NCAA BB Game of the Century - Louisville +2 vs. Kentucky

[bills217]

Louisville +2 vs. Kentucky

I had planned on playing Louisville pretty much all week, and anticipated that the spread would be around U of L -6...so you can imagine how I feel about this line. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Louisville will no doubt be a big public play here (WOW Louisville is undefeated Kentucky just lost by 26 DOH they're giving money away!!!)...BUT, they're also the sharp play, and I'm about to tell you why.

This line is what it is, presumably, for a couple reasons:

1) Louisville hasn't played anyone. (Valid.)
2) Rupp Arena is a tough place to play for the opposing team. (Myth, will explain.)
3) Kentucky is desperate, and might be somewhat rejuvenated by the announcement of Randolph Morris' reinstatement. (Somewhat valid.)
4) UK can't really be this bad, can they? (They are.)

Little-known fact: in the Tubby Smith era, Kentucky plays worse at home in Rupp Arena than on the road or at neutral sites. This is not an anomaly.

There are 2 reasons for this:

1) Kentucky doesn't practice in Rupp Arena, because it is not a UK-owned facility, and is used for many other events.

2) The hype and pressure surrounding Kentucky basketball in Lexington and throughout the state is absolutely incredible...it's much easier to play in front of 10,000 indifferent fans in Starkville than it is to play at Rupp Arena in front of 24,000 rednecks that paid big $$$ for their season tickets and want to lynch you after every turnover. (I'm a born-and-bred Kentuckian so I can say this and get away w/ it.)

This effect is only exacerbated when things are going badly, and well, right now they're pretty bad.

Kentucky has struggled at home against Lipscomb (yep, Lipscomb), lost to Iowa at a neutral site, lost to a laughably young UNC squad at home, and last Saturday suffered a 79-53 drubbing at the hands of an Indiana team that just days earlier lost to Indiana State. And Larry Bird no longer suits up for the Sycamores.

UK has been soundly beaten in their biggest home game each of the past 2 seasons (Kansas without Simien last year, and Louisville the year before).

Kentucky is desperate for a win. But this is the biggest rivalry in college basketball...both teams are ALWAYS desperate to win this game, and Louisville and Rick Pitino are still steaming over a very controversial call that gave Patrick Sparks 3 free throws to seal a dramatic comeback win for the Cats in last year's game.

A desperate Rick Pitino is dangerous. He's one of the most competitive individuals I've ever seen...he'd kill a newborn litter of puppies with his bare hands to win most any game, and he'd tack on a litter of kittens for good measure to win this one. Not to mention he's hands-down the best coach in the game...has taken U of L from 9 wins to the Final Four to perennial juggernaut almost overnight.

Tubby Smith is just as desperate. But the difference is, he's incompetent. (You casual NCAABB fans need to know this. Do not listen to the bobbleheads. Tubby Smith is an awful coach and a worse recruiter. He couldn't recruit OOT posters to go to the Playboy Mansion.)

Mix Tubby's coaching with very little talent, and you have a team that's not very good. Our best player, point guard Rajon Rondo, is a non-threat to score unless it's a layup or dunk. He can be ignored completely from 12 feet and out. The other huge weakness is the lack of even a semi-competent post player, and Pitino will exploit this.

The attitude among UK and U of L die hards alike this week was that UK had little if any chance to win.

So this line is basically shocking to me. Bet it all on the Cards. If I haven't convinced you by now, I never will. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"You can sleep in the car, but you can't drive your house." -The Immortal Scalf

(What's that, you say? If Kentucky actually has a homecourt DISadvantage, why not fade them every game at home? By all means, do! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Especially against quality teams in pressure-packed games, i.e. Louisville, UNC, Kansas, etc., and even moreso when they're struggling like they are now. Unfortunately, most of the time they're playing Campbell, Lipscomb, or an SEC nobody...it's a more of a crapshoot then, but in all seriousness, still not a bad idea.)

[bills217]

bump

[WackityWhiz]

SHIP IT!

