Having trouble getting registered or subscribing? Email us at info@kysportsreport.com or Private Message CitizenBBN and we'll get you set up!

  • Kentucky NET Team Sheet though January 30, 2019

    Cats are NET # 7. They are 5-2 in Quadrant 1 games, 3-2 in Quadrant 2, 5-0 in Quadrant 3, and 4-0 in Quadrant 4 for our 17-3 record.

    We have lost to NET # 3 (Duke), # 43 (Alabama) and # 63 (Seton Hall).

    The Seton Hall loss is a Quadrant 2 loss; the other two are Quadrant 1 losses.

    Kentucky has 7 Quadrant 1 games remaining (home v Tennessee, LSU and Auburn; away v Tennessee, Miss. State, Ole Miss and Florida, all of whom are in the top 40). Cats have 3 Quadrant 2 games remaining (home game vs Florida and Arkansas, away game vs Missouri), and one Quadrant 3 game (home vs South Carolina).

    The quadrants are determined as follows:

    Home games 1-15, Neutral 1-25, and Away 1-40 are supposed to be Quadrant 1A. 1B is (H 16-30); (N 26-50) and (A 41-75).
    Home games 31-55, Neutral 51-75, and Away 76-100 are supposed to be Quadrant 2.

    I believe the NCAA will use the NET rankings as they see fit, so I'm not horribly persuaded that this means that much. But let's pretend it does.

    I'd like to see Seton Hall move into Quadrant 1B if possible. The game was a neutral court game, so Seton Hall, NET # 63, would need to improve to 50 to make that happen.

    How are they doing?

    Well, when they played Kentucky they were 5-3, I think. The win made them 6-3.

    Since Kentucky, they have defeated Rutgers, Sacred Heart, # 21 Maryland, St. Johns, Xavier, lost a 1-point game to DePaul, beat Butler by 1, lost to # 10 Marquette by 4, lost to Providence, lost to DePaul, lost to Villanova and then snapped the 4-game losing streak with a win over Providence.

    They stand at 13-8 after the win over Providence. The 4-game losing streak really hurt.

    Who is upcoming?

    Butler, Creighton, Georgetown, Creighton, Xavier, St. John's, Georgetown, Marquette, and Villanova. Some of those teams have bigger names than teams, but still formidable enough, and those 9 games give them a chance for a boost. For NET purposes, that's 5 Quadrant 1 games, 2 Quadrant 2 games, and 2 Quadrant 3 games. The Marquette game (NET # 18) and Villanova (NET # 2) are both at home.

    WAG that they need a strong 7-2 showing in them; maybe even 8-1 to get into the top 50.

    Attached is Kentucky's NET sheet.


    Comments 17 Comments
    1. dtalbersjr's Avatar
      dtalbersjr -
      Quote Originally Posted by JPScott View Post
      It tells a lot about the NCAA that their team sheets still look like they were printed to a dot matrix printer hooked to a Vax terminal.

      FYI, I haven't looked at it that closely but from the little I've seen I'm encouraged that the NET rating will probably be as good as any at ranking teams by the end of the season. If that proves to be the case (i.e. there's no clear biases or weaknesses in the model), then I'd be in favor of just using the NET rating to choose and seed the field. All this talk of quadrant wins etc. is likely unnecessary and doesn't add anything of real value IMO.

      There absolutely has to be a human element. If not, you could end up with Houston being a 2 seed and Purdue being a 3 seed like they would be in the updated rankings.

      I’m 100% in favor of filling the bracket out on a true S curve from a 1-68 seed list, but that seed list can’t come from a ranking that is computer only. Humans have to be involved, because no metric is immune from horrible outliers like that.

      I’d be fine with something like the old BCS formula that includes both computer and human rankings, but anything that is only computer ranking based would be worse than what we have now.
    1. JPScott's Avatar
      JPScott -
      Quote Originally Posted by dtalbersjr View Post
      There absolutely has to be a human element. If not, you could end up with Houston being a 2 seed and Purdue being a 3 seed like they would be in the updated rankings.

