Improving as the season progresses in a terrible division does not carry as much weight as you are implying it should.

 

It did for Xavier... :sssh:

I think the NCAA is intentionally slapping Kentucky the face. First they don't free enes now this. What a freaking joke.

 

I agree 100%!!! :taz::irked:

Poor UK. That mean ol' NCAA is always out to get them... :lol:

Poor UK. That mean ol' NCAA is always out to get them... :lol:

 

Look I can see where a non UK fan gets tired of the complaining and conspiracy theories. But you have to admit that the NCAA is fanning the fire with things like this seeding. I could live with a 4 seed but apparently UK is the lowest of the for seeds and that cannot be justified.

Look I can see where a non UK fan gets tired of the complaining and conspiracy theories. But you have to admit that the NCAA is fanning the fire with things like this seeding. I could live with a 4 seed but apparently UK is the lowest of the for seeds and that cannot be justified.

 

Win more road games and it wouldn't have been an issue. If your resume is flawed in any way, what is the point of complaining, especially with a spot on the top 4 lines. Just go out and win games...

Poor UK. That mean ol' NCAA is always out to get them... :lol:

 

And I agree with you 110% GT, even if you are being faceious.

The proof is in the pudding--- as the old saying goes.

Win more road games and it wouldn't have been an issue. If your resume is flawed in any way, what is the point of complaining, especially with a spot on the top 4 lines. Just go out and win games...

 

Oh I agree that it's past time to shut up and play. I'm simply saying that the NCAA is fostering the perception.

 

The way I see it is that UK is seeded poorly but Ohio St is the team that really got the shaft. I'm biased but I really think UK is one of the hotter teams in the country right now. Their talent level is undeniable and they seemed to have figured it out. I guess we will find out soon enough.

UAB is making the committee look like complete morons.

Win more road games and it wouldn't have been an issue. If your resume is flawed in any way, what is the point of complaining, especially with a spot on the top 4 lines. Just go out and win games...

 

It's not like they were blown out in their road game losses. Most of their road losses were between 1 to 4 points. That should mean something. It's not like they were getting blown out by 20. A loss is a loss I suppose but when it is a narrow loss in a hostile enviroment by a young team (that is now playing much better basketball going into the NCAA tournament), well....that should be big part of the criteria for the selection committee.

Maybe UK is not a 2 seed, but UNC and Florida are not either. UK should have been no worse than a 3.

 

IMO this is by far the worst job any selection committee has every done in the history of seeding and selecting in the NCAA tournament.

 

And don't wins over Louisville, Notre Dame, and Washington mean anything?

I agree the seeding this year is horrible, but it's an every year thing so I don't find it worth getting worked up over.

 

I could complain all day that Mizzou is far too good for an 11 seed, but that's where they are and it likely means a 1st round L for UC. That's just what happens when your resume leaves it to chance.

 

The committee wasn't out to "get" UK, they just aren't very good at putting the field together. It's a seriously flawed process that allows for the criteria to change year to year because the formula is not decided until the committee is in the room and working on the bracket...

I agree the seeding this year is horrible, but it's an every year thing so I don't find it worth getting worked up over.

 

I could complain all day that Mizzou is far too good for an 11 seed, but that's where they are and it likely means a 1st round L for UC. That's just what happens when your resume leaves it to chance.

 

The committee wasn't out to "get" UK, they just aren't very good at putting the field together. It's a seriously flawed process that allows for the criteria to change year to year because the formula is not decided until the committee is in the room and working on the bracket...

 

Do you think the bigger flaw is not ranking them 1-64(68) or not having the criteria set?

Do you think the bigger flaw is not ranking them 1-64(68) or not having the criteria set?

 

I think not ranking them 1-64 (68) hurts because the criteria changes. It creates two issues that lead to a poorly seeded field...

I think not ranking them 1-64 (68) hurts because the criteria changes. It creates two issues that lead to a poorly seeded field...

 

I just don't understand how anyone ever thought it was a good idea to not at least match up 1-8 or 1-16. 1-64 makes the most sense, but at least the top 4 seeds would help a lot.

I just don't understand how anyone ever thought it was a good idea to not at least match up 1-8 or 1-16. 1-64 makes the most sense, but at least the top 4 seeds would help a lot.

 

It's $$$ driven which is expected with the NCAA. Plus you can never trust how they have 1-8 or 1-16 because even they don't know what they are really looking for until the 5 day process starts...

I agree the seeding this year is horrible, but it's an every year thing so I don't find it worth getting worked up over.

 

I could complain all day that Mizzou is far too good for an 11 seed, but that's where they are and it likely means a 1st round L for UC. That's just what happens when your resume leaves it to chance.

 

The committee wasn't out to "get" UK, they just aren't very good at putting the field together. It's a seriously flawed process that allows for the criteria to change year to year because the formula is not decided until the committee is in the room and working on the bracket...

 

Well they could at least use the conference tournaments as some kind of measuring stick in their seeding process. Obviously this year they had their minds made up before the SEC tournament was over. Why even play conference tournaments if it's going to be that way?