[Observing]

it used to be the theory that the NCAA selection committee
would look at how you finished the season. Now they CLAIM
they don't, and even insist that they MUST evaluate the whole
season, and can't base a decision on late(or early) play. But WHY?

(disclosure: I mean this from an overall standpoint,
not a narrow UK one. UK actually has to have a last
10 game evaluation to basically prove what team they
are without Noel, and that's a different issue)

Don't we all say it all the time, the better coaches get
keep improving their teams as the season goes on?
And even if UK is extreme, freshmen influence the game
all over, and even if you have just one starting, you'd
expect them to improve a lot down the stretch.
You EXCPECT the best teams to be playing their best
ball, at season's end, in general.

And of course the back half of the schedule is the conference
schedule, and doesn't consistent competition against your
own level of competition tell more about you, at least in
the power conferences?

I'm not saying a 15-15 team that got hot and went 10-5
down the stretch belongs in. But I do think it's imminently reasonable
to evaluate how a team is playing downt he stretch as a factor.
and if I had tow teams I thought were fairly close in NCAA
resume, I would tend to favor one that had played markedly better
in February over one that had stumbled downt he stretch.

[vundy33]

Umm...they do matter.

[Observing]

Umm...they do matter.

To a degree they do, and get factored in despite denials.
But the selection committee's criteria says they're NOT
supposed to. They are supposed to evaluate a team's entire
season, and not give any more weight to how they finished
than any other part of the season.