK all they wanted and more in Rupp. Actually I think it was the other way around. UK gave Vandy all they wanted and more. I still would not chalk up a win for UK down at Vandy.
February 26, 200818 yr Rivals now has UK IN the tournament as a #12..... http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=773443
February 26, 200818 yr Rivals now has UK IN the tournament as a #12..... http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=773443 Which would give the Cats a first round matchup with Michigan State, Drake, or Butler (they have Vandy as the 4th #5). I think they'd take that.
February 26, 200818 yr Which would give the Cats a first round matchup with Michigan State, Drake, or Butler (they have Vandy as the 4th #5). I think they'd take that. I think they would take anything at this point.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.