[jedinite]

[ QUOTE ]
"You can sleep in the car, but you can't drive your house." -The Immortal Scalf

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif I like it... giddiyap /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Iplayragstoo]

Have already played it at +1.5...love the play.

I know less about NCAA Hoops then any other main stream sport. Took your word on this game took Louisville +2 -116 for 1 unit. Good luck to us /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hasn't Louisville been particularly unimpressive against the 6 cr@p teams they've played? They haven't beaten any of them by more than 26, all were at home, and they were down by 5 at half to Richmond.

I only bring this up because it might been fun to play something else besides the NFL for small money but there's little indication Louisville is actually much better than Kentucky.

[bills217]

Sygamel,

You should just trust me on this one...I follow both teams pretty closely. Louisville is a lot more talented and better coached. They haven't played anyone yet, but you can't tell much either way...Pitino might not want to show much until the Kentucky game, David Padgett was out for the first couple games, etc. They did beat a quality Akron team 111-85.

And Kentucky is really really poor. Until Morris gets back (and I'm not sure how much he'll help), we are going to get absolutely dominated in the paint and on the boards, and U of L has two quality big men in Palacios and Padgett.

[bills217]

Just talked to dad, who played at Kentucky in '69...

"Can you believe they're favored?"
"No...no...no...I wouldn't bet two cents on them."

made a tiny bet on Cardinals

[ QUOTE ]
Sygamel,

You should just trust me on this one...

[/ QUOTE ]

Eeeesh, regardless of the outcome I'll be sticking only to your games of the millienium/eternity etc.

[tthree]

Wow tell Louisville the games already started!

[WackityWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
You are now ignoring this user. You will no longer see the body of any of their posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jedinite]

Louisville shooting 24% from the field isn't helping at all.

9/37 as of posting with ~15:00 left, 49-27 not looking good.

[Easy E]

I should have looked more carefully- this game fits under NoChance's "Unranked vs. Ranked" system.

Cardinals never held a lead....time to find a new hobby bills217

not too impressive for the game of the century

[CCx]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have looked more carefully- this game fits under NoChance's "Unranked vs. Ranked" system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look even closer, both teams are ranked.

Kentucky is 23rd in AP, 22nd in USA Today
Louisville is 4th in both polls.

Got the thrill of sweating this game out. I woke up at half and it was half time of this game. I called in the under on the second half being two tired to start the computer. Then went back to sleep. Looking at the logs I guess I woke back turned it on at the wrong time (or just in time to watch what looked like would be a loss win). 60pts scored with 2:45 to go w/ the under 73 for 2nd half and Cards starting to foul for possesions. Glad that ended just in time and KU missed several of those follow shots to cover this bet by 2pts . If I remember correctly no pts or 2 pts scored in last 50 something seconds was great. Chopped game..loss of vig..

[DCWildcat]

This might be up for the most inaccurate post of all time award.

There's not much I can say about the Rupp Arena argument except that if you rewrote and posted the exact opposite, it would be true. By any account of players or coaches, Kentucky is the between the #2 and #4 toughest away courts in the country.

Did you even watch the games you're talking about? UNC is a very legitimate team (Ill. game, anyone?), despite their youth. If you don't believe me, believe Vegas. Check the lines on their games. UK never really struggled with Lipscomb, despite the score. They beat a tough West VA team. I will concede the drumming of IU, though it was largely a product of an anomaly 2-27 on 3 pt. Kentucky was only down 15 in the final minutes, IU ran up the score in the final 1:30, and if UK had played a poor, as opposed to atrocrious, game from beyond the arc it would have been close. UK's lost to Kansas last year was by all measures a close one, I'm mystified that you couldn't agree with that.

Kentucky effectively walloped UL today. Might your faulty prediction have to do with the inaccuracy of anything you posted above?

[bills217]

Sygamel,

My apologies to you and everyone else who followed me. I lost right along with you.

That said, I stick by everything I said in my original post. U of L wins this game 60-70% of the time. No one wins when they make 9 of their first 37 field goals. It happens.

