Check out how not obsessed we are with Kentucky

[moonpie23]

they sure ripped kansas........

i guess a really good 3 point shooting team that was hot could "simply" outscore them.....

[1 24 90]

I doubt it since they only have 31 regular season games, 3 conference tourney games and 6 NCAA games possible.

[Kfanarmy]

they sure ripped kansas........

i guess a really good 3 point shooting team that was hot could "simply" outscore them.....

They were outstanding. KU just got tighter, and tighter, and tighter as the game went on, so they couldn't throw the ball in the ocean on a jump shot after the break. Kansas got blocked every time they tried to go inside. UK just packed it in when KU got the ball inside and swatted every layup attempt. Without some effective three point shooting, no one is going to have a lot of success on the interior. I think UK can be had, but they are a truly impressive group. Line substitutions are working for them.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

they sure ripped kansas........

i guess a really good 3 point shooting team that was hot could "simply" outscore them.....

Jeez - that is a lot to assume based on one game. Remember that Buffalo (hardly a power house team) more than stayed with them for a half. Now, it may have been lack of concentration/undervaluing your opponent, but somebody is going to catch them on a similar night and complete the job.

[uh_no]

kentucky wasn't off the charts on offense....it was the other end of the floor where the game got out of hand.

Much credit to UK, they played a really good game....but KU also played a rec league offense: namely dive into the lane and jack it up....there was very little effective ball movement, and little searching for good shots. If you play that kind of game, UK will simple eat you alive with athleticism....the way to beat them is to make them work together on defense (ESPECIALLY if you can get someone in foul trouble so the "platoons" get split up). Buffalo did much more of that and to much greater effect the other day.

I think we would play a better offense against them, but man if we rebound as poorly as we did last night, they'd kill us.

They are very very good, yes, and a team would need to play a complete game to beat them, but i'm not ready to anoint them undefeated just yet. A regular season run followed by a tourney out, I think, is a likely scenario

[moonpie23]

could the mods please correct my 'rithmetic ?


merci

[moonpie23]

could the mods please correct my 'rithmetic ?


merci

or we could just count the pre-season exhibitions

[roywhite]

Highly doubt UK goes undefeated, but they do look formidable.

May be similar to 2001, in that Arizona and Duke had the best talent that year and met in the National Championship. I could see Duke and UK separate themselves and ultimately play in the Final Four. Kentucky would have an overall size advantage and might be able to defend Okafor well, but Duke is capable of beating this Wildcat team IMO.

[Dukehky]

Their offensive capabilities are limited enough that they can be got. I don't care if they go undefeated until the finals, but if they met Duke there... In K we trust. He's done it once, he can do it again.

I know, I know UNLV was the Semi's

[devildeac]

they sure ripped kansas........

i guess a really good 3 point shooting team that was hot could "simply" outscore them.....


I doubt it since they only have 31 regular season games, 3 conference tourney games and 6 NCAA games possible.


could the mods please correct my 'rithmetic ?


merci


or we could just count the pre-season exhibitions

Maybe not. Cal might be able to figure out some scheduling/ncaa loophole how to get a couple more wins. :rolleyes:

[SupaDave]

They should do something original like put that on a t-shirt...

[COYS]

Maybe not. Cal might be able to figure out some scheduling/ncaa loophole how to get a couple more wins. :rolleyes:

He has to make up for some of the wins he's lost somehow.

[arnie]

Highly doubt UK goes undefeated, but they do look formidable.

May be similar to 2001, in that Arizona and Duke had the best talent that year and met in the National Championship. I could see Duke and UK separate themselves and ultimately play in the Final Four. Kentucky would have an overall size advantage and might be able to defend Okafor well, but Duke is capable of beating this Wildcat team IMO..
Ok maybe the sky isn't falling yet, but I agree with everything above except the last part of the last sentence. The Ky defense and size advantage is stunning. Remember names from the Kansas team that took care of us last year. I don't see them running the table, but also don't see us beating them in a game that matters. I think they're the best defensive team I've ever seen and make them big favorites in March/April. Hopefully if we advance in the tourney we're in the opposite bracket and they catch a really hot team early.

[slower]

I could see Duke and UK separate themselves and ultimately play in the Final Four.

Really? Are those special "wishful thinking" glasses? Look, I know that we (Duke fans) go into most years with at least a reasonable expectation of making the Final Four. But we've had enough of those Lucy/Charlie Brown/football years that it seems a bit premature.

We've heard this refrain before - THIS is the year that we'll REALLY play 10 guys, press full court, whatever - but I've personally had enough of the "we're gonna win this one by 30" posts. Time will tell.

[hurleyfor3]

"Check out how not obsessed we are with Kentucky"

[arnie]

"Check out how not obsessed we are with Kentucky"

Just giving my thoughts after their game- didn't expect to see the total annihilation of a very good team on a neutral floor.

[Kedsy]

I think they're the best defensive team I've ever seen and make them big favorites in March/April. Hopefully if we advance in the tourney we're in the opposite bracket and they catch a really hot team early.

I thought the same things in 1991. Sometimes I watch replays of the 1991 Duke/UNLV game and I still think we're going to lose.


"Check out how not obsessed we are with Kentucky"

Actually, I'm surprised it took as long as it did for this thread to materialize. I was looking for it last night.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

You could say Duke or Wisconsin or Arizona are going to go undefeated as well by looking at one game. I would hold off on saying anyone will go undefeated until they get some more games in. Mainly, Duke vs Wisconsin will tell us a lot about those two teams. Its a long season, injuries, suspensions, academic scandals (cough cough) could all derail anyone's season. Plus the great thing about College hoops is if you don't come to play on one night in March it doesn't matter if you're 35-0 or 16-15 you are packing your junk and going back to class, well with the exception of UNC athletes. I hope we meet them in the tournament, as I love games where we are considered underdogs. Plus if we meet them in the tourney you better believe its elite 8 or final four action. BRING IT ON!!!!

[Duvall]

Really? Are those special "wishful thinking" glasses? Look, I know that we (Duke fans) go into most years with at least a reasonable expectation of making the Final Four. But we've had enough of those Lucy/Charlie Brown/football years that it seems a bit premature.

We've heard this refrain before - THIS is the year that we'll REALLY play 10 guys, press full court, whatever - but I've personally had enough of the "we're gonna win this one by 30" posts. Time will tell.

Posts about fearing Calipari's Cosmic Superteam are, by contrast, incredibly timely.

[kAzE]

I expected to see a close game between KU and UK . . . but KU couldn't do ANYTHING on offense. There were 8 foot long arms blocking every shot and getting in every passing lane. There was a point in the second half where I could swear that over a 5 minute stretch, Kansas players completed more passes to UK players than other Kansas players. It was THAT bad.

The only way I see this UK team going down is if you try to beat them with speed and outside shooting. You HAVE to get out on the fast break before they can get set in the halfcourt. Otherwise, it doesn't even matter how quick your guards are. There will be at LEAST one 7 footer to meet anyone who gets in the paint. Kansas tried to match up with them with a conventional lineup and they were just totally mismatched because of the huge size disadvantage at every position.

If we were to play against them (and I hope we don't have to), I'd imagine we try Winslow at the 4 with Tyus, Cook, and Sulaimon outside. Pressure full court and push the ball on every rebound, and even on made shots. It will just be too difficult to score in the halfcourt, where they have tons of guys to throw at Okafor who can match his size. They might not be able to stop him 1-on-1, but the constant stream of fresh 7-footers could wear on him over the course of a long game.

[kAzE]

I'd love to see this UK team play against the 76ers. Not saying they would win, but there might actually be more NBA talent on UK's roster . . .

[slower]

Posts about fearing Calipari's Cosmic Superteam are, by contrast, incredibly timely.

Sure, but there's nothing at this point to suggest that Duke will "separate" themselves and head to the Final Four. Kentucky, OTOH, just made a pretty strong statement.

Granted, it's early.

[rifraf]

Right before the start of the game one of the announcers said that UK's team this year is taller than every single NBA team except for 1. I believe it's 10 players over 6'6". They looked every bit that tall on the court, and the platoon system meant they could play hard, fast, and frantic. Kansas looked shell shocked in 2 minutes and I believe Self was already down to 2 timeouts with 3 minutes left in the first half. Final stat that is the craziest to me:

Kansas: 11 made FG in the game.
Kentucky: 11 blocked shots in the game.

[MChambers]

Right before the start of the game one of the announcers said that UK's team this year is taller than every single NBA team except for 1. I believe it's 10 players over 6'6". They looked every bit that tall on the court, and the platoon system meant they could play hard, fast, and frantic. Kansas looked shell shocked in 2 minutes and I believe Self was already down to 2 timeouts with 3 minutes left in the first half. Final stat that is the craziest to me:

Kansas: 11 made FG in the game.
Kentucky: 11 blocked shots in the game.
Slight correction: Looking at the roster, it's 10 players 6'6" or taller.

Of course, height, while an advantage, isn't usually the only thing that matters, especially in college basketball.

[Kedsy]

Of course, height, while an advantage, isn't usually the only thing that matters, especially in college basketball.

And that's the thing about Kentucky. How good is their guard rotation, really?

[Des Esseintes]

Is this thread really happening? ONE GAME. Remember when Seattle was miles ahead of the NFL and on a recoronation tour after housing Green Bay to start the season? Of course you don't. You're posting in this thread. But it happened, and now Green Bay is dropping 50 on everything in its path, Percy Harvin has Rex Ryan to disappoint, and the Seahawks might not even make the playoffs. The idea based on one blowout that you have to play a perfect game to beat UK is ab-intercoursing-surd.

[kAzE]

And that's the thing about Kentucky. How good is their guard rotation, really?

We've already seen a year of the Harrisons, they are really big, which makes them hard to contain on offense, but aren't the quickest guys, which makes them somewhat easy to get by on defense. However, UK's size inside kind of negates that. On the "Blue Platoon," they have Devin Booker, who is a big, strong wing who can shoot from range (we were recruiting him with a high level of interest before Grayson committed), and my personal favorite, Tyler Ulis, who I think is their best (college) guard. He's an anomaly on this roster, standing at just 5'9", but he's extremely feisty, he's very quick, with good hands, can shoot from deep, and has a pass first mentality. I'd say their backcourt is pretty formidable, and their weaknesses are well covered by the rest of the roster.

[slower]

Is this thread really happening? ONE GAME. Remember when Seattle was miles ahead of the NFL and on a recoronation tour after housing Green Bay to start the season? Of course you don't. You're posting in this thread. But it happened, and now Green Bay is dropping 50 on everything in its path, Percy Harvin has Rex Ryan to disappoint, and the Seahawks might not even make the playoffs. The idea based on one blowout that you have to play a perfect game to beat UK is ab-intercoursing-surd.

True. But I'd still rather talk about UK than anything UNC-related. ;)

[kAzE]

Is this thread really happening? ONE GAME. Remember when Seattle was miles ahead of the NFL and on a recoronation tour after housing Green Bay to start the season? Of course you don't. You're posting in this thread. But it happened, and now Green Bay is dropping 50 on everything in its path, Percy Harvin has Rex Ryan to disappoint, and the Seahawks might not even make the playoffs. The idea based on one blowout that you have to play a perfect game to beat UK is ab-intercoursing-surd.

Welcome to sports? Overreaction is pretty typical in the early going for every sport, every season. I'm not one of the people who thinks UK will go undefeated, but it's hard to not to be impressed (and a little bit terrified) by what UK did last night to a good team.

[tommy]

We've already seen a year of the Harrisons, they are really big, which makes them hard to contain on offense, but aren't the quickest guys, which makes them somewhat easy to get by on defense. However, UK's size inside kind of negates that. On the "Blue Platoon," they have Devin Booker, who is a big, strong wing who can shoot from range (we were recruiting him with a high level of interest before Grayson committed), and my personal favorite, Tyler Ulis, who I think is their best (college) guard. He's an anomaly on this roster, standing at just 5'9", but he's extremely feisty, he's very quick, with good hands, can shoot from deep, and has a pass first mentality. I'd say their backcourt is pretty formidable, and their weaknesses are well covered by the rest of the roster.

I agree with you. I'm not saying Duke would, but I think almost every team in the nation, if they could, would trade their backcourt rotation for Kentucky's.

[Bluegrassdevil1]

I was fortunate to go up to Circle City with some colleagues of mine last night, two of which are ardent UK fans, and I must say, UK is stunning in person. My friends are rationale UK fans, and even they are giddy about what could occur this season.

Most importantly, let me say that Cook and Jones were TOUGH last night. I have never been a Cook fan, but that was a full grown man leading his team last night. And any questions regarding Sheed's illness are misplaced; the kid was clearly, undoubtedly, and unquestionably under the weather.

Being a Kentucky native, and having family with season tickets to UK games since roughly 1975, I have seen UK more times than I can count, and though I do not think this group is bell to bell as good as the 96 Cats, I do not think college basketball is as good as it was in 1996.

Davis on the 2012 team was almost unfair to other teams, and though this UK team does have anyone near Davis' level, they do have a staggering amount of length that as a unit could cause Davis-like levels on the interior.

No one in college basketball is going to beat them inside or out rebound them, but the problem with perimeter shooting is that they have length that can step outside on defense as well.

Regarding UK going undefeated:

UK plays a tough non-conference slate that includes KU, U of L, Texas, and UNC, but Texas is the only team I could see beating them, with the caveat that Barnes should never be counted on.

U of L has only beaten UK once since Calipari arrived, and that was their national title team in the Yum, against a UK squad that lost in the first round of the NIT, and U of L barely pulled it off. I would be floored if U of L wins in the Yum, but a win by the Cards would be great for the ACC.

Carolina is playing in Rupp, and I think that environment, coupled with UNC not being extremely strong from the perimeter, will lead to UK winning the game.

No one in the SEC is going to give UK a fight, not even Florida; however, it is that two and a half run of weak competition in the SEC that could lead to UK being 34-0 going into the tournament, but being tripped up in a game against a team that hangs with them, withstands the platoon system, and with two minutes left, finds UK off balance when having to go toe-to-toe with an unkillable opponent.

Wisconsin could beat UK, especially with the revenge factor from the 2014 Final Four coming into play.

Arizona could beat UK; I think Arizona has the best starting line-up in the country.

Texas could beat UK; knowing what is coming, having sufficient length.

Duke could do it, but I am unsure about the height issues with Cook and Jones, and Jefferson playing his typical game would be pummeled by UK.

Gonzaga or Oklahoma tend to play the three ball a great deal, and chucking and ducking could lead to something surprising.

I would love to see Wichita State play UK in the tournament; the Shockers are good, tough-minded, and swapping their only loss for UK's only loss would be a great motivator for them. I think UK would likely destroy the Shockers, but a part of me thinks something magical could happen in that match-up.

Until a team does it, I cannot see any group ever going 40-0, but this UK squad is stunning to watch in the layup line, and once they start to play, it is tough to rationalize how any team could take them out this season.

[kAzE]

I was fortunate to go up to Circle City with some colleagues of mine last night, two of which are ardent UK fans, and I must say, UK is stunning in person. My friends are rationale UK fans, and even they are giddy about what could occur this season.

Most importantly, let me say that Cook and Jones were TOUGH last night. I have never been a Cook fan, but that was a full grown man leading his team last night. And any questions regarding Sheed's illness are misplaced; the kid was clearly, undoubtedly, and unquestionably under the weather.

Being a Kentucky native, and having family with season tickets to UK games since roughly 1975, I have seen UK more times than I can count, and though I do not think this group is bell to bell as good as the 96 Cats, I do not think college basketball is as good as it was in 1996.

Davis on the 2012 team was almost unfair to other teams, and though this UK team does have anyone near Davis' level, they do have a staggering amount of length that as a unit could cause Davis-like levels on the interior.

No one in college basketball is going to beat them inside or out rebound them, but the problem with perimeter shooting is that they have length that can step outside on defense as well.

Regarding UK going undefeated:

UK plays a tough non-conference slate that includes KU, U of L, Texas, and UNC, but Texas is the only team I could see beating them, with the caveat that Barnes should never be counted on.

U of L has only beaten UK once since Calipari arrived, and that was their national title team in the Yum, against a UK squad that lost in the first round of the NIT, and U of L barely pulled it off. I would be floored if U of L wins in the Yum, but a win by the Cards would be great for the ACC.

Carolina is playing in Rupp, and I think that environment, coupled with UNC not being extremely strong from the perimeter, will lead to UK winning the game.

No one in the SEC is going to give UK a fight, not even Florida; however, it is that two and a half run of weak competition in the SEC that could lead to UK being 34-0 going into the tournament, but being tripped up in a game against a team that hangs with them, withstands the platoon system, and with two minutes left, finds UK off balance when having to go toe-to-toe with an unkillable opponent.

Wisconsin could beat UK, especially with the revenge factor from the 2014 Final Four coming into play.

Arizona could beat UK; I think Arizona has the best starting line-up in the country.

Texas could beat UK; knowing what is coming, having sufficient length.

Duke could do it, but I am unsure about the height issues with Cook and Jones, and Jefferson playing his typical game would be pummeled by UK.

Gonzaga or Oklahoma tend to play the three ball a great deal, and chucking and ducking could lead to something surprising.

I would love to see Wichita State play UK in the tournament; the Shockers are good, tough-minded, and swapping their only loss for UK's only loss would be a great motivator for them. I think UK would likely destroy the Shockers, but a part of me thinks something magical could happen in that match-up.

Until a team does it, I cannot see any group ever going 40-0, but this UK squad is stunning to watch in the layup line, and once they start to play, it is tough to rationalize how any team could take them out this season.

I think Louisville plays the type of style that could beat UK. They have an extremely mobile forward in Harrell, and are the type of run and gun offense that could beat UK down the floor, and Pitino's full court press could give UK's guards some trouble. However, with the platoon system, I don't see UK's players getting too fatigued, which is what Pitino's typical gameplan tries to exploit. UK should still be heavily favored, but I think Pitino's style is what theoretically should be the best approach.

[Tripping William]

I know we have an Anti-Jinx thread going (prompted by a UK first half), so I really hope this is the Pro-Jinx thread. Everyone please feel free to discuss, at great length, how inevitable it is that the Kats will go unbeaten. :cool:

[jacone21]

Regarding worrying about playing UK...

Like Ol' Jed Clampett used to say, "I'll jump that crick when I come to it."

[dukelifer]

They may go undefeated given the SEC conference- but they will get challenged in a few games. It just takes one night where a team shoots great or a KY center misses a bunch of free throws to get it close at the end. A team will have to play excellent team ball and use passing to open up opportunities. Still it is okay for them to have all the pressure. Last year - folks wrote them off and they made a run at the end. Hopefully this year they start to feel the pressure of expectations. Should be interesting to watch.

[Mal]

Their offensive capabilities are limited enough that they can be got. I don't care if they go undefeated until the finals, but if they met Duke there... In K we trust. He's done it once, he can do it again.

I know, I know UNLV was the Semi's

Not only was it the semi's, but we had a very experienced team that had faced that same UNLV team a year earlier and wanted revenge after being embarrassed. Tark's guys were more experienced than this UK team, too, of course, but I don't really think these are analogous circumstances to a Duke squad that was in its 5th Final Four in 6 years taking down a juggernaut. We're heavily reliant on a bunch of freshmen and some guys who've had no tourney success outside of a final 8 run two years ago.

I agree with others that this UK team is somewhat unique, and looks from a very limited sample size (last night) to be a monster, but also agree with others that a lot of crazy stuff can and usually does go wrong to derail perfect seasons.

In this case, one injury alone could greatly upset the balance of the platoon thing, especially toward the end of the season. Either the 11th guy, who's played 12 minutes all year, would be asked to join the second group and someone move from that group into the first group, or Calipari will scrap the platoons altogether. Either of those things could greatly screw with chemistry, both interplatoon and intraplatoon. And what if one player on platoon 1 is consistently underperforming? Do you swap them out? At some point, someone on platoon 2 is going to go off for a couple games and think to themselves "Yeah, it's nice destroying Auburn and all, but if it weren't for this platoon thing I'd deserve to be in the starting lineup and getting 30 mpg instead of 15. I'm gonna sulk now." The best players on platoon 1 may come to resent platoon 2 getting those 15 mpg. There's a lot that could go wrong when trying to get 8-10 future first round picks happy in a 40 minute game environment.

Wisconsin might be a good team to challenge this squad. They can slow it down and keep the score low, they don't turn the ball over, and if they start popping 3's well (and do so while having Kaminsky dragging the best of the long defensive wingspans outside), that could be a recipe for success. I also think a team with good penetrating guards will eventually figure out how to make the additional pass to avoid what happened to Kansas last night. KU just couldn't get over the fact they weren't athletically even, much less superior, so they kept going to what will work in every other situation for them instead of slowing the game down in the paint and using their bodies to draw fouls rather than allow blocks and altered shots. Self's not a tactical genius, but I bet if they played again late in the season they'd scheme something different to use Kentucky's size and defensive aggression against it. They also wouldn't get as shellshocked and frustrated, and they'll have gelled to a much greater degree - keep in mind this is a team that's trying to replace 2 top 5 draft picks.

[weezie]

Arizona could beat UK; I think Arizona has the best starting line-up in the country.


Me, too. Plus, they have a coach who def knows how to beat K, unfortunately.

[rsvman]

It's a pretty impressive team, to be sure. I think their second team could win the SEC without any problems whatsoever. In fact, their second team could potentially be an Elite 8 team or maybe even a Final Four team.

The platoon system keeps everybody fresh enough to really keep up the pressure and intensity, too.

So, yeah, they'll be a tough out for anybody.




I seem to remember that they had a really, really good team back in 2009-2010, too, though, with John Wall and company, who were supposedly going to run through the NCAA tournament like it was a walk in the park. But then a funny thing happened. They lost to a West Virginia team that, while talented, somehow managed to lose to an upstart team from some small academic school from the state of North Carolina (the name of the team escapes me) by 20-some-odd points.

Strange.

[Kedsy]

Not only was it the semi's, but we had a very experienced team that had faced that same UNLV team a year earlier and wanted revenge after being embarrassed. Tark's guys were more experienced than this UK team, too, of course, but I don't really think these are analogous circumstances to a Duke squad that was in its 5th Final Four in 6 years taking down a juggernaut. We're heavily reliant on a bunch of freshmen and some guys who've had no tourney success outside of a final 8 run two years ago.

Were you there? Duke may have wanted revenge, but UNLV was that good. If we played them 10 times we might have won once or twice. We just got lucky the one win came first.

Plus, the 1991 Duke team was very young for the time. Our top six guys were a freshman, three sophomores and two juniors. And Brian Davis hardly played as a freshman, so it wasn't really a Duke squad "in it's 5th Final Four in 6 years," because other than Christian Laettner, the rest of our top six really had only one previous season of NCAA tournament experience (and granted, that experience was a trip to the finals where they got absolutely skunked by pretty much the same UNLV team). UNLV's top six were four seniors and two juniors.

In my opinion, this Duke team can't play anyone against whom we'd be a bigger underdog than the 1991 Duke team was against UNLV.

[tommy]

I'm impressed, very impressed by the play of Tyler Ullis. He was Kentucky's backup plan to Tyus Jones. It really goes to show the power of the Kentucky brand and of Calipari's recruiting machine that a player as good as Ullis was willing to wait, knowing he was not the top choice, just for the chance to be part of what is going on at Kentucky. Wow.

[dbcooper]

They should do something original like put that on a t-shirt...

Or Kentucky could get Rings made, claiming to be some sort of fictitious Champion......(cough cough).

