I don't understand why Kentucky is still ranked when they lost back to back games. (South Carolina and Arkansas) South Carolina is not a top 100 rpi team and Arkansas is barely a top 100. If a team from the AAC had lost like that they wouldn't even be ranked.
If You have to ask, You just don't understand....................................................................
They are a heritage program... They live and get votes off three things... 1) NAME 2) HISTORY 3) NAME!!!
Which is all really one thing - NAME!
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
I was thinking about this...
Honestly (and I'm trying not to sound bitter about this), I think it lays out like this:
PROGRAM NAME............NET EFFECT
University of Kentucky (+6 wins)
Duke University (+6 wins)
North Carolina (+6 wins)
Kansas (+6 wins)
Michigan (+4 wins)
Indiana (+4 wins)
Michigan State (+4 wins)
Louisville (+4 wins)
Creighton (+4 wins)
Cincinnati (+2 wins)
Memphis (+2 wins)
Temple (+1 win)
Wichita State (+0 wins)
Houston (+0 wins)
SMU (-1 wins/ 0 wins)
That is to say, that in POPULAR opinion, Kentucky will get credit for their ACTUAL win total PLUS a perception bounce of 6 additional wins...because they are the University of Kentucky. Louisville gets credit for their actual win total and an bounce of 4 wins because they are Louisville. SMU, on the other hand, currently gets a perceived penalty of a game or so because they are SMU... (It's not fair, I'm not arguing fairness... This whole thread is about PERCEPTION...)
And this can change over time... For example, ten years ago, Utah would be in the positive bounce category, but after several years of non-achievement they are probably in the neutral category. Once-upon-a-time, Wake Forrest would have been in the high-bounce range (probably in the +4--6 range) but now they are not...
Point is, when you ask "Why is Kentucky still ranked???" the answer is that Kentucky, in popular opinion, gets credit for about six wins more than they actually have.
(03-05-2014 10:44 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking about this...
Honestly (and I'm trying not to sound bitter about this), I think it lays out like this:
PROGRAM NAME............NET EFFECT
University of Kentucky (+6 wins)
Duke University (+6 wins)
North Carolina (+6 wins)
Kansas (+6 wins)
Michigan (+4 wins)
Indiana (+4 wins)
Michigan State (+4 wins)
Louisville (+4 wins)
Creighton (+4 wins)
Cincinnati (+2 wins)
Memphis (+2 wins)
Temple (+1 win)
Wichita State (+0 wins)
Houston (+0 wins)
SMU (-1 wins/ 0 wins)
That is to say, that in POPULAR opinion, Kentucky will get credit for their ACTUAL win total PLUS a perception bounce of 6 additional wins...because they are the University of Kentucky. Louisville gets credit for their actual win total and an bounce of 4 wins because they are Louisville. SMU, on the other hand, currently gets a perceived penalty of a game or so because they are SMU... (It's not fair, I'm not arguing fairness... This whole thread is about PERCEPTION...)
And this can change over time... For example, ten years ago, Utah would be in the positive bounce category, but after several years of non-achievement they are probably in the neutral category. Once-upon-a-time, Wake Forrest would have been in the high-bounce range (probably in the +4--6 range) but now they are not...
Point is, when you ask "Why is Kentucky still ranked???" the answer is that Kentucky, in popular opinion, gets credit for about six wins more than they actually have.
UCONN never gets any love...
(03-05-2014 11:34 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2014 10:44 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking about this...
Honestly (and I'm trying not to sound bitter about this), I think it lays out like this:
PROGRAM NAME............NET EFFECT
University of Kentucky (+6 wins)
Duke University (+6 wins)
North Carolina (+6 wins)
Kansas (+6 wins)
Michigan (+4 wins)
Indiana (+4 wins)
Michigan State (+4 wins)
Louisville (+4 wins)
Creighton (+4 wins)
Cincinnati (+2 wins)
Memphis (+2 wins)
UConn (+1/+2 wins)
Temple (+1 win)
Wichita State (+0 wins)
Houston (+0 wins)
SMU (-1 wins/ 0 wins)
That is to say, that in POPULAR opinion, Kentucky will get credit for their ACTUAL win total PLUS a perception bounce of 6 additional wins...because they are the University of Kentucky. Louisville gets credit for their actual win total and an bounce of 4 wins because they are Louisville. SMU, on the other hand, currently gets a perceived penalty of a game or so because they are SMU... (It's not fair, I'm not arguing fairness... This whole thread is about PERCEPTION...)
