So, ESPN had this Kentucky team ranked among the Top 20 teams in the last 20 years?

[TommyL]

 

 

 

 

That's the disconnect. You are using the line as the be-all/end-all of who is the better team. Vegas does get it wrong.

 

I think you simply have too much of a rooting Kentucky interest to admit Wisconsin is just a better team than Kentucky. Wisconsin has the most efficient offense in college basketball over the last 15 years.

 

This is not about "one-game sample size". This is a very good Wisconsin team being better than a very good Kentucky team. Wisconsin is not a good match up for Kentucky. They have the size to compete on the glass, and they have the shooters to hurt them from the perimeter. And I don't think you could find anyone who would think Calipari can outcoach Ryan from the bench.

 

 

I was rooting for Kentucky (I'm a Big Ten guy), and I love Bo Ryan. But like I said earlier, I'd take Kentucky to beat them if they played again tomorrow as I'm judging it over the entire season and not just what I saw on Saturday. I thought it was a very evenly matched game that could have gone either way down the stretch, but Wisconsin made more plays and Kentucky really got out of synch at the offensive end at the wrong time.

 

As far as Vegas getting it wrong,..sure, they'll get it "wrong", but I trust the line enough to think that they aren't getting it >5 points "wrong" in a market as big as the final 4. And honest question, what do you think the line is if these teams played again?

[Escambo]

 

I was rooting for Kentucky (I'm a Big Ten guy), and I love Bo Ryan. But like I said earlier, I'd take Kentucky to beat them if they played again tomorrow as I'm judging it over the entire season and not just what I saw on Saturday. I thought it was a very evenly matched game that could have gone either way down the stretch, but Wisconsin made more plays and Kentucky really got out of synch at the offensive end at the wrong time.

 

As far as Vegas getting it wrong,..sure, they'll get it "wrong", but I trust the line enough to think that they aren't getting it >5 points "wrong" in a market as big as the final 4. And honest question, what do you think the line is if these teams played again?

 

Now I am confused.

 

Our debate started because you called Kentucky one of the 5-10 greatest teams (Pro or college) in the last 20 years.

 

Now you call them "evenly matched" with Wisconsin.

 

I would think a college team that is considered to be one of the greatest assembled over 20 years--- they should be obviously better than this Wisconsin team. Calling them evenly matched kind of reduces your "one of the greatest teams in the last 20 years" to a pile of rubble, don't you think?

 

When I look at the truly GREAT teams, like the Bulls--- the Bulls had no peer during their run. None.

 

That is what I would expect of this Kentucky team to be considered "great". But even you now admit-- they are "evenly matched" with the Wisconsin's and Duke's of college basketball.

 

 

 

 

[TommyL]

 

Now I am confused.

 

Our debate started because you called Kentucky one of the 5-10 greatest teams (Pro or college) in the last 20 years.

 

Now you call them "evenly matched" with Wisconsin.

 

I would think a college team that is considered to be one of the greatest assembled over 20 years--- they should be obviously better than this Wisconsin team. Calling them evenly matched kind of reduces your "one of the greatest teams in the last 20 years" to a pile of rubble, don't you think?

 

When I look at the truly GREAT teams, like the Bulls--- the Bulls had no peer during their run. None.

 

That is what I would expect of this Kentucky team to be considered "great". But even you now admit-- they are "evenly matched" with the Wisconsin's and Duke's of college basketball.

 

 

 

 

I guess I've just missed all of these dominating college teams of the last 20 years that blew out every team on their schedule and weren't in any tough games that they had a chance to lose down the stretch.

 

What I saw here was a team that's obviously a tough matchup (for some of the reasons that you mentioned earlier), didn't think that Kentucky played particularly well (didn't play awful either), and then ended up in a dogfight

 

So we've determined that Kentucky isn't as good as the 90's Bulls (and in my "top 5 or so teams of the past 20 years", I was really only talking college since I don't follow the NBA). If that's the standard that we're going to use for a great college team, then we're going to have a pretty tough time finding any great college teams. Regardless of what happened on Saturday night, that doesn't change the fact that Kentucky was one of the best college basketball teams that I've seen in the past 20 years. Just like the New England Patriots of whatever year it was that went 18-1 were one of the best NFL teams that I've seen, even if they don't have the Super Bowl to show for it, or that the Russians were probably the best team on the ice in Lake Placid even though they didn't win a gold medal. Anything can happen when you shrink the sample size, and in a one game sample, fluky things can happen (and this wasn't even that fluky, Wisconsin probably beats them 3-4 times in a 10 game series).