[English]

"Check out how not obsessed we are with Kentucky"

Every basketball fan in the country--casual, diehard, whatever--is obsessed with UK today (if "obsessed" means talking about their team, style, and latest performance). I take the thread title as a tongue-in-cheek play on BBN's delusional hubris last season.

I've had coworkers and friends from nearly every blue blood or Big 5 affiliation bring up that game last night. It's fun to get snarky, but c'mon, it's not like we were picking apart UK after they played Grand Canyon. That performance merits some discussion.

[mr. synellinden]

Highly doubt UK goes undefeated, but they do look formidable.

May be similar to 2001, in that Arizona and Duke had the best talent that year and met in the National Championship. I could see Duke and UK separate themselves and ultimately play in the Final Four. Kentucky would have an overall size advantage and might be able to defend Okafor well, but Duke is capable of beating this Wildcat team IMO.

Don't overlook Arizona in 2015. They may have more front court talent than Kentucky.

[English]

Right before the start of the game one of the announcers said that UK's team this year is taller than every single NBA team except for 1. I believe it's 10 players over 6'6". They looked every bit that tall on the court, and the platoon system meant they could play hard, fast, and frantic. Kansas looked shell shocked in 2 minutes and I believe Self was already down to 2 timeouts with 3 minutes left in the first half. Final stat that is the craziest to me:

Kansas: 11 made FG in the game.
Kentucky: 11 blocked shots in the game.

Watching that game last night, it was impossible to gauge the heights of the various players because of the sheer volume of frontcourt height on the UK team. A couple of examples--the Harrison twins looked like typical guards on the court until the TV panned to the UK timeout huddle where Calipari was hugging Aaron Harrison (who was basically a full head taller than Calipari; 6'6). Another was the Ukrainian (?) guard for KU, who looked like a JV player relative to the UK size--until he went to the line and the TV graphic showed that he was actually 6'8.

Stunning.

[Bluegrassdevil1]

Were you there? Duke may have wanted revenge, but UNLV was that good. If we played them 10 times we might have won once or twice. We just got lucky the one win came first.

Plus, the 1991 Duke team was very young for the time. Our top six guys were a freshman, three sophomores and two juniors. And Brian Davis hardly played as a freshman, so it wasn't really a Duke squad "in it's 5th Final Four in 6 years," because other than Christian Laettner, the rest of our top six really had only one previous season of NCAA tournament experience (and granted, that experience was a trip to the finals where they got absolutely skunked by pretty much the same UNLV team). UNLV's top six were four seniors and two juniors.

In my opinion, this Duke team can't play anyone against whom we'd be a bigger underdog than the 1991 Duke team was against UNLV.

Very thoughtful point about the esteem, and fear, held by opponents of the 1991 UNLV squad, and more importantly, that no current team will be as heavily favored as the Running Rebels were in 1991.

Though I suspect that the talking head/Internet universe of modern sports would project a greater onslaught of verbiage on the invincibility of a potential undefeated UK team, should they reach the Final Four, I do not think it was an accident that the 1991 Duke team had three once in a lifetime players, yet still very nearly lost to UNLV.

Like any other rationale person, I would obviously take the bet that UK will not go undefeated, and will not win the NCAA title, but the terror of 1991 Duke playing UNLV was lessened because no one expected them to win, they had seen UNLV before, and Hurley was not ill, and I think that particular Duke team was the only group that could have taken down UNLV that year, which leads me wonder how Wisconsin would fair against the Cats.

Wisconsin will not fear UK, because they are too mature, will have been through a tough conference slate, and they will have a strong inclination to get revenge for the Final Four loss. If forced to wager on an opponent, I would likely take the Badgers, and the Badgers alone, to take out UK.

Much like your belief that 1991 UNLV would have beaten 1991 Duke 8 or 9 times out of ten, I do think last season's Wisconsin team would have beaten last season's UK team at least enough times to win a seven games series, and I cannot imagine that the current Wisconsin team would not play with a huge chip on their shoulders should they meet UK in the tournament.

In regards to Duke: I do think that Cook is different from years past, and I gladly concede that every negative thought about him may no longer be true. That kid is developing the same "I am going to take your soul" attitude that was found in Laettner and Battier, and those two leaders obviously led their teams to great finishes. Should Cook's persona continue to rub off on Winslow (it was likely there before, and will only increase), Okafor, et al., then the team may join the current joyful energy they have together, with a vengeful, vicious instinct when the ball is tipped.

I think a united front of ten guys with comparable talent to UK, could beat them after forty minutes, simply because they want to win the game more than UK does, and I do think that Calipari's teams have often found themselves against an opponent that wants to win the game more than they do, and in game, he has often struggled to find a way to push the right buttons to get his team to overcome.

Calipari is a great recruiter, defensive mind, and ego massager, but he does struggle when he needs to adjust on the fly, and there is validity to the idea that Calipari is great in the offseason, in practice, at press conferences, and in pre-game, but Kansas got him in 2008, as did West Virginia in 2010, Vanderbilt in the 2012 SEC title game, which woke them up for the title chase, and last year's UConn team, and I think most Duke fans would be okay with a Duke-UK matchup coming down to coaching in the final moments of a big game.

[MChambers]

Were you there? Duke may have wanted revenge, but UNLV was that good. If we played them 10 times we might have won once or twice. We just got lucky the one win came first.

Plus, the 1991 Duke team was very young for the time. Our top six guys were a freshman, three sophomores and two juniors. And Brian Davis hardly played as a freshman, so it wasn't really a Duke squad "in it's 5th Final Four in 6 years," because other than Christian Laettner, the rest of our top six really had only one previous season of NCAA tournament experience (and granted, that experience was a trip to the finals where they got absolutely skunked by pretty much the same UNLV team). UNLV's top six were four seniors and two juniors.

In my opinion, this Duke team can't play anyone against whom we'd be a bigger underdog than the 1991 Duke team was against UNLV.
I think Duke would have won more than once in 10 tries. We'll never know, of course, but I remember a Wilbon article after that Final Four that predicted that the Duke players would have better NBA careers than the UNLV guys. Certainly Hill did, and Laettner had a fine NBA career. Hurley had his career cut short by a drunk driver, so we'll never know how he would have done. Of course, the UNLV players were much older than the Duke kids.

I'm not saying Duke would have won the series, but I think you're slightly overstating the imbalance.

[jimrowe0]

Let's get something straight, Kansas was awful last night. Add to that, they have no one over 6'8 to guard any of UK big guys. Kansas is vastly overrated at this point and UK was probably the worst match up possible for them. Sure Kentucky blocked some shots and played pretty good defense, but for all that they still shot poorly and got out rebounded. The real story here should be how poorly Kansas played, not how extraordinary UK played because they didn't. Sure they will be good, especially in the weak SEC, but it's a long season. I'm not buying that UK sticks with the platoon system all season long and surely there will be some issues along the way.

Make UK shoot jump shots, keep them off the boards, run at them, use pump fakes, and knock down shots. They can certainly be beat.

[kAzE]

I'm impressed, very impressed by the play of Tyler Ullis. He was Kentucky's backup plan to Tyus Jones. It really goes to show the power of the Kentucky brand and of Calipari's recruiting machine that a player as good as Ullis was willing to wait, knowing he was not the top choice, just for the chance to be part of what is going on at Kentucky. Wow.

I'm pretty sure Calipari's Plan A was Emmanuel Mudiay . . . I don't think they were ever really serious about Tyus. It probably turned out the best for them, since they wouldn't have either guy if they had gotten Mudiay's commit. Ulis is a superb consolation prize, if he can even be considered that. He will be one of the better point guards in the country for the next 4 years. I see him staying at UK and having a solid career as both a backup and potentially as a starter.

[tommy]

I'm pretty sure Calipari's Plan A was Emmanuel Mudiay . . . I don't think they were ever really serious about Tyus. It probably turned out the best for them, since they wouldn't have either guy if they had gotten Mudiay's commit. Ulis is a superb consolation prize, if he can even be considered that. He will be one of the better point guards in the country for the next 4 years. I see him staying at UK and having a solid career as both a backup and potentially as a starter.

You're right kAzE, they recruited Mudiay heavily, and I should have included that in my post. Nevertheless, they also recruited Tyus heavily, at least for awhile -- kind of Plan A and Plan 1A -- but Tyus just doesn't have the kind of personality that would have attracted him to Kentucky, IMO.

[tommy]

Very thoughtful point about the esteem, and fear, held by opponents of the 1991 UNLV squad, and more importantly, that no current team will be as heavily favored as the Running Rebels were in 1991.

Though I suspect that the talking head/Internet universe of modern sports would project a greater onslaught of verbiage on the invincibility of a potential undefeated UK team, should they reach the Final Four, I do not think it was an accident that the 1991 Duke team had three once in a lifetime players, yet still very nearly lost to UNLV.

Like any other rationale person, I would obviously take the bet that UK will not go undefeated, and will not win the NCAA title, but the terror of 1991 Duke playing UNLV was lessened because no one expected them to win, they had seen UNLV before, and Hurley was not ill, and I think that particular Duke team was the only group that could have taken down UNLV that year, which leads me wonder how Wisconsin would fair against the Cats.

Wisconsin will not fear UK, because they are too mature, will have been through a tough conference slate, and they will have a strong inclination to get revenge for the Final Four loss. If forced to wager on an opponent, I would likely take the Badgers, and the Badgers alone, to take out UK.

Much like your belief that 1991 UNLV would have beaten 1991 Duke 8 or 9 times out of ten, I do think last season's Wisconsin team would have beaten last season's UK team at least enough times to win a seven games series, and I cannot imagine that the current Wisconsin team would not play with a huge chip on their shoulders should they meet UK in the tournament.

In regards to Duke: I do think that Cook is different from years past, and I gladly concede that every negative thought about him may no longer be true. That kid is developing the same "I am going to take your soul" attitude that was found in Laettner and Battier, and those two leaders obviously led their teams to great finishes. Should Cook's persona continue to rub off on Winslow (it was likely there before, and will only increase), Okafor, et al., then the team may join the current joyful energy they have together, with a vengeful, vicious instinct when the ball is tipped.

I think a united front of ten guys with comparable talent to UK, could beat them after forty minutes, simply because they want to win the game more than UK does, and I do think that Calipari's teams have often found themselves against an opponent that wants to win the game more than they do, and in game, he has often struggled to find a way to push the right buttons to get his team to overcome.

Not against Duke. Everyone wants to beat Duke, especially on the big stage. All the kids are very aware of Duke's reputation and history, and how meaningful it is to take down Duke -- even if you are a titan yourself. It's just always different and special, and that's why, as we've all noted for so long, we always get everyone's very best shot night in and night out, every single season. The Kentucky kids would be no different. They would want to win a matchup against us -- especially when we are at the top of our game -- very, very badly. They'd be focused.

[TheDuckStore]

Not against Duke. Everyone wants to beat Duke, especially on the big stage. All the kids are very aware of Duke's reputation and history, and how meaningful it is to take down Duke -- even if you are a titan yourself. It's just always different and special, and that's why, as we've all noted for so long, we always get everyone's very best shot night in and night out, every single season. The Kentucky kids would be no different. They would want to win a matchup against us -- especially when we are at the top of our game -- very, very badly. They'd be focused.

To wit, I remember Cal talking about the Elite 8 loss to West Virginia in 2010 and referencing that the whole team (and coaching staff) was looking ahead to playing Duke in the Final Four. See below:




Calipari suggested Kentucky lost to West Virginia in the Elite Eight last season in part because the Wildcats were looking ahead to Duke in the Final Four.

"Do you know how badly we wanted to play Duke?" Calipari said. "I think that's why we played so badly against West Virginia. We wanted Duke so badly we couldn't see straight."

and link: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/calipari_speaks_in_birmingham.html

[Bluegrassdevil1]

To wit, I remember Cal talking about the Elite 8 loss to West Virginia in 2010 and referencing that the whole team (and coaching staff) was looking ahead to playing Duke in the Final Four. See below:



and link: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/calipari_speaks_in_birmingham.html

2010 UK had Wall, Bledsoe, and Patterson, which were all individuals recruited by Duke, but more importantly, Calipari campaigned very, very hard to have a home and home with Duke, but was denied because of Duke's attempt to home and home with U of L, including opening the Yum in 2010 with Derek Smith's son (Nolan). It was a BIG DEAL trying to get Duke and Smith into the Yum, and it was an even bigger deal that Calipari pushed so hard publicly, yet did not get reasonable consideration for a series with the Blue Devils.

I am not implying UK will not care about playing Duke, I am stating that Calipari can lull his teams into a sense of false security and hubris (2008 Memphis and questions about free throw shooting being a prime example), that often the players themselves have to find a way to circumvent the lulls.

Case in point about the mentioned 2010 UK team: U of L attempted to bait Demarcus Cousins into losing focus by tangling with Jared Swopshire. Instead of throwing Cousins off, it woke him up, and he torched U of L. Other teams tried the same method, and Cousins and Wall always used it to their advantage; however, the UK game at Tennessee clearly featured an opponent in a big moment, during a close game, capable of matching UK, back down UK without any in-game adjustments by Calipari.

Watch the West Virginia-UK game, and you will not see a team focusing on a future opponent (one that had not yet beaten their own elite eight opponent in Baylor), but a team doing the same mindless offense position, after position, after position, after position, with no alteration of the game plan until it was too late for the Cats.

The 2012 UK team was miles better than any other college opponent, yet Vanderbilt beat them in the SEC title game, because, once more, it was a big moment, a close game, and Vanderbilt had enough talent to compete, yet Calipari did not adapt. Upon seeing the error of their ways, Davis upped his aggression, MKG denied the ball, and the UK backcourt attacked the rim (the dribble drive offense, or as I call it, a guard running in the direction of the basket).

UK's 2013 and 2014 seasons were littered with moments were Calipari was unsure how to alter his team's trajectory, and as a result, 2013 UK went to the NIT, and 2014 UK rode the last second thrills of one player to the NCAA final.

I hate to say it, but Calipari is great at 90% of what it takes to succeed as a coach, and it is wonderful that he struggles with in-game adjustments/hubris, because if he did not have that achilles heel, I am unsure if his teams would ever be defeated.

If UK is 37-0, 38-0, or 39-0 against Duke, or anyone else, in the NCAA tournament, it is very easy to say, "hey, platoon, let's finish the job with one last win", than it is to compete against a strong opponent that unwilling to back down, especially after that UK team has plowed through the SEC for all of 2015.

If I play my nephew at chess for two straight months, then suddenly play my wife, it is quite likely that I may make a mistake when I am unable to put her away after ten moves. Once I make that mistake, realizing that my wife may or may not have lured me into a trap, I may shift my style just a touch, and that one shift away from what I've been using for 2.5 months may be my undoing.

Or:

If I am a UK team that is able to block shots at will, but suddenly find myself playing Frank Kaminsky and Wisconsin, and they are going inside out on me, with Kaminsky hitting threes and challenging me at the rim, some confusion is going to creep into my mind.

If Arizona goes nose to nose with me for 30 minutes, I am going to realize that adjustments are needed, but in order to adjust, I am going to have alter what I have been doing for the last six months with my teammates, and as soon as I adjust, Arizona may change what they are doing as well.

Calipari projects a bubble for his teams and his fans that UK is unstoppable, and once that armor is viewed to be real by said players and fans, the first person that whispers in their ears, "your armor is not iron, it is tin foil", usually puts UK in a tough spot.

Pitino and U of L at large are obsessed with what Calipari has been able to do at UK, and because of that, the Cards are mentally spent before the game even begins, thus Calipari is 6-1 at UK against them, including U of L's last two tournament losses.

Kansas buckles, thus they are 0-3.

UConn does not buckle at the UK persona, and that program is 3-0 against Calipari's UK freight train.

[Kedsy]

I think Duke would have won more than once in 10 tries. We'll never know, of course, but I remember a Wilbon article after that Final Four that predicted that the Duke players would have better NBA careers than the UNLV guys. Certainly Hill did, and Laettner had a fine NBA career. Hurley had his career cut short by a drunk driver, so we'll never know how he would have done. Of course, the UNLV players were much older than the Duke kids.

I'm not saying Duke would have won the series, but I think you're slightly overstating the imbalance.

Perhaps I am. However, I can say with confidence that (a) it didn't feel that way at the time; (b) I still don't think so; and (c) before the game in 1991 hardly anyone else thought so, either.

[Troublemaker]

.
Ok maybe the sky isn't falling yet, but I agree with everything above except the last part of the last sentence. The Ky defense and size advantage is stunning. Remember names from the Kansas team that took care of us last year. I don't see them running the table, but also don't see us beating them in a game that matters. I think they're the best defensive team I've ever seen and make them big favorites in March/April. Hopefully if we advance in the tourney we're in the opposite bracket and they catch a really hot team early.

There is absolutely nothing that Kentucky could do that should make us panic. If Duke stays healthy and plays to our potential, the worst thing that a dominant Kentucky team could do to Duke is beat us in the Final Four. Oh no! Not the second-best season for Duke in the past decade! And if Duke doesn't play to our potential, then that in itself is way more concerning than whatever Kentucky does.

Put it this way. If the basketball gods gave us two choices: (a) they would let the season play out as normal, or (b) they would guarantee Duke a Final Four berth but the matchup would be against a dominant, undefeated Kentucky team... we'd have to jump at the chance to experience (b). (Putting theological/philosophical considerations about fate and free will aside.) So many things could go wrong with (a). An injury derailing the season, not playing to potential, running into a hot team in the Sweet 16, etc. Our odds of winning a national championship are better with (b) than with (a).

Finally, as someone mentioned upthread, 60 minutes of Kentucky basketball ago, UK was trailing Buffalo at home at halftime. If, at that point in time, we had interviewed everyone now concerned with Kentucky about how they thought the season might go for the Wildcats, most everyone (or maybe literally everyone) would've said something like: "You know, Kentucky's got a lot of talent. But it's going to take some time for all that talent to mesh. I think they're going to take some losses early but with some seasoning, they can be a force to be reckoned with in March if their team chemistry develops and no jealousy sets in." Now, 60 minutes of basketball later, it's hard to imagine anyone beating them?

[Edouble]

Finally, as someone mentioned upthread, 60 minutes of Kentucky basketball ago, UK was trailing Buffalo at home at halftime. If, at that point in time, we had interviewed everyone now concerned with Kentucky about how they thought the season might go for the Wildcats, most everyone (or maybe literally everyone) would've said something like: "You know, Kentucky's got a lot of talent. But it's going to take some time for all that talent to mesh. I think they're going to take some losses early but with some seasoning, they can be a force to be reckoned with in March if their team chemistry develops and no jealousy sets in." Now, 60 minutes of basketball later, it's hard to imagine anyone beating them?

Great perspective.

I think the answer to your question is that any team can play down to its opposition for a half of basketball (the Buffalo game), but most teams can't completely thrash and manhandle Kansas. If last year's Kentucky team is a barometer for this year's team, people understand that Cal-ball can take a while to mesh, but if the results are this devastating early on, March could be painful.

And the results have been devastating. They did win the Buffalo game by 19. Grand Canyon by 40. Kansas by 32.

[Tripping William]

And the results have been devastating. They did win the Buffalo game by 19. Grand Canyon by 40. Kansas by 32.

Where are Bob Huggins & Melvin Levett when we need them?

[tux]

The '99 Duke team sure seemed like a unstoppable train.

Maybe UK is like Duke '99. And maybe Duke can be this year's '99 UConn, a team with perhaps less overall talent/depth but with pieces that fit well together.

A Duke-UK final would be epic.

[Duke95]

If last year's Kentucky team is a barometer for this year's team, people understand that Cal-ball can take a while to mesh, but if the results are this devastating early on, March could be painful.

And the results have been devastating. They did win the Buffalo game by 19. Grand Canyon by 40. Kansas by 32.

Yep. It has been a long time since I've seen a college basketball team as completely dominant as UK this year. Still, it isn't over, and many seemingly dominant teams have faltered, including Duke. You have to earn it on the court...unlike say, UNC's 1924 "championship."

[Kfanarmy]

Given the amount of talk about how tall UK is, I thought a comparison was in order.

45054506


The size differential, on average, really isn't that big. Its about an inch. The fact that UK is employing a two guard lineup - using six bigs, allows for three tall interior players to rotate as a unit making their interior height more effective. (Were Sean Obi available, Coach K would have the same option this year.) I have to wonder if UK won't become enamored with and reliant on using size as their principle weapon, potentially creating their own achilles heel if someone gets injured, in foul trouble, etc.

I know Kentucky's defense looked incredible, and perhaps they were really hyped to play KU, but I find it odd that Buffalo and Grand Canyon scored more points against UK than Kansas did. If Kansas and Kentucky played tomorrow, I think it would be a much closer game. We wont' see the Jayhawks that cold too often.

We'll see how the season goes, but a single injury could really impact the line change strategy.

By the way, there were a few DBR naysayers and stasticians who pooh-poohed the line change strategy as a gimmick last year when Coach K used it. I wonder if Calipari will see it that way when SEC play roles around.

[jv001]

Yep. It has been a long time since I've seen a college basketball team as completely dominant as UK this year. Still, it isn't over, and many seemingly dominant teams have faltered, including Duke. You have to earn it on the court...unlike say, UNC's 1924 "championship."

Or unc's 1993, 2005 and maybe 2009 teams. GoDuke!

[Edouble]

Where are Bob Huggins & Melvin Levett when we need them?

This is esoteric. Care to explain?

[Tripping William]

This is esoteric. Care to explain?

Finals of the 1998 Great Alaska Shootout against Cincinnati. The only regular season game the juggernaut '99 Duke team lost was on a last-second hook-and-lateral resulting in a dunk by Levett. Huggins, of course, was the Cincy coach. And then UConn came along in the national finals and, well, let's stop the painful discussion at that.

I would not at all mind seeing '15 Duke play the '99 UConn role against The Seemingly Invincibles from Lexington. tux's post at #57 in this thread makes that precise point.

[Edouble]

Finals of the 1998 Great Alaska Shootout against Cincinnati. The only regular season game the juggernaut '99 Duke team lost was on a last-second hook-and-lateral resulting in a dunk by Levett. Huggins, of course, was the Cincy coach. And then UConn came along in the national finals and, well, let's stop the painful discussion at that.

I would not at all mind seeing '15 Duke play the '99 UConn role against The Seemingly Invincibles from Lexington. tux's post at #57 in this thread makes that precise point.

Yeah, I know who they are and I knew that you were referencing that game. I guess I just didn't get it because the thread is sort of going in the direction of who could beat UK in the NCAAs (Wisconsin? Duke?) and you were talking about an early season loss, so I guess I was confused.

[Tripping William]

Yeah, I know who they are and I knew that you were referencing that game. I guess I just didn't get it because the thread is sort of going in the direction of who could beat UK in the NCAAs (Wisconsin? Duke?) and you were talking about an early season loss, so I guess I was confused.

Of course, I would prefer (relish, actually) having someone do to UK what Melven-and-Huggy did to Duke in the regular season. That was ultimately my (perhaps obscure) point.

[Des Esseintes]

Yep. It has been a long time since I've seen a college basketball team as completely dominant as UK this year. Still, it isn't over, and many seemingly dominant teams have faltered, including Duke. You have to earn it on the court...unlike say, UNC's 1924 "championship."