And this can change over time... For example, ten years ago, Utah would be in the positive bounce category, but after several years of non-achievement they are probably in the neutral category. Once-upon-a-time, Wake Forrest would have been in the high-bounce range (probably in the +4--6 range) but now they are not...
Point is, when you ask "Why is Kentucky still ranked???" the answer is that Kentucky, in popular opinion, gets credit for about six wins more than they actually have.
UCONN never gets any love...
Sadly, I think that's true...
And remember, I am trying to be DESCRIPTIVE here... I am not trying to say that "this is the way things SHOULD be..." merely this is the way I think things ARE at the moment. I also wasn't trying to be comprehensive, so I didn't leave UConn out on purpose...
But I'd honestly put UConn in that (+1/+2 wins) range, based purely on NAME, at the moment.
(03-05-2014 12:21 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2014 11:34 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2014 10:44 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking about this...
Honestly (and I'm trying not to sound bitter about this), I think it lays out like this:
PROGRAM NAME............NET EFFECT
University of Kentucky (+6 wins)
Duke University (+6 wins)
North Carolina (+6 wins)
Kansas (+6 wins)
Michigan (+4 wins)
Indiana (+4 wins)
Michigan State (+4 wins)
Louisville (+4 wins)
Creighton (+4 wins)
Cincinnati (+2 wins)
Memphis (+2 wins)
UConn (+1/+2 wins)
Temple (+1 win)
Wichita State (+0 wins)
Houston (+0 wins)
SMU (-1 wins/ 0 wins)
That is to say, that in POPULAR opinion, Kentucky will get credit for their ACTUAL win total PLUS a perception bounce of 6 additional wins...because they are the University of Kentucky. Louisville gets credit for their actual win total and an bounce of 4 wins because they are Louisville. SMU, on the other hand, currently gets a perceived penalty of a game or so because they are SMU... (It's not fair, I'm not arguing fairness... This whole thread is about PERCEPTION...)
And this can change over time... For example, ten years ago, Utah would be in the positive bounce category, but after several years of non-achievement they are probably in the neutral category. Once-upon-a-time, Wake Forrest would have been in the high-bounce range (probably in the +4--6 range) but now they are not...
Point is, when you ask "Why is Kentucky still ranked???" the answer is that Kentucky, in popular opinion, gets credit for about six wins more than they actually have.
UCONN never gets any love...
Sadly, I think that's true...
And remember, I am trying to be DESCRIPTIVE here... I am not trying to say that "this is the way things SHOULD be..." merely this is the way I think things ARE at the moment. I also wasn't trying to be comprehensive, so I didn't leave UConn out on purpose...
But I'd honestly put UConn in that (+1/+2 wins) range, based purely on NAME, at the moment.
No worries. I didn't think you did anything on purpose. It's the nature of the game and the obvious favoritism in basketball. Sadly the pundits always seem to forget that UCONN only has fewer National Championships than UCLA, Kentucky, Indiana, UNC, and Duke...
Perhaps it's because we don't have a championship that's over 15 years old. It's alright though...I've always been a bigger fan of "What have you done for me lately?"
No reason to bang your head about UCONN you earn your ranking and then people wonder why you go on runs at Tourney Time -- cause you've been overlooked by those giving credit to other programs !
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Kentucky is ranked for the same reason Notre Dame is ranked in football every year.
I've always found that people in my crowd perceive UConn as a major basketball player. Maybe we just didn't follow the Big East too closely. In '99 and '04 y'all knocked down Duke x2 and GT, I think MBB fans in NC took notice. I remember both games from '04 and I was only in 7th grade...
UConn deserves a lot more respect than it gets, as a program. I think part of it is that they came on the historical scene much later than the others mentioned. But I'd swap our long successful history for their 3 recent NCs, lol.
Funny story. Around 20 years ago My Nephew whom is now a CPA in Rochester, Ny. came to Louisville for the whole week of and went to the Kentucky Derby.He Had a great time here. Went back to R.I.T. where He was going to school. His Roommate was from Connecticut and Both went up there quite often for Snow Skiing. Every time We would get the Family Together in the Summer, He would bring up the Great time He had at the Connecticut Derby. He would usually correct Himself but the damage was done.
