ADVERTISEMENT

Is it just me or are too many crappy teams getting love in the AP?

"pro gambler" that doesn't even "look at" objective rankings systems that are tried and true in the industry (in fact, they're so tried and true that you have to find a way not to rely on them to find value, but not looking at them at all? fvcking dumb)? Sure, why not.

You know what? I'm a "pro stock investor" that doesn't even bother to "look at . . . stupid shit" like EBITDA, return on equity, debt, or volatility.



Facts like objective measures of team strength? Facts like those objective measures having UK really close to where they are in the subjective rankings? Facts like adjusted efficiency margin? Facts like strength of schedule, adjusted offense, adjusted defense, tempo, luck... You know, things that take into account all the facts, and not just cherry-picked ones like, say, an individual game that you're clearly hung up on.

Why do we even consider 2005 UNC to be good? They lost at Santa Clara! #hawkit3113facts



Yeah, UK is really benefiting a whole *checks notes* 1-3 spots in the AP poll. Whelp, that settles it. Wrap it up, boys!


It's more about the lack of respect for some teams. Not really UK. You guys made it about you guys.

Do you think you deserve to be #12, at the moment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert Higginbotha
Rankings are frivolous until late February/March.


Just thinking that as well. They make more sense later in the season. Either way, the AP is lazy or bias. Some teams can have shit loses but others can't. Hmmmmm
 
  • Like
Reactions: UL_1986
Just thinking that as well. They make more sense later in the season. Either way, the AP is lazy or bias. Some teams can have shit loses but others can't. Hmmmmm
They’ll show their true worth in the tourney. That’s why I generally laugh at the SEC sunshine pumpers.
 
It's more about the lack of respect for some teams. Not really UK. You guys made it about you guys.

Do you think you deserve to be #12, at the moment?
So please name me 12 teams that could beat Kentucky.

We all know that Duke, Seton Hall and Alabama can.

Why didn't all the others do it?

UNC and UL could not get close.

Of course we know Iowa would beat the shit out of Kentucky.Eyeroll
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC for 3
So please name me 12 teams that could beat Kentucky.

We all know that Duke, Seton Hall and Alabama can.

Why didn't all the others do it?

UNC and UL could not get close.

Of course we know Iowa would beat the shit out of Kentucky.Eyeroll


Well, I am sure there are many, but the point is treating losses and teams equal. A bad loss should be treated as one. There are deserving teams out there that have good losses but aren't getting the cred. Like Iowa. : )
 
I think it's a case of somebody having to be ranked. So much parity this year, even though the college basketball world seemed to be hanging all over Duke's nuts.Those kids can get popped any night, and now we know.


Good point. So go with the usual suspects. That is the best explaination so far in this thread.
 
I think it's a case of somebody having to be ranked. So much parity this year, even though the college basketball world seemed to be hanging all over Duke's nuts.Those kids can get popped any night, and now we know.
Good post, UNC fan.

Iowa would play UNC or UK far harder than Alabama or Indiana.
 
Maybe. Iowa is 3-1 vs UNC in my lifetime

UNC owns Kentucky historically; however, North Carolina is not Iowa.


In my life time against Iowa (all of the games ever played against the two teams) UK is 5-3. So I am older than the series between Kentucky and Iowa, so I may know the answer. But I know that North Carolina has owned Kentucky and the games are closer than against Iowa.

The important point is the years that they played. In 1956, 1972, and 2005; the years that Iowa beat UK, Kentucky was a piece of shit. So I will say that over the years Kentucky would beat the crap out of Iowa.

I would welcome a series with Iowa and Kentucky. I would write down most of them as Kentucky wins.
 
UNC owns Kentucky historically; however, North Carolina is not Iowa.


In my life time against Iowa (all of the games ever played against the two teams) UK is 5-3. So I am older than the series between Kentucky and Iowa, so I may know the answer. But I know that North Carolina has owned Kentucky and the games are closer than against Iowa.

The important point is the years that they played. In 1956, 1972, and 2005; the years that Iowa beat UK, Kentucky was a piece of shit. So I will say that over the years Kentucky would beat the crap out of Iowa.

I would welcome a series with Iowa and Kentucky. I would write down most of them as Kentucky wins.


We have played UK 3 times in my life. 2 times in the tourney. One game, we gave UK their toughest challenge on the way to a NC. Andre Wooldridge was this awesome point guard we had. And we had no business being close, but the team fought their asses off. I was proud of that effort.


In my lifetime, we are also 3-0 vs KU. We beat them in 88 when they won the NC.
 
Last edited:
Well, I am sure there are many, but the point is treating losses and teams equal. A bad loss should be treated as one. There are deserving teams out there that have good losses but aren't getting the cred. Like Iowa. : )

Losing at Bama is not a bad loss.
 
I must defend Texas Tech as they are one of our losses. They're 15-1 with their only loss coming to Duke. And even the computers love them at #5 in the NET rankings.

Just let me have this. We need good losses.
 
Do you only watch Indiana? They just beat FSU and are going to end up playing a good SOS in the ACC.
I was being sarcastic...I don't think they are very good;; And yes, I know---they beat FSU. Just don't think a win over team rated 70th in KenPom is that great. JMO, hawk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgrooms
No, No, lets keep Miss St in the top 25, not ISU. Even though ISU is a proven brand.
 
I'm not reading all this. There are about 4-6 really good teams and the rest are alright but not great. The top 25 is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkit3113
ADVERTISEMENT