UK

[Jason94]

The loss at LSU was a back breaker. I think we have to win out and make it to the finals to have a chance for the tourney.

Yes and no - the LSU loss was bad mainly because we were left with very little margin for error. But overall, it is no worse a loss than Southern Miss and it was a less bad loss than Grambling St., because it was on the road and the latter two were at home, and the tier rankings account for this. Beating a the 75th best team on the road is considered the same as beating a 30th best team at home. And while Southern Miss has had a good season, their ranking places them several spots outside of it being a quad 2 loss and is considered a quad 3 loss. The problem is that LSU cannot be considered an isolated case of us losing to a bad team having a good night. We have three such instances, which is not common for teams in the tournament.

The NET explainer noted that quad 1 wins were good and quad 3 and 4 losses were bad. Currently we have the same number of Quad 1 wins as we do quad 3 and 4 losses. When you compare this to a bunch of teams who have NET ratings in the 50's (which is generally considered to be on the outside of the bubble, there are teams like Penn State, Arizona State, Michigan and Oregon who have as many or more Quad 1 wins and fewer Quad 3 and 4 losses. It is difficult to see us ahead of those teams without winning out and picking up at least two more Quad 1 wins, and even then it will be difficult.

Our NCAA resume is actually not significantly better than it was last season, because last season we did have two Quad 3 losses, but zero Quad 4 losses and the same number of Quad 1 wins. So yes the LSU loss was really bad from a resume standpoint, but it wasn't great to begin with. I've noted this before, but our pre-conference season was devastatingly bad from a tournament resume standpoint. It is what is keeping us off of the bubble right now. And our 9-7 conference record is nice but not quite enough to make up for what happened in Nov/Dec.

I simply meant we had 4 games left. Two were considered hard to win: KY on the road and Mississippi St at home. The two win able games were a weakened Florida and a LSU team who'd lost 13 in a row. We lost that one, making it hard for us to even go 2 & 2. Now we have to beat two supposed tourney teams.

I get that - I was just going over why we were in that position. Had we beaten GSU and SMU we would have had some cushion that the LSU loss would not have hurt so much.

[doubledore9603]

100%. But as long as the ncaa continues to reward those who flaunt the rules, and play to obscure metrics, well, good coaches who focus on player development lose out. But hey, it keeps the big $$$ programs in the dance YoY, and ensures the transfer portal is overflowing for those same teams to poach young players from other programs who "didn't get playing time".

Vanderbilt is one of the 68 best teams in the country.

[Jason94]

100%. But as long as the ncaa continues to reward those who flaunt the rules, and play to obscure metrics, well, good coaches who focus on player development lose out. But hey, it keeps the big $$$ programs in the dance YoY, and ensures the transfer portal is overflowing for those same teams to poach young players from other programs who "didn't get playing time".

Vanderbilt is one of the 68 best teams in the country.

The tournament committee set up pretty transparent and consistent criteria to make the tournament (which is why it is relatively easy to get 65-66 of the teams correctly before selections are made. The metrics are far from obscure, and are not what is keeping us from being on the bubble at the moment. How are metrics and big dollars keeping us from winning home games against quad 3 and 4 opponents?

[dcdore]

Vanderbilt is one of the 68 best teams in the country.

May be. But metrics and all the other arguments aside, with automatic qualifiers, a P-5 conference team has to be in the top 40-45 in the country to make the NCAA tourney.

I agree that VU is MUCH closer to 68 than to 45 unfortunately..

[utahozzie]

Hard to argue overall body of work but since the Alabama loss they are closer to 45 if not 25

[MemorialMagic]

100%. But as long as the ncaa continues to reward those who flaunt the rules, and play to obscure metrics, well, good coaches who focus on player development lose out. But hey, it keeps the big $$$ programs in the dance YoY, and ensures the transfer portal is overflowing for those same teams to poach young players from other programs who "didn't get playing time".

The tournament committee set up pretty transparent and consistent criteria to make the tournament (which is why it is relatively easy to get 65-66 of the teams correctly before selections are made. The metrics are far from obscure, and are not what is keeping us from being on the bubble at the moment. How are metrics and big dollars keeping us from winning home games against quad 3 and 4 opponents?

I am a firm believer that any system that takes margin of victory into account is flawed and flat wrong.

A. Every season we go through demonstrates the "transitive property" simply doesn't work. You see schools squeak out wins against bad teams and then squeak out wins against a top-10 team. Or teams lose to bad teams (especially early in the season). And beat Top 10 teams. It happens multiple times per year every year.

B. It is completely counter to the spirit of the game and the amateur/college experience. It not only discourages good sportsmanship. It rewards bad sportsmanship.

Wrong.

[Jason94]

100%. But as long as the ncaa continues to reward those who flaunt the rules, and play to obscure metrics, well, good coaches who focus on player development lose out. But hey, it keeps the big $$$ programs in the dance YoY, and ensures the transfer portal is overflowing for those same teams to poach young players from other programs who "didn't get playing time".

