Check out how not obsessed we are with Kentucky

[Kedsy]

74th toughest? By beating #4, #5, and #6 and UNC, who was preseason top 10? UCLA was top 25 at one point as well.
They're #1 in RPI and BPI.

I'm pretty sure listing UK as having the 74th toughest schedule so far is nonsense.

Well, Kentucky's schedule is rated 6th by RPI and 88th by BPI, two measures you seem to trust. It's not nearly the best college schedule. Whether UK is ranked #1 (which they are by pretty much everybody, not just RPI and BPI) is largely irrelevant both to the strength of UK's schedule and to the likelihood of UK going undefeated.

Not sure who this Pomeroy guy is anyway or why his rankings matter.

Just the sentence above says volumes about your credibility in discussions regarding relative strength of teams or schedules.

I think what you showed is that the RPI rates the SEC as roughly equivalent to the ACC, which I think says more about the limitations of the RPI than the strength of the ACC.

Using Pomeroy's ratings, the ACC has six top 40 teams while the SEC has five. If you go down to top 100, the SEC has ten while the ACC only has nine.

It's not just the RPI. Both Pomeroy and Sagarin (and most other rating systems) rate the ACC 4th and the SEC 5th. So it seems most computers think the two conferences are roughly equivalent.

Kentucky doesn't have many real challenges left. Maybe not any.

They have seven road games left against Pomeroy's top 100 teams (including three road games against the top 40). Since only one of those has to end up with a loss to keep UK from being undefeated, I'd say that's a pretty real challenge.

[Duke95]

Just the sentence above says volumes about your credibility in discussions regarding relative strength of teams or schedules.

LOL. I'm hurt because I don't know or care who this Pomeroy guy is you seem to worship.

The guy who apparently has UK playing the 74th toughest schedule in the country so far.

It's hard for UK to be ranked as having the toughest schedule because they're number 1. They can't play anyone ranked higher. But who else in the country has destroyed 2 top 5 teams and beaten another one by 8 in an away game. Nobody. But if you think UK has the 74th to 88th toughest schedule in the country, that's your choice pal. VCU has the 3rd toughest "ranked" schedule and have played 1 top ten team, UVA.

[hurleyfor3]

Hope Duke doesn't get them.

Bring 'em on. Put it this way, I wish we had played UConn in 2006.

[hurleyfor3]

Not sure who this Pomeroy guy is anyway or why his rankings matter.

Better be careful around these parts. He's pretty much the Patron Saint of DBR, at least when Tiger Woods isn't on teevee.

[uh_no]

Bring 'em on. Put it this way, I wish we had played UConn in 2006.

eh. that Uconn team never really was able to adjust down the stretch. They had played poorly for almost an entire stretch. Their last 6 games?

4 point win over UL
OT loss to syracuse (freakin devendorf and mcnamara...they won the tournament that year, if i recall)
Win over albany in the 1/16 game...uconn was up 1 at halftime
4 point win over UK in the 1/8 game
OT win against UW in the 1/5 game
loss to george mason

Duke might have won...who knows...but that was the epitome of a talented team that didn't play together...much like UK in 2010.

[Kedsy]

LOL. I'm hurt because I don't know or care who this Pomeroy guy is you seem to worship.

The guy who apparently has UK playing the 74th toughest schedule in the country so far.

It's hard for UK to be ranked as having the toughest schedule because they're number 1. They can't play anyone ranked higher. But who else in the country has destroyed 2 top 5 teams and beaten another one by 8 in an away game. Nobody. But if you think UK has the 74th to 88th toughest schedule in the country, that's your choice pal. VCU has the 3rd toughest "ranked" schedule and have played 1 top ten team, UVA.

Well, first of all, UK beat Texas by 12 at home. I wouldn't call that "destroy[ing]" the Longhorns.

Second, when the new polls come out tomorrow, none of Kentucky's victims will be in the top 5. Texas and Kansas won't even be in the top 10. Texas lost at home to Stanford (a team Duke beat by 11 at a neutral site). Kansas lost by 25 to Temple (a team Duke beat by 20). The UNC team that UK beat by 16 at home also lost to Butler and Iowa. So I'd say Kentucky's marquee wins don't look nearly as good as you're making them out to look.