If you had told me David Padgett would play 88 seconds in the first half due to foul trouble, and the all-time U of L 3-point leader, Taquan Dean, would go 5/16, I would've happily taken Kentucky. But that's college basketball for you.

From the tone of your NFL posts, I take it I'd be suffering if I were following your NFL picks. Grade me on the quality of information I gave in my post, not the result.

Better luck next time,

bills217

P.S. I highly recommend Memphis -4 in the NBA tonight. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Write-up in my picks thread.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
This might be up for the most inaccurate post of all time award.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still believe it to be completely accurate.

It's really easy to log on here and rip my pick after the game. Try it before the game next time.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you even watch the games you're talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've watched 90% of Kentucky's games over the past 15 years, although I missed the UNC game. All I said about UNC was that they are young, which is a factually correct statement. Do you dispute that?

[ QUOTE ]
Kentucky effectively walloped UL today. Might your faulty prediction have to do with the inaccuracy of anything you posted above?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in the sense that UK did hold a rare practice in Rupp Arena Friday, which I found out after the start of the game. For that omission, I apologize. Other than that, all the information I provided was accurate, and each who followed made his own decision in doing so, and I still believe it was a correct decision.

One of two things is true about this game:

1) U of L's best player was a non-factor due to foul trouble, and they had an off-shooting night, rendering the result a fluke, or

2) Kentucky is suddenly a lot, lot, LOT better team than they were the last two weeks, when they lost to a super-young UNC team at home and got drubbed by Indiana, who only days earlier had lost to Indiana State.

Which do you think is true? Personally, I think 1) is.

[ QUOTE ]
If you had told me David Padgett would play 88 seconds in the first half due to foul trouble, and the all-time U of L 3-point leader, Taquan Dean, would go 5/16, I would've happily taken Kentucky. But that's college basketball for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A great team has good enough depth and talent to withstand and counteract foul trouble/injuries/bad shooting etc. which are all part of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
From the tone of your NFL posts, I take it I'd be suffering if I were following your NFL picks. Grade me on the quality of information I gave in my post, not the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever read me call any play of mine a "game of the week", "game of the year", "game of the decade" etc. and be as off about a game, I'd voluntarily quit handicapping. Your hubris is what roped people in, that's what you need to understand here.

[CCx]

Syg,

We all get picks wrong, even those that we are so incredibly sure about. You may not post 'game of the year' on any of your picks which is all well and good, but you do put more than one, and sometimes several units on some of your picks. This would indicate that you have a strong, or very strong opinion on said pick. It also costs you a lot of money when you're wrong.

I don't know if the OP is a homer (due to the word 'our' referencing L'Ville in the original post), but he did provide a few nuggets of good information in his case against Kentucky. I'm sure a Kentucky fan could have come by and made a post equal in length the other way if they so desired.

If you took the game and lost based solely on the original post, that's your own fault. If you took the game and lost because of your own capping, well, that's your fault too. If you didn't take the game at all, then you're falling into the 'lowlife cock' group of people on this board who throw negative comments at others when their picks do not pan out whether they followed or not. Comments like "time to find a new hobby bills217" do fit into this category.

Just my .02

[dankhank]

wow a few retarded comments in this thread. fwiw i tailed bills217 on this pick for the simple fact he has posted good info on this forum in the past and also made a good argument in the post. i dont care if someone calls something the game of the century as those words don't affect my decision to bet at all.

[ QUOTE ]
My apologies to you and everyone else who followed me. I lost right along with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
All is cool on my end. I am sure you lost more on this then I did, and I'm sorry you did. A+ for effort put into your post. Better luck on the next one.

[kyro]

I should stop getting roped in by such titles as "Game of the Century."

Whoops.

[ QUOTE ]
Syg,

We all get picks wrong, even those that we are so incredibly sure about. You may not post 'game of the year' on any of your picks which is all well and good, but you do put more than one, and sometimes several units on some of your picks. This would indicate that you have a strong, or very strong opinion on said pick. It also costs you a lot of money when you're wrong.