I'm sorry, but this is crazy or lazy or...something. UK has played a single dominant game against a quality opponent. You haven't seen a team lately play a single dominant game against a quality opponent? We don't even need to leave the realm of recent Duke losses to find those. Louisville thrashed a Duke team two years ago that was probably the second-best team in the country. In the NCAA tournament. THAT was a special performance by a great team. Or the year before, Carolina came in to Cameron, scored the first 200 points (100% accurate statement, I believe), and mostly cruised to twenty point victory. In so doing, the Heels sewed up the ACC regular season title. THAT was a big-time performance. And you know what unites those blowouts, other than that they were played for extremely high stakes unlike UK-KU? They were wins against teams that beat them that very same season. Because one game, no matter how decisive, cannot say that much, even about settling which of the two teams on the court is better. No one is saying Kentucky cannot reach amazing heights, but to say it with certainty now is the most adolescent kind of jumping to conclusions.

[COYS]

I'm sorry, but this is crazy or lazy or...something. UK has played a single dominant game against a quality opponent. You haven't seen a team lately play a single dominant game against a quality opponent? We don't even need to leave the realm of recent Duke losses to find those. Louisville thrashed a Duke team two years ago that was probably the second-best team in the country. In the NCAA tournament. THAT was a special performance by a great team. Or the year before, Carolina came in to Cameron, scored the first 200 points (100% accurate statement, I believe), and mostly cruised to twenty point victory. In so doing, the Heels sewed up the ACC regular season title. THAT was a big-time performance. And you know what unites those blowouts, other than that they were played for extremely high stakes unlike UK-KU? They were wins against teams that beat them that very same season. Because one game, no matter how decisive, cannot say that much, even about settling which of the two teams on the court is better. No one is saying Kentucky cannot reach amazing heights, but to say it with certainty now is the most adolescent kind of jumping to conclusions.

Again, already mentioned upthread, but perhaps the best example is in 2005 when the '05-'06 #1 Devils beat the ever-living snot out of #2 Texas with JJ Redick doing THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOI_tKzR7I). (For the record, I actually think more of JJ's shots hit nothing but net than hit the rim in this game). I was ready to buy Final 4 tickets right then and there. Unfortunately for me (and for the team and Duke fans, everywhere), my schedule only allowed me to settle for Sweet 16 tickets in Atlanta . . . and that didn't turn out so well.

[Des Esseintes]

Again, already mentioned upthread, but perhaps the best example is in 2005 when the '05-'06 #1 Devils beat the ever-living snot out of #2 Texas with JJ Redick doing THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOI_tKzR7I). (For the record, I actually think more of JJ's shots hit nothing but net than hit the rim in this game). I was ready to buy Final 4 tickets right then and there. Unfortunately for me (and for the team and Duke fans, everywhere), my schedule only allowed me to settle for Sweet 16 tickets in Atlanta . . . and that didn't turn out so well.

Absolutely. I was one of those who mentioned that game. Not only did Duke lose early in the tournament that year, it also lost early to LSU. LSU, whose NBA talent consisted of a freshman Tyrus Thomas (not a single good year in the Association) and a senior guard who may have briefly appeared on a training camp roster at some point. Coached by a guy a couple of years from getting fired. Had someone suggested after the Texas game that a mediocre SEC team could compete with Duke, that person would have been...far more understanding of team sports than this thread.

[TheDuckStore]

Absolutely. I was one of those who mentioned that game. Not only did Duke lose early in the tournament that year, it also lost early to LSU. LSU, whose NBA talent consisted of a freshman Tyrus Thomas (not a single good year in the Association) and a senior guard who may have briefly appeared on a training camp roster at some point. Coached by a guy a couple of years from getting fired. Had someone suggested after the Texas game that a mediocre SEC team could compete with Duke, that person would have been...far more understanding of team sports than this thread.

Wasn't Glen "Big Baby" Davis on that LSU squad?

[Kedsy]

Wasn't Glen "Big Baby" Davis on that LSU squad?

Yes, he was.

[Wander]

Wasn't Glen "Big Baby" Davis on that LSU squad?

Also Garrett Temple, i.e. the guy who guarded Redick. He's not an all-star or anything but he is a current rotation player for the Wizards (actually started every game so far due to a Beal injury). That LSU squad actually had a good amount of talent.

[Edouble]

Again, already mentioned upthread, but perhaps the best example is in 2005 when the '05-'06 #1 Devils beat the ever-living snot out of #2 Texas with JJ Redick doing THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOI_tKzR7I). (For the record, I actually think more of JJ's shots hit nothing but net than hit the rim in this game). I was ready to buy Final 4 tickets right then and there. Unfortunately for me (and for the team and Duke fans, everywhere), my schedule only allowed me to settle for Sweet 16 tickets in Atlanta . . . and that didn't turn out so well.

I think the difference is that JJ was hot that day. He was a great, great player, but he was also really hot. A shooter, even one as great as JJ, can go cold.

Kentucky didn't look like they were really clicking on all cylinders against Kansas. Their offense was pretty raw. They just looked... really big! They are physically imposing the way that '91 UNLV was, which I think is the perfect analogy. It's hard to imagine this Kentucky team not bringing that level of defense in most games, because they are quick and huge. Big difference between a whole team's defense, and one player going off on offense against Texas.

I think that Kentucky is so impressive because they look like they are playing far from their potential, and while other teams have room for growth, the Cats may have the most room of all. As a team, they look pretty unpolished. And the unpolished version is like a wrecking ball.

[Duke95]

No one is saying Kentucky cannot reach amazing heights, but to say it with certainty now is the most adolescent kind of jumping to conclusions.

Did anyone say that with certainty, or are you just flailing away at windmills?

Nothing is certain. Injuries, bad games, etc. can happen. Still, what Kentucky has shown this year is beyond impressive. Well, at least on the basketball front.

[Henderson]

Did anyone say that with certainty, or are you just flailing away at windmills?

Nothing is certain. Injuries, bad games, etc. can happen. Still, what Kentucky has shown this year is beyond impressive. Well, at least on the basketball front.

Coming back from being down at the half against Buffalo certainly impressed ... Buffalo.

Kansas shot 20% against Kentucky and 56% from the line. You gotta give some credit to UK's defense for the FG%, but not all. And they didn't guard the FT line. The story line should be as much about how much Kansas sucked in that game. Kansas just didn't show up, and Presbyterian or Fairfield might have beaten them on that night.

This is more about Kansas than Kentucky. On one night. I wouldn't make more of that game than it deserves. I'd say the same thing if Duke had gotten thumped by MSU or if Kansas had beaten UK by 20. Long season, folks. And the important games are in the spring.

[FireOgilvie]

Given the amount of talk about how tall UK is, I thought a comparison was in order.

45054506


The size differential, on average, really isn't that big. Its about an inch. The fact that UK is employing a two guard lineup - using six bigs, allows for three tall interior players to rotate as a unit making their interior height more effective. (Were Sean Obi available, Coach K would have the same option this year.) I have to wonder if UK won't become enamored with and reliant on using size as their principle weapon, potentially creating their own achilles heel if someone gets injured, in foul trouble, etc.

I know Kentucky's defense looked incredible, and perhaps they were really hyped to play KU, but I find it odd that Buffalo and Grand Canyon scored more points against UK than Kansas did. If Kansas and Kentucky played tomorrow, I think it would be a much closer game. We wont' see the Jayhawks that cold too often.

We'll see how the season goes, but a single injury could really impact the line change strategy.

By the way, there were a few DBR naysayers and stasticians who pooh-poohed the line change strategy as a gimmick last year when Coach K used it. I wonder if Calipari will see it that way when SEC play roles around.

Overall, UK's starting lineup is almost 3 inches taller than ours - 6'8.6" versus 6'5.8". They all have huge wingspans too. Their backup 5 is still very big (6'6.8") despite having a 5'9" PG. They play massive guys at the 3 through 5, and they have at least 3 or 4 first round draft pick big men. Pretty crazy on paper. Also, your list didn't have Marcus Lee for some reason. But given all that, I still think they are beatable. It would probably just take some team to get hot from 3 plus some luck.

[Kfanarmy]

Overall, UK's starting lineup is almost 3 inches taller than ours - 6'8.6" versus 6'5.8". They all have huge wingspans too. Their backup 5 is still very big (6'6.8") despite having a 5'9" PG. They play massive guys at the 3 through 5, and they have at least 3 or 4 first round draft pick big men. Pretty crazy on paper. Also, your list didn't have Marcus Lee for some reason. But given all that, I still think they are beatable. It would probably just take some team to get hot from 3 plus some luck.

Yep. I meant to list Marcus and instead of Derek...Derek has only played 4 minutes...but they are both 6'9 so switching them would have no effect on the Avg Ht. There are several different ways to compare, but I don't think the height differential is so vast that it can't be compensated for in a variety of ways.

[Kfanarmy]

Absolutely. I was one of those who mentioned that game. Not only did Duke lose early in the tournament that year, it also lost early to LSU. LSU, whose NBA talent consisted of a freshman Tyrus Thomas (not a single good year in the Association) and a senior guard who may have briefly appeared on a training camp roster at some point. Coached by a guy a couple of years from getting fired. Had someone suggested after the Texas game that a mediocre SEC team could compete with Duke, that person would have been...far more understanding of team sports than this thread.

That mediocre LSU team was allowed to maul one of the best shooters in the country for the entire game....to the point where the LSU guard said after the game that the refs weren't calling his fouls so he just kept fouling. I recall JJ being pulled sidewise during a jumper with no whistle at all from the ref standing a few feet away. Should'a been an investigation that night; JJ got mugged a dozen times or more.

[English]

I think the difference is that JJ was hot that day. He was a great, great player, but he was also really hot. A shooter, even one as great as JJ, can go cold.

Kentucky didn't look like they were really clicking on all cylinders against Kansas. Their offense was pretty raw. They just looked... really big! They are physically imposing the way that '91 UNLV was, which I think is the perfect analogy. It's hard to imagine this Kentucky team not bringing that level of defense in most games, because they are quick and huge. Big difference between a whole team's defense, and one player going off on offense against Texas.

I think that Kentucky is so impressive because they look like they are playing far from their potential, and while other teams have room for growth, the Cats may have the most room of all. As a team, they look pretty unpolished. And the unpolished version is like a wrecking ball.

Well, KU got outclassed for certain. But after UK blocked their first four drives, they shrunk up like a raisin in the lane. I personally think that UK's second platoon is filler and overrated, but will benefit from the fatigue and deer-in-headlights from other teams' starters getting battered by their starters. As someone up thread mentioned, a well-executed offense would run that second unit out of the gym. Kelly Oubre Jr did that at the end of the half to the tune of about 10pts in a row.

I honestly don't think Calipari can run the platoons in any close games because the first unit is so overtly better than the second that, in a close game, he'd be sacrificing a result, or at least the best possibility at a result. UK was very ordinary on offense, despite cleaning the O glass, and that was against a KU team that has virtually no front court outside of a frosh 6'8 Alexander and Ellis. UK's offense revolved around their guards missing shots and then getting offensive boards.

UK's sheer volume of players is going go psych teams out. They have four guys taller then most teams' tallest player. But if a quality team puts them on their heels attacking and gets a front court player or two into foul trouble, their platoon system goes out the window. As an example, Cauley-Stein got temporarily injured and Lyles played both platoons. Marcus Lee and Dakari Johnson are not exactly lighting the court on fire on the offensive side of things. Although, they certainly could put an opponent into the bonus quickly with fouls.

I couldn't be more excited for UNC to play that team in Rupp. UNC has the size to challenge them, and, because UK is at home, I think they'll win. However, I think if there's an instance of Calipari abandoning his platoons in favor of winning, that's it. Seriously, that first unit is head and shoulders better than the second, unless Booker starts draining threes. I don't think that's happening in a big game like that--he looked like a JV guy against KU when the game was (remotely) tight.

[Des Esseintes]

Did anyone say that with certainty, or are you just flailing away at windmills?

Nothing is certain. Injuries, bad games, etc. can happen. Still, what Kentucky has shown this year is beyond impressive. Well, at least on the basketball front.

No. No, it's not. Teams play amazing games all the time, decimating quality opponents in the process. In 3/5 of an NFL season:

New England has housed Cincy, which looked like the best team in football at the time. (Cincy was not the best team in football, but it was, you know, early in the season.)
New England has housed Denver, which looked like the best team in football at the time.
New England has housed Indianapolis, who was playing for the driver's seat to homefield throughout the playoffs.
Kansas City has crushed New England.
Tennessee has crushed Kansas City.
Cincy and Indianapolis have crushed Tennessee.
Cleveland has destroyed Cincinnati, ending Cincy's pretensions to contention.
Until Cincy dominated New Orleans.
New Orleans has run over Green Bay.
Green Bay has annihilated Philly.
Seattle has housed Green Bay.
And so on. This list isn't even close to comprehensive.

Every one of those teams is good, except for Tennessee. They have all looked like worldbeaters on a particular Sunday, sometimes multiple Sundays. But only one of them is going to win a title. Can you say with confidence which one? More to the point, probably none of them are historically good. You know how you look "beyond impressive"? You crush teams for the better part of a season. You stomp lots of good clubs and you take care of business against the lesser competition. Otherwise, you just played one good game. Which, congratulations, but those are dime a dozen. Every season will feature a bunch of them.

Remember two years ago, when Duke--draws breath--beat #3 Kentucky, crushed a good Minnesota team, beat VCU, beat #2 Louisville, and beat #4 Ohio State, all in the space of 15 days? That was AMAZING. Is it even a question which is the more impressive accomplishment between that run, which basically no one outside this board even remembers, and UK's domination of KU? Duke's run is far greater. Were we talking undefeated season then? I don't think we were. Probably because that Duke team didn't have a gimmick rotation or an army of 6'11" dudes with questionable ball skills. People couldn't dream up narratives about paradigm shifts and the Future of Basketball with that Duke team. And look, in hindsight the Duke run wasn't quite as amazing as it seemed at the time (while remaining still very amazing indeed). Kentucky and tOSU proved overrated. But that's kind of the point. We don't know how good this KU team is either. Drawing massive conclusions off immediate results is silly. Saying anything that happens in a single game is "beyond impressive" is silly. Sometimes a good team plays at its ceiling on the exact same day that another good team plays at its floor. In the absence of other data points, one great game is barely meaningful.

[Troublemaker]

my personal favorite, Tyler Ulis, who I think is their best (college) guard. He's an anomaly on this roster, standing at just 5'9", but he's extremely feisty, he's very quick, with good hands, can shoot from deep, and has a pass first mentality. I'd say their backcourt is pretty formidable, and their weaknesses are well covered by the rest of the roster.


I'm impressed, very impressed by the play of Tyler Ullis. He was Kentucky's backup plan to Tyus Jones. It really goes to show the power of the Kentucky brand and of Calipari's recruiting machine that a player as good as Ullis was willing to wait, knowing he was not the top choice, just for the chance to be part of what is going on at Kentucky. Wow.

I agree with you guys. For all the talk about Kentucky's size and length, their most fearsome player to me is the 5'9" PG. (This sentence, btw, will be repeated in some form dozens of times this season by sportswriters/bloggers.) Especially vis a vis a matchup with Duke, he's a lightning-quick playmaker that can wreak havoc on our defense. If I had the power to make one UK player ineligible for this season, it'd be Ulis. They more or less have two of everything else anyway.

[Duke95]

No. No, it's not. Teams play amazing games all the time, decimating quality opponents in the process. ...
Drawing massive conclusions off immediate results is silly. Saying anything that happens in a single game is "beyond impressive" is silly. Sometimes a good team plays at its ceiling on the exact same day that another good team plays at its floor. In the absence of other data points, one great game is barely meaningful.

Ok, we'll count you as the one person who was not impressed with Kentucky's dominating 32 point win over a Top 5 team.

Not exactly sure what you mean by the "absence of other data points." You do realize that many of the key players on Kentucky's team were there last year when they lost in the NCAA finals, right? What they've shown so far this year is that they've gotten stronger than last year's team.

[Simple Man]

I'm pretty sure Calipari's Plan A was Emmanuel Mudiay . . . I don't think they were ever really serious about Tyus. It probably turned out the best for them, since they wouldn't have either guy if they had gotten Mudiay's commit. Ulis is a superb consolation prize, if he can even be considered that. He will be one of the better point guards in the country for the next 4 years. I see him staying at UK and having a solid career as both a backup and potentially as a starter.

I think Ulis will ultimately prove to be one of the most important players on the UK team. The combination with Harrison gives us the chance to be special because they are so different it gives us tremendous depth and flexibility. We arepretty average on offense with potential to get much better but great defensively and a monster on the boards. Probably the best team in the country but certainly beatable and will likely loose 2 or 3 games. Having said that I doubt we will have a game this year where we are not favored or the better team.

If we are going to be beat I think the formula is fairly predictable (1) Have great guards that can shoot the "3" (2) You must have a great post player that demands a double team (3) Hope we settle for outside jumpers (4) You must figure out a way to get scores before we set up in a half court defense. I suspect that teams like Wisconsin could have a chance to beat us and after seeing Duke in person against Michigan State I would say you guys would have the best chance. Keep in mind though all those easy baskets you got against Michigan State....not going to happen against UK.

Good luck with your season and hope we meet for a Championship. :D

[arnie]

Absolutely. I was one of those who mentioned that game. Not only did Duke lose early in the tournament that year, it also lost early to LSU. LSU, whose NBA talent consisted of a freshman Tyrus Thomas (not a single good year in the Association) and a senior guard who may have briefly appeared on a training camp roster at some point. Coached by a guy a couple of years from getting fired. Had someone suggested after the Texas game that a mediocre SEC team could compete with Duke, that person would have been...far more understanding of team sports than this thread.

Call those us impressed with Ky lazy, adolescent, silly or whatever else; but to refer to the 2006 LSU as a mediocre SEC team is also silly, etc. they went 14-2 in that league and were ranked when we played them.

[pamtar]

Don't look now but UK only up 5 at the half against Boston.

Wait, should I be putting this in the no jinx thread?

[subzero02]

BU has a chance... Kentucky is bricking 3's

[devildeac]

Don't look now but UK only up 5 at the half against Boston.

Wait, should I be putting this in the no jinx thread?

Yep, wrong thread. But wait, aren't you and I the original 2 members of the kick the dogs and hate the children club from last season?:rolleyes:

[MChambers]

Yep, wrong thread. But wait, aren't you and I the original 2 members of the kick the dogs and hate the children club from last season?:rolleyes:

The word is you guys scare away Santa.

Luckily, I am fine with UK winning all their games but one.

[devildeac]

The word is you guys scare away Santa.

Luckily, I am fine with UK winning all their games but one.

Leave Santa outta this or I'll have Rudolph give you an antler sammich:rolleyes:.

I'm hoping he'll leave me several of these this winter:

4511

[Ultrarunner]

Don't look now but UK only up 5 at the half against Boston.

Wait, should I be putting this in the no jinx thread?

Yes. Now see what you did?

[Ultrarunner]

On a serious note, how the heck does Kentucky let Buffalo and Boston hang around while humiliating Kansas? And they only out-rebounded Boston by 4? (Though they did have 9 blocks, so all that height got some use.)

[pamtar]

Yep, wrong thread. But wait, aren't you and I the original 2 members of the kick the dogs and hate the children club from last season?:rolleyes:

Either you just made a joke that went way over my head or I have a horrible memory. Or both. Probably the latter :)

[arnie]

Either you just made a joke that went way over my head or I have a horrible memory. Or both. Probably the latter :)

Mistaken identity.

[devildeac]

Either you just made a joke that went way over my head or I have a horrible memory. Or both. Probably the latter :)

Last season, someone made that "accusation" after I think I started a thread about an upset alert and, of course, the team a lot of DBR was rooting for ended up losing and a couple of us were blamed for the upset not occurring and we were accused of kicking dogs or hating children. I guess it wasn't you then:o.

[arnie]

Last season, someone made that "accusation" after I think I started a thread about an upset alert and, of course, the team a lot of DBR was rooting for ended up losing and a couple of us were blamed for the upset not occurring and we were accused of kicking dogs or hating children. I guess it wasn't you then:o.

See previous post.

[devildeac]

See previous post.

Ahhhh, it appears the dog kicker and child hater has stepped forward. While there is no obvious declaration of guilt in your post, it has jarred my memory and makes it very, very suspicious it was you. Suspicious enough to call for a $3.1M investigation (or more) to look for other evidence of dubious and questionable posting activity that may warrant temporary reduction or posting privileges or a post season ban thereof. ;)

[arnie]

Ahhhh, it appears the dog kicker and child hater has stepped forward. While there is no obvious declaration of guilt in your post, it has jarred my memory and makes it very, very suspicious it was you. Suspicious enough to call for a $3.1M investigation (or more) to look for other evidence of dubious and questionable posting activity that may warrant temporary reduction or posting privileges or a post season ban thereof. ;)

Dadgummit, I don't member ever posting on this site before, and if I did it wasn't me.

[devildeac]

Dadgummit, I don't member ever posting on this site before, and if I did it wasn't me.

Funny stuff. Could have been you in the third person.

[sagegrouse]

"Altimania" is not one of my hang-ups -- nor is "altiphobia." Kentucky's Harrisons, although huge for college guards, were slower than Christmas against UConn last year; we'll see if they get the game feel to offset their apparent lack of speed and quickness. But, more likely, Tyler Ulis will need to be an important part of both offense and defense.

[brevity]

Kentucky's Harrisons, although huge for college guards, were slower than Christmas against UConn last year...

Did you mean this?

4512

Or this?

4513

I'm guessing the latter. In 3 games against Connecticut, Rakeem Christmas averaged 1.3 points and 3.7 rebounds. Meanwhile, that movie is a brisk 102 minutes.

[subzero02]

Kentucky stands a good chance of retaining their number 1 defensive ranking with ken pomeroy if they keep holding opponents to 12 points in the first half.

[FerryFor50]

Kentucky stands a good chance of retaining their number 1 defensive ranking with ken pomeroy if they keep holding opponents to 12 points in the first half.

I'd be way more impressed if they weren't scheduling JV teams. Their schedule heats up considerably in December. That should tell us more about Kentucky before they hit SouthEastern Cupcake, er, Conference play.

[arnie]

I'd be way more impressed if they weren't scheduling JV teams. Their schedule heats up considerably in December. That should tell us more about Kentucky before they hit SouthEastern Cupcake, er, Conference play.

I'm afraid they've shown is what they can do against good competition. If undefeated after this Saturday, they might lose 1 game before sweet sixteen. Curious if Vegas will have them as odds on favorites to win in Apeil.

[Henderson]

I'm afraid they've shown is what they can do against good competition. If undefeated after this Saturday, they might lose 1 game before sweet sixteen. Curious if Vegas will have them as odds on favorites to win in Apeil.

Right now, Kentucky is even money. I've never seen such a thing so early in the season. An even money favorite in the FF happens, but this is December.

Duke is second at 6-1, followed by Arizona at 8-1. Carolina at 45-1.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

[arnie]

Right now, Kentucky is even money. I've never seen such a thing so early in the season. An even money favorite in the FF happens, but this is December.

Duke is second at 6-1, followed by Arizona at 8-1. Carolina at 45-1.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

Thanks for sharing that- seems foolish to be even against the field right now but Vegas knows.

[subzero02]

Those are similar to the odds I found, with one glaring exception:
Kentucky 5/4... Duke 5/1... Arizona 15/2... UNC 10/1.

Although UNC has its faults, I think they are under valued at 45/1( I also think they are over valued at 10/1). They should probably be in the 20/1 to 25/1 range.

[Kedsy]

Although UNC has its faults, I think they are under valued at 45/1( I also think they are over valued at 10/1). They should probably be in the 20/1 to 25/1 range.

Honestly, to win the national championship, I wouldn't take UNC at 100/1. They're too vulnerable to early round opponents like Butler and Iowa.

