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

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.