And that's the real problem with using your eye test to judge schedule strength, rather than a computer that looks at things dispassionately. You apparently see only the good teams on Kentucky's schedule, but not only are those teams not as good as the pollsters thought they were at the time, Kentucky has also played Grand Canyon, Buffalo, BU, Montana State, Texas-Arlington, Eastern Kentucky, and Columbia. And that's why UK's schedule isn't the best, nothing to do with UK's current rank. So if the computers think Kentucky's schedule is 74th or 88th, pardon me if I trust their opinion more than yours.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Good news is... None of this matters much. It will all be settled on the court in March.

[hurleyfor3]

eh. that Uconn team never really was able to adjust down the stretch. They had played poorly for almost an entire stretch.

I agree, and as you probably recall, think UConn should have lost to Washington in the Sweet 16 that year before even getting to Mason. My point is that if we think we're one of the two best teams in the country, we want to be good enough when it counts to at least get by the LSUs and meet the other good team. Sometimes this *does* happen (1991, 1998, 1999, 2004).

[sagegrouse]

Well, Kentucky's schedule is rated 6th by RPI and 88th by BPI, two measures you seem to trust. It's not nearly the best college schedule. Whether UK is ranked #1 (which they are by pretty much everybody, not just RPI and BPI) is largely irrelevant both to the strength of UK's schedule and to the likelihood of UK going undefeated.



Just the sentence above says volumes about your credibility in discussions regarding relative strength of teams or schedules.



Using Pomeroy's ratings, the ACC has six top 40 teams while the SEC has five. If you go down to top 100, the SEC has ten while the ACC only has nine.

It's not just the RPI. Both Pomeroy and Sagarin (and most other rating systems) rate the ACC 4th and the SEC 5th. So it seems most computers think the two conferences are roughly equivalent.



They have seven road games left against Pomeroy's top 100 teams (including three road games against the top 40). Since only one of those has to end up with a loss to keep UK from being undefeated, I'd say that's a pretty real challenge.

This is a case where "average" is a pretty dumb measure. The top teams are gonna squash most teams outside of the top 75. It doesn't really matter whether they are #100 or #300. The real questions is, "What good teams do you play and whom did you beat?" Well, how about Kansas, Texas, UNC, UCLA and Louisville? For Duke, also undefeated, the "comparables" are Michigan State, Temple, Stanford, Wisconsin and UConn. Not bad, but Kentucky has the edge.

We also had a similar discussion a few years ago, when some people wanted to measure recruiting classes with the "average" ranking of incoming recruits. Uh, no! That would mean that a team with recruits ranked 1, 2, 3, and 100 would fall behind a recruiting class with #15, 20, 25, and 30. It's the number (as few as two) of top recruits that define a recruiting class. They are the ones who are going to play and make a difference. In looking at schedules, it's the wins over good teams.

By this reasoning, Duke plays a far tougher schedule from here on out than Kentucky: UNC (2), ND (2), Lville and UVa -- all good and all ranked. There are no SEC teams other than the Cats in the top 30 of the AP poll. The average KenPom or RPI rating seems irrelevant to me, when there is such a big disparity among the tougher teams on the schedule.

Would someone pass my views along to KenPom?

[Duke95]

Well, first of all, UK beat Texas by 12 at home. I wouldn't call that "destroy[ing]" the Longhorns.

Second, when the new polls come out tomorrow, none of Kentucky's victims will be in the top 5. Texas and Kansas won't even be in the top 10. Texas lost at home to Stanford (a team Duke beat by 11 at a neutral site). Kansas lost by 25 to Temple (a team Duke beat by 20). The UNC team that UK beat by 16 at home also lost to Butler and Iowa. So I'd say Kentucky's marquee wins don't look nearly as good as you're making them out to look.