[hurleyfor3]

I've seen nothing to believe unc is capable of winning six consecutive games against increasingly better opponents.

[gurufrisbee]

They way Kentucky played against Buffalo, Providence, and Columbia they would have lost any of those games if they had been against a top 25 team. Which means right now, Kentucky plays 25% like they would lose against just a good team - not even a great one. If that continues they won't get close to undefeated or a national championship. If it was one game out of twelve I'd even let them right it off as one bad night or a fluke. But it hasn't been. No one wants to talk about those games though.

[Duke95]

They way Kentucky played against Buffalo, Providence, and Columbia they would have lost any of those games if they had been against a top 25 team. Which means right now, Kentucky plays 25% like they would lose against just a good team - not even a great one. If that continues they won't get close to undefeated or a national championship. If it was one game out of twelve I'd even let them right it off as one bad night or a fluke. But it hasn't been. No one wants to talk about those games though.

Because those games don't mean much. Kentucky looked bored and disinterested during the majority of each game. When it comes time to turn on the jets though, they just destroy the competition.
Let's talk about how they've done against Top 25. Look what they did to Kansas, Texas, UCLA. Even money is about right. It would take a miracle for them to lose a game this year.

Kentucky looked iffy last year during the regular season to say the least, yet they barely lost in the finals. This team is head and shoulders above that one. I'm not ready to give these guys the title by any means, but we need to be realistic about their capabilities.

Plus, we have a good track record against "unbeatable" opponents. :)

[Henderson]

Because those games don't mean much. Kentucky looked bored and disinterested during the majority of each game. When it comes time to turn on the jets though, they just destroy the competition.

Let's talk about how they've done against Top 25. Look what they did to Kansas, Texas, UCLA.

****

Kentucky looked iffy last year during the regular season to say the least, yet they barely lost in the finals. This team is head and shoulders above that one. I'm not ready to give these guys the title by any means, but we need to be realistic about their capabilities.

I agree. Well said.


Plus, we have a good track record against "unbeatable" opponents. :)

Both we and Kentucky have a lot of basketball to play before we start thinking about any head to head matchup. And it's not been the "unbeatable" teams that have been our bugaboo in the past couple years.

[gus]

Honestly, to win the national championship, I wouldn't take UNC at 100/1.

Some things are more important than money.

[Duvall]

They way Kentucky played against Buffalo, Providence, and Columbia they would have lost any of those games if they had been against a top 25 team. Which means right now, Kentucky plays 25% like they would lose against just a good team - not even a great one. If that continues they won't get close to undefeated or a national championship. If it was one game out of twelve I'd even let them right it off as one bad night or a fluke. But it hasn't been. No one wants to talk about those games though.

Kentucky beat Providence by 20 and Buffalo by 19, and Providence isn't bad. If that's an off night, they are going to be a problem.

[Duke95]

Both we and Kentucky have a lot of basketball to play before we start thinking about any head to head matchup. And it's not been the "unbeatable" teams that have been our bugaboo in the past couple years.

Very true, unfortunately.

[mgtr]

If I had to pick where we are in the standings, my choice would be somewhere in the 2-4 range (which, fortunately, is where we are). #1 is just too big a target for most teams. We have a tougher schedule ahead than UK, and we don't need more arrows pointed in our direction.

[hurleyfor3]

If I had to pick where we are in the standings, my choice would be somewhere in the 2-4 range (which, fortunately, is where we are). #1 is just too big a target for most teams. We have a tougher schedule ahead than UK, and we don't need more arrows pointed in our direction.

I dunno, just being Duke is a big enough target already.

[Henderson]

I dunno, just being Duke is a big enough target already.

...and we wouldn't want it any other way.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

Lets say for the sake of my post that both Kentucky and Duke finish with undefeated records, or even finish with 1 or 2 loses. Who gets the overall number one seed if the polls still have Kentucky at number one and Duke at number 2? Obviously if we both finish undefeated I would think Duke with a tougher schedule would have to be the tournaments number one seed right? If we both lost a game or two I guess it would come down to who has the worse loss. But I am just curious to how the committee would place the teams, and what factors they would consider. Is Kentucky stomping UCLA, Texas, and Kansas more impressive than Duke beating Wisconsin away, or if we were to beat Virginia or Louisville away by a few points?

Keep in mind I don't think either team gets through without some losses, its just what I have been thinking about lately.

[gurufrisbee]

Kentucky beat Providence by 20 and Buffalo by 19, and Providence isn't bad. If that's an off night, they are going to be a problem.

But for MOST of those games it was neck and neck. If they play that poorly (and it was poor - it wasn't uninterested) against a top 25 team they'll reach 10 minutes left and won't be tied, but they'll be down a dozen or so. And then it's not so easy to pull away.

[Kedsy]

Obviously if we both finish undefeated I would think Duke with a tougher schedule would have to be the tournaments number one seed right?

I don't think it's obvious at all that Duke has a tougher schedule than Kentucky. So far, according to Pomeroy, our schedule is ranked #135 and theirs is #153, so a small advantage to Duke but not enough to affect seeding. Moving forward, Duke has 9 games against teams currently ranked in Pomeroy's top 40 (#2 UVa, #5 Louisville, two against #10 UNC, #21 St. John's, two against #25 Notre Dame, and two against #33 Syracuse), while UK has 8 games against Pomeroy top 40 teams (#5 Louisville, two against #15 Florida, #29 Arkansas, two against #31 Georgia, and two against #34 South Carolina). Again, Duke has a small edge, but not enough to hang your hat on. Against teams ranked in Pomeroy between 40 and 80, Duke has just three games (#56 NCSU, #59 Pitt, and #75 Miami), while UK plays five games (#55 LSU, #62 Vanderbilt, #67 Texas A&M, #73 Alabama, and #77 Mississippi), so edge to Kentucky there. Though Duke has the edge against teams ranked between 80 and 100, with three games (#92 Georgia Tech, #95 Wofford, and #97 Toledo), while UK only plays #99 Tennessee.

I haven't evaluated the remaining games on either team's schedules, but overall I'd say Duke's schedule strength and Kentucky's schedule strength are pretty close to the same. In any event, close enough so that the committee won't give an advantage to either one based on schedule.

The good news is I don't think there's any real advantage to being the overall #1 seed vs. being the second-ranked #1 seed.

[arnie]

I don't think it's obvious at all that Duke has a tougher schedule than Kentucky. So far, according to Pomeroy, our schedule is ranked #135 and theirs is #153, so a small advantage to Duke but not enough to affect seeding. Moving forward, Duke has 9 games against teams currently ranked in Pomeroy's top 40 (#2 UVa, #5 Louisville, two against #10 UNC, #21 St. John's, two against #25 Notre Dame, and two against #33 Syracuse), while UK has 8 games against Pomeroy top 40 teams (#5 Louisville, two against #15 Florida, #29 Arkansas, two against #31 Georgia, and two against #34 South Carolina). Again, Duke has a small edge, but not enough to hang your hat on. Against teams ranked in Pomeroy between 40 and 80, Duke has just three games (#56 NCSU, #59 Pitt, and #75 Miami), while UK plays five games (#55 LSU, #62 Vanderbilt, #67 Texas A&M, #73 Alabama, and #77 Mississippi), so edge to Kentucky there. Though Duke has the edge against teams ranked between 80 and 100, with three games (#92 Georgia Tech, #95 Wofford, and #97 Toledo), while UK only plays #99 Tennessee.

I haven't evaluated the remaining games on either team's schedules, but overall I'd say Duke's schedule strength and Kentucky's schedule strength are pretty close to the same. In any event, close enough so that the committee won't give an advantage to either one based on schedule.

The good news is I don't think there's any real advantage to being the overall #1 seed vs. being the second-ranked #1 seed.

But we have 4 games against current top 10 and they have only 1 game (Louisville). Plus we will likely play another top 10 in ACC tourney. More importantly, how did the gamecocks get to No 34??? They haven't been relevant in a while.

[Kedsy]

But we have 4 games against current top 10 and they have only 1 game (Louisville). Plus we will likely play another top 10 in ACC tourney.

UNC is 10th, and their next loss will mean we only have two games against the top 10. Florida is 15th, and my guess is by the end of the season two (or three) games against the Gators will do more for UK's schedule strength than two (or three) games against UNC will do for ours.

Overall, you'll see. At the end of the regular season, our schedule strength and Kentucky's will be pretty close to the same.

[Kedsy]

UNC is 10th, and their next loss will mean we only have two games against the top 10. Florida is 15th, and my guess is by the end of the season two (or three) games against the Gators will do more for UK's schedule strength than two (or three) games against UNC will do for ours.

Overall, you'll see. At the end of the regular season, our schedule strength and Kentucky's will be pretty close to the same.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the above schedule strength conversation uses Pomeroy to measure SOS. The committee historically has leaned on RPI, and using the RPI, UK's schedule strength is currently significantly better than ours, which means their non-con SOS will be significantly better than ours. Also using the RPI, the SEC is currently ranked a little bit ahead of the ACC, so it's unlikely Duke will be able to eat too much into UK's big lead in schedule strength over the course of the conference season.

In other words, while I'm pretty sure Duke's and Kentucky's respective schedules will be pretty even in Pomeroy, it looks like UK will have a decent-sized edge in SOS according to the RPI. The more I look at this, the less likely it looks like Duke will get any kind of seeding advantage over Kentucky based on the teams' schedules. If anything it will be the opposite.

[mgtr]

Agreed about similar to advantage UK on SOS, but what about losses? What chance for L'ville to beat UK? Or us, for that matter. I assume Harrell will be back for L'ville when they play UK. I am looking forward to that game. If UK is heavily favored in the betting, L'ville might be a very good bet. Let the record show that I have never made a sports bet, and my understanding of the process is limited.

[Kedsy]

Agreed about similar to advantage UK on SOS, but what about losses?

I suppose Louisville has approximately the same chance of beating Duke at the Yum than they have of beating Kentucky at the Yum. Considering we also play at #2 Virginia, and the two teams have approximately the same chance of getting upset by lesser teams, I'd say the odds are slightly in favor of Kentucky having a better record than we will. Of course, if Louisville beats UK next week, then the math changes, at least until we play Louisville.

[brevity]

Lets say for the sake of my post that both Kentucky and Duke finish with undefeated records, or even finish with 1 or 2 loses. Who gets the overall number one seed if the polls still have Kentucky at number one and Duke at number 2? Obviously if we both finish undefeated I would think Duke with a tougher schedule would have to be the tournaments number one seed right?

If Kentucky finishes undefeated they will be the #1 overall seed, whether Duke also finishes undefeated or not. Polls are not generally relevant, but it's impossible to ignore a team ranked #1 from the preseason to Selection Sunday.


The good news is I don't think there's any real advantage to being the overall #1 seed vs. being the second-ranked #1 seed.

There can be. Some years will present a geographical reason in the form of a closer NCAA Tournament venue, but if we're talking about Duke and Kentucky in 2015, then yes, it doesn't matter.

It's early for this particular discussion, but I took a look at the 2015 tournament locations (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/11837555/2015-ncaa-tournament-schedule-key-dates) (after Dayton).

First Weekend

March 19, 21
Veterans Memorial Arena (Jacksonville, Fla.)
KFC Yum! Center (Louisville)
Consol Energy Center (Pittsburgh)
Rose Garden (Portland, Ore.)

March 20, 22
Time Warner Cable Arena (Charlotte, N.C.)
Nationwide Arena (Columbus, Ohio)
CenturyLink Center (Omaha, Neb.)
KeyArena (Seattle)

Second Weekend

March 26, 28
Quicken Loans Arena (Cleveland)
Staples Center (Los Angeles)

March 27, 29
Reliant Stadium (Houston)
Carrier Dome (Syracuse)

Final Four

April 4, 6
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis)

Observations:

1. The NCAA saw fit to send 16 teams to the Pacific Northwest this year.
2. Kentucky fans can go ahead and buy tickets to that first weekend in Louisville. There's no high-seed competition for that venue. They would have to slip to a 5 seed to not be assigned there.
3. With two high seeds per venue, Omaha is kind of locked up right now. It's going to the two best Big XII teams that aren't West Virginia, or one of those teams plus Wichita State.
4. Gonzaga fans should wait on that 50/50 proposition, knowing how the NCAA feels about mid-majors.
5. As for regionals, you should expect Duke (if they win the ACC) to be assigned to Syracuse, and Kentucky to be sent to Houston. And the NCAA to shuffle the bracket so Duke and Kentucky wouldn't play in a semifinal.

[tbyers11]

5. As for regionals, you should expect Duke (if they win the ACC) to be assigned to Syracuse, and Kentucky to be sent to Houston. And the NCAA to shuffle the bracket so Duke and Kentucky wouldn't play in a semifinal.

I don't know about that regional placement for UK. Cleveland is A LOT closer to Lexington than Houston.

[captmojo]

125 posts are just one representation that "we" are not obsessed with Kentucky.:)
Would Louisville become an obsession? Is anyone else more obsessed by the fact that the Card's arena is sponsored by the parent corporation of KFC? Isn't that a lovely bit of irony? Should UK win this one at UL, might the name be changed to The Kentucky Fried Cardinal Center?

[subzero02]

Kentucky is favored by 5.5 points... This game's 2pm tip off is the same time as our bowl game's kickoff.

[duketaylor]

And I thought this was a BBQ thread, of which I am obsessed.

Looking forward to watching two very good sporting events at the same time!!

[arnie]

And I thought this was a BBQ thread, of which I am obsessed.

Looking forward to watching two very good sporting events at the same time!!

40 total pts in 1st half - as expected.

[kybluedevil]

SEC is pathetic. A paltry UK effort on the road will still result in a 5pt win. 16-0

They won't be beat (if ever) until Elite 8.

Guards are too long. Can't score inside on them. Hope Duke doesn't get them.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

SEC is pathetic. A paltry UK effort on the road will still result in a 5pt win. 16-0

They won't be beat (if ever) until Elite 8.

Guards are too long. Can't score inside on them. Hope Duke doesn't get them.

Don't mind if we do.

Gotta play the best eventually

[Kedsy]

SEC is pathetic.

As I showed in several posts above, the SEC isn't much, if any, more pathetic than the ACC this season.

I suppose anything can happen, but the fact the UK doesn't seem to "bring it" against perceived lesser opponents suggests to me that they probably won't go undefeated. Obviously, time will tell.

[_Gary]

As I showed in several posts above, the SEC isn't much, if any, more pathetic than the ACC this season.

I suppose anything can happen, but the fact the UK doesn't seem to "bring it" against perceived lesser opponents suggests to me that they probably won't go undefeated. Obviously, time will tell.

A long ways off I know, but if we have to play them to win the NCAA Championship, then I'd prefer they be unbeaten until we face them. Nothing like the pressure of "the perfect season" to rattle even the most poised of teams. Much less a young team.

[Bluegrassdevil1]

There is no question that UK is quite good, and it will likely take a mighty effort to beat them; however, I think Duke fans should worry about the Cats only if the need arises, and at best, that "need" is many months away.

I do however think it would not hurt to "not be obsessed" with the other bluegrass team, though, as a game with them is coming very soon:

1. Today was the third time I have seen the Cards in person, and there is no doubt that their Jan 10th matchup with UNC will be a great example of two Jekyll and Hyde teams going head-to-head. Much like UNC, I think the Cards could just as easily beat anyone on their schedule, as lose to anyone on their schedule.

2. U of L struggles mightily to shoot the ball. If U of L is not generating offense from their defense, they are a mess. I suspect UVA will be an absolutely nightmare for the Cards, and as great as Pitino's Providence, UK teams, and some of his better U of L teams, were from the perimeter, this group has to drive him nuts.

3. U of L has only played two notable teams before UK (Ohio State and IU), and they struggled a great deal to put them both away in a manner that I have not often seen from Pitino's teams in the past: Ohio State was getting pummeled in the Yum, yet drew close at the end. IU got behind, yet was able to keep things tight until the waning moments of the game. Pitino's better teams have always been killers, and when a group is not gritty at the end, the season as a whole typically turns out to be up and down, for months on end.

4. There is no doubt that Harrell and C. Jones are nowhere near to being on the same page. Harrell is a very emotional kid, and when opponents use that emotion against him, and he does not have a great guard to keep him focused (Siva and Russ Smith), things can go pear-shaped very quickly. C. Jones is a mess of a point guard, and there is no question that Jones' actions during games make the accusations of recent Blue Devil players striving for a hero ball style to look meditative in comparison.

5. Just as I would not be surprised if UNC pulled it together and won the ACC, or never find the solution to their up and down equation, I could easily see U of L running away with the ACC crown (their schedule is less than scary), as I would not be surprised to see the Cards finish behind Duke, UVA, UNC, Notre Dame, and possibly, either Miami or Syracuse, in the ACC standings.

If U of L comes off a Saturday loss to UK, a "who knows" scenario at Wake Forest next Sunday, then another tough Saturday game at UNC on the tenth, the Duke game on the 17th could find the Devils facing an opponent riding a wave of intensity, or fighting to acquire their first big win of the season, without really knowing how to do so.

[Dukehky]

As I showed in several posts above, the SEC isn't much, if any, more pathetic than the ACC this season.

I suppose anything can happen, but the fact the UK doesn't seem to "bring it" against perceived lesser opponents suggests to me that they probably won't go undefeated. Obviously, time will tell.

Not that the rankings are everything, but the SEC has 0 teams in the top 25, and then only two more that received votes (Arkansas-22; Florida- 4). The top end of the ACC is markedly better than everyone else (not UK) in the SEC. Virginia Louisville Duke are all teams that could make a FF run as constituted right now. UNC could always pull it together. Miami and Notre Dame are no slouch teams either, and the latter may have the front runner for ACC player of the year. I agree that the bottom of the leagues are equally weak, but to say that the SEC isn't more pathetic than the ACC is a statement with which I simply do not concur.

[Duke95]

As I showed in several posts above, the SEC isn't much, if any, more pathetic than the ACC this season.

I suppose anything can happen, but the fact the UK doesn't seem to "bring it" against perceived lesser opponents suggests to me that they probably won't go undefeated. Obviously, time will tell.

UK doesn't "bring it" against lesser opponents? What games are you watching? They're 13-0 and their closest margin of victory was today AT Louisville by 8. What game do you think they're going to lose?
Who cares about the SEC. UK has cleaned house. I don't care for them, but you have to give them credit. They've had the toughest schedule in the country and are undefeated.

[Kedsy]

UK doesn't "bring it" against lesser opponents? What games are you watching? They're 13-0 and their closest margin of victory was today AT Louisville by 8.

Well, they beat Columbia by 10. At Rupp. And they were only beating Buffalo by 5 at halftime, and only beating BU by 5 at halftime. Both also at Rupp. So if they're as good as you say, I don't think they brought it against those three lesser opponents. Which represent a decent percentage of their total games played so far.


What game do you think they're going to lose?

Do you think the favorite wins every game? Real life doesn't really work that way, does it? Kentucky has seven games remaining against Pomeroy's current top 40 teams, three of which are on the road. Plus they have another three road games against Pomeroy's current top 75 teams. Plus another road game against a Pomeroy top 100 team. I think it's very possible UK loses one or more of those games. Which one (or more), I have no idea.


Who cares about the SEC. UK has cleaned house. I don't care for them, but you have to give them credit. They've had the toughest schedule in the country and are undefeated.

Actually, according to Pomeroy, they've only played the 74th best schedule in the country. Nowhere near the toughest.

[Duke95]

Well, they beat Columbia by 10. At Rupp. And they were only beating Buffalo by 5 at halftime, and only beating BU by 5 at halftime. Both also at Rupp. So if they're as good as you say, I don't think they brought it against those three lesser opponents. Which represent a decent percentage of their total games played so far.

Do you think the favorite wins every game? Real life doesn't really work that way, does it? Kentucky has seven games remaining against Pomeroy's current top 40 teams, three of which are on the road. Plus they have another three road games against Pomeroy's current top 75 teams. Plus another road game against a Pomeroy top 100 team. I think it's very possible UK loses one or more of those games. Which one (or more), I have no idea.

Actually, according to Pomeroy, they've only played the 74th best schedule in the country. Nowhere near the toughest.

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

I'm pretty sure listing UK as having the 74th toughest schedule so far is nonsense. And regarding the halftime scores, they won those two games by an average of over 21 points.

I'm not saying UK is going to go undefeated but they have a good chance, and the fact that Vegas, who eschews charitable donations to gamblers, has them at even money is quite telling.

[Wander]

As I showed in several posts above, the SEC isn't much, if any, more pathetic than the ACC this season.


Sure, but that post was done pre-Louisville game. Now that UK has won that game, the math changes much more in their favor. Kenpom gives Kentucky a 1 in 4 chance of going undefeated in the regular season, and a 1 in 100 chance for Duke. Sounds about right to me.

[Duvall]

As I showed in several posts above, the SEC isn't much, if any, more pathetic than the ACC this season.

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.

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

[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. :D

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. :D

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" 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 [i]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" 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 [i]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" 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 [i]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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:
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.

[Ultrarunner]

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. :rolleyes:
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.

I'm not much for cheerleading. I'm also not much for being negative in public. You continue to double down and dismiss other systems that don't support the results you want. I pointed that out in private. You wish it public. Your choice . . .

By your own admission, you don't know anything of the systems you insist must be wrong since they disagree with your 'eye' test and the RPI. You might consider looking at Sagarin, Pomeroy, the BPI, and the RPI prior to making ill-informed comments. Were you aware that RPI has VCU #1 in SOS? So there is agreement on all four major rating systems in regards to VCU but three of four have UK significantly higher and you want to put your chip on the outlier?

Do you understand any of the differences between them? Here's some quick links you could find on your own, if you were inclined to make a minimum effort.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/rpi-prediction/

http://www.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/rpi-numbers-just-dont-add-up-020311

http://www.theonlycolors.com/2014/2/26/5444872/death-to-the-rpi

http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2085

I'm not sure what triggered the "head in the sand" response since I acknowledged UK as a very good team that will handle all but a few teams - and those they still have an excellent chance of beating. As to denying the quality of the wins, that is not determinable until later in the season when the noise factor drops. You place considerable faith in the authority of the AP and the coaches.

Speaking of which . . .

As far as substituting the judgment of the AP and the coaches for my own, well, a man has to draw a line somewhere. These are the same coaches that put the Tarheels in the top 10, yes? Florida? Texas, at least, has an excuse. The very point I raised was that the AP and the coaches mis-assessed the teams at the start of the season, which happens on a frequent basis. As losses pile up, the reassessment will put these teams (Kansas, Florida, Texas, possibly Louisville) at their more appropriate level. As for people laughing at me, well, it won't be the first time. It won't be the last.

Vegas? Not much of a gambler, but I think that they balance their books by finding a point to get the betting balanced on both sides of the equation, with them keeping the vigorish for themselves. The people putting up the money are the punters, many of them addicts.

[Duke95]

I'm not much for cheerleading. I'm also not much for being negative in public. You continue to double down and dismiss other systems that don't support the results you want. I pointed that out in private. You wish it public. Your choice . . .

By your own admission, you don't know anything of the systems you insist must be wrong since they disagree with your 'eye' test and the RPI. You might consider looking at Sagarin, Pomeroy, the BPI, and the RPI prior to making ill-informed comments. Were you aware that RPI has VCU #1 in SOS? So there is agreement on all four major rating systems in regards to VCU but three of four have UK significantly higher and you want to put your chip on the outlier?