      I’m 100% in favor of filling the bracket out on a true S curve from a 1-68 seed list, but that seed list can’t come from a ranking that is computer only. Humans have to be involved, because no metric is immune from horrible outliers like that.

      I’d be fine with something like the old BCS formula that includes both computer and human rankings, but anything that is only computer ranking based would be worse than what we have now.
      Like I said I haven't looked that closely at the NET rating. We'll see how the results shake out closer to the end of the regular season. As for Houston, I haven't seen them play and don't know anything about them. Although they're 25-1 and sitting at #7 in the NET rating which would still be a 2 seed, they still need to play #25 ranked Cincinnati twice. As far as them being overrated by the NET rating, looking at the AP poll they are ranked 12th so it's not a huge difference.

      FYI, I took today's net rating and compared it to today's AP ranking. Below are the teams sorted by how far off the AP ranking is from the NET rating (from order of most underrated to most underrated by the NET rating).

      School NET Ranking - AP Ranking
      Nevada 8
      Marquette 8
      Villanova 5
      Iowa State 5
      Kansas 4
      Tennessee 3
      North Carolina 2
      Duke 1
      Kentucky 1
      Buffalo 0
      Maryland 0
      Cincinnati 0
      Michigan State -1
      Louisville -1
      LSU -1
      Virginia -2
      Gonzaga -2
      Michigan -2
      Virginia Tech -2
      Texas Tech -2
      Purdue -4
      Iowa State -4
      Houston -5
      Wisconsin -7
      Auburn -7

      If someone took an average between the NET rating and the AP ranking and reordered based on that, the order would look like the following:

      Place School Avg. #
      1 Virginia 2
      2 Duke 2.5
      3 Tennessee 2.5
      4 Gonzaga 3
      5 Kentucky 5.5
      6 Michigan 6
      7 Michigan State 8.5
      8 North Carolina 9
      9 Houston 9.5
      10 Nevada 10
      11 Virginia Tech 10
      12 Purdue 13
      13 Marquette 14
      14 Iowa State 15
      15 Kansas 15
      16 Louisville 15.5
      17 Wisconsin 15.5
      18 Villanova 16.5
      19 Texas Tech 17
      20 Iowa State 19.5
      21 LSU 20.5
      22 Buffalo 23
      23 Maryland 24
      24 Auburn 24.5
      25 Cincinnati 25

      I wouldn't be opposed to including a human element (or modifying the NET rating to include a human element) if it was done according to clearly laid out rules and by qualified people. The only downside being that I'm hoping to someday have a rating that can be relied on which is nearly instantaneous so that it can be updated quickly and thus can take into account the most recent results. Unfortunately the human element slows that down considerably.
    1. JPScott's Avatar
      JPScott -
      Just for the record in the NCAA’s top 16 released today they put Purdue (#9 overall) and Houston (#11 overall) both as #3 seeds, so it’s not that crazy.

      When I get a chance this weekend I’ll correlate the current Net rating vs. the selection committee.
    1. KeithKSR's Avatar
      KeithKSR -
      Quote Originally Posted by JPScott View Post
      Just for the record in tue NCAA’s top 16 they put Purdue (#9 overall) and Houston (#11 overall) do it’s not that crazy.

      When I get a chance this weekend I’ll correlate the current Net rating vs. the selection committee.
      They put Kentucky right on their net ranking at #5.
    1. JPScott's Avatar
      JPScott -
      Here's some results from how the NET rating correlates to what the Selection Committee determined. Overally pretty good. The AP ranking was a little better and as usual taking an average of the NET and AP gave an even better correlation than either measure alone.

      Attachment 7786
      Attachment 7787
    1. JPScott's Avatar
      JPScott -
      If you take the average and resort based on that, the only team which appears to be grossly misseeded was Virginia Tech who by NET + AP should have been 3 seed but was not listed by the NCAA. Others were within 1 seed line of where the selection committee put them.