I don't know if the OP is a homer (due to the word 'our' referencing L'Ville in the original post), but he did provide a few nuggets of good information in his case against Kentucky. I'm sure a Kentucky fan could have come by and made a post equal in length the other way if they so desired.

If you took the game and lost based solely on the original post, that's your own fault. If you took the game and lost because of your own capping, well, that's your fault too. If you didn't take the game at all, then you're falling into the 'lowlife cock' group of people on this board who throw negative comments at others when their picks do not pan out whether they followed or not. Comments like "time to find a new hobby bills217" do fit into this category.

Just my .02

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, what I'm saying here is "Padgett goes out after 88 seconds" is not an excuse. If the team is good enough to cover +2 and is the game of the century or whatever, they better darn have enough depth to withstand events like this or your handicapping isn't complete enough to ever warrant "games of the century".

I've been wrong plenty this year but failing to take into account pretty foreseeable and somewhat likely events bodes very poorly for a handicapper's future.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Your hubris is what roped people in, that's what you need to understand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I see. I apologize for that...the title of the thread was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and also reflects that around here (Kentucky) every UK-U of L game is like the game to end all games. I was very careful not to call it a lock because I see how ppl get flamed around here when they do that, lol, and I understand why, but still...when Scalf did his "electronic security device" picks or someone else does something like that, it's all in good fun, that was my intent. Maybe next time I'll title it the "Game of All Eternity" just for you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

That said, it was a really strong play for me...I'd rate it in my top ten for this year, though not the very top.

[ QUOTE ]
A great team has good enough depth and talent to withstand and counteract foul trouble/injuries/bad shooting etc. which are all part of the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true in other sports, or even NCAA BB 10 years ago, but not currently. The talent pool in college is so thin that even the best teams only have a few really good players, even fewer good bigs...you take Redick off Duke, Rondo off UK, Gibson off Texas (see today's game), etc., and those teams are really going to struggle.

And I don't know very many teams that can counteract 9/37 shooting through 25 minutes, although some of the credit obviously goes to Kentucky for that.

[ QUOTE ]
A great team has good enough depth and talent to withstand and counteract foul trouble/injuries/bad shooting etc. which are all part of the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true in other sports, or even NCAA BB 10 years ago, but not currently. The talent pool in college is so thin that even the best teams only have a few really good players, even fewer good bigs...you take Redick off Duke, Rondo off UK, Gibson off Texas (see today's game), etc., and those teams are really going to struggle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore your bet was weak because a good player getting into early foul trouble certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility, no?

The point is....you really need to think about these things ahead of time before you're so certain a wager is anywhere near "lock" status; otherwise you're likely to get creamed in the long-run.

Edit: and that would be true even if you won the bet. If there's a somewhat likely scenario you failed to account for in your original analysis, it is way off.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the OP is a homer (due to the word 'our' referencing L'Ville in the original post), but he did provide a few nuggets of good information in his case against Kentucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not exactly sure which part you are talking about, but if I did say "our" it was in reference to Kentucky. I am a Kentucky fan, although it might be hard to tell from the OP...very happy to see them beat U of L and play like they did today, but I'm not going to pass up a huge edge if I think I have one.

My biggest play of the year was South Carolina -12 vs. Kentucky in CFB, my next biggest was Kentucky +22.5 vs. Louisville in CFB, won both easily. I take my edges where I think I can get them, period.

I disagree with people who say you shouldn't bet in games involving your own team...I know more and have better information on Kentucky football/basketball than anything else in sports, why should I not take advantage of that? If you can't be honest with yourself about your favorite sports team...then what can you be honest w/ yourself about?

Just wanted to clarify that...I appreciate your support. Hopefully I'll do better in the future, Lord knows I'll never call it the "Game of the Century" again, lol.

Edited to add: I believe I posted both of those CFB picks in this forum, not sure if they can still be accessed or not.