And that's the real problem with using your eye test to judge schedule strength, rather than a computer that looks at things dispassionately. You apparently see only the good teams on Kentucky's schedule, but not only are those teams not as good as the pollsters thought they were at the time, Kentucky has also played Grand Canyon, Buffalo, BU, Montana State, Texas-Arlington, Eastern Kentucky, and Columbia. And that's why UK's schedule isn't the best, nothing to do with UK's current rank. So if the computers think Kentucky's schedule is 74th or 88th, pardon me if I trust their opinion more than yours.

Ok, then tell me another team that has the kind of wins Kentucky has. And that argument of "when the new polls come out tomorrow, none of Kentucky's victims will be in the top 5" is nonsense. The reason Louisville may drop out is because they lost to Kentucky. You think that somehow diminishes UK's schedule? Seriously now. That's not even a decent argument.

As far as Kansas and Texas are concerned, yes, they've lost. Both they're both currently top 10. That's 3 top 10 wins for UK.

And once again, how does VCU have the 3rd toughest schedule, despite playing what, ONE ranked team and losing? Look, you can trust the computers, that's fine. I'm just not as willing to abdicate my common sense in favor of a computer ranking. And for the sake of accuracy, Kentucky's SOS is #6 in the RPI, which frankly sounds much more plausible than #74, especially given Kentucky is 4-0 against the Top 25.

[FerryFor50]

Well, first of all, UK beat Texas by 12 at home. I wouldn't call that "destroy[ing]" the Longhorns.

Second, when the new polls come out tomorrow, none of Kentucky's victims will be in the top 5. Texas and Kansas won't even be in the top 10. Texas lost at home to Stanford (a team Duke beat by 11 at a neutral site). Kansas lost by 25 to Temple (a team Duke beat by 20). The UNC team that UK beat by 16 at home also lost to Butler and Iowa. So I'd say Kentucky's marquee wins don't look nearly as good as you're making them out to look.

And that's the real problem with using your eye test to judge schedule strength, rather than a computer that looks at things dispassionately. You apparently see only the good teams on Kentucky's schedule, but not only are those teams not as good as the pollsters thought they were at the time, Kentucky has also played Grand Canyon, Buffalo, BU, Montana State, Texas-Arlington, Eastern Kentucky, and Columbia. And that's why UK's schedule isn't the best, nothing to do with UK's current rank. So if the computers think Kentucky's schedule is 74th or 88th, pardon me if I trust their opinion more than yours.

Also, Kentucky nearly lost to a Texas team missing their starting PG.

Kentucky is not invincible, but they've gotten the toughest part of their schedule out of the way. Now they get the cream puff SEC schedule (to pile on to the easy schedule argument). They very well could go undefeated into the NCAAs, provided they don't have more injuries, foul trouble or run into a hot shooting team while they shoot poorly.

I think L'ville showed a blueprint for beating Kentucky - head fakes. Kentucky is very aggressive going after the blocks. If L'ville had shot even a little better, they win going away.

[arnie]

This is a case where "average" is a pretty dumb measure. The top teams are gonna squash most teams outside of the top 75. It doesn't really matter whether they are #100 or #300. The real questions is, "What good teams do you play and whom did you beat?" Well, how about Kansas, Texas, UNC, UCLA and Louisville? For Duke, also undefeated, the "comparables" are Michigan State, Temple, Stanford, Wisconsin and UConn. Not bad, but Kentucky has the edge.

We also had a similar discussion a few years ago, when some people wanted to measure recruiting classes with the "average" ranking of incoming recruits. Uh, no! That would mean that a team with recruits ranked 1, 2, 3, and 100 would fall behind a recruiting class with #15, 20, 25, and 30. It's the number (as few as two) of top recruits that define a recruiting class. They are the ones who are going to play and make a difference. In looking at schedules, it's the wins over good teams.

By this reasoning, Duke plays a far tougher schedule from here on out than Kentucky: UNC (2), ND (2), Lville and UVa -- all good and all ranked. There are no SEC teams other than the Cats in the top 30 of the AP poll. The average KenPom or RPI rating seems irrelevant to me, when there is such a big disparity among the tougher teams on the schedule.

Would someone pass my views along to KenPom?

