[Scotty doesn't know]

This is the problem most people have with die hard UK fans. You are claiming that your team is dead even with the national champion, yet your team couldn't get out of the Elite 8. WOW!

That struggling Pac-10 team knocked off Louisville who almost beat your Wildcats.

WVU didn't have their PG and they kicked UK's butt.

And Duke almost got beat by a sub-par Boston College team and Miami team, and did get beat by and awful NC St team. UK got beat by and awful South Carolina team and pushed by a Georgia team. You can do that who played this team and did this, all you want my friend. And I am a firm believer that UK matched up well with Duke and would have handled them 6/10 of the time. Look, what we know about the tourney is that any team can have a great game at any point and beat a stronger team playing poorly (see Kansas and Kentucky and Syracuse for that matter), does that mean they were the better team, yes on that night (which is the beauty of the tourney-the best team may not always win it). Take the KY sweet 16 this year. Shelby Valley won the tourney with beating a team that had more size and talent, and when you break it down Ballard could probably beat them 6 out of 10 times (but it is just never gonna be set up like that). That is why the tourney format is so exciting. I am IN NO WAY TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM DUKE. UK was not nearly the best team when they won it in 1998 and Arizona was not nearly the best team when they won it in 1997 but they clicked perfectly on the nights that they needed to and that is what Duke did!!!

As for that struggling Pac 10 school beating Louisville, did you see some of the teams Louisville played poorly against and lost to? I mean they lost to Charlotte and St. Johns, but had the kind of team dynamic to play and beat Syracuse twice...... Louisville showed why they got a 9 seed in the tourney, they were wildly inconsistent and never knew what team could play out on the court that particular night. Hence a loss to a team like Cal who was not tested in a weak pac 10 and was particularly hot that night to beat UL.

WVU did not have their point guard and that showed in the Duke game when Mazzulla who had averaged around 3 points the whole year did just that and could not pick up Bryant's slack (Mazzulla had 4 points). And with Bulter having a rough game all the end until he got hurt (10 points). These guys, were supernatural in the game against Kentucky being a team that averaged 1-2 three pointers a game and hit 8 in the first half but that is the beauty of the tourney. Do I think WVU is a better team because of that game.... NO, but they were that night.

Please do not fault me for saying that UK and Kansas had rough brackets in the tourney, Duke was right there with them and deserved have a chance for the 1 seed but not to get the weaker 2 and 4 seeds. But when it came down to it, I think that most people would have agreed going into the tourney that WVU had a better argument for that 1 seed. WVU beat the teams in front of them and lost their point guard in the process but relied on their star and a random secondary player to step up which happened in the UK (which they did in fact kick our butts that night) but not in the Duke game. Mazzulla did not bring the same game in the final four and he was their main point guard.

So stop taking offense to a UK fan on a Kentucky sport board. Do you honestly think that everyone would have the same opinion as you. Duke is the national champions, have 4 titles and are in elite company with UK, UCLA, UNC, Indiana and Kansas. That is where they belonged even without the title but they are indeed one the powers and rightfully so. Im sorry that I may disagree with you all on some of the matters but I am not going to sit here and say that agree with it if I dont.