(03-05-2014 07:03 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]UConn deserves a lot more respect than it gets, as a program. I think part of it is that they came on the historical scene much later than the others mentioned. But I'd swap our long successful history for their 3 recent NCs, lol.
Haha I would too! And I've always kind of felt like once Memphis finally gets a couple titles under our belts, we won't be looked at as Johnny come lately's because we've been to multiple final fours and title games before, just haven't managed to win any of them haha. Whereas I feel like the disrespect Uconn gets is because before these NC's, they had no real significant history.
Kentucky started at the season at No.1. It takes a lot of work to become unranked from that position but I am pulling for them to do it. They play at Florida this weekend so that might do it.
Honestly, at least around These Parts, Everyone knows UConn. Might be because of Everyone around Kentucky, Indiana are Basketball fanatics first. Also helps That UConn beat Kentucky in Tournament game. Not really sure where They aren't known and respected.
(03-05-2014 12:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2014 12:21 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2014 11:34 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2014 10:44 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking about this...
Honestly (and I'm trying not to sound bitter about this), I think it lays out like this:
PROGRAM NAME............NET EFFECT
University of Kentucky (+6 wins)
Duke University (+6 wins)
North Carolina (+6 wins)
Kansas (+6 wins)
Michigan (+4 wins)
Indiana (+4 wins)
Michigan State (+4 wins)
Louisville (+4 wins)
Creighton (+4 wins)
Cincinnati (+2 wins)
Memphis (+2 wins)
UConn (+1/+2 wins)
Temple (+1 win)
Wichita State (+0 wins)
Houston (+0 wins)
SMU (-1 wins/ 0 wins)
That is to say, that in POPULAR opinion, Kentucky will get credit for their ACTUAL win total PLUS a perception bounce of 6 additional wins...because they are the University of Kentucky. Louisville gets credit for their actual win total and an bounce of 4 wins because they are Louisville. SMU, on the other hand, currently gets a perceived penalty of a game or so because they are SMU... (It's not fair, I'm not arguing fairness... This whole thread is about PERCEPTION...)
And this can change over time... For example, ten years ago, Utah would be in the positive bounce category, but after several years of non-achievement they are probably in the neutral category. Once-upon-a-time, Wake Forrest would have been in the high-bounce range (probably in the +4--6 range) but now they are not...
Point is, when you ask "Why is Kentucky still ranked???" the answer is that Kentucky, in popular opinion, gets credit for about six wins more than they actually have.
UCONN never gets any love...
Sadly, I think that's true...
And remember, I am trying to be DESCRIPTIVE here... I am not trying to say that "this is the way things SHOULD be..." merely this is the way I think things ARE at the moment. I also wasn't trying to be comprehensive, so I didn't leave UConn out on purpose...
But I'd honestly put UConn in that (+1/+2 wins) range, based purely on NAME, at the moment.
No worries. I didn't think you did anything on purpose. It's the nature of the game and the obvious favoritism in basketball. Sadly the pundits always seem to forget that UCONN only has fewer National Championships than UCLA, Kentucky, Indiana, UNC, and Duke...
Perhaps it's because we don't have a championship that's over 15 years old. It's alright though...I've always been a bigger fan of "What have you done for me lately?"
I also believe PART of the disrespect is the wait and see approach to UCONN's new coach. You don't just replace Jim Calhoun and what he did and his cache meant a lot to national perception.
Most causal fans only get into basketball in March due to the office brackets. That is not true in certain areas, like Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, and others, but by in large Basketball showcases in March for most. So when you look only at March for years and years, certain teams get hyped in March, reguardless of results, and those teams get a bounce. Other teams are just there so often that the can not be ignored. For the last ten years or so, the sweet 16 and up have had a lot of the same names over and over. Florida, Kansas, Ohio State, Duke, North Carolina, Butler, VCU, Louisville, Kentucky, UConn, Memphis, Michigan State, and UCLA have been in the sweet 16 repeatedly and many of those have long histories of being there. That does tend to add weight to idea that yes indeed past performance does have a role in attempting to forecast future results.
(03-05-2014 11:34 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ]UCONN never gets any love...
I think 2011 taught us all not to sleep on UConn.