Very good summary of why the eye test is often a better measure of schedule strength; particularly when considering the top teams. Duke playing 1 game vs Kentucky and 1 game against Prairie View (or any team near the bottom) is much more difficult than playing 2 teams ranked near 150.

[FerryFor50]

Ok, then tell me another team that has the kind of wins Kentucky has. And that argument of "when the new polls come out tomorrow, none of Kentucky's victims will be in the top 5" is nonsense. The reason Louisville may drop out is because they lost to Kentucky. You think that somehow diminishes UK's schedule? Seriously now. That's not even a decent argument.

As far as Kansas and Texas are concerned, yes, they've lost. Both they're both currently top 10. That's 3 top 10 wins for UK.

And once again, how does VCU have the 3rd toughest schedule, despite playing what, ONE ranked team and losing? Look, you can trust the computers, that's fine. I'm just not as willing to abdicate my common sense in favor of a computer ranking. And for the sake of accuracy, Kentucky's SOS is #6 in the RPI, which frankly sounds much more plausible than #74, especially given Kentucky is 4-0 against the Top 25.

Because playing teams like Grand Canyon State, Buffalo, BU, Montana State, Texas-Arlington, Eastern Kentucky, and Columbia before you get into the "meat" of your schedule will do that to your strength of schedule rankings. VCU is actually playing real competition on a regular basis rather than picking and choosing what competition they play.

What I don't understand is why you're referencing the RPI but poo-pooing KenPom. The RPI is widely disparaged as a metric for college teams these days and ratings like Sagarin and KenPom are much more respected.

[Duke95]

Because playing teams like Grand Canyon State, Buffalo, BU, Montana State, Texas-Arlington, Eastern Kentucky, and Columbia before you get into the "meat" of your schedule will do that to your strength of schedule rankings. VCU is actually playing real competition on a regular basis rather than picking and choosing what competition they play.

What I don't understand is why you're referencing the RPI but poo-pooing KenPom. The RPI is widely disparaged as a metric for college teams these days and ratings like Sagarin and KenPom are much more respected.

Actually VCU has played ONE, count 'em, ONE top 10 team. UK has played 3 and has beaten them all, with only one staying within 10 points. If you think VCU has the 3rd toughest SOS, but UK has the 88th or 74th or whatever, then you are certainly welcome to your opinion. I think the RPI's SoS ranking for UK at #6 is much more reasonable. Sure, UK has played a few cupcakes, but they have more wins over top opponents than anyone.

Also if by "nearly lost" to Texas, you mean they only won by 12, then I don't know what to say. Also, UK has lost Poythress and still beat L-ville by 8 away.

And no, I don't particularly enjoy defending Kentucky. At all.

[Henderson]

Also if by "nearly lost" to Texas, you mean they only won by 12, then I don't know what to say. Also, UK has lost Poythress and still beat L-ville by 8 away.

If Duke "nearly loses" the rest of its games this season, we'll all be celebrating come April.

UK is very very good. If someone has stats that purport to suggest otherwise, the problem is in the use of stats that don't tell an accurate story or are being misused.

[Wander]

Well, the main issue here is that "strength of schedule" is absolutely not the same as "probability of going undefeated."

College Team A plays the Golden State Warriors, Grambling State, a UNC team whose only scholarship players are Nate Britt and Joel James, Durham high school, and my intramural team.
College Team B plays Louisville, Virginia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Gonzaga.

Which team has the tougher strength of schedule? Which team has the better chance of going undefeated?

The ACC may not be as much better than the SEC overall as a lot of people think, but the weakness at the top of the SEC definitely makes it easier for Kentucky to go undefeated than it does for Duke.

[Ultrarunner]

Actually VCU has played ONE, count 'em, ONE top 10 team. UK has played 3 and has beaten them all, with only one staying within 10 points. If you think VCU has the 3rd toughest SOS, but UK has the 88th or 74th or whatever, then you are certainly welcome to your opinion. I think the RPI's SoS ranking for UK at #6 is much more reasonable. Sure, UK has played a few cupcakes, but they have more wins over top opponents than anyone.

