4thecards
03-07-2008, 10:40 PM
I know you all think ESPN hates UK (snicker), but here's what Bilas has to say about the Cat's. I have to say, I agree.
A look at Kentucky's résumé
posted: Friday, March 7, 2008 | Print Entry
Close losses: When a team is touted for close losses that easily could have been wins, don't you also have to accept that close wins could have easily been losses? I will say this again … the only objective standard in sports is winning. If we are going to parse losses, we should expect to parse the wins, too.
Not their fault: Teams in weaker conferences are often heard saying that it is "not their fault" that they are in a weaker league. Well, for teams in a really strong league, it is not their fault that they are in a really tough league and have really tough games. All of that is bluster. If you have a bunch of tough games in your league, you don't need to play as tough a nonconference schedule. If you don't have enough tough games in your league, you need to get enough in the nonconference to prove you can beat good teams. But, if a team didn't beat anybody good during the season, how can they complain? You have to beat somebody good to be considered a contender for an at-large berth. Otherwise, you had better win the automatic bid of the league that it's not your fault that you're in.
Last 12 games: The criterion of the last 12 games is really interesting. It is also stupid. Take Kentucky's last 12 games as an example. If the Wildcats beat Florida in the last game of the regular season, Kentucky will be 10-2 in its last 12 games. However, UK would not have won a game against a team in the RPI top 40 during that stretch, and it would have played only five games against teams ranked in the top 140. Kentucky's best wins came against Arkansas and Ole Miss, and it lost to Vanderbilt by 41 points. Contrast that with Arizona's last 12 games. The Wildcats played only two opponents ranked outside of the RPI top 40 in the last 12 games (Washington at 102 and California at 94), and they have played UCLA twice, Stanford, USC twice, Washington State twice and Arizona State. Arizona is 6-6 in its last 12 games, but one could certainly argue persuasively that Arizona's six wins have been more impressive than Kentucky's 10.
More Kentucky: While the selection committee is looking at the smokescreen of the last 12 games, it should also note that Kentucky has not won a single game on the road against a team ranked in the RPI top 145. In addition, Kentucky's margin of victory this season has been only +3.4 overall, and in the SEC it is +0.3. Kentucky's largest margin of victory was 10 points against Alabama (which played without Richard Hendrix). Alabama is the only team in the RPI top 250 that Kentucky has beaten by double digits in the SEC. Kentucky is not out of it for an at-large bid, but there are a lot of teams in line ahead of the Wildcats … a lot of teams.
Consider this: If you accept that the NCAA Tournament is filled with really good teams, shouldn't a team have to prove it can beat a really good team? The only teams in the NCAA Tournament that get to play lesser teams are the high seeds that are playing against automatic qualifiers. The last few teams in will have to play RPI top 50 teams in the first round. Therefore, isn't it important to have proven that you can beat that caliber of team?
A look at Kentucky's résumé
posted: Friday, March 7, 2008 | Print Entry
Close losses: When a team is touted for close losses that easily could have been wins, don't you also have to accept that close wins could have easily been losses? I will say this again … the only objective standard in sports is winning. If we are going to parse losses, we should expect to parse the wins, too.
Not their fault: Teams in weaker conferences are often heard saying that it is "not their fault" that they are in a weaker league. Well, for teams in a really strong league, it is not their fault that they are in a really tough league and have really tough games. All of that is bluster. If you have a bunch of tough games in your league, you don't need to play as tough a nonconference schedule. If you don't have enough tough games in your league, you need to get enough in the nonconference to prove you can beat good teams. But, if a team didn't beat anybody good during the season, how can they complain? You have to beat somebody good to be considered a contender for an at-large berth. Otherwise, you had better win the automatic bid of the league that it's not your fault that you're in.
Last 12 games: The criterion of the last 12 games is really interesting. It is also stupid. Take Kentucky's last 12 games as an example. If the Wildcats beat Florida in the last game of the regular season, Kentucky will be 10-2 in its last 12 games. However, UK would not have won a game against a team in the RPI top 40 during that stretch, and it would have played only five games against teams ranked in the top 140. Kentucky's best wins came against Arkansas and Ole Miss, and it lost to Vanderbilt by 41 points. Contrast that with Arizona's last 12 games. The Wildcats played only two opponents ranked outside of the RPI top 40 in the last 12 games (Washington at 102 and California at 94), and they have played UCLA twice, Stanford, USC twice, Washington State twice and Arizona State. Arizona is 6-6 in its last 12 games, but one could certainly argue persuasively that Arizona's six wins have been more impressive than Kentucky's 10.
More Kentucky: While the selection committee is looking at the smokescreen of the last 12 games, it should also note that Kentucky has not won a single game on the road against a team ranked in the RPI top 145. In addition, Kentucky's margin of victory this season has been only +3.4 overall, and in the SEC it is +0.3. Kentucky's largest margin of victory was 10 points against Alabama (which played without Richard Hendrix). Alabama is the only team in the RPI top 250 that Kentucky has beaten by double digits in the SEC. Kentucky is not out of it for an at-large bid, but there are a lot of teams in line ahead of the Wildcats … a lot of teams.
Consider this: If you accept that the NCAA Tournament is filled with really good teams, shouldn't a team have to prove it can beat a really good team? The only teams in the NCAA Tournament that get to play lesser teams are the high seeds that are playing against automatic qualifiers. The last few teams in will have to play RPI top 50 teams in the first round. Therefore, isn't it important to have proven that you can beat that caliber of team?