[CCx]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with people who say you shouldn't bet in games involving your own team...I know more and have better information on Kentucky football/basketball than anything else in sports, why should I not take advantage of that? If you can't be honest with yourself about your favorite sports team...then what can you be honest w/ yourself about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here my friend /images/graemlins/smile.gif gl in the future

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore your bet was weak because a good player getting into early foul trouble certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's ALWAYS true, of any CBB game. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but what is? It happens, although it's not a very likely occurrence. It randomizes the outcomes of the games somewhat, true, but it is what it is. It's one of the many reasons I prefer the NBA to college in general, for betting and as a fan.

If you think the possibility of such an occurrence constitutes a "weak bet," then I can't believe you think betting on the NFL is profitable, the most randomized sport of all IMO. How many games turn on completely subjective holding or, better yet, 50-yard pass interference penalties, or simply the funny bounce of an oblong ball? What is more random than who recovers fumbles, onside kicks, etc.? You think an injury to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is outside the realm of possibility, or wouldn't hurt their respective teams? Just making a point. (Not to hijack, but I'm starting to agree w/ mrbaseball about the NFL. Even the books have gotten hammered two years in a row.)

I said I thought U of L would win outright here between 60-70% of the time (although not in my OP), and I still believe that's true.

If you're still complaining because I roped you in w/ the title, I'm sorry, I didn't honestly think it offered the biggest edge in sports betting in 100 years. If my argument was so convincing as to lead you to believe that, I apologize. Maybe tech should institute a rule where everyone who posts picks has to quantify their edge to the nearest tenth of a percent to avoid confusion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DCWildcat]

bills217,

I apologize for my post. I was drinking when I watched the game with my friends, and for some reason your post infuriated me, and I got pissed off and wrote some stupid stuff. I generally don't make posts like that, but that's no excuse. Again, sorry.

[TheGame1020]

This forum is horrible and you along with others are why it is so awful. Anyone who uses terms like "game of the century", "lock of the week" is an idiot.

I'll be looking for your 350 STAR PLAY OF THE MILLENNIUM. You can't lose 2 in a row can you?

[siccjay]

[ QUOTE ]
Little-known fact: in the Tubby Smith era, Kentucky plays worse at home in Rupp Arena than on the road or at neutral sites. This is not an anomaly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
But the difference is, he's incompetent. (You casual NCAABB fans need to know this. Do not listen to the bobbleheads. Tubby Smith is an awful coach and a worse recruiter. He couldn't recruit OOT posters to go to the Playboy Mansion.)


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only thing you got right.

[ QUOTE ]
Our best player, point guard Rajon Rondo, is a non-threat to score unless it's a layup or dunk. He can be ignored completely from 12 feet and out.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO is all I need to say.

[ QUOTE ]
1) U of L's best player was a non-factor due to foul trouble, and they had an off-shooting night, rendering the result a fluke, or

[/ QUOTE ]

You have got to be kidding me? Padgett their best player? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Have you ever seen this team play?

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't know very many teams that can counteract 9/37 shooting through 25 minutes, although some of the credit obviously goes to Kentucky for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some? They dominated them. It wasn't like the cards were just missing open shots.

I see you are a UK fan, that surprises me. I wrote this post thinking you were either a Cards fan or maybe IU. You must not have seen Louisville at all this year. They are garbage. I went to the Chicago St game on Tuesday and if it wasn't for Chicago St having the worst coaching ever, the game would have been at least close. It was close until about 10 minutes left.

I am a UK fan and of course I was worried, but I knew that we could beat them. After watching today I don't think there is any chance the Cards win 60%-70% of the time especially in Rupp. The Cards are horrible and I think they are gonna get smacked around in the Big East. UK is pretty bad (at least by UK standards) but I think they are a better team than Louisville.

[bills217]

DCWildcat,

Apology accepted. I didn't think you were that out of line anyhow. Go Cats! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Little-known fact: in the Tubby Smith era, Kentucky plays worse at home in Rupp Arena than on the road or at neutral sites. This is not an anomaly.

