Not sure who you're talking to but when the Vegas odds differ so materially from the seeds then you really have to ask yourself, in the words of the immortal Vince Lombardi, what the hell is going on out there?
Prior to the tournament UK was 16 in the RPI and 12 in the BPI. Splain to me how you get an 8 seed out of that. Laughable. You and the Committee place way too much emphasis on what a team did 2-3 months ago as opposed to what they are doing right now. Face it they messed up big time. Nice snub of the AAC. Yukonn wins the tourney and SMU almost wins the NIT. Meanwhile those six dogs from the A-10 and four from the BE went out without a whimper. Nice job.
I just told you, look at their schedule, they had two good wins. They weren't playing all that well, they got blown out by Florida the last game of the regular season, and lost to s carolina a few games before that.
I just told you, look at their schedule, they had two good wins. They weren't playing all that well, they got blown out by Florida the last game of the regular season, and lost to s carolina a few games before that.
But little did you or the Committee know that the SEC was much tougher than people thought. Maybe the BPI and RPI (which you haven't addressed) reflect that.
But little did you or the Committee know that the SEC was much tougher than people thought. Maybe the BPI and RPI (which you haven't addressed) reflect that.
Then what is the be all end all? You speak in vague generalities about resumes but ignore BPI, RPI and Vegas odds. Somehow you knew UK stunk but the oddsmakers didn't. Lol
Then what is the be all end all? You speak in vague generalities about resumes but ignore BPI, RPI and Vegas odds. Somehow you knew UK stunk but the oddsmakers didn't. Lol
Overall body of work, who have you played? who have you beaten? Uk beat Lville and Ten, that is it. They lost twice to Arkansas, lost to S carolina, and Lsu. Just because they played a good half against a Florida team that didn't even need the game, doesn't mean Uk deserved a better seed.
Then why were they rated so highly in the BPI and RPI? You seem to speak of Ark and LSU like they were dog teams. I watched them a few times and I think they were close to some of the east coast teams that got into the tourney. Btw they beat Louisville and Providence and lost close games to Mich State and Baylor. I find it strange though that there is almost universal consensus that the Committee did a bad job of seeding the teams. Coaches, TV analysts, fans everybody shook their heads when they saw some of these seeds except for a few folks on this board.
Then why were they rated so highly in the BPI and RPI? You seem to speak of Ark and LSU like they were dog teams. I watched them a few times and I think they were close to some of the east coast teams that got into the tourney. Btw they beat Louisville and Providence and lost close games to Mich State and Baylor. I find it strange though that there is almost universal consensus that the Committee did a bad job of seeding the teams. Coaches, TV analysts, fans everybody shook their heads when they saw some of these seeds except for a few folks on this board.
Neither team made the tournament, the committee made some head scratching decisions but uk wasn't one of them, maybe they could have been a seed, but that is splitting hairs, their resume wasn't very good.
