Who will beat Kentucky in NCAA Basketball Tournament?

Hoop God wrote:

Why would it have been relevant in the 80s, but not now? I guess you don't understand the concept of offensive rebounding.

I guess you dont understand the importance of the 3 point shot.

The three point shot, for all its value, is a lower percentage shot than a 5 footer. IF you can get shots in the paint consistently you'll usually do better than by shooting threes but if you're good at threes and get even hotter you can take down a team that's good in the paint.

Bye the way, what was up with Rex Chapman being the Kentucky-friendly tv commentator? Isn't he in trouble with the law for allegedly stealing $14K worth of merchandise from an Apple store? Also, I understand that he may be a UK sports legend, but his voice was so low, quiet, and monotone that you could barely hear a word he was saying as he was completely drowned out by the crowd noise. Thank goodness there was another station showing the game.

Vick Ditale wrote:

I have them going down to Wisconsin in the Final Four.

you dialed in vick.

todays game is different wrote:

Hoop God wrote:

Why would it have been relevant in the 80s, but not now? I guess you don't understand the concept of offensive rebounding.

I guess you dont understand the importance of the 3 point shot.

I guess you don't understand that they had the 3 point shot in the 80s.

Wisconsin, unfortunately

Wisconsin, fortunately.

U dumb wrote:

todays game is different wrote:

I guess you dont understand the importance of the 3 point shot.

I guess you don't understand that they had the 3 point shot in the 80s.

Not until 86 and most teams were reluctant to use it much. The best teams have to shoot 15-20 threes a game and hopefully make over 35%. If teams don't shoot that many, they are too easy to guard inside and also the amount of turnovers increase dramatically when trying to get the ball inside.

Kentucky got too one dimensional and were easier to guard than if they drew the other team out to the perimeter. The key is having a good balance between inside and out.

Wisco shot 41% on 7-17. Kentucky only shot 23-49 on their 2 point attempts.

Good call, OP.

Yeah, UK went 38-1 because they were one-dimensional. Right.

Helloooooo? wrote:

Yeah, UK went 38-1 because they were one-dimensional. Right.

I didn't watch them much during the season but they were too one dimensional in the game they got beat. Five threes is not enough.

UK hit more treys yesterday than Duke.

I think Wisconsin will win

Did you know? wrote:

UK hit more treys yesterday than Duke.

For the year, Duke averaged taking 19 threes/game making 7.34 for a 38.7%.

See my post above about what it takes to be a winning team.

So because Duke was only 2 of 10 in their biggest game to date, you think they should not gave won? Seriously?

Tusconan wrote:

I'm going with the Irish to beat Kentucky.

Almost.

Came down to two free throws with 6 seconds left.

Odds are... wrote:

gobias industries = blink kentucky fanboi

Just saw this - definitely hate Kentucky. My pointing out your woeful analysis and application of "statistics" does not mean I like Kentucky. I wish ND had beaten them, but am glad Wisconsin finally did.

Speaking of worthless analysis, you stats analysis won!

gobias industries wrote:

"In the past 3 years, Kentucky has won once. So there is a 67% chance of Kentucky not winning out".

tobias international wrote:

Speaking of worthless analysis, you stats analysis won!

gobias industries wrote:

"In the past 3 years, Kentucky has won once. So there is a 67% chance of Kentucky not winning out".

That was clearly a tongue-in-cheek post making fun of how awful odds boy's analysis was. COME ON!!