[/ QUOTE ] You are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the 2002-03 season:

Apparently the impossibly tough Rupp Arena conditions didn't bother Nike Elite in '02. They walked in and beat the Cats 84-75, and it wasn't like we had a crap team. UK went 32-4, 16-0 SEC that year. Of the four non-exhibition games we lost that year, one was at home (Mich. St.), two were at neutral sites (UVA in Hawaii and Marquette in Elite 8), and one was at Louisville, where the fans are split and it might as well be a neutral site. Undefeated on the road outside the state of Kentucky.

2003-04 - Two losses at home (against Louisville and an awful Georgia team), two on the road, one at a neutral site.

2004-05 - Three losses on the road (by one point to Florida, at South Carolina, and at eventual champ UNC), two at neutral sites, and one at home, to the only quality non-conference team we played at home, Kansas, without their best player, Wayne Simien.

Does that seem to indicate homecourt dominance to you?

And who could forget 2000? Ah, the Ten-Loss Tubby days...lost to Penn State (in basketball) at home, 73-68, then promptly went to the Dean Dome the next week and beat UNC by 17. Go figure.

Does any of that seem to indicate that the recent Kentucky teams have played better at home, especially when you consider that the schedule on the road and at neutral sites is MUCH tougher? (The likes of Nike Elite, Penn State, and the Vermont School for the Blind, Deaf, and Dumb usually come at home.)

Not only is it true, but it actually makes some sense when you think about it, which I addressed in my OP.

If nothing else, folks, please take this much from this thread: when Kentucky plays at home, the line is likely inflated somewhat. The opposite may very well be true when they play on the road. Act accordingly, but do so, of course, at your own peril.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
This forum is horrible

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why are you browsing it? Do you like wasting your time?

If you had the bankroll to bet $1,000 a game, and done nothing besides track mrbaseball's baseball picks (esp. playoffs), MyTurn2Raise's CFB picks, and Null's NCAA BB picks, you would not have had to work or play poker this year. (I could have included any # of posters' picks here, those were just right off the top of my head.)

[ QUOTE ]
you along with others are why it is so awful. Anyone who uses terms like "game of the century", "lock of the week" is an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Merry Christmas! (Do trolls celebrate Christmas?)

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be looking for your 350 STAR PLAY OF THE MILLENNIUM. You can't lose 2 in a row can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

My top NFL play for tomorrow will be officially be titled "350 STAR PLAY OF THE MILLENIUM."

Happy Holidays,

bills217

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore your bet was weak because a good player getting into early foul trouble certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's ALWAYS true, of any CBB game. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but what is? It happens, although it's not a very likely occurrence. It randomizes the outcomes of the games somewhat, true, but it is what it is. It's one of the many reasons I prefer the NBA to college in general, for betting and as a fan.

If you think the possibility of such an occurrence constitutes a "weak bet," then I can't believe you think betting on the NFL is profitable, the most randomized sport of all IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foul trouble is so much more likely than a usually healthy star NFL player getting hurt that I really can't believe you're using that as an analogy. Btw the NFL is profitable exactly because of randomized but foreseeable events, it is historically better to take dogs when in doubt because the randomness of the events you mention favors teams getting points. 2005 is a strong outlier to this tried and true method.

The issue here is that a game of the century or whatever should basically nullify virtually all risk probability, foul trouble in an NCAA game being one of the more likely risk situations you'll encounter. If both of the star players got into early foul trouble then you'd have a better leg to stand on as that's much more unlikely, but it was just one of them. The team never enjoyed a lead in 40 minutes.

I don't care about losing the bet, I just think your (lack of) inclination toward covering all the bases is faulty enough to warrant the question of whether you're participating in a profitable activity in the long run. Live and learn, or just stop.

Ccx just wanted to add I don't at all equate 5 unit plays with games of the century etc. At absolute best, they are top games of the week and I've stated at least once that no one should go off the deep end on those plays. I regret if people have played them at higher levels than they deserve. They have a high probability of success but I never express the sort of certitude and hubris that bills217 did on this thread.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't be honest with yourself about your favorite sports team...then what can you be honest w/ yourself about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching to the choir here my friend /images/graemlins/smile.gif gl in the future

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it bad that I found this funny? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
Just talked to dad, who played at Kentucky in '69...