Do you understand any of the differences between them? Here's some quick links you could find on your own, if you were inclined to make a minimum effort.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/rpi-prediction/

http://www.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/rpi-numbers-just-dont-add-up-020311

http://www.theonlycolors.com/2014/2/26/5444872/death-to-the-rpi

http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2085

I'm not sure what triggered the "head in the sand" response since I acknowledged UK as a very good team that will handle all but a few teams - and those they still have an excellent chance of beating. As to denying the quality of the wins, that is not determinable until later in the season when the noise factor drops. You place considerable faith in the authority of the AP and the coaches.

Speaking of which . . .

As far as substituting the judgment of the AP and the coaches for my own, well, a man has to draw a line somewhere. These are the same coaches that put the Tarheels in the top 10, yes? Florida? Texas, at least, has an excuse. The very point I raised was that the AP and the coaches mis-assessed the teams at the start of the season, which happens on a frequent basis. As losses pile up, the reassessment will put these teams (Kansas, Florida, Texas, possibly Louisville) at their more appropriate level. As for people laughing at me, well, it won't be the first time. It won't be the last.

Vegas? Not much of a gambler, but I think that they balance their books by finding a point to get the betting balanced on both sides of the equation, with them keeping the vigorish for themselves. The people putting up the money are the punters, many of them addicts.

I don't have a lot of respect for people who send insulting private messages because they lack the spinal fortitude to do it in public.

And please try reading a post before you make faulty claims. I only said I don't know about Pomeroy, not the others. And the fact that you acknowledge UK is a "very good team" only confirms your grasp of the obvious. Congrats.

Right now your only criticism of UK's schedule is your opinion that the teams they beat must not be very good. It's surprising that it seems to take a beatdown from UK to expose these teams as not being very good, since they're quite good against most other opponents. KU and Texas only stumbled again this week. Louisville has yet to lose against anyone else.

I'm not being dismissive of other rankings, but I'm not going to accept them as prima facie evidence of truth when their claims diverge so drastically from what I (and many others) see with our own eyes. Perhaps you and others here are more easily swayed. Once again, I have yet to see a solid argument why people put such faith in Pomeroy.

[Kedsy]

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.

So if we continue this discussion in 24 hours, you'll admit that Kentucky has only one top ten win? Because after the poll comes out tomorrow, there's pretty much no chance that Texas (who just lost to Stanford in Austin) or Kansas (who got shellacked by Temple) will be in the top 10.

Your assertion that the polls and the RPI have a better grasp on the relative rankings of teams and their schedules than do robust computer models like Pomeroy or Sagarin is laughable, by the way.

Putting all that aside, there have been several arguments in this thread that seem to be getting confused. First, much earlier, someone suggested that Duke's overall schedule (including future games) was clearly better than UK's and suggested that if Duke and UK continued to be undefeated then Duke should get the higher seed. I think that suggestion is incorrect and responded that Kentucky's schedule is either the same or better than Duke's. Second, you suggested that Kentucky's schedule so far has been the strongest in the country. Since there is no system out there, other than your opinion, which supports this, I think it's clearly false. Finally, several posters have suggested that Kentucky is likely to go undefeated because their schedule going forward is so weak. I disagree with this as well. They don't have any top ten opponents ahead (although maybe Florida can get there, you never know), but UK's upcoming schedule isn't nearly as weak as many around here seem to think. So it's possible UK goes undefeated, but it's not likely.


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.

Wander very accurately pointed out that, "the main issue here is that 'strength of schedule' is absolutely not the same as 'probability of going undefeated.'" For the former, you have to look at the whole schedule, not just the best opponents. For the latter, looking at the best opponents will probably give you a better idea. If we're talking about going undefeated, at this point Kentucky certainly has a better chance of going undefeated than Duke does.

That said, Kentucky still has to play seven road games against top 100 opponents (including three road games against top 40 opponents, one of which is ranked #15 by Pomeroy). Yes, UK will be favored in every one of those games, but if they only managed to beat Columbia by 10 at Rupp then I'd argue there's a pretty good chance of at least one court-storming upset along the way.

[Duke95]

So if we continue this discussion in 24 hours, you'll admit that Kentucky has only one top ten win? Because after the poll comes out tomorrow, there's pretty much no chance that Texas (who just lost to Stanford in Austin) or Kansas (who got shellacked by Temple) will be in the top 10.

Your assertion that the polls and the RPI have a better grasp on the relative rankings of teams and their schedules than do robust computer models like Pomeroy or Sagarin is laughable, by the way.

Putting all that aside, there have been several arguments in this thread that seem to be getting confused. First, much earlier, someone suggested that Duke's overall schedule (including future games) was clearly better than UK's and suggested that if Duke and UK continued to be undefeated then Duke should get the higher seed. I think that suggestion is incorrect and responded that Kentucky's schedule is either the same or better than Duke's. Second, you suggested that Kentucky's schedule so far has been the strongest in the country. Since there is no system out there, other than your opinion, which supports this, I think it's clearly false. Finally, several posters have suggested that Kentucky is likely to go undefeated because their schedule going forward is so weak. I disagree with this as well. They don't have any top ten opponents ahead (although maybe Florida can get there, you never know), but UK's upcoming schedule isn't nearly as weak as many around here seem to think. So it's possible UK goes undefeated, but it's not likely.



Wander very accurately pointed out that, "the main issue here is that 'strength of schedule' is absolutely not the same as 'probability of going undefeated.'" For the former, you have to look at the whole schedule, not just the best opponents. For the latter, looking at the best opponents will probably give you a better idea. If we're talking about going undefeated, at this point Kentucky certainly has a better chance of going undefeated than Duke does.

That said, Kentucky still has to play seven road games against top 100 opponents (including three road games against top 40 opponents, one of which is ranked #15 by Pomeroy). Yes, UK will be favored in every one of those games, but if they only managed to beat Columbia by 10 at Rupp then I'd argue there's a pretty good chance of at least one court-storming upset along the way.

I'm still laughing at your suggestion that the likelihood that Louisville will drop out of the Top 5 after losing at home to Kentucky is somehow indicative that UK's schedule isn't that hard. Really.

And once again, what makes Pomeroy's model robust? I'm still waiting for any one of you on Team Pomeroy's cheerleading squad to give me some clear quantitative evidence of Pomeroy's model's vast superiority. I'm starting to think none of you actually know how it works, you just know it's a computer model so it must be good. And yeah, I'm pretty sure UK doesn't have the 74th toughest schedule in the country.

And UK has 3 wins against top 10 teams. It will be the same tomorrow. If UK beats the #9 team, which subsequently drops to #11 the following week, that doesn't negate the win against a top 10 opponent. I really have to explain that?

[Duke95]

Incidentally, what I found on Pomeroy's accuracy is this:

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/rpi-prediction/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1900749-breaking-down-the-biggest-differences-in-the-ap-poll-and-ken-pomeroys-ranking/page/3

And for those of you who prefer academic papers, this is an interesting one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3607.pdf

[Kedsy]

And once again, what makes Pomeroy's model robust? I'm still waiting for any one of you on Team Pomeroy's cheerleading squad to give me some clear quantitative evidence of Pomeroy's model's vast superiority. I'm starting to think none of you actually know how it works, you just know it's a computer model so it must be good.

I do know how it works. If you were actually interested (and weren't merely ridiculing a highly respected system that you know nothing about and never even heard of before yesterday), I could also direct you to a web page that explains it.

But putting that aside, what kind of "clear quantitative evidence" are you asking for? Do you seriously believe that your eye test, after watching only a few games on TV, is a better judge of the relative ranking of teams (and/or their schedule strength) than a computer that takes into account the score of every game played by every team and cross-references each against all the others using a reasonable, logical, and time-tested formula?


And UK has 3 wins against top 10 teams. It will be the same tomorrow. If UK beats the #9 team, which subsequently drops to #11 the following week, that doesn't negate the win against a top 10 opponent. I really have to explain that?

Yes, you do. If a team is ranked in the top 10 early in the season but ends the season unranked, which does happen from time to time, is it your contention that the teams that beat up on this erroneously ranked team actually defeated a top 10 team?

[Ultrarunner]

I don't have a lot of respect for people who send insulting private messages because they lack the spinal fortitude to do it in public.

As you will. Personally, I think that telling someone that they are doubling down on an argument based on fundamental ignorance of the measure they are criticizing should be done privately. Being obnoxious in public is not showing a backbone, it's poor manners. It's a matter of civility, but feel free to consider me as lacking spinal fortitude. Like the laughter, I stopped worrying about it long ago.


And please try reading a post before you make faulty claims. I only said I don't know about Pomeroy, not the others.

You misstated the BPI rating for Kentucky by 87 placements and deny knowledge of one (Pomeroy) of the four major systems. You do not mention Sagarin at all in support of your point regarding strength of schedule. You seem not to realize that the RPI has VCU ahead of UK in SOS as you have assailed their rating several times.


And the fact that you acknowledge UK is a "very good team" only confirms your grasp of the obvious. Congrats.

Thank you. Always nice to be able to spot the obvious.


Right now your only criticism of UK's schedule is your opinion that the teams they beat must not be very good.

This would be a classic strawman. I didn't not say that the teams were not very good. I said they were mis-assessed at the start of the season. I also stated explicitly that I do not consider them top 10 teams. The AP and the coaches will shortly agree with me.



It's surprising that it seems to take a beatdown from UK to expose these teams as not being very good, since they're quite good against most other opponents. KU and Texas only stumbled again this week. Louisville has yet to lose against anyone else.

All the teams except Louisville have multiple losses. We agree on something. Yay! Could they possibly be losing games (this week) to substantial underdogs because they're not that good? Not top 10 good but started there anyway based on zero games but a good reputation? Could the AP and coaches be that wrong? Nah . . .


I'm not being dismissive of other rankings, but I'm not going to accept them as prima facie evidence of truth when their claims diverge so drastically from what I (and many others) see with our own eyes. Perhaps you and others here are more easily swayed. Once again, I have yet to see a solid argument why people put such faith in Pomeroy. .

Want me to go back and get the quotes? Heck, might as well.
"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." Seems dismissive to me. "But if you think UK has the 74th to 88th toughest schedule in the country, that's your choice pal." That one, too.
"Not sure who this Pomeroy guy is anyway or why his rankings matter. I'm pretty sure listing UK as having the 74th toughest schedule so far is nonsense." The one that started the whole debate on SOS.

And now you're arguing with Kedsy on stats?
I can get you a shovel with a longer handle if you like - even overnight it with Amazon.
Have fun. Kedsy will.

[uh_no]

And once again, what makes Pomeroy's model robust? I'm still waiting for any one of you on Team Pomeroy's cheerleading squad to give me some clear quantitative evidence of Pomeroy's model's vast superiority. I'm starting to think none of you actually know how it works, you just know it's a computer model so it must be good. And yeah, I'm pretty sure UK doesn't have the 74th toughest schedule in the country.


you made me laugh with that one....so in the interest of increasing the overall knowledge of DBR if I am, in fact, the only one who actually knows how it works (doubtful)... here it is:

pomeroy starts with raw efficiency offense and defense numbers from every game played between 2 D1 teams all year. Many sites would just average those together and get a number, but that's not good enough for ken pomeroy! It makes sense that an offensive efficiency of X against one team may not be equal to an offensive efficiency of X if the defenses of the two teams are different, so how can we solve this?

By your ranking, you simply say "well team A is good against team B, who we say is good...so therefore A must also be good," that's the basis of RPI SOS numbers. Ken pom makes no such assumptions.

Using MATH we can come up with an offensive efficiency number for every team in D1 that explains their past performances with the least amount of error. How one comes up with those numbers is largely irrelevant, so long as the overall error between predicted and observed results is minimized. It's likely simplex algorithm run over a giant matrix containing all results, but i can't say for sure. There's a few caveats: games further in the past contribute less to the overall error, home or away is given a special boost, calculated based on the past advantage observed in home teams, and exceptionally good performances against poor teams will contribute less to the error (i.e. whether duke puts up 130 or 150 against grambling state is largely irrelevant).

So then you have this, what is known as, adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency for each team....and from this we can calculate all sorts of other fun stuff:

-An overall ranking of each team....based on a pythagorean expectation equation...given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation

-The amount of "luck" each team has....or how much their record deviates from how much they should be expected to win based on the above

-the SOS of the team....the offensive and defensive adjusted efficiencies averaged over their opponents...and an overall NC SOS. (FTR: I think trying to come up with a single SOS number is a fools errand, since as we've found out, it depends on many things...how many top teams you played/beat, what you consider a "top" team, how many cupcakes you've played...etc....so trying to frame it with a single number is stupid, much like trying to rank conferences....and this is why SOS is not directly used to calculate kenpom.....it is only a fund thing to calculate from the result)

-Predictions of how any future game will go, including scores, efficiencies, tempo, and win probability



Assumptions that kenpom makes that you may or may not agree with:

1) the offensive performance does NOT depend to any large degree on that teams defensive performance in the game (and vice versa), or the other team's offensive performance. While this may not be true in 100% of cases, I think it is true so overwhelmingly much of the time as that adjusting for this would not have any large effect on the rankings. Note that things such as "they get turnovers, so that's defense aiding offense!" are accounted for in offense by the fact that the team had an extra offensive possession. kenpom may account for fast break dunks and layup points which ought to be much higher efficiency than the team would usually get. I am unsure...though he likely has statistics to validate whatever his choice in this matter

2) a team's performance on offense (or defense) must be predicated on the tempo (number of posessions) in a game. If a team scores 50 points in 50 possessions, that's FAR different than 50 points in 80 possessions.

3) the final outcome of the game is largely unimportant to how well a team played in terms of predicting the teams future success....what this means is that there's no major difference in a 1 point win and a 1 point loss...it was largely due to chance of some shot falling or not, and whether that shot did or didn't fall has no long term bearing on the overall offensive or defensive prowess of a team. Many people have a very hard time accepting this, saying things such as "then why do we play the games?" And yes, when it comes down to it, you want to win....and kenpom-like numbers give you a probability of how likely you are to do that...and do so very accurately....it's just that whether a past game ended a win or a loss largely has little predictive value. Which would you consider more telling, that duke beat a team by 20 vs beating them by 1, or duke beat a team by 1 vs losing by 1? (note that the overall win margin largely doesn't matter as offense and defense are considered independent, as per point 1)

4) it's impossible to say for sure who will win any single game. The best we can do is slap a probability on it. Further, the result can't be looked at in a vacuum. Just because a team played poorly or lost isn't definitive....it could be that the team IS actually that poor, or the other team is actually better, or the game fell in the small 5% of performances in which the worse team performed better...and if they played 19 more times, the better team would actually perform up to snuff. (note: with multiple games worth of data, as kenpom has, we effectively choose the 1 of those 3 options which best matches with all the team's other results)


So what it comes down to is kenpom's system isn't perfect: he freely admits it has weaknesses: accounting for injuries (not sure if he added that), how teams react to clashes in style of play ("matchups"), and until recently, giving too much weight to blowouts over overmatched teams (leading to what was known as "the wisconsin effect" where teams (like wisconsin) would end up topping the rankings simply because they blew out patsies all year long). He spent a good amount of time analyzing the problem, though, and found he could improve the predictive value of his rankings by mitigating certain blowouts, so he did.

The fact that kenpom is willing and able to change his objective rankings when they would produce better predictions is unique among most ranking systems. You know who DOESN'T adjust their system to become better in response to past imperfections in methodology?

Polls
RPI

They keep producing the same junk year after year.

So there it is. That's by and large how kenpom works. As I said, feel free to ask for explanations on anything, I'd be happy to expound on what i know. Further Mr pomeroy maintains a most excellent blog where he justifies most of his methodological choices using statistical analyses of past data (that's why the xkcd was relevant), as well as providing really interesting analyses of other things, such as whether two foul when up 2 or 3 on the last defensive possession, whether to intentionally miss a FT while up 1 or 2, which coaches are most effective coming out of timeouts...etc...all backed by raw data.

Now that I've explained it, please use actual criticisms of the methodology rather than simply suggesting that people only trust it because they are "drinking the cool-aid," if you will.

[Des Esseintes]

you made me laugh with that one....so in the interest of increasing the overall knowledge of dbr if i am, in fact, the only one who actually knows how it works (doubtful)... Here it is:

Pomeroy starts with raw efficiency offense and defense numbers from every game played between 2 d1 teams all year. Many sites would just average those together and get a number, but that's not good enough for ken pomeroy! It makes sense that an offensive efficiency of x against one team may not be equal to an offensive efficiency of x if the defenses of the two teams are different, so how can we solve this?

By your ranking, you simply say "well team a is good against team b, who we say is good...so therefore a must also be good," that's the basis of rpi sos numbers. Ken pom makes no such assumptions.

Using math we can come up with an offensive efficiency number for every team in d1 that explains their past performances with the least amount of error. How one comes up with those numbers is largely irrelevant, so long as the overall error between predicted and observed results is minimized. It's likely simplex algorithm run over a giant matrix containing all results, but i can't say for sure. There's a few caveats: Games further in the past contribute less to the overall error, home or away is given a special boost, calculated based on the past advantage observed in home teams, and exceptionally good performances against poor teams will contribute less to the error (i.e. Whether duke puts up 130 or 150 against grambling state is largely irrelevant).

So then you have this, what is known as, adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency for each team....and from this we can calculate all sorts of other fun stuff:

-an overall ranking of each team....based on a pythagorean expectation equation...given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pythagorean_expectation

-the amount of "luck" each team has....or how much their record deviates from how much they should be expected to win based on the above

-the sos of the team....the offensive and defensive adjusted efficiencies averaged over their opponents...and an overall nc sos. (ftr: I think trying to come up with a single sos number is a fools errand, since as we've found out, it depends on many things...how many top teams you played/beat, what you consider a "top" team, how many cupcakes you've played...etc....so trying to frame it with a single number is stupid, much like trying to rank conferences....and this is why sos is not directly used to calculate kenpom.....it is only a fund thing to calculate from the result)

-predictions of how any future game will go, including scores, efficiencies, tempo, and win probability



assumptions that kenpom makes that you may or may not agree with:

1) the offensive performance does not depend to any large degree on that teams defensive performance in the game (and vice versa), or the other team's offensive performance. While this may not be true in 100% of cases, i think it is true so overwhelmingly much of the time as that adjusting for this would not have any large effect on the rankings. Note that things such as "they get turnovers, so that's defense aiding offense!" are accounted for in offense by the fact that the team had an extra offensive possession. Kenpom may account for fast break dunks and layup points which ought to be much higher efficiency than the team would usually get. I am unsure...though he likely has statistics to validate whatever his choice in this matter

2) a team's performance on offense (or defense) must be predicated on the tempo (number of posessions) in a game. If a team scores 50 points in 50 possessions, that's far different than 50 points in 80 possessions.

3) the final outcome of the game is largely unimportant to how well a team played in terms of predicting the teams future success....what this means is that there's no major difference in a 1 point win and a 1 point loss...it was largely due to chance of some shot falling or not, and whether that shot did or didn't fall has no long term bearing on the overall offensive or defensive prowess of a team. Many people have a very hard time accepting this, saying things such as "then why do we play the games?" and yes, when it comes down to it, you want to win....and kenpom-like numbers give you a probability of how likely you are to do that...and do so very accurately....it's just that whether a past game ended a win or a loss largely has little predictive value. Which would you consider more telling, that duke beat a team by 20 vs beating them by 1, or duke beat a team by 1 vs losing by 1? (note that the overall win margin largely doesn't matter as offense and defense are considered independent, as per point 1)

4) it's impossible to say for sure who will win any single game. The best we can do is slap a probability on it. Further, the result can't be looked at in a vacuum. Just because a team played poorly or lost isn't definitive....it could be that the team is actually that poor, or the other team is actually better, or the game fell in the small 5% of performances in which the worse team performed better...and if they played 19 more times, the better team would actually perform up to snuff. (note: With multiple games worth of data, as kenpom has, we effectively choose the 1 of those 3 options which best matches with all the team's other results)


so what it comes down to is kenpom's system isn't perfect: He freely admits it has weaknesses: Accounting for injuries (not sure if he added that), how teams react to clashes in style of play ("matchups"), and until recently, giving too much weight to blowouts over overmatched teams (leading to what was known as "the wisconsin effect" where teams (like wisconsin) would end up topping the rankings simply because they blew out patsies all year long). He spent a good amount of time analyzing the problem, though, and found he could improve the predictive value of his rankings by mitigating certain blowouts, so he did.

The fact that kenpom is willing and able to change his objective rankings when they would produce better predictions is unique among most ranking systems. You know who doesn't adjust their system to become better in response to past imperfections in methodology?

Polls
rpi

they keep producing the same junk year after year.

So there it is. That's by and large how kenpom works. As i said, feel free to ask for explanations on anything, i'd be happy to expound on what i know. Further mr pomeroy maintains a most excellent blog where he justifies most of his methodological choices using statistical analyses of past data (that's why the xkcd was relevant), as well as providing really interesting analyses of other things, such as whether two foul when up 2 or 3 on the last defensive possession, whether to intentionally miss a ft while up 1 or 2, which coaches are most effective coming out of timeouts...etc...all backed by raw data.

Now that i've explained it, please use actual criticisms of the methodology rather than simply suggesting that people only trust it because they are "drinking the cool-aid," if you will.
hulk smash!!! Only eye test matter!!!

[sagegrouse]

I'm still laughing at your suggestion that the likelihood that Louisville will drop out of the Top 5 after losing at home to Kentucky is somehow indicative that UK's schedule isn't that hard. Really.

And once again, what makes Pomeroy's model robust? I'm still waiting for any one of you on Team Pomeroy's cheerleading squad to give me some clear quantitative evidence of Pomeroy's model's vast superiority. I'm starting to think none of you actually know how it works, you just know it's a computer model so it must be good. And yeah, I'm pretty sure UK doesn't have the 74th toughest schedule in the country.

And UK has 3 wins against top 10 teams. It will be the same tomorrow. If UK beats the #9 team, which subsequently drops to #11 the following week, that doesn't negate the win against a top 10 opponent. I really have to explain that?

Duke95, you are asking some good questions, but mucking it up with some ad hominem criticism. KenPom seems to base his ratings on offensive and defensive efficiencies measure, adjusting them somehow for the quality of the opposition. It seems to me that there are several criticisms of such approaches as predictors of future results:


Pomeroy begins the year with some heuristics based on prior-year results. These do not reflect the performance of the team in the current year. By mid-January, as he has previously said, there is enough data to phase out totally the effects of the prior-year results.

I don't believe that November and December results are necessarily indicative of performance in February and March. Teams evolve at different speeds -- Duke faster than most -- for instance, the God-awful 1995 team had a good record in November and December. (I will return to this subject in a few days under the heading "The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee Is on a Fool's Errand," which will point out that INTER-conference play ends January 1; therefore, there is no further information on how conferences rank against each other, even though teams are continuing to evolve.)

Human skills in assessing basketball teams have a lot of value -- it's not just all numbers on paper. That's why the coaching staffs spend so much time studying tapes.

While "past is prologue," it is not history. They still have to play the games, and match-ups and playing styles should be considered. I don't believe these are reflected at all in the ratings.

Finally, as we have discussed endlessly here, shooting, rebounding and other basketball activities have large random components, that even with 100 possessions or more, can swing results by quite a few points. "Randomness" affects all methods of predicting results.



Gone on too long. -- Kindly, Sage

[Duke95]

uh_no, thanks for the explanation of Pomeroy's model. I'm sure kedsy and ultrarunner would find your description informative as well.

I would agree with the 4 assumptions you listed as well. I certainly think he's put a lot of work into his model predicting likelihood of winning.