      Attachment 7788

      Also, of the 16 schools chosen by the NCAA, the below list sorts the schools by most overrated by the committee to most underrated by committee. Of course these things are all in flux as games have been played since these were published.

      Duke -200%
      Tennessee -100%
      Kansas -80%
      Marquette 75%
      Purdue -22%
      North Carolina -14%
      Michigan State -13%
      Nevada -7%
      Kentucky 0%
      Michigan 0%
      Iowa State 0%
      Louisville +7%
      Wisconsin +25%
      Houston +36%
      Gonzaga +50%
      Virginia +67%
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR -
      Good stuff, Jon.
    1. KeithKSR's Avatar
      KeithKSR -
      Virginia Tech lost its point guard, and that is likely why the Committee places them lower than the AP or NET.
    1. Bakert's Avatar
      Bakert -
      Just FWIW, the loss last night didn't have much impact on our NET ranking. We drooped from 5 to 6.
    1. UKRxman93's Avatar
      UKRxman93 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Bakert View Post
      Just FWIW, the loss last night didn't have much impact on our NET ranking. We drooped from 5 to 6.
      So, if UK wins Saturday, would it be a wash?
    1. catmanjack's Avatar
      catmanjack -
      Of course it would because they would have beaten the #1 team.
    1. Bakert's Avatar
      Bakert -
      Quote Originally Posted by UKRxman93 View Post
      So, if UK wins Saturday, would it be a wash?
      Will be interesting to see whether our beating TN would be better for us that them losing to us would be bad for them. But I would imagine we would go back to 5 and maybe 4? Certainly would have if we had not crapped the bed vs LSU. One thing, losing to LSU didn't hurt us much so losing to TN shouldn't either.
    1. Catfan73's Avatar
      Catfan73 -
      Did Auburn’s loss last night change their tier?
    1. dtalbersjr's Avatar
      dtalbersjr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Catfan73 View Post
      Did Auburn’s loss last night change their tier?
      Quadrant depends on where the game was played. Our win @Auburn will remain a Quadrant 1 win. If they keep losing, could drop the game in Rupp to Quadrant 2.
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR -
      Quote Originally Posted by Catfan73 View Post
      Did Auburn’s loss last night change their tier?
      Not sure where they are, but a long way to go before that road win drops out of Quadrant 1.Attachment 7798
    1. dtalbersjr's Avatar
      dtalbersjr -
      Interesting you posted that Darrell. I was looking at team sheets and notice there were apparently two tiers to "Quadrant 1." I'd never seen them mention that division, but the quadrants are too broad. I like it.

      We're 4-2 against Quadrant 1A with 2 such games left.

      By comparison, other teams in Quadrant 1A
      -Duke 7-1
      -Gonzaga 1-2
      -UVA 6-2
      -Tennessee 1-2
      -Houston 1-0
      -Michigan St. 5-3
      -Michigan 4-2
      -UNC 5-3
    1. Catfan73's Avatar
      Catfan73 -
      Thanks!
  • KSR Twitter Feed

  • Recent Forum Posts

    Harlow

    Re: Oakland v UK hall of fame

    See ya next guys with a new coach

    Harlow 03-22-2024, 08:36 AM Go to last post
    Darrell KSR

    Re: Oakland v UK hall of fame

    I'll grade the first point. I wonder who had Oakland winning?

    I kid, kid. Since I made the post, I guess the least I can do is go ahead and

    Darrell KSR 03-21-2024, 09:18 PM Go to last post
    DanISSELisdaman

    Re: Oakland v UK hall of fame

    UK by 19
    Reeves 26
    320
    21
    41%

    DanISSELisdaman 03-21-2024, 06:25 PM Go to last post
    Harlow

    Re: Oakland v UK hall of fame

    No problem buddy

    Harlow 03-21-2024, 05:08 PM Go to last post
    Darrell KSR

    Re: Oakland v UK hall of fame

    Thanks, Harlow--I corrected it to 22. No idea, of course, and watch 18 be the right answer lol. Anyway, I appreciate the heads up.

    Darrell KSR 03-21-2024, 04:30 PM Go to last post