"Can you believe they're favored?"
"No...no...no...I wouldn't bet two cents on them."

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you mean 69-70 season (since there are no lettermen from 68-69 who only played one year) is he Randy Noll, or Mark Soderberg?

Also, I love UK, ande would've made the same play if I ever bet against teams I rooted for. However, most of your reasons are pretty bootleg and fairweather fan-ish.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you mean 69-70 season (since there are no lettermen from 68-69 who only played one year) is he Randy Noll, or Mark Soderberg?

[/ QUOTE ]

He played on the freshman team in '68-'69 under Hall. Was a walk-on, never lettered on the varsity, played only that one year. Jerry Springate.

[siccjay]

[ QUOTE ]
and one was at Louisville, where the fans are split and it might as well be a neutral site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheatem Hall a neutral site? Not even close really. The fans are not split evenly at all.

All this info but you didn't really talk about very many home losses. Post the total home and away records and I think it hurts your arguement. All teams lose a couple home games buddy.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Post the total home and away records and I think it hurts your arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

Overall record is not relevant, because the home schedule is extremely weak compared to the schedule on the road and at neutral sites.

The against-the-spread results, however, you might find interesting:

Kentucky 2004-05 ATS

home: 5-6-1
away: 6-4
neutral: 5-4

Kentucky 2003-04 ATS

home: 7-5-1
away: 6-4-2
neutral: 3-3

Kentucky 2002-03 ATS (not including a home exhibition loss to powerhouse Nike Elite)

home: 6-6
road: 9-3
neutral: 6-3-1

Every year a higher ATS win % on the road than at home.

Overall

home: 18-17-2
away: 21-11-2
neutral: 14-10-1

Are you convinced yet? I can't believe I spent this much time doing this...it's common knowledge to others who follow the team as closely as I do.

[siccjay]

I was not talking about Against the Spread. Ever think maybe that the home record is weaker because NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY THERE.

You keep mentioning the loss to Nike Elite LIKE IT MATTERS.

I know tons of UK fans and have never heard anything remotely close to your crazy theroy.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep mentioning the loss to Nike Elite LIKE IT MATTERS.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 23,000+ fans in attendance (including myself) who booed them off the court seemed to think it matters. I happen to think a prestigious program such as Kentucky losing an exhibition game to a traveling band of rejects at Rupp Arena (where we supposedly have this huge homecourt advantage) is pretty embarrassing.

[ QUOTE ]
I was not talking about Against the Spread. Ever think maybe that the home record is weaker because NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY THERE.

[/ QUOTE ]

No major conference team wants to schedule non-conference games on the road, anywhere. Rupp Arena is no different.

You may not have been "talking about" against-the-spread, but that is really the only thing that's relevant. It measures how well the team played relative to expectations. And they've played much better on the road and at neutral sites than at home.

[RiverTheNuts]

bump... good pick

[Matt24]

honest question, I have been around sports betting for 4 years(I have booked 3 of them). I have been a member of theprescription.com for near 5 years now. Before you made this bet, have you seen either team play?

If you have been around sports betting at all in your life, you would have known the line was exactly right, its laughable to think anyone who bets games expected Louisville to open at -6. If you seriously expected that, you need to pay attention to cbb a lot more.

Many people were trying to tell me how UK was going to be favored 5 or 6 over IU a few weeks ago, I just don't understand how these squares can do this year in and year out and never pick anything up. It took me one week of being an idiot in college before I found the Rx and studied everything I could get my hands on.

wait, from reading what you are saying maybe you are a UK fan? Tubby can't recruit, what is Rondo, Crawford, Morris? Rondo is a complete stud.

Louisville was easily the most overrated team(also Stanford) in the country coming into this season, he struggled in pretty much every game. I watched them a couple times on local TV out of louisville and wow are they bad.

Tubby Smith being an awful coach, wtf