However, the issue was how well his actual SOS measure reflected a team's actual SOS, not predictive accuracy. I would say the RPI's SOS measure as #6 more accurately reflects the Kentucky's schedule thus far than 74th. I don't see how you can rank a team's SOS so low given they've played and beaten more top teams than any other one. Do you know how Pomeroy calculates strength of schedule?

[rsvman]

Duke95, I don't know how long you've been around here, but you've come into this thread like a bull in a china shop. I just want to let you know that around here we generally don't debate in the fashion that you are demonstrating here, although I know it is probably the norm on many forums.

Here, rather than insulting people and/or systems, we try to create some sort of rational discussion about a topic. For example, your dismissal of KenPom based on the fact that you'd never heard of it is not a rational argument. When I met my wife, she had never heard of Janis Joplin. The merits/shortcomings of Janis Joplin and her music can be debated, and people could have opinions on either side, but "Janis Joplin sucks because I've never heard of her" is not a rational argument and is never going to work.

A more productive approach would be for the person who has never heard of Janis Joplin to make an attempt to learn something about her. Read the Wiki; watch some videos on YouTube; maybe read some reviews of some of her albums. After a small amount of research, you might be able to come back and say something like, "I'm not a big fan of Janis Joplin; her music is mostly blues-based, and I prefer music that has a more complex harmonic structure," or, "I think Janis Joplin is great; I really like her singing and the guys in her band were great musicians," and either one of these opinions would be welcomed and valued.

I am sure that if you were willing to make the effort, you might be able to decide what you think of Ken Pomeroy's methods based on something more than that you think he has misrepresented the strength of Kentucky's schedule thus far. If you go to his site, you can read descriptions of how the metrics are calculated. If you then think that his system is measuring the wrong things, you could come back and tell us how you think the method is in error. Perhaps it places not enough emphasis on what the opponent's ranking is in the AP poll, for example; in that case you could come back here and tell us how and why you think it is flawed.

No system is perfect, for sure. All systems produce more errors early in the season than they do late in the season, because of a smaller number of observations. It might be fair, therefore, to also remember that even the "eye test" is subject to sampling bias when the number of events is small; in other words, even your "eye test" and "common sense" get more accurate as the season progresses and you have more data to assimilate.

In the meantime, all reasoned arguments are welcomed and considered, but you might want to cut back a little on the outrage and ad hominem attacks.

[Ultrarunner]

uh_no, thanks for the explanation of Pomeroy's model. I'm sure kedsy and ultrarunner would find your description informative as well.

I would agree with the 4 assumptions you listed as well. I certainly think he's put a lot of work into his model predicting likelihood of winning.

However, the issue was how well his actual SOS measure reflected a team's actual SOS, not predictive accuracy. I would say the RPI's SOS measure as #6 more accurately reflects the Kentucky's schedule thus far than 74th. I don't see how you can rank a team's SOS so low given they've played and beaten more top teams than any other one. Do you know how Pomeroy calculates strength of schedule?

Per Pomeroy - (It's a three-part defense of the RPI but this is the lead paragraph.) http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/defending_the_rpi_part_1_of_3


"Most discussion of the RPI involves the weaknesses of the system. I haven’t seen anyone come to its defense, but the RPI is not that bad, really. Let me clarify - in the middle of December it's bad. But the RPI is a tool in the tournament selction {sic} process, so it's not meant to be used until March."

And a simple search would yield the information on how Pomeroy calculates the SOS. http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_explanation

The way I compute SOS is to average the opponents offensive and defensive ratings and to apply the pythagorean calculation to them to rank the overall schedules. So those are the three columns you see, Pyth (Overall SOS), AdjO (Opponents’ average adjusted offensive efficiency), and AdjD (Opponents’ average adjusted defensive efficiency). When comparing the offensive performance of players on different teams, there’s quite a bit of an advantage having their average opponents’ defense quantified. There’s also a column for non-conference SOS which attempts to capture the portion of the schedule under a school’s control. Thus, no postseason or conference games are included in that calculation.

And you're right. I did learn a bit from uh_no's response to you. Kedsy is pretty sharp so I doubt he needed the refresher.

[Duke95]

Duke95, I don't know how long you've been around here, but you've come into this thread like a bull in a china shop. I just want to let you know that around here we generally don't debate in the fashion that you are demonstrating here, although I know it is probably the norm on many forums.

Here, rather than insulting people and/or systems, we try to create some sort of rational discussion about a topic. For example, your dismissal of KenPom based on the fact that you'd never heard of it is not a rational argument. When I met my wife, she had never heard of Janis Joplin. The merits/shortcomings of Janis Joplin and her music can be debated, and people could have opinions on either side, but "Janis Joplin sucks because I've never heard of her" is not a rational argument and is never going to work.

A more productive approach would be for the person who has never heard of Janis Joplin to make an attempt to learn something about her. Read the Wiki; watch some videos on YouTube; maybe read some reviews of some of her albums. After a small amount of research, you might be able to come back and say something like, "I'm not a big fan of Janis Joplin; her music is mostly blues-based, and I prefer music that has a more complex harmonic structure," or, "I think Janis Joplin is great; I really like her singing and the guys in her band were great musicians," and either one of these opinions would be welcomed and valued.

I am sure that if you were willing to make the effort, you might be able to decide what you think of Ken Pomeroy's methods based on something more than that you think he has misrepresented the strength of Kentucky's schedule thus far. If you go to his site, you can read descriptions of how the metrics are calculated. If you then think that his system is measuring the wrong things, you could come back and tell us how you think the method is in error. Perhaps it places not enough emphasis on what the opponent's ranking is in the AP poll, for example; in that case you could come back here and tell us how and why you think it is flawed.

No system is perfect, for sure. All systems produce more errors early in the season than they do late in the season, because of a smaller number of observations. It might be fair, therefore, to also remember that even the "eye test" is subject to sampling bias when the number of events is small; in other words, even your "eye test" and "common sense" get more accurate as the season progresses and you have more data to assimilate.

In the meantime, all reasoned arguments are welcomed and considered, but you might want to cut back a little on the outrage and ad hominem attacks.

First of all, I was not the one that began the ad hominem attacks. You may want to look a little further up and note that those began with kedsy and continued with ultrarunner.
I will withdraw any ad hominem attacks on my end with apologies to those insulted.

Second, my criticism is to what I perceive to be a blind adherence to a statistical ranking system that many people don't seem to understand very clearly. But let's talk about the criticism of the SOS. The problem I perceive with this can be summarized by the flaw of averages, or akin to the well-work didactic story of the economist who drowned in water that was, on average, one foot deep. Playing a few easy teams will water down a team's SOS (e.g., Kentucky), even if that team has played very strong opponents. The claim that, for example, Louisville won't be a top 5 team after this week and that somehow undermines UK's SOS is, frankly, erroneous at best.

Simply stating that a model is based on "data" doesn't mean anything. The data may be accurately collected, but if the model is misapplied, then the results are meaningless. I am not levying this criticism against Pomeroy, who has built quite an analytical framework and deserves praise for his work (as do the others on whom his work relies). I do think, however, that such models would benefit from a more critical audience.

[uh_no]

uh_no, thanks for the explanation of Pomeroy's model. I'm sure kedsy and ultrarunner would find your description informative as well.

I would agree with the 4 assumptions you listed as well. I certainly think he's put a lot of work into his model predicting likelihood of winning.

However, the issue was how well his actual SOS measure reflected a team's actual SOS, not predictive accuracy. I would say the RPI's SOS measure as #6 more accurately reflects the Kentucky's schedule thus far than 74th. I don't see how you can rank a team's SOS so low given they've played and beaten more top teams than any other one. Do you know how Pomeroy calculates strength of schedule?

I don't know for sure, but i believe he simply averages the offensive and defensive efficiencies of your opponents...it's very crude, but as I said, he doesn't use it to calculate the team's overall rating, it's simply a fun thing to calculate FROM a teams overall rating.

Further, it's a fools errand to try to boil down SOS to a single number. In the case of kenpom SOS, their number is probably pushed down by the fact that they had so many terrible opponents, while in other rankings, it may be pushed up due to their play against a few very good teams.

I think instead of arguing about whether some rating says one thing or another, we should take a step back:

UK has played and beaten UL, who is an excellent team, as well as kansas and texas, who are both also pretty good. I'm not sure what got us on to this argument, but it's ridiculous to say that either UK has a gaudy record because of a weak SOS, or that they have necessarily played the toughest OVERALL schedule, despite perhaps having some of the toughest games.

[tbyers11]

uh_no, thanks for the explanation of Pomeroy's model. I'm sure kedsy and ultrarunner would find your description informative as well.

I would agree with the 4 assumptions you listed as well. I certainly think he's put a lot of work into his model predicting likelihood of winning.

However, the issue was how well his actual SOS measure reflected a team's actual SOS, not predictive accuracy. I would say the RPI's SOS measure as #6 more accurately reflects the Kentucky's schedule thus far than 74th. I don't see how you can rank a team's SOS so low given they've played and beaten more top teams than any other one. Do you know how Pomeroy calculates strength of schedule?

Pomeroy calculates SOS by averaging the pythagorean expectancies (calculated from off and def efficiencies) for each team played. **(I think so at least. I tried calculating Duke's by hand in this method and got a value close to what he currently lists but not exact. The difference may be b/c the pythagorean values Pom used would be from the time the games were played whereas I only have access to the today's current values)

RPI SOS is calculated by (2/3 its opponents' winning percentage and 1/3 its opponents' opponents' winning percentage).

Personally, I think Pomeroy SOS makes a lot more sense by averaging the value of how good your opponents are. RPI SOS only accounts for the W/L record of the opponents. I think that can be skewed, particularly early in the year, if a team has played a very weak schedule. A lot of teams can be 9-1 by beating up on a soft schedule and their high winning pct will boost their opponents RPI SOS. I guess the 25% from opponents' opponents winning percentage tries to address the strength of your opponent but it seems quite flawed to me.

The main crux of your argument regarding UK seems to be that UK has one of the best, if not the best, schedule based on playing and beating "top" (a subjective measure that I won't argue further here) teams to date. I don't disagree but this is not how I (or Pom or Sagarin) measure schedule strength. They define schedule strength as the entire schedule that a team has played not just "top" teams. Top 25 and Top 50 RPI wins are a metric used by the NCAA selection committee and are of importance but to me that is a different thing than "schedule strength".

RPI has UK with SOS of #6 and this meets your "eye" test. However, I don't think this argues that RPI SOS is better measurement of SOS than other systems but just that it meets your pre-defined criteria that a system is good if it ranks UK SOS high.

Systems that 1) account for a measurement of team strength (not just win-loss record) and 2) account for the entirety of the schedule played in the SOS are better in my opinion. I don't think they are wrong because they rank UK's SOS lower (Pomeroy currently has UK SOS at 83 and Sagarin has them at 43) than RPI. Playing 1 or 2 really bad teams can really knock these SOS metrics down and therefore very few elite teams are at the top of the rankings. For example only 6 of Pomeroy's top 25 teams have SOS better than UK's 83.

However, on the whole I agree with uh_no above that calculating SOS as a discrete value is difficult for many reasons. IMO, both 1) wins against top teams and 2) strength of entire schedule have value in considering a team's resume.

[nocilla]

I don't see how you can rank a team's SOS so low given they've played and beaten more top teams than any other one. Do you know how Pomeroy calculates strength of schedule?

I have noticed that you continually use UK's wins over top teams to justify a top strength of schedule. I just want to clarify that the outcome of the individual games is mostly irrelevent to the strength of schedule argument. If a team plays 10 games and they are all against top 10 teams then they would have played the toughest schedule even if they lost all 10 games.

[Duke95]

I don't know for sure, but i believe he simply averages the offensive and defensive efficiencies of your opponents...it's very crude, but as I said, he doesn't use it to calculate the team's overall rating, it's simply a fun thing to calculate FROM a teams overall rating.

Further, it's a fools errand to try to boil down SOS to a single number. In the case of kenpom SOS, their number is probably pushed down by the fact that they had so many terrible opponents, while in other rankings, it may be pushed up due to their play against a few very good teams.

I think instead of arguing about whether some rating says one thing or another, we should take a step back:

UK has played and beaten UL, who is an excellent team, as well as kansas and texas, who are both also pretty good. I'm not sure what got us on to this argument, but it's ridiculous to say that either UK has a gaudy record because of a weak SOS, or that they have necessarily played the toughest OVERALL schedule, despite perhaps having some of the toughest games.

But you see, that's exactly the point. Nobody really seems to know "for sure" and yet people jump to Pomeroy's defense immediately as though challenging his assumptions is akin to committing some grave offense against the basketball gods.

Here is what Pomeroy says: "The way I compute SOS is to average the opponents offensive and defensive ratings and to apply the pythagorean calculation to them to rank the overall schedules. " Ok, but why? Why is that a good measure of the SOS? As I said, I have a hard time justifying that methodology when juxtaposing it against UK's schedule. Here are a couple points worth mentioning, IMO:

1. A team's offensive and defensive rating perhaps should be adjusted by how long the starters are in there. In some of these blowouts, the benches are cleared and we end up with a brick-fest that is not indicative of a team's efficiency.
2. Ken Pomeroy's model is designed for predictive ability. There is a fundamental difference in forecasting between an explanatory model and one simply designed to forecast. Many times, the latter are atheoretical. Thus, I think that concluding that because Pomeroy's model does a good job predicting outcomes, therefore each metric must be accurate, is based upon a faulty premise.

So to summarize, I am not criticizing Pomeroy's predictive model. I was only discussing his SOS measure. And second, I would think it would behoove fans who are so deeply involved in the sport to be a bit more critical and skeptical of any statistical models. The way models get better is through constant testing and re-testing, which are often the result of skeptical peer review.

[Duke95]

I have noticed that you continually use UK's wins over top teams to justify a top strength of schedule. I just want to clarify that the outcome of the individual games is mostly irrelevent to the strength of schedule argument. If a team plays 10 games and they are all against top 10 teams then they would have played the toughest schedule even if they lost all 10 games.

Yes, I agree, but it also depends where that team is ranked. If they're number 1, they're beating lesser opponents. If that team is ranked #30, they're beating higher ranked opponents. So, as I understand it, the impact on SOS is different in these two cases.

[nocilla]

Yes, I agree, but it also depends where that team is ranked. If they're number 1, they're beating lesser opponents. If that team is ranked #30, they're beating higher ranked opponents. So, as I understand it, the impact on SOS is different in these two cases.

No, where the team is ranked does not change their SOS at all. Their opponents are basically either good or not good. One team's ranking has no bearings on how good the opponent is. Regardless of whether UK is ranked #1 or #50, if they are playing #4 Louisville it will boost their SOS. If they play a team ranked #200 it will lower their SOS.

[Duke95]

No, where the team is ranked does not change their SOS at all. Their opponents are basically either good or not good. One team's ranking has no bearings on how good the opponent is. Regardless of whether UK is ranked #1 or #50, if they are playing #4 Louisville it will boost their SOS. If they play a team ranked #200 it will lower their SOS.

What I was trying to say is this. Suppose #1 plays #2. My understanding is that the game will benefit the SOS of both teams, but #2 will benefit more because they are playing a higher ranked team, but #1 will benefit slightly less because they are playing a lower ranked team. In other works, the relative ranking matters, not just the absolute. I think this affects the #1 team because, by definition, they cannot play a team with a higher relative ranking.

At least that's my understanding. I could be wrong.

[sagegrouse]

I don't know for sure, but i believe he simply averages the offensive and defensive efficiencies of your opponents...it's very crude, but as I said, he doesn't use it to calculate the team's overall rating, it's simply a fun thing to calculate FROM a teams overall rating.

Further, it's a fools errand to try to boil down SOS to a single number. In the case of kenpom SOS, their number is probably pushed down by the fact that they had so many terrible opponents, while in other rankings, it may be pushed up due to their play against a few very good teams.

I think instead of arguing about whether some rating says one thing or another, we should take a step back:

UK has played and beaten UL, who is an excellent team, as well as kansas and texas, who are both also pretty good. I'm not sure what got us on to this argument, but it's ridiculous to say that either UK has a gaudy record because of a weak SOS, or that they have necessarily played the toughest OVERALL schedule, despite perhaps having some of the toughest games.


First of all, I was not the one that began the ad hominem attacks. You may want to look a little further up and note that those began with kedsy and continued with ultrarunner.
I will withdraw any ad hominem attacks on my end with apologies to those insulted.

Second, my criticism is to what I perceive to be a blind adherence to a statistical ranking system that many people don't seem to understand very clearly. But let's talk about the criticism of the SOS. The problem I perceive with this can be summarized by the flaw of averages, or akin to the well-work didactic story of the economist who drowned in water that was, on average, one foot deep. Playing a few easy teams will water down a team's SOS (e.g., Kentucky), even if that team has played very strong opponents. The claim that, for example, Louisville won't be a top 5 team after this week and that somehow undermines UK's SOS is, frankly, erroneous at best.

Simply stating that a model is based on "data" doesn't mean anything. The data may be accurately collected, but if the model is misapplied, then the results are meaningless. I am not levying this criticism against Pomeroy, who has built quite an analytical framework and deserves praise for his work (as do the others on whom his work relies). I do think, however, that such models would benefit from a more critical audience.


Yes, I agree, but it also depends where that team is ranked. If they're number 1, they're beating lesser opponents. If that team is ranked #30, they're beating higher ranked opponents. So, as I understand it, the impact on SOS is different in these two cases.

RPI is used by the Tournament Selection Committee, along with the other metrics and human analysis (i.e., evaluating teams by watching a bunch of games -- who knew?). Not too long ago, it was thought that "20 wins" was a sure route to a NCAA bid and teams scheduled accordingly. The TSC has been "leaning into the wind" for a decade or so, trying to get teams to schedule tough opponents and rewarding -- to some extent -- those who do. Moreover, this is aided and abetted by not counting "margin of victory" in the RPI.*

Why? Two reasons: (1) Simple fairness and sportsmanship. (2) Economics.

On the latter point the NCAA is a cartel dominated by the major conferences. Games between top teams earn a lot more money for the sport and top schools (TV rights and gate receipts) than games between top teams and the bottom of the Division I rankings. The TSC may not harbor the evil thoughts of a monopolist (in this case, all to the good for the average fan, who likes games that represent meaningful competition). But the stress on the RPI does make teams think carefully about whom they schedule.

Kindly, Sage
*A reporter once asked Billy Tubbs of Oklahoma, "What do you say to a coach you've just beaten by 80 points?" "Can you come back next year," replied Mr. Tubbs.

[gam7]

No, where the team is ranked does not change their SOS at all. Their opponents are basically either good or not good. One team's ranking has no bearings on how good the opponent is. Regardless of whether UK is ranked #1 or #50, if they are playing #4 Louisville it will boost their SOS. If they play a team ranked #200 it will lower their SOS.

Two questions on Pomeroy's SOS:

1. Is his SOS number at any given time based on games played up to that time, or is it based on the full schedule?

2. Does venue of games matter in determining SOS? I don't think Pomeroy explicitly mentions it as a factor, but perhaps it is baked in to numbers on which his SOS measure is based? If so, this might explain how a team like Texas Southern has the most difficult SOS - their schedule has been VERY tough, PLUS they have played virtually all of them in true road games.

[uh_no]

Two questions on Pomeroy's SOS:

1. Is his SOS number at any given time based on games played up to that time, or is it based on the full schedule?

2. Does venue of games matter in determining SOS? I don't think Pomeroy explicitly mentions it as a factor, but perhaps it is baked in to numbers on which his SOS measure is based? If so, this might explain how a team like Texas Southern has the most difficult SOS - their schedule has been VERY tough, PLUS they have played virtually all of them in true road games.
He only accounts for past games. Location I'd adjusted for in calculating a team's efficiency, on which the sos is based

[JasonEvans]

Here is the problem with the seemingly endless argument between Duke95 and, well, everyone else in this thread **

"Strongest schedule" is a subjective thing. Some say "strength" should be determined by how difficult all your games were, on average. Some say strength is measured by the quality/difficulty of your most challenging opponents.

Team X plays the #2, #3, #5, #8, #167, #246, #312 and #322 team in the land. Team Z plays 8 games against teams ranked between #40 and #80. Which schedule is harder? Well, the average opponent that Team Z played was higher ranked than the average opponent that Team X played. The top-loaded schedule for Team X includes 4 games against teams likely capable of beating anyone in the land... but also 4 games against teams who have no chance against a good team. Is it harder to beat 4 great teams and 4 bad ones or is it tougher to beat 8 good teams with no cupcakes at all in the mix?

I don't know the definitive answer. It is subjective and that is fine. That said, most folks who measure SOS tend to look toward the average of all your opponents. That kind of measurement is less subjective and more quantitative than guessing at which opponents were really tough and which were too easy. In recent years, we have gravitated toward quant analysis much more in sports versus the traditional subjective "eye test." That said, when NCAA seeding time rolls around in Feb and March, analysts (armchair and professional) all like to talk about "good wins" and how teams have done against the Top 25/50/100 teams in the RPI/Pomeroy/Sagarin/BPI.

So, bottom line, there won't be a "winner" in this discussion. Duke95 will insist upon his eye test and his impression of the quality of some of the teams Kentucky has beaten. That's fine and is not fundamentally flawed. Others will look at Kentucky's average opponent and insist that Kentucky just hasn't played that many games against teams capable of beating them (or any other good team). Nothing wrong with that analysis either. Lets put our pitchforks down and acknowledge that both ways have at least some merit.

--Jason "worth noting -- some of the comments in this thread have crossed the line and infractions/warnings have been issued. I hope everyone responds with cooler heads going forward" Evans


**- As an aside, when it is you against the world, it may be time to consider that you are at least a little bit wrong and the world is at least a little bit right.

[brevity]

RPI is used by the Tournament Selection Committee, along with the other metrics and human analysis (i.e., evaluating teams by watching a bunch of games -- who knew?). Not too long ago, it was thought that "20 wins" was a sure route to a NCAA bid and teams scheduled accordingly. The TSC has been "leaning into the wind" for a decade or so, trying to get teams to schedule tough opponents and rewarding -- to some extent -- those who do. Moreover, this is aided and abetted by not counting "margin of victory" in the RPI.*

Huh. I was under the impression that the Selection Committee just looked for at-large teams that were better than Virginia Tech.


"Strongest schedule" is a subjective thing. Some say "strength" should be determined by how difficult all your games were, on average. Some say strength is measured by the quality/difficulty of your most challenging opponents.

Hallelujah. I can't believe it took this many posts for someone to point this out. Some of you want to talk about the anomalous "most quality wins" measure in an anomalous "strength of schedule" discussion. They don't go together. You pick one and stick with it.

DBR discussed "most quality wins" at length with regard to Carolina last season, when they kept beating ranked opponents and kept losing to unranked ones. That was fun. Well, the losing part.

[Duke95]

**- As an aside, when it is you against the world, it may be time to consider that you are at least a little bit wrong and the world is at least a little bit right.

I prefer:
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” -Mark Twain

I'm not sure what you mean by "you against the world". If you want me to admit that there is a possibility that Kentucky should have the 74th ranked SOS, I'm sorry, but that honestly doesn't make sense to me. Take a look at Pomeroy's rankings and sort them by SOS. Whom do you see? Not many teams who are in the Top 25, if any.

But I agree with the rest of your post.

Edit: I wonder if much of the disagreement is due to a difference between an absolute strength of schedule vs. a relative strength of schedule. Which I think is maybe what you were saying above, in which case I completely agree.