The tournament committee set up pretty transparent and consistent criteria to make the tournament (which is why it is relatively easy to get 65-66 of the teams correctly before selections are made. The metrics are far from obscure, and are not what is keeping us from being on the bubble at the moment. How are metrics and big dollars keeping us from winning home games against quad 3 and 4 opponents?

I am a firm believer that any system that takes margin of victory into account is flawed and flat wrong.

A. Every season we go through demonstrates the "transitive property" simply doesn't work. You see schools squeak out wins against bad teams and then squeak out wins against a top-10 team. Or teams lose to bad teams (especially early in the season). And beat Top 10 teams. It happens multiple times per year every year.

B. It is completely counter to the spirit of the game and the amateur/college experience. It not only discourages good sportsmanship. It rewards bad sportsmanship.

Wrong.

Margin of victory is only used to sort the teams into their tiers as a way to determine how good they are relative to one another. What the committee is looking at is how did a particular do against teams within those quadrants. Our resume is not hurt because we lost to Alabama by 57. It is hurt because we lost to So Miss and Grambling State at home.

Yes the system is not perfect. But how are you going to objectively compare a team from the MAAC to a team from the Big 10 or SEC? Is a team better because they went 16-0 against a low major conference schedule or 9-9 against a ACC schedule? Show me what you think is a better system and I'll find as many flaws in it as there are in the current system.

Note that the anti-running up the score argument is an argument against rating a team like say, Davidson in 2008 higher than the 10 seed they were given, because they were "running up the score" against the teams in their league. How dare they beat Wofford and UNC-Greensboro by 30+ in the conference tournament! They shouldn't be rewarded for doing so - give them a lower seed! Those pesky computers said that Davidson in 2008 was a top 10 team - so amoral!

[Obvious]

UK is ranked 23rd in this weeks new rankings. Perfect for us to go steal a win.

[DeefromAtlanta]

This team would be dangerous if Stute could get off that milk carton and become an outside weapon again.
If not, I'm afraid we're not deep enough to make the needed run.

It sure has been watching them the past month. Good to see the crowds slowly coming back to Memorial, too.

[volemtine]

It'll be interesting to see how the team responds to the Kentucky challenge. A lot of folks have written vandy off for the NCAA but I think if we just keep winning good things will come. This has been a fun season.

Two huge games to close the season. Winning at rupp against a good Kentucky team and then knocking miss state off the bubble could put give us a slight chance of getting in. I keep hearing the SEC will get 8 teams in the tournament and wonder if we could steal miss states spot.

Agreed. 2 wins to end the season and 7th seed in the SEC tournament. 2 wins gets the team to last 4 in the NCAA tournament. Anything less we will be NIT bound.

[Go Vandy!]

Vanderbilt is one of the 68 best teams in the country.

Unfortunately, due to automatic qualifiers you can only count on the best 44 or so. I don't think we're there.

[Dickeys Nightmare]

Vanderbilt is one of the 68 best teams in the country.

Unfortunately, due to automatic qualifiers you can only count on the best 44 or so. I don't think we're there.

We’re better than Arkansas and Auburn, who are projected to get in. And probably better than Mississippi State (we’ll see), who is projected to get in. So we should be in, seems to me.

[Jason94]

Vanderbilt is one of the 68 best teams in the country.

Unfortunately, due to automatic qualifiers you can only count on the best 44 or so. I don't think we're there.

We’re better than Arkansas and Auburn, who are projected to get in. And probably better than Mississippi State (we’ll see), who is projected to get in. So we should be in, seems to me.

While we are playing better than a lot of teams now, it is impossible to ignore the first two months of the season, where we were not only not one of the top 68 teams in the country, but probably not one of the top 100 teams in the country, or we certainly didn't play like it. If we just look at the end of the season, what chance do mid and low major teams have since their conference schedules are so weak?

If we are judging our qualifications based on a very narrow criteria (the last 7 games out of the 29 games played so far), that is a bit of an admission that we haven't done enough to make the tournament. And to this point, it is inarguable that we have not done enough, which is why we have to win at least the next four games to have a chance.

Plus we beat Ark at home when they were without Nick Smith and we beat Auburn at home by 1 point. It is an open question to whether or not we are better than either team on a neutral court, which is what the tournament committee is interested in.

[dore74]

while we should be a bubble team--or better, at this point, we're not. I think there really is a good deal of parity out there and we are simply a good middle of the road team that had a good hot streak. Need to get hot once more and win 3 or 4 in a row and see what happens. Obviously tonight is a huge, huge game. Unlike the LSU game it will be big to UK too.

[Obvious]

Tonight is a must win for either postseason tournament. I believe if we win at Kentucky we’re in the NIT safely. As far as the ncaa tournament, tonight is our last big opportunity but just part of a lot of work just to keep hope alive.

[Obvious]

Just curious, how many on here have been to Rupp and what were your impressions of it?

[UltimateVUFan]

Just announced on radio pregame that Savhir Wheeler is out with an injury. He plays 2nd most minutes among their guards.

In other injury news, UT’s Zakai Zeigler out for the season with a torn ACL.

Obviously I don’t wish those things on anybody, but it is nice to know that VU isn’t the only team plagued by such things.