Also if by "nearly lost" to Texas, you mean they only won by 12, then I don't know what to say. Also, UK has lost Poythress and still beat L-ville by 8 away.

And no, I don't particularly enjoy defending Kentucky. At all.

The weakness in your argument is an assumption that the teams that Kentucky beat were actually top 10 teams. While four of those teams were in the top 10 early in the season, it appears that each (excluding Louisville) may have been over-ranked, though in the case of the Longhorns, losing their point guard gives them an reasonable explanation. As of last week, only Texas and Kansas were still in the top 10. With losses this past week by each, there is an excellent chance that both will fall out of the top 10. UNC started in the top 10 and has fallen through the floor.

Louisville appears to be a very good win right now. We'll see what happens to the rest of their season, though. A team that plays great defense can be in every game; a team that can't score is in danger of losing a bunch of close games.

UK has played more than a few cupcakes - try four of them, ranked in the bottom half the NCAA. So, at this point, we can say they have one quality win, a couple that might be quality wins, some middling wins, and a feast of four wins against awful teams.

You can disregard the stats all you wish, but several of the services that you ignore have excellent reputations (Pomeroy, Sagarin.) Both of those have UK's SOS considerably lower than RPI. Out of curiosity, is there one particular aspect of the RPI that you find to be significantly better than the others?

Now for my version of your trusted "eye" test - Kentucky is vulnerable to a team that has a post presence and decent three point shooting. Duke fits that bill (on a good day.) A highly disciplined offensive team like Virginia that plays excellent defense will cause Kentucky all sorts of heartburn. Until then, though, Kentucky is going to continue to destroy teams with athleticism. They have the top ranking and deserve it.

[Duke95]

The weakness in your argument is an assumption that the teams that Kentucky beat were actually top 10 teams.

I'd say denying that may be a weakness in YOUR argument. Because, I wasn't the one who ranked them in the Top 10. It was the AP and the coaches. But maybe you know better.
And it's not just my opinion. You can look at what Vegas thinks, and unlike most others, they put their $ where their mouths are. If you've gotten to the point where you're denying the quality of Kentucky's wins, I'd say you're the one denying reality. If you think all UK has is one quality win, excuse me if I join the rest of the college basketball world in laughing at that opinion.

Sticking one's head in the sand won't save one's butt from getting kicked.

And no, sending me insulting personal messages doesn't help your argument. If you have something to say, say it out here.

There seem to be a lot of Pomeroy cheerleaders on this board. All of you keep saying the guy has an a good reputation, but the lot of you don't seem to know why. You all seem to read Pomeroy's ranking then want to construct your reality around it. I hate to break it to you people, but that's just not the way the world works. I'm sure Pomeroy is a smart guy, but ranking UK's schedule 74th isn't exactly proof that his method is all that accurate.

[uh_no]

I'd say denying that may be a weakness in YOUR argument. Because, I wasn't the one who ranked them in the Top 10. It was the AP and the coaches. But maybe you know better.
And it's not just my opinion. You can look at what Vegas thinks, and unlike most others, they put their $ where their mouths are. If you've gotten to the point where you're denying the quality of Kentucky's wins, I'd say you're the one denying reality. If you think all UK has is one quality win, excuse me if I join the rest of the college basketball world in laughing at that opinion.

Sticking one's head in the sand won't save one's butt from getting kicked.

And no, sending me insulting personal messages doesn't help your argument. If you have something to say, say it out here.

There seem to be a lot of Pomeroy cheerleaders on this board. All of you keep saying the guy has an a good reputation, but the lot of you don't seem to know why. You all seem to read Pomeroy's ranking then want to construct your reality around it. I hate to break it to you people, but that's just not the way the world works. I'm sure Pomeroy is a smart guy, but ranking UK's schedule 74th isn't exactly proof that his method is all that accurate.

Well...he consistently predicts game outcomes and point spreads far better than pundits...

relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1131/

[Henderson]

Well...he consistently predicts game outcomes and point spreads far better than pundits...

relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1131/

Do you have a better link? It's probable that I'm not smart enough to figure this one out. But I'd be interested in support for the proposition.