[JasonEvans]

If you want me to admit that there is a possibility that Kentucky should have the 74th ranked SOS, I'm sorry, but that honestly doesn't make sense to me.

Ummm, I know others have tried to explain this to you, but it is really just math. You can say that subjectively, you do not believe Kentucky' schedule is the 74th toughest in the land, but it is not like someone is just coming up with random rankings to determine that. Pomeroy is using math to reach his rankings. So, if they don't make sense to you, it is because you are choosing to ignore math reality and instead making observations only on your "eye test."


Take a look at Pomeroy's rankings and sort them by SOS. Whom do you see? Not many teams who are in the Top 25, if any.

Even if your point was true here, I am not sure it matters. We are merely debating the relative SOS of Kentucky versus the rest of the teams in college hoops. Whether the teams with the toughest schedules are among the best teams in the land or the worst is really not even remotely germane to this discussion. Now, if you were asserting that Kentucky had the hardest schedule among all the top tier teams in the country then your point would matter, but I don't think the discussion has veered in that direction at all.

Also, it is worth noting that 6 of Pomeroy's top 16 teams (Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Gonzaga, UNC, VCU, and Kansas) have better mathematical SOS than Kentucky. That means that 37.5% of the top 16 have faced a tougher schedule than Kentucky... according to the math.

-Jason "I appreciate your passion and agree that Kentucky has faced a large number of quality teams, but I am puzzled at your refusal to see the math behind Pom and other SOS measures" Evans

[Duke95]

Ummm, I know others have tried to explain this to you, but it is really just math. You can say that subjectively, you do not believe Kentucky' schedule is the 74th toughest in the land, but it is not like someone is just coming up with random rankings to determine that. Pomeroy is using math to reach his rankings. So, if they don't make sense to you, it is because you are choosing to ignore math reality and instead making observations only on your "eye test."


I think you may be puzzled by the fact that I'm not impressed by someone saying "it's math". Just because it's math doesn't mean it's correct. So many people here just seem to say exactly what you just did: hey it's math so it must be right. Any math must be better than what you seem to call an "eye" test and what I refer to as the opinions of the AP, coaches, etc. Frankly, that's just not true, and it won't be any more true if a million people repeat it. Math isn't a synonym for accurate.

Look, Pomeroy has tweaked his model before. He's changed his parameters. Why? Because new evidence warranted it. What I am suggesting here is that perhaps his SOS calculation may need a bit of tweaking as well.


Now, if you were asserting that Kentucky had the hardest schedule among all the top tier teams in the country then your point would matter, but I don't think the discussion has veered in that direction at all.


For crying out loud, that was my initial point. That's what started this whole argument.


UK has cleaned house. I don't care for them, but you have to give them credit. They've had the toughest schedule in the country and are undefeated.

[Kedsy]

For crying out loud, that was my initial point. That's what started this whole argument.

Well, no. "They've had the toughest schedule in the country" (your original remark) is very different from "Kentucky had the hardest schedule among all the top tier teams in the country." Although as Jason pointed out, even the second quote isn't actually true.

[Edouble]

Ummm, I know others have tried to explain this to you, but it is really just math. You can say that subjectively, you do not believe Kentucky' schedule is the 74th toughest in the land, but it is not like someone is just coming up with random rankings to determine that. Pomeroy is using math to reach his rankings. So, if they don't make sense to you, it is because you are choosing to ignore math reality and instead making observations only on your "eye test."

Math and science are not absolute nor are they infallible. This is why two scientists can look at the same data on temperature fluxuation and disagree on the extent or even the existence of global warming. Just to say that Mr. Pom uses math is not enough to justify that he is "correct".

Duke95 doesn't like his formula, plain and simple. He's watched the games and think that Kentucky has played some formidable opponents. He has a right to his opinion without people saying that it's laughable. Just like my example with global warming... his opinion on the gross difference in the RPI and Pomeroy ratings of Kentucky's SOS is that Pomeroy's system is flawed. Kedsey, uh, and a few others swear by Pomeroy, but Pomeroy will still have outliers. Duke95 thinks he's found one.

To say that it's him "against the world", so he should consider conforming to the general opinion of four or five posters is just, well... silly. I'm sure I'm not the only one sitting here in silence so far that thinks both sides have good points.

[Indoor66]

Math and science are not absolute nor are they infallible. This is why two scientists can look at the same data on temperature fluxuation and disagree on the extent or even the existence of global warming. Just to say that Mr. Pom uses math is not enough to justify that he is "correct".

Duke95 doesn't like his formula, plain and simple. He's watched the games and think that Kentucky has played some formidable opponents. He has a right to his opinion without people saying that it's laughable. Just like my example with global warming... his opinion on the gross difference in the RPI and Pomeroy ratings of Kentucky's SOS is that Pomeroy's system is flawed. Kedsey, uh, and a few others swear by Pomeroy, but Pomeroy will still have outliers. Duke95 thinks he's found one.

To say that it's him "against the world", so he should consider conforming to the general opinion of four or five posters is just, well... silly. I'm sure I'm not the only one sitting here in silence so far that thinks both sides have good points.

And I thought the science was settled. Foolish me. :cool:

[Duke95]

Well, no. "They've had the toughest schedule in the country" (your original remark) is very different from "Kentucky had the hardest schedule among all the top tier teams in the country." Although as Jason pointed out, even the second quote isn't actually true.

Actually, yes. The first by definition includes the second. If they have the toughest schedule in the country, that obviously includes all other top tier teams.

The debate is over whether people actually do think they have had such a hard schedule, not over the fact that I said it.

[Duke95]

Math and science are not absolute nor are they infallible. This is why two scientists can look at the same data on temperature fluxuation and disagree on the extent or even the existence of global warming. Just to say that Mr. Pom uses math is not enough to justify that he is "correct".

Duke95 doesn't like his formula, plain and simple. He's watched the games and think that Kentucky has played some formidable opponents. He has a right to his opinion without people saying that it's laughable. Just like my example with global warming... his opinion on the gross difference in the RPI and Pomeroy ratings of Kentucky's SOS is that Pomeroy's system is flawed. Kedsey, uh, and a few others swear by Pomeroy, but Pomeroy will still have outliers. Duke95 thinks he's found one.

To say that it's him "against the world", so he should consider conforming to the general opinion of four or five posters is just, well... silly. I'm sure I'm not the only one sitting here in silence so far that thinks both sides have good points.

Edouble, thank you for that even-handed and fair post. That is exactly what I was trying to say. I understand Pomeroy has a very good predictive model. However, that accuracy does not appear to extend to his SOS rankings, at least in my opinion. Just as he (Pomeroy), tweaks his predictive model by changing parameters, perhaps his SOS measure could do with some tweaking.

Or, how about two SOS measures: Absolute and Relative. The first would be more reflective of performance against top teams, while the second would reflect performance against teams better or worse than the benchmark team. So, say VCU may score very high on the latter, but lower on the former, for example.

[Wander]

This is why two scientists can look at the same data on temperature fluxuation and disagree on the extent or even the existence of global warming. Just to say that Mr. Pom uses math is not enough to justify that he is "correct".

Duke95 doesn't like his formula, plain and simple. He's watched the games and think that Kentucky has played some formidable opponents. He has a right to his opinion without people saying that it's laughable. Just like my example with global warming...

Um, the example for science analogy you've chosen makes the exact opposite of the point that you're trying to make. Maybe go with "whether Pluto should be a planet" or something.

[Kfanarmy]

Actually, yes. The first by definition includes the second. If they have the toughest schedule in the country, that obviously includes all other top tier teams.

The debate is over whether people actually do think they have had such a hard schedule, not over the fact that I said it.

I'm with you on the subjectivity versus statistics argument...I think both are useful in racking and stacking teams. One could argue if you haven't played UK, you haven't played the toughest schedule in the country. By that definition only 13 teams would be in the running for toughest schedule, and UK isn't one of them. If the term "strength of schedule" doesn't have a common understanding between two people, the argument is apples and oranges.

I'm not sure where you were going with the statement quoted above. Kedsy said "They've had the toughest schedule in the country" (your original remark) is very different from "Kentucky had the hardest schedule among all the top tier teams in the country." Your reply that one includes the other confirms Kedsy's point that they are different..though the degree that they are different is still subjective.

I doubt you can win the statistical argument because for some stats are a religion rather than a tool. The wrong team wins the tournament almost every year statistically and quite often the right team never makes it out of the first weekend.

[JasonEvans]

Actually, yes. The first by definition includes the second. If they have the toughest schedule in the country, that obviously includes all other top tier teams.

The debate is over whether people actually do think they have had such a hard schedule, not over the fact that I said it.

To clarify, I agree that Kentucky has played a hard schedule. They have clearly played several of the top teams in the country, including at least a few who can at least realistically dream of making the Final Four. I applaud Kentucky for taking on quality teams and wish more top tier teams would do so.

That said, I do not believe Kentucky has played the hardest schedule in the country. Playing teams like Grand Canyon, Montana St, and UT-Arlington means Kentucky has faced some exceedingly weak clubs... teams so bad they would probably lose by double-digits to Va Tech. Kansas, for example, hasn't played a single team ranked outside the top 175 in Pomerory's rankings and I believe the KU overall schedule is tougher than Kentucky's. I see more teams on KU's schedule who are capable of beating a very good team than on Kentucky's schedule.

I don't know exactly where Kentucky's schedule should rank among the 350 or so teams in Div 1 basketball. I do think Pomeroy's number (74 at last check) seems a bit low, but I can understand that he is using some well-regarded metrics to come up with that and that is good enough for me to not dismiss it out of hand or say that I can't understand how that ranking is possible.

-Jason "now, if we can just morph this thread into a debate about global warming the transformation will be complete and it will no longer have any relation to the Kentucky hoops team ;) " Evans

[NSDukeFan]

I can't read this conversation without thinking of the episode of Friends when Phoebe didn't believe in evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr2kF0zEgI
"I guess the question is who put the fossils there and why?"

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think you may be puzzled by the fact that I'm not impressed by someone saying "it's math". Just because it's math doesn't mean it's correct. So many people here just seem to say exactly what you just did: hey it's math so it must be right. Any math must be better than what you seem to call an "eye" test and what I refer to as the opinions of the AP, coaches, etc. Frankly, that's just not true, and it won't be any more true if a million people repeat it. Math isn't a synonym for accurate.

Well, that's just a weird thing to say. As Jason Evans pointed out eloquently earlier, the problem isn't the math, but what you are measuring. The math isn't the problem, or even misleading. If I say "Mason Plumlee shot 100% from the FT line through 10 games," there's no question of what my math is interpreting. The fuzziness comes in when you get into gray areas. If we put two profiles up on the board and asked "which team played a higher average rank in their first ten games?" math would give you an infallible answer. If you looked at those same two profiles and said "which team played more top 50 teams?" again math would give you an infallible answer. The answer to those two questions can be very different.

As I see it, you are mistaken. Just because it's math DOES mean that it's correct - once you agree on the metrics you are measuring.

Perhaps reliance on math is skewed because of the current infatuation that sports seems to have with analytics, and perhaps it's skewed because it's a Duke message board, but I would rely on math over the "eye test" nine times out of ten.

[Edouble]

Um, the example for science analogy you've chosen makes the exact opposite of the point that you're trying to make. Maybe go with "whether Pluto should be a planet" or something.

I am pretty sure it does not. There are scientists, a small minority, that do not believe that the empirical evidence on temperature change points to man as a major cause of climate change. As the years go on, this minority becomes smaller and smaller, but it does have a voice. That voice was more prominent 10-20 years ago, but that further adds to the idea that science is not static facts. It is a collection of constantly evolving questions and observations.

Maybe in 10-20 games, Duke95 will be a huge proponent of Pomeroy. Perhaps, alternately, he will convince someone who loves Pomeroy that the system is flawed.

[Duke95]

To clarify, I agree that Kentucky has played a hard schedule. They have clearly played several of the top teams in the country, including at least a few who can at least realistically dream of making the Final Four.

See, now you've just used what you and others call the "eye" test, or what I call common sense. Which appears to also be in use by coaches and the AP.




That said, I do not believe Kentucky has played the hardest schedule in the country. Playing teams like Grand Canyon, Montana St, and UT-Arlington means Kentucky has faced some exceedingly weak clubs... teams so bad they would probably lose by double-digits to Va Tech. Kansas, for example, hasn't played a single team ranked outside the top 175 in Pomerory's rankings and I believe the KU overall schedule is tougher than Kentucky's. I see more teams on KU's schedule who are capable of beating a very good team than on Kentucky's schedule.

Fair enough. Kansas is also the only team in Pomeroy's top 115 to also have a SOS in the top 10. Only 4 of those teams have a SOS inside the top 20. Pomeroy's SOS is clearly weighted towards relative, not absolute SOS.



I don't know exactly where Kentucky's schedule should rank among the 350 or so teams in Div 1 basketball. I do think Pomeroy's number (74 at last check) seems a bit low, but I can understand that he is using some well-regarded metrics to come up with that and that is good enough for me to not dismiss it out of hand or say that I can't understand how that ranking is possible.

Here is where we disagree somewhat. When you say "well-regarded metrics", that's very fuzzy. The metric has to explain what you're trying to figure out. If I ask "what's the altitude" and you look at your thermometer and say "42 degrees", you've used a well-regarded metric, but you haven't answered my question.

I'm not saying Pomeroy has made a mathematical error, I'm simply saying that his mathematical calculation doesn't reflect the true strength of schedule. Just because it's math doesn't mean it's relevant to answering the question. The problem with Pomeroy's SOS is that it is an average of offensive and defensive ratings. Those may be good predictors of winning percentage, but they don't seem to accurately reflect a team's strength of schedule.

[Duke95]

Well, that's just a weird thing to say. As Jason Evans pointed out eloquently earlier, the problem isn't the math, but what you are measuring. The math isn't the problem, or even misleading. If I say "Mason Plumlee shot 100% from the FT line through 10 games," there's no question of what my math is interpreting. The fuzziness comes in when you get into gray areas. If we put two profiles up on the board and asked "which team played a higher average rank in their first ten games?" math would give you an infallible answer. If you looked at those same two profiles and said "which team played more top 50 teams?" again math would give you an infallible answer. The answer to those two questions can be very different.

As I see it, you are mistaken. Just because it's math DOES mean that it's correct - once you agree on the metrics you are measuring.


No, 2+2=5 is also math, but it's wrong. What I am pointing out is Pomeroy's use of math is perhaps not correct in its application to strength of schedule. Pomeroy could be wrong because he a) committed a math error, or b) is using factors applicable to winning prediction that do not translate to SOS.

Now, it true that Pomeroy has changed his parameters over time. It's clear that he felt the new parameters are more accurate. I haven't checked his math on SOS, but I assume he has done the computations correctly, and I believe that is a safe assumption. I am suggesting that perhaps the same type revision he applied to his parameters may benefit his SOS estimates as well.

[Kedsy]

I'm not saying Pomeroy has made a mathematical error, I'm simply saying that his mathematical calculation doesn't reflect the true strength of schedule.

Isn't it also possible that your opinion doesn't reflect the "true" strength of schedule? What makes your opinion true and Pomeroy (and most other computer systems) false?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No, 2+2=5 is also math, but it's wrong. What I am pointing out is Pomeroy's use of math is perhaps not correct in its application to strength of schedule. Pomeroy could be wrong because he a) committed a math error, or b) is using factors applicable to winning prediction that do not translate to SOS.

Now, it true that Pomeroy has changed his parameters over time. It's clear that he felt the new parameters are more accurate. I haven't checked his math on SOS, but I assume he has done the computations correctly, and I believe that is a safe assumption. I am suggesting that perhaps the same type revision he applied to his parameters may benefit his SOS estimates as well.

Okay, I was trying to make a point that you missed while at the same time giving you a gracious out - "hey, maybe we all have different interpretations of a strong schedule."

I will now bow out of this thread and leave you the title of the Most Not Obsessed With Kentucky.

[Wander]

I am pretty sure it does not. There are scientists, a small minority, that do not believe that the empirical evidence on temperature change points to man as a major cause of climate change. As the years go on, this minority becomes smaller and smaller, but it does have a voice. That voice was more prominent 10-20 years ago, but that further adds to the idea that science is not static facts. It is a collection of constantly evolving questions and observations.

Dude, there are people who believe we didn't land on the Moon. Some of them have phds. Some of them are engineers. You're never going to get literal 100% agreement on anything in a world with 7 billion people. Minority viewpoints are of course, as a general rule, fine, but that doesn't mean that some specific viewpoints aren't dumb.

I'm not applying that last note to Duke95, btw - again, I just think he's confusing "overall strength of schedule" with "probability of going undefeated," which are not the same thing.

[Henderson]

Dude, there are people who believe we didn't land on the Moon. Some of them have phds. Some of them are engineers. You're never going to get literal 100% agreement on anything in a world with 7 billion people. Minority viewpoints are of course, as a general rule, fine.
.

There used to be a drinking club that might still be out there: The Man Will Never Fly Club. They claimed this whole supposed "airplane" thing was a hoax. Their motto: "Birds fly, men drink." Tough to argue on either point.

Of course, some birds fly more than others. Some never do, and that makes me think they are missing out on some serious fun.

[NSDukeFan]

Dude, there are people who believe we didn't land on the Moon. Some of them have phds. Some of them are engineers. You're never going to get literal 100% agreement on anything in a world with 7 billion people. Minority viewpoints are of course, as a general rule, fine, but that doesn't mean that some specific viewpoints aren't dumb.

I'm not applying that last note to Duke95, btw - again, I just think he's confusing "overall strength of schedule" with "probability of going undefeated," which are not the same thing.

Since we cannot get 100% agreement, (is Jah still undefeated in the MOTM poll?), can we agree that UK may have played as many teams as anyone that had a legitimate chance to beat a top 5 team, but has overall not had the strongest average schedule due to the bottom feeders they have played?
No, that wouldn't work as legitimate has a lot of grey areas (1% chance, 5% chance? and we may or may not be able to use Pomeroy's predictions) and top 5 now, top 5 at the end of the year, top 5 KenPom, top 5 RPI, top 5 duke95's eye test?
Ok, no agreement, but at least all the discussions recently have been about the points the posters have made and not the posters themselves.

[Wander]

Since we cannot get 100% agreement, (is Jah still undefeated in the MOTM poll?), can we agree that UK may have played as many teams as anyone that had a legitimate chance to beat a top 5 team, but has overall not had the strongest average schedule due to the bottom feeders they have played?
No, that wouldn't work as legitimate has a lot of grey areas (1% chance, 5% chance? and we may or may not be able to use Pomeroy's predictions) and top 5 now, top 5 at the end of the year, top 5 KenPom, top 5 RPI, top 5 duke95's eye test?
Ok, no agreement, but at least all the discussions recently have been about the points the posters have made and not the posters themselves.

Despite the difficulty of setting an exact definition, yes, I agree with the spirit that UK has played a high amount of really good teams but don't have the strongest average SOS.

[Des Esseintes]

I am pretty sure it does not. There are scientists, a small minority, that do not believe that the empirical evidence on temperature change points to man as a major cause of climate change. As the years go on, this minority becomes smaller and smaller, but it does have a voice. That voice was more prominent 10-20 years ago, but that further adds to the idea that science is not static facts. It is a collection of constantly evolving questions and observations.

Maybe in 10-20 games, Duke95 will be a huge proponent of Pomeroy. Perhaps, alternately, he will convince someone who loves Pomeroy that the system is flawed.

Look, this is PPB material, so it has to stop. What you are saying is incorrect. A human-influenced global rise in temperatures is as close to established scientific consensus as you can find. So massive is the consensus that outside the English-speaking world there's not even a lay debate out it. I'm completely fine with the mods deleting all posts on global warming from this thread.

[Duke95]

Okay, I was trying to make a point that you missed while at the same time giving you a gracious out - "hey, maybe we all have different interpretations of a strong schedule."

I will now bow out of this thread and leave you the title of the Most Not Obsessed With Kentucky.

I don't need a gracious out. I think you missed the the point of this discussion, frankly.

[-jk]

No, 2+2=5 is also math, but it's wrong. What I am pointing out is Pomeroy's use of math is perhaps not correct in its application to strength of schedule. Pomeroy could be wrong because he a) committed a math error, or b) is using factors applicable to winning prediction that do not translate to SOS.

Now, it true that Pomeroy has changed his parameters over time. It's clear that he felt the new parameters are more accurate. I haven't checked his math on SOS, but I assume he has done the computations correctly, and I believe that is a safe assumption. I am suggesting that perhaps the same type revision he applied to his parameters may benefit his SOS estimates as well.

The NCAA, by its own criteria (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2014/story/_/id/10618717/2014-ncaa-tournament-florida-gators-earn-top-overall-seed), looks to a team's "total body of work". As I understand it, this means the committee looks at games v. top teams as well as games against teams that, charitably, aren't. "We look at the total body of work, everything they did from November to March," [NCAA's selection chair, Wellman,] said." So, strength of schedule: does it matter who're the best teams you play? Or all the teams you play?

Yeah, I'd love to see a SOS involving only top-40 teams for braggin' rights (we'd rock!), but the NCAA seems to count 'em all. Ergo Pom, Sagarin, et al (http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm), do, too.

YMMV.

-jk

[Duke95]

Dude, there are people who believe we didn't land on the Moon. Some of them have phds. Some of them are engineers. You're never going to get literal 100% agreement on anything in a world with 7 billion people. Minority viewpoints are of course, as a general rule, fine, but that doesn't mean that some specific viewpoints aren't dumb.

I'm not applying that last note to Duke95, btw - again, I just think he's confusing "overall strength of schedule" with "probability of going undefeated," which are not the same thing.

Nope, not confusing that either. Not sure where you got that, since I haven't even mentioned "probability of going undefeated." :rolleyes:

[Henderson]

Maybe in 10-20 games, Duke95 will be a huge proponent of Pomeroy. Perhaps, alternately, he will convince someone who loves Pomeroy that the system is flawed.


Despite the difficulty of setting an exact definition, yes, I agree with the spirit that UK has played a high amount of really good teams but don't have the strongest average SOS.

If I understand Duke95's main point (and I may not; it's been a very long discussion), it is this: Kentucky has played some very highly ranked teams and beaten all comers. They've also beaten bad teams. If someone suggests that they are overrated because someone else's computer model shows a weak SOS, perhaps we need to exercise our critical faculties about the model, because it seems to result in a different conclusion from what seems to be happening. Exclusive reliance on computer modeling requires one to be all in on what goes into the model. And Duke95 isn't convinced that the Pom model is accurate, given the disparity between its SOS and the fact that UK has beaten some very highly regarded opponents.

Do I have that right?

If so, I agree with Duke95.

I think the overarching question that all modeling addresses is this: How good is this team?

And I don't care if you consult the AP, the Coaches, Ken Pom, RPI, or your grandmother, but if your sources tell you that UK is not a really really good team that has beaten several really really good teams and lost to none, the problem may be your source, whether it's quant or just guesses. Because really really good is the reality.

Lots goes into a natty or undefeated, so UK can easily falter. But until they do, you won't convince me they are overrated by pointing to math that is based on human-constructed modeling.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don't need a gracious out.

And I get the sense you wouldn't take one anyway.

Enjoy the thread!

[Duke95]

The NCAA, by its own criteria (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2014/story/_/id/10618717/2014-ncaa-tournament-florida-gators-earn-top-overall-seed), looks to a team's "total body of work". As I understand it, this means the committee looks at games v. top teams as well as games against teams that, charitably, aren't. "We look at the total body of work, everything they did from November to March," [NCAA's selection chair, Wellman,] said." So, strength of schedule: does it matter who're the best teams you play? Or all the teams you play?

Yeah, I'd love to see a SOS involving only top-40 teams for braggin' rights (we'd rock!), but the NCAA seems to count 'em all. Ergo Pom, Sagarin, et al (http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm), do, too.

YMMV.

-jk

Wait, are you saying the NCAA uses the "eye test" too? Because a lot of posters here seem to think I somehow invented it, even though the NCAA, the AP, the coaches, all seem to use their eyes as well.

[Duke95]

If I understand Duke95's main point (and I may not; it's been a very long discussion), it is this: Kentucky has played some very highly ranked teams and beaten all comers. They've also beaten bad teams. If someone suggests that they are overrated because someone else's computer model shows a weak SOS, perhaps we need to exercise out critical faculties about the model, because it seems to result in a different conclusion from what seems to be happening. Exclusive reliance on computer modeling requires one to be all in on what goes into the model. And Duke95 isn't convinced that the Pom model is accurate, given the disparity between its SOS given the fact that UK has beaten some very highly regarded opponents.


That is exactly correct and eloquently put. That is my opinion in a nutshell.

[Des Esseintes]

If I understand Duke95's main point (and I may not; it's been a very long discussion), it is this: Kentucky has played some very highly ranked teams and beaten all comers. They've also beaten bad teams. If someone suggests that they are overrated because someone else's computer model shows a weak SOS, perhaps we need to exercise out critical faculties about the model, because it seems to result in a different conclusion from what seems to be happening. Exclusive reliance on computer modeling requires one to be all in on what goes into the model. And Duke95 isn't convinced that the Pom model is accurate, given the disparity between its SOS given the fact that UK has beaten some very highly regarded opponents.

Do I have that right?

If so, I agree with Duke95.

I think the overarching question that all modeling addresses is this: How good is this team?

And I don't care if you consult the AP, the Coaches, Ken Pom, RPI, or your grandmother, but if your sources tell you that UK is not a really really good team that has beaten several really really good teams and lost to none, the problem may be your source, whether it's quant or just guesses. Because really really good is the reality.

Lots goes into a natty or undefeated, so UK can easily falter. But until they do, you won't fonvince me with math based on human-constructed modeling.
No. No one has said this. What everyone has been trying to say is that Duke95's statement that UK has played the toughest schedule in the country is not factually correct. I don't think ANYONE has said UK is overrated.

Please. This isn't hard. The difficulty of your schedule is a value COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED to how strong you are as a team.

1.UK has played a good schedule.
2. It is not the best schedule.
3. They are deservedly ranked #1 by every system, human or computer.

None of these are contradictory statements. This thread makes me feel as though I've been taking crazy pills.

[-jk]

Wait, are you saying the NCAA uses the "eye test" too? Because a lot of posters here seem to think I somehow invented it, even though the NCAA, the AP, the coaches, all seem to use their eyes as well.

Quite the opposite - I reported the NCAA counts the entirety of a schedule, not just the top wins - however impressive.

-jk

[Henderson]

No. No one has said this. What everyone has been trying to say is that Duke95's statement that UK has played the toughest schedule in the country is not factually correct. I don't think ANYONE has said UK is overrated.

Please. This isn't hard. The difficulty of your schedule is a value COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED to how strong you are as a team.

1.UK has played a good schedule.
2. It is not the best schedule.
3. They are deservedly ranked #1 by every system, human or computer.

None of these are contradictory statements. This thread makes me feel as though I've been taking crazy pills.

Toughest? Don't know about toughest, but they've beaten all comers, including some really really good teams. And if a human-constructed model suggests they've played a relatively weak schedule, i'm inclined to be more critical of the human inputs that created the model.

I'm not subscribing to Duke95's positions or posts en masse, just the theme I discern and described above. If I missed the point, never mind me.

[Duke95]

No. No one has said this. What everyone has been trying to say is that Duke95's statement that UK has played the toughest schedule in the country is not factually correct. I don't think ANYONE has said UK is overrated.

Please. This isn't hard. The difficulty of your schedule is a value COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED to how strong you are as a team.

1.UK has played a good schedule.
2. It is not the best schedule.
3. They are deservedly ranked #1 by every system, human or computer.

None of these are contradictory statements. This thread makes me feel as though I've been taking crazy pills.

Sorry, but you clearly have not followed the argument. I'm going to let this go, because I am repeating myself.

This is NOT about UK being overrated or underrated. At all. This is about whether UK's SOS according to Pomeroy is an accurate reflection of the true strength of their competition. It also has nothing to do with probability of going undefeated.

And UK has played more than just a "good schedule." Seriously now. Kansas, Texas, Louisville, UNC, UCLA. Have they played some easy teams? Yes. But that body of work so far is impressive and nonpareil, IMO.

[Duke95]

Quite the opposite - I reported the NCAA counts the entirety of a schedule, not just the top wins, however impressive.

-jk

That "entirety" part is what is missing from Pomeroy. It's just a math model. Which may benefit from some tweaking.

[NSDukeFan]

Sorry, but you clearly have not followed the argument. I'm going to let this go, because I am repeating myself.

This is NOT about UK being overrated or underrated. At all. This is about whether UK's SOS according to Pomeroy is an accurate reflection of the true strength of their competition. It also has nothing to do with probability of going undefeated.

And UK has played more than just a "good schedule." Seriously now. Kansas, Texas, Louisville, UNC, UCLA. Have they played some easy teams? Yes. But that body of work so far is impressive and nonpareil, IMO.


That "entirety" part is what is missing from Pomeroy. It's just a math model. Which may benefit from some tweaking.
I would argue it is exactly the entirety that is missing from your argument. I agree UK has played some good teams, perhaps as many really strong teams as anyone, maybe more. The disagreement I have is that the entirety of their schedule has been the toughest in the country. In this, I like KenPom's mathematical model better than your (they have played tough teams and beaten them and looked good doing it) model.

[Henderson]

I don't think ANYONE has said UK is overrated.

Please. This isn't hard. The difficulty of your schedule is a value COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED to how strong you are as a team.

1.UK has played a good schedule.
2. It is not the best schedule.
3. They are deservedly ranked #1 by every system, human or computer.

None of these are contradictory statements. This thread makes me feel as though I've been taking crazy pills.

Well I agree with all this too, but "best schedule" is also subjective. Who is the best astronaut of all time? You want Neil Armstrong? I can create that model for you on agreed facts. You want Yuri Gagarin? I can use the same facts and create a model for that conclusion too. KenPom is the favored modeler for this? OK.

But the whole point of ranking teams is to figure out who is better, so you can't blithely separate the question, "How good is UK?" from this SOS question. Isn't that the point of discussing SOS, to rank quality? Otherwise, it's just an arid discussion.

Maybe everyone is just talking past one another here. I'm following the Jason Evans dictum: when you've made your point, time to move on.

[Des Esseintes]

Sorry, but you clearly have not followed the argument. I'm going to let this go, because I am repeating myself.

This is NOT about UK being overrated or underrated. At all. This is about whether UK's SOS according to Pomeroy is an accurate reflection of the true strength of their competition. It also has nothing to do with probability of going undefeated.

And UK has played more than just a "good schedule." Seriously now. Kansas, Texas, Louisville, UNC, UCLA. Have they played some easy teams? Yes. But that body of work so far is impressive and nonpareil, IMO.

Texas Southern has the #1 SOS on kenpom. Here's who Texas Southern has played (rankings are kenpom rankings):
#44 Indiana
#35 SMU
#19 Baylor
#14 Florida
#5 Gonzaga
#22 Michigan State

They've also played Tennessee (#95) and K-State (#97), decent high-major squads. Eastern Washington (#103) is solid as well. They have played only one genuinely bad team, Lamar.

#58 UCLA
#10 Texas
#7 Louisville
#9 UNC
#16 Kansas

UK has played three top-ten teams, which is terrific. Those plus KU are its only top-fifty opponents, however, and that fact drags UK's SOS down. Others have pointed out UK has played a bunch of atrocious teams. Again, Kentucky has played an excellent schedule. For the best teams in the country, it's hard to get a super-high SOS ranking because there are so many schools like Texas Southern, bad teams who play a murderer's row of big-time programs for the paycheck. Kentucky's accomplishments against its schedule are without peer, I agree with you. But I think most rational observers would say Texas Southern's has a broader swath of quality and a much higher floor.

[Duke95]

UK has played three top-ten teams, which is terrific. Those plus KU are its only top-fifty opponents, however, and that fact drags UK's SOS down. Others have pointed out UK has played a bunch of atrocious teams. Again, Kentucky has played an excellent schedule. For the best teams in the country, it's hard to get a super-high SOS ranking because there are so many schools like Texas Southern, bad teams who play a murderer's row of big-time programs for the paycheck. Kentucky's accomplishments against its schedule are without peer, I agree with you. But I think most rational observers would say Texas Southern's has a broader swath of quality and a much higher floor.

I agree with all this. I would say Texas Southern has played a tougher schedule relative to itself. As I think we both pointed out, that tends to happen to the lesser ranked teams because there are more highly-ranked teams ahead of them.

What I suggested is that perhaps we need two SOS measures, including one that weighs wins against highly ranked opponents more heavily. In absolute terms, I would say UK has played the toughest schedule so far, meaning they have played the most high-quality opponents.

[uh_no]

That "entirety" part is what is missing from Pomeroy. It's just a math model. Which may benefit from some tweaking.

which part of averaging ALL your opponents makes pomeroy not "entirely" encompassing? It seems about as entirely as you can get.

[Duke95]

I would argue it is exactly the entirety that is missing from your argument. I agree UK has played some good teams, perhaps as many really strong teams as anyone, maybe more.

UK hasn't just played "some good teams."

As to your "perhaps as many really strong teams as anyone" comment, who else has played as many? Anyone played more?

[uh_no]

This thread makes me feel as though I've been taking crazy pills.

Did you also invent the piano-key necktie? :P

[Duke95]

which part of averaging ALL your opponents makes pomeroy not "entirely" encompassing? It seems about as entirely as you can get.

The part where he's not including other metrics of opponents' performance.

And as far as "averages":

http://www.danielvaverka.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/flaw-of-averages-1.jpg

[uh_no]

The part where he's not including other metrics of opponents' performance.


That's because it's the kenpom SOS....not the "kengarinPI SOS"

[Des Esseintes]

I agree with all this. I would say Texas Southern has played a tougher schedule relative to itself. As I think we both pointed out, that tends to happen to the lesser ranked teams because there are more highly-ranked teams ahead of them.

What I suggested is that perhaps we need two SOS measures, including one that weighs wins against highly ranked opponents more heavily. In absolute terms, I would say UK has played the toughest schedule so far, meaning they have played the most high-quality opponents.

Wait, this is where we're getting off track. How you perform against your schedule is great for determining how good you are as a team. But how you perform against your schedule is almost immaterial for determining your schedule strength. Whether UK won or lost against Louisville had only a nominal effect on its SOS. (It had a small effect, because Louisville fell in the overall power rankings as a result of an 8-pt home loss.) A ranking that incorporates schedule strength AND performance against that schedule is the main ranking, on kenpom as well as elsewhere. By that measure, UK is far and away the number one on kenpom, in complete agreement with you.

[Duke95]

That's because it's the kenpom SOS....not the "kengarinPI SOS"

That exactly does that add to the discussion? I know it's Pomeroy. We're talking about whether it's accurate, not whether Pomeroy has the right to do it. I mean, really.

[Duke95]

Wait, this is where we're getting off track. How you perform against your schedule is great for determining how good you are as a team. But how you perform against your schedule is almost immaterial for determining your schedule strength. Whether UK won or lost against Louisville had only a nominal effect on its SOS. (It had a small effect, because Louisville fell in the overall power rankings as a result of an 8-pt home loss.) A ranking that incorporates schedule strength AND performance against that schedule is the main ranking, on kenpom as well as elsewhere. By that measure, UK is far and away the number one on kenpom, in complete agreement with you.

I misspoke. I didn't mean wins, I meant games.

[uh_no]

That exactly does that add to the discussion?

Hopefully a chuckle here and there.

[Duke95]

Hopefully a chuckle here and there.

If Pomeroy tweaks his SOS, I promise I'll tweak my sense of humor. :)

[Henderson]

Hopefully a chuckle here and there.

This thread could use more of that. More cartoons would be good. Has Bucky Katt ever weighed in on UK's SOS? You KNOW he has his opinions on the matter.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If Pomeroy tweaks his SOS, I promise I'll tweak my sense of humor. :)

You have been on this board for 2 months. You have made 83 posts. A full 55 of them are in some reference to Kentucky. You epitomize this thread.

That's 66%, if you prefer math.

[tbyers11]

Wait, this is where we're getting off track. How you perform against your schedule is great for determining how good you are as a team. But how you perform against your schedule is almost immaterial for determining your schedule strength. Whether UK won or lost against Louisville had only a nominal effect on its SOS. (It had a small effect, because Louisville fell in the overall power rankings as a result of an 8-pt home loss.) A ranking that incorporates schedule strength AND performance against that schedule is the main ranking, on kenpom as well as elsewhere. By that measure, UK is far and away the number one on kenpom, in complete agreement with you.

This.

KenPom's main "weighted" rating incorporates SOS into the "raw" offensive and defensive efficiency values generated from the game results.

Beating Virginia by 20 points improves your overall "weighted" rating a lot more than beating Presbyterian by 20.

[sagegrouse]

Look, this is PPB material, so it has to stop. What you are saying is incorrect. A human-influenced global rise in temperatures is as close to established scientific consensus as you can find. So massive is the consensus that outside the English-speaking world there's not even a lay debate out it. I'm completely fine with the mods deleting all posts on global warming from this thread.

PLEASE don't delete. It's been below-zero here all day and it appears to be our only hope.

[Edouble]

Dude, there are people who believe we didn't land on the Moon. Some of them have phds. Some of them are engineers. You're never going to get literal 100% agreement on anything in a world with 7 billion people. Minority viewpoints are of course, as a general rule, fine, but that doesn't mean that some specific viewpoints aren't dumb.

You're talking about conspiracy theories, not science. I don't know why you would take things in that direction, but I'm not gonna "wander" down there with you.

Again, science is a collection of observations and the meanings of these observations. Different sets of observations are more disagreed upon with regard to their meaning than others. All in all, there are very few scientific laws when compared to all that has been recorded and observed.

Getting 7 billion people to agree on something has nothing to do with trained scientists attempting to reach intelligent consensus on how we can use studies and experiments to better the human condition. Kind of like how disagreeing with 4-5 posters isn't a "Duke95 against the world scenario".

Which is the fallacy again where you try to put word's in your opponent's mouth? Anyway, that's what you're doing, dude.

[Edouble]

Look, this is PPB material, so it has to stop. What you are saying is incorrect. A human-influenced global rise in temperatures is as close to established scientific consensus as you can find. So massive is the consensus that outside the English-speaking world there's not even a lay debate out it. I'm completely fine with the mods deleting all posts on global warming from this thread.

Fine, then 10-20 years ago. It's not PPB material, it's an analogy. I hope you get my take away point. :D

There are certainly more established scientific consensuses out there though: Newton's laws of physics, the acceleration of gravity at the earth's surface, the molecular formula for water, the pathways of NSAIDs, etc.

[Duke95]

You have been on this board for 2 months. You have made 83 posts. A full 55 of them are in some reference to Kentucky. You epitomize this thread.

That's 66%, if you prefer math.

Thanks for following me. I'll be sure to give you a free Duke95 fan club sticker.

Toodles.

[Ichabod Drain]

If you don't like Kenpom's system, I'm sure he'd welcome you to compile all the data yourself and come up with an algorithm that you think is more accurate. Then we could compare and contrast the results.

[Duke95]

If you don't like Kenpom's system, I'm sure he'd welcome you to compile all the data yourself and come up with an algorithm that you think is more accurate. Then we could compare and contrast the results.

Hey, great idea. But why stop there? Next time Consumer Reports gives Nissan another crappy review, you can tell CR to go build a car themselves and compare it to the Nissan.

[Kfanarmy]

Look, this is PPB material, so it has to stop. What you are saying is incorrect. A human-influenced global rise in temperatures is as close to established scientific consensus as you can find. So massive is the consensus that outside the English-speaking world there's not even a lay debate out it. I'm completely fine with the mods deleting all posts on global warming from this thread.

95s eye test is as accurate in predicting Ws and Ls as science is in determing the cause of "climate change." (You're a bit behind the times with the global "warming" argument as we're in a decade long earth cooling cycle). It is interesting to have such a heated SOS metrics argument 1/3 of the way through a season that begins with preassumed national strength ratings based upon coaches and writers opinions who haven't seen 1/3 of the teams play either in person or on tv.
While I disagree emphatically with the assertionof scientific consensus (Europeans are rapidly pulling away from the whole GW position)

other scientific consensus:

leaching will cure most diseases
the world is flat
the universe revolves around the earth
vegan lifestyle is (and a decade later isn't) healthy
global warming after the last several ice ages wasn't caused by humans
ice ages weren't caused by humans
we will be travelling between planets by the year 2000
hole in the ozone layer will have us all dying of skin cancer by the mid 90s
hole in the ozone layer is caused by aerosol (hair spray anyone?)
UK's SOS

[Duke95]

95s eye test is as accurate in predicting Ws and Ls as science is in determing the cause of "climate change."


Not surprising since nobody is talking about predicting wins and losses except you. I'm happy to discuss further once you understand the difference between SOS and a model predicting wins and losses.

[Des Esseintes]

95s eye test is as accurate in predicting Ws and Ls as science is in determing the cause of "climate change." (You're a bit behind the times with the global "warming" argument as we're in a decade long earth cooling cycle). It is interesting to have such a heated SOS metrics argument 1/3 of the way through a season that begins with preassumed national strength ratings based upon coaches and writers opinions who haven't seen 1/3 of the teams play either in person or on tv.
While I disagree emphatically with the assertionof scientific consensus (Europeans are rapidly pulling away from the whole GW position)

other scientific consensus:

leaching will cure most diseases
the world is flat
the universe revolves around the earth
vegan lifestyle is (and a decade later isn't) healthy
global warming after the last several ice ages wasn't caused by humans
ice ages weren't caused by humans
we will be travelling between planets by the year 2000
hole in the ozone layer will have us all dying of skin cancer by the mid 90s
hole in the ozone layer is caused by aerosol (hair spray anyone?)
UK's SOS
Ugh. All of this is wrong. Again, I'd love for everything associated with global warming to be deleted from this thread, but as long as the coal industry is going to have its flacks spreading disinformation, basic facts deserve an airing as well.

We are not in a "decade long earth cooling cycle." 2010 was the hottest year (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13) we've ever recorded. Here is a table of the hottest years on record.



1
2010


2
2005


3
1998


4
2013


4
2003


6
2002


7
2006


8
2009


8
2007


10
2004


10
2012



2014 is likely to go down as the hottest of the bunch, so bump every other year down one. Does this look like a cooling trend to anyone? No, it doesn't, unless you work for a coal plant.

Europeans are not pulling "rapidly" away from a global warming consensus. Climate scientists are running around with their hair on fire these days because the planet is heating faster than even the most aggressive models had suggested, likely due to feedback effects. You can disagree all you want with global warming. You and Hannity can call it a crypto-marxist hoax. But it is scientific consensus. The science here is extremely settled, terrifyingly settled.

As for the rest of your jeremiad against science:
leaching will cure most diseases - Was an archaic belief that preceded the scientific method; the scientific method was helpful in rejecting these dangerous medical practices.
the world is flat - Was a religious consensus; again, scientific inquiry, along with exploration, helped lead us out of the darkness.
the universe revolves around the earth - Religious consensus.
vegan lifestyle is (and a decade later isn't) healthy - Was never anything approaching a consensus; show me one link that suggests the science was ever settled on something as contentious as human diet.
global warming after the last several ice ages wasn't caused by humans - The point here is that past natural ice ages means humans CAN'T affect the climate? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
ice ages weren't caused by humans - You've completely lost me. Are you saying the human DID cause previous ice ages?
we will be travelling between planets by the year 2000 - Not a scientific consensus. I'm beginning to think you don't know what the phrase "scientific consensus" means. Interplanetary travel is science fiction. It shares the word "science" with "scientific consensus," but otherwise these are very, very different things.
hole in the ozone layer will have us all dying of skin cancer by the mid 90s - Again, not remotely a broadly held scientific view. Can you please direct me to the appropriate peer-reviewed journals where this position was advanced and accepted?
hole in the ozone layer is caused by aerosol (hair spray anyone?) - CFCs are widely credited with a depletion in the Antarctic ozone shield. Hairspray is a hilarious contemptuous joke about something that happens to be true. Funny!
UK's SOS - Once more, not a scientific consensus. Different rating systems will rate UK's SOS differently. Every one that I have seen has not yet rated UK's schedule strength #1, though. ETA: Duke95 is correct, and some sites have rated UK #1 in schedule strength. There remains no consensus other than that UK has played a strong schedule. Which I assume you don't disagree with?

[Duke95]

UK's SOS - Once more, not a scientific consensus. Different rating systems will rate UK's SOS differently. Every one that I have seen has not yet rated UK's schedule strength #1 yet, though.

These guys had UK at #1 (now at #2 after LB's game with L-ville).

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/strength-of-schedule-by-team

These guys have UK at #4.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/polls?poll=5

[mattman91]

95s eye test is as accurate in predicting Ws and Ls as science is in determing the cause of "climate change." (You're a bit behind the times with the global "warming" argument as we're in a decade long earth cooling cycle). It is interesting to have such a heated SOS metrics argument 1/3 of the way through a season that begins with preassumed national strength ratings based upon coaches and writers opinions who haven't seen 1/3 of the teams play either in person or on tv.
While I disagree emphatically with the assertionof scientific consensus (Europeans are rapidly pulling away from the whole GW position)

other scientific consensus:

leaching will cure most diseases
the world is flat
the universe revolves around the earth
vegan lifestyle is (and a decade later isn't) healthy
global warming after the last several ice ages wasn't caused by humans
ice ages weren't caused by humans
we will be travelling between planets by the year 2000
hole in the ozone layer will have us all dying of skin cancer by the mid 90s
hole in the ozone layer is caused by aerosol (hair spray anyone?)
UK's SOS

Man-bear-pig is real. I'm totally cereal!

[Kfanarmy]

I know one must be flush with the excitement of the points you’ve made, but let me reintroduce you to your words in maiden form, before so abused in twisted argument:
Because those games don't mean much. Kentucky looked bored and disinterested during the majority of each game. When it comes time to turn on the jets though, they just destroy the competition.
Let's talk about how they've done against Top 25. Look what they did to Kansas, Texas, UCLA. Even money is about right. It would take a miracle for them to lose a game this year….

You in fact entered this discussion on SOS fresh from predicting UK to not lose another game, based on results against the top 25.


Not surprising since nobody is talking about predicting wins and losses except you. I'm happy to discuss further once you understand the difference between SOS and a model predicting wins and losses.
While I hope you are simply pulling my, and other people's chains at this point, I did not assert that SOS and a predictive model are the same or similar.
The underlying point in my sentence, which you quoted, is that neither your eye test nor global warming science is informed by time and a sufficient amount of data to be useful . While you are excited over your powers of observation; the full measure of those powers has not been fully appreciated by the audience and therfore has not outweighed the opinions of experts. That is ok in a SOS discussion simply because the primary basis for SOS measures at the start of the season are the "eye tests" of writers and coaches rather than the full weight of all data, which is only